Caroline Glick
Outgoing US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is worried about the shape of things to come in US foreign policy. In an interview with Newsweek over the weekend, Gates sounded the warning bells.
In Gates' words, "I've spent my entire adult life with the United States as a superpower, and one that had no compunction about spending what it took to sustain that position. It didn't have to look over its shoulder because our economy was so strong. This is a different time.
"To tell you the truth, that's one of the many reasons it's time for me to retire, because frankly I can't imagine being part of a nation, part of a government... that's being forced to dramatically scale back our engagement with the rest of the world."
What Gates is effectively saying is not that economic forecasts are gloomy. US defense spending comprises less than five percent of the federal budget. If US President Barack Obama wanted to maintain that level of spending, the Republican-controlled Congress would probably pass his defense budget. What Gates is saying is that he doesn't trust his commander in chief to allocate the resources to preserve America's superpower status. He is saying that he believes that Obama is willing to surrender the US's status as a superpower.
THIS WOULD be a stunning statement for any defense secretary to make about the policies of a US President. It is especially stunning coming from Gates. Gates began his tenure at the Pentagon under Obama's predecessor George W. Bush immediately after the Republican defeat in the 2006 mid-term Congressional elections.
Many conservatives hailed Obama's decision to retain Gates as defense secretary as a belated admission that Bush's aggressive counter-terror policies were correct. These claims ignored the fact that in his last two years in office, with the exception of the surge of troops in Iraq, under the guidance of Gates and then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, Bush's foreign policies veered very far to the Left.
Gates's role in shaping this radical shift was evidenced by the positions he took on the issues of the day in the two years leading up to his replacement of Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. In 2004, Gates co-authored a study for the Council on Foreign Relations with Israel foe Zbigniew Brzezinski calling for the US to draw closer to Iran at Israel's expense.
Immediately before his appointment, Gates was a member of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. The group's final report, released just as his appointment was announced, blamed Israel for the instability in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. Its only clear policy recommendations involved pressuring Israel to surrender the Golan Heights to Syria and Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria to a Hamas-Fatah "national unity government."
In office, Gates openly opposed the option of the US or Israel attacking Iran's nuclear installations. He rejected Israel's repeated requests to purchase weapons systems required to attack Iran's nuclear installations. He openly signaled that the US would deny Israel access to Iraqi airspace. He supported American appeasement of the Iranian regime. And he divulged information about Israel's purported nuclear arsenal and Israeli Air Force rehearsals of assaults on Iran.
A month before Russia's August 2008 invasion of US ally Georgia, Gates released his National Defense Strategy which he bragged was a "blueprint for success" for the next administration. Ignoring indications of growing Russian hostility to US strategic interests - most clearly evidenced in Russia's opposition to the deployment of US anti-missile batteries in the Czech Republic and Poland and in Russia's strategic relations with Iran and Syria - Gates advocated building "collaborative and cooperative relations" with the Russian military.
After Russia invaded Georgia, Gates opposed US action of any kind against Russia.
GIVEN THIS track record, it was understandable that Obama chose to retain Gates at the Pentagon. To date, Obama's only foreign policy that is distinct from Bush's final years is his Israel policy. Whereas Bush viewed Israel as a key US ally and friend, from the first days of his administration, Obama has sought to "put daylight" between the US and Israel. He has repeatedly humiliated Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. He has abandoned the US's quiet defense of Israel's purported nuclear arsenal. He has continuously threatened to abandon US support for Israel at the UN.
Not only has Obama adopted the Palestinians' increasingly hostile policies towards Israel. He has led them to those policies. It was Obama, not Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas, who first demanded that Israel cease respecting Jewish property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. It was Obama, not Abbas, who first called for the establishment of a Palestinian state by the end of 2011. It was Obama, not Abbas, who first stipulated that future "peace" negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians must be predicated on Israel's prior acceptance of the indefensible 1949 armistice lines as a starting point for talks.
All of these positions, in addition to Obama's refusal to state outright that he rejects the Palestinian demand to destroy Israel through unlimited Arab immigration to its indefensible "peace" borders, mark an extreme departure from the Israel policies adopted by his predecessor.
Aside from its basic irrationality, Obama's policy of favoring the Palestinians against the US's most dependable ally in the Middle East is notable for its uniqueness. In every other area, his policies are aligned with those adopted by his predecessor.
His decision to surge the number of US forces in Afghanistan was a natural progression from the strategy Bush implemented in Iraq and was moving towards in Afghanistan.
His use of drones to conduct targeted killings of terrorists in Yemen and Pakistan is an escalation not a departure from Bush's tactics.
Obama's decision to gradually withdraw US combat forces from Iraq was fully consonant with Bush's policy.
His decision to engage with the aim of appeasing the Iranian regime while supporting the adoption of ineffective sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council is also a natural progression from Bush's policies.
His bid to "reset" US relations with Russia was largely of a piece with Bush's decision not to oppose in any way Russia's invasion of Georgia.
Obama's courtship of Syria is different from Bush's foreign policy. But guided by Rice and Gates, Bush was softening his position on Syria. For instance, Bush endorsed Rice's insistence that Israel remain mum on the North Korean-built illicit nuclear installation at Deir-A-Zour that the Air Force destroyed in September 2007.
As for Egypt, as many senior Bush administration officials crowed, Obama's abandonment of 30-year US ally Hosni Mubarak was of a piece with Bush's democracy agenda.
Obama's policy toward Libya is in many respects unique. It marks the first time since the War Powers Act passed into law 30 years ago that a US President has sent US forces into battle without seeking the permission of the US Congress. It is the first time that a president has openly subordinated US national interests to the whims of the UN and NATO and insisted on fighting a war that serves no clear US national interest.
Notably, Gates has been an outspoken critic of the war in Libya. In interviews in March he said that Muammar Gaddafi posed no threat to US interests and that no vital US interests are served by the US mission in Libya.
Yet even Obama's Libya policy is not as sharp a departure from Bush's foreign policy as his Israel policy is. Although Bush wouldn't have argued that the UN gets to decide where US troops are deployed, he did believe that the US needed UN permission to deploy troops.
TO A degree, it is the basic incoherence of Obama's Libya policy that puts it in line with all of his other foreign policies except Israel. Those policies - from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay - are marked by inconsistencies. Like Libya, there is a strong sense that Obama's foreign policy to date has not been guided by an overarching worldview but rather spring from ad hoc decisions with no guiding conceptual framework.
But if Gates's words to Newsweek are any indication, all of this may be about to change. If Gates believed that Obama would continue to implement the policies of Bush's last two years with minor exceptions while sticking it to Israel, he would likely not have spoken out against Obama's policies so strongly. Apparently Gates believes that Obama's foreign policy is about to undergo a radical transformation.
And this would make sense, particularly if, as Obama has said a number of times, he is more committed to transforming America than winning a second term in office.
Until the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives last November, Obama was able to concentrate on passing his domestic agenda. Obama's willingness to lose the elections in order to push through his radical health care reform package demonstrated his commitment to implementing his policies at all costs.
With the Republicans in charge, Obama can't even pass his 2011 budget let alone his far reaching plans to transform US immigration policy, labor policy, environmental policy and Social Security.
In these circumstances, the only place where the power of the presidency gives him wide-ranging freedom of action to transform the US is foreign affairs.
What Gates's fiery departure indicates then is that for the rest of his term, Obama's entire foreign policy is liable to be as radical a departure from Bush's foreign policy as his Israel policy is. The war in Libya is a sign that things are changing. The fact that in recent months even Gates has taken to attacking Obama's Iran policy as too soft, further attests to a radicalization at work.
Then there is Obama's Afghanistan policy. When in 2009 Obama announced his surge and withdraw policy, Gates minimized the importance of Obama's pledge to begin withdrawing US combat forces in July 2011. In recent months, Gates has joined US combat commanders in pleading with the White House not to begin the troop drawdown until next year. But to no avail.
Not only is he unwilling to delay the withdrawal of combat troops. Obama is suing for peace with the Taliban. As Republican lawmakers have argued, there is no way the empowerment of the Taliban in Afghanistan can be viewed as anything but a defeat for the US.
Gates's successor at the Pentagon will be outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta. US military and intelligence officers believe that Panetta's chief mission at the Pentagon will be to slash US defense budgets. Since his appointment was announced, sources inside the military have expressed deep concern that the planned budget cuts will render it impossible for the US to maintain its position as a global superpower. More than anything else, Gates' statements to Newsweek indicate that he shares this perception of Obama's plans.
To date, Obama's stewardship of US foreign policy has been marked by gross naivete, incompetence and a marked willingness to demean and weaken his country's moral standing in the world.
Imagine what will happen if in the next year and a half Obama embarks on a course that makes his Israel policy the norm rather than the exception in US foreign policy.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Losing His Religion: A Pentagon terror scare and a media taboo.
By JAMES TARANTO
There was a terror scare at the Pentagon this morning. As CBS News reports, it started when the U.S. Park Police "came upon" 22-year-old Yonathan Melaku wandering around Arlington National Cemetery, which was closed. "The Park Police then launched a search for a vehicle, which was found near the Pentagon."
A search of the car turned up "no suspicious items," but Melaku told the cops "that he was carrying explosive materials." They checked his backpack and "found what appeared to be an unknown quantity of ammonium nitrate," a chemical "that is widely used in fertilizers and can be used in explosives with the correct concentration."
We learn from the CBS story that Melaku is a lance corporal in the Marine Reserves. The Associated Press adds that he is a naturalized American citizen, originally from Ethiopia. CBS also reports that "Melaku was carrying a notebook that contained the phrases 'al Qaeda,' 'Taliban rules' and 'Mujahid defeated croatian forces' when he was detained," but "that the suspect is not thought to have been involved in a terrorist act or plot."
All of which raises an obvious question--but one that goes unanswered in the reports from CBS and AP, as well as others from ABC News and the Washington Post. We could only find one news organization that had the answer: Fox News Channel, which reports that Maliku is Muslim.
Now, it's possible that Fox simply got a scoop here, but our guess is that this fact was omitted from the other reports because of the politically correct taboo against making a connection between Islam and terrorism. It's analogous to the case we cited Monday in which the Chicago Tribune refused to mention the race of the members of "groups of youths" who had been attacking people in a downtown neighborhood, but it's worse. Whereas race is not necessarily relevant to the motive of the Chicago attacks, religion almost always is when a Muslim commits an act of terrorism or a related crime.
These politically correct strictures are not applied in a consistent or reciprocal fashion. If Maliku were a Christian and had been arrested outside an abortion clinic, you can bet his religion would have been widely reported. And the press sensationalizes "hate crimes" by whites against blacks or non-Muslims against Muslims.
One possible explanation is the man-bites-dog theory of news: that those types of crimes get more attention because they're unusual. But that doesn't hold up. Remember last August when a Muslim taxi driver was stabbed in New York? It was a sensational story that the New York Times used to further its narrative that anti-Muslim bigotry was behind opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. But the Times deeply buried the real man-bites-dog element: The suspect turned out to be a volunteer for a nonprofit that supported the mosque.
The typical justification for declining to identify criminal suspects as Muslim or black is that it is an effort to counter invidious stereotypes. We're not sure it is even effective at that. The day after the 2009 Fort Hood massacre, we were at a lunch when we received a news-alert email that eight people had been injured in a shooting at an Orlando, Fla., office building. We mentioned this to our table mates, and one asked: "Was it a Muslim?"
The email didn't say, but it turned out the attack fit a different stereotype: the disgruntled former employee going postal. When news organizations evade facts that fit what they see as undesirable stereotypes, they train news consumers to fill in the blanks even when the stereotypes do not apply.
There was a terror scare at the Pentagon this morning. As CBS News reports, it started when the U.S. Park Police "came upon" 22-year-old Yonathan Melaku wandering around Arlington National Cemetery, which was closed. "The Park Police then launched a search for a vehicle, which was found near the Pentagon."
A search of the car turned up "no suspicious items," but Melaku told the cops "that he was carrying explosive materials." They checked his backpack and "found what appeared to be an unknown quantity of ammonium nitrate," a chemical "that is widely used in fertilizers and can be used in explosives with the correct concentration."
We learn from the CBS story that Melaku is a lance corporal in the Marine Reserves. The Associated Press adds that he is a naturalized American citizen, originally from Ethiopia. CBS also reports that "Melaku was carrying a notebook that contained the phrases 'al Qaeda,' 'Taliban rules' and 'Mujahid defeated croatian forces' when he was detained," but "that the suspect is not thought to have been involved in a terrorist act or plot."
All of which raises an obvious question--but one that goes unanswered in the reports from CBS and AP, as well as others from ABC News and the Washington Post. We could only find one news organization that had the answer: Fox News Channel, which reports that Maliku is Muslim.
Now, it's possible that Fox simply got a scoop here, but our guess is that this fact was omitted from the other reports because of the politically correct taboo against making a connection between Islam and terrorism. It's analogous to the case we cited Monday in which the Chicago Tribune refused to mention the race of the members of "groups of youths" who had been attacking people in a downtown neighborhood, but it's worse. Whereas race is not necessarily relevant to the motive of the Chicago attacks, religion almost always is when a Muslim commits an act of terrorism or a related crime.
These politically correct strictures are not applied in a consistent or reciprocal fashion. If Maliku were a Christian and had been arrested outside an abortion clinic, you can bet his religion would have been widely reported. And the press sensationalizes "hate crimes" by whites against blacks or non-Muslims against Muslims.
One possible explanation is the man-bites-dog theory of news: that those types of crimes get more attention because they're unusual. But that doesn't hold up. Remember last August when a Muslim taxi driver was stabbed in New York? It was a sensational story that the New York Times used to further its narrative that anti-Muslim bigotry was behind opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. But the Times deeply buried the real man-bites-dog element: The suspect turned out to be a volunteer for a nonprofit that supported the mosque.
The typical justification for declining to identify criminal suspects as Muslim or black is that it is an effort to counter invidious stereotypes. We're not sure it is even effective at that. The day after the 2009 Fort Hood massacre, we were at a lunch when we received a news-alert email that eight people had been injured in a shooting at an Orlando, Fla., office building. We mentioned this to our table mates, and one asked: "Was it a Muslim?"
The email didn't say, but it turned out the attack fit a different stereotype: the disgruntled former employee going postal. When news organizations evade facts that fit what they see as undesirable stereotypes, they train news consumers to fill in the blanks even when the stereotypes do not apply.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Obama’s knack for handcuffing peace
By HERB KEINON
10/06/2011
If you want to know what the Palestinians are going to do tomorrow, just listen to what US President Barack Obama says today
If you want to know what the Palestinians are going to do tomorrow, just listen to what US President Barack Obama says today. In May 2009, after the first meeting in the White House between Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, the US leader made a comment that set the tone for the next couple of years and pretty much killed any chance of negotiations: Settlements must stop.
“Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward,” he declared.
The Palestinians, who until that point had never made a total settlement freeze – including in areas beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem – a condition for negotiations, heard Obama and pounced. If this was what the American president was saying, how could they ask for anything less?
Or, as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said himself in a Newsweek interview in April, “It was Obama who suggested a full settlement freeze. I said OK, I accept. We both went up the tree. After that, he came down with a ladder and he removed the ladder and said to me, jump.”
And then again in September 2010, at the UN General Assembly, Obama addressed the Israeli- Palestinian issue just as the 10-month Netanyahumandated settlement freeze was about to come to an end. “We have travelled a winding road over the last 12 months, with few peaks and many valleys,” he said.
With his distinctive soaring rhetoric, Obama declared, “The conflict between Israelis and Arabs is as old as this institution. And we can come back here next year, as we have for the last 60 years, and make long speeches about it. We can read familiar lists of grievances. We can table the same resolutions. We can further empower the forces of rejectionism and hate. And we can waste more time by carrying forward an argument that will not help a single Israeli or Palestinian child achieve a better life.
“Or,” he went on, “we can say that this time will be different – that this time we will not let terror, or turbulence, or posturing, or petty politics stand in the way. This time, we will think not of ourselves, but of the young girl in Gaza who wants to have no ceiling on her dreams, or the young boy in Sderot who wants to sleep without the nightmare of rocket fire.
“This time, we should draw upon the teachings of tolerance that lie at the heart of three great religions that see Jerusalem’s soil as sacred. This time we should reach for what’s best within ourselves. If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations – an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel.”
And that was it – all of a sudden September 2011 became a magic deadline for declaring a Palestinian state.
True, Netanyahu had said after meeting Abbas in Washington a few weeks before Obama’s UN address that he believed “we should make every effort to reach an historic compromise for peace over the coming year.” But it wasn’t until Obama spoke of Palestine as a new member of the UN by 2011 that this date suddenly became a benchmark.
For instance, since that speech, the EU has consistently set September as a deadline of sorts, including referring to a “framework agreement by September 2011” in a statement released as recently as May 23 by the heads of the EU countries – a statement notable for the degree to which it seemed completely divorced from reality.
Does anyone really think a framework agreement is going to be reached by that date, what with the sides not even directly speaking to each other at this point? Still Obama said September 2011, and neither the Europeans nor the Palestinians are going to appear less Catholic than the Pope.
The Europeans put this deadline in their statements, and the Palestinians have expressed their determination to fulfill Obama’s prophecy in September by asking for UN recognition of a Palestinian state – whether that recognition means anything or not, and regardless of the consequences. Obama set the bar, and the Palestinians are not going to lower it; rather, they will do whatever they can to jump over – even if there is no landing pit on the other side.
And then the pattern of Obama making declarations and the Palestinians adopting those declarations as their tactics repeated itself again last month.
In his State Department speech on the Middle East on May 19, a day before Netanyahu was due in town, Obama said that “while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel.
“The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.
“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” Obama also laid out his policy toward the sequencing of negotiations, essentially adopting the Palestinian position by saying that the “two wrenching and emotional issues” of the future of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees should be deferred and discussed after questions of territory and security were addressed.
With that speech, Obama struck a third time. If Obama said that the basis of negotiations should be the 1967 lines, and that Jerusalem and refugees should be deferred to a later date, then who were the Palestinians to quibble? And, indeed, they did not quibble. In fact, clutching those parameters to his breast is exactly what Palestinian senior official Saeb Erekat did Tuesday during a speech at the Saban Center of the Brookings Institution in Washington.
According to The Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl, Erekat “staked out a new position” in his speech, saying that talks would only commence if Netanyahu formally accepted Obama’s 1967-lines parameters, something Netanyahu has made abundantly clear he has no intention of doing.
If Netanyahu “wants to be a partner he has to say it: Two states on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” Erekat said. “He has a choice.” Erekat said that without that declaration, there would be no talks, and the PA would go ahead with its UN push.
“I have no quarrel with the United States,” Erekat stated. “If Mr. Netanyahu says he accepts the two-state solution on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps, he’s on.”
There’s the pattern: Obama makes a declaration – one Israel cannot accept – and it becomes the newest Palestinian prenegotiating position. But when the Palestinians take up this position – knowing full well it is a source of US-Israeli friction – it seems meant not to promote a solution, butto chip away at Israeli-US government ties.
Erekat, Diehl said, “left little doubt that he was staking out a position in response to the Obama administration’s efforts to restart negotiations – a position that appears aimed less at advancing the process than at deepening the discord between the Israeli and US governments.”
Erekat’s comments, moreover, come at a time when the operative assumption in Jerusalem is, and has been for months, that Abbas has no desire in the world to negotiate with Netanyahu.
Indicative of this assumption is a diplomatic cable that arrived in the Foreign Ministry this week from a senior diplomatic official in Washington who met with a senior Palestinian official stationed there. The cable made clear that the Palestinian official believed Abbas was intent on going to the UN in September, and that he had decided to “abandon the process,” and had “no intention of returning to negotiations.” The cable also said that at this point in time Abbas was primarily concerned about his historical legacy.
What Obama does with his various declarations is give Abbas the cover to stay away from negotiations, while blaming Israel for his own rejectionist stance.
Just as Netanyahu could not, for a variety of reasons – political and ideological – declare another settlement moratorium, forcing Obama to have to backtrack on that demand, it is also unlikely he will now accept a return to negotiations based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed upon swaps, unless some very significant “sweeteners” are thrown into the mix: such as Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, a formula that would imply an abandonment of the Palestinian dream of a “right of return.”
But the chances of that happening are slim indeed. Concerned with his legacy, Abbas is not eager to go down in the Palestinian history books as the one who closed the door to the descendents of Palestinian refugees “returning” to Haifa, Jaffa and Safed.
The negotiations, therefore, remain stymied, and Obama has uncovered an uncanny ability – with his declarations – to handcuff the very diplomatic process he is trying to push forward.
10/06/2011
If you want to know what the Palestinians are going to do tomorrow, just listen to what US President Barack Obama says today
If you want to know what the Palestinians are going to do tomorrow, just listen to what US President Barack Obama says today. In May 2009, after the first meeting in the White House between Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, the US leader made a comment that set the tone for the next couple of years and pretty much killed any chance of negotiations: Settlements must stop.
“Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward,” he declared.
The Palestinians, who until that point had never made a total settlement freeze – including in areas beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem – a condition for negotiations, heard Obama and pounced. If this was what the American president was saying, how could they ask for anything less?
Or, as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said himself in a Newsweek interview in April, “It was Obama who suggested a full settlement freeze. I said OK, I accept. We both went up the tree. After that, he came down with a ladder and he removed the ladder and said to me, jump.”
And then again in September 2010, at the UN General Assembly, Obama addressed the Israeli- Palestinian issue just as the 10-month Netanyahumandated settlement freeze was about to come to an end. “We have travelled a winding road over the last 12 months, with few peaks and many valleys,” he said.
With his distinctive soaring rhetoric, Obama declared, “The conflict between Israelis and Arabs is as old as this institution. And we can come back here next year, as we have for the last 60 years, and make long speeches about it. We can read familiar lists of grievances. We can table the same resolutions. We can further empower the forces of rejectionism and hate. And we can waste more time by carrying forward an argument that will not help a single Israeli or Palestinian child achieve a better life.
“Or,” he went on, “we can say that this time will be different – that this time we will not let terror, or turbulence, or posturing, or petty politics stand in the way. This time, we will think not of ourselves, but of the young girl in Gaza who wants to have no ceiling on her dreams, or the young boy in Sderot who wants to sleep without the nightmare of rocket fire.
“This time, we should draw upon the teachings of tolerance that lie at the heart of three great religions that see Jerusalem’s soil as sacred. This time we should reach for what’s best within ourselves. If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations – an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel.”
And that was it – all of a sudden September 2011 became a magic deadline for declaring a Palestinian state.
True, Netanyahu had said after meeting Abbas in Washington a few weeks before Obama’s UN address that he believed “we should make every effort to reach an historic compromise for peace over the coming year.” But it wasn’t until Obama spoke of Palestine as a new member of the UN by 2011 that this date suddenly became a benchmark.
For instance, since that speech, the EU has consistently set September as a deadline of sorts, including referring to a “framework agreement by September 2011” in a statement released as recently as May 23 by the heads of the EU countries – a statement notable for the degree to which it seemed completely divorced from reality.
Does anyone really think a framework agreement is going to be reached by that date, what with the sides not even directly speaking to each other at this point? Still Obama said September 2011, and neither the Europeans nor the Palestinians are going to appear less Catholic than the Pope.
The Europeans put this deadline in their statements, and the Palestinians have expressed their determination to fulfill Obama’s prophecy in September by asking for UN recognition of a Palestinian state – whether that recognition means anything or not, and regardless of the consequences. Obama set the bar, and the Palestinians are not going to lower it; rather, they will do whatever they can to jump over – even if there is no landing pit on the other side.
And then the pattern of Obama making declarations and the Palestinians adopting those declarations as their tactics repeated itself again last month.
In his State Department speech on the Middle East on May 19, a day before Netanyahu was due in town, Obama said that “while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel.
“The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.
“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” Obama also laid out his policy toward the sequencing of negotiations, essentially adopting the Palestinian position by saying that the “two wrenching and emotional issues” of the future of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees should be deferred and discussed after questions of territory and security were addressed.
With that speech, Obama struck a third time. If Obama said that the basis of negotiations should be the 1967 lines, and that Jerusalem and refugees should be deferred to a later date, then who were the Palestinians to quibble? And, indeed, they did not quibble. In fact, clutching those parameters to his breast is exactly what Palestinian senior official Saeb Erekat did Tuesday during a speech at the Saban Center of the Brookings Institution in Washington.
According to The Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl, Erekat “staked out a new position” in his speech, saying that talks would only commence if Netanyahu formally accepted Obama’s 1967-lines parameters, something Netanyahu has made abundantly clear he has no intention of doing.
If Netanyahu “wants to be a partner he has to say it: Two states on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” Erekat said. “He has a choice.” Erekat said that without that declaration, there would be no talks, and the PA would go ahead with its UN push.
“I have no quarrel with the United States,” Erekat stated. “If Mr. Netanyahu says he accepts the two-state solution on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps, he’s on.”
There’s the pattern: Obama makes a declaration – one Israel cannot accept – and it becomes the newest Palestinian prenegotiating position. But when the Palestinians take up this position – knowing full well it is a source of US-Israeli friction – it seems meant not to promote a solution, butto chip away at Israeli-US government ties.
Erekat, Diehl said, “left little doubt that he was staking out a position in response to the Obama administration’s efforts to restart negotiations – a position that appears aimed less at advancing the process than at deepening the discord between the Israeli and US governments.”
Erekat’s comments, moreover, come at a time when the operative assumption in Jerusalem is, and has been for months, that Abbas has no desire in the world to negotiate with Netanyahu.
Indicative of this assumption is a diplomatic cable that arrived in the Foreign Ministry this week from a senior diplomatic official in Washington who met with a senior Palestinian official stationed there. The cable made clear that the Palestinian official believed Abbas was intent on going to the UN in September, and that he had decided to “abandon the process,” and had “no intention of returning to negotiations.” The cable also said that at this point in time Abbas was primarily concerned about his historical legacy.
What Obama does with his various declarations is give Abbas the cover to stay away from negotiations, while blaming Israel for his own rejectionist stance.
Just as Netanyahu could not, for a variety of reasons – political and ideological – declare another settlement moratorium, forcing Obama to have to backtrack on that demand, it is also unlikely he will now accept a return to negotiations based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed upon swaps, unless some very significant “sweeteners” are thrown into the mix: such as Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, a formula that would imply an abandonment of the Palestinian dream of a “right of return.”
But the chances of that happening are slim indeed. Concerned with his legacy, Abbas is not eager to go down in the Palestinian history books as the one who closed the door to the descendents of Palestinian refugees “returning” to Haifa, Jaffa and Safed.
The negotiations, therefore, remain stymied, and Obama has uncovered an uncanny ability – with his declarations – to handcuff the very diplomatic process he is trying to push forward.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Something you'll never see anywhere else...
in the Arab world, but certainly do every year in Israel. Now, why is Code Pink protesting Israel?
'It's worth being gay'
By YONI COHEN
10/06/2011
From street parades to beach parties, there's something for everyone at the all-accepting Tel Aviv Gay Pride 2011.
The slogan for this year's Tel Aviv Gay Pride events is “It’s worth being gay!” And indeed, it looks like it'll be worth attending as the 2011 Pride Parade, the central event of the celebrations, is set to be as big and impressive as ever.
The huge street parade set to take place on Friday, is expected to be attended by thousands of locals and tourists, and will culminate with a beach party. The parade will begin in Gan Meir at around 1:30 p.m., pass through Bograshov and Ben Yehuda Streets and end at Gordon beach.
Though the parade is the main event, the weekend's festivities will kick off on Thursday night with "Sunset Beach Cocktail" party located on the southern part of the Tel Aviv beach close to the David Intercontinental hotel in Clara, a trendy open air mega bar. The leading DJs in town will come together to host the official opening of Pride Weekend.
On Friday morning from 10:00 a.m to 12:00 p.m. there will be a two-hour Gay City Tour, which will explore the heart of Tel Aviv, telling the story of the LGBT community. Pre-booking is necessary: telavivgayvibe..com, Starting point: Meir Tower Herzl corner of Ahad Ha’am.
For those in search of something a little more upbeat, MTV will be putting on a crazy drag celebration hosted by TLV’s most favored drag queens, performing the hottest MTV hits. Gan Meir. 10:00 a.m. till 1:30 p.m.
Some of the best DJs in town and international guests will keep the beach party going until 6:30 p.m. Performers include Lovegang (Hamburg), Erez B.I., Samuel Blacher, Israel Aharoni, Ziona Patriot, Offir Malol, Shimai (Barcelona), Oscar Loya (Berlin) and many more.
A number of parties will pump on well into the early hours of Saturday morning. Evita, popular with tourists and locals alike, will be hosting its very own Parade Party, bringing the trash back to the dance floor. Evita bar, 31 Yavne St.
For those that still have energy left on Saturday, the 6th Tel Aviv LGBT International Film Festival will be opened with a party named "We Will Rock You!" Three Israeli divas - Talula Bonet, Oshree, Betty Licious - will be rocking one stage. The music will be provided by DJs Mikey Hefez, Mikka Shmikka & Adi Dgani, and straight from Berlin DJ Metzgerei. ZIZI, 7 Karlibach St. 10:30 p.m. .
The pride weekend events, which cost a total of some 300,000, are mainly being organized by Tel Aviv's municipality as well as volunteers from the community.
Over 5,000 tourists were expected to arrive from overseas just to join in the celebrations, said Shai Doitsh, "Tel Aviv Gay Vibe" Brand Manager and national board member of the LGBT Aguda.
Doitsh also explained that the municipality and all other bodies are fully supportive of the events and he believes that support will only increase from year to year.
In fact, many of Tel Aviv's residents support the pride celebrations, as well as the city's mayor, Ron Huldai. He recently said that "the gay community serves as a true example of tolerance and openness, and even lights the way for other groups in Israel."
'It's worth being gay'
By YONI COHEN
10/06/2011
From street parades to beach parties, there's something for everyone at the all-accepting Tel Aviv Gay Pride 2011.
The slogan for this year's Tel Aviv Gay Pride events is “It’s worth being gay!” And indeed, it looks like it'll be worth attending as the 2011 Pride Parade, the central event of the celebrations, is set to be as big and impressive as ever.
The huge street parade set to take place on Friday, is expected to be attended by thousands of locals and tourists, and will culminate with a beach party. The parade will begin in Gan Meir at around 1:30 p.m., pass through Bograshov and Ben Yehuda Streets and end at Gordon beach.
Though the parade is the main event, the weekend's festivities will kick off on Thursday night with "Sunset Beach Cocktail" party located on the southern part of the Tel Aviv beach close to the David Intercontinental hotel in Clara, a trendy open air mega bar. The leading DJs in town will come together to host the official opening of Pride Weekend.
On Friday morning from 10:00 a.m to 12:00 p.m. there will be a two-hour Gay City Tour, which will explore the heart of Tel Aviv, telling the story of the LGBT community. Pre-booking is necessary: telavivgayvibe..com, Starting point: Meir Tower Herzl corner of Ahad Ha’am.
For those in search of something a little more upbeat, MTV will be putting on a crazy drag celebration hosted by TLV’s most favored drag queens, performing the hottest MTV hits. Gan Meir. 10:00 a.m. till 1:30 p.m.
Some of the best DJs in town and international guests will keep the beach party going until 6:30 p.m. Performers include Lovegang (Hamburg), Erez B.I., Samuel Blacher, Israel Aharoni, Ziona Patriot, Offir Malol, Shimai (Barcelona), Oscar Loya (Berlin) and many more.
A number of parties will pump on well into the early hours of Saturday morning. Evita, popular with tourists and locals alike, will be hosting its very own Parade Party, bringing the trash back to the dance floor. Evita bar, 31 Yavne St.
For those that still have energy left on Saturday, the 6th Tel Aviv LGBT International Film Festival will be opened with a party named "We Will Rock You!" Three Israeli divas - Talula Bonet, Oshree, Betty Licious - will be rocking one stage. The music will be provided by DJs Mikey Hefez, Mikka Shmikka & Adi Dgani, and straight from Berlin DJ Metzgerei. ZIZI, 7 Karlibach St. 10:30 p.m. .
The pride weekend events, which cost a total of some 300,000, are mainly being organized by Tel Aviv's municipality as well as volunteers from the community.
Over 5,000 tourists were expected to arrive from overseas just to join in the celebrations, said Shai Doitsh, "Tel Aviv Gay Vibe" Brand Manager and national board member of the LGBT Aguda.
Doitsh also explained that the municipality and all other bodies are fully supportive of the events and he believes that support will only increase from year to year.
In fact, many of Tel Aviv's residents support the pride celebrations, as well as the city's mayor, Ron Huldai. He recently said that "the gay community serves as a true example of tolerance and openness, and even lights the way for other groups in Israel."
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
The Real Story
Those of you who have read my blog know that I have zero love for Sarah Palin. In fact, I don't like, or dislike her.
I AM fascinated by the mainstream media's obsession with her, but that is not the point.
She has no, zero, nada, zilch, bearing or effect on my life. She will never hold national office, so what do I care about her or anything she says. Frankly, she's an idiot.
However, I am more interested in the lambasting of her "Paul Revere" comments, by that same media.
Sorry to say but Sarah's comments about warning the British not to disarm the Americans, and ringing bells and firing warning shots is correct.
The media's apparent belief that it was Paul Revere who actually rode from Lexington to Concorde and put up some lanterns in the old North Church is from the Longfellow poem, NOT history. (There was a lantern put up in the church, but that was to signal across Boston Harbor to Charlestown).
So, for those who don't know.
Revere was a silversmith by trade. And a fairly successful one at that. He also tried his hand at dentistry and a few other things, but the smithing business he got from his father.
He had been involved in the agitation against the British Army Regulars, the royal governor and the crown for some time. In fact, he frequently used his presses to help create the images that went on some of the pamphlets of the day.
He was a member, and leader, of a group known as the "Sons of Liberty".
The Sons had established a warning system. Why?
Two of the most offensive policies to the Bay Colony's residents in that time was the commonplace breaking in of their homes by the British regulars to "impress" American boys into the British army, and also to confiscate weapons, which the British knew could be used against them.
This is the VERY reason that the 2d and 4th amendments were added to the constitution (Right to bear arms in a militia, and the restraint against illegal search and seizures).
In the leadup to the ride, British General Gage had received instructions from the crown to DISARM the rebels and arrest their leaders, in particular, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock.
Remember your history. Samuel Adams known as the "Father of the Revolution".
Revere, along with William Dawes, was dispatched on two separate routes from Lexington to Concorde by Dr. Joseph Warren, to warn Hancock and Adams and to help them escape.
On the way, Revere was joined by Dr. Samuel Prescott, who was on his way back from seeing his fiancee.
Revere and Dawes were both captured by the British on the way back from Lexington. Apparently, Dawes was something of an actor and convinced the British to release him immediately, pretending to be a drunk, or some such thing.
Prescott continued on the ride to Concorde.
Along the route, both the orinal route ridden by Revere and Dawes, and later the route ridden by Prescott and at least a dozen, and as many as 40, other riders (we don't know exactly how many) bells rang out and warning shots were fired to warn of the coming British Regulars.
Under questioning by the British, Revere warned them of the dire consequences that would be suffered if they tried to disarm the "Sons of Liberty" or the other Patriots, or if they detained Hancock and Adams.
As a note, two of the riders that we know of were a woman, and even more fascinating, because of the white washing of African American History, was a 9 year old African American rider named Abel Benson.
Now, if you don't believe me, here's a blurb from the History Channel (Discovery Networks) website:
"Paul Revere would be surprised that he receives sole credit for the midnight ride. In addition to Dawes and Prescott, dozens of other men helped spread the word that night. Still, some historians think Revere deserves the credit. Through his networking and leadership skills, he basically built the massive communications machine that made the night of April 18 a success. Revere started other express riders on their way before leaving Boston, and he also alerted others along his journey. They too began riding, or shot guns and rang church bells to alert the community. Revere covered 13 miles in less than two hours, but he was not working alone."
So I ask you, who is a fool here? Sarah, or the people who think the history of the United States was written by a poet in days leading up to the Civil War, 80 years after the event?
If you want a moderately accurate accounting of the ride, go to the Paul Revere House's website. Obviously, it will emphasize Revere's role, but a more complete picture will be available.
Finally, this is in no way to minimize Revere. He was an incredible Patriot, the ride was largely from a system he designed, and he had to navigate his way through the British troops even to begin his ride. But should he be the only one who is remembered? No. And should Sarah be pilloried for getting it right?
I AM fascinated by the mainstream media's obsession with her, but that is not the point.
She has no, zero, nada, zilch, bearing or effect on my life. She will never hold national office, so what do I care about her or anything she says. Frankly, she's an idiot.
However, I am more interested in the lambasting of her "Paul Revere" comments, by that same media.
Sorry to say but Sarah's comments about warning the British not to disarm the Americans, and ringing bells and firing warning shots is correct.
The media's apparent belief that it was Paul Revere who actually rode from Lexington to Concorde and put up some lanterns in the old North Church is from the Longfellow poem, NOT history. (There was a lantern put up in the church, but that was to signal across Boston Harbor to Charlestown).
So, for those who don't know.
Revere was a silversmith by trade. And a fairly successful one at that. He also tried his hand at dentistry and a few other things, but the smithing business he got from his father.
He had been involved in the agitation against the British Army Regulars, the royal governor and the crown for some time. In fact, he frequently used his presses to help create the images that went on some of the pamphlets of the day.
He was a member, and leader, of a group known as the "Sons of Liberty".
The Sons had established a warning system. Why?
Two of the most offensive policies to the Bay Colony's residents in that time was the commonplace breaking in of their homes by the British regulars to "impress" American boys into the British army, and also to confiscate weapons, which the British knew could be used against them.
This is the VERY reason that the 2d and 4th amendments were added to the constitution (Right to bear arms in a militia, and the restraint against illegal search and seizures).
In the leadup to the ride, British General Gage had received instructions from the crown to DISARM the rebels and arrest their leaders, in particular, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock.
Remember your history. Samuel Adams known as the "Father of the Revolution".
Revere, along with William Dawes, was dispatched on two separate routes from Lexington to Concorde by Dr. Joseph Warren, to warn Hancock and Adams and to help them escape.
On the way, Revere was joined by Dr. Samuel Prescott, who was on his way back from seeing his fiancee.
Revere and Dawes were both captured by the British on the way back from Lexington. Apparently, Dawes was something of an actor and convinced the British to release him immediately, pretending to be a drunk, or some such thing.
Prescott continued on the ride to Concorde.
Along the route, both the orinal route ridden by Revere and Dawes, and later the route ridden by Prescott and at least a dozen, and as many as 40, other riders (we don't know exactly how many) bells rang out and warning shots were fired to warn of the coming British Regulars.
Under questioning by the British, Revere warned them of the dire consequences that would be suffered if they tried to disarm the "Sons of Liberty" or the other Patriots, or if they detained Hancock and Adams.
As a note, two of the riders that we know of were a woman, and even more fascinating, because of the white washing of African American History, was a 9 year old African American rider named Abel Benson.
Now, if you don't believe me, here's a blurb from the History Channel (Discovery Networks) website:
"Paul Revere would be surprised that he receives sole credit for the midnight ride. In addition to Dawes and Prescott, dozens of other men helped spread the word that night. Still, some historians think Revere deserves the credit. Through his networking and leadership skills, he basically built the massive communications machine that made the night of April 18 a success. Revere started other express riders on their way before leaving Boston, and he also alerted others along his journey. They too began riding, or shot guns and rang church bells to alert the community. Revere covered 13 miles in less than two hours, but he was not working alone."
So I ask you, who is a fool here? Sarah, or the people who think the history of the United States was written by a poet in days leading up to the Civil War, 80 years after the event?
If you want a moderately accurate accounting of the ride, go to the Paul Revere House's website. Obviously, it will emphasize Revere's role, but a more complete picture will be available.
Finally, this is in no way to minimize Revere. He was an incredible Patriot, the ride was largely from a system he designed, and he had to navigate his way through the British troops even to begin his ride. But should he be the only one who is remembered? No. And should Sarah be pilloried for getting it right?
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Where Obama is Leading Israel By Caroline Glick
In the aftermath of US President Barack Obama's May 19 speech on the Middle East, his supporters argued that the policy toward Israel and the Palestinians that Obama outlined in that speech was not anti-Israel. As they presented it, Obama's assertion that peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians must be based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps does not mark a substantive departure from the positions adopted by his predecessors in the Oval Office.
But this claim is exposed as a lie by previous administration statements. On November 25, 2009, in response to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's acceptance of Obama's demand for a 10-month moratorium on Jewish property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, the State Department issued the following statement: "Today's announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."
In his speech, Obama stated: "The United States believes... the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."
That is, he took "the Palestinian goal" and made it the US's goal. It is hard to imagine a more radically anti-Israel policy shift than that.
And that wasn't Obama's only radically anti-Israel policy shift. Until his May 19 speech, the US agreed with Israel that the issue of borders is only one of many - including the Palestinians' rejection of Israel's right to exist, their demand to inundate Israel with millions of foreign Arab immigrants, their demand for control over Israel's water supply and Jerusalem - that have to be sorted out in negotiations. The joint US-Israeli position was that until all of these issues were resolved, none of them were resolved.
The Palestinians, on the other hand, claim that before they will discuss any of these other issues, Israel has to first agree to accept the indefensible 1967 boundaries as its permanent borders. This position allows the Palestinians to essentially maintain their policy of demanding that Israel make unreciprocated concessions that then serve as the starting point for further unreciprocated concessions.
It is a position that is antithetical to peace. And on May 19, by stipulating that Israel must accept the Palestinian position on borders as a precondition for negotiations, Obama adopted it as US policy.
SINCE THAT speech, Obama has taken a series of steps that only reinforce the sense that he is the most hostile US president Israel has ever faced. Indeed, when taken together, these steps raise concern that Obama may actually constitute a grave threat to Israel.
On Friday Yediot Aharonot reported on the dimensions of the threat Obama may pose to the Jewish state.. The paper's account was based on administration and Congressional sources.. The story discussed Obama's plans to contend with the Palestinian plan to pass a resolution at the UN General Assembly in September endorsing Palestinian statehood in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
According to Yediot, during his meeting with Obama on May 20, Netanyahu argued that in light of the Palestinians' automatic majority support at the General Assembly, there was no way to avoid the resolution.
Netanyahu reportedly explained that the move would not be a disaster. The General Assembly overwhelmingly endorsed the PLO's declaration of independence in 1988.
And the sky still hasn't fallen.
Obama reportedly was unconvinced. For him, it is unacceptable to be in a position of standing alone with Israel voting against the Palestinian resolution. Obama's distaste for standing with Israel was demonstrated in February when a visibly frustrated US Ambassador Susan Rice was forced by Congressional pressure to veto the Palestinians' Security Council draft resolution condemning Israel for refusing to prohibit Jews from building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.
Yediot's report asserts that Obama refused to brief Netanyahu on the steps his administration is taking to avert such an unpalatable option. What the paper did report was how George Mitchell - Obama's Middle East envoy until his resignation last week - recommended Obama proceed on this issue.
According to Yediot, Mitchell recommended that Obama work with the Europeans to draft a series of anti-Israel resolutions for the UN Security Council to pass. Among other things, these resolutions, which Mitchell said would be "painful for Israel," would include an assertion that Jewish building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria is illegal.
That is, Mitchell recommended that Obama adopt as US policy at the Security Council past Palestinian demands that Congress forced Obama to reject just months ago at the Security Council. The notion is that by doing so, Obama could convince the Palestinians to water down the even more radically anti-Israel positions they are advancing today at the UN General Assembly that Congressional pressure prevents him from supporting.
Since General Assembly resolutions have no legal weight and Security Council resolutions do carry weight, Mitchell's policy represents the most anti-Israel policy ever raised by a senior US official. Unfortunately Obama's actions since last week suggest that he has adopted the gist of Mitchell's policy recommendations.
First there was his speech before AIPAC. Among other things, Obama used the international campaign to delegitimize Israel's right to exist as a justification for his policies of demanding that Israel capitulate to the Palestinians' demands, which he has now officially adopted as US policy.
As he put it, "there is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process - or the absence of one. Not just in the Arab world, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitals around the world."
From AIPAC, Obama moved on to Europe. There he joined forces with European governments in an attempt to gang up on Israel at the G8 meeting.
Obama sought to turn his embrace of the Palestinian negotiating position into the consensus position of the G8. His move was scuttled by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who refused to accept any resolution that made mention of borders without mentioning the Palestinian demand to destroy Israel through Arab immigration, Israel's right to defensible borders, or the Palestinians' refusal to accept Israel's right to exist.
If Harper had not stood by Israel, the G8's anti-Israel resolution endorsing the Palestinian negotiating position could have formed the basis of a US-sponsored anti-Israel Security Council resolution.
Israelis planning their summer trips should put Canada at the top of their lists.
THE FINAL step Obama has taken to solidify the impression that he does not have Israel's best interests at heart, is actually something he has not done. Over the past week, Fatah leaders of the US-backed Palestinian Authority have made a series of statements that put paid any thought that they are interested in peace with Israel or differ substantively from their partners in Hamas.
At the Arab League meeting in Qatar on Saturday, PA President Mahmoud Abbas said the Palestinian state "will be free of all Jews."
Last week the US-supported Abbas denied the Jewish connection to the land of Israel and claimed absurdly that the Palestinians were 9,000 years old.
Equally incriminating, in an interview last week with Aaron Lerner from the IMRA newsgathering website, Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath said that now that Hamas was the co-leader of the PA with Fatah, responsibility for continuing to hold IDF St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit hostage devolved from Hamas to the PA. And the PA would continue to hold him hostage.
Shaath's statement makes clear that rather than moderating Hamas, the Fatah-Hamas unity deal is transforming Fatah into Hamas.
And yet, Obama has had nothing to say about any of this.
Obama's now undeniable antipathy for Israel and his apparent willingness to use his power as American president to harm Israel at the UN and elsewhere guarantee that for the duration of his tenure in office, Israel will face unprecedented threats to its security. This disturbing reality ought to focus the attention of all Israelis and of the American Jewish community. With the leader of the free world now openly siding with forces bent on Israel's destruction, the need for unity has become acute.
MADDENINGLY, HOWEVER, at this time of unprecedented danger we see the Israeli media have joined ranks with Kadima in siding with Obama against Israel in a joint bid to bring down Netanyahu's government. Yediot Aharonot, Maariv, Haaretz, Channel 2, Channel 10, Army Radio and Israel Radio's coverage of Netanyahu's visit and its aftermath was dominated by condemnations of the prime minister, and praise for Obama and opposition leader Tzipi Livni, who called for Netanyahu to resign.
The fact that polling data showed that only 12 percent of Jewish Israelis regard Obama as pro-Israeli and that the overwhelming majority of the public with an opinion believes Netanyahu's visit was a success made absolutely no impression on the media. The wall-to-wall condemnations of Netanyahu by the Israeli media lend the impression that Israel's leading reporters and commentators are committed to demoralizing the public into believing that Israel has no option other than surrender.
Then there is the American Jewish leadership. And at this critical time in US-Israel relations, the American Jewish leadership is either silent or siding with Obama. Right after Obama's shocking speech on May 19, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement endorsing it. Stand With Us congratulated Obama for his AIPAC speech.
With the notable exceptions of the Zionist Organization of America and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting in America (CAMERA), leaders of American Jewish organizations have refused to condemn Obama's anti-Israel positions.
Their silence becomes all the more enraging when placed against the massive support Israel receives from rank-and-file American Jews. In a survey of American Jews taken by CAMERA on May 16-17, between 75% and 95% of American Jews supported Israel's position on defensible borders, Jerusalem, Palestinian "refugees," Palestinian recognition of Israel's right to exist and the right of Jews to live in a Palestinian state.
The refusal of most American Jewish leaders, the Israeli media and Kadima to condemn Obama today makes you wonder if there is anything the US president could do to convince them to break ranks and stand with Israel and with the vast majority of their fellow Jews. But it is more than a source of wonder. It is a reason to be frightened. Because Obama's actions over the past two weeks make clear to anyone willing to see that in the age of Obama, silence is dangerous.
But this claim is exposed as a lie by previous administration statements. On November 25, 2009, in response to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's acceptance of Obama's demand for a 10-month moratorium on Jewish property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, the State Department issued the following statement: "Today's announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."
In his speech, Obama stated: "The United States believes... the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."
That is, he took "the Palestinian goal" and made it the US's goal. It is hard to imagine a more radically anti-Israel policy shift than that.
And that wasn't Obama's only radically anti-Israel policy shift. Until his May 19 speech, the US agreed with Israel that the issue of borders is only one of many - including the Palestinians' rejection of Israel's right to exist, their demand to inundate Israel with millions of foreign Arab immigrants, their demand for control over Israel's water supply and Jerusalem - that have to be sorted out in negotiations. The joint US-Israeli position was that until all of these issues were resolved, none of them were resolved.
The Palestinians, on the other hand, claim that before they will discuss any of these other issues, Israel has to first agree to accept the indefensible 1967 boundaries as its permanent borders. This position allows the Palestinians to essentially maintain their policy of demanding that Israel make unreciprocated concessions that then serve as the starting point for further unreciprocated concessions.
It is a position that is antithetical to peace. And on May 19, by stipulating that Israel must accept the Palestinian position on borders as a precondition for negotiations, Obama adopted it as US policy.
SINCE THAT speech, Obama has taken a series of steps that only reinforce the sense that he is the most hostile US president Israel has ever faced. Indeed, when taken together, these steps raise concern that Obama may actually constitute a grave threat to Israel.
On Friday Yediot Aharonot reported on the dimensions of the threat Obama may pose to the Jewish state.. The paper's account was based on administration and Congressional sources.. The story discussed Obama's plans to contend with the Palestinian plan to pass a resolution at the UN General Assembly in September endorsing Palestinian statehood in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
According to Yediot, during his meeting with Obama on May 20, Netanyahu argued that in light of the Palestinians' automatic majority support at the General Assembly, there was no way to avoid the resolution.
Netanyahu reportedly explained that the move would not be a disaster. The General Assembly overwhelmingly endorsed the PLO's declaration of independence in 1988.
And the sky still hasn't fallen.
Obama reportedly was unconvinced. For him, it is unacceptable to be in a position of standing alone with Israel voting against the Palestinian resolution. Obama's distaste for standing with Israel was demonstrated in February when a visibly frustrated US Ambassador Susan Rice was forced by Congressional pressure to veto the Palestinians' Security Council draft resolution condemning Israel for refusing to prohibit Jews from building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.
Yediot's report asserts that Obama refused to brief Netanyahu on the steps his administration is taking to avert such an unpalatable option. What the paper did report was how George Mitchell - Obama's Middle East envoy until his resignation last week - recommended Obama proceed on this issue.
According to Yediot, Mitchell recommended that Obama work with the Europeans to draft a series of anti-Israel resolutions for the UN Security Council to pass. Among other things, these resolutions, which Mitchell said would be "painful for Israel," would include an assertion that Jewish building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria is illegal.
That is, Mitchell recommended that Obama adopt as US policy at the Security Council past Palestinian demands that Congress forced Obama to reject just months ago at the Security Council. The notion is that by doing so, Obama could convince the Palestinians to water down the even more radically anti-Israel positions they are advancing today at the UN General Assembly that Congressional pressure prevents him from supporting.
Since General Assembly resolutions have no legal weight and Security Council resolutions do carry weight, Mitchell's policy represents the most anti-Israel policy ever raised by a senior US official. Unfortunately Obama's actions since last week suggest that he has adopted the gist of Mitchell's policy recommendations.
First there was his speech before AIPAC. Among other things, Obama used the international campaign to delegitimize Israel's right to exist as a justification for his policies of demanding that Israel capitulate to the Palestinians' demands, which he has now officially adopted as US policy.
As he put it, "there is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process - or the absence of one. Not just in the Arab world, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitals around the world."
From AIPAC, Obama moved on to Europe. There he joined forces with European governments in an attempt to gang up on Israel at the G8 meeting.
Obama sought to turn his embrace of the Palestinian negotiating position into the consensus position of the G8. His move was scuttled by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who refused to accept any resolution that made mention of borders without mentioning the Palestinian demand to destroy Israel through Arab immigration, Israel's right to defensible borders, or the Palestinians' refusal to accept Israel's right to exist.
If Harper had not stood by Israel, the G8's anti-Israel resolution endorsing the Palestinian negotiating position could have formed the basis of a US-sponsored anti-Israel Security Council resolution.
Israelis planning their summer trips should put Canada at the top of their lists.
THE FINAL step Obama has taken to solidify the impression that he does not have Israel's best interests at heart, is actually something he has not done. Over the past week, Fatah leaders of the US-backed Palestinian Authority have made a series of statements that put paid any thought that they are interested in peace with Israel or differ substantively from their partners in Hamas.
At the Arab League meeting in Qatar on Saturday, PA President Mahmoud Abbas said the Palestinian state "will be free of all Jews."
Last week the US-supported Abbas denied the Jewish connection to the land of Israel and claimed absurdly that the Palestinians were 9,000 years old.
Equally incriminating, in an interview last week with Aaron Lerner from the IMRA newsgathering website, Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath said that now that Hamas was the co-leader of the PA with Fatah, responsibility for continuing to hold IDF St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit hostage devolved from Hamas to the PA. And the PA would continue to hold him hostage.
Shaath's statement makes clear that rather than moderating Hamas, the Fatah-Hamas unity deal is transforming Fatah into Hamas.
And yet, Obama has had nothing to say about any of this.
Obama's now undeniable antipathy for Israel and his apparent willingness to use his power as American president to harm Israel at the UN and elsewhere guarantee that for the duration of his tenure in office, Israel will face unprecedented threats to its security. This disturbing reality ought to focus the attention of all Israelis and of the American Jewish community. With the leader of the free world now openly siding with forces bent on Israel's destruction, the need for unity has become acute.
MADDENINGLY, HOWEVER, at this time of unprecedented danger we see the Israeli media have joined ranks with Kadima in siding with Obama against Israel in a joint bid to bring down Netanyahu's government. Yediot Aharonot, Maariv, Haaretz, Channel 2, Channel 10, Army Radio and Israel Radio's coverage of Netanyahu's visit and its aftermath was dominated by condemnations of the prime minister, and praise for Obama and opposition leader Tzipi Livni, who called for Netanyahu to resign.
The fact that polling data showed that only 12 percent of Jewish Israelis regard Obama as pro-Israeli and that the overwhelming majority of the public with an opinion believes Netanyahu's visit was a success made absolutely no impression on the media. The wall-to-wall condemnations of Netanyahu by the Israeli media lend the impression that Israel's leading reporters and commentators are committed to demoralizing the public into believing that Israel has no option other than surrender.
Then there is the American Jewish leadership. And at this critical time in US-Israel relations, the American Jewish leadership is either silent or siding with Obama. Right after Obama's shocking speech on May 19, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement endorsing it. Stand With Us congratulated Obama for his AIPAC speech.
With the notable exceptions of the Zionist Organization of America and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting in America (CAMERA), leaders of American Jewish organizations have refused to condemn Obama's anti-Israel positions.
Their silence becomes all the more enraging when placed against the massive support Israel receives from rank-and-file American Jews. In a survey of American Jews taken by CAMERA on May 16-17, between 75% and 95% of American Jews supported Israel's position on defensible borders, Jerusalem, Palestinian "refugees," Palestinian recognition of Israel's right to exist and the right of Jews to live in a Palestinian state.
The refusal of most American Jewish leaders, the Israeli media and Kadima to condemn Obama today makes you wonder if there is anything the US president could do to convince them to break ranks and stand with Israel and with the vast majority of their fellow Jews. But it is more than a source of wonder. It is a reason to be frightened. Because Obama's actions over the past two weeks make clear to anyone willing to see that in the age of Obama, silence is dangerous.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
The "Arab Spring" continues to look a lot like winter
By Kristen Chick
CAIRO— (TCSM) An attack by Muslims on two churches in Cairo led to sectarian clashes that claimed at least 12 lives, a reminder that Egypt's religious rift has continued to widen since the successful uprising that pushed Hosni Mubarak from power.
The violence in the Cairo neighborhood of Imbaba, declared in the 1990's to be "liberated" from the Egyptian state by Islamist militants, also highlights the growing role the salafis, a small and strident Muslim sect, are playing in exacerbating sectarian tensions. The salafy strain of Islam, which feeds most militant Sunni movements, was publicly repressed under Mubarak and has been taking advantage of the more open environment since his downfall.
"There is no security in Egypt," says Rober, a 23-year member of the Virgin Mary church, which was largely reduced to a smoldering hulk after it was set alight Saturday night. He stood in a burned-out stairway and watched as a woman walked past, weeping. "This is only the beginning. I'm afraid for my sister, for my mother, from the salafis."
On Sunday, stories of what happened Saturday night varied wildly in Imbaba's maze of dirt alleyways. The sprawling neighborhood on the west side of the Nile is poor and mostly Muslim, but has large pockets of Coptic Christians, who account for as much as 10 percent of Egypt's population. The sectarian violence also left at least 232 injured and saw police and army forces move into the area and impose a curfew. They blocked access to the St. Mina church, where the violence began.
Christian witnesses say St. Mina was attacked by a group of armed salafis carrying Ak-47s and throwing Molotov cocktails on Saturday. The witnesses say the attackers accused the church of abducting a woman who had converted from Christianity to Islam, and also destroyed a nearby Christian apartment building and a Christian-owned shop before setting the Virgin Mary church on fire.
The violence started when rumors spread that Christians had abducted a woman who had converted to Islam and married a Muslim man, and were holding her inside St. Mina church. Christians said the rumor was false, and there was no such woman. Alleged female conversions and abductions have been a flashpoint for sectarian tensions for years.
Last year Camillia Shehata, the wife of a Coptic priest, allegedly disappeared for days. Muslims claimed the church had abducted her when she tried to convert to Islam. Salafis have continued to hold protests demanding her "release."
That storyline spawned violence in Iraq, where a group associated with Al Qaeda attacked a church, killing dozens, and called for attacks on churches in Egypt. One did come, on a church in Alexandria on Jan. 1. An apparent suicide bomber killed more than 20 Christians, though no group ever claimed responsibility for the bombing and it was unclear if it was related to the issue of Camillia Shehata.
Christians have faced discrimination, particularly in the application of justice when they face sectarian attacks. Mubarak's regime refused to acknowledge a sectarian dimension to such attacks. And sometimes authorities imposed forced reconciliation instead of bringing Muslim attackers to justice.
ACCOUNTS
Muslims in the area say that the Christians were armed and attacked first. An Egyptian Army officer standing guard Sunday said that when he arrived Saturday, there were no salafis but two groups of men were fighting each other, and that weapons were fired from within the church. The clashes ran from about 8:30 on Saturday night until early the next morning local time.
Father Mattias Elias, priest of the Virgin Mary church for more than 30 years, says "salafi terrorists" set the church on fire. "We have faith and hope (that) G0d will change what is happening. But practically, we need leadership from the Army, the security forces," he says, sitting in a burned-out former sanctuary, next to the gutted baptismal room where the fire killed a church employee.
The walls and ceiling of the room are blackened, a ceiling fan's blades melted into haunting shapes. A partially burnt altar curtain sits in the corner with children's Bible story books. Acrid smoke hangs in the air.
Hossam Bahgat says the attempt to break into a church to rescue an alleged hostage is "unprecedented." Bahgat runs the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, a group that has documented sectarian attacks for years. He also says it is "disturbing" that Christians reportedly used violence in response to the attack. The sentiment that seems to be growing among the Christian community is that "they are going to use force to protect themselves if the state continues to fail to protect them."
"This is why I think we're seeing this time such a strong response from the Supreme Council of Armed Forces and the Cabinet," he says. "They seem to finally realize that the number one priority now, as far as the sectarian violence is concerned, is physical protection of individuals, communities and places of worship."
ARRESTS
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the military government running Egypt, said it had arrested 190 people in connection with the attacks and would try them in military courts "as a deterrent to all those who think of toying with the potential of this nation." Egypt's prime minister delayed a trip to the Gulf to hold an emergency cabinet meeting and Egypt's justice minister announced Egypt would use an "iron hand" against those trying to "tamper with the nation's security."
CAIRO— (TCSM) An attack by Muslims on two churches in Cairo led to sectarian clashes that claimed at least 12 lives, a reminder that Egypt's religious rift has continued to widen since the successful uprising that pushed Hosni Mubarak from power.
The violence in the Cairo neighborhood of Imbaba, declared in the 1990's to be "liberated" from the Egyptian state by Islamist militants, also highlights the growing role the salafis, a small and strident Muslim sect, are playing in exacerbating sectarian tensions. The salafy strain of Islam, which feeds most militant Sunni movements, was publicly repressed under Mubarak and has been taking advantage of the more open environment since his downfall.
"There is no security in Egypt," says Rober, a 23-year member of the Virgin Mary church, which was largely reduced to a smoldering hulk after it was set alight Saturday night. He stood in a burned-out stairway and watched as a woman walked past, weeping. "This is only the beginning. I'm afraid for my sister, for my mother, from the salafis."
On Sunday, stories of what happened Saturday night varied wildly in Imbaba's maze of dirt alleyways. The sprawling neighborhood on the west side of the Nile is poor and mostly Muslim, but has large pockets of Coptic Christians, who account for as much as 10 percent of Egypt's population. The sectarian violence also left at least 232 injured and saw police and army forces move into the area and impose a curfew. They blocked access to the St. Mina church, where the violence began.
Christian witnesses say St. Mina was attacked by a group of armed salafis carrying Ak-47s and throwing Molotov cocktails on Saturday. The witnesses say the attackers accused the church of abducting a woman who had converted from Christianity to Islam, and also destroyed a nearby Christian apartment building and a Christian-owned shop before setting the Virgin Mary church on fire.
The violence started when rumors spread that Christians had abducted a woman who had converted to Islam and married a Muslim man, and were holding her inside St. Mina church. Christians said the rumor was false, and there was no such woman. Alleged female conversions and abductions have been a flashpoint for sectarian tensions for years.
Last year Camillia Shehata, the wife of a Coptic priest, allegedly disappeared for days. Muslims claimed the church had abducted her when she tried to convert to Islam. Salafis have continued to hold protests demanding her "release."
That storyline spawned violence in Iraq, where a group associated with Al Qaeda attacked a church, killing dozens, and called for attacks on churches in Egypt. One did come, on a church in Alexandria on Jan. 1. An apparent suicide bomber killed more than 20 Christians, though no group ever claimed responsibility for the bombing and it was unclear if it was related to the issue of Camillia Shehata.
Christians have faced discrimination, particularly in the application of justice when they face sectarian attacks. Mubarak's regime refused to acknowledge a sectarian dimension to such attacks. And sometimes authorities imposed forced reconciliation instead of bringing Muslim attackers to justice.
ACCOUNTS
Muslims in the area say that the Christians were armed and attacked first. An Egyptian Army officer standing guard Sunday said that when he arrived Saturday, there were no salafis but two groups of men were fighting each other, and that weapons were fired from within the church. The clashes ran from about 8:30 on Saturday night until early the next morning local time.
Father Mattias Elias, priest of the Virgin Mary church for more than 30 years, says "salafi terrorists" set the church on fire. "We have faith and hope (that) G0d will change what is happening. But practically, we need leadership from the Army, the security forces," he says, sitting in a burned-out former sanctuary, next to the gutted baptismal room where the fire killed a church employee.
The walls and ceiling of the room are blackened, a ceiling fan's blades melted into haunting shapes. A partially burnt altar curtain sits in the corner with children's Bible story books. Acrid smoke hangs in the air.
Hossam Bahgat says the attempt to break into a church to rescue an alleged hostage is "unprecedented." Bahgat runs the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, a group that has documented sectarian attacks for years. He also says it is "disturbing" that Christians reportedly used violence in response to the attack. The sentiment that seems to be growing among the Christian community is that "they are going to use force to protect themselves if the state continues to fail to protect them."
"This is why I think we're seeing this time such a strong response from the Supreme Council of Armed Forces and the Cabinet," he says. "They seem to finally realize that the number one priority now, as far as the sectarian violence is concerned, is physical protection of individuals, communities and places of worship."
ARRESTS
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the military government running Egypt, said it had arrested 190 people in connection with the attacks and would try them in military courts "as a deterrent to all those who think of toying with the potential of this nation." Egypt's prime minister delayed a trip to the Gulf to hold an emergency cabinet meeting and Egypt's justice minister announced Egypt would use an "iron hand" against those trying to "tamper with the nation's security."
Friday, May 27, 2011
What Obama did to Israel By Charles Krauthammer
Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The long-standing American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel's security and diplomatic needs.
It's on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, President George W.Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.
For 21 / 2 years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along "the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps."
Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. "By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different" from 1967.
It means nothing of the sort. "Mutually" means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn't? Then, by definition, you're back to the 1967 lines.
Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.
And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the United Nations to get the world to ratify precisely that — a Palestinian state on the '67 lines. No swaps.
Note how Obama has undermined Israel's negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the '67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That '67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain.
The very idea that Judaism's holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter is rightfully or historically or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty.
Obama didn't just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world's only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a "two-state solution." That's why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this "right."
Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. "The status quo is unsustainable," declared Obama, "and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace."
Israel too ? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama's response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the '67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America's rejection of the right of return.
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.
GEDALIA'S NOTE: My opinion is clear and I continue to be frustrated by people afraid to say the truth. As with most of his other policies in which intelligent people say "He's so smart why would he do this? Doesn't he understand the repercussions?" They fail to ever simply say, yes, he does understand and those results are exactly what he intended.
In this instance, the answer to Krautheimer's "unanswered question" is simple. It is borne of genuine antipathy not only to Israel, but to Jews.
It's on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, President George W.Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.
For 21 / 2 years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along "the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps."
Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. "By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different" from 1967.
It means nothing of the sort. "Mutually" means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn't? Then, by definition, you're back to the 1967 lines.
Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.
And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the United Nations to get the world to ratify precisely that — a Palestinian state on the '67 lines. No swaps.
Note how Obama has undermined Israel's negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the '67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That '67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain.
The very idea that Judaism's holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter is rightfully or historically or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty.
Obama didn't just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world's only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a "two-state solution." That's why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this "right."
Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. "The status quo is unsustainable," declared Obama, "and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace."
Israel too ? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama's response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the '67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America's rejection of the right of return.
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.
GEDALIA'S NOTE: My opinion is clear and I continue to be frustrated by people afraid to say the truth. As with most of his other policies in which intelligent people say "He's so smart why would he do this? Doesn't he understand the repercussions?" They fail to ever simply say, yes, he does understand and those results are exactly what he intended.
In this instance, the answer to Krautheimer's "unanswered question" is simple. It is borne of genuine antipathy not only to Israel, but to Jews.
‘Senseless’ seems easier than saying ‘jihad'
By Diana West
The Army honored a fallen hero of the Ft. Hood Jihad Massacre with a medal this week. Not, of course, that the Army describes the November 2009 attack in such meaningful terms. Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan may have shouted "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic for "Allah is great") as he killed 14 and wounded more than two dozen; may have been in contact with jihad cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and frequented jihadist websites; may have had business cards proclaiming himself a "SoA" (Soldier of Allah); and may have created and presented an Islamically correct PowerPoint brief outlining reasons for jihad by Muslims within the U.S. Armed Forces, but no matter. His actions remain a total mystery to the U.S. Army.
To wit: "Although we may never know why it happened, we do know that heroic actions took place that day," Brig. Gen. Joseph DiSalvo said in presenting the Secretary of the Army Award for Valor to Joleen Cahill, widow of Michael Grant Cahill. Cahill is recognized as the first person to have tried to stop Hasan and the only civilian to have been killed by Hasan that day. "He will forever be a source of inspiration."
Alas, I have my doubts about the deputy commanding general of Ft. Hood. Despite overwhelming evidence that Hasan committed an act of jihad, DiSalvo -- like the Army, like the U.S. government -- looks the other way. "We may never know why" the Hasan attack happened, DiSalvo said without, apparently, turning red or rolling his eyes.
It's hard to overstate the impact of these words. In honoring the very last thing Cahill did on this Earth, the general pointedly chose to omit its significance. Like a potent spell, his words made all the context of the 62-year-old Cahill's valorous act -- charging Hasan with a chair as Hasan fired on the crowd -- disappear. Of course, the general's omission takes nothing away from Cahill's courage. It does, however, wrongly release the rest of us from our debt to Cahill. In treating Hasan's rampage as no more purposeful than a flood or a cougar attack, the general has also reduced Cahill's ultimate sacrifice to its most personal level; exemplary, admirable, but of no consequence beyond the scene, outside the circle. This is morally wrong. It was the general's duty to place Cahill's death in perspective, to impress upon both his loved ones and his fellow citizens that he died not only to stop a bloodletting but also in defense of liberty, then and now under jihadist attack.
In other words, the general flinched. No surprise there. Ft. Hood may have been a war zone that day but, with few exceptions (Texas Republicans Rep. John Carter and Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn are pressing to see Purple Hearts awarded), neither our military nor our government has the courage to admit it.
There is a ripple effect. This Memorial Day, by U.S. government reckoning, by U.S. military non-fiat, the Ft. Hood fallen do not rate remembrance as war dead. As a result, there have been no Purple Hearts awarded to military dead and wounded (as there were to casualties of the 9/11 attacks), no combat death benefits awarded to their survivors, no recognition of Hasan's jihad. Indeed, as the general says, we may never even know why they died.
This is just the way our leadership wants it -- "senseless," as President Obama put it, describing another 2009 jihadist attack the U.S. government refuses to recognize as an act of war, this one in Little Rock in which Pvt. William Long was killed and Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula was severely wounded outside a military recruiting station. The trial, which begins in July, is currently subject to a tug-of-war, almost literally, between the lawyers and defendant Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. Prosecutor Larry Jegley is determined to prosecute Muhammad as "nothing but a street thug" accused of "just a drive-by shooting," defense attorneys want Muhammad to plead insanity, while Muhammad, a Muslim convert who may have studied with a jihadist imam in Yemen where he drew the attention of the FBI, is pleading, strenuously, to be tried as a sane, confessed jihadist. Like the US military, like the White House, the court seems to be pushing jihad, kicking and screaming in this case, down the memory hole.
Which makes you wonder: By next Memorial Day, who will remember?
The Army honored a fallen hero of the Ft. Hood Jihad Massacre with a medal this week. Not, of course, that the Army describes the November 2009 attack in such meaningful terms. Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan may have shouted "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic for "Allah is great") as he killed 14 and wounded more than two dozen; may have been in contact with jihad cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and frequented jihadist websites; may have had business cards proclaiming himself a "SoA" (Soldier of Allah); and may have created and presented an Islamically correct PowerPoint brief outlining reasons for jihad by Muslims within the U.S. Armed Forces, but no matter. His actions remain a total mystery to the U.S. Army.
To wit: "Although we may never know why it happened, we do know that heroic actions took place that day," Brig. Gen. Joseph DiSalvo said in presenting the Secretary of the Army Award for Valor to Joleen Cahill, widow of Michael Grant Cahill. Cahill is recognized as the first person to have tried to stop Hasan and the only civilian to have been killed by Hasan that day. "He will forever be a source of inspiration."
Alas, I have my doubts about the deputy commanding general of Ft. Hood. Despite overwhelming evidence that Hasan committed an act of jihad, DiSalvo -- like the Army, like the U.S. government -- looks the other way. "We may never know why" the Hasan attack happened, DiSalvo said without, apparently, turning red or rolling his eyes.
It's hard to overstate the impact of these words. In honoring the very last thing Cahill did on this Earth, the general pointedly chose to omit its significance. Like a potent spell, his words made all the context of the 62-year-old Cahill's valorous act -- charging Hasan with a chair as Hasan fired on the crowd -- disappear. Of course, the general's omission takes nothing away from Cahill's courage. It does, however, wrongly release the rest of us from our debt to Cahill. In treating Hasan's rampage as no more purposeful than a flood or a cougar attack, the general has also reduced Cahill's ultimate sacrifice to its most personal level; exemplary, admirable, but of no consequence beyond the scene, outside the circle. This is morally wrong. It was the general's duty to place Cahill's death in perspective, to impress upon both his loved ones and his fellow citizens that he died not only to stop a bloodletting but also in defense of liberty, then and now under jihadist attack.
In other words, the general flinched. No surprise there. Ft. Hood may have been a war zone that day but, with few exceptions (Texas Republicans Rep. John Carter and Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn are pressing to see Purple Hearts awarded), neither our military nor our government has the courage to admit it.
There is a ripple effect. This Memorial Day, by U.S. government reckoning, by U.S. military non-fiat, the Ft. Hood fallen do not rate remembrance as war dead. As a result, there have been no Purple Hearts awarded to military dead and wounded (as there were to casualties of the 9/11 attacks), no combat death benefits awarded to their survivors, no recognition of Hasan's jihad. Indeed, as the general says, we may never even know why they died.
This is just the way our leadership wants it -- "senseless," as President Obama put it, describing another 2009 jihadist attack the U.S. government refuses to recognize as an act of war, this one in Little Rock in which Pvt. William Long was killed and Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula was severely wounded outside a military recruiting station. The trial, which begins in July, is currently subject to a tug-of-war, almost literally, between the lawyers and defendant Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. Prosecutor Larry Jegley is determined to prosecute Muhammad as "nothing but a street thug" accused of "just a drive-by shooting," defense attorneys want Muhammad to plead insanity, while Muhammad, a Muslim convert who may have studied with a jihadist imam in Yemen where he drew the attention of the FBI, is pleading, strenuously, to be tried as a sane, confessed jihadist. Like the US military, like the White House, the court seems to be pushing jihad, kicking and screaming in this case, down the memory hole.
Which makes you wonder: By next Memorial Day, who will remember?
Sunday, May 22, 2011
What exactly is meant by "The 1967 Borders"?
I'll explain below. Like many things Middle East, this is another PR battle won by the Arab lobby.
Oh, I know, you've been led to believe there is a monolithic Israeli power structure that dictates everything (that, my friends, is the oldest antisemitic screed in the world - right out of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", Tzar Nicholas' famous forgery).
In fact, it is petro dollars that dictates everything. The Saudis spend more lobbying in a week, than all the money supporting Israel in a year. If there was no oil issue in the United States, the absurdity of the situation would be openly discussed and support for Israel would be deep and unfettered. The lies about "occupation" or anything else, would just stop magically.
Ok, back to those 1967 lines.
What does this phrase mean? Simply stated, the 1948 lines.
Why? Because what the Arabs are referring to are the armistice lines that held UNTIL the start of the June, 1967, 6 day war in which Israel recaptured the Sinai, "West Bank" and Gaza Strip from Egypt and Jordan (another PR battle Israel has lost. The west bank? Really, is half of a country the banks of a river? That IS what they are referring to, of course).
The critical part of this rests ONLY, and exclusively in Jerusalem.
During the Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem - remember, in 1948 when the UN recognized "2 states" the Arabs famously immediately rejected, and attacked. Even without an army, Israel managed to survive, but lost Jerusalem and much of it's other territory which now became known as the West Bank.
In 1964, when King Hussein of Jordan massacred thousands of Sunni Arabs (Hussein and his monarchy are Hashemite Muslims, a sect that views itself as basically the priestly class) and made it clear that they would never have full rights, we FIRST heard about "Palestinians" referring to Arab residents of the former mandate. Until then, it was the British term for the Jews of that region.
So, in violation of the UN dictate that Jerusalem remain an open city, what did the Jordanians do when entrusted with the old city of Jerusalem?
OK, take a step back.
A little more history. In biblical times, cities were walled. Why? To keep out invading armies.
Jerusalem was originally a Jebusite city until captured by King David for the Jews of the bible.
His son Solomon, built the first Temple.
Herod the Great, built the Temple Mount that we see today approximately 450 years later.
Over the millenia, the walled city, the original city of Jerusalem, WAS Jerusalem.
Outside the wall remained the provenance of desert bandits, bedouins, and other nomadic peoples.
However, beginning in the 14th and 15th centuries, but accelerating in the 18th and 19th, Jewish pilgrims began coming back.
The reason for this was simple. For Jews, the Temple is the holiest place in the world. In Biblical Judaism, there were times during the year (those times are marked by the blowing of the Shofar - Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, and Passover - which Christians came to know as the last supper, and Easter) when prayers could ONLY be made at the Temple.
So, when the various invading empires allowed Jews to return, the Jews of the "Diaspora" would send a representative of the village, shtetl, ghetto, etc, to go to Jerusalem, settle there, and make the prayers for the entire community from which he came.
By the 1800's there were simply too many of these pilgrims for the old walled city to handle. So, these new pilgrims began building outside the walls of the old city. Constructing what is now modern Jerusalem.
The city had had a renaissance under Suleiman the Magnificent which culminated with the control over it by the Egyptian dynasties in the 1800's. A railroad connecting it to Jaffa was built in 1892.
By the late 1800's the majority population of Jerusalem was Jewish once again (yes, that's right, 1800's NOT after WWII )
OK. Flip back to the 1948-1967 period.
The armistice that had been drawn up, now split the city.
The Israelis had barely held on to small portions of what was now called the "NEW CITY", that modern city that had been built up in the last hundred years or so. The UN Armistice required that the city be an International city with all of the religious sites open to all. The Jordanians immediately violated this agreement.
Jordan kept "The old City" that part that was the original city with ALL of the Holy Sites.
This began to be called "East Jerusalem".
The only exception was that Jews were supposed to be allowed to maintain control over Mt. Scopus where Hebrew University and Hadassah hospital are.
In addition, Israel was supposed to have control and access to the famous Jewish Cemetery on the Mt. of Olives which has been used for 3000 years. The Jordanians, specifically recreating the roads the Nazis had paved to the death camps (as seen in Schindler's List) desecrated the cemetery and used the headstones to pave a road up the side of the Mount.
Instead, what happened was that the Jordanians not only cut off access to the holy sites for all but Muslims, contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, Israelis were denied access to Jewish holy sites, many of which were desecrated. 34 of the 35 synagogues in the Old City, including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue, were destroyed over the course of the next 19 years, either razed or used as stables and hen-houses. Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were replaced by modern structures. The Jewish Quarter became known as Harat al-Sharaf and was occupied by refugees from the 1948 war. In 1966 the Jordanian authorities relocated 500 of them to the Shua'fat refugee camp as part of plans to redevelop the area.
Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites. Worse, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was also used as a manger.
During this period, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque underwent major renovations.
So, when the 1967 lines are referred to, THIS is what they are talking about.
And this is what the world is happily endorsing. Closing Jerusalem to all.
Oh, I know, you've been led to believe there is a monolithic Israeli power structure that dictates everything (that, my friends, is the oldest antisemitic screed in the world - right out of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", Tzar Nicholas' famous forgery).
In fact, it is petro dollars that dictates everything. The Saudis spend more lobbying in a week, than all the money supporting Israel in a year. If there was no oil issue in the United States, the absurdity of the situation would be openly discussed and support for Israel would be deep and unfettered. The lies about "occupation" or anything else, would just stop magically.
Ok, back to those 1967 lines.
What does this phrase mean? Simply stated, the 1948 lines.
Why? Because what the Arabs are referring to are the armistice lines that held UNTIL the start of the June, 1967, 6 day war in which Israel recaptured the Sinai, "West Bank" and Gaza Strip from Egypt and Jordan (another PR battle Israel has lost. The west bank? Really, is half of a country the banks of a river? That IS what they are referring to, of course).
The critical part of this rests ONLY, and exclusively in Jerusalem.
During the Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem - remember, in 1948 when the UN recognized "2 states" the Arabs famously immediately rejected, and attacked. Even without an army, Israel managed to survive, but lost Jerusalem and much of it's other territory which now became known as the West Bank.
In 1964, when King Hussein of Jordan massacred thousands of Sunni Arabs (Hussein and his monarchy are Hashemite Muslims, a sect that views itself as basically the priestly class) and made it clear that they would never have full rights, we FIRST heard about "Palestinians" referring to Arab residents of the former mandate. Until then, it was the British term for the Jews of that region.
So, in violation of the UN dictate that Jerusalem remain an open city, what did the Jordanians do when entrusted with the old city of Jerusalem?
OK, take a step back.
A little more history. In biblical times, cities were walled. Why? To keep out invading armies.
Jerusalem was originally a Jebusite city until captured by King David for the Jews of the bible.
His son Solomon, built the first Temple.
Herod the Great, built the Temple Mount that we see today approximately 450 years later.
Over the millenia, the walled city, the original city of Jerusalem, WAS Jerusalem.
Outside the wall remained the provenance of desert bandits, bedouins, and other nomadic peoples.
However, beginning in the 14th and 15th centuries, but accelerating in the 18th and 19th, Jewish pilgrims began coming back.
The reason for this was simple. For Jews, the Temple is the holiest place in the world. In Biblical Judaism, there were times during the year (those times are marked by the blowing of the Shofar - Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, and Passover - which Christians came to know as the last supper, and Easter) when prayers could ONLY be made at the Temple.
So, when the various invading empires allowed Jews to return, the Jews of the "Diaspora" would send a representative of the village, shtetl, ghetto, etc, to go to Jerusalem, settle there, and make the prayers for the entire community from which he came.
By the 1800's there were simply too many of these pilgrims for the old walled city to handle. So, these new pilgrims began building outside the walls of the old city. Constructing what is now modern Jerusalem.
The city had had a renaissance under Suleiman the Magnificent which culminated with the control over it by the Egyptian dynasties in the 1800's. A railroad connecting it to Jaffa was built in 1892.
By the late 1800's the majority population of Jerusalem was Jewish once again (yes, that's right, 1800's NOT after WWII )
OK. Flip back to the 1948-1967 period.
The armistice that had been drawn up, now split the city.
The Israelis had barely held on to small portions of what was now called the "NEW CITY", that modern city that had been built up in the last hundred years or so. The UN Armistice required that the city be an International city with all of the religious sites open to all. The Jordanians immediately violated this agreement.
Jordan kept "The old City" that part that was the original city with ALL of the Holy Sites.
This began to be called "East Jerusalem".
The only exception was that Jews were supposed to be allowed to maintain control over Mt. Scopus where Hebrew University and Hadassah hospital are.
In addition, Israel was supposed to have control and access to the famous Jewish Cemetery on the Mt. of Olives which has been used for 3000 years. The Jordanians, specifically recreating the roads the Nazis had paved to the death camps (as seen in Schindler's List) desecrated the cemetery and used the headstones to pave a road up the side of the Mount.
Instead, what happened was that the Jordanians not only cut off access to the holy sites for all but Muslims, contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, Israelis were denied access to Jewish holy sites, many of which were desecrated. 34 of the 35 synagogues in the Old City, including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue, were destroyed over the course of the next 19 years, either razed or used as stables and hen-houses. Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were replaced by modern structures. The Jewish Quarter became known as Harat al-Sharaf and was occupied by refugees from the 1948 war. In 1966 the Jordanian authorities relocated 500 of them to the Shua'fat refugee camp as part of plans to redevelop the area.
Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites. Worse, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was also used as a manger.
During this period, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque underwent major renovations.
So, when the 1967 lines are referred to, THIS is what they are talking about.
And this is what the world is happily endorsing. Closing Jerusalem to all.
What exactly is meant by "The 1967 Borders
I'll explain below. Like many things Middle East, this is another PR battle won by the Arab lobby.
Oh, I know, you've been led to believe there is a monolithic Israeli power structure that dictates everything (that, my friends, is the oldest antisemitic screed in the world - right out of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", Tzar Nicholas' famous forgery).
In fact, it is petro dollars that dictates everything. The Saudis spend more lobbying in a week, than all the money supporting Israel in a year. If there was no oil issue in the United States, the absurdity of the situation would be openly discussed and support for Israel would be deep and unfettered. The lies about "occupation" or anything else, would just stop magically.
Ok, back to those 1967 lines.
What does this phrase mean? Simply stated, the 1948 lines.
Why? Because what the Arabs are referring to are the armistice lines that held UNTIL the start of the June, 1967, 6 day war in which Israel recaptured the Sinai, "West Bank" and Gaza Strip from Egypt and Jordan (another PR battle Israel has lost. The west bank? Really, is half of a country the banks of a river? That IS what they are referring to, of course).
The critical part of this rests ONLY, and exclusively in Jerusalem.
During the Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem - remember, in 1948 when the UN recognized "2 states" the Arabs famously immediately rejected, and attacked. Even without an army, Israel managed to survive, but lost Jerusalem and much of it's other territory which now became known as the West Bank.
In 1964, when King Hussein of Jordan massacred thousands of Sunni Arabs (Hussein and his monarchy are Hashemite Muslims, a sect that views itself as basically the priestly class) and made it clear that they would never have full rights, we FIRST heard about "Palestinians" referring to Arab residents of the former mandate. Until then, it was the British term for the Jews of that region.
So, in violation of the UN dictate that Jerusalem remain an open city, what did the Jordanians do when entrusted with the old city of Jerusalem?
OK, take a step back.
A little more history. In biblical times, cities were walled. Why? To keep out invading armies.
Jerusalem was originally a Jebusite city until captured by King David for the Jews of the bible.
His son Solomon, built the first Temple.
Herod the Great, built the Temple Mount that we see today approximately 450 years later.
Over the millenia, the walled city, the original city of Jerusalem, WAS Jerusalem.
Outside the wall remained the provenance of desert bandits, bedouins, and other nomadic peoples.
However, beginning in the 14th and 15th centuries, but accelerating in the 18th and 19th, Jewish pilgrims began coming back.
The reason for this was simple. For Jews, the Temple is the holiest place in the world. In Biblical Judaism, there were times during the year (those times are marked by the blowing of the Shofar - Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, and Passover - which Christians came to know as the last supper, and Easter) when prayers could ONLY be made at the Temple.
So, when the various invading empires allowed Jews to return, the Jews of the "Diaspora" would send a representative of the village, shtetl, ghetto, etc, to go to Jerusalem, settle there, and make the prayers for the entire community from which he came.
By the 1800's there were simply too many of these pilgrims for the old walled city to handle. So, these new pilgrims began building outside the walls of the old city. Constructing what is now modern Jerusalem.
The city had had a renaissance under Suleiman the Magnificent which culminated with the control over it by the Egyptian dynasties in the 1800's. A railroad connecting it to Jaffa was built in 1892.
By the late 1800's the majority population of Jerusalem was Jewish once again (yes, that's right, 1800's NOT after WWII )
OK. Flip back to the 1948-1967 period.
The armistice that had been drawn up, now split the city.
The Israelis had barely held on to small portions of what was now called the "NEW CITY", that modern city that had been built up in the last hundred years or so. The UN Armistice required that the city be an International city with all of the religious sites open to all. The Jordanians immediately violated this agreement.
Jordan kept "The old City" that part that was the original city with ALL of the Holy Sites.
This began to be called "East Jerusalem".
The only exception was that Jews were supposed to be allowed to maintain control over Mt. Scopus where Hebrew University and Hadassah hospital are.
In addition, Israel was supposed to have control and access to the famous Jewish Cemetery on the Mt. of Olives which has been used for 3000 years. The Jordanians, specifically recreating the roads the Nazis had paved to the death camps (as seen in Schindler's List) desecrated the cemetery and used the headstones to pave a road up the side of the Mount.
Instead, what happened was that the Jordanians not only cut off access to the holy sites for all but Muslims, contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, Israelis were denied access to Jewish holy sites, many of which were desecrated. 34 of the 35 synagogues in the Old City, including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue, were destroyed over the course of the next 19 years, either razed or used as stables and hen-houses. Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were replaced by modern structures. The Jewish Quarter became known as Harat al-Sharaf and was occupied by refugees from the 1948 war. In 1966 the Jordanian authorities relocated 500 of them to the Shua'fat refugee camp as part of plans to redevelop the area.
Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites. Worse, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was also used as a manger.
During this period, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque underwent major renovations.
So, when the 1967 lines are referred to, THIS is what they are talking about.
And this is what the world is happily endorsing. Closing Jerusalem to all.
Oh, I know, you've been led to believe there is a monolithic Israeli power structure that dictates everything (that, my friends, is the oldest antisemitic screed in the world - right out of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", Tzar Nicholas' famous forgery).
In fact, it is petro dollars that dictates everything. The Saudis spend more lobbying in a week, than all the money supporting Israel in a year. If there was no oil issue in the United States, the absurdity of the situation would be openly discussed and support for Israel would be deep and unfettered. The lies about "occupation" or anything else, would just stop magically.
Ok, back to those 1967 lines.
What does this phrase mean? Simply stated, the 1948 lines.
Why? Because what the Arabs are referring to are the armistice lines that held UNTIL the start of the June, 1967, 6 day war in which Israel recaptured the Sinai, "West Bank" and Gaza Strip from Egypt and Jordan (another PR battle Israel has lost. The west bank? Really, is half of a country the banks of a river? That IS what they are referring to, of course).
The critical part of this rests ONLY, and exclusively in Jerusalem.
During the Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem - remember, in 1948 when the UN recognized "2 states" the Arabs famously immediately rejected, and attacked. Even without an army, Israel managed to survive, but lost Jerusalem and much of it's other territory which now became known as the West Bank.
In 1964, when King Hussein of Jordan massacred thousands of Sunni Arabs (Hussein and his monarchy are Hashemite Muslims, a sect that views itself as basically the priestly class) and made it clear that they would never have full rights, we FIRST heard about "Palestinians" referring to Arab residents of the former mandate. Until then, it was the British term for the Jews of that region.
So, in violation of the UN dictate that Jerusalem remain an open city, what did the Jordanians do when entrusted with the old city of Jerusalem?
OK, take a step back.
A little more history. In biblical times, cities were walled. Why? To keep out invading armies.
Jerusalem was originally a Jebusite city until captured by King David for the Jews of the bible.
His son Solomon, built the first Temple.
Herod the Great, built the Temple Mount that we see today approximately 450 years later.
Over the millenia, the walled city, the original city of Jerusalem, WAS Jerusalem.
Outside the wall remained the provenance of desert bandits, bedouins, and other nomadic peoples.
However, beginning in the 14th and 15th centuries, but accelerating in the 18th and 19th, Jewish pilgrims began coming back.
The reason for this was simple. For Jews, the Temple is the holiest place in the world. In Biblical Judaism, there were times during the year (those times are marked by the blowing of the Shofar - Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, and Passover - which Christians came to know as the last supper, and Easter) when prayers could ONLY be made at the Temple.
So, when the various invading empires allowed Jews to return, the Jews of the "Diaspora" would send a representative of the village, shtetl, ghetto, etc, to go to Jerusalem, settle there, and make the prayers for the entire community from which he came.
By the 1800's there were simply too many of these pilgrims for the old walled city to handle. So, these new pilgrims began building outside the walls of the old city. Constructing what is now modern Jerusalem.
The city had had a renaissance under Suleiman the Magnificent which culminated with the control over it by the Egyptian dynasties in the 1800's. A railroad connecting it to Jaffa was built in 1892.
By the late 1800's the majority population of Jerusalem was Jewish once again (yes, that's right, 1800's NOT after WWII )
OK. Flip back to the 1948-1967 period.
The armistice that had been drawn up, now split the city.
The Israelis had barely held on to small portions of what was now called the "NEW CITY", that modern city that had been built up in the last hundred years or so. The UN Armistice required that the city be an International city with all of the religious sites open to all. The Jordanians immediately violated this agreement.
Jordan kept "The old City" that part that was the original city with ALL of the Holy Sites.
This began to be called "East Jerusalem".
The only exception was that Jews were supposed to be allowed to maintain control over Mt. Scopus where Hebrew University and Hadassah hospital are.
In addition, Israel was supposed to have control and access to the famous Jewish Cemetery on the Mt. of Olives which has been used for 3000 years. The Jordanians, specifically recreating the roads the Nazis had paved to the death camps (as seen in Schindler's List) desecrated the cemetery and used the headstones to pave a road up the side of the Mount.
Instead, what happened was that the Jordanians not only cut off access to the holy sites for all but Muslims, contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, Israelis were denied access to Jewish holy sites, many of which were desecrated. 34 of the 35 synagogues in the Old City, including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue, were destroyed over the course of the next 19 years, either razed or used as stables and hen-houses. Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were replaced by modern structures. The Jewish Quarter became known as Harat al-Sharaf and was occupied by refugees from the 1948 war. In 1966 the Jordanian authorities relocated 500 of them to the Shua'fat refugee camp as part of plans to redevelop the area.
Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites. Worse, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was also used as a manger.
During this period, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque underwent major renovations.
So, when the 1967 lines are referred to, THIS is what they are talking about.
And this is what the world is happily endorsing. Closing Jerusalem to all.
What's the difference between Nixon and Reagan, Clemens and Pettite
A comment on a previous post made me decide to post this.
To refresh some memories.
Nixon, obviously, covered up the Watergate scandal (as an aside, those who know about the whole thing and who have heard the Watergate tapes, know he didn't plan it, but he did cover up the lies).
Nixon, famously, when caught said "The American people need to know if their President is a thief. Well, I am not a thief." An out and out lie.
Reagan, in a situation that has now been forgotten (interesting isn't it?) was enmeshed in what was arguable a worse situation. His administration was enmeshed in what became known as the "Iran-Contra Affair" or the arms for hostages scandal.
The scandal entailed illegal funding and arming of Nicaragua’s right-wing contras fighting the leftist Sandinista regime as well as illegally trading arms with Iran in exchange for the release of seven American hostages held by Iranian-sponsored militants in Lebanon. Profits from arms sales to Iran were to be used to buy weapons for the contras.
An independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh was appointed. He concluded that the President's most senior advisers and the Cabinet members on the National Security Council participated in the strategy to make National Security staff members McFarlane, Poindexter and North the scapegoats in the scandal. Walsh discovered much of the best evidence of the cover-up in the final year of active investigation, too late for most prosecutions. This actually bled into the Bush administration and was partially responsible for his being limited to one term.
The difference with Nixon? Reagan first appointed his own board, in addition to the independent counsel appointed by the Attorney General. The report of the board was highly critical.
When the findings came out, Reagan went on national TV, just like Nixon. But instead of saying what Nixon did, a blanket denial, Reagan, looking old, and for the first time to the public, a bit confused, said:
"I've studied the Board's report. Its findings are honest, convincing, and highly critical; and I accept them. And tonight I want to share with you my thoughts on these findings and report to you on the actions I'm taking to implement the Board's recommendations.
First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds - well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch.
Let's start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake."(my emphasis in both places).
Those of us with some subtly understand that much of the differences in the response to these two speeches had to do with the way they were perceived BEFORE their individual scandals. But one, even as he waffled, confessed, the other denied.
Clemens and Pettite?
While easy, that's one's subtle as well. Reagan lied, Nixon lied. In Reagan's "confession" he still said in his heart it's true that he never traded arms for hostages (huh? ) but he still ultimately confessed. Do I wish it had been full and unequivocal? Yes.
Clemens, as anyone who knows anything, was a serial abuser of Performance enhancers. Dan Duquette the GM of the Red Sox famously said that Clemens was done and let him leave the Red Sox. He went to Toronto and suddenly he was better than ever.
He was caught lying to Congress, denying that he had ever used HgH and other drugs.
His teammate and training partner, Pettite, admitted that he had used HgH "3 times" (meaning 3 injections) that he got from his father.
Now, for me, Pettite's "admission" made him almost worse than Clemems. He was clearly still lying, worse, he threw his own father under the bus.
But ultimately, the way the public viewed it, is that Pettite admitted it, Clemens did not.
Now, Clemens is being prosecuted for lying to Congress, and Pettite will probably end up in the hall of fame, or at least, have a career as a Yankee legend.
This is why, I am constantly stunned by politicians who do not offer a mea culpa. Imagine Bill Clinton simply saying what he did AFTER 4 years of Lewinskygate, right away, early on in the scandal. The Country would have been spared and we might be talking about him as one of the great Presidents in history. Instead, he is the butt of an unlimited number of sex jokes.
One of the things that most frustrates people about me is that I have rigid morality. When I'm right, I say it. And loudly. Does that sound arrogant? Yes.
But when I'm wrong I say it. Just as I publicly pronounced my apology to Mysst, in my personal life I say frequently, "I was wrong".
I am always amazed at what happens when I say this. People don't know how to react. I frequently have to say it over and over again. They are so used to people saying "...but...".
I don't (say but). I'm wrong. It's really not that hard.
We ALL make mistakes. That is what makes us human.
There is a difference in what has gone on here recently. Some are now defending their actions. Others are defending the offenders.
I hope everyone recognizes the differences between those two.
The first, by their actions are really admitting that they are wrong, but they are too embarrassed, or whatever their personal reasons are, to admit what happened.
But by NOT defending the offenders, they are acknowledging what happened.
What does this say? Simple, that their values are actually in place. That they CAN recognize right from wrong.
What is sad, is that for a while, they let that get away.
Now, though, but defending their own actions, they are trying to justify. Is this frustrating? Of course, but I would ask you to recognize the difference between the groups.
The first are good folks gone astray. The second group are Nixon and Clemens.
To the first group, I would say, just say "mea culpa".
The very reason you feel persecuted is a) because you are wrong and more importantly b) because people liked you before and WANT to like you again (like is a weenie word but I'm getting tired of typing). People want simply to know that you recognize what REALLY happened. That you weren't neutral. You didn't ignore. You didn't NOT take sides.
You enabled.
Well, just as in my marriage, I enabled my wife. Did that make me the borderline who abused her husband and children?
No, of course not, but I still played my part. And I will be dealing with that forever.
We all recognize that you are NOT the offender. But you played a part.
We want to have open arms. We like you. We really like you.
All we are asking is that you let us.
To refresh some memories.
Nixon, obviously, covered up the Watergate scandal (as an aside, those who know about the whole thing and who have heard the Watergate tapes, know he didn't plan it, but he did cover up the lies).
Nixon, famously, when caught said "The American people need to know if their President is a thief. Well, I am not a thief." An out and out lie.
Reagan, in a situation that has now been forgotten (interesting isn't it?) was enmeshed in what was arguable a worse situation. His administration was enmeshed in what became known as the "Iran-Contra Affair" or the arms for hostages scandal.
The scandal entailed illegal funding and arming of Nicaragua’s right-wing contras fighting the leftist Sandinista regime as well as illegally trading arms with Iran in exchange for the release of seven American hostages held by Iranian-sponsored militants in Lebanon. Profits from arms sales to Iran were to be used to buy weapons for the contras.
An independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh was appointed. He concluded that the President's most senior advisers and the Cabinet members on the National Security Council participated in the strategy to make National Security staff members McFarlane, Poindexter and North the scapegoats in the scandal. Walsh discovered much of the best evidence of the cover-up in the final year of active investigation, too late for most prosecutions. This actually bled into the Bush administration and was partially responsible for his being limited to one term.
The difference with Nixon? Reagan first appointed his own board, in addition to the independent counsel appointed by the Attorney General. The report of the board was highly critical.
When the findings came out, Reagan went on national TV, just like Nixon. But instead of saying what Nixon did, a blanket denial, Reagan, looking old, and for the first time to the public, a bit confused, said:
"I've studied the Board's report. Its findings are honest, convincing, and highly critical; and I accept them. And tonight I want to share with you my thoughts on these findings and report to you on the actions I'm taking to implement the Board's recommendations.
First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds - well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch.
Let's start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake."(my emphasis in both places).
Those of us with some subtly understand that much of the differences in the response to these two speeches had to do with the way they were perceived BEFORE their individual scandals. But one, even as he waffled, confessed, the other denied.
Clemens and Pettite?
While easy, that's one's subtle as well. Reagan lied, Nixon lied. In Reagan's "confession" he still said in his heart it's true that he never traded arms for hostages (huh? ) but he still ultimately confessed. Do I wish it had been full and unequivocal? Yes.
Clemens, as anyone who knows anything, was a serial abuser of Performance enhancers. Dan Duquette the GM of the Red Sox famously said that Clemens was done and let him leave the Red Sox. He went to Toronto and suddenly he was better than ever.
He was caught lying to Congress, denying that he had ever used HgH and other drugs.
His teammate and training partner, Pettite, admitted that he had used HgH "3 times" (meaning 3 injections) that he got from his father.
Now, for me, Pettite's "admission" made him almost worse than Clemems. He was clearly still lying, worse, he threw his own father under the bus.
But ultimately, the way the public viewed it, is that Pettite admitted it, Clemens did not.
Now, Clemens is being prosecuted for lying to Congress, and Pettite will probably end up in the hall of fame, or at least, have a career as a Yankee legend.
This is why, I am constantly stunned by politicians who do not offer a mea culpa. Imagine Bill Clinton simply saying what he did AFTER 4 years of Lewinskygate, right away, early on in the scandal. The Country would have been spared and we might be talking about him as one of the great Presidents in history. Instead, he is the butt of an unlimited number of sex jokes.
One of the things that most frustrates people about me is that I have rigid morality. When I'm right, I say it. And loudly. Does that sound arrogant? Yes.
But when I'm wrong I say it. Just as I publicly pronounced my apology to Mysst, in my personal life I say frequently, "I was wrong".
I am always amazed at what happens when I say this. People don't know how to react. I frequently have to say it over and over again. They are so used to people saying "...but...".
I don't (say but). I'm wrong. It's really not that hard.
We ALL make mistakes. That is what makes us human.
There is a difference in what has gone on here recently. Some are now defending their actions. Others are defending the offenders.
I hope everyone recognizes the differences between those two.
The first, by their actions are really admitting that they are wrong, but they are too embarrassed, or whatever their personal reasons are, to admit what happened.
But by NOT defending the offenders, they are acknowledging what happened.
What does this say? Simple, that their values are actually in place. That they CAN recognize right from wrong.
What is sad, is that for a while, they let that get away.
Now, though, but defending their own actions, they are trying to justify. Is this frustrating? Of course, but I would ask you to recognize the difference between the groups.
The first are good folks gone astray. The second group are Nixon and Clemens.
To the first group, I would say, just say "mea culpa".
The very reason you feel persecuted is a) because you are wrong and more importantly b) because people liked you before and WANT to like you again (like is a weenie word but I'm getting tired of typing). People want simply to know that you recognize what REALLY happened. That you weren't neutral. You didn't ignore. You didn't NOT take sides.
You enabled.
Well, just as in my marriage, I enabled my wife. Did that make me the borderline who abused her husband and children?
No, of course not, but I still played my part. And I will be dealing with that forever.
We all recognize that you are NOT the offender. But you played a part.
We want to have open arms. We like you. We really like you.
All we are asking is that you let us.
On Diedrich Bonhofer
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil:
God will not hold us innocent.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
— Bonhoeffer
Who was Diedrich Bonhofer?
Bonhofer was a German theologian in the years before WWII. Like my quote from Niemoller, Bonhofer was far from a lover of the Jews, or even a universally "good" guy, so to speak. However he was an avowed pacifist as befitted a man of the clothe, who eventually made contact with the German Resistance and the members of the Abwehr who had committed to assassinate Hitler.
He was captured, tried, and hung just over a month before Hitler himself committed suicide in the Bunker.
However, Bonhofer had actually come to the United States in 1939, to work here in NY at the Union Theological Seminary.
He felt guilty about being here when Germany was going through the upheavals that he was witnessing and he wrote to a friend:
"I have come to the conclusion that I made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period in our national history with the people of Germany. I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people... Christians in Germany will have to face the terrible alternative of either willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian civilization may survive or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must choose but I cannot make that choice from security." (My emphasis)
God will not hold us innocent.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
— Bonhoeffer
Who was Diedrich Bonhofer?
Bonhofer was a German theologian in the years before WWII. Like my quote from Niemoller, Bonhofer was far from a lover of the Jews, or even a universally "good" guy, so to speak. However he was an avowed pacifist as befitted a man of the clothe, who eventually made contact with the German Resistance and the members of the Abwehr who had committed to assassinate Hitler.
He was captured, tried, and hung just over a month before Hitler himself committed suicide in the Bunker.
However, Bonhofer had actually come to the United States in 1939, to work here in NY at the Union Theological Seminary.
He felt guilty about being here when Germany was going through the upheavals that he was witnessing and he wrote to a friend:
"I have come to the conclusion that I made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period in our national history with the people of Germany. I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people... Christians in Germany will have to face the terrible alternative of either willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian civilization may survive or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must choose but I cannot make that choice from security." (My emphasis)
Saturday, May 21, 2011
It's Finally Over!
Most of you are newer readers of my blog but several years ago I wrote a serious of posts about performance enhancing drugs in sports:
A brief history of steroids and performing enhancing drugs - Part one
A brief history of steroids and performing enhancing drugs - Part two
A brief history of Steroids and performing ehnhancing drugs - Part 3: Naming names!
A brief history of Steroids and performing ehnhancing drugs - Part 4: How the testing works .
HgH, Sly Stallone and me: An update to "A Brief History of Steroids...", Part 5
The Hall of Fame, McGwire, Dick Pound and WADA: an update to: A brief history of Steroids.....
A new study: An update to "A brief History of Performing Enhancing Drugs..." Part 7
The Tour de France today: An update to "A Brief History of Steroids...."
An update to: "A brief history of Steroids and performing ehnhancing drugs "
You'll notice the Tour De France installment. I have never been a fan of Lance Armstrong. Let me correct that. When he was a young up and comer, before his cancer, and he won the World Championship - usually a portent of big things to come for a young cyclist.
And even when he began to win the Tour, well he had been a protege of my cycling hero, Greg LeMond.
Of course I knew he used drugs, every world class athlete does. But then things changed. He became "Lance the superhero". The man who had been tested "more times than any other athlete" according to him (well, at least the same # of times as the other cyclists in the tour with him).
And then, worse, he became so holier than thou about the whole thing.
His Dr. busted for providing for blood doping all his clients earning the nickname "Dr. Blood"? Nothing
The fact that his blood, used as a test sample for the new test for EPO, the drug cyclists use most to build additional aerobic capacity, test positive for his 2d tour victory but b/c it was for a past tour he couldn't be suspended? Not a chance
The fact that every top rider who ever rode in support of him has been busted for drugs or admitted to using them? No way, NOT Lance!!
Floyd Landis saying that he personally used drugs with Lance, from testosterone to EPO? Not a chance, Floyd was busted and lost HIS tour de france win and he is just vindictive (why against Lance, Lance has never explained).
Test positive at the 2001 Tour de Suisse? No,not Lance! (oops well maybe, but if we deny it enough maybe people will forget).
Frankie Landreu (another longtime teammate on the US Postal Team) and his wife testifying that Lance openly discussed his drug use with his oncologists (cancer doctors)? LIARS!!
But now, this Sunday, 60 minutes will be airing an interview with Tyler Hamilton, yet another teammate will be saying yet again, that he used drugs with Lance.
But don't worry, Lance the Great has already come out and reiterated the most tested athlete mantra, and of course Tyler is only doing it because he is writing a book. Oh, and that funny Grand Jury testimony.
But now. OOOOPS. George Hincapie, who Lance described as "like my brother" who was his roommate for years and his teammate for EVERY one of his Tour de France Victories, has apparently ALSO testified to the Grand Jury that he and Lanced used Testosterone and EPO repeated during all the Tour de France wins.
Let's see. George is STILL cycling so it would look really bad for him to admit this.
But, it's just another person out to get Lance the great.
My hero Greg LeMond tells a story. LeMond won the Tour 3 times. He would have won at leat 5 if not Lance's 7 if not for a hunting accident when he was shot by his brother in law. LeMond came back and won two more Tours after that accident, but later in his career, the shotgun pellets left in his body caused a blood infection and so he had to take a few years off again to get healthy.
When he came back, LeMond said he was in the best shape of his life, riding faster times than he ever had. And then he went to the Tour and in a Mountain day he said he saw people doing things that he knew were impossible, and that he knew he could never do. He knew WHY they were able to do them. So he dropped out of the Tour and retired.
Funny, but that is exactly what Frankie Andreu said, but he said it to explain why he and Lance DID use drugs.
Busted. The myth of Lance, with his good friend George's testimony should now finally be over.
A brief history of steroids and performing enhancing drugs - Part one
A brief history of steroids and performing enhancing drugs - Part two
A brief history of Steroids and performing ehnhancing drugs - Part 3: Naming names!
A brief history of Steroids and performing ehnhancing drugs - Part 4: How the testing works .
HgH, Sly Stallone and me: An update to "A Brief History of Steroids...", Part 5
The Hall of Fame, McGwire, Dick Pound and WADA: an update to: A brief history of Steroids.....
A new study: An update to "A brief History of Performing Enhancing Drugs..." Part 7
The Tour de France today: An update to "A Brief History of Steroids...."
An update to: "A brief history of Steroids and performing ehnhancing drugs "
You'll notice the Tour De France installment. I have never been a fan of Lance Armstrong. Let me correct that. When he was a young up and comer, before his cancer, and he won the World Championship - usually a portent of big things to come for a young cyclist.
And even when he began to win the Tour, well he had been a protege of my cycling hero, Greg LeMond.
Of course I knew he used drugs, every world class athlete does. But then things changed. He became "Lance the superhero". The man who had been tested "more times than any other athlete" according to him (well, at least the same # of times as the other cyclists in the tour with him).
And then, worse, he became so holier than thou about the whole thing.
His Dr. busted for providing for blood doping all his clients earning the nickname "Dr. Blood"? Nothing
The fact that his blood, used as a test sample for the new test for EPO, the drug cyclists use most to build additional aerobic capacity, test positive for his 2d tour victory but b/c it was for a past tour he couldn't be suspended? Not a chance
The fact that every top rider who ever rode in support of him has been busted for drugs or admitted to using them? No way, NOT Lance!!
Floyd Landis saying that he personally used drugs with Lance, from testosterone to EPO? Not a chance, Floyd was busted and lost HIS tour de france win and he is just vindictive (why against Lance, Lance has never explained).
Test positive at the 2001 Tour de Suisse? No,not Lance! (oops well maybe, but if we deny it enough maybe people will forget).
Frankie Landreu (another longtime teammate on the US Postal Team) and his wife testifying that Lance openly discussed his drug use with his oncologists (cancer doctors)? LIARS!!
But now, this Sunday, 60 minutes will be airing an interview with Tyler Hamilton, yet another teammate will be saying yet again, that he used drugs with Lance.
But don't worry, Lance the Great has already come out and reiterated the most tested athlete mantra, and of course Tyler is only doing it because he is writing a book. Oh, and that funny Grand Jury testimony.
But now. OOOOPS. George Hincapie, who Lance described as "like my brother" who was his roommate for years and his teammate for EVERY one of his Tour de France Victories, has apparently ALSO testified to the Grand Jury that he and Lanced used Testosterone and EPO repeated during all the Tour de France wins.
Let's see. George is STILL cycling so it would look really bad for him to admit this.
But, it's just another person out to get Lance the great.
My hero Greg LeMond tells a story. LeMond won the Tour 3 times. He would have won at leat 5 if not Lance's 7 if not for a hunting accident when he was shot by his brother in law. LeMond came back and won two more Tours after that accident, but later in his career, the shotgun pellets left in his body caused a blood infection and so he had to take a few years off again to get healthy.
When he came back, LeMond said he was in the best shape of his life, riding faster times than he ever had. And then he went to the Tour and in a Mountain day he said he saw people doing things that he knew were impossible, and that he knew he could never do. He knew WHY they were able to do them. So he dropped out of the Tour and retired.
Funny, but that is exactly what Frankie Andreu said, but he said it to explain why he and Lance DID use drugs.
Busted. The myth of Lance, with his good friend George's testimony should now finally be over.
Monday, May 16, 2011
The EIchmann Trial: 50 Years Later
In May 1960, Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi officer in charge of orchestrating the Final Solution – the mass deportation of Jews to ghettos and extermination camps – was captured by Israeli agents near Buenos Aires. Eichmann was given a choice between instant death or trial in Israel. He chose to stand trial, which began in Jerusalem on April 11, 1961.
During the trial, the Israeli public was exposed to the details of the Holocaust nightmare for the first time, as well as to the heroism and ingenuity of those who survived.
In his defense, Eichmann insisted that he was only "following orders." Yet scores of witnesses contradicted that contention – testifying to Eichmann's "fanatical zeal and unquenchable blood thirst." Throughout, Eichmann listened impassively to a translation of the entire trial from a specially-designed glass cubicle in the crowded Jerusalem courtroom.
One year later, after all the evidence was in and all appeals exhausted, the cold-eyed Nazi monster was hanged at a prison in the Israeli town of Ramla.
Former Supreme Judge Gavriel Bach – at the time an up-and-coming lawyer and deputy state attorney – was asked to join the team of prosecutors. Fluent in German, he conducted most of the interrogations of Eichmann. At a recent talk in Jerusalem, with the 50th anniversary of the Eichmann Trial approaching, Bach described the unforgettable influence that the trial left on him.
"We were three prosecutors. We gathered millions of pages of documentation and read a great deal of background sources. I don't think I slept more than three hours every night throughout the trial," Bach recalls. “The German government was very cooperative and sent us a great deal of material.” Despite that, chief prosecutor Gideon Hausner preferred to call up as many witnesses as possible rather than presenting his case via historical documents, because "it would be more shocking and have more impetus."
"Some of us thought that Eichmann may have experienced regret at the terrible things done to the Jews in Europe," says Bach. While in custody, Eichmann was shown part of a film that portrayed the horrible conditions of the camps and the crematoria. “We all waited to see how he would react to the emotional film,” says Bach. But when a German-speaking guard asked Eichmann for his reaction, he simply changed the subject and complained about not being allowed to appear at the trial in a Nazi uniform.
Instigator of the Crimes
Among the many documents that Bach found was an interview which Eichmann gave to a fascist Dutch journalist in 1956 while hiding in Argentina. Eichmann expressed satisfaction over the sight of continuous railroads cars arriving in Auschwitz. "It was a glorious sight," he said.
"Did you have any regrets at any time?" asked the journalist.
"Yes", answered Eichmann, "I'm sorry that I wasn't stricter in carrying out our goal. Look what happened," he declared angrily in 1956. "The State of Israel now exists and that cursed race continues."
A book written by the commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoes, describes how up to a thousand Jewish children were gassed daily. "Occasionally a youngster would beg for his life on bended knees in front of me, and I have to admit, I sometimes felt weak myself. I have children of my own. But then I was embarrassed at my frailty. The Oberfuhrer (Eichmann) strengthened my resolve by explaining that we had to kill the accursed Jewish children above all; they represented the future, and the Jewish future had to be erased from the face of the world."
Prosecutors found several examples of Eichmann’s steadfast, even stubborn resistance to any show of lenience. One of the Nazi leaders in Poland sent a request to delay the deportation of a certain Dr. Weiss and his wife. Dr. Weiss was a world famous expert on radar, and the officer thought it would be useful for the Reich to obtain key information before annihilating him. Eichmann wouldn't hear of it "as a matter of principle," and the doctor and his family perished along with their entire community.
At one point during the war, Hitler himself, for political reasons, asked Eichmann not to touch 8,000 Jews left in Budapest. Yet despite his loyalty to the Fuhrer, Eichmann planned otherwise. (Only the war's progression prevented him from deporting this group.) These examples counter Eichmann's claim throughout the trial that he was merely a cog in the machine, carrying out orders.
"There were many dramatic incidents during the trial," says Bach, some which never came to the floor of the courtroom. "We received an important document from an anonymous source which detailed the number of arrivals at Auschwitz, the dates, and the numbers given to each Jew. We tried to verify the details and find the person who had sent us the valuable material, but couldn't make headway. We called in experts from the police department to examine the document and help us find its author. Then I had a brainstorm. Let's find survivors with the numbers mentioned in the document and ask them when they arrived at the camp. That will give us the proof we need to present the document at the trial.
"One of the policeman in the room, after some hesitation, rolled up his sleeve and showed us a number engraved on his arm. 'This number appears on the report; and indeed I arrived in Auschwitz on the date mentioned,' he said quietly. There was complete silence in the room. None of his police colleagues even knew that he'd been in the Holocaust. Like so many, he had hidden his past. We had our proof on the spot. But none of us could speak for several minutes."
Horror Stories
The Eichmann trial had the effect of creating huge public awareness about the Holocaust in Israel and worldwide.
"Nobody wanted to talk about their Holocaust experiences," says Yosef Kleinman, a survivor who arrived in Palestine in 1945 during the days when the tiny Jewish community was struggling to survive and prepare for statehood. There was neither energy, time nor patience to hear the newcomers out. “No one was interested in hearing our stories,” says Kleinman.
"They called us 'sabonim' (soapers),” he says. “They couldn't fathom why we hadn't stood up to the Nazis in the camps and fought back. In those days Israelis were taken up with the macho image of the ‘new Jew.’ They didn't understand what we were up against in Europe, and we ourselves didn't want to be reminded. We just wanted to get on with our lives and put that all behind us."
Indeed, the main drama of the Eichmann trial was the Holocaust survivors who appeared as witnesses. As first it was difficult to even locate witnesses, since they had gotten so used to not talking about that period in their lives. "I had a hard time convincing some people to come forth and tell their story," Bach recalls. “One man told me, ‘If I start talking, you won't be able to stop me for four or five days.’"
The prosecution team argued among themselves how much time to give each witness. "I was adamant that at least one witness should appear from every country that had been under Nazi rule," says Bach.
Kleinman, one of the youngest witnesses, described the selection process he endured as a 14-year-old. "First we were put into a ghetto, and several weeks later we were sent in cattle cars to the camp. For three days we had nothing to drink or eat.”
At Auschwitz, there was a selection table where the infamous Angel of Death, Dr. Josef Mengele, sent the most able-bodied to the right for slave labor, and the weaker ones to the left for extermination. “My 13-year-old brother was held up for inspection,“ Kleinman recalls, “but in the end they told him to run along and join our parents to the left, which he did happily, not knowing what that meant. That was the last time I saw any of them.
”In the barracks, the old timers quickly filled us in and callously pointed to the smoking chimneys we could see through the window. 'That's where your parents are. They're all dead by now.' That's how we learned the terrible truth.”
At the Eichmann trial, Kleinman testified about an incident where Auschwitz guards called the prisoners out to see one young boy getting punished. Kleinman describes:
“Usually they'd give 25 lashes. This boy withstood the punishment and didn't let out a sound. That made the tormentor angry and he continued beating him – 30, 35, 40 lashes. And still the boy didn't cry out. We ourselves couldn't take it anymore. But the soldier continued hitting him all over – on his legs, face, stomach, wherever the whip landed.
“When he got to 50, and the boy was already on the ground, he threw away his whip and left in disgust. We ran over to the hero, picked him up and washed him off. 'What did you do to get this punishment?' we asked him. He could barely talk, but he said, “I brought siddurim (prayer books) to the barracks. It was worth it. I'm glad I did it.'"
This story had a deep influence in the courtroom. The court-appointed defense attorney wept openly, and the judges called for a break in the procedures.
Little Red Coat
At the trial, another witness who had been inside the gas chamber lived to tell about it. As a youngster, he arrived in Auschwitz together with 200 other children, after a horrendous three-day train trip. After the selection, he was pushed into a large dark room with shower piping, and the door was shut behind them. At first the children began to sing, to lift their spirits, but that soon gave way to wailing and screaming. Suddenly the heavy metal door swung open and a guard pulled out 20 of them into the bright sunlight. The Nazis needed workers to unload bags of potatoes and there weren't enough soldiers for the job. That's how this man was able to give a first-hand description of the insides of the crematorium.
At the trial, Dr. Martin Foldi, related how he and his family arrived at Auschwitz in the winter of 1944. As the bewildered Jews stumbled out of the cattle cars, they were hounded by dogs and Nazi soldiers with whips. He described being sent to the right with his 11-year-old son. His wife and two-year-old daughter were taken to the left. The little girl was wearing a little red coat. At the last minute, a guard sent Foldi's son with the crowd to the left. Dr. Foldi panicked thinking, how could this young boy find his mother and sister among the thousands there at the station. But then he knew... he could find his sister because she was wearing the red coat. It would be "like a beacon" for the boy. Then he states, "I never saw them again."
This testimony is likely to have formed the inspiration for the iconic red coat in Steve Spielberg’s classic film, Schindler’s List.
The horrible story shook the courtroom. But for prosecuting attorney Gavriel Bach, it was by far the most upsetting moment of the 16-week trial. Bach had just bought a red coat for his own daughter.
In the courtroom, Bach played with his papers and kept the whole court waiting for his next question while he conquered his emotions.
Historic Impact
The Eichmann trial made headlines all over the world, but in Israel the subject was the center of everyone's attention. The long-term effects of the trial were dramatic and many. The Israeli public understood at last what the survivors had undergone, and became much more empathetic. The enormity of the Holocaust was suddenly brought to the fore, through the witnesses who gave a personal voice and face to the 6 million victims.
Today, far from the days of Israelis “not wanting to acknowledge the tragedy,” there is a whole different attitude. Israeli universities have professors of Holocaust Studies; thousands of Hebrew books have been printed on the subject; government agencies grant special privileges to survivors; and every year on Yom HaShoah the media devotes an entire day to interviews with the nearly-extinct generation of survivors.
Half a century later, the Eichmann trial is not merely a historic event. It represents the turning point in Israel’s understanding of the Holocaust.
During the trial, the Israeli public was exposed to the details of the Holocaust nightmare for the first time, as well as to the heroism and ingenuity of those who survived.
In his defense, Eichmann insisted that he was only "following orders." Yet scores of witnesses contradicted that contention – testifying to Eichmann's "fanatical zeal and unquenchable blood thirst." Throughout, Eichmann listened impassively to a translation of the entire trial from a specially-designed glass cubicle in the crowded Jerusalem courtroom.
One year later, after all the evidence was in and all appeals exhausted, the cold-eyed Nazi monster was hanged at a prison in the Israeli town of Ramla.
Former Supreme Judge Gavriel Bach – at the time an up-and-coming lawyer and deputy state attorney – was asked to join the team of prosecutors. Fluent in German, he conducted most of the interrogations of Eichmann. At a recent talk in Jerusalem, with the 50th anniversary of the Eichmann Trial approaching, Bach described the unforgettable influence that the trial left on him.
"We were three prosecutors. We gathered millions of pages of documentation and read a great deal of background sources. I don't think I slept more than three hours every night throughout the trial," Bach recalls. “The German government was very cooperative and sent us a great deal of material.” Despite that, chief prosecutor Gideon Hausner preferred to call up as many witnesses as possible rather than presenting his case via historical documents, because "it would be more shocking and have more impetus."
"Some of us thought that Eichmann may have experienced regret at the terrible things done to the Jews in Europe," says Bach. While in custody, Eichmann was shown part of a film that portrayed the horrible conditions of the camps and the crematoria. “We all waited to see how he would react to the emotional film,” says Bach. But when a German-speaking guard asked Eichmann for his reaction, he simply changed the subject and complained about not being allowed to appear at the trial in a Nazi uniform.
Instigator of the Crimes
Among the many documents that Bach found was an interview which Eichmann gave to a fascist Dutch journalist in 1956 while hiding in Argentina. Eichmann expressed satisfaction over the sight of continuous railroads cars arriving in Auschwitz. "It was a glorious sight," he said.
"Did you have any regrets at any time?" asked the journalist.
"Yes", answered Eichmann, "I'm sorry that I wasn't stricter in carrying out our goal. Look what happened," he declared angrily in 1956. "The State of Israel now exists and that cursed race continues."
A book written by the commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoes, describes how up to a thousand Jewish children were gassed daily. "Occasionally a youngster would beg for his life on bended knees in front of me, and I have to admit, I sometimes felt weak myself. I have children of my own. But then I was embarrassed at my frailty. The Oberfuhrer (Eichmann) strengthened my resolve by explaining that we had to kill the accursed Jewish children above all; they represented the future, and the Jewish future had to be erased from the face of the world."
Prosecutors found several examples of Eichmann’s steadfast, even stubborn resistance to any show of lenience. One of the Nazi leaders in Poland sent a request to delay the deportation of a certain Dr. Weiss and his wife. Dr. Weiss was a world famous expert on radar, and the officer thought it would be useful for the Reich to obtain key information before annihilating him. Eichmann wouldn't hear of it "as a matter of principle," and the doctor and his family perished along with their entire community.
At one point during the war, Hitler himself, for political reasons, asked Eichmann not to touch 8,000 Jews left in Budapest. Yet despite his loyalty to the Fuhrer, Eichmann planned otherwise. (Only the war's progression prevented him from deporting this group.) These examples counter Eichmann's claim throughout the trial that he was merely a cog in the machine, carrying out orders.
"There were many dramatic incidents during the trial," says Bach, some which never came to the floor of the courtroom. "We received an important document from an anonymous source which detailed the number of arrivals at Auschwitz, the dates, and the numbers given to each Jew. We tried to verify the details and find the person who had sent us the valuable material, but couldn't make headway. We called in experts from the police department to examine the document and help us find its author. Then I had a brainstorm. Let's find survivors with the numbers mentioned in the document and ask them when they arrived at the camp. That will give us the proof we need to present the document at the trial.
"One of the policeman in the room, after some hesitation, rolled up his sleeve and showed us a number engraved on his arm. 'This number appears on the report; and indeed I arrived in Auschwitz on the date mentioned,' he said quietly. There was complete silence in the room. None of his police colleagues even knew that he'd been in the Holocaust. Like so many, he had hidden his past. We had our proof on the spot. But none of us could speak for several minutes."
Horror Stories
The Eichmann trial had the effect of creating huge public awareness about the Holocaust in Israel and worldwide.
"Nobody wanted to talk about their Holocaust experiences," says Yosef Kleinman, a survivor who arrived in Palestine in 1945 during the days when the tiny Jewish community was struggling to survive and prepare for statehood. There was neither energy, time nor patience to hear the newcomers out. “No one was interested in hearing our stories,” says Kleinman.
"They called us 'sabonim' (soapers),” he says. “They couldn't fathom why we hadn't stood up to the Nazis in the camps and fought back. In those days Israelis were taken up with the macho image of the ‘new Jew.’ They didn't understand what we were up against in Europe, and we ourselves didn't want to be reminded. We just wanted to get on with our lives and put that all behind us."
Indeed, the main drama of the Eichmann trial was the Holocaust survivors who appeared as witnesses. As first it was difficult to even locate witnesses, since they had gotten so used to not talking about that period in their lives. "I had a hard time convincing some people to come forth and tell their story," Bach recalls. “One man told me, ‘If I start talking, you won't be able to stop me for four or five days.’"
The prosecution team argued among themselves how much time to give each witness. "I was adamant that at least one witness should appear from every country that had been under Nazi rule," says Bach.
Kleinman, one of the youngest witnesses, described the selection process he endured as a 14-year-old. "First we were put into a ghetto, and several weeks later we were sent in cattle cars to the camp. For three days we had nothing to drink or eat.”
At Auschwitz, there was a selection table where the infamous Angel of Death, Dr. Josef Mengele, sent the most able-bodied to the right for slave labor, and the weaker ones to the left for extermination. “My 13-year-old brother was held up for inspection,“ Kleinman recalls, “but in the end they told him to run along and join our parents to the left, which he did happily, not knowing what that meant. That was the last time I saw any of them.
”In the barracks, the old timers quickly filled us in and callously pointed to the smoking chimneys we could see through the window. 'That's where your parents are. They're all dead by now.' That's how we learned the terrible truth.”
At the Eichmann trial, Kleinman testified about an incident where Auschwitz guards called the prisoners out to see one young boy getting punished. Kleinman describes:
“Usually they'd give 25 lashes. This boy withstood the punishment and didn't let out a sound. That made the tormentor angry and he continued beating him – 30, 35, 40 lashes. And still the boy didn't cry out. We ourselves couldn't take it anymore. But the soldier continued hitting him all over – on his legs, face, stomach, wherever the whip landed.
“When he got to 50, and the boy was already on the ground, he threw away his whip and left in disgust. We ran over to the hero, picked him up and washed him off. 'What did you do to get this punishment?' we asked him. He could barely talk, but he said, “I brought siddurim (prayer books) to the barracks. It was worth it. I'm glad I did it.'"
This story had a deep influence in the courtroom. The court-appointed defense attorney wept openly, and the judges called for a break in the procedures.
Little Red Coat
At the trial, another witness who had been inside the gas chamber lived to tell about it. As a youngster, he arrived in Auschwitz together with 200 other children, after a horrendous three-day train trip. After the selection, he was pushed into a large dark room with shower piping, and the door was shut behind them. At first the children began to sing, to lift their spirits, but that soon gave way to wailing and screaming. Suddenly the heavy metal door swung open and a guard pulled out 20 of them into the bright sunlight. The Nazis needed workers to unload bags of potatoes and there weren't enough soldiers for the job. That's how this man was able to give a first-hand description of the insides of the crematorium.
At the trial, Dr. Martin Foldi, related how he and his family arrived at Auschwitz in the winter of 1944. As the bewildered Jews stumbled out of the cattle cars, they were hounded by dogs and Nazi soldiers with whips. He described being sent to the right with his 11-year-old son. His wife and two-year-old daughter were taken to the left. The little girl was wearing a little red coat. At the last minute, a guard sent Foldi's son with the crowd to the left. Dr. Foldi panicked thinking, how could this young boy find his mother and sister among the thousands there at the station. But then he knew... he could find his sister because she was wearing the red coat. It would be "like a beacon" for the boy. Then he states, "I never saw them again."
This testimony is likely to have formed the inspiration for the iconic red coat in Steve Spielberg’s classic film, Schindler’s List.
The horrible story shook the courtroom. But for prosecuting attorney Gavriel Bach, it was by far the most upsetting moment of the 16-week trial. Bach had just bought a red coat for his own daughter.
In the courtroom, Bach played with his papers and kept the whole court waiting for his next question while he conquered his emotions.
Historic Impact
The Eichmann trial made headlines all over the world, but in Israel the subject was the center of everyone's attention. The long-term effects of the trial were dramatic and many. The Israeli public understood at last what the survivors had undergone, and became much more empathetic. The enormity of the Holocaust was suddenly brought to the fore, through the witnesses who gave a personal voice and face to the 6 million victims.
Today, far from the days of Israelis “not wanting to acknowledge the tragedy,” there is a whole different attitude. Israeli universities have professors of Holocaust Studies; thousands of Hebrew books have been printed on the subject; government agencies grant special privileges to survivors; and every year on Yom HaShoah the media devotes an entire day to interviews with the nearly-extinct generation of survivors.
Half a century later, the Eichmann trial is not merely a historic event. It represents the turning point in Israel’s understanding of the Holocaust.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
An Ignominious Anniversary
This spring and summer is an anniversary that many wish we did not have to note.
It is the 50th anniversary of the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the man who was largely credited with the actual mechanical creation of, and carrying out of Hitler's "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem" i.e. the Holocaust in all of it's brutal efficiency.
One of the interesting things is the loss of historical perspective that we have today, versus in 1961.
Many of you, like me, were not alive then, or were too young to know what was going on in the world.
In the immediate aftermath of WWII, Europe was in a shambles.
The immediate issue for the allied forces, with regard to the death camp survivors, was how to try and nurse them back to health.
They could not be just given food, as a huge percentage were suffering from Typhus, Dysentery, and other diseases of extreme malnutrition and lack of even basic hygiene.
Even more, like many of the other residents of Europe, there was no place for these people to go back to. The Soviets and the Germans had both engaged in scorched earth policies on retreat, and of course, the allies bombed many of the major cities, like Dresden, into oblivion.
Refugees remained in camps until 1956, more than a decade after the end of the war in Europe.
If you know any survivors, you can ask them, but most of them did not want to discuss what they had seen, and what they had been through. The Jews did not know how to deal with what had happened to them, and their families. It was like waking up from a 15 year nightmare, except that your loved ones were dead.
In addition, the British were actively trying to prevent migration to the Mandate of Palestine, and then to the new nation of Israel.
Those that did make it, quickly became involved in trying to forge the new nation and defend it. Israel was attacked immediately upon the declaration of the state, and then again in 1956 by Egypt.
Just as importantly, unlike today's world of 24 hour news cycle, videophones, etc, there was no way to learn of what happened in Europe at the death camps unless one of the liberating soldiers wanted to discuss it. And since the Americans had not liberated the worst camps, there was only so much they could discuss, although again, most had no interest in talking about what they saw. Without video cameras, cable news, or even nightly news on the 3 networks (news reports back then were only 15 minutes long and mostly local) there was just no way to find out.
And in fact, the worst camps, Auschwitz and it's sub camps, and all the camps in Poland, Czechoslavakia and other points east, were liberated by the Soviets, who had engaged in their own holocaust in the Ukraine, so they had no interest in advertising what happened.
The only way to see what had happened were from the films that were played during the Nuremberg trials. Even the trials though, did not anticipate the prosecution focusing on the Holocaust. The principle charge was waging aggressive war, and that was the chief line of questioning. However, when the films were played near the end of the trial, the news observers were left crying, or worse.
The newsreels were not shown in the United States and only small amounts of information about what had happened got out.
Dwight Eisenhower did declare martial law, and ordered all German townspeople to tour the camps in their regions and to bury the remaining skeletal corpses, but once that immediate action was over, the German people became enmeshed in what would eventually be termed the "economic miracle" of the government of post war Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.
Most importantly about Adenauer was that his national security adviser, Hans Globke, had worked with Eichmann in the Department of Jewish Affairs, and in fact, had been one of the architects of Hitler's Nuremberg Laws.
The Americans, who, through the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and the new Cold War with the Soviets, were trying to capture as much of the European sentiment as they could.
Both Adenauer's government, and the various allied governments had no interest in advertising the help they were receiving from the former Nazis (how 'former' is something historians still debate).
As a result of all of these things, by the time Eichmann was captured in Buenos Aries, Argentina on May 11, 1960 by agents of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, led by their director Isser Harel, the world knew little of the horrors that had been witnessed, or had forgotten already.
Harel wrote a wonderful book about this covert operation entitled "The House on Garibaldi Street". It is in fact, a model for many espionage novels, which can't help fail to live up to the real live suspense of the true story of the tracking, capture and removal of Eichmann from Argentina to Israel to stand trial.
The trial was stunning for the world. News agencies from virtually every country covered it, and the New Yorker magazine famously sent Political Philosopher Hanna Arendt to cover it. (Arendt's "Totalitarianism" is one of the most important books of the 20th century.) It was her reporting that led her to coin her now ubiquitous phrase "The Banality of Evil" when she first saw Eichmann, a small bespectacled man sitting in his bulletproof glass case.
Sadly though, Arendt spent precious little time at the trial, and missed ALL of Eichmann's own testimony so her report was not at all accurate.
What came out in the trial was exactly how bloodthirsty Eichmann had been. Far from "just following orders" Eichmann had relished his task and had expressed regret that he hadn't done more.
Back on point. So, at the time of Eichmann's capture and trial most of the world did not know the details of what had happened.
Even more surprisingly, most Israeli's didn't know, or didn't discuss it.
So, the chief prosecutor Gideon Hausner had decided that it was critical that survivors testify. Not just about seeing Eichmann at the camps, but about what had happened.
This testimony again stunned the world. The outlining of the Wansee conference, the meeting in which Reinhold Heidrich had actually assigned Eichmann to oversee the slaughter of the entire Jewish population of the Reich (in their view, the world) which had been unknown until then - the actual meeting at which the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question in Europe" had been formulated, left no doubt that Eichmann had been the master architect of the most heinous crime the world had ever seen.
Still, after the trial, the Holocaust was not what it is today. Remember, the trial was in Hebrew, and German, and still, in 1960 television was limited, even here in the US TV's were a luxury not an every household item.
The real breakthrough on the recognition of the Holocuast in the US was the TV miniseries which introduced the world to Meryl Streep, "The Holocaust" on ABC, in 1978.
For the next few days, I will be posting various articles about different aspects of the trial.
It is the 50th anniversary of the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the man who was largely credited with the actual mechanical creation of, and carrying out of Hitler's "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem" i.e. the Holocaust in all of it's brutal efficiency.
One of the interesting things is the loss of historical perspective that we have today, versus in 1961.
Many of you, like me, were not alive then, or were too young to know what was going on in the world.
In the immediate aftermath of WWII, Europe was in a shambles.
The immediate issue for the allied forces, with regard to the death camp survivors, was how to try and nurse them back to health.
They could not be just given food, as a huge percentage were suffering from Typhus, Dysentery, and other diseases of extreme malnutrition and lack of even basic hygiene.
Even more, like many of the other residents of Europe, there was no place for these people to go back to. The Soviets and the Germans had both engaged in scorched earth policies on retreat, and of course, the allies bombed many of the major cities, like Dresden, into oblivion.
Refugees remained in camps until 1956, more than a decade after the end of the war in Europe.
If you know any survivors, you can ask them, but most of them did not want to discuss what they had seen, and what they had been through. The Jews did not know how to deal with what had happened to them, and their families. It was like waking up from a 15 year nightmare, except that your loved ones were dead.
In addition, the British were actively trying to prevent migration to the Mandate of Palestine, and then to the new nation of Israel.
Those that did make it, quickly became involved in trying to forge the new nation and defend it. Israel was attacked immediately upon the declaration of the state, and then again in 1956 by Egypt.
Just as importantly, unlike today's world of 24 hour news cycle, videophones, etc, there was no way to learn of what happened in Europe at the death camps unless one of the liberating soldiers wanted to discuss it. And since the Americans had not liberated the worst camps, there was only so much they could discuss, although again, most had no interest in talking about what they saw. Without video cameras, cable news, or even nightly news on the 3 networks (news reports back then were only 15 minutes long and mostly local) there was just no way to find out.
And in fact, the worst camps, Auschwitz and it's sub camps, and all the camps in Poland, Czechoslavakia and other points east, were liberated by the Soviets, who had engaged in their own holocaust in the Ukraine, so they had no interest in advertising what happened.
The only way to see what had happened were from the films that were played during the Nuremberg trials. Even the trials though, did not anticipate the prosecution focusing on the Holocaust. The principle charge was waging aggressive war, and that was the chief line of questioning. However, when the films were played near the end of the trial, the news observers were left crying, or worse.
The newsreels were not shown in the United States and only small amounts of information about what had happened got out.
Dwight Eisenhower did declare martial law, and ordered all German townspeople to tour the camps in their regions and to bury the remaining skeletal corpses, but once that immediate action was over, the German people became enmeshed in what would eventually be termed the "economic miracle" of the government of post war Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.
Most importantly about Adenauer was that his national security adviser, Hans Globke, had worked with Eichmann in the Department of Jewish Affairs, and in fact, had been one of the architects of Hitler's Nuremberg Laws.
The Americans, who, through the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and the new Cold War with the Soviets, were trying to capture as much of the European sentiment as they could.
Both Adenauer's government, and the various allied governments had no interest in advertising the help they were receiving from the former Nazis (how 'former' is something historians still debate).
As a result of all of these things, by the time Eichmann was captured in Buenos Aries, Argentina on May 11, 1960 by agents of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, led by their director Isser Harel, the world knew little of the horrors that had been witnessed, or had forgotten already.
Harel wrote a wonderful book about this covert operation entitled "The House on Garibaldi Street". It is in fact, a model for many espionage novels, which can't help fail to live up to the real live suspense of the true story of the tracking, capture and removal of Eichmann from Argentina to Israel to stand trial.
The trial was stunning for the world. News agencies from virtually every country covered it, and the New Yorker magazine famously sent Political Philosopher Hanna Arendt to cover it. (Arendt's "Totalitarianism" is one of the most important books of the 20th century.) It was her reporting that led her to coin her now ubiquitous phrase "The Banality of Evil" when she first saw Eichmann, a small bespectacled man sitting in his bulletproof glass case.
Sadly though, Arendt spent precious little time at the trial, and missed ALL of Eichmann's own testimony so her report was not at all accurate.
What came out in the trial was exactly how bloodthirsty Eichmann had been. Far from "just following orders" Eichmann had relished his task and had expressed regret that he hadn't done more.
Back on point. So, at the time of Eichmann's capture and trial most of the world did not know the details of what had happened.
Even more surprisingly, most Israeli's didn't know, or didn't discuss it.
So, the chief prosecutor Gideon Hausner had decided that it was critical that survivors testify. Not just about seeing Eichmann at the camps, but about what had happened.
This testimony again stunned the world. The outlining of the Wansee conference, the meeting in which Reinhold Heidrich had actually assigned Eichmann to oversee the slaughter of the entire Jewish population of the Reich (in their view, the world) which had been unknown until then - the actual meeting at which the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question in Europe" had been formulated, left no doubt that Eichmann had been the master architect of the most heinous crime the world had ever seen.
Still, after the trial, the Holocaust was not what it is today. Remember, the trial was in Hebrew, and German, and still, in 1960 television was limited, even here in the US TV's were a luxury not an every household item.
The real breakthrough on the recognition of the Holocuast in the US was the TV miniseries which introduced the world to Meryl Streep, "The Holocaust" on ABC, in 1978.
For the next few days, I will be posting various articles about different aspects of the trial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
