tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25415883637321604512024-03-14T10:20:26.199+02:00Comments From the EdgeAnthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.comBlogger332125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-66656685413081691102020-04-14T11:00:00.000+03:002020-04-14T11:00:13.827+03:00Leading By Personal Example<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Benjamin_Netanyahu_2018.jpg/441px-Benjamin_Netanyahu_2018.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="599" data-original-width="441" height="200" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Benjamin_Netanyahu_2018.jpg/441px-Benjamin_Netanyahu_2018.jpg" width="146" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Attribution: United States Department of State</span> </i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The problems that we have had in holding Israel's leaders to personal accountability is not new. The notion that politicians are above the law and not subject to the same rules as everybody else is unfortunately one that pervades Israel's political system. This has reached the highest echelons in the hierarchy with a former president and a former prime minister having already served jail time for criminal offences committed. The current list of charges levelled against Prime Minister Netanyahu do not help in any way to restore our faith in politicians and their behaviour.<br />
<br />
Against this backdrop, little should surprise me in the way of politicians and leaders misbehaving. And yet, some things over the past few weeks have surprised me into giving this matter some further thought. My disgust has finally reached levels that have compelled me to air my thoughts in public.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Reuven_Rivlin%2C_Benyamin_Netanyahu_and_Yossi_Cohen%2C_presented_certificates_of_merit_to_twelve_outstanding_employees_of_the_institution_in_2016_(GPO106).JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="133" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Reuven_Rivlin%2C_Benyamin_Netanyahu_and_Yossi_Cohen%2C_presented_certificates_of_merit_to_twelve_outstanding_employees_of_the_institution_in_2016_(GPO106).JPG" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Attribution: <span class="licensetpl_attr">Kobi Gideon / <a class="extiw" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Press_Office_(Israel)" title="en:Government Press Office (Israel)">GPO Israel</a></span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
I was absolutely horrified at the inaction of the ultra-Orthodox leadership on the issue of the Coronavirus, both in Israel and around the world. While doctors, scientists and international leaders were pronouncing the necessity of social distancing as a way to avoid the spread of the virus and to save lives, the leaders of the ultra-Orthodox community were imploring their followers to continue life as usual. Their communities were advised to continue to attend wedding parties, <i>brit </i>celebrations, attend <i>shiurim</i> and study classes and to pray in a <i>minyan</i>, a quorum of at least ten men. This extended even to Israel's Minister of Health, Yaakov Litzman, himself a follower of the ultra-Orthodox Ger Hasidic dynasty. Soon after appearing live on the news laying down legal restrictions on the number of people allowed to gather in any place, he was attending wedding functions that hosted many more than the permitted maximum that he had earlier been responsible for imposing upon the nation.<br />
<br />
By the same token, Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, one of the senior leaders of the Israeli Haredi community, refused to consider the pleas of the civilian authorities for social distancing. Instead, he instructed his followers to continue to pray in a <i>minyan</i>. A number of weeks after the social distancing rules had been implemented in Israel, he was finally convinced to instruct his followers not to pray in a <i>minyan</i>. In spite of this, he was seen praying in a <i>minyan</i> himself at his home in Bnei Brak not long after that. These life-threatening actions not only violated laws of the land that he lives in, they also directly contradicted his own instructions. Perhaps, more tellingly, the act of endangering humans and taking action that could threaten human life goes against the highest-ranking principle in the religion of preserving human life at any price.<br />
<br />
Prime Minster Netanyahu appeared on prime time TV on two separate occasions to prepare Israelis for the <i>Pesach </i>(Passover) holiday. He told the nation that the government had taken decisions that would not allow <i>Pesach </i>to be <i>Purim</i>. It was believed that <i>Purim</i> parties were attended by many carriers or sufferers of the Coronavirus, perhaps unknowingly, and were a source of many secondary infections.<i> </i>The <i>Pesach Seder</i> is usually a time when friends and family gather together to celebrate the start of the holiday. But not this year, said the prime minister. "A small <i>Seder</i> is a healthy <i>Seder</i>", were his words on TV to convince people that they would be allowed only to celebrate the <i>Seder</i> at their registered place of residence and in the attendance of their nuclear family. A full lock-down and curfew was imposed on the whole country to prevent anybody from venturing more than 100 metres from their residence on <i>Seder </i>night. Police were deployed across the country to enforce the lock-down in the most determined manner possible. Apparently, that applied to everybody except for members of the families of the prime minister himself and the president of Israel, who both hosted family members who were not part of their immediate household for <i>Seder </i>night. Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman was also apparently exempt from the restrictions after it was alleged that he hosted members of his family at his <i>Seder</i> who do not live in his household.<br /><i></i><br />
<br />
Health Minister Yaakov Litzman was forced to pay the price for his indiscretion having contracted the Coronavirus and passed it onto his wife. He also succeeded in sending many members of the Ministry of Health into self-isolation to prevent them from the possibility of passing his virus onto other unsuspecting and innocent people. Just at a time when the Ministry of Health needs all of its team at their healthiest, most available and strongest to fight the greatest health crisis in living memory. And, while we wish the Netanyahu, Rivlin and Lieberman families good health in spite of their indiscretions, their actions are clearly unforgivable under the circumstances that we find ourselves. Gushing apologies and excuses were naturally forthcoming, but this falls well short of the behaviour that we expect from our leaders. We particularly expect more from those who stand in front of the TV cameras advising what people will be forced to do, at risk of fines or even prison sentences, then go about doing exactly the opposite themselves. Leaders in earlier times were forced to resign and vacate their office for infringements far less serious than these. I do miss the days of leaders who are held accountable and responsible for their words and actions.<br />
<br />
This sorry episode demonstrates a two-tier system that spells future disaster for any country. If the leaders are unable to adhere to the rules, how can they expect other citizens to do so? The simple answer is that they cannot. The leaders set the tone for how others will behave. Actions speak louder than words, and it is impossible to expect that ordinary citizens will not follow suit in their actions too. This ultimately creates an environment where the unacceptable will become acceptable by virtue of common infringement of the laws. Time has come for a return to leaders who not only set the rules, but adhere to them as well. If not, our society will unavoidably fall into decline.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-15294225858325835662020-04-08T11:00:00.000+03:002020-04-08T11:00:06.991+03:00 A New Modern-Day Plague<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images1.calcalist.co.il/PicServer3/2020/02/08/968318/YE2658678_l.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="590" height="173" src="https://images1.calcalist.co.il/PicServer3/2020/02/08/968318/YE2658678_l.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Image from calcalist.co.il</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
We are entering the <i>Pesach</i> (Passover) holiday in the midst of the greatest health challenge that the world has had to confront in living memory. The Coronavirus epidemic has changed the world that we know in so many different ways. It is almost difficult to see how things can ever go back to the way that they were a few months ago.<br />
<br />
In Israel, in spite of having gone into lock-down at a relatively early stage of the outbreak of the virus, we are now having to deal with an infection rate in some ultra-Orthodox areas which is threatening to infect as many as one third of the citizens living there. The government has already placed the city of Bnei Brak into a quasi-military rule in attempt to stem the further spread of the infection, and other neighbourhoods and towns are set to follow suit. Much has been written about how it has transpired that the ultra-Orthodox neighbourhoods in Israel, and indeed in other parts of the world, have become disproportionately infected by the Coronavirus. Most of the theories range from the fact that this element of the population is disconnected from much of what surrounds them, including news media and online information. These theories also discuss the fact that instructions are only respected when they come from the community's Rabbis, rather than from secular or governmental authorities. And the fact that the Rabbis are generally reluctant to quickly assimilate the assessment of the civilian authorities, when they prefer to allow their religious-based responses to take effect. In this case, the Rabbis ruled to keep schools, <i>yeshivas</i> and places of learning open when the government ordered them closed. The Rabbis insisted upon praying in the presence of a <i>minyan </i>(a quorum of ten men) when the laws of social distancing implemented by the government prevented this. Additionally, functions to celebrate weddings and other family events were ruled to continue when the civilian authorities decided that these presented a risk to life and limb. One of the most recognised leaders of the ultra-Orthodox community in Israel, 92 year-old Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, was found to be praying with a <i>minyan</i> at his home as recently as last week in spite of having finally publicly ordered his followers not to do so.<br />
<br />
As a result of these actions and inactions, Israel heads into the <i>Pesach</i> holiday period with great uncertainty. It seems as though the huge number of people who were recently diagnosed as suffering from the Coronavirus from the ultra-Orthodox community have set us on an irreversable track to a medical catastrophe that will result in tens, possibly hundreds of deaths from the virus in the coming weeks. It is ironic that this is set to coincide with the first few weeks of the counting of the <i>Omer</i> (the 7 week period that links <i>Pesach </i>to <i>Shavuot</i>) during which it is traditional to observe rituals of mourning. The reason for the observation of these mourning rituals is because of the events that took place in the first century AD when 24,000 students of Rabbi Akiva died in a plague. It is believed that they stopped dying on <i>Lag B'Omer</i>, the 33rd day of the <i>Omer</i>. In a strange but very sad and unfortunate <span>déjà vu</span>s, we are on a path to relive this to some degree, although hopefully not nearly to the same extent. The reason that is commonly given and widely believed for the death of Rabbi Akiva's students is <i>lashon hara</i>, the speaking of negative things behind people's backs, whether true or not. <i>Lashon hara</i> is one of the reasons being used as a way to explain why the world is having to endure the effects of the Coronavirus.<br />
<br />
There can be little doubt that <i>lashon hara </i>is prevalent in all communities, is undesirable and is a problem in our society. It is a problem that has been in evidence over the centuries, and seems very difficult to control or reduce. It has been used to explain the occurrence of many disasters in Jewish history over the centuries, including the destruction of the Temples. To me, on this occasion, it seems too easy to use this as an excuse for the current pandemic that we are suffering, and to explain the deaths of those who are suffering from it. It is simply not acceptable to explain this as being because of <i>lashon hara</i>, and not to take a deep introspective view about the community's general lack of adherance to the orders of the civilian authorities. <br />
<br />
There can be little doubt that the leaders of the community chose not to take note of the deliberate and highly-justified restrictions that were quickly imposed on our society to retard the spread of the virus. They decided, in direct contradiction, to command their followers to continue to behave as before. Word went out to keep <i>shuls </i>operating when others in Israel were closed, to keep schools open when others in the country were closed, and to keep operating as usual without consideration of the instructions by which everybody else was living. This indicates that the leadership knew exactly what the civilian authorities were ordering, and they took their own independent decision to ignore these orders. The Israeli minister of health, himself a follower and Rabbi from an ultra-Orthodox sect, should have brought the government's message to the ultra-Orthodox leadership and ensured that they followed the instructions in the same way as all other citizens in the country were required to do. Instead, he stands accused of ignoring these instructions himself, and attending public events at a time when this was expressly forbidden by the government that he is a minister of. The fact that he is also now inflicted by the virus cannot necessarily be inferred from this, but it is certainly shameful that he did not take heed of his own government's instructions. More than that, the fact that he did not take it upon himself to bring this critical message to all leaders within the ultra-Orthodox community will surely hang as a black cloud over his head when the final death toll is tallied. This is equally true of all senior leaders within the ultra-Orthodox community, who simply chose to ignore and contradict the expert opinions that are unanimous in their views that staying home saves lives.<br />
<br />
When the dust settles on this set of tragic events and things revert back to some semblance of what we knew before, it is my sincere hope that lessons will be learned. It is difficult for me to believe that the ultra-Orthodox community will not be affected by what is happening in their neighbourhoods now, and the disastrous mistake in ignoring civilian warnings and instructions. The tension between them and the democratically-elected government in Israel has been one of the enduring stories of the State of Israel from its founding moments, and the current evens have the possibility of changing all of that. In spite of the tolerance that has been shown to the ultra-Orthodox community by successive Israeli governments, including exemption from military service, government funding in a significantly disproportionate manner, incorporation of ultra-Orthodox parties in government coalitions and many other leniencies and concessions shown over the years, the ultra-Orthodox community has incessantly battled against governments and civilian authorities. There are many within the ultra-Orthodox community who do not recognise the existence of the State of Israel and its government, while still being willing to accept social benefits from the state. The sight of members of the ultra-Orthodox community screaming insults at Israeli police and accusing them of being Nazis, while police were instructing them to maintain social distancing in order to protect their own lives, is part of this tense and unacceptable relationship. If the events surrounding the Coronavirus cannot change that, it seems that nothing will. It is my hope that one of the most important outcomes of the virus and its effects, is a change in the relationship between government and ultra-Orthodox. And a general change in the relationship between the ultra-Orthodox and other sectors of the population. There is enough space for all of us to live with mutual respect. Are my dreams unrealistic? I hope not.<br />
<br />
The leaders of the ultra-Orthodox community have been exposed and shown up during the course of this pandemic. Their refusal to take heed of the advice of scientists and civilian authorities has cost some of them their lives, and has cost the lives of many of their followers. It raises a real question regarding the direction in which their leadership is taking their community. Their advice on many real-world issues must surely now be in doubt. I hope that the new generation of leaders that rise up following this episode will never forget the failures of their predecessors, and will find a way to do things differently going forward.<br />
<br />
Chag sameach.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-24562282627722788942019-08-13T10:00:00.000+03:002019-08-13T10:00:06.727+03:00Why Does Iran Wish to Destroy Israel?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://s.hdnux.com/photos/10/22/76/2174874/5/920x920.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="528" height="320" src="https://s.hdnux.com/photos/10/22/76/2174874/5/920x920.jpg" width="211" /></a></div>
Part of the paradigm of accepted international diplomacy as it is
presented today, is that Iran wishes to destroy the State of Israel and
her people. This is reinforced by the Iranian regime threatening to do
so at every opportunity. It has become a given fact, and everybody
knows and accepts this situation. It seems strange that there is no
significant attempt to question the right of a nation to threaten to
destroy another sovereign nation. But more than this, there appears to
be no attempt to understand what drives Iran to wish to destroy Israel.
The desire to conquer another nation, or the land belonging to another
nation, is relatively common and can be explained in a number of
understandable ways. The wish to destroy a nation is entirely
different, and I cannot recall another case in history where a country
has been singled out for destruction in the way that Israel has been in
recent times. The fact that the world seems to allow this, and the fact
that there would appear to be no logical reason for it, troubles me a
great deal.<br />
<br />
It is said that, in order to present the
most effective defence against enemies, it is important to understand
your enemies, their thoughts and what drives and motivates them. With
that in mind, I have been wondering why it is that Iran wishes to
destroy Israel. Given how common it is to hear Iran's threats of
destruction, I expected to find much written and said about this in the
literature and the press. It turns out that it is exactly the opposite,
and that there is very little written on the subject. And I could find
no convincing argument that explains why the Iranian regime has the
obsession to destroy Israel So, I have tried to formulate my own views
and theories that I am sharing here now.<br />
<br />
Many believe
that Iran's hatred for Israel forms part of the Arab-Israeli conflict
that has typified relations between Israel and the Arab world since the
State of Israel was declared in 1948. Nothing could be further from the
truth. In spite of Iran being a Muslim country in common with the rest
of the Arab world, it is certainly not an Arab country. As opposed to
the Arab world that immediately launched a war when Israel declared
independence, Iran recognised the State of Israel immediately in 1948,
and was the second Muslim country after Turkey to do so. Iran and
Israel maintained close diplomatic ties until the revolution in Iran and
the fall of the Shah in 1979.<br />
<br />
Diplomatic relations
were immediately broken off by the Islamist regime of Ayatollah Khomeini
after the revolution, and Israel was labelled as the "Little Satan"
following in the footsteps of the "Great Satan" which was the USA. This
seems to be the point at which the hatred for Israel really began.
Ironically, and in spite of the hateful rhetoric that emanated from the
regime at that time, behind the scenes there was a great deal of close
cooperation between Iran and Israel. Much of this was driven by the 8
year-long war between Iran and Iraq. Iraq was a common enemy of both
Israel and Iran, and this created unlikely ties and reasons to
cooperate. Israel sold Iran vast quantities of arms and ammunition, in
return for which Israel received Iranian oil. It is believed that the
Iranian air force continued to operate, after it was initially attacked
by Iraq, only because of the assistance received from Israel. Iran was
also delighted when Israel audaciously succeeded in destroying Iraq's
nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981 after the Iranians failed in their
attempt to do the same. The weekly insults and denunciations of Israel
at Friday prayers by the Iranian leadership served conveniently to
conceal the fact that there were no fewer than 100 carefully hidden
Israeli advisers and technicians in Iran throughout the period of the
war.<br />
<br />
Since that time, Iran's leaders have continued to
criticise, insult and threaten Israel at every opportunity. And nobody
has questioned for a moment why this is the case, and what justifies
this vilification and extreme sentiment. It has become a situation that
simply forms part of the diplomatic landscape. Can it be explained by
Iran's hatred towards the USA, and the fact that the Israel is seen to
be very close to the US? It is difficult for me to accept that this
explains all the public threats and the acts of terror that have been
undertaken (and continue to be undertaken) against Israel. Israel is
not the USA's only close ally. Why have other allies not been
threatened for destruction in the halls of the United Nations in the way
that Israel has been forced to endure? And, while sentiment towards
the US has wavered with different Iranian regimes (while always
maintaining its negative bias), the hatred towards Israel seems
unwavering no matter which Iranian president has been in power. The
threats against Israel have been the one pillar of consistency in
Iranian foreign policy. So I find it difficult to believe that this is
purely driven by Israel's relationship and friendship with the USA.<br />
<br />
The
only explanation that I can offer to this extreme situation is the
resurfacing of plain, old-fashioned anti-Semitism. I use the term
"resurfacing" because the Iranians/Persians do not have a long or
consistent history of anti-Semitism. The story of Purim that took place
in Persia is a good representation of the relations that Jews and
Iranians have enjoyed over the centuries. While the king of Persia
married a Jewess (Esther) and was prepared to take action to destroy
Haman and his evil band for their anti-Semitism expressed against
Mordechai, the fact was that anti-Semitism was clearly a common thing at
that time. In more recent times the Nazis declared Iranians immune to
the Nuremburg Laws as they were considered to be pure Aryans. In spite
of this, the Shah and the Iranian government did not support the
anti-Semitism of the Nazis. With the rise to power of the Islamic
extremists in Iran in 1979, we saw the rise to power of extreme
anti-Semitism at a regime level. Ironically, this anti-Semitism was not
directed at Jews living in Iran as much as it was directed at Israel.
When Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile in Paris to take up the
leadership role immediately after the revolution, he declared, "We
recognize our Jews as separate from those godless, bloodsucking
Zionists"<sup> </sup>and he issued a fatwa decreeing that the Jews in Iran were to be protected. This did not stop
Iranian Jews from leaving Iran in large numbers. The population of
Iranian Jewry shrunk from around100,000 at the time of the revolution to
around 50,000 in the mid-1980s, to around 25,000 in the mid-1990s.
Less than 10,000 Jews are left in Iran today. Because of the
"protection" afforded to Jews living in Iran, there are those who
believe that the hatred that we see coming from Iran is not
anti-Semitism, but anti-Zionism. The problem is that the basis for this
anti-Zionism is still unexplained.<br />
<br />
In spite of the
Iranians not being Arabs, they have enjoyed some ideals in common with
the Arabs since the revolution in Iran. The premise for the
Arab-Israeli conflict is pure anti-Semitism. The Arab world could not
accept the notion of Jews living in the Middle East on their doorstep,
and resolved to do all to destroy them and their state. The holy city
of Jerusalem has become embroiled in this war as a tool, rather than an
end. It is noticeable that no attempt was made to claim Jerusalem (and
its Muslim holy sites) by the Arabs in the period prior to the
establishment of Israel. When the Jews took control of Jerusalem, and
even in spite of granting control of the Muslim holy sites to the Waqf
Council under the chairmanship of the King of Jordan, the Arab world and
the Muslim world rose up to object. Was their objection in favour of
the Muslim holy sites, or was the objection against the presence of the
Jews? Everybody will reach their own conclusion. What is clear is that
Iran has firmly jumped on this anti-Semitic bandwagon.<br />
<br />
Iran's
brand of Shia Islam has been a huge source of conflict with the Sunni
Islam practised by most of the Arab world. In spite of this fundamental
source of disagreement, they have found a common cause to fight against
the Jews in Israel, to fight against the existence of the State of
Israel and to use the claim of the holy city of Jerusalem for Islam as a
means to their end. The city of Jerusalem seems to be almost the only
cause and rallying point that unites all different streams of Muslims
around the world. And, by extension, the fight against Israel, the Jews
and the current regime in Jerusalem is equally a common point of
agreement between them all. Although distinct cracks are starting to
show in this quest as individual Arab countries come to the realisation
that Israel is going nowhere, and understand that cooperation with
Israel may be a better option for them than fighting the futile battle
of trying to destroy her.<br />
<br />
The Iranians are, however,
unwavering and unashamed in their battle against Israel and her people.
They continue to sponsor Hamas and Hezbollah, amongst other terrorist
groups, that act as proxies for Iran to destroy Israel. Iran is also
responsible for numerous terror attacks orchestrated against Israeli and
Jewish targets outside of Israel. It's quest to build a nuclear weapon
that could potentially be used against Israel is clearly a cause that
any Israeli government will consider to be of highest priority. So
Iran has clearly not changed its mind, nor given up its desire to
destroy Israel in any way.<br />
<br />
My problem is that I am still not entirely clear why Iran wants to destroy Israel.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-34695947433908259562019-07-23T11:00:00.000+03:002019-07-23T11:00:16.713+03:00Netanyahu Breaks the Record<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2019/01/AP19003593283917-e1546597188505.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="800" height="200" src="https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2019/01/AP19003593283917-e1546597188505.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Over the weekend, Prime Minister Netanyahu officially became Israel's
longest-serving prime minister since the state was created in 1948.
And he could not have reached this historical milestone under stranger
circumstances.<br />
<br />
Netanyahu has achieved this notable
record while currently governing the country without a mandate. In
spite of having been democratically elected to continue to rule the
country in the elections in 2015, the most recent round of elections
earlier this year did not produce any winners who could secure a mandate
to rule. A such, Netanyahu has remained in office as a caretaker prime
minister until the next round of elections take place in September.
Without the support of the majority as required by our democracy. And
it is in this role as caretaker prime minister that he has overtaken
David Ben Gurion's previous record of having ruled over Israel for 13
years and 127 days, in spite of the heavy cloud that hangs over his
head. He also holds the record as the prime minister to have the
longest uninterrupted term as prime minister (10 years and 110 days and
counting).<br />
<br />
There can be no doubt or argument that
Netanyahu has devoted much of his life in the service of the State of
Israel. Nor can there be any doubt about some of his significant
achievements during this period. Credit needs to be given for this. As
can be anticipated with any leader and public official, he has had his
notable failures too. And, as much as he would like to achieve the
legacy of having been the protector of Israel during his term in office,
it seems that he is likely to be remembered for the scandal that
currently surrounds him, irrespective of how it ultimately turns out.
This is a real pity for the longest-serving prime minister in Israel's
history.<br />
<br />
Along with this record, come many unwelcome
and undesirable effects of the length of time that Netanyahu has been in
office. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." This quotation by
Lord Acton from 1887 seems as relevant now as it was then, and can
easily be applied to Netanyahu in recent years. He has behaved in a
manner that indicates his sense of invincibility, that has only been
strengthened by success that he has enjoyed at the polls. The people
gave him the power, but it seems as though this has been taken for
granted as a result of it lasting for too long. The feeling that he
will have enough public support to rule irrespective of how he behaves,
has led him to really test this out with behaviour by him and members of
his family that is way beyond what could reasonably be tolerated from
an elected leader. It is no coincidence that other democracies, such as
the USA, put a limit on how long the elected leader is allowed to be in
office for. I believe that such a limit is healthy and much-needed in
Israel.<br />
<br />
In addition to the promotion of unlawful
behaviour, the lack of limit on time in office promotes another
unwelcome consequence. This is the lack of incentive to groom new young
leaders to assume the senior positions. In Netanyahu's case, he has
done everything in his power to ensure that there are no pretenders to
the throne who could possibly cause a threat to his continued rule. He
has no interest at all to ensure that a new generation of leaders is
prepared to take over from him when he finally leaves office. There is a
huge chasm in his party and in the country at the moment between the
current prime minister and those who may take over from him. This is
surely undesirable and unhealthy.<br />
<br />
As a result of his
extended term in office and the anti feeling that this has generated
against Netanyahu, the upcoming election will ignore the main issues of
the day that face Israel. Instead of focusing on security, economy,
education or health care, the election will be all about how to keep
Netanyahu in office or, more likely, how to remove him. The country is
currently divided into three camps; those who support Netanyahu at any
price, those who would vote for Mickey Mouse if he was a candidate only
to remove Netanyahu, and those who feel forced to vote for Netanyahu
simply because there is no alternative credible candidate. This is
surely not what our democracy is about.<br />
<br />
Now that the
record has been achieved and past, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has
become Israel's longest- ruling prime minister, the time has come to
change the laws to prevent anybody else from surpassing this record.
Democracy is not only about holding elections, it is also about ensuring
that the best quality candidates are encouraged to come forward and
have an equal chance of being elected on merit. Our democracy is sorely
missing this right now.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-79939715210583107552019-04-13T22:00:00.000+03:002019-04-13T22:00:05.441+03:00Crash But Not Burn<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://images1-ynet-prod.azureedge.net//PicServer5/2019/03/24/9141177/91411765992999640360no.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="640" height="180" src="https://images1-ynet-prod.azureedge.net//PicServer5/2019/03/24/9141177/91411765992999640360no.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
It felt a little like déjà vu on Thursday night. My mind was transported back to February 2003 when the whole of Israel waited with baited breath as the Space Shuttle Columbia re-entered the earth's atmosphere with the very first ever Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon on board. Despite feeling immense pride at the amazing achievements made by a tiny country and its first astronaut, the day was not to end well. The space shuttle burned up during its re-entry to the atmosphere killing all on board in the process. Ilan Ramon's memory remains a folk legend in Israel. And so, too, there was disaster last night as Beresheet, Israel's first ever lunar craft, made its final approach to the Sea of Serenity. Unfortunately another failure along Israel's route to becoming a superstar country in the area of space travel and exploration. The quest to become only the world's fourth country to safely land a craft on the moon was not achieved yesterday by the Israeli lunar lander.<br />
<br />
In spite of another setback for Israel in the field of space exploration, there were so many positive things that came out of Beresheet's trip to the moon that it is really difficult to see it as a failure at all. Coming at the end of a week that also saw a general election that proved to be very divisive in many respects, it was heart-warming to see how the country and the Jewish world united in support of Beresheet. Willing it to safely land on the surface of the moon. Willing Israel to take up an important place as one of the handful of nations to achieve this. This unified support was in such contrast to the previous few days over the period of the election, and would have seemed impossible only two or three days earlier. This extended not only to those in Israel, but to Jews around the world. We could feel a real sense of support from Jews around the world during the time of this project, something that is not taken for granted at all.<br />
<br />
The fact that Israel became only the seventh nation on earth to send a spacecraft into orbit around the moon, is a huge achievement in itself. And this was the very first project not sponsored by a national government, making the achievement quite unique. This is a great response to those who use every opportunity to criticise Israel and to those who wish to destroy her. This is the way to answer those who accuse Israel of being an apartheid state, and to demonstrate to BDS and its supporters that there is tremendous depth to Israeli ingenuity and huge desire to develop, to build and to make a real difference in science, technology and other fields. This is the way to show that the Israel that is seen on BBC and CNN and that is castigated at the UNHRC, is not the real face of Israel. Beresheet is a much truer face and a fairer reflection of what Israel really stands for and what she is truly about. This shows Israel to be a nation that builds rather than destroying, and this stands in stark contrast to the lack of any positive achievements by many of Israel's enemies.<br />
<br />
The attention that this project has drawn to the field of space travel and space exploration in Israel is almost on the scale of the attention drawn to it by Ilan Ramon and his exploits. Surely, the interest of the next generation is almost assured in the process. In spite of the slip-up at the final hurdle, young Israelis have been excited by this story sufficiently to ensure that they will be seeking ways of succeeding where Beresheet failed. In the same way that we did not hear the last of Ilan Ramon when Columbia disintegrated and he went on to become a household name and a legend, I am sure that we have not heard the end of an Israeli lunar landing. It seems not to be coincidental that the name chosen for the spacecraft was Beresheet, the first word in the Torah with the meaning of "in the beginning". Just as the name signifies, this seems to be just the beginning of great things to come.<br />
<br />
Huge credit needs to go to the SpaceIL team, to sponsor and president Morris Kahn and to all those involved in the project. They gave Israel and Israelis a dream and something around which to unite and feel proud. And they gave thousands of Israeli children the little flame to ignite their interest and their desire and determination to ultimately succeed in the quest to have Israel successfully land on the moon. This is a huge achievement and a very positive island in a huge sea of negativity that often surrounds Israel.<br />
<br />
The Israeli flag and the Torah are on the moon. They landed there with a crash rather than in the elegant way that we would have preferred. But they are there to stay. They may have crashed, but they did not burn. A marker has been established, and this is certainly not the last that we will hear of Israeli ventures in space. It is just the beginning.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-32073351439838486162019-03-29T11:00:00.000+03:002019-03-29T11:00:07.317+03:00State Sponsored Anti-Semitism is Rife<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2019/03/Puppets-of-Jews-on-display-at-the-Aalst-Crnaval-in-Belgium-on-March-3-2019.-Courtesy-of-FJO.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="444" data-original-width="800" height="177" src="https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2019/03/Puppets-of-Jews-on-display-at-the-Aalst-Crnaval-in-Belgium-on-March-3-2019.-Courtesy-of-FJO.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Norwegian Attorney General Tor Aksel Busch last week decided that a comment cursing Jews, that was made by Norwegian Muslim rapper Kaveh Kholardi during a concert last year, is not anti-Semitic hate speech but rather legitimate criticism of Israel. Kholardi made the comment "f*cking
Jews" at a family-friendly concert in June 2018 to promote diversity.
It was not bad enough that Iranian-born Kholardi thought it was
acceptable to make this comment at his concert. This has been
exacerbated by the fact that two different public officials in Norway have ruled
that this comment does not constitute hate speech. State
Prosecutor Trude Antonsen found that,while derogatory and offensive,
the remark did not constitute a criminal act. This may well be the case
under the laws of Norway, in which case the laws need some adjustment.
But the fact that the attorney general decided that this constitutes
legitimate criticism of Israel, is perhaps more offensive than the
original comment.<br />
<br />
I
am enraged by this decision for a number of reasons. When a performing
artist stands up at a public concert and says "f*cking Jews", it seems
to me that his comment is clear and speaks for itself. The fact that he
may say afterwards that he was only joking does not unring the bell or
make his statement any more acceptable. Surely there can be no clearer
example of anti-Semitic speech than this statement. There is no
interpretation required, and there can be no accusation that the
statement was taken out of context. Such a statement is anti-Semitic no
matter what the context. It is offensive, unacceptable and illegal in
many countries around the world.<br />
<br />
Why would anybody believe that this statement
translates into criticism of Israel in any way? Aside from the fact
that Israel happens to be a Jewish state, and that many of the Jews
there would be extremely offended by the statement, there is no link
between this curse of Jews and criticism of Israel. In my view,
criticism of Israel may refer to particular policies of the government
or actions of those acting on behalf of the state. A blanket curse of
all Jews in this way has surely nothing to do with legitimate criticism
of Israel. If, for one fleeting moment, I was to accept the fact that
this curse was an act of criticism of Israel, could it in any way be
considered to be legitimate? I have my sincere doubts. Just because I
feel that the Norwegian attorney general has acted to embarrass his
country and insult me and my people, I would not be justified to say
"f*cking Norwegians" as a response. And I would not do so. Instead, I
would be happier and more justified to say "f*ck Tor Aksel Busch for
being an anti-Semite".<br />
<br />
The notion that anti-Semitism can be justified
and made politically correct by dressing it up as legitimate criticism
of Israel needs to be opposed as strongly as possible. It is becoming
more and more accepted that anti-Jewish rhetoric and actions are OK
because Israel is deserving of criticism. It is equally common-place
that anti-Semitism is expressed as criticism of Israel. This
legitmisation is reinforced when international bodies and
representatives of national governments confirm its acceptability. It
should be clear that this is not acceptable, and that Jews and Israel
will not tolerate it. The fact that Israel gets involved in the
protection of Jews and Jewish rights around the world, does not justify
anti-Semitism being disguised as legitimate criticism of Israel.<br />
<br />
Mr. Busch should be ashamed of his position and
his statement on this matter. He is clearly part of the problem, and
not part of the solution. It is shameful that people like him are left
to be the guardians and judges of what is hate speech and what is
acceptable. This act requires the Norwegian government to fire him from
his position without delay, and condemn him in the strongest possible
terms. The Norwegian government and Norwegian people should be
embarrassed of this decision, and they become complicit by not acting to
reverse it.<br />
<br />
As Jews, we have come to expect anti-Semitic
rhetoric from the general public, particularly those who come from
backgrounds that typically hold an entrenched and natural hate towards
Jews. In recent years, laws have been enacted to protect us from having
to tolerate hate speech, laws that also serve to protect other minority
groups. These laws become a joke if they are left under the auspices
of people like Tor Aksel Busch to interpret and implement. This
effectively reinforces anti-Semitism at an institutional and
governmental level. The last time that this happened was in the lead-up
to the annihilation of 6 million Jews as part of an anti-Semitic
genocide sponsored by states and governments, This will never be
allowed to happen again, in spite of haters like Tor Aksel Busch.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-20028505033001964072019-03-04T09:30:00.000+02:002019-03-04T09:30:06.073+02:00The Polish Dilemma<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30710119_1933338143344192_8924329071945449472_o.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_ht=scontent.xx&oh=5acc1d1c429733b60f22c1d56ff1fbe2&oe=5D1EB6F8" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="532" data-original-width="800" height="212" src="https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30710119_1933338143344192_8924329071945449472_o.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_ht=scontent.xx&oh=5acc1d1c429733b60f22c1d56ff1fbe2&oe=5D1EB6F8" width="320" /></a></div>
The recent diplomatic spat between Israel and Poland unfortunately
raises a long, ongoing issue about Holocaust denial, and the denial by
certain groups of their involvement n the perpetration of acts of
genocide against Jews during the Shoah. The Polish denial is already
not new. Israel finds it has something of a dilemma about how to respond to the
unacceptable Polish position. <br />
<br />
In early 2018, Poland
passed a law that criminalised any reference to Poland or Poles being
involved or complicit in crimes committed during the Shoah. In
particular, the law criminalised use of the term "Polish death camps".
In essence, the Poles have denied that crimes committed on Polish soil
during the Shoah were anything to do with Poland or Polish people.
Instead, the blame is being laid squarely at the door of the Nazis and
the Third Reich, which occupied Poland at that time. While the acts and influences by the Nazis is undeniable, there is also little doubt that Poles were complicit
in some terrible crimes that were perpetrated in the Shoah against
Jews. This is true both in the death camps and ghettos that were on
Polish soil, and in individual events that took place elsewhere. Former
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, whose father was killed during
the Shoah by Poles, adamantly claimed that "Poles suckle antisemitism
with their mothers' milk". This statement is considered to have
significantly delayed the establishment of diplomatic relations between
Israel and Poland, but also shows the strength of his hatred towards the antisemitism shown by Poles.<br />
<br />
The official Polish position on all
that took place during the Shoah in Poland is that it was either
perpetrated by the Nazis, or was perpetrated at the instigation of the
Nazis. This effectively absolves Poland and Polish people of any crimes
committed against Jews, as the Nazis are blamed even for the crimes
committed by Poles. Why does Israel care about what Poland says now
about acts that were committed more than 70 years ago? Why does Israel
feel that it has a dilemma about how to respond to Poland's position on
Shoah-era actions?<br />
<br />
Antisemitism is increasingly visible
and rife around the world. Much of it is dressed up as anti-Israel
activity in an attempt to make it politically acceptable to express in
public. But the age-old antisemitism that was so prevalent in the years
leading up to the Shoah and during the Shoah, is very visible again today. And it is being too
easily and broadly tolerated. Poland is not exempt from this
phenomenon, with highly visible signs of antisemitism evident all around
Poland. It is incumbent upon the Polish government to acknowledge and
accept the actions of Poles during the Shoah as a platform to oppose it
in the current day. If Israel was to simply smooth over the role of the
Poles during the Shoah, this would serve not only to insult the
memories of numerous Jews and non-Jews who were killed or abused at the
hands of Poles or where Poles were complicit or indifferent, but it
would also serve to dilute the fight against antisemitism in Poland in
the current day.<br />
<br />
In spite of this, we cannot forget
that there are more Poles who have been declared "Righteous Among the
Nations" by Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Centre, than any
other nation. This is a title bestowed upon those who helped Jews in
spite of the overwhelming social pressures that influenced them to be
antisemitic. There is no attempt to paint the Polish people as
universally antisemitic. It is important to recognise both right
and wrong. The real dilemma for Israel presents itself in the form of
the opposition to this by the Polish government that has an impact on
diplomatic relations between the two countries. Cordial diplomatic
relations with Poland have helped Israel to educate many of its younger
generation and young leadership by sending them to Poland to witness
first-hand the atrocities that were committed at the death camps on
Polish soil. This education process culminates each year in the annual
"March of the Living" during which Jews return to Auschwitz-Birkenau
with Israeli Air Force planes flying overhead to proclaim "never
again". If this is all that Israel manages to get out of its diplomatic
relations with Poland, it is a great deal. And probably enough to justify
maintaining diplomatic relations almost at any price.<br />
<br />
The
law in Poland has now been changed such that it is no longer a criminal
offence to implicate Poland in the Shoah, but now "only" a civil
offence. The denial has been diluted in its severity rather than being
cancelled, which is surely not enough. This denial is unwelcome, and is
supporting the resurgence of antisemitism in Poland, Europe and around
the world. The Polish government stands accused, once again, of being
complicit to antisemitism. And, while the Israeli government and
officials will continue to speak out on this matter, this opposition is
unlikely to be allowed to derail the diplomatic relations between the
two countries. With some justification.<br />
<br />
Under current circumstances, I would forego diplomatic relations with Poland to protest their denial. I would make a statement that requires Poland to recognise the role played by Poles in persecuting Jews, even if this comes at the expense of diplomatic relations with Poland. I support Prime Minister Netanyahu in his insistence on taking the difficult decision to talk about this during his recent trip to Poland. Anything less would be a statement condoning antisemitism. Even though more than 70 years have passed since the Shoah, Poland should be forced to acknowledge the role played by Polish forefathers in this black period in Poland's history. Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-43986199989985368342018-11-27T10:00:00.000+02:002018-11-27T10:00:06.242+02:00Putting the Cart Before the Horse<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://k6s3v6r4.ssl.hwcdn.net/pictures/707/707921.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://k6s3v6r4.ssl.hwcdn.net/pictures/707/707921.jpg" data-original-height="397" data-original-width="667" height="190" width="320" /></a></div>
There is a growing trend among Jews around the world, particularly within the younger generation, to feel some sort of lack of comfort and embarrassment about Israel's policy towards the Palestinians, and even towards Arab Israelis in general. Their feeling stems from a view that Israel is responsible for human rights violations against the Palestinians, and they have not been shy to air their protest. The recent "taking a knee" action by students at Herzliya School in Cape Town, South Africa, during the singing of Hatikva, is just the latest in a long line of incidents where Jewish youth have felt the need to to express the freedom of their choice to openly criticise Israel. Other incidents have included the Palestinian flag being flown at a Jewish youth camp and the wearing of a "keffiya" Palestinian scarf to make a public protest. Statistics show that Jewish youth in the US are feeling less connected with Israel than before, and that this disconnection is growing. I find this a sad and unfortunate phenomenon, and have tried to understand the causes of it.<br />
<br />
When the idea of the creation of the Jewish state was discussed and voted upon at the UN back in 1947, there was surprise in certain camps that the UN passed the resolution that effectively created Israel. While there was clearly political motivation in the votes of some countries and financial motivation that drove others, there was almost certainly a sympathy factor that came into consideration. In the wake of the Shoah that saw the annihilation of 6 million Jews, the Jewish people at that time were considered helpless victims. Victims always seem to garner sympathy, no matter how it is that they became victims. So the Jews were viewed as the victims, and the world did show some short-lived sympathy at that time. Moreover, the world Jewish community was highly supportive of the Jews living in Israel. Not only did Jews around the world give their unwavering support to Israel, Israel also allowed Jews around the world to feel a little more pride in being Jewish.<br />
<br />
Israel and the Jews living in Israel were determined to shake off their label as victims as soon as possible. The idea of being supported because of sympathy, rather being respected as equals, never sat comfortably with the Jewish culture. Instead of waiting for Arabs and anti-Semites to attack and then being forced to respond, there was a determination to build a nation of proud people who were not simply going to wait for the enemy to attack and risk further annihilation. Instead of a band of amateurs who relied upon the sympathy of others, Israel has built a professional army and built the country into one of the strongest and most respected. No more victims, no more sympathy votes. Now, a powerful army and a powerful country that could take on and beat the strongest. And with it, we have managed to escape the label of victims. We never wished to garner sympathy as victims. Instead, we wanted to plant fear in the hearts of those who dare to attack us. We have finally succeeded in this quest.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the world seems to view situations in binary terms where conflicts are concerned. Either you are the victim, or you are the perpetrator and the bully. So, as we managed to escape the label of downtrodden victim, we have increasingly been painted as the bully. This is in spite of the situation remaining essentially unchanged in that the same Arabs and anti-Semites are still trying to wipe us out only because we are Jews. The fact that there would be no battle or conflict if they were prepared to live side-by-side in peace instead of trying to wipe us out, seems not to diminish our newly-acquired status as the bully. And, even though our military activities are solely designed to protect us to allow our people live in peace, this seems not to help to present the situation in its truest light. The real bullies are now considered to be the victims, even though they are the ones trying to drive the Jews into the sea. And the real victims are now painted as bullies, even though their only wish is to live in peace and build a positive future for their children.<br />
<br />
In order to offer maximum protection to Israelis and to secure the future of the Jewish state, Israel has been forced to be proactive in preventing terrorist activities being perpetrated. Part of this involves sealing Gaza to prevent terror equipment from entering the area that presents a risk to the survival of Israel. At the time that Israel withdrew from Gaza, the intention was to allow Gazans to get along with building a positive future for themselves. Instead, Gaza has devoted its time to finding ways to destroy Israel. The Israeli government cannot simply stand by and watch this happen, hence the "blockade" that has been imposed on Gaza. Conveniently, the rhetoric has been twisted to reflect that Gaza justifiably launches attacks against Israel to protest against the blockade. Apparently, according to a view accepted in international circles, launching hundreds of missiles randomly into populated areas is entirely justified by the need to break free from the "blockade". The cart has truly been put before the horse.<br />
<br />
Just as the world at large views the situation in a binary way, so our fellow Jews around the world are influenced to do the same. Now, instead of Jews hanging their heads for fear of being singled out and attacked for being Jews, they choose to hang their heads in shame at Israel for being labelled as a bully and transgressor of human rights. And they insist upon showing their shame in public places in order to be allowed to exercise their right to object to Israel and her policies. The irony is that this shame is really imposed upon us by outsiders who view Israel as the transgressor, and has been absorbed by Jews who wish to fit in comfortably to their local environments, Moreover, this view appears to have been adopted by many Jewish educational institutions around the world that have been blinded into accepting the contrary twisted rhetoric about Israel's position in the conflict. <br />
<br />
I find it not only unfortunate that the story has been twisted to such a degree that the protagonists have switched roles, it hurts that diaspora Jews find it necessary to be so vocal and public in their criticism of Israel. While I do not expect that all Jews should blindly support Israel under any circumstances, I do hope that they will express their criticism in a manner that is constructive and useful. Just as in Israel where each person has more than one opinion on most subjects, I expect that diaspora Jews will also hold a variety of opinions of Israel, not all of them positive. This is entirely within the realms of what is acceptable. I don't accept, however, that "taking a knee" is constructive or useful. And I don't believe that flying a Palestinian flag is constructive or useful. Instead, it is important to promote the notion that Israel is fighting for its right to exist as a Jewish state, and to protect Jews around the world. Support for Israel's tactics to survive, wherever it may come from, is welcome.<br />
<br />
It may come as a great surprise to many to hear that most Israelis strongly support the idea of a creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. And that most Israelis are very sensitive to the issue of acting humanely and the issue of human rights. Most Israelis wish to see Palestinians living constructive lives with a great deal of hope for the future. There is, however, a condition attached to the support for the Palestinians. The condition is that the Palestinian state will promote peaceful co-existence with Israel, and allow Israel to survive as a Jewish state along the border of the Palestinian state. Unfortunately, this condition has yet to be acknowledged and agreed upon. In the absence of this acknowledgement, it is understood that the objective is to destroy Israel and the Jews. Until this is agreed, Israel will continue to protect herself and the Jews. Inevitably, the international community will conveniently use this to promote their criticism of Israel as a violator of human rights. We should not be sucked into their point of view that is entirely without justification.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
We cannot expect Israel's enemies and anti-Semites around the world to ensure that the rhetoric that they are promoting places the horse before the cart. Their agenda means that this does not serve their purpose. It would be welcome, however, if at least Jews around the world help to place the story in its correct order, without pandering to the views of those who wish to destroy us.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-62000743539442710692018-10-03T08:30:00.000+03:002018-10-03T08:30:06.374+03:00What is the Problem with the New Nationality Law?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://i.pinimg.com/236x/b4/93/4d/b4934d6c00ddd0d15b7763dfa2fdb161--israel-country-israel-flag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="213" data-original-width="236" src="https://i.pinimg.com/236x/b4/93/4d/b4934d6c00ddd0d15b7763dfa2fdb161--israel-country-israel-flag.jpg" /></a></div>
The new Jewish nation-state law (also known as the nationality law)
was passed by the Knesset into law before the summer break, and now
forms part of Israel's "Basic Laws". In the absence of a constitution,
the Basic Laws act in the place of a constitution and are the most
fundamental laws on Israel's statute book. The new nationality law has
caused a great deal of consternation amongst many Jewish Israelis as
well as amongst Jews living outside Israel, and continues to occupy the
pages of Israeli and international press in spite of the time that has
passed since it was enacted. There has also been a great deal of
opposition coming from the Druze community in Israel which is an
immensely loyal, law-abiding minority group living in Israel. This
Druze opposition has been used by Israel-haters to increase their verbal
attacks on Israel. The main charges against the nationality law are
that it is undemocratic, and that it discriminates against non-Jewish
citizens of Israel.<br />
<br />
The crux of the new law is that it
reaffirms a number of facts that are already in place and well known.
These include the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, that the united
city of Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and confirms the flag and
menorah emblem as being the symbols of the state.<br />
<br />
Before
examining the pros and cons of the nationality law, it is interesting
to consider why there was even the need to enact it. Some people
consider the combination of the Declaration of Independence as well as
the previous nationality law to have been enough to confirm the fact
that Israel is a Jewish state for the Jewish people, that Jerusalem is
the capital and to confirm the symbols of state. In spite of this,
there appear to be constant questions surrounding the right by the
Jewish people to determine their own destiny in the State of Israel.
The most public of these questions comes in the form of the denial by
the Palestinian Authority to acknowledge that Israeli is a Jewish state
as part of the peace talks that have been in hiatus for the past few
years. This denial is part of a concerted campaign against Israel, but
particularly against Jews. This is the new form of anti-Semitism that
is considered by many to be politically acceptable and correct, because
it is directed against Israel rather than Jews. The fact that the
attack is in the form of a denial of the right of Israel to be a Jewish
state seems somehow to be lost in the debate. The status of the city of
Jerusalem is also a very public battle in spite of it having served as
the capital of Israel since 1948, and in its current form as the
undivided city since 1967.<br />
<br />
History has supported
and recognised the right of Israel to be a Jewish state over many
years. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 spoke about the "establishment
in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". Of course, the
Palestine referred to in the letter by Lord Balfour comprises, in a
large part, modern-day Israel. The Mandate for Palestine passed by the
League of Nations in 1922 also spoke about the British government being
responsible ".... for establishing in Palestine a national home for the
Jewish people". UN General Assembly resolution 181 (II) passed in
November 1947 on the issue of the partition of Palestine spoke about an
"Arab State and a Jewish State" being established in then Palestine.
Israel's Declaration of Independence declared "the establishment of a
Jewish State in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel". In
spite of this, the Palestinians under Mahmoud Abbas still have the
audacity to refuse to acknowledge and recognise this. And members of
the international community signal their tacit support for this position
by trying to force Israel to return to the negotiating table despite
the unwillingness on the part of the Palestinians to give due
recognition. Surely, this is enough reason in itself to warrant Israel
restating and emphasising these facts as some that are fundamental to
Israel's existence and identity?<br />
<br />
This new law changes
nothing on the ground in Israel, and discriminates against nobody. It
seems quite normal for countries to have a strong religious basis for
the identity and symbols adopted by their countries. Around 20
countries around the world have crosses, crescents or other religious
symbols on their flags and emblems of state. Those countries are not
accused of discrimination because of that. We have not heard charges of
being undemocratic levelled against them because of their flags or
symbols of state. So why should Israel be singled out again? Because
it is the only Jewish state?<br />
<br />
The accusation that this
law is undemocratic is entirely without basis. The principles of
democracy require that each citizen has an equal right to express his
free will in a national poll for government. Once this has been
adequately achieved, the majority is entitled to exert its will on the
minority. Israel goes a step further by also granting certain minority
protection rights to ensure that the minorities are not entirely trodden
on. Even the new nationality law does not change the democracy of the
State of Israel, nor its status as the only democracy in the Middle
East. In fact, aside from making a stronger statement of the obvious
and what has been in situ for many years, the new nationality law
changes nothing at all. As Prime Minister Netanyahu pointed out in his
recent <a href="https://youtu.be/Gs2djuHOdik" target="_blank">address</a>
to the General Assembly of the United Nations, it is ironic that Israel
is being accused when other nations have much more serious
discriminatory actions to answer for.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the
strongest organ of Israel's democracy is its independent judiciary. It
seems almost certain that this body will be called in to adjudicate on
the new law, and whether it transgresses Israel's democratic and other
ideals. I watch eagerly for this matter to be brought before Israel's
Court of Appeal, and the outcome of this case. I am not optimistic that
the court's decision, whatever it may turn out to be, will necessarily
change anything about the way in which Israel is viewed in the
international community.<br />
<br />
Work is still required to
convince the Druze community (and other loyal minorities) that the new
law does not affect them in any way. I feel sure that, in time, they
will understand this for themselves and that no further explanations
will be necessary.<br />Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-49414673182071862362018-07-05T22:00:00.000+03:002018-07-05T22:00:12.982+03:00Football Fiasco<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.cufi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Messi-going-to-Israel-1280x640.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="800" height="160" src="https://www.cufi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Messi-going-to-Israel-1280x640.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
More than a few Israelis have been taking perverse pleasure in
witnessing the struggles of the Argentinean football team in the world cup tournament in Russia. Considering their all-star line-up, the
Argentinians were expected to make easy progress to the last 16 of the
tournament. And yet, it was not quite how things turned out, even if
they did finally achieve this objective. A draw against lowly Iceland,
and a resounding loss to Croatia did not help their cause along the
way. And the unceremonious dumping of the Argentinean team out of the
tournament by France in the round of 16 has led many in Israel to
consider this to be karma.<br />
<br />
The reason for the
pleasure taken by Israelis in Argentina's poor performances, is because
of the cancellation of the friendly warm-up match that was scheduled to
take place between the national teams of Israel and Argentina just prior
to the start of the world cup tournament. Even Israeli Defense
Minister Avigdor Liberman jumped on the bandwagon by tweeting to
congratulate Iceland on their efforts to restrict Argentina to a 1-1
draw. In this game, one of the world's most famous and decorated
players, Lionel Messi, missed a penalty attempt for Argentina that could have won the game for his team. Liberman
found it appropriate to link the unsatisfactory result for Argentina
with the cancellation of their game against Israel.<br />
<br />
While
Argentina's failures in this world cup tournament are difficult to
conceal, it is a little disingenuous to claim that their poor form can
be attributed to the cancellation of the warm-up game against Israel.
And it is even more disingenuous to blame the Argentineans for the
cancellation of this game. I believe that the blame for this can
be laid fimly at the feet of the Israeli government, led by Prime Minister
Netanyahu and Minister for Culture and Sport Miri Regev.<br />
<br />
The
tradition of Argentina playing pre-world cup warm-up games against
Israel goes back to 1986. In fact, after a warm-up game against Israel
before the world cup tournament in 1986, Argentina went on to win the
tournament. After a warm-up game against Israel in 1990, the
Argentinean team faltered only at the final hurdle when losing to
Germany in the final match of the tournament. So there are some who
consider this warm-up game to be something of a lucky omen for the
Argentineans. And apparently some who consider the cancellation of the
game this year to be a poison chalice for Argentina's fortunes. In
spite of all of the emotions surrounding the cancellation of the game, I
consider the Argentineans to be entirely blameless for the fact that
the game against Israel ultimately did not take place.<br />
<br />
The
game was set against the backdrop of great efforts on the part of the
Boycott, Divest, Sanctions movement (BDS) to bring discredit and damage
to Israel in a public way. It was clear that the BDS movement was going
to jump at this opportunity to put pressure on Argentina to cancel the
game in order to use the chance to show that there is public opposition
to Israel in every possible way. And BDS did not disappoint. What was
disappointing, however, was the response to this by the Israeli
government.<br />
<br />
The game was originally scheduled to be
played in Haifa, and was billed as a friendly warm-up game. In
precisely the same way that previous games have been played before.
Sensing an opportunity to make something more of it, Minister of Culture
and Sport Miri Regev succeeded in convincing the Argentineans to agree
to move the game to the Teddy Stadium in Jerusalem, and to bill it as a
game that formed part of Israel's celebration of 70 years of
independence. Not only was this contrary to the original spirit of the
game, it was a big mistake on the part of the Israeli government. It
was essentially, the first step towards the ultimate cancellation of the
game. I believe that the Argentinean Football Association would have
been able and willing to withstand the pressure put on it by BDS and
other anti-Israel protesters to allow this game to go ahead as planned
in its original format. Once the game was given a much higher profile
and billing and moved to Jerusalem to be part of Israel's 70th
anniversary of independence, the Israeli government was inviting
attention and ultimate disaster. In the process, it created a very
difficult and unwelcome situation for the Argentinean Football
Association.<br />
<br />
The record shows that so much pressure
was placed on the Argentinean Football Association and its players,
that they decided to call off the game. Players and their families were
threatened with death if they chose to go through with the game. I
condemn in the strongest terms the terrorists who think that it is OK to
make death threats against the families of football players who are
just doing their job in representing family, club and country. It is
clear that these terrorists will stop at nothing in their attempts to
bring about the destruction of Israel, even if it means threatening the
lives of innocent people. Of course, their efforts will not succeed.
My sympathy goes out to the Argentinean Football Association and players
who were willing to agree to the friendly game in the first place,
knowing full well that they would come under immense public pressure for
their decision. I am sure that I would have taken the same decision to cancel the game as
they took if I was in their shoes. Unfortunately, officials in the
Israeli government could not sufficiently recognise the effort that
friends of Israel are prepared to make by agreeing to play here, despite
the obvious negative reaction that they would have to endure. Instead
of lending a hand to support the Argentinean Football Association and
its players to feel justified in proceeding with the game, apparently
these same government officials felt that it would be appropriate to
place even more pressure on our Argentinean friends by moving the game
to Jerusalem, and giving it a profile that was never originally
intended.<br />
<br />
Israel has every right and even a
responsibility to assert its sovereignty, and to assert sovereignty over
Jerusalem as its capital. But Israel also has the responsibility to
pick its fights, and to choose the appropriate moments to assert this
sovereignty. Israel also has the responsibility to support friends who
are prepared to swim against the tide in supporting Israel when popular
opinion may not necessarily do so. These things should not be taken
for granted. The unfortunate reality is that the rules that apply to
other countries do not necessarily apply to Israel. As much as it an
unacceptable situation and one that we should all fight against with
every fibre of our being, it is nonetheless the reality and cannot be
ignored. It would be negligent for the Israeli government to behave in a
way that simply ignores this reality.<br />
<br />
The cancellation
of the football match was no victory for Israel, despite Miri Regev
feeling that she stood her ground and asserted Israel's sovereignty.
Besides denying Israel football fans the opportunity to watch talented
footballers like Messi and his teammates, it handed a public relations
victory to BDS. And it left the Argentinean Football Association
wondering whether it is worth considering playing against Israel in the
future given the unfortunate way in which the events unfolded. There
was a significant lack of support coming from the Israeli government for
them. Surely, the government has a responsibility to do what is
ultimately in Israel's best interests? Sometimes it is better to be
smart rather than to be right.<br />
<br />
The next test for
the Israeli government is going to be the 2019 Eurovision song
competition that is due to be hosted by Israel. There is already a
strong body of international opinion that says that this competition
should not be held in Israel next year. And BDS have moved into high
gear to support them. On the other side, Miri Regev is on record saying
that she would prefer the Eurovision not to be held in Israel rather
than not hold it in Jerusalem. She may be granted her wish, in the same
way as her wish for the football game was granted. Again, this will
not be chalked up as a success for Regev nor for Israel.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-67703981888610703972018-05-13T23:00:00.000+03:002018-05-13T23:00:08.756+03:00Reflecting on Israel at 70<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/t/israel-independence-day-th-anniversary-years-jewish-holiday-yom-ha-atzmaut-banner-flag-star-david-greeting-inscription-113954447.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="160" data-original-width="343" height="149" src="https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/t/israel-independence-day-th-anniversary-years-jewish-holiday-yom-ha-atzmaut-banner-flag-star-david-greeting-inscription-113954447.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
As the festivities of the celebration of the 70th anniversary of
Independence die away, there is the inevitable return to the reality of
everyday living. Each of us returns to our daily chores of working,
studying and taking care of our usual activities. The threatening
protesters are gathered once again on the Gaza border as before. Iran still continues to threaten to annihilate Israel. The
usual attacks, both verbal and physical are again being perpetrated.
All continues as it was, and little changes.<br />
<br />
And yet,
this is the beauty of the reality. Unlike a birthday when the special
day lasts only 24 hours until next year at the same time, the
celebration of 70 years of independence continues even after the
festivities are gone and forgotten. Because every day in Israel is a celebration of independence. The reality of the daily grind of life in an independent country is a part of the success. Not only that, but the 70 years
becomes 70 years and a day, and another day, building steadily each
moment with greater and greater independence and confidence.<br />
<br />
This
seems a good moment to reflect, not only on the past and the present,
but also upon where things are leading in the future. To consider that
70 years have not only brought massive growth, development and progress
in Israel, but have also allowed for the rebuilding of a nation. The
population has grown from a little more than 800 thousand to almost 9
million in a short 70 years. The country's infrastructure and economy
has grown along with the population to support it, and it has been able to
absorb and integrate the large numbers of Jews who have immigrated to
Israel over the years. This is a huge achievement, unrivalled in modern
times. In addition, these 70 years have brought Jewish growth and pride even outside of Israel. The Jewish people are experiencing one of the greatest periods in Jewish learning in history, something that could not have been dreamt of 70 years ago. All that Israel stands for and has achieved reaches every corner of the Jewish world, and the non-Jewish world.<br />
<br />
The miracle of the survival of Israel against the
odds, and against the will of the surrounding Arab countries and their
armies has been recounted numerous times and is well documented.
Somehow, it seems that the enormity of this miracle can never be
sufficiently emphasized. There is no logic to explain how it is that
the Israelis and Jews still have their state after so
many attempts to wipe it off the map. And this has not been only
survival, the 70 years have been enormously productive in terms of the
growth, development and ingenuity that have been brought to the state
and the wider world. So many technological advances have come out of
Israel that have also made a huge contribution to people around the
world. These have come in so many different fields, including
computing, telecommunications, medical, agriculture and many others. So
many Israeli inventions are incorporated into products that are used
around the world as a matter of course. Undoubtedly, one of Israel's
greatest inventions has been the Iron Dome anti-missile system. Not
only is this a great military development in its own right, it has
afforded Israel the protection that it needs to continue to build and innovate in safety.<br />
<br />
The routine in Israel has proved to be part of the joy and success. Whether it be the routine of another attack to take out weapons that threaten the safety of the state, or whether it be the routine of another Shabbat with the regular smells of chicken soup and the sight of white shirts. There is also the routine of competing on the world stage in the blue and white in sporting and cultural events, and in showing presence and contribution in the international community in general.<br />
<br />
The daily grind that we see in the Jewish state today would have been inconceivable to so many Jews who were sent to their deaths in the years that preceded the founding of the state. And while the obvious fact that all young Israelis will be called to serve in the military to defend the state is just part of the daily routine, it remains a source of wonder and pride to so many who experienced being a Jew in a world without a Jewish army. We think about so many who were not spared to see this routine, and who would have rejoiced in it.<br />
<br />
Anti-Semitism is again on the rise in the most dramatic fashion. It is well documented and accepted that Europe is now a hotbed of anti-Semitic activity. The number of anti-Semitic incidents in Europe continues to rise each year, and Jews living there are feeling more at risk than ever before in the last 70 years. The same is true of the USA where anti-Semitic sentiment is dramatically on the rise. Shining through all of this is the fight by the Jewish state in defence of Jews around the world.<br />
<br />
We feel comfort and security in the routine that Israel has developed. Events are great to celebrate, but the greatest celebration is the return to the status quo. The new status quo that has only become possible for Jews as a result of the founding of the Jewish state. And despite all the threats against Israel, against Israelis and against Jews, the routine of Israel incorporates the defence of Jews and Jewish values around the world. This gives much to celebrate.<br />
<br />
As we look forward to the next 70 years, it seems that it will be difficult to rival the achievements of the last 70 years. The development from almost zero seems astonishing due to the low starting point and lack of resources and support. And yet, the achievements are clear for all to see. This provides a huge incentive to achieve similar greatness in the years to come, this time starting from a much higher level. The routine in Israel is encouraging this, and providing the platform to continue these phenomenal achievements.<br />
<br />
Am Yisrael Chai.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-30175598899172095342018-04-12T11:00:00.000+03:002018-04-12T11:00:29.176+03:00The "March of Return" Protests<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.jpost.com/image/upload/f_auto,fl_lossy/t_Article2016_ControlFaceDetect/418646" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://images.jpost.com/image/upload/f_auto,fl_lossy/t_Article2016_ControlFaceDetect/418646" data-original-height="559" data-original-width="800" height="223" width="320" /></a></div>
The world's attention and news media have been trained recently on the Gaza border over the past few weeks, where thousands of people have gathered and tyres were burnt emitting poisonous smoke and fumes. We are told that this is a peaceful demonstration against Israel to protest the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes and land in Israel. The protest has been named the "March of Return" protest.<br />
<br />
A closer inspection of the situation reveals that the truth does not resemble anything like what Hamas and the Palestinian side choose to present to viewers and listeners. It reveals that the Palestinian rhetoric continues to mislead in order to give the Palestinian side public justification to pursue its sinister objective of destroying Israel, and killing of Jews in full sight of the international community.<br />
<br />
In the period prior to 2005 when Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza, the accusation against Israel fueled by the Palestinians was that Israel was an "illegal occupier" of Gaza. To an innocent bystander in the international community, it seemed as though all conflicts surrounding Gaza could be healed by a simple act on Israel's part to withdraw from Gaza and hand it over to Palestinian control. That actually happened in 2005 when the Israeli government decided to unilaterally withdraw civilians and military forces from Gaza, and hand the strip over to the control of the Palestinian Authority. Not long after that, control of Gaza was snatched by Hamas in a coup d'état. Instead of using the opportunity and the huge sums of money given to them to build a nation state in Gaza for the benefit of their people, Hamas has used the land and the resources made available to them for the purpose of creating further conflict. It has invested in weapons, arms, missiles, tunnel construction and terror training, all with the intention of destroying Israel. If it was not apparent to all at the time of the Gaza withdrawal, it should be apparent now that Hamas's objective has nothing to do with building a state for its people. Instead, it has everything to do with destroying Israel and the Jews. Gaza was a step in this direction, but this was merely a means to an end rather than an end in itself.<br />
<br />
The Palestinians have been extremely successful in duping the world to believe two key lies in the story that they tell to the international community. The first is that Israel is the main transgressor in the conflict. According to their accusations, Israel is the occupier, Israel violates human rights and Israel does all that it can to discriminate against the Arabs who have the just right to any land that is currently part of the Jewish state. To focus the attention on Israel as the transgressor, they have succeeded in playing on the world's sensitivity to the preservation of human rights, and to the plight of the underdog. The Palestinians have been careful to ensure that their militia are dressed as civilians to present the highly misleading picture of the might of Israel's army confronting innocent and unarmed civilians. The second lie is that all they want is to live in peace in their own homeland, and this is being denied them by Israel. The international community infers from this that peace would suddenly break out in the Middle East (and maybe even the wider world) if Israel simply allowed the Palestinians the freedom to live peacefully in their own homeland. These lies afford them the opportunity to take little steps towards their ultimate objective of destroying Israel and the Jews.<br />
<br />
In the same way as the statement that all that they want is a land of their own to live in peace is simply a ploy to weaken Israel, so too is the demand of the right of return of the refugees a ploy to try to weaken Israel. The so-called refugee argument has been constantly raised over the past 70 years as an attempt to displace and weaken the Jewish hold on Israel. Those Arabs who left Israel as refugees in 1948 were ordered to do so by their own leadership. In fact, those who did not heed the calls of their leaders and chose to stay, still have their land and properties and are citizens of the State of Israel. They came under no direct threat and were allowed to remain where they were without any reprisals. It almost appears as though the status of refugee cannot be applied to those who ran of their own volition, or under orders from their leaders. And yet, these people and their descendants have been held in inhumane conditions without any nationality for generations in the hope that they can be used as a tool against Israel. It has drawn the attention of the international community, and played very successfully on their sensitivity to protect the weakest members of our society. These members of society have, however, been weakened by their own leaders. And nothing has been done over more than four generations to help them. Let us compare this to the Jewish refugees who ran from Europe or Middle Eastern countries for fear of being persecuted and murdered. They have been absorbed into Israel. There is no United Nations agency devoted to taking care of their daily needs. There are no demands for them to return to their homes, or to have their land returned. Once again, the world has been successfully duped by a ploy that is designed to assist the Palestinians in their desire to destroy Israel.<br />
<br />
The current events on Gaza's border are just another chapter in this saga. Thousands of civilians have gathered on the border to threaten Israel, and to provide cover for armed operatives trying to break through the border fence, and trying to harm Israeli soldiers and collect intelligence for future operations. Of course, their cause is substantially assisted if they can show the world that innocent civilians undertaking legitimate protest were killed by the might of the Israeli military machine. To this end, Hamas has no qualms in cynically using children by sending them into the war zone in the hope that Israeli soldiers may fire upon them to help their claims against Israel even further. The act of burning tyres to create a smokescreen that prevents IDF soldiers from having a clear vision of the actions of these militia is surely an obvious ploy?<br />
<br />
If this was about a homeland for the Palestinians, the matter would have been amicably resolved many years ago. What it is really about is a homeland for the Palestinians wherever the Jews happen to have theirs. This will never be resolved. Irrespective of the threats, and the lies and the unnecessary murder of people, theirs and ours, Israel will not be frightened into submission. On the contrary, these threats simply strengthen the resolve of Israelis who are determined to protect and fight for each inch of their homeland.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-46291881321182367772018-03-07T09:00:00.000+02:002018-03-07T09:00:50.783+02:00Corruption and Israeli Democracy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180213180217-benjamin-and-sara-netanyahu-exlarge-169.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="438" data-original-width="780" height="179" src="https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180213180217-benjamin-and-sara-netanyahu-exlarge-169.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Accusations of corruption and behaviour unbefitting of a person acting in a position of trust as a minister or prime minister of the country have been circulating around Prime Minister Netanyahu for some time. The stories and accusations are not new. Things did, however, take a different turn over the past couple of weeks. The recommendation by the police to the attorney-general that the prime minister should be indicted on charges of corruption, bribery and breach of trust in two of the cases has put a different complexity on this sorry case. This, added to a new story and set of accusations coming out of the woodwork with a former close associate of the prime minister turning state witness, has served to tighten the squeeze on Netanyahu and those around him. The accusations made by the new state witness, Shlomo Filber, sound almost inconceivable. If only a small proportion of the accusations are proven to be true, it would make place Netanyahu in an untenable position regarding his ability to continue to serve as prime minister.<br />
<br />
For now, however, that is all that they are. Accusations. The stories sound like they could come from a far-flung land where there is no consideration for rule of law or fiduciary responsibility towards those who elected the prime minister into office. Many of them are corroborated by people who are seemingly unrelated to each other, and are reported to have been repeated in different situations involving different people and issues. In the way that they have been presented, the stories sound almost like they could be true. Any objective person with a high level ability to assess fact from fiction could easily be convinced that the accusations are all based on truth. And yet, we still do not know. We do not know because the stories have yet to be verified by an objective court of law that was set up for the purpose of evaluating the credibility and truth of such accusations. All we know is that certain people, not an insignificant number of people, have the incentive to publicly tell stories of bribery, corruption and betrayal about the prime minister and his associates, while others have the incentive to defend them. That is as much as we know. Nothing more. So how can it be that a democracy allows public officials to be charged, vilified and castigated in public like this, when no formal charges have been laid, and when there is no attempt to bring them before a duly constituted court of law?<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong. I have listened to and read about the accusations of bad behaviour on the part of the prime minister, his wife, members of his family and others in his close circle. It seems inconceivable to me that such stories could be made up by people, purely for the intention of weakening or unseating the prime minister. It seems unbelievable that seemingly similar patterns of behaviour could be concocted by so many different people from different spheres of life and with different interests. It seems to me that, where there is smoke, there is fire. And I am a great believer in elected officials being held accountable for all their actions, good and bad. I am also a great believer in the basic democratic tenet that everybody is innocent until proven guilty by a duly established court of law to examine the particular issues. If the accusations are so convincing, and if the police have recommended on the basis of evidence in their possession that there is a case to answer, why is the case not being answered?<br />
<br />
I am not sure of the answer to this question, but I remain convinced of a few other important aspects of our democracy. I believe that the trial by public opinion is wrong, and wholly undemocratic. It is my view that all the investigations that are being conducted into the prime minister's behaviour, should have taken place behind closed doors. Until the moment that the attorney-general is ready to formally lay legal charges to be answered in a court of law, I think that the details of all that we have been bombarded with, should have been kept away from the public eye. Instead, we have experienced a trial by public kangaroo court, and directed by the press. All of the protagonists in this sordid affair, including those who have been accused, the accusers, those involved around the edges, the press and the general public seem to have some axe to grind on the issue of the prime minister and his family. It is difficult to work out who we should believe, as more and more unbelievable stories surface daily. The country seems to be split almost down the middle between those who support the prime minister and wish to see him stay in office, as opposed to those who wish to see him unseated, jailed and consigned to political purgatory.<br />
<br />
In addition to holding our public officials up to the light and expecting them to be fully accountable to the voting public for their actions in office, our democracy should also protect them against unreasonable and frivolous claims that could damage them and our democracy. Prime Minister Netanyahu has effectively been rendered incapable of carrying out his highly important prime ministerial duties, as he is spending most of his time these days bring questioned, defending his character against the accusations, and trying to influence the public about the nature of these accusations. Who is running our country and keeping it secure while he is worrying about the next story that accuses him of inappropriate behaviour? If the attorney-general considers the police investigation to have produced a case for the prime minister to answer in court, Netanyahu should resign his position and answer the accusations against him. If it turns out that the court does not find the accusations against him worthy of a guilty verdict, he should be able to return to the prime minister's office to resume his duties.<br />
<br />
Israeli democracy should not tolerate corruption of public officials under any circumstances. It should also protect them while in office against any attempts to disturb their ability to carry out their jobs. The democratic process should determine that, at a certain point, elected officials should be relieved of their duties to allow them to answer properly-constituted charges that have sufficient basis to believe that they have a reasonable possibility of being upheld by a court. Until that moment, they should be allowed to get on with their job.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, democracy goes both ways. At the moment, we are suffering the worst of all situations that a democracy gives us. The people of Israel deserve more, and it has come time to examine our system to ensure that democracy for us protects both the state and the individuals, rather than the unsavoury and undesirable position that our country current finds itself in.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-76237213343657602872018-03-03T19:00:00.000+02:002018-03-03T19:00:50.881+02:00Whose Battle is This?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/benjamin-netanyahu-munich-iran-drone-prop-speech-security.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=1600" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="494" data-original-width="800" height="197" src="https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/benjamin-netanyahu-munich-iran-drone-prop-speech-security.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=1600" width="320" /></a></div>
The recent interception of a unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that was launched into Israeli air space from Syria, and the events that followed this interception have brought into the open some serious questions about the threat against Israel along the northern border with Syria and Lebanon. In particular, it has focused on the number of different players who are involved in the Syrian playing field, and the serious nature of the risk that Israel is forced to defend against from a variety of different sources.<br />
<br />
The entry of the UAV into Israeli airspace had been anticipated for some time. Israeli intelligence had identified the intention to send this from Syria, and it had a welcoming committee by the time it crossed the border into Israel. Interestingly, it had taken a route from the Tiyas airbase (also known as T-4 airbase) in Syria where it was launched, through Jordanian air space and finally entering Israeli air space not far from Beit Shean in the upper Galilee. The UAV was shot down after spending a little more than 90 seconds in Israeli air space, and this allowed for closer inspection of the vehicle. It turns out that the UAV was a fairly substantial and serious piece of equipment. Some have described the UAV as a drone, although I prefer the term UAV. Somehow, the word drone implies something small and toy-like. This is clearly not the case here. The UAV has been identified as a Saeqeh or Thunderbolt from Iran. This is a stealth model UAV modelled on the American RQ-170 Sentinel spy UAV, one of which was shot down and captured in Iran in 2011. The launch of the UAV into Israeli air space was something that was clearly planned for some time before, and the type of vehicle that was used is highly sophisticated and shows serious intent on the part of those operating it.<br />
<br />
After intercepting the UAV, Israel immediately carried out its stated policy of retaliating against each violation of her sovereignty and security. Israeli Air Force F-16 fighters were deployed to launch attacks against 12 Syrian and Iranian targets in Syria. These included aerial defense batteries, targets at the T-4 air base from which the UAV was launched, and positions of the Iranian military establishment in Syria. The Israeli fighter jets were fired upon by Syrian forces. The anti-aircraft fire that was directed against the Israeli aircraft was from a number of Russian air defense systems, including the SA-5, SA-17, SA-6 and SA-3 systems. It was a Russian missile fired by the Syrian army that latched onto one of the Israeli F-16 jets, and exploded next to it causing irrecoverable damage to the aircraft. The pilots ejected to safety, but not before sustaining injuries in the blast. The F-16 crash landed in Israeli territory.<br />
<br />
Despite the situation remaining tense but calm since this series of events, it has highlighted the complexity of the security situation that Israel faces, and the number of different players that are involved in the conflict. The UAV that was initially launched into Israeli air space by the Syrian army was an Iranian-built vehicle employing American technology. Israel finds itself fighting against American know-how, Iranian production and financing and Russian weaponry launched by Syrian government forces. More than this, Iran is now represented in the area near to the border in southern Syria, and Israel is being drawn into a direct conflict with Iranian forces. This is something that is a relatively new development, as Israel's battles against Iran until now have all been via Iranian proxies in the form of Hezbollah, Hamas and others.<br />
<br />
The relationships and conflicts with Syria, Iran and its proxies are clear. These entities call for the destruction of Israel, and do all that they can to bring this about. Israel will defend herself against them, and will use every effort to harm the interests and positions that these entities possess, no matter where they are situated in the world. The threats against Israel from these sources are numerous and constant. They manifest themselves all around the world - against Israeli embassies, airlines, businessmen, tourists and Jewish centres in any location. All of this comes in addition to the threat along Israel's borders and even within the borders. Iran has the intention, not only to destroy the Jewish state, but also to increase its sphere of influence in the Middle East and around the world. It is promoting its brand of Shia Islam against all other religions, and against Sunni Islam. Iran certainly has aspirations to be a controlling power in the region and around the world. As part of this effort, Iran is cooperating with Russia and supporting Syria and other proxies in order to confront, the US, Israel and other regional and western powers.<br />
<br />
The relationship with Russia is a little more complex. Israel has found itself on the receiving end of Russian missiles and weaponry that have, not only shot down an Israeli F-16 fighter, but also threaten Israel's safety and security on a daily basis. Major Russian weaponry systems are deployed in Iran and Syria, and most of these systems are aimed in a threatening way at Israel. This is all in spite of the fact that Israel has full diplomatic relations with Russia, and Prime Minister Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin have met numerous times and spoken frequently on the phone in recent times. Netanyahu's requests of Putin have fallen on deaf ears, and Putin continues to arm and finance organisations and governments that seek the destruction of the State of Israel and the murder of Jews. Putin's interests are driven by increasing Russia's sphere of influence as much as possible, and by financial considerations. Russia is making good money from the sale of arms and weapons. Just as with his relationships with the USA and with Turkey, Putin seems to be playing both sides of the divide with Israel. While Israel would wish to maintain cordial relations with Russia for a number of reasons, the fact that Russia is openly and unashamedly supporting Israel's enemies is clearly a very concerning situation.<br />
<br />
What is clear from this situation is that Israel is fighting a survival battle, not only against enemies, but against "friends" as well. I use the term friends in a loose way to include even those who are not quite so friendly, but with whom Israel has diplomatic ties. Such as Russia. In its fight against the Iranian UAV, Israel found itself battling its closest ally, the USA via the technology that Iran had taken to construct the UAV. This regional war has a strong global element to it. The strategic importance of maintaining influence over the Middle East seems not to have diminished over the years. <br />
<br />
International diplomacy continues to be governed by interests rather than friendships. This is very true of Israel's international relations. The wars that Israel is fighting on her borders are highly complex with so many different parties involved. It almost makes one wonder whose war this really is. In reality, Israel is fighting wars with parties which come from much further away than those who reside on her borders. This is a global war, and one which threatens to become broader and much more complex in the future.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-87588833647449535182018-01-15T09:00:00.000+02:002018-01-15T09:00:00.695+02:00Israel and Shabbat<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.chabad.org.br/shabat/artigo/shamor/flame.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.chabad.org.br/shabat/artigo/shamor/flame.jpg" data-original-height="155" data-original-width="175" /></a></div>
The Knesset passed into law last week, the controversial so-called "Shabbat law", also labelled by some as the "minimarket law". This new law requires local municipalities to first get the approval of interior minister before allowing stores in their municipal area to open on Shabbat. Given the fact that the current interior minister is Shas leader Arye Deri, the immediate expectation is that such approval would generally be withheld, forcing stores across the country to be closed on Shabbat. And furthermore, the extent to which stores are allowed to be open on Shabbat or not, will seem to depend upon who occupies the seat of the interior minister at any moment in time.<br />
<br />
The issue of Shabbat in the Jewish state is a complex one. The religious community will always wish to see the Shabbat respected to the fullest as set out by Jewish law. This dictates, amongst other things, that stores will be closed from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday each week, and similarly on religious holidays. Aside from the issue of violating Jewish law by opening stores on the holy Shabbat, the religious community also argues that the opening of stores on Shabbat forces people to work there on Shabbat. These workers, they believe, would be better off spending Shabbat at home with their families resting, rather than being forced to work. On the other hand, there is a substantial secular community living in Israel which prefers to have greater choice as to when they shop for their groceries and other items. Many of them work long hours during the week, and find it impossible, difficult or inconvenient to do their shopping after work during the week. For them, shopping on Shabbat is preferable. Why should they not have the right to choose for themselves when the best shopping time is for them? What about those people whose work during the week does not afford them enough to make a living, and who welcome the additional work hours at double time that the law allows on Shabbat?<br />
<br />
Does Israel, as a democratic Jewish state, have the right to impose Jewish law on its citizens? Does it really want to impose Jewish law? How important is the observance of the Shabbat to the Jewish nature of Israel? Israel's Jews are a mixed bunch. Some are observant, and some are not. Most of them are fiercely proud to be Jewish and to live in the Jewish state, and each expresses their Jewish identity in a different way. The statistics show that between 20% and 30% of the Jews in Israel consider themselves to be ultra-Orthodox or Orthodox. On the other end of the spectrum, around 40% of Jewish Israelis consider themselves to be secular. So the balance of power rests with those who consider themselves to be traditional. From this, we can see that there is no obvious single view that emerges concerning the importance of Shabbat observance. This was reflected in the law that was in force until now, that allowed each municipality to choose for itself what its policy regarding store-opening on Shabbat would be. This was also borne out in the High Court decision that confirmed this method of deciding. Each municipality can decide, according to the demographics of its local area, whether stores will be open on Shabbat or not. Some decide yes, others decide no. Some have a mixed policy of forcing stores in certain areas to close, while allowing stores in other areas to be open. One thing that remains certain is that there will also be those who disagree with whatever happens in their local vicinity. There is no possible way of satisfying all the people in any particular locality.<br />
<br />
The authorities have previously intervened in some ways in order to impose some element of Shabbat observance in Israel. El Al, Israel's national airline does not fly on Shabbat or on Jewish holidays. Banks, supermarkets and many other facilities are prohibited from opening on Shabbat. All hotels in Israel that wish to be certified by the Ministry of Tourism, are forced to serve food that is kosher. This requires a certain level of observance of Shabbat. Much of Israel's public transport does not operate on Shabbat. It seems to me, however, that this has extended a little too far with the government passing the recent Shabbat law.<br />
<br />
It seems that Interior Minister Arye Deri also feels the same. Despite his personal views that Shabbat should be observed, he has pledged not to exercise the power that the new law gives him to enforce Shabbat observance. Instead, he has indicated that he will allow each municipality to decide for themselves as they have done before. This view does not, however, remove the possibility that a future interior minister may exercise his power under the law in one direction or the other. For this reason, the law seems to me to be a step too far.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, the law has become mixed up in Israeli party politics. Essentially, the enactment of this law has served to give Health Minister Yossi Litzman a path back to his ministerial position, after resigning from the government over his opposition to work being undertaken on Israeli railway infrastructure on Shabbat. Now that the new Shabbat law is on the statute books, he can prove to his party and electorate that he has forced a change to the government policy on Shabbat, and is justified in returning to the government. The illusion seems to hide the reality in this case.<br />
<br />
The often remembered Ahad Ha'am quote says, "More than the Jews have kept the Shabbat, the Shabbat has kept the Jews". There is no doubt that Shabbat observance has been a central tenet around which Jews have focused during the thousands of years of exile, and which has helped to maintain some element of identity and unity. It is interesting that, during the years of exile, Shabbat was observed out of free will, and not out of being forced on anybody. It seems to me that it is desirable to continue the observance out of free will, now that we have a Jewish state that enables this more than at any time during Jewish history. Forcing it on anybody seems counterproductive. <br />
<br />
The real question is whether Shabbat observance and the traditional Shabbat atmosphere in Israel can survive the law, or whether the law will potentially force people away from it. I have no doubt that free will is much stronger than laws that are imposed. The Shabbat is no exception. Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-2041975106468521432018-01-07T23:59:00.000+02:002018-01-07T23:59:30.608+02:00My Person of 2017<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.jewishpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Ambassador-Nikki-Haley-696x612.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.jewishpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Ambassador-Nikki-Haley-696x612.jpg" data-original-height="612" data-original-width="696" height="281" width="320" /></a></div>
I have never really been a fan of the whole idea of nominating "people of the year". I know that it has been popular and common-place for all respectable publications and newspapers to choose their person of the year. Time Magazine's annual choice of person of the year is a highly anticipated occasion, with the chosen person given the privilege of gracing the publication's cover. Is it really possible to choose one person who epitomises the year, and who can lay claim to having had the largest influence on events in that year? I am not sure about that. For some reason, however, this year I feel differently. For me, there is one person who has emerged from the shadows during 2017 and truly stood out on the international stage. That person is US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley.<br />
<br />
Before even talking about Haley's achievements in her role as US Ambassador the UN, it is interesting to know a little more about the person behind the ambassadorial figure. She is the daughter of immigrants from India, who came to the US after her father travelled from India to complete his PhD in Canada. Nikki's parents are Sikhs, with all the visible differences that are associated with being a Sikh in a western environment. It seems to me that growing up as a child in a minority family in a southern US state has given Haley the character and skills to be a leader who is sensitive to others, particularly minority groups. After graduating from Clemson University and a short career in business, Haley began her political career in the South Carolina House of Representatives in 2004. In 2010, she was elected Governor of South Carolina, and served in this capacity until she resigned early in 2017 to take up her new role as ambassador to the UN.<br />
<br />
Over the years, the USA's position at the UN has become a little confused. There can be no doubt that the US was by far the strongest power and influencer when the UN was originally set up, and has continued to be the most powerful nation on earth during the years of the UN's existence until today. The main organs of the UN are based in the US, and the US is also by far the most substantial financial contributor to the UN. In its position as one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, the UN also has the ability to veto any resolution that is brought before the Security Council. All of this bears testament to the US being the most powerful country amongst the community of nations. In the General Assembly and in other UN organ bodies, however, the US is an equal member like every other nation with much less power to influence. As a result of this, there are many examples where US interests (and those of US allies) have been trodden on. Israel, as an ally of the US and as the favourite target of many UN organisations, has suffered more than its fair share of unwarranted negative attention and condemnation. Of late, the UN has become a tool for local interest groups to gang up on individual countries for the purpose of furthering personal political agendas. Israel is certainly a victim of this. And this unfortunately detracts substantially from the main reason why the UN was established in the first place.<br />
<br />
Nikki Haley appeared to understand all of this very well from the first day that she stepped foot into her office at the UN. Not only did she understand this, she has been willing to stand up for what she believes to be just and equitable. It was clear to her that the US was being asked to contribute far more to the UN than it was receiving in return. It was also clear to her that Israel, a key ally of the US, was being unjustly bullied at every opportunity by UN organisations. She has been prepared to take on the world at the UN to put this right. In the process, I believe that she has brought some respectability to America's status at the UN and in the international arena in general. She has also been willing to tackle the unfair treatment of Israel by the UN.<br />
<br />
Undoubtedly, Haley has been given the drive and incentive by President Trump, who seems determined to redress the imbalance of the US position at the UN. But there is also little doubt that she has taken her role seriously, and has been prepared to take on the powers at the UN. She has shown the willingness to say and do the difficult things required to reinforce the US position at the UN. Last month, she was prepared to exercise the US veto at the Security Council to vote down another anti-Israel resolution, after a lengthy period of time during which the US veto was not exercised. Not only that, but she was vocal in threatening those who voted in favour of the US-critical resolution at the General Assembly of the risk that they would lose funding that they receive from the US. The way in which she has been supportive of Israel's position at the UN is very much recognised and appreciated. She has shown the guts to swim against the tide, and take actions which are roundly criticised by the majority.<br />
<br />
There is no doubt that international politics and diplomacy these days is a game of interests rather than having for consideration for what is just and right. And, while this contradicts the original intention that lay behind the UN when it was first set up, we see this permeating through all parts of the UN. The Arab lobby at the UN has been used very effectively to make Israel the bad guy of the UN. No other single country has had more resolutions and condemnations against them than Israel. Surely this says it all.<br />
<br />
Nikki Haley has been prepared to take on the world in defense of the US position at the UN, and also in defense of Israel's position. Her passion in doing this, and her unwillingness to compromise her beliefs stands out against the background of mediocrity that is evident in international diplomacy. Her heroic acts in sticking up for what she believes in makes her, in my opinion, the stand-out person of 2017. Nikki Haley will be a voice to be heard on the international stage for some time, and I am looking forward to following her activities.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-44598927677231427812017-12-18T08:30:00.000+02:002017-12-18T08:30:15.716+02:00How Important is Trump's Recognition of Jerusalem?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://committedconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/trump-western-wall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://committedconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/trump-western-wall.jpg" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" width="320" /></a></div>
President Donald Trump's announcement to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and his decision to instruct the US embassy to be moved to Jerusalem, have dominated world headlines in recent weeks. Many have analysed what lies behind his decision, and why he chose to take these steps now. Amidst the speculation about these points, there appear to be no clear answers to these questions.<br />
<br />
The reaction from around the world has been
almost universally critically. Except, of course, Israel's reaction
where Prime Minister Netanyahu has lauded Trump's announcement as
courageous, just and historic. It is interesting to understand why
western countries have been so opposed to this announcement, and why so
many countries have responded in criticising Israel when Israel was not party
to this action at all. Not to speak of the anger shown by the Arab
world with riots being held in many countries. And the launching of
missiles towards Israel in a way that one may have viewed Israel to
be the offending party here.<br />
<br />
Why has there been such a huge reaction to this announcement? Previous American presidents, most notably Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama, are on record stating the Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The Jerusalem Embassy Act has been on the US statue books since 1995, and dictates that the US embassy should be moved to Jerusalem. In reality, Trump has said and done nothing new. He has simply followed in the footsteps of others before him by reiterating the obvious. <br />
<br />
The fact that Jerusalem
is Israel's capital cannot be disputed. The decision as to which city
is the capital city of any country, is one that is taken by the country
itself. It is almost unheard of for any country's choice of a capital
city not to be recognised or respected by members of the international
community. Israel declared Jerusalem to be her capital in 1948, a fact that was entrenched in the Basic Law in Israel in 1980 with the Jerusalem Law. The Knesset sits in Jerusalem as do all government ministries. Both the prime minister and the president have their offices and residences in Jerusalem, and foreign dignitaries are received in Jerusalem as the nation's capital. Trump's announcement, or lack of announcement, makes no difference at all to the situation. The fact that Jerusalem functions as the country's capital cannot be denied even by the most anti-Israeli person.<br />
<br />
So why the furore over Trump's announcement? It stems back to 1947 when the Arabs refused to accept the UN Partition Plan for Palestine that envisaged the sharing of Palestine, as it was, between Jewish and Arab states. It also envisaged Jerusalem being a city under international control that would be shared between the Jews and the Arabs. When the Arabs rejected this plan and grabbed whatever they could for themselves (including East Jerusalem), one would have thought that the UN plan was effectively rejected and binned. Following a number of wars in the intervening period which saw the Arabs trying to grab more for themselves, but ultimately losing ground, the Arabs ironically still reject this plan as being not enough for them. Perhaps this is because the Arabs continue to plot for the takeover of the entire city of Jerusalem, and the expulsion of the Jews from all parts of it. In spite of all of the history, the international community has continued to pressurise Israel to honour the plan, even though it was formally rejected by the Arabs. In this context, the international community refuses to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, believing instead that the Arabs have some right to it. They continue to demand a piece of Jerusalem for an Arab country, that seems unlikely to arise in the near future. What has suddenly changed since 1947 when the Arabs rejected the plan to share Palestine and Jerusalem? I don't think that anything has changed since then, and I suspect that the same plan would be rejected today by the Arabs as it was then. <br />
<br />
For those who continue to insist that the Arabs have some rights to Jerusalem, Trump's announcement has been interpreted as reducing the possibility of this becoming reality. They consider that Trump effectively took Jerusalem off the table from any peace talks that may take place. If they were more honest, I believe that they would acknowledge the fact that the Arabs have no current plan or intention to sit down in peace talks anytime soon. In my view, this means that Jerusalem was never really on the table at all.<br />
<br />
Jerusalem has never been freer, than since the city was unified under Israeli rule in 1967. All religions are free to worship at their holy sites, providing that they come with intention of behaving respectfully and peacefully. While Jews were denied the right to visit the holiest site in Judaism when it was under Arab rule, Muslims have been assured the rights to their holy sites under Israeli rule. The Israeli government has rebuilt the city of Jerusalem, improved its infrastructure and made it more desirable for all those who wish to live in and visit the city. This should surely be something that influences the views of the international community regarding the most appropriate entity to rule over Jerusalem. The argument that many of the citizens of Jerusalem, particularly in East Jerusalem, are Arabs who have no desire to be citizens of Israel is also used as reason why this area of the city should be ruled by a future Palestinian state. It should be known that these residents were offered the right to Israeli citizenship, and have many rights as permanent residents of Jerusalem and Israel in spite of their rejection. Just because entire neighbourhoods of Paris are dominated by Muslim residents, does not mean that these neighbourhoods should form part of an Arab state. Why is this different in Jerusalem?<br />
<br />
The Trump announcement is not a trailblazer, and changes nothing in reality. It is essentially an insignificant act for Israelis, Arabs and the international community. Israelis may appreciate the statements of support for the Jewish right to Israel and Jerusalem, but are essentially indifferent to Trump's announcement. They care little about what was said, and would have cared the same if it was not said. Israelis are determined that the united city of Jerusalem be the capital of Israel, and nothing has changed.<br />
<br />
There can be no doubt that the announcement by Trump has been seized upon by those who are determined to destroy Israel. They have taken the opportunity to further their aim of ultimately ridding Jerusalem and Israel of Jews. Trump's announcement is being used to justify this in a manner that is politically correct. It seems entirely acceptable to launch rockets into Israel, to attack Israeli soldiers and to riot in Bangladesh in response to the Trump announcement. The announcement itself was of no consequence, and nothing has changed. Jerusalem will continue to be the capital of Israel whether the world accepts this or not. Perhaps this is what Trump came to realise.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-60209963782970322872017-07-15T21:30:00.000+03:002017-07-18T08:26:34.988+03:00Stretching the Limits of Self-HatredThis was a statement issued on 6 July 2017 in South Africa. My response follows below.<br />
<h2 class="entry-title">
<i>South African Jews welcome downgrading of SA Embassy in Israel</i></h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>We as Jewish South Africans
warmly welcome the ANC National Policy Conference resolution and
recommendation to downgrade the South African Embassy in Tel Aviv. This
is a concrete step beyond rhetoric. Israel must be held accountable for
its crimes against the Palestinian people and a clear message must be
sent that there are no normal relations with an abnormal regime.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>The ANC National Policy Conference, which ended yesterday, has called for
“the downgrading of the SA Embassy in Israel to send a strong message
about Israel’s continued illegal occupation of Palestine and the
continued human rights abuses against the peoples of Palestine”.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>We would like to draw attention to the
letter that our Jewish Israeli counterparts sent to the ANC ahead of its
recent National Policy Conference. In their letter supporting the call
for a downgrade of relations and support of the BDS boycott of Israel,
our Israeli friends explained that:</i></div>
<div style="padding-left: 60px; text-align: justify;">
<i>“After many years of
trying to change our society from within, we have come to the
conclusion that an international campaign, such as the boycott against
apartheid South Africa, is necessary to change the situation here. We
believe that the time has come for further measures. Governments
including the South African government should be downgrading diplomatic
relations and their embassies in Israel, to send a clear message to
Israel that its violations of international law are unacceptable.
Ultimately we call on the ANC to strengthen its support for the BDS
movement and Palestinian struggle.”</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>We welcome the fact that the ANC has
heeded the call by Palestinians as well as those progressive Israelis
who are working towards a just peace in Israel-Palestine.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Finally we would like to add that we
stand against all forms of racism and antisemitism and for the freedom,
dignity and full human rights of all. To boycott Israel today is not
antisemitic, it is an affirmation of these principles.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>For more information please contact:</b></i><br />
<i><b> Allan Horwitz 0825128188</b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>*South African Jews for a Free
Palestine (SAJFP) is an organisation of South African Jews wishing to
see a just resolution to the conflict in Historic Palestine. We strongly
believe in the Jewish concept of Tikkun Olam, “Repairing the World”
which embodies social action and the pursuit of social justice.
Historically Jews have been involved struggles to achieve social justice
and we are proud to continue this tradition. Furthermore, as Jews, we
feel obliged to speak out against injustice purportedly carried out in
our name.</b></i></div>
<br />
<b></b><br />
<br />
Dear Allan and SAJFP members, <br />
<br />
I was somewhat surprised to read your need to put out a statement, in which you expressed support for the resolution passed by the ANC National Policy Conference to downgrade the South African embassy in Tel Aviv. This resolution was passed by the ANC conference "to send a strong message about Israel’s continued illegal occupation of
Palestine and the continued human rights abuses against the peoples of
Palestine". According to your statement, "This is a concrete step beyond rhetoric. Israel must be held accountable
for its crimes against the Palestinian people and a clear message must
be sent that there are no normal relations with an abnormal regime".<br />
<br />
There are a number of points in your statement that I feel need to be challenged. Why do you consider Israel to be an "abnormal regime"? Having lived in Israel for the past almost 20 years, and having travelled extensively to other countries during that time, I have no doubt that Israel is a perfectly normal regime forced to deal with an abnormal situation. Israel is the only country in the world that constantly has its right to exist challenged unashamedly, and is frequently threatened with destruction. This is abnormal. Not only that, but the terror attacks and threats that Israel is subjected to on a daily basis can surely also not be considered normal. Despite this patently abnormal situation, Israel has done a remarkable job of surviving and growing, even when compared to so-called normal regimes. It seems unjust that Israel's actions to defend herself against the abnormal threats that she faces, are judged by normal countries according to scales that can only be relevant in their normal situations. Surely the time has come for the international community, and Jews around the world like you, to recognise this fact and to give Israel the support that she needs to survive under the abnormal threat in which she finds herself? It is disappointing that you choose not to recognise this in your statement, and fail to criticise those who have the audacity to threaten the existence of a sovereign nation.<br />
<br />
I would like to pick up on your reference to "Israel’s continued illegal occupation of Palestine and the
continued human rights abuses against the peoples of Palestine". At the current time, Israel has ceded land in Judea and Samaria to be governed by the Palestinian Authority. Additionally, Israel gave the entire Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority, which was later taken over by Hamas. It is on record that Israel would have already given this to an internationally-recognised state of Palestine, as long as the Palestinians would recognise the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state along its border. This recognition has been withheld, and no peace agreement has been reached as a result. Why do I not see any recognition by you of the ongoing attempts by Muslims to take over the entire State of Israel? This is in the charter of both Hamas and Fatah, and is plain for anybody to see. Where is the recognition of the fact that Israel has ceded land to be governed by the Palestinians, only to find that this land has been turned into a launchpad for missile attacks against Israel? If it was your family living under this constant missile barrage, how likely would you be to give more land to them to be used in this way? So please would you explain what you mean by "illegal occupation" and "human rights abuses". How can Israel be guilty of human rights abuses against Palestinians when their own authorities govern over them? I think that it would be more accurate for you to accuse the Palestinians of human rights abuses against Israelis for the constant terror attacks that Israelis are forced to endure.<br />
<br />
I am not sure who the "progressive Israelis" are that would have sent the letter to the ANC ahead of the policy conference. Why did you not say who they are? What are their names? How many Israelis are really represented by the letter? I believe that you will find that all Israelis, and not only "progressive Israelis", are eager to work towards supporting a just peace. But it needs to be that - a <b>just</b> peace. Just for both sides. This means recognising the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Failure to receive this formal recognition would be unjust. And I cannot imagine any nation, that has its wits about them, that would agree to allow the formation of a country along its borders that has the intention of destroying it. Why would you think that this ridiculous step would be OK for the Jewish state?<br />
<br />
If you truly stand against all forms of racism and antisemitism, and for the freedom,
dignity and full human rights of all, why is it that you do not support the rights of Jews and Israelis to live in freedom and with dignity? Why do you choose to be self-hating and only find reasons to criticise Israel? If you were not self-hating, I would expect you to call out acts of anti-Semitism and other abusers of human rights. I did not notice you speaking out against anti-Semitism in Hungary and France and the UK? Your silence on this is deafening. And where is your criticism of human rights abuses in North Korea or Russia or China or Burma or Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe or Soweto or Nkandla? Why has Israel earned the special right to be singled out by you? You claim to feel obliged to speak out against injustice purportedly carried out in your name. I am sorry to burst your bubble, but none of this is carried out in your name. It is carried out in the name of self-respecting Israelis who wish to survive as proud Jews. You are just the fortunate beneficiary of these actions. You are a just a lucky South African Jew, who has been gifted the opportunity to live in peace and security by virtue of the existence of a strong State of Israel, that is willing to defend and give power to Jews around the world, even the self-hating ones.<br />
<br />
The anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli actions carried out by our enemies around the world, could be compared in many ways to the Shoah perpetrated against our people by the Nazis. The fervour with which terrorists rise up to murder our people, with no qualms about risking their own lives in the process, surpasses anything that we saw during the Nazi regime. The amount of money and the national resources of governments that are devoted to endeavours to murder Jews and destroy Israel as the Jewish state, are equivalent to those seen during the Nazi regime. The national infrastructure that is being built in Gaza (and in other countries), with the sole purpose of destroying Israel, can be compared to the scale of the concentration camps, railway systems and crematoria built to destroy Jews in Europe. There is only one key difference today, that makes all of what we are experiencing different from the terrible years of the Shoah. That difference is the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish army. Without this, Jews would today be experiencing a Shoah of the proportions experienced during the time of the Nazis. So you are extremely fortunate to benefit from this. The State of Israel, that you so vociferously criticise, is exactly what gives you the freedom to live in safety in your comfortable existence South Africa and express your misguided opinions. Where is your recognition of this fact?<br />
<br />
I find it ironic that you choose to express your criticism of Israel, and your call for a boycott that is supposedly not anti-Semitic, by supporting the decision taken by the ANC National Policy Conference. It is almost as if this is the body that represents the gold standard of upholding human rights. We all know that nothing could be further from the truth, and the ANC representatives at the conference may be better advised to examine the situation nearer to home before choosing to criticise a country that only has the desire to defend itself to survive. I would have thought that you, as a Jew in South Africa, would understand that.<br />
<br />
I would like to conclude by recognising that the State of Israel is not beyond criticism, nor is every action that it takes worthy of support. Like every country and every nation, Israel has its moments, both good and bad. And she has a legal system and a judiciary that is designed to police this. Feel free to say what you wish about that. But please save your ill-considered criticisms of Israel's attempts to survive. You place yourself firmly in the camp of those who are fighting for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. Jews in the Shoah were forced to understand the hard way that criticising their fellow Jews would not save them from the hands of the Nazis, and from suffering the same fate as all the others. You should learn from history, because you will not be saved from this fate either. <br />
<br />
Yours<br />
Anthony ReichAnthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-54765328168105859602017-07-13T08:30:00.000+03:002017-07-13T08:30:07.099+03:00The Unifying Wall That Divides<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://tcjewfolk.com/wp-content/uploads//2016/01/Kotel_proposal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="463" data-original-width="800" height="185" src="https://tcjewfolk.com/wp-content/uploads//2016/01/Kotel_proposal.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Image from tcjewfolk.com</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
A decision by the Israeli government not to approve the construction of an egalitarian prayer area at the Kotel, the Western Wall of the Temple Compound in Jerusalem and Judaism's holiest site, has opened wounds between the Israeli government and the American Jewish community. It is ironic that, only weeks after celebrating the 50th anniversary of the return of the Kotel to Jewish hands, this iconic landmark and holy site is giving rise to huge divisions between different groups of Jews. How differently the Kotel is being viewed now, as opposed to 50 years ago when Jews around the world were rejoicing in unison at the prospects of being able to visit and pray at this site.<br />
<br />
Things have clearly changed over the past 50 years that we are fighting amongst ourselves over this matter. Fifty years ago, Jews would have been happy simply to be able to visit and pray at the Kotel. It would not have mattered if this would have been by a group of men or women on their own, or by mixed groups and families. After so many years of having been denied the right to visit the site of the Temple, the details of how prayers would be offered there were unimportant.<br />
<br />
Fast-forward fifty years, and the Kotel Plaza has been developed to allow and encourage Jews to visit the site for historical and religious reasons. It was developed according to the tenets of Jewish religious law as befits a site of prayer. This means that men and women have been provided with separate prayer areas. This separation is not a new or alien concept amongst Orthodox and traditional Jews. It is something that is expected at holy sites and areas of prayer. And while Orthodox or traditional strands of Judaism are dominant in Israel amongst those who wish to identify with the Jewish religion, the same is not true outside of Israel. There, the Reform and Conservative strands of Judaism are more popular. These strands follow a somewhat less stringent interpretation of the Orthodox Jewish laws, either because followers have studied the laws and rejected some of the stringencies arising from Rabbinical interpretations and pronouncements over the years, or because it is simply easier to follow. In a world where the rate of assimilation amongst Jewish communities around the world is running at alarmingly high levels, any form of identification with Judaism can be considered to be positive. It is for this reason that the Reform and Conservative communities, particularly those in the USA, have gathered enormous power as they manage to stem some of the massive flows of Jews away from the faith.<br />
<br />
The battle lines between Orthodox and Reform/Conservative Jews have long been drawn. The Orthodox communities have done all that they can to reject the dilutions that are inherent with the Reform/Conservative view on the Jewish world. They have worked to discredit and delegitimise them, even accusing them of not being Jews. The Reform and Conservative communities, particularly those in the US that command power and have access to large sums of money, have used this to fight back against the Orthodox world view. The battle over the Kotel is simply an extension of this power struggle between the different groups. The Reform/Conservative strand believes that their followers (and other non-religious people) would prefer to visit and pray at the Kotel in an area that is mixed with men and women - an egalitarian area. This would also allow families to enjoy this experience together. The Orthodox are absolutely opposed to this, claiming that the Kotel is a religious place of prayer that requires separation of the sexes according to the traditional Jewish Law.<br />
<br />
The State of Israel has set out not to distinguish between different groups of Jews. In fact, the Law of Return that grants immediate Israeli citizenship to Jews, has chosen to use Hitler's definition of Jews rather than going by Jewish religious law. Hitler decided that any person who had one Jewish grandparent would be eligible to be treated inhumanely by his regime, and to be part of his plan of extermination. The Israeli government decided that if a person was good enough to be exterminated by Hitler, they would be good enough to be granted immediate Israeli citizenship. This means that some of those who have been granted immediate citizenship under this law, are not Jewish according to Jewish Law. This demonstrates the extent to which the State of Israel has opened its arms to many different groups of Jews - and even to some non-Jews. Under the circumstances, it seems as though the government would be sympathetic to the claims of the non-Orthodox groups at the Kotel.<br />
<br />
Even though the government would probably wish to be more accommodating to the demands of the non-Orthodox lobby, and even previously agreed to their demands for an egalitarian prayer area at the Kotel, politics always seems to come first. The current government coalition can only exist with the support of the ultra-Orthodox parties in the Knesset. Upon hearing of the government's plan to accommodate an egalitarian prayer area at the Kotel, the ultra-Orthodox parties flexed their muscles and threatened to bring the government down if the plan was implemented. Prime Minister Netanyahu went into survival mode, even at the expense of his relationship with US Jews, and acquiesced to the demands of his coalition partners. At least for now. American Jews responded in disgust by withdrawing their support for the Israeli government.<br />
<br />
Does the Reform/Conservative lobby have a valid case in declaring open warfare on the Israeli government as a result of this decision? The Israeli government has said that an egalitarian prayer area does already exist, but it is just not in the premier Kotel Plaza area. The non-Orthodox lobby claims that this is not good enough, and effectively treats some Jews as second-class. Their demand is to have the egalitarian area front and centre alongside the other prayer areas in the Kotel Plaza. The battle is one of power and of wills. This is a battle between different groups of Jews, each of whom demands that their way is accepted, and with the Israeli government being called upon to act as referee.<br />
<br />
Is the Kotel a Jewish national asset that should be required to accommodate all groups of Jews in a way that is to their liking? Or is it an asset that belongs to the religious, as the holiest religious site in Judaism? Does creating an egalitarian prayer area alongside the other areas serve to dilute its importance and religious status? Is this issue important enough to be worth creating a rift amongst different groups of Jews?<br />
<br />
I don't have answers to any of these questions. And even if I did, I feel sure that the warring parties would not consider my point of view in formulating their reactions to the situation. Of course, the Israeli government will always act in way that promotes its own best interests. At the moment, that requires it to take the side of the ultra-Orthodox parties and freeze the egalitarian prayer area.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the situation requires tolerance and understanding by all parties. It is natural to expect that the holiest site in Judaism should have some of the most stringent rules attached to it, and that Orthodox Jewish law should apply. We live at a time, however, when Jews around the world should find reasons to unite, and not reasons to be in conflict with each other, especially over a site as central as the Kotel. The ultra-Orthodox parties are not generally known for making efforts to unify different strands of Judaism, but it is never too late. They should know that no man is in a position to judge another one, nor judge his interpretation of the religion. So they should be taking the moral high ground on this matter in an attempt to accommodate the requests of the non-Orthodox groups. Surely accommodating an egalitarian space could be acceptable, as long as they continue to have their separated areas? The situation now requires unity and not conflict. It is incumbent upon the parties to sit down, and find a compromise that will be acceptable to all. Is this too much to expect?Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-72339090166842299692017-06-02T18:00:00.000+03:002017-06-02T18:00:21.060+03:00Trump - Saviour or Poison Chalice<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?id=355820&w=898&h=628" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?id=355820&w=898&h=628" data-original-height="559" data-original-width="800" height="223" width="320" /></a></div>
The visit to Israel by US President Donald Trump has come and gone,
and the analysts will undoubtedly still spend some time considering
their verdicts dissecting each aspect of the visit. At first glance,
the visit appears to have been filled with symbolism but short on
substance. Following a turbulent first few months in office for the US
president, there are many who wonder whether his support for Israel is
welcome, or whether it is turning out to be more of a poison chalice
than a helping hand.<br />
<br />
Trump has been openly and publicly
supportive of Israel's position, even from before he was elected. His
high profile campaign promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem has been the subject of much debate and controversy. When his
victory in the presidential election was revealed, the Israeli
government (and many other Israelis) welcomed his election with the hope
and expectation that this would change the anti-Israel bias within the
US government and elsewhere that was such a feature of the Obama
administration. And changes have certainly been felt since his
election.<br />
<br />
The current atmosphere at the United Nations
is entirely different from the one that ruled during 2016 and before.
Part of this change can be attributed to new UN Secretary General
António Guterres, who is much less inclined to entertain the constant
barrage of anti-Israel sentiment that prevailed under Ban Ki Moon. Much
of the change is, however, thanks to new US ambassador to the UN Nikki
Haley and the change in policy that she represents. She has imposed the
Trump administration's support for Israel at the UN in the strongest
possible terms. The days of raising frivolous anti-Israel resolutions
at the UN Security Council are over for now. The international
community has understood that these will be vetoed by the US, and that
there is little point in raising them under the current administration.
Haley has been vociferous in her condemnation of the constant attempts
to paint Israel in a negative light. There can be little doubt that the
changes at the UN have a great deal to do with the new man in the White
House. <br />
<br />
President Trump's visit to Israel was highly
symbolic. He made Israel one of the stops on his maiden foreign tour
since becoming president. He visited the Western Wall in Jerusalem
during his visit, becoming the first US president to make this visit
while in office. He emphasized to Palestinian Authority President
Mahmoud Abbas that funding terror is not acceptable. He reinforced the
support that Israel will always enjoy from his administration. In spite
of this, he stayed clear of the key substantive issues confronting
Israel and the region now. He did not raise the move of the US embassy
to Jerusalem. No mention was made of the constant accusations against
Israel regarding construction in Judea and Samaria. Nothing was said
about Palestinian claims to Jerusalem, or accusations regarding Israel's
claims to Jerusalem as its capital. His outward shows of support were
all seized upon, recognised and appreciated by the majority of
Israelis. The lack of meaningful progress in getting Israelis and
Palestinians to sit down around the peace table is what the
international community has seized upon.<br />
<br />
The issue
that Israel needs to consider is Trump's overall standing within the USA
and further afield. It was clear before he arrived in Israel that
Trump has many enemies at home, and that they are determined to keep him
on the back foot by levelling all types of accusations against him.
Trump's own conduct in defending these accusations has certainly not
helped his cause. And Israel was dragged into the crossfire when Trump
was accused of sharing secret intelligence received from Israel with
Russia. If true, this would be a serious violation of trust, and norms
associated with the sharing of intelligence information.<br />
<br />
Distrust
for Trump appears to be spreading rapidly within the international
community as well. Trump's recent appearances at the G7 and NATO
meetings did not show him to be in accord with any of the other western
leaders. On the contrary, there are indications that Trump is being
sidelined from the key international organisations.<br />
<br />
Winston
Churchill famously said, “Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go
to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.” This is an art
that Trump has clearly not yet mastered. Even though Trump frequently
says things that many people are thinking, he has not yet discovered how
to say it in a way that does not create enemies. While Israel has no
particular issue with Trump's popularity (or lack of it) in the
international community, there is a danger that Israel will be tarred
with the same negative brush if she is seen to be too closely associated
with Trump. <br />
<br />
There is no doubt that Israel has already
gained a great deal from the change of administration in the White
House. Trump's influence over US domestic and international policy
towards Israel, and his influence over proceedings at the UN cannot be
under-estimated. Israel will certainly wish to see more of that in the
future. There is a danger, however, that the association with Trump
could prove to be negative in Israel's relationships with other
countries around the world. If Trump continues to completely ignore the
accepted rules of international engagement while representing his
contrary views, he will quickly became a pariah in the international
community. And, even if Israel wishes to stay close to Trump to benefit
from his supportive views and actions, the association with him may
proved negative. <br />
<br />
The prime minister and the Israeli
government has a tough job to navigate a careful path to take advantage
of the emerging situation, without losing too much in the process. Will
Trump prove to be the good things for Israel that were predicted, or a
poison chalice? Only time will tell.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-89296104057491391612017-05-01T09:00:00.000+03:002017-05-01T09:00:09.340+03:00Damned If You Do, and Damned If You Don't<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://institut-medea.be/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Marwan_Barghouti.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://institut-medea.be/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Marwan_Barghouti.jpg" /></a></div>
Much has been written and discussed about Marwan Barghouti's <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/opinion/palestinian-hunger-strik-prisoners-call-for-justice.html?_r=0" target="_blank">article</a> in The New York Times, trying to explain why prisoners in Israeli jails have embarked on a hunger strike. Most of the comments have surrounded the factual inaccuracies in Barghouti's statements and accusations against Israel. Or they have questioned why The New York Times had the audacity to allow such subversive trash to be published at all. My question is a different one. I ask whether it is right that Israel should allow its prisoners (whether they are criminal or political prisoners) the freedom that it does, and that allows people like Barghouti to make such ludicrous claims in public?<br />
<br />
It is somewhat ironic that Barghouti accuses Israel of operating an "inhumane system" in its attempt "to break the spirit of prisoners" and of "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions against the Palestinian people", while still having the freedom to publish these accusations in The New York Times. Surely this is a contradiction in terms? If Israel was so intent on breaching the Geneva Convention, it would surely do more to ensure that prisoners do not have access to publish their articles in international publications. Or at least opppose violations more vehemently than it has. It is common knowledge that prisoners in many systems, even in countries that pride themselves on their democracy, are not allowed access to go unpunished when they publish their complaints and accusations in public. And yet, Israel has hardly responded to Barghouti's article to punish him.<br />
<br />
In many countries around the world, even in democratic countries, prisoners have significant restrictions placed on them. This is even more true of those convicted of terror-related crimes, or who are considered the most dangerous after committing very extreme crimes. In some cases, these restrictions can result in the opposite outcome of the one that the authorities hope to achieve. In the case of Nelson Mandela who spent 27 years as a political prisoner in South Africa, his popularity grew substantially while he was in prison and isolated from the outside world. He had no access to the media, and his likeness was not allowed to be published at all by the press. Despite this, the campaign for his release only grew more over time. The same was true of Prisoner of Zion Natan Sharansky when he was imprisoned in the Soviet Union. Despite these examples, the act of isolating prisoners seems, in the most part, to keep them out of the public view. This raises the question as to whether a stronger reaction to Marghouti would not be in Israel's best interests?<br />
<br />
In spite of accusations of Israel acting in a racist way towards Arabs, and even being called an "Apartheid country", Israel values its democracy and freedom of speech almost above everything else. And while security considerations are always of paramount importance in every situation, the notion of preserving democracy and freedom has a very high priority. The Jewish people have suffered so much discriminatory behaviour over the generations that it would be anathema to have a Jewish country that does not embody democracy and freedom in every respect. Even if it means being tolerant of those who seek Israel's destruction. <br />
<br />
It seems as though the furore over the article has died down, and the hunger strike in the prisons has been abandoned by large numbers of prisoners. It is ironic that some of the most important facts about the treatment of prisoners in Israeli jails seem to have been kept low-key in the whole uproar. The system of housing prisoners in jails is well demonstrated in the list of the improvements that the prisoners are striking for. These include;<br />
- increasing family visits from the current 45 minutes a time, to 90 minutes a time<br />
- increasing the frequency of family visits from once a month to twice a month<br />
- allowing the prisoners an increased selection of TV channels in the prisons<br />
- allowing the prisoners greater education facilities.<br />
Comparing this to the way in which Israeli prisoners have been held by Arab states over the years seems a joke. And yet, The New York Times sees it fit to cover this matter. This hardly points to the systematic violations of the Geneva Convention that Barghouti accuses of.<br />
<br />
With the story having almost burnt itself out, perhaps it was the right decision by the Israeli government not to respond more actively to the article that was published. In Israel's case, the criticism seems to come whether she has done something, and equally when she has not. Ultimately, we need to feel good with ourselves that we are doing what allows us to feel good when we look at ourselves in the mirror. I believe that this is what has been achieved in this case.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-78061882553789201122017-04-15T23:30:00.000+03:002017-04-15T23:30:18.309+03:00Action At Last<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Assad-Trump-678x381.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Assad-Trump-678x381.jpg" height="179" width="320" /></a></div>
The decision by US President Donald Trump to launch an attack in
Syria following the recent chemical weapons attack has been widely
welcomed by Israelis. It is also a welcome change from the policy that
was pursued by the US during the presidency of Barack Obama. Finally,
the free world has a leader who is prepared to take action rather than
utter words.<br />
<br />
Last Friday, President Trump really showed
what he is made of. Following the horrendous chemical weapons attack
that was carried out earlier last week by the forces of Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad against his own people, Trump took a few days to
consider the situation and gather the required evidence before striking
in retaliation. The retaliation was not against a violation of any US
interest in particular. The retaliation was rather against the
violation of innocent women and children, and against the unacceptable
use of chemical weapons.<br />
<br />
Over the past few years, the
world became used to the Obama style of doing things. Obama threatened,
but never made good on his threats. So, it comes as no surprise that
Assad gambled on the US not responding to this chemical attack. After
all, previous chemical attacks went unanswered. In fact, it was the
deal that was struck during Obama's presidency in 2013, that enabled
this chemical attack. When Obama discovered the extent of the stockpile
of Syria's chemical weapons, he decided to cut Assad some slack and
allow him a way to diplomatically and elegantly dispose of them. The
deal struck with Syria by negotiation between the USA and Russia
involved the dismantling of no fewer than 12 chemical weapons
productions facilities, numerous storage locations, a research and
development facility and the destruction of thousands of tons of
chemical agents.<br />
<br />
But, under the noses of the international
supervisors, and with the tacit knowledge of Obama and other members of
the international community, Assad succeeded in retaining some of these
chemical weapons for himself. It was one of the worst-kept secrets in
the Middle East. The Israeli intelligence community believed that the
Assad government retained a "residual" chemical stockpile
of somewhere between several hundred kilograms to several tons of
chemical weapons, about 1% of its original stockpile. Obama's reaction
was fairly predictable. He turned a blind eye. Last week's Sarin
attack by Assad is the public evidence of Obama's failed policy.<br />
<br />
In
taking action in the way that he did, Trump sent out a number of very
important messages. The first was a very clear message to Assad and his
army. This US president will not tolerate bully-boy tactics being
employed against innocent women and children, even if he is still in the
honeymoon period of his presidency. And he will not tolerate the use
of illegal chemical weapons, even if his predecessor was prepared to
turn a blind eye to this.<br />
<br />
The second message was sent to
Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has been Assad's patron for a
number of years. Initially, this support was in the form of supplying
weapons and vetoing resolutions against Assad at the UN Security
Council. While this support has continued, it has also escalated to
include Russian boots on the ground in Syria and Russian warplanes in
Syrian air space. Even though Trump was determined to forge a closer
link with Putin when he first entered office, the message to Putin is
that everything has changed. Even Russian support, and the possibility
of damaging US relations with Russia will not prevent Trump from taking
action against Assad.<br />
<br />
The third message was sent to
other rogue nations of the world, including Iran and North Korea. In a
similar way to how the deal with Syria was struck, Obama also struck a
deal with Iran. This deal involved nuclear weapons rather than Syria's
chemical weapons. The stakes were much higher, but the lack of backbone
on Obama's part was exactly the same. He decided to strike the deal
with Iran despite the obvious signs that Iran was pulling the wool over
the eyes of the countries signing the deal. Despite Obama's attempts to
placate Israel and other detractors of the agreement, its blaring
shortcomings were obvious to anybody with a mediocre understanding of
the situation. Trump, however, sends a completely different message.
He has started his time in office by questioning the logic of the deal
with Iran. And the attack against the Syrian forces sends an even
stronger message that Trump will not tolerate any deception or
aggression on the part of Iran, and also North Korea.<br />
<br />
For
the Israeli government, the intervention is welcome. Israel is
typically a country for whom actions speak louder than words, even if
the actions are frequently very quietly done. It is inconceivable that the Jewish state could idly watch from the sidelines when chemicals are being used to kill innocent women and children. The memory of the world standing idly by and watching during the Holocaust is still too fresh in our minds. It is a great dilemma
about how to respond to a situation like the chemical attack in Syria.
On the one hand, Israel would wish to respond with force to the use of
chemical weapons. Doing so would, however, seemingly play into Syria's hands, and
immediately embroil Israel in the war in Syria. Given the history of
the two countries and the way in which friendships line up, this could
potentially involve Iran, Syria and the USA very quickly indeed. This
would escalate to a regional conflict, and perhaps even result in a
conflict that goes beyond the regional borders. <br />
<br />
Trump's
strong message shows decisive leadership, and finally a
willingness to confront rogue states head-on. This is welcome. While
debates and condemnations at the UN and other forums may have their
place, action on the ground sends a much stronger and more serious
message. And his action also saved Israel from, once again, having to
respond in a way that will not result in a war involving multiple
countries.<br />
<br />
We watch with bated breath to see how things develop with Iran.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-70032252527548959772017-03-15T09:00:00.000+02:002017-03-15T09:00:21.146+02:00Israel Apartheid Week - A Contradiction in Terms<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.israelifrontline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/IMG-9807jpg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.israelifrontline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/IMG-9807jpg.jpg" height="239" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Source; Haaretz</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Every year, many universities around the world hold an event on their
campuses know as "Israel Apartheid Week". The event is justified by
the fact that it brings the so-called discriminatory behaviour of Israel
to the attention of the general public to allow people to know "what is
really happening in Israel and the Palestinian Territories". There
could be no greater contradiction in terms than this.<br />
<br />
I
am trying to work out why the focus is on Israel's reportedly
discriminatory behaviour in particular? Why Israel, as opposed to
discrimination by the Turks against the Kurds, or discrimination by the
Chinese against the Nepalese, or by the Russians against the Ukrainians
in Crimea and other former Soviet countries, or the discrimination in
many African countries, or discrimination by many Muslim countries
against their minorities and foreign workers, and even their own
citizens? There are surely so many countries on the list of those
behaving badly, that universities could mark some country's
discriminatory behaviour every week of the year. While one form of
discrimination does not justify another, the question is why Israel is
singled out for an apartheid week of its own? Surely this is
discriminatory in itself? It brings into question the real motivations
of those who are the main instigators behind this highly questionable
event, and how come it has gained so much traction around the world that
it is repeated on an annual basis?<br />
<br />
The first question
that arises, is whether Israel really behaves in the discriminatory
manner that is alleged by so many in the international community? Given
the level of threat and violence that is a constant in and around
Israel, it is easy to conclude that Israel discriminates against Arabs.
News broadcasts frequently show IDF soldiers in action against those
who are presented as innocent civilians. Israeli is constantly engaged
in one military operation or another. This supports the easy conclusion
about Israel being discriminatory against Arabs. This conclusion,
however, would be misguided. Instead, it would be more accurate to say
that Israel discriminates against the threat of terror and violence that
she has to deal with. And judging Israel's actions using a standard
for a western country, that is not subject to the same risks and terror
attacks, is not an even playing field. It would be interesting to see
how other peace-seeking countries would respond to the set of
circumstances that Israel finds herself in. I suspect that Israel's
so-called "discrimination" would be seen in an entirely different
light. Using the term "apartheid" to describe Israel is simply an
emotive term trying to play on the ultimate success of the
anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa. There is no link between what
is happening in Israel today, and Apartheid South Africa.<br />
<br />
Many
people try to put constant attacks on Israel in the international
community simply down to Israel-hating and Jew-hating. It is easy to
say that these are anti-Semitic activities dressed up with a political
justification, and leave it at that. And, even though much of that is
probably true, I don't feel satisfied with leaving the explanation
there. It is important for me to put this into greater context. I wish
to understand where this comes from, and why it is rearing its head at
this time and in this way.<br />
<br />
The anti-Israel activities
that have become common around the world, and which are epitomised in
Israel Apartheid Week, bear resemblance to the wave of anti-Semitism
that was in evidence in the years leading up to the Second World War.
We know that anti-Semitism is an age-old phenomenon that has no real
explanation or justification. We know that it has been allowed to rise
and fall, largely by the general tolerance and acceptance of the general
community. It increased in its intensity when leaders in the
international community have encouraged it, or tolerated it. Hitler's
Germany is the best example when the state encouraged anti-Semitism on
an industrial scale at the highest levels. The man in the street needed
little further encouragement, and the results are one of the most
shameful periods in history. It is my contention that the constant
criticism of Israel at the highest echelons of the international
community, is effectively encouraging the man in the street to believe
that his hatred towards Israel and Jews is justified and consistent with
public opinion. It is inconceivable that Israel justifies being the
one country in the world with more negative resolutions against her at
the UN Security Council, or having a permanent agenda item to answer to
at the UN Human Rights Council. These unjustified actions are
encouraging anti-Semitism on the streets of Europe, the USA and around
the world.<br />
<br />
We have just celebrated the Jewish
festival of Purim, that marks victory over unjustified anti-Semitism in
Persia more than 2,000 years ago. It seems that little has changed since then. Not in
the modern-day Persian country of Iran, and not elsewhere around the
world. People are taking their cue from international leaders who find it acceptable to spew venom against Israel at every chance. And to turn international institutions, particularly those connected to the UN, into tools of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment. This provides the green light for people around the world to feel that it is politically correct and acceptable to focus their hatred towards Israel. This is clearly a form of anti-Semitism, in the same way as much of the anti-Israel activity is simply anti-Semitism dressed up to look politically acceptable.<br />
<br />
Surely the time has come for international leaders to show true
leadership and stop the discrimination once and for all.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-26176461683574089952017-02-01T00:00:00.003+02:002017-02-01T00:00:24.438+02:00Making Use of the Trump Card<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Jerusalem_from_mt_olives.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="209" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Jerusalem_from_mt_olives.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Donald Trump has finally taken office as the 45th president of the United States and, along with it, many expectations from different quarters regarding the numerous outspoken promises made during his campaign for election. One of the more controversial campaign promises made, was to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This point has been the subject of much focus, and some question marks over whether Trump will ultimately see this promise through.<br />
<br />
Since first hearing of this promise by Trump, I have tried to work out what would have driven him to decide to make this undertaking. It seems fairly clear to me that Trump decided to make this promise of his own volition, and not as a result of a particular request by any party. So, what would have given Trump the reason to decide to make this matter a central part of his foreign policy in relation to the Middle East? Did he think that this would be a statement against the Arab world? Or a statement in support of Israel? I feel quite sure that the Israeli government would not have requested such an action of Trump. So Trump's motives seem strange in light of these facts.<br />
<br />
The location of international embassies in Tel Aviv instead of Jerusalem goes back to the time of the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. It is accepted and usual for countries to locate their embassy in the capital city of the host country. In Israel's case, foreign governments decided not to locate their embassies in Israel's chosen capital, Jerusalem, in order not to contravene the spirit of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 on the partition of Palestine that was passed in November 1947. This resolution called for the city of Jerusalem to be a "corpus separatum", a separate body from the Jewish and Arab states that the resolution also called for the establishment of. History shows that the Jews accepted the resolution and went on to build the Jewish state as envisaged by the resolution, while the Arabs did not. Instead, they attacked the Jewish state in attempt to take it for themselves to control the entire area, a battle that rages until this day. In spite of all of this, the international community has been insistent to maintain the independent status of Jerusalem, and not show favour towards one part nor the other in their claims over the holy city. It is for this reason that Jerusalem has not be recognised as the capital city of Israel, for fear of stepping on Arab toes. This is the situation that has persisted until the current day.<br />
<br />
Israel would clearly wish for the embassies to be moved to Jerusalem, and for the international community to recognise the holy city as the capital of the Jewish state. So Trump's initiative is not entirely unwelcome. The real question is whether this is what Israel would wish to see Trump using his energy to do as a first gesture of his support for the Jewish state? I believe that there are currently larger and probably more important fish to fry, and that Trump's assistance could give would be more helpful in other areas. Examples of this include the issue of Iran, that remains a major thorn in Israel's side. It is not so much the direct threat that Iran presents to Israel, even though this is a huge issue, it is more about the massive funding that is being channelled by Iran to other terror groups. All of which are trying to destroy Israel in any way possible. The deal that was struck between Iran and the P5+1 countries has delivered economic benefits to Iran which have served to increase the flow of funds to these terror groups. It would be very desirable for Trump to somehow help to turn this clock back. Trump could also help to redress the imbalance that has existed in the international community against Israel for too long now. There is no doubt that Trump can also help to isolate terror groups that have been operating against Israel and against Jews. It is my view that some of these issues are more pressing than moving the embassy to Jerusalem. <br />
<br />Trump's assistance to Israel, even if it is genuine and well-meant, will have its limits. He has many pressing US domestic issues to deal with, along with foreign policy issues affecting US allies and enemies alike. The amount of time and energy that he will have to devote to Israeli issues will be limited, and it would make sense for Prime Minister Netanyahu to prioritise the help that he needs from Trump very carefully in order to make it really count. I believe that the location of the embassy in Jerusalem is a lower priority issue. While I don't think that Netanyahu should forget this idea completely, it may be advisable to freeze it and put it on the back-burner for now.<br />
<br />Netanyahu and Trump are diarised to meet on 15 February in Washington. Netanyahu will be drawing up his agenda very carefully to get the maximum benefit from this meeting. It is arguably more difficult for Netanyahu to fix his agenda for the meeting with Trump, than it was to arrange the agenda for meetings with less supportive presidents such as Obama. It is a little like a kid in a candy store trying to decide which he should leave behind. The choices are difficult.<br />
<br />
With the Trump presidency having started with such positive support for Israel, there is a great danger that Israeli expectations may be heightened to the point of ultimate disappointment. Only time will tell. Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-52425202641003576602016-12-25T11:00:00.000+02:002016-12-25T12:49:21.534+02:00Obama's Final Act of Betrayal<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://images.politico.com/global/2012/02/120203_obama_netanyahu2_reu.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://images.politico.com/global/2012/02/120203_obama_netanyahu2_reu.jpg" height="173" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Image courtesy of www.politico.com</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
After weeks of speculation as to how the US will vote at the UN Security Council when presented with the resolution condemning Israel's policy regarding the so-called "settlements", we now have a clear and unequivocal answer. In the vote held on Friday, Barack Obama instructed his ambassador to the UN to abstain from the vote at the Security Council. This action allowed the motion to be carried, with 14 countries voting in favour and 1 country (the USA) abstaining. Had Obama decided to vote against the resolution, it would not have been carried despite the majority voting in favour. Because the USA has a veto right at the UN Security Council, it had the power to defeat the motion on its own. This veto right was not exercised on Friday.<br />
<br />
The decision by the USA delegation to abstain from Friday's vote flies in the face of USA policy at the UN Security Council in recent years on the subject of resolutions condemning Israel. In the words of outgoing UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, Israel has been the victim of a disproportionate number of resolutions condemning her actions at the hands of various UN organisations. One could interpret this to mean that Israel has been unfairly targeted by the UN, and unjustifiably singled out for constant criticism and condemnation. The USA has somewhat redressed this imbalance by exercising its right of veto at the Security Council over the years, and has ensured that the unfair condemnations of Israel are not allowed to stand, at least in that forum. The most recent example of this was in 2011, when the Obama administration vetoed a resolution that condemned Israel's settlement activity. The resolution on that occasion was remarkably similar to the one passed by the Security Council on Friday by virtue of the US abstention. So what has changed in 5 short years, that justified the US turning its back on Israel at this time?<br />
<br />
In 2011, there was a great deal more at stake for President Obama. He had been in office for approximately 3 years, and was already eyeing his re-election with the hope of returning to the White House for 4 more years. His decision to veto the resolution on that occasion was all about serving his interest at that time, rather than showing what he genuinely felt and believed. Fast-forward 5 years, and Obama has no political capital to win or lose from the Security Council vote. He will vacate the Oval Office in less than a month, and this vote has no bearing on his future whatsoever. The only reason that he would vote in one direction or another, is to reflect his genuine view on the matter. This view is shown loudly and clearly in a resolution that is one-sided and false in its depiction of the reality. This is the legacy that Obama and Kerry are leaving on their peace-making efforts over the years, that were presented as being fair and even-handed.<br />
<br />
This act puts an entire 8 year presidency into context. There were many conspiracy theories about what Obama's true position on Israel was. Was he influenced by the fact that he comes from Muslim heritage? Was he genuinely sympathetic to Israel's struggle for survival? Did he understand that the obstacles to peace are numerous, and not only the fault of one party or the other? He tried to cloud the answers to these questions, and presented himself as a friend of Israel throughout his term in office. This single act at the end of his presidency, however, has clarified all that has gone before. While Israel would never wish to oppose the possibility of reaching a genuine agreement with the Palestinians, it has always been important to Israel that any agreement be reached on the basis of mutual respect and recognition between the parties. This respect and recognition has been sorely missing from the Palestinian side.<br />
<br />The only real purpose that this resolution serves, is to continue to perpetrate the view that Israel is solely to blame for the lack of progress towards peace. And Israel's policy on settlements is an easy scapegoat to use to illustrate why Israel should be blamed. If it was true that the settlements are the main obstacle to peace, why was peace not achieved in the period from 1948 to 1967, when there were no settlements to blame. Not only was peace not achieved, the Arabs were hell-bent on destroying Israel at any and every opportunity. But now, the settlements are being presented as the only reason for the lack of a peace agreement. Where is the criticism of the fact that the Palestinians refuse to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, that has a right to live in peace and security? Or of the fact that the PLO charter continues to call for the destruction of the State of Israel? Or the continuous terror attacks that Israelis are forced to endure? These were conveniently ommitted from the UN Security Council resolution, and this emphasizes how one-sided how this resolution really is.<br />
<br />
If the resolution served to somehow move the peace process forward or to make a positive contribution the situation, I would be able to understand Obama's decision to allow it to stand on the record. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Instead, it is a pointless finger-pointing exercise that makes little contribution to the creation of a positive environment for peace-making. And now, it is clearer as to who is pointing at whom. Obama, your true colours have been revealed. Shame on you.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com1