The "March of Return" Protests

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Damned If You Do, and Damned If You Don't

Much has been written and discussed about Marwan Barghouti's article 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?

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.

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?

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.

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;
- increasing family visits from the current 45 minutes a time, to 90 minutes a time
- increasing the frequency of family visits from once a month to twice a month
- allowing the prisoners an increased selection of TV channels in the prisons
- allowing the prisoners greater education facilities.
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.

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.

Obama's Final Act of Betrayal

Image courtesy of www.politico.com

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Open Letter to Maria

Dear Maria,

I have read what you wrote to Amnon when he sought to be your guest via airbnb.  I think that you have really lost a great opportunity to expand your knowledge and understanding of the issues that currently exist between Israel and the Palestinians.  I am sure that hosting Amnon would have been an eye-opener for you.  I wish to take the liberty to explain here what Amnon may have told you if you had been open-minded enough to have him as your guest.

Having followed the activities of the BDS movement over a number of years, I wonder whether the movement’s supporters like yourself really understand what BDS is about.  People like you appear to support BDS in the belief that isolating Israel will promote a peaceful solution between Israel and the Palestinians.  Even though your objective is honourable, you are bound to be disappointed by the achievements of BDS.  The BDS movement and its activities are first and foremost directed towards hurting and destroying Israel.  The BDS idea was originally to protest Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria (the so-called “West Bank”) by exposing and boycotting Israeli products produced in these areas.  Instead, the organisation has been hijacked by anti-Israel and anti-Semitic individuals, who try to convince people like you that BDS is an honourable cause that promotes peace.  And this can be achieved by behaving in an anti-Semitic way, just like you did on airbnb.  But all that they are really doing is trying to promote anti-Semitism and hate towards Israel in a politically acceptable manner.

If you are prepared to examine the issue in greater depth, you will discover that the main obstacle to peace is the unwillingness of the Palestinians to recognise Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.  This is demonstrated by their refusal to remove from their charter, the objective to destroy the Jewish state. So, if BDS was really an organisation that promoted the idea of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, it would protest against the Palestinians’ stated objective, and against their continued attempts to destroy Jews and the Jewish state.

If you are looking for activists working towards a peaceful solution, you will find that the majority of Jews in Israel are activists working towards a peaceful solution.  There are few Israelis who do not yearn for a more peaceful environment to raise their children, and to find a peaceful way to co-exist with our neighbours.  Don’t forget that Israelis are happy to welcome Arabs, even so-called Palestinian Arabs, into their towns and cities to sit alongside them in coffee shops and restaurants.  As long as they come in peace.  You will find Arabs in every Israeli town and city, in malls up and down the country and working in Israeli businesses.  The same cannot be said for finding Jews in the Palestinian Authority area.  Their areas are “Judenfrei”.  And it is this type of behaviour that the international community and BDS reward by criticising and castigating Israel at every opportunity.  If you are indeed ready to make an exception for activists working for a peaceful solution, Amnon is probably the person that you should make your exception for.  Or any other Israeli who wishes to be your guest.  We all dream about peace, and are prepared to give a great deal to achieve it.

Don’t forget, however, that Israelis are not prepared to seek out peace at any price.  They are not prepared to do it in a way that ultimately ends up destroying the Jewish state.  After all, this is hardly peace.  If the Palestinians were prepared to recognise Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, they will find willing partners in Israelis to shake their hands and to find ways to co-exist in peace.  If not, Israelis are unafraid to fight for their rights and for their survival.  We are a tough bunch of people who never give up.

It is unfortunate that BDS has managed to convince people like you that it is fighting for peace, and to cause you to become anti-Semitic in your actions.  The people who are really fighting for peace are not the Palestinians, and not the BDS activists.  They are the Israelis.  If you give them a chance to prove it, you will never be disappointed.  I am sure that you will have the chance to discover this first-hand if you host Amnon as your guest.  And even though you may have been influenced by BDS and by the media in your thoughts and actions, you do need to take some responsibility for the way in which you have treated Amnon.  It is anti-Semitic, bigoted and unacceptable.

Regards
Anthony

Rough Justice?

The story of Sgt. Elor Azaria has captured the imagination of many Israelis, and has succeeded in dividing opinions very sharply.  Sgt. Azaria is an IDF soldier in the Kfir brigade, who was on duty near Hebron on a day in February when a terrorist stabbed and wounded another IDF soldier friend of his.  According to the most reliable eye-witness accounts of the story, Sgt. Azaria shot at the terrorist some time after the terrorist had already been neutralised and was under the full control of other IDF soldiers.  The shot fired from Sgt. Azaria's gun resulted in the death of the terrorist.  As a result of this incident, Elor has been court-martialed, and charged with the offense of manslaughter.

The entire episode has played itself out in the public eye.  This is due to the intervention of the human rights organisation Btselem, who miraculously had somebody on the scene to record the events, and decided that it was appropriate to publicly air a video taken of the incident.  The video turns out to have been edited before being publicised, and without full disclosure of that fact.  The act of airing the video in public pushed the matter, and the debate, into the public arena.  The IDF was forced to respond publicly saying that it would investigate the incident, and take actions against the soldier if appropriate.  This, in turn, sparked a great deal of public support for the soldier, explaining that he has been forced to operate in extremely dangerous conditions as a result of the recent wave of terrorist violence in the West Bank and Israel.  It was put forward that his actions should be understood in the context of the situation that has been imposed upon Israel and her soldiers.  Israel's prime minister, minister of defense, chief of general staff and other ministers in government all felt the need to make public statements on the matter in criticising the soldier's actions.  In turn, this drew in the family of the soldier and many others who felt the need to defend him.  The incident degenerated into a classic public free-for-all.

The considerations on each side of the argument are clear, and convincing.  Israel is a country that is constantly under threat from those who wish to destroy her and her people.  This forces all of Israel's citizens to serve in the army as protection against those who desire to reap destruction.  Israel's soldiers are placed in danger's way each and every day.  This is not a normal or acceptable situation, and places enormous stress on young people who serve in the country's military.  Little consideration seems to be given by the international community to this fact.  Instead, Israel's soldiers are constantly under close scrutiny.  Organisations like Btselem ignore the human rights abuses that are inherent in the constant threats to Israel, and they find it only necessary to hold Israel and her soldiers accountable for their reactions in the spur of the moment.  This background forms the basis for the support that Elor has received from the public.  The fact that he was placed in a difficult situation having to protect his country at such a young age, has elicited sympathy and respect for him, and support for his actions.  Elor and his brigade spent many long hours on patrols, knowing that somebody could try to kill them at any moment.  Why should terrorists be afforded human rights, when they have no respect for the human rights of others?  There are many who believe that the fact that this person was trying to kill another individual in an orchestrated terror attack, immediately removes his right to being treated with respect and removes his human rights.  So, for many Israelis, it is inconceivable that a soldier can be tried on charges of killing a terrorist.  This is, after all, the job that soldiers are trained to do.

Despite many indications to the contrary, the IDF has strict disciplinary rules that it enforces.  These rules have been developed to fit with the environment in which its soldiers are forced to operate, and are designed to take advantage of the Israeli culture to extract the most from each conscripted soldier.  The rules are also highly influenced by our Jewish heritage, and the values that come with that.  The IDF's view is that we have the obligation to separate ourselves and our behaviour from those who seek to destroy us, and who behave without compassion or humanity in their quest to achieve this.  Even though the IDF's objective is to protect the people and the State of Israel, this should be achieved in a manner that is true to our cultural and religious teachings.  We should never lose sight of the fact that our soldiers are human beings before they are soldiers.  It is for this reason that the IDF discipline affords human rights not only to soldiers, but also to terrorists and enemies.  When responding to terrorists and enemy fighters, IDF soldiers have strict rules of engagement that are closely policed.  While giving IDF soldiers freedom to do almost anything that is required in the protection of Israeli lives, the rules of engagement strictly forbid shooting anybody unless an order to do so has been given or unless a victim's life is in immediate danger.  Failure to abide by the rules of engagement is taken seriously.  An army that has to counter the threats that the IDF sees daily, is forced to have a zero tolerance policy on operational transgressions.  There is no room for any soldier to have his or her own agenda or ulterior motive while he is in the service of the IDF.  If there is any suspicion that Elor has overstepped the well-kown and highly drilled rules of engagement, the correct action is to investigate the matter and give the soldier the right to defend his or her actions.  If the soldier felt fear or threat at the moment that he fired his shot, or believed that another life was in imminent danger, he will have his opportunity to present this defence.

I feel confident that the court-martial system will allow the charges to be put to the soldier, while also allowing him the opportunity to defend them in a democratic manner.  No external party or member of the public, whether it be Btselem, the minister of defense, the chief of general staff and even the prime minister can, or should pre-empt or interrupt this process.  It is extremely regrettable that this process is being played out in public, and it would be far more effective to allow the IDF to do its job internally in the manner that it is accustomed to doing.  It is clear that the act by Btselem of bringing this into the public domain effectively forced some of our leadership to respond to this in public.  The response, however, to the Btselem accusations was way beyond what was required.  Some believe that this was designed to pander to the international community, rather than considering the impact on the soldier and on the IDF as a whole.  Elor Azaria has become a villain in the eyes of some, while being a hero in the eyes of others.  I regard this act of forcing him into such a high public profile is possibly as stressful as the job that he was doing in the field near Hebron.

There is no doubt that Israel's young soldiers are forced to endure more stress than other young people of their age, and perhaps even more than professional soldiers in the armies of other countries.  Israel is currently the only country in the developed world that is being forced to fight a war within its borders, and the only country whose very existence is constantly questioned and threatened.  In spite of this fact, the international community seems to hold Israel to standards that are far in excess of the standards expected of other countries.  All of this is extremely unreasonable and even discriminatory, but standing up and shouting about it from the rooftops appears futile.  It does not help Israel secure her future, which is the most important task at hand.

It is thanks to the enthusiasm of those like Elor Azaria that Israel is able to protect herself against the constant threats of destruction.  Israel's young soldiers show incredible loyalty and patriotism when serving their country.  This enthusiasm needs to be allowed to show itself within a very stringent framework.  The framework is not only important for the discipline in the IDF, it is important for our soldiers and our country to retain their humanity.  This is the key difference that distinguishes Israel from her enemies, and is something that we would never wish to lose.  We would never wish to sink to the levels of those who seek to destroy Israel.

It is important now to allow the court-martial to conduct its work according to the rules and democratic principles under which it operates.  No external parties should be allowed to influence this process in any way.  No doubt, the verdict of the court-martial will be received with controversy, whatever its outcome.  We are forced to accept the verdict, and understand that this is the way in which our democracy operates.  Whatever the outcome may be, I feel immensely proud that we are able to retain our humanity even under the most extreme conditions.  And I am proud that we demand this humanity of our soldiers, even if the international community does not acknowledge this.

Reflections of 2015

As we take the first few tentatives steps into 2016, it is a natural instinct to take a look back on the year that has just passed, and to assess its events.  It was an action-packed year, not always in the positive sense of the word, and some of these occurrences are likely to accompany us for some years into the future.  As I see things, 2015 will be remembered for two key happenings.  The first of which is the signing of the deal with Iran by the P5+1 countries, led strongly by the US.  The second happening is the campaign of terror that has swept across Israel over the past few months.

The signing of the nuclear deal with Iran in July 2015 is of significance for a number of reasons, none of them favourable to Israel.  After many years of operating a nuclear enrichment program in secret, Iran's nuclear program was given an official stamp of authority and approval by the international community upon the signing of the agreement.  The fact that the program was run under cover for so long, brings into question the real intentions of this program.  While Iran claims that the purpose of the nuclear enrichment program has always been for the purpose of producing electricity for domestic consumption (and indeed some of the enriched Uranium has been used for this purpose), this can surely not explain why it was operated in secret away from the prying eyes of the international community for all those years.   Israeli intelligence tells us that Iran has been enriching Uranium to produce nuclear weapons, and the intelligence has found secret sites housed in underground bunkers where this has been happening for some time.  The international community acknowledges this in its agreement with Iran.  If there was no intention on the part of the Iranians to produce nuclear weapons, I guess that the convoluted agreement with Iran limiting its rights to enrich Uranium would not have been necessary.  The fact that the negotiations took so long and involved brinkmanship right until the last moment, is clear indication that the objectives of the international community were not aligned with those of Iran.  Now, it is claimed that Iran's nuclear program will be under constant supervision to ensure that it cannot produce nuclear weapons.  This statement seems to ignore the fact that Iran successfully ran a secret program of producing nuclear weapons for so long, and is highly likely to continue to do so now in the same was as before, after the agreement has been concluded and implemented.

The most astonishing revelation for me, is the fact that the international community is willing to negotiate and reach agreement with a country that constantly threatens the annihilation of another member of the international community.  This simply legitimises bad behaviour that is contrary to the spirit and rules of the United Nations.  Instead of castigating and isolating the country involved until such time as it amends its bad behaviour, this country is rewarded with an agreement that accepts its nuclear program (that was clearly intended for non-peaceful purposes) and lifts the sanctions that were designed to punish it.  I see the signing of this agreement as one of the great historical mistakes of the international community, and one that will have a substantial negative impact on peace and safety of the Middle East for many years ahead.  By signing this agreement, and by legitimising Iran's nuclear program that is at best highly questionable, the international community effectively becomes a party to the threats and the terrorist activities that Iran perpetrates and funds against Israel.

The second notable event of 2015 in my eyes, is the cycle of violence that has taken hold of Israel.  What ostensibly started out as a few "lone wolves" venting their frustration against Israel and Jews, has taken hold as a cycle supported by the usual terror organisations, as well as the Palestinian Authority. (PA)  At first, it seemed as though the isolated stabbing of an innocent civilian, or the odd "accident" in which pedestrians were being run over by vehicles would pass quickly.  But it has expanded further into what some are calling the third intifada or the "stabbing intifada".  The term "intifada" is one that indicates that the uprising is being supported by the PA, something that the Israeli government goes out of is way to deny.  When the only action that the PA is seen to take in the wake of these attacks is to justify them on the grounds of the fact that Palestinians are feeling frustrated by the so-called "occupation", there can be no doubt of their complicity.  Complicity does not necessarily come in the form of supplying arms and specifically sending terrorists into action.  Their complicity comes in the form of tacit consent.

But there is more to it than this.  The PA's contribution to the uprising that we see now runs longer and deeper.  It begins with the messages that are being sent to children in schools about the Jewish enemy, and about how the Palestinians will not rest until they ultimately conquer all the land that currently forms part of the Jewish state.  It continues with the premeditated act of maintaining squalid living conditions for their citizens, and deflecting the blame for this onto the "occupation".  This builds further animosity and hatred, and is not at all accurate.  There seems to be no accounting for the billions of dollars of international aid money given to the PA over the years, earmarked for assisting economic development for its citizens.  Instead, much of it has been syphoned into the personal bank accounts of the PA leadership, who all enjoy luxurious standards of living.  Some of the money is being paid to the families of "shahids", those who have been killed while carrying out terror attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians. Some of these shahids are from the current "stabbing intifada" wave of violence, giving further credence to their support of the current uprising.  The PA is not at all as sweet and innocent as they would wish the international community to believe.

While it may be possible to quell the cycle of violence with a firm hand from Israeli security and military personnel, it will leave its footprint in the same way as other violence has done.  People are being killed unnecessarily on both sides of the divide.  These deaths simply generate further animosity and calls for revenge.  They radicalise people who see these deaths as just another attempt to destroy one people or another, or deny an entire nation or people the right to exist in peace and security.  Surely the time has come for the PA to be held to account for its actions, and for its role in the violence that we have seen, not only now, but over many years?

In spite of these and other challenges that the State of Israel has had to deal with during 2015, it is remarkable to note the progress that it has made in parallel.  The Israeli economy continued to grow at more than 2% pa during 2015, had the lowest levels of unemployment ever, had the lowest interest rates in history and also had negative inflation.  The Shekel ended 2015 as the currency with strongest growth against the US Dollar for the year.  Israel absorbed more than 30,000 Jews from other countries, many of whom were running from the threats of ever-increasing anti-Semitism.  Many of these achievements could not be matched by countries that do not have to deal with big threats and issues that Israel deals with daily.  It shows the resilience and the resourcefulness of Israel and her people.

So, while we tentatively step into 2016 expecting more of the same from 2015, there remains an air of optimism about what can be achieved this year.  Imagine what could be done if there was not so much time, energy and money being devoted to fighting negative forces.

No Respect for Dr. Levine

Dr. Marsha Levine is an expert on the origins of horse husbandry, and spent a decade as a fellow and a senior research associate the University of Cambridge’s McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.  She was recently contacted by 13 year-old Shachar Rabinovitch, an Israeli pupil, who asked her questions for a school project about how ancient horses lived, and how much modern horses have in common with their ancestors.  Dr. Levine’s astonishing response to Shachar read, “You might be a child, but if you are old enough to write to me, you are old enough to learn about Israeli history and how it has impacted on the lives of Palestinian people”.    When asked by London’s Jewish Chronicle about the incident, Dr. Levine said that she has the choice not to waste her time on people who tread on the rights of other people.  She continued that she will answer Shachar when there is justice for Palestine.  Dr. Levine is a signatory to Jews for Justice for Palestinians, and she claims to have responded in this way as a matter of conscience and to stand up for what she believes in.  She described Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as “totally disgusting” and says that Israeli Jews have become the Nazis!

Dr. Levine’s response is wholly unacceptable for a number of reasons.  Politics aside, answering an innocent enquiry from a 13 year-old child in this manner can never be justified.  This aspect gives perhaps the greatest incite into Dr. Levine, and who she is as an individual.  While having sympathy and standing up for the human rights of the Palestinians, what happened to this empathy when approached by a child?  There is no possible way of understanding that this child, or any child, can be held responsible for the political situation in the Middle East, and deserves to be punished or taught a lesson for it.  It is entirely likely that Shachar will remember the rude response received from a person who sympathises with the Palestinian cause, and hold a negative view towards such people in the future.  There is nothing positive that young Shachar can glean from this response, and her exposure to Dr. Levine.  The most likely educational lesson that Shachar has learned is that she should be wary of people who stand up for the human rights of the Palestinians.

Dr. Levine also perhaps forgets that it takes two to tango, and that the current situation that exists between Israel and the Palestinians arises as a result of the actions of two parties.  Perhaps she has forgotten the ongoing attempts to attack Israel, to commit terror attacks against innocent Israelis and the larger desire to destroy the State of Israel at any price.  Where does she raise the issue of how the Palestinians are treading on the human rights of the Israelis?  Do Israel civilians not have the basic right to live without threat of terror attack and without having missiles fired towards them?  Does Dr. Levine consider the possibility that the current human rights situation is more as a result of the actions of the Palestinian leadership, than it is about Israel?  When looking at the human rights records of Muslim countries around the world, it is extremely difficult to conclude that human rights violations in the Palestinian Authority area are wholly about Israel and her actions.  The desire by Muslim fundamentalists to destroy does not stop in Israel.  Perhaps Dr. Levine forgot that these Muslim acts of terror are also seeking out Jews and other innocents around the world.  The terrorists are looking for people exactly like her to kill, maim and terrorise.

The act of signing up to Jews for Justice for Palestinians is somewhat superfluous.  We have a whole country of Jews who are signed up to this – those living in Israel.  Israelis believe in justice for all people.  And while Israelis certainly stand up for justice for innocent Palestinians, Israelis firstly believe in justice for themselves.  If this justice is under threat at any time, Israelis will not stop at any obstacle to defend themselves, even if this means that they stand accused of treading on the human rights of other people by Dr. Levine and her cronies.  Respect for human rights is something that should not only be given, but it should also be received.  When the human rights threats come in the form of a desire to destroy an entire nation or people, there can be no doubt that this nation and those people have the right and the obligation to defend themselves in protection of their own human rights.

Being a career academic, I would have expected Dr. Levine to study the facts before she stands up to criticize, and before she takes the wind out of the sails of an innocent child.  I cannot blame uneducated people for being sucked in by the propaganda that is presented by enemies of Israel and by the general press.  Dr. Levine should know better than to be influenced by such unreliable sources, and to take such a strong stand on the base of these flawed positions.

I am do not expect Jews like Dr. Levine to blindly support Israel’s cause or actions.  I know that all countries can, and should be held to account for transgressions that they commit.  Israel is no exception.  Israel, however, has a slightly different status for the Jewish community around the world.  Not only does Israel defend and protect the rights of the Jews living in Israel, it also sees its role as defending and protecting the rights of all Jews around the world.  This includes those, like Dr. Levine, who are Israel-hating Jews.  There is little doubt in my mind that, the only reason why there has not been another Holocaust in more recent times, is because of the existence and the actions of the State of Israel.  With the terrorist actions undertaken by Muslim fundamentalists against Jews even with the existence of Israel, we can only consider what may have been without the protection afforded by the Jewish state.  There can be little doubt that it is precisely this protection that has given the background to allow Jews like Dr. Levine to live their lives in relative normality.  I have strong doubts as to whether she would have succeeded at a Jew as an academic at one of the world’s top institutions, without the protection afforded by Israel.

Dr. Levine, you have lost respect in my eyes.  You have lost my respect for the inappropriate and unjustified insult that you issued to an innocent child when she turned to you out of admiration for you as an expert in your  field.  You have lost my respect for your attack on Israel, which is flawed and baseless.  You have lost my respect for your lack of balance in the manner in which you presented your views.  You have lost my respect for stooping so low as to compare Israelis to Nazis.  Perhaps it is best that young Shachar Rabinovich received the real picture of who you are, and learned her lesson about you in this way.  You are not worthy of her admiration.

Palestinian Actions Speaking as Loudly as Words

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu  delivered  another triumphant speech at the United Nations General Assembly meeting.  He seems to be at his best when standing at the UN podium and presenting Israel's case to the world.  His speech came only a day after the one delivered by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and it was noticeable how Netanyahu's speech contained much optimism in stark contrast to Abbas's words.  Since these speeches were delivered, a number of innocent Israelis have been murdered and many more injured in Palestinian terror attacks in the city of Jerusalem, in the West Bank and elsewhere in Israel.  It frequently seems as though nobody in the UN General Assembly is really listening to the speeches, as most people come there with their positions firmly entrenched.  The speeches are heard by audiences outside of the General Assembly chamber in New York, particularly by the electorate of the leader concerned.  Abbas's speech appears to have been very much directed at the Palestinian people.  There also seems to be a strong link between the tone of the messages delivered, and the actions that have taken place on the ground in Israel since the speech.

Those close to Abbas had warned for many months prior to this UN General Assembly meeting, that Abbas's speech was going to contain a "bombshell".  This expectation was set, not only amongst the international community, but also amongst the Palestinians who are looking to Abbas for leadership.  There was speculation about what it could be.  Most of the ideas that were put forward as possibilities were along a negative theme.  Some thought that Abbas would resign or dismantle the Palestinian Authority.  Those people who were hoping for something positive that could somehow contribute to the situation in the Middle East, and possibly move the peace process forward, were drowned out.  After the speech, the so-called "bombshell" was described by one Israeli newspaper as more of a stink bomb than a bombshell.  There was nothing dramatic that one could point to in his speech that could be termed a "bombshell".  Perhaps, more importantly, there was certainly no hint of anything positive to give one a feeling that a way forward can be found.  Instead, there was evidence of frustration that the Palestinian issue has been replaced on the front pages of the international press by the ISIS threat and by the Syrian refugee crisis.  There was an appeal for governments around the world not to forget that they should continue to pursue foreign policies that criticise Israel's behaviour and actions, while heaping sympathy on the Palestinian "victims" in the conflict.  The message, however, was received loudly by the Palestinian people, while not registering any response on the agendas of foreign governments.  The clear message sent by Abbas and received by the Palestinians, was one of hopelessness and lack of optimism for the future.

It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the Palestinians have heard the message from the UN, and have embarked upon a spree of terror attacks across Israel that have killed and injured innocent people.  In the process, children have been orphaned, parents have lost children, and wives have lost their husbands.  Even though the wave of violence has been blamed by Palestinian leaders on events that have recently taken place on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the violence cannot be attributed to these events in any way.  The events on the Temple Mount are simply part of this violence that we have seen elsewhere, rather than a cause of it.  The cause of the violence can be traced back to the words in the UN General Assembly Hall that reflect the general message that has been in evidence for the Palestinians for some time.  A lack of hope and optimism, and a feeling that there is little to lose, can cause people to behave in extreme and sometimes illogical ways.  This is clearly the case with Palestinian people right now.  It is too simplistic to explain the current events as simply arising spontaneously out of a lack of hope.

It is frequently the case that the actions of the government serve to give their people the optimism that drives them to feel motivated or not.  Actions by a national government can easily trigger a positive feeling and spirit amongst its populace, and equally cause it to dry up as a result of actions that drain their mood.  This can sometimes be triggered by relatively mall things that are of greater concern to people. It seems to me that the spirit of the Palestinian people has been drained by the negative actions of Mahmoud Abbas.  How can a nation feel motivated when your leader stands up in front of the international community and expresses views that are completely devoid of any optimism for the future?

The Palestinian Authority is not only guilty of milking their people of any optimism to the point that they have effectively given cause to this cycle of violence, they are also guilty of inciting them to continue this violence.  The word "intifada" has been mentioned many times in relation to this cycle of violence.  For those of us who lived through the previous 2 intifadas, this cycle of violence looks remarkably like an intifada.  We are told, however, that this is not an intifada.  The most commonly quoted reason is that the previous 2 intifadas were actively supported by the Palestinian Authority, with weapons, money and specific instructions being given by the authority.  On this occasion, according to what we are being told, the authority is not actively supporting the violence.  It is noticeable, however, that they are also not speaking out against this violence in any way.  This can surely be considered and interpreted to be support.  Those who are not speaking out against this wave of violence, are clearly seen to support it.  In my view, and according to the official definition, this is an intifada.

The involvement of the Palestinian Authority in previous intifadas was described as a "guiding hand" behind the scenes.  The Israeli government is telling us that, on this occasion, there is no guiding hand.  Having said that, there are some hallmarks of the current wave of violence that seem to be part of an orchestrated strategy.  The fact that the weapons of choice being used in the current round of attacks are stones that are being thrown, and knives being used for stabbing attacks, is different from intifadas in the past.  And it is also noticeable that many of those involved in attacks in the current wave of violence are youths and minors.  This certainly tells a better story for putting on social media.  Minors are clearly problematic from a prosecution perspective under Israel law, when the perpetrators are arrested.  They cannot be treated in the same way as adults are treated under the law, and this may be one of the reasons why this strategy is being employed.  As much as we are being told that the violent attacks are spontaneous actions by individuals on the ground, it seems that the attacks are coordinated and part of a strategy.

A recent development in the wave of violence, is the involvement of Israeli Arabs.   Some of the attacks carried out in Jerusalem, have been undertaken by Arabs who are citizens of Israel.  Over the past few days, protests have been seen in Israeli Arab cities up and down Israel.  These are protests in support of the wave of violence directed against Jewish Israelis.  The involvement of Israeli Arabs is a dangerous development, and creates a dilemma for the Israeli government.  The interior minister has threatened to withdraw Israeli citizenship from any Israeli found to be involved in the violence.  Even this is more of a knee-jerk response, and not necessarily a longer-term solution.

The responsibility for this wave of violence falls directly on the Palestinian Authority.  And this is not only because of their responses (or lack of responses) over the past few weeks.  This responsibility goes back many years during the time that they have educated their children for conflict and violence against Israel and Jews.  Such education takes a long time to undo, perhaps even a number of generations.  Of course, this is not aided by staying silent when their people carry out heinous attacks on innocent people, and by blaming Israel for a change in status on the Temple Mount.  This is an outrageous accusation, that is simply designed to get support from fellow Muslims around the world, and to return the Palestinian issue back to the front pages of the newspapers.

Despite the fact that the support and the "guiding hand" of the Palestinian Authority is different from what it has been in the past, this is an intifada in definition and action.  The authority has adopted a policy of maintaining a feeling of hopelessness amongst its people, in order to build hatred and despondency that is being channelled against Israel and Israelis.  It continues to educate its children for hatred, war and conflict rather than education for peace and coexistence.  The speeches at the United Nations showed clearly that Israel stands for all that is positive and optimistic, while the Palestinian Authority stands for the opposite.  Until this is rectified, there can never be peaceful coexistence in this land.

Netanyahu's True Colours

An interesting document has been published by Israel's Yediot Achronot and its on line publication, Ynet.  It is claimed that the document was prepared by officials in Prime Minister Netanyahu's government, something that the prime minister vehemently denies.  The document, which is addressed to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, purports to offer huge concessions on the part of the Israeli government in the search for a peace agreement.  Netanyahu claims that he would never have offered the things that were contained in the document, and accuses the newspaper's editor, the Moses family, of trying to play a dirty political trick to discredit him.  Another journalist, who claims to have investigated the matter of this document, says that the document is genuine but was developed by the US administration rather than by the Israeli government.  Another theory that has been put forward is that Israeli ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, was involved in putting together the document with Netanyahu's blessing.

Whatever you wish to believe about the source of the document, it does contain some interesting information.  The document is formulated in the style of an offer to the Palestinians, which sets out major concessions on the part of the Israeli government.  The document was developed in August 2013 as part of the ill-fated peace talks under the sponsorship and auspices of US Secretary of State, John Kerry.  The concessions incorporated in the document include a proposal for Israel to revert back to the 1967 land borders with certain land swaps, a deal on allowing a Palestinian state a part of Jerusalem as its capital, and even a concession to allow the return of some Palestinian refugees.  One version of the story suggests that they were presented by Prime Minister Netanyahu's personal representative Yitzchak Molcho to Hussein Agha, affiliate of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, soon after the talks were initiated in July 2013.  If this is to be believed, these concessions represent possible compromise solutions to the main sticking points that the Palestinians continue to present as being the key reasons for the ongoing lack of agreement between themselves and Israel.

It is not clear whether or not the document was presented to the Palestinians, but it seems inconceivable that they were not at least aware of it.  It is interesting that there was never public comment made on their part about it.  Some would hold this up as evidence of the fact that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is not negotiating in good faith.  If he had been negotiating in good faith, and had received a proposal that provided a reasonable response to the main outstanding sticking points or was at least aware of it, it seems likely that he would have referred to it.  So is this an indication of bad faith?  It feels almost like the revelations that came out of Camp David in 2000 when then Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat is reported to have turned down major concessions offered by Ehud Barak, specifically on the matter of a solution to share Jerusalem.  There was shock that Barak had made such a far-reaching offer, and even greater shock that it was rejected.  This "outed" Yasser Arafat as negotiating in bad faith, and having no intention of reaching a peace agreement with Israel.  Is this also true of Mahmoud Abbas?

Even though there is a strong argument that the reason behind Abbas not being prepared to refer publicly to the offer is because he is negotiating in bad faith, I am not sure that this is the whole story.  I contend that he would have reason to jump on such a proposal even if he was not negotiating in good faith.  After all, gaining access to such substantial concessions on Israel's part, even if he never had any intention to stand by undertakings given in return, would represent greater possession for the Palestinians.  It could be argued that this would be major progress for them if their unholy quest is to destroy the Jews and take over Israel for themselves.  So why not try to promote it publicly?

It seems to me that Abbas is determined to remain a "struggle leader".  Unlike Nelson Mandela who led the struggle in order to transform society so that he could be a leader of a legitimate majority-rule democracy, Abbas does not see him or his people in this legitimate role.  Instead, they prefer to be in a state of "struggle" on an ongoing basis.  It seems as though the advantage of the international sympathy and support that the Palestinians are enjoying, could all be lost in the event that they become a full-fledged member of the international community.  The only explanation that I can offer for Abbas not jumping on the concessions that were set out in the letter, is because he wishes to remain the leader of a struggle.  The Palestinian leadership has demonstrated on numerous occasions that it is unable to fulfil the role of legitimate leaders who have the objective of guiding a country to fill its place among the nations, and be prepared to abide by all rights and obligations that come with that.  Perhaps Abbas fears that accepting the concessions would result in the Americans forcing him and his Palestinian Authority to become responsible leaders as required in the international arena.  The way in which the Palestinian leadership has dealt with refugees over the years, the way in which aid from the international community has been skimmed off for their own private consumption and the ongoing sponsorship of terror and wars against Israel represent only some of the evidence of their unwillingness to become a legitimate leadership, government and country.   It seems more convenient to be regarded as the downtrodden underdog of the world, with all the international support and sympathy that is associated with that.

There can be no doubt that the Palestinians are playing an extremely shrewd political game in achieving their objectives.  I have no doubt that the objectives of the leadership are not the same as their published objectives as laid down before the international community.  The so-called "occupation" that Israel is constantly accused of is without foundation, and their stated quest to set up a Palestinian state could have been achieved ages ago with a little political will.  It is a well documented fact that the State of Israel was established in 1948 with far less than has been offered to the Palestinians for their state.

It is also interesting for me to try to understand why Netanyahu has been so sensitive about the attribution of this document to him.  He was quick to say that he would never offer parts of Jerusalem as a capital of a Palestinian state, or agree to return to the 1967 borders.  This is all despite the fact that he has publicly accepted the establishment of a Palestinian state.  Was he concerned of a right-wing backlash against him in the days leading up to the election?  It may perversely serve to assist him in his election campaign, to show up the Palestinian leadership for what they are by acknowledging some association with the document.

Middle East politics is certainly a strange beast.  The only thing that one can be sure of, is that all is never what it seems.

Je Suis Israel?

The huge outpouring of sympathy and shock over the past week following the terror attacks in France is entirely understandable.  The French people have not experienced an attack on their republic in this way, probably since the storming of the Bastille in 1789.  The reason why this represents a threat that is different from the various wars that the French have fought on their home territory over the years, is because this attack comes from within France, and not from outside of her borders.  The sight of native French speakers explaining that they follow the doctrines of Al Qaeda, Islamic State and other extremist Muslim groups has dismayed the average Frenchman, and even many within the huge French Muslim community.

The French (and the international community) came out in an immediate response to show their support for the Charlie Hebdo publication, which is also an expression of their support for freedom as demonstrated by a free press.   One could almost hear the cries of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité.  Millions of Frenchmen made their statement in the presence of leaders from the international community in opposition to the attack on their freedom, and protested against Islamic extremism that was behind these latest attacks and many others.  The war on Islamic extremism is on the lips of people around the world, including the leaders of the most influential western countries.  Despite this fact, we saw Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas lining up with the world leaders at the protest rally in  Paris, in one of the most visible positions in the front row of the protest.  Many have questioned why a leader, who has been so closely associated with terror attacks over the years, could have been allowed to be in the front line of a demonstration to protest against exactly this

The organisation that was originally established in 1964 to represent the so-called Palestinian Arabs, was the Palestine Liberation Organisation (the PLO).  Current Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was one of the founders of the PLO.  The stated objective of the PLO was the "liberation of Palestine through armed struggle".  This armed struggle turned out to include hijacking aeroplanes and cruise liners, as well as kidnapping and killing people without any sympathy or regard for the value of human life.  Despite being a stated pan-Arab organisation, many of its Arab colleagues expelled the leadership of the PLO from their countries as a way of opposing the means of terror that they used to pursue their agenda.  This same PLO forms the backbone of the Fatah party that makes up the modern-day Palestinian Authority.  Since his death, it has been publicly recognised that former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was orchestrating a campaign of terror and violence even while standing on the lawns of the White House, and receiving a Nobel Peace Prize.  Now that Abbas has signed a unity agreement with Hamas, a party that is blacklisted as a terrorist organisation in the USA, Europe and elsewhere, surely the evidence of his terror connections is as clear as ever.  And yet, he is seen leading an anti-terror march through the streets of Paris.  How is it possible that the world does not connect the terror that he is involved with, to the terror that is being experienced around the world?

Prime Minister Netanyahu has long been trying to draw this link in a way that the international community can understand, and is willing to understand.  He has described the terror that is being experienced in France, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere around the world as a different branch of the same tree when compared to the terror that Israel is forced to contend with on a daily basis.  The money to fund these activities is coming from common sources, and the organisations that are providing the arms and the impetus to carry out the attacks are the same.  The penny, however, refuses to drop.  When in France, the prime minister tried again to draw the connection to link the fresh wounds being felt by the French to gaping wounds felt constantly in Israel.  Everybody is rallying around the slogans "Je suis Charlie Hebdo" and "Je Suis Juif".  Why not "Je Suis Israel"?

Much of this stems from the fact that the Palestinians have succeeded in garnering public sympathy for their cause beyond the level that is justified.  While it is certainly true that many innocent civilians amongst the Palestinians are deserving of our sympathy and support, it is equally true that their misery has largely been caused by their own leaders.  The Palestinian leadership has ensured that those who were instructed to run from their homes when the State of Israel was declared in 1948 (despite requests by the Israeli government for them to stay), have remained refugees for more than 6 decades.  This has been designed to ensure that this issue remains a thorn in the side of the international community, in an attempt to milk any sympathy and support that can be gained.  The original 700,000 refugees have turned into a problem affecting 5 million people today.  All of this, linked to the fact that the peace talks to achieve a two-state solution have not progressed at all, have generated a certain sympathy for the Palestinian cause.  This sympathy has somehow been translated into justification for the acts of terror committed against Israel.  It is almost as if Israel is considered to deserve the terror it receives, because of the ongoing inability to reach a satisfactory compromise solution to create a Palestinian state.  It is almost as if Israel deserves whatever terror she is forced to endure, simply because she insists that any agreement for a two-state solution will ensure her security in future years.  It seems as though terror is only terror when it is not directed towards Israel.  Israeli-style terror seems entirely justified, in the eyes of the international community, as a fight for freedom or a fight against the so-called occupation.

What makes this even more absurd is when the Palestinians take complaints to the International Criminal Court, charging Israel of war crimes that are alleged to have been committed in an operation to protect her future existence and the safety of her citizens.  How can it be that prosecutors in The Hague are even spending a minute examining these claims?  After living through incessant rocket fire directed towards innocent civilians for years, surely Israel is entitled to eventually strike back to protect her innocent citizens?  And when doing so, if she takes every precaution to prevent civilian deaths despite the ongoing efforts of the Palestinians to throw civilians in the path of the military crossfire, should it not be the Palestinians who are accused of war crimes?

The branches of the same tree referred to by Prime Minister Netanyahu are certainly not of equal size and weight.  Israel has been forced to endure terror attacks for years, which have been randomly carried out against any and all sectors of her society.  Without meaning to dilute the enormity of attacks carried out and lives lost in the process, terror attacks elsewhere in the world have been of a much lower number and intensity than those that Israel has been forced to endure.  Despite this, there is the commonly-held view that Israel has somehow invited these attacks, and that they are justified.

The fact that Palestinians have been offered the opportunity to set up their own state in Gaza and the West Bank, the conditions of which far exceed the starting point that the State of Israel was offered 66 years ago, seems to be ignored.  The Jewish people demonstrated what is possible when there are good and true intentions to build a country and a nation, even with scraps to start with.  Out of these scraps, a prosperous country has been built which holds her own and takes up a justifed position in the family of nations.

The world's lack of link between the Islamic extremists operating in Israel, and those operating elsewhere, will be at its peril.  Israel has become a world leader in combating terror, and has experience and expertise that other countries will be needing in due course.  Ignoring or diluting the terror threat that Israelis constantly live under, will not give Israel much incentive to join in to assist others who suddenly discover the real nature of this plague.

Je Suis Israel!

Sunday Times Shame

We, as South African Jews, are appalled and devastated by

Israel's assault on Gaza.

This was the headline to a half page advert taken out in the Sunday Times in South Africa on 10 August 2014.  The advert is signed by "500 Jewish South Africans for peace, democracy and human rights in Israel and Palestine", some of whom asked to remain anonymous out of concern that they or their families have faced or may face intimidation or marginalisation by members of our Jewish community.

I read the text of the advertisement carefully a few times.  There are certainly more than a few points that I could take issue with.  The text is worded in such a way to lead the reader to believe that the Israeli actions that are criticised by the signatories, were the first actions taken while the Palestinian actions were retaliatory.  The Palestinian casualties of Operation Protective Edge are mentioned as the headline, followed by Israeli casualties.  There is no context offered that demonstrates that reality of the Israeli attacks coming in retaliation to constant, indiscriminate rocket-fire towards Israeli civilians over a number of years.  Whose statistics show that 70% of the Palestinian casualties were civilians?  This needs to be questioned and verified before it can be used as a statistic to justify a petition of this nature.  Who could be foolish enough to suggest that Israel's actions are "disproportionate"?  Not only does Israel have the right to defend her civilians against the constant barrage of rockets that they have been forced to endure, Israel has the obligation to do so.  Even when discounting the more than 3,000 rockets fired towards Israel during Operation Protective Edge, there are statistics to show that the last 5 years have seen 4,500 missiles fired from Gaza towards Israel.  I wonder what "proportionate" response another sovereign government would deem appropriate under these circumstances.  It seems disproportionate to use this term against Israel, when it is clear that the same threat against another country would be taken care of in a much stronger manner in order to end the threat without a further consideration.

My main objection to this advert is not what is written in the text, or the fact that many of the signatories are not even Jewish despite holding themselves out to be.  My objection is the aggressive way in which it has been drafted, and the fact that it was found appropriate for these supposedly proud Jews to air their grievances against Israel in this public and critical manner.  I respect the fact that people have empathy for innocent civilians, and for suffering brought upon them through no fault of their own.  I even respect the rights of each Jew to have critical views of Israel, and for them to have the right to freely air their views.  My problem is that this advert goes a lot further than these rights to hold independent views, and to freedom of speech.

The signatories to this advert found the necessity to show non-Jewish South Africa that there is a split within the Jewish community, and to demonstrate the extent to which Jews in South Africa oppose Israel.  If they were trying to show their objections to their Jewish colleagues, there are surely different and less damaging ways of achieving this.  By taking out a large advert in a national newspaper read predominantly by non-Jews, I understand that their message of objection to Israel was directed towards a wider audience than simply the Jewish community.  Why is this?  Are they hoping that their business customers and colleagues will see that they are on the anti-Israel list, and therefore continue to give them business support?  Is it because they hope that they may not be shunned by their non-Jewish friends who may otherwise isolate them for supporting Israel?  Are they afraid that the politicians and influencers in the country may assume that they are Israel supporters, and that they may lose their influence and access as a result?  I fail to understand the need to go out and have your name attached to a public statement of this nature.

Anti-Semitism around the world has been fanned by Operation Protective Edge.  Countries around Europe are all reporting substantially increased levels of anti-Jewish (not necessarily anti-Israel) behaviour, and threats to the local Jewish communities are much greater than before.  Chants of "Hitler was right", are being heard and tolerated on streets and squares around the world, including in South Africa.  Jews in the diaspora are clearly under attack.  I don't believe that Operation Protective Edge has suddenly created new anti-Semites who, previously, loved Jews.  Instead, I believe that the environment of vitriol and hatred towards Israel fanned by the latest Gaza operation has made it more acceptable for people to show their anti-Jewish sentiments in public.  Whereas swastikas were reviled and considered to be an attack on humanity over the course of many years following the Shoah, we see them openly advertised and tolerated in public as never before.

The public advertisement in the Sunday Times is a clear demonstration to our enemies of a split within the ranks of the Jewish community.  There may only be 500 signatories to the advert, and many of them may not even be Jewish.  It sends a message, however, of disunity and weakness within our community at a time that we need to be united against the evils of anti-Semitism.  And while this does not require us all to agree with each other on points of substance, and even not on points relating to the way in which Israel chooses to defend herself and her citizens, it does require us to stand together against those who would wish to see the end to all Jews.  And it also requires an appreciation and recognition that Israel, with all her strengths and weaknesses, is the ultimate power in protecting Jews against the forces of anti-Semitism.  There are many anti-Semites who hide their true colours behind anti-Zionism when being anti-Israel is regarded as acceptable, even by "some of my friends who are Jews".

On a visit that I made to the Holocaust Museum in Amsterdam a few years ago, I was flabbergasted to learn how the smart  Nazi machinery was able to manipulate some members of the Jewish community to promote a message within their communities that assisted the Nazis in their cause.  Reading the Sunday Times advert took me back to that moment in Amsterdam when this penny dropped in my mind.  I had the feeling that this advert by Jews in our community was working in a way to assist our enemies to promote their anti-Semitic rhetoric.  I am sure that they cannot believe how this has fallen into their laps.

Former Jewish Agency Chairman Zeev Bielski acknowledged Israel's bad points, and summed up the situation for Jews around the world perfectly in a statement that he once made by saying, "If there was another Jewish state, I would advise you to go there.  Israel is the only Jewish state and, therefore, that is where I recommend you should be".  We know that Israel has made many mistakes over the years, and has questions that require answers.  Israel is, however, unrelenting in the way that she fights for her survival, fights for the safety and security of her citizens and fights to protect the rights of Jews around the world.  It would be fitting for Jews around the world to show an element of loyalty to this cause by being selective in the way in which they air their grievances about Israel.  It is acceptable to be critical of Israel's actions, as long as you are sure that you have all your facts right.  It is acceptable to hold discussions and debates (apparently we have some of the country's best debaters on our team) within our community to make their complaints known, and to invite those who disagree to respond.  In my view, it is unacceptable to take out anti-Israel adverts in national newspapers, in a way that weakens the fabric and the security of the Jewish community.  For me, this crosses the line.

Iron Dome - Blessing or Curse?

There is almost universal recognition of the value of the Iron Dome anti-missile system amongst Israeli citizens.  Watching missiles being shot down out of the sky, which have been fired indiscriminately into the most populated parts of Israel with the purpose of causing death and destruction, is an amazingly impressive and heart-warming sight.  It is difficult not to understand the enormity of the task that Iron Dome is doing, and the thousands of lives that are being saved in the process.   The stark contrast between Israel's investment in defensive systems and Hamas's investment in promoting terror, death and destruction, is difficult to ignore.  Unfortunately, not everybody sees it for the positive force that it is.

In an ironic twist of fate, Iron Dome is also proving to have some negative implications for Israel and her safety.  The fact that Israel has invested so heavily in defending the lives of her citizens, including a substantial investment in the Iron Dome, is causing the current round of operations to look one-sided and unbalanced.  Despite Hamas having fired more than two thousand rockets towards Israel's densely-populated towns and cities in the past two weeks,  "only" three Israeli civilians have been killed as a result of this rocket fire.  This is not due to lack of trying on the part of Hamas. This is all down to Israel taking care of its citizens.  By contrast, a few hundred Palestinian civilians have been killed in the conflict.  This is despite the fact that Israel has taken every precaution to avoid civilian deaths wherever possible.  Many Israeli bombing raids have been called off due to the fact that innocent civilians have been observed in the targeted areas.  This action, perceived as a weakness on the part of Hamas, has given the Hamas leadership the incentive to turn large swathes of the civilian population of Gaza into human shields.  Inevitably, when more civilians are sent into the war zone, more civilians are killed. This serves Hamas's interests.

International opinion seems to ignore defensive and precautionary efforts on the part of Israel, and equally ignores the despicable actions taken by Hamas.  Instead, international opinion counts up the dead bodies in order to decide in which direction it will be swayed.  This has resulted in the international community accusing Israel of a "disproportionate response".  The Hamas leadership has understood this very quickly, and seems to value international opinion and sympathy more than it values the lives of its innocent civilians.  It has decided that dead bodies are good for international public relations, and are more important than preserving the lives of innocent civilians.  They have cynically used this for public relations, to very good effect.  This is a battle that Israel cannot win.  Investing in safety for Israeli civilians means that Israel is losing the moral high ground in the eyes of international community.  The Iron Dome and other defensive measures implemented, are turning the tide of international public opinion against Israel.  Instead of valuing Israel's efforts in defending her citizens, the international community is being fooled by the cynical efforts by Hamas to gain their sympathy and support.

It is horrifying that Hamas seeks sympathy via the death of its innocent civilians, through the glorification of death and using it in the most cynical way possible.  It is even more horrifying that members of the international community cannot see through this for the disgusting behaviour that it is.  Even if these sympathy-seeking tactics are successful, they will never change Israel's approach to valuing life of its own citizens and even of the citizens of its enemies.  Citizens of the State of Israel are enormously proud of Iron Dome, and the wonderful work that it has done in protecting innocent lives.  No amount of sympathy lost as a result of employing life-saving tactics and technologies will change this.

In an ironic way, the Iron Dome has probably saved more Palestinian lives than Israeli ones.  Without the benefit of the Iron Dome protecting Israel, the government and the IDF would have been forced into making much quicker decisions, and ones that are much more far-reaching.  The response to so many rockets fired into Israeli towns and cities causing death and destruction, is likely to have been a much more powerful military and air force reaction to bring the bombimg campaign to an abrupt halt.  The "collateral damage" in terms of Palestinian civilians from such a campaign would have been far greater.  

The value and importance of recognition and support of the international community can never be underestimated.  The actions taken by Hamas to gain this support and recognition have crossed all red lines.  There can be nothing to justify sacrificing the lives of innocent civilians, your own innocent civilians, in return for international sympathy.  It is for this reason that Israel will continue to develop systems to defend its citizens, and Hamas is likely not to do so.  If this comes at the cost of public support and sympathy, so be it.  Israel will never compromise on defending the lives of her citizens.  And the citizens of Israel will never give up on Israel and her defense forces.

Protective Edge or Strong Cliff

The name of the latest operation against Hamas rocket-fire from Gaza is an interesting and meaningful choice.  The Hebrew name for the operation, צוק איתן (tzuk eitan), literally means strong cliff.  One can understand the imagery associated with a cliff that is extremely strong.  One can easily imagine the Sate of Israel risking the threat of collapsing if the cliff does not continue to support it, and the Israel Defense Force (IDF) continuously reinforcing the strength of the cliff to support all that sits above it.  Despite having stood on the edge of the cliff for the past 66 years, the cliff stands as strong as ever.

The English name for the operation, probably chosen by spin doctors who will have given great consideration to how the world's media will interpret it, is "Protective Edge".  No matter which way one translates the "edge" in "protective edge", it seems to work out in a positive way in depicting the State of Israel in its current state of emergency. The "protective" seems to portray to the international community, that the operation is all about retaliation and protection, rather than being the aggressor.  While this is entirely accurate, it contrasts sharply against the impression of strength that is reflected in the Hebrew name.

How important is the name of  the operation?  Other than providing the press with a way of referring to the operation, does the name really serve any significant purpose?  Does it matter whether it is named something meaningful, or if we simply adopt a system of naming operations in alphabetical order in the same way as typhoons in the Atlantic are named?  The naming of an operation is a significant moment in the conflicts that Israel is constantly battling.  The moment an operation has a name, it is a clear indication to the general public and to the security services  that this operation is more than simply ongoing defensive actions that are part of our everyday lives.  The name becomes equally important.  We wish the name to reflect the tone and atmosphere that will be associated with the operation.   In the case of "protective edge", the names in Hebrew and in English are both significant to their respective audiences.  The message to the people of Israel is, that while we do have the risk of falling over the cliff, we also have the strength to avoid this.  A little stick, and a little carrot.  The message to the international community is that we will do all that we need to protect ourselves, and we will use our edge despite living on the edge.

All of these messages seem to have got through to those who are fighting this battle on behalf of Israel and the Jewish people.  Our soldiers and our politicians understand that we are on the edge of the cliff.  This is how we have survived for the past 66 years, and how we are likely to continue for the foreseeable future.  We live under an existential threat which sees our neighbours continuously and unashamedly trying to destroy us, and wipe us from the map.  Our so-called peace partners in the Palestinian community, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (which currently forms part of Fatah), still have as part of their constitution the objective of destroying the State of Israel.  It is clear that, if we were not to defend ourselves in the strong and determined way that we do, we would not have a state.  In the defense of our country, we are strong and will continue to be strong.  Our young men and women who are drafted to the military in the defense of this country, do an amazing job with a smile and with an understanding of the importance of their role that belies their age. 

We use our edge in every possible way.  In this operation, the Iron Dome has proved to be our edge.  The technology associated with this system is ahead of its time, and has shown itself to be highly effective in protecting the lives of innocent people.  As of the time of writing this article, more than 100 incoming missiles have been intercepted by Iron Dome.  Failure to intercept these rockets could have resulted in hundreds, or even thousands, of death and injuries.

Our edge has also been in the way that we approach the battle.  Hamas insists upon launching missiles, which have no accurate guidance method, right into the centre of the most populated areas of Israel.  By contrast, Israel has been sending pamphlets to the residents of Gaza warning of impending attacks.  Due to the fact that Hamas continues to insist upon conducting its warfare from residential areas, the Israeli army has no choice but to target these areas in an attempt to quell the rocket fire.  Telephone calls and SMS messages are sent to the residents of particular apartment buildings by the IDF to warn them to evacuate the area.  Hamas has advised these residents to remain in their buildings, and to even climb onto the roofs in the knowledge that Israeli pilots are likely to abort releasing missiles on buildings which are inhabited by innocent civilians.

Our edge is also represented in the way that we support our boys and girls in battle.  Our soldiers on operational duty have told of residents bringing food and other suppliers to their units in the field, in order to keep them well fed.  It is also a way for these residents to show appreciation and solidarity with those on operational duty.  No food is too much to make, and no distance is too far to travel to bring the smell and taste of home-made food to battle stations.  With many fathers having been called to reserve duty to serve in this operation, systems at home have moved into overdrive in order to assist wives and children left at home.  The country is doing all that it can to assist and support those who are on active duty at this critical time.

They say that the strength of character of people is brought out during extreme circumstances.  The strength and character of the Israelis who are under fire during this operation, has truly surpassed all expectations.  This is the real strength that is referred to in the Hebrew version of the name.  We are enormously proud of the way in which our army and our people have responded to this crisis.  It certainly bodes well for this operation, and for the future.  The names in Hebrew and Engish both fit well, and perhaps even drive us forward.

Image from http://carnegieendowment.org/images/article_images/bertijul2.jpg.