Daily news

New upsurge of Palestinian attacks from Gaza - 16 missiles fired Wednesday injuring 3 Israeli civilians March 26, 2008, Debka.com

A heavy barrage of 7 Qassam missiles struck Sderot Wednesday night, March 26. One exploded in the old market, injuring three people and leaving 16 in shock. Of the 16 fired during the day, after a three-week slowdwon, one landed south of Ashkelon, several exploded in kibbutzim causing heavy damage to property. Israeli military sources tell DEBKAfile that Hamas is passing missiles to Jihad Islami in order to step up the attacks on Israel, without being held accountable and drawing Israeli fire – to heat up tensions for the arrival of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this weekend.

Some questions answered.
· Olmert: Israel Will Continue to Build in Existing Settlements

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday that Israel would comply with all its commitments under the Roadmap peace plan ''if the Palestinians do the same.'' He also said Israel would continue building in settlement blocs it intends to keep in a peace deal, as well as in Jerusalem. Olmert ruled out talks with Hamas, saying, ''We will deal with Hamas in other ways.'' Olmert indicated that he does not favor a Russian proposal to hold a follow-up summit in Moscow to last year's Annapolis meeting. ''This habit of going from one conference to the other is not something I'm particularly in favor of,'' he said. (AP/Ynet News) http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3524062,00.html

Gaza war continues; media believes there is a 'lull'

Israel's UN Ambassador Gillerman: "The rockets out of Gaza have not stopped."

[Aggregated from Meryl Yourish. http://yourish.com/ ]
So let’s see what the Palestinians sent out of Gaza yesterday.

Mortars:
Palestinians fired five mortar shells from the Gaza Strip into the Eshkol area in the western Negev on Tuesday. The shells fell in agricultural areas in one of the kibbutzim in the region.
There were no reports of wounded or damage.

Bombs:
Palestinians detonated a bomb next to the Gaza border fence on Tuesday night.
No one was wounded and no damage was reported.

Kassams:
Two Kassam rockets fired from northern Gaza landed in the Sha’ar Hanegev region on Tuesday.
No one was wounded and no damage was reported.

But there is a “lull.” A “calm.” And if Israel sends in troops to try to stop mortars, kassams, and bombs from being used against Israelis, the news media will scream in unison that Israel is “violating” the “calm.” Because for some reason, incoming artillery, rockets, and bomb attacks don’t seem to count. Only outgoing defensive measures against them.

And there were two more kassams today, scoring a direct hit on a kibbutz

April 1 in Ames: Lecture on Media Coverage of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

You are invited to a lecture sponsored by the Israel Education Committee of the Ames Jewish Congregation and ISU Hillel:

Media Coverage of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Gary Kenzer Tuesday, April 1, 7:30 p.m., 1414 Molecular Biology, Iowa State University (Lots of parking space available)

Gary Kenzer is the National USA Executive Director of Honest Reporting, a watchdog organization that monitors media coverage of Israel and the Middle East. To ensure that Israel is represented fairly and accurately, Honest Reporting exposes cases of bias and promotes balance. As a result of its efforts, since 2000 there have been hundreds of apologies, retractions, and revisions from news outlets. Mr. Kenzer has over 25 years experience in the non-profit industry. Prior to assuming his present position, he served for 9 years as the Executive Director of Magen David Adom USA (Israel's emergency medical health, blood and disaster services) and with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), both grassroots organizations in the US. He has a degree from Loyola University of Chicago.

Rockets and Occupation

Rockets and Occupation (Crossposted from http://rabbikaufman.blogspot.com 3/ 25/2008)

Shalom,

Recently I received a reply to one of my posts on this blog stating in essence that rockets aimed at Israel from Gaza were a response to "occupation" and that if Israel wanted the rocket fire to end, it should end the "occupation." I did not bother to publish this response, which was posted anonymously. I thought instead that I would address the fuller argument.

The "It's the Occupation Stupid" explanation employed universally by many pro-Palestinian activists assumes multiple things which are either unfounded or poorly so. Let me list them with explanations as to why.

1. Palestinian violence against Israel/Jews began in 1967 with the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, called "Occupied Territory" by most and "Disputed Territory" by others.

The latter term is employed by those who argue that since the WB was a part of Jordan and Gaza part of Egypt, both of which have subsequently made peace with Israel, that these territories are therefore no longer "occupied" in the sense that those governments which were recognized as the governing bodies of those territories no longer claim them. Palestinian activists claim, FALSELY, that these territories are and have been "Palestinian Territories" and therefore Israel is occupying Palestinian territory. Since there is not today and has never been a Palestinian state, this is simply cannot be true legally despite claims made by those recognized as leaders of the Palestinian people today. A peace process that seeks a two state solution to the conflict seeks to CREATE a Palestinian state along side Israel, not to restore one. As for the beginnings of violence against Jews, see below.

2. Palestinian violence against Jews started in 1947-1948 while Arabs and Jews lived peacefully up until that point.

This is entirely false. Violence against Jews by Palestinians began as a response to Jewish immigration after World War I. Haj Amin Al-Husseini, recognized as the father of Palestinian nationalism, who became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and who later aided the NAZIs in their recruitment of Muslim soldiers in the Baltic region, led riots in which many Jews in British Mandate Palestine were killed. In 1929, the Jews of Hebron were massacred. These were all BEFORE the NAZIs even came to power, much less after World War II. The argument that Palestinian hostility against Jews resulted from the post-war creation of a Jewish state is therefore also FALSE, much less that such violence began post-1967.

3. Rocket fire is the result of occupation since 1967.

This is actually quite simple to prove false. The parties doing the rocket fire state both orally and in writing that their efforts are designed to end the occupation of Palestinian lands which they define as being all of BRITISH MANDATE PALESTINE, not just Gaza and the West Bank, but all of Israel as well. Hence, those firing rockets are not fighting Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, but truly fighting the war of 1948 and will not stop firing rockets until Israel ceases to exist. Therefore the idea that Israel can make any concessions that will stop the rocket fire is FALSE.

4. Rocket fire is the result of occupation of Gaza.This is also FALSE. After Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, rocket fire intensified. Hence a different goal must be the aim of those rocketing. I already stated that goal in the above paragraph.

Stop the rocket fire? End the goal of destroying Israel.

It's NOT about the "Occupation" stupid, it's about HATRED OF THE JEWS.

-David

Rabbi David Kaufman

A hard fact to accept, apparently

It’s all about hatred Anti-Jewish animosity, rather than economic distress, is terror’s root cause by Gilad Sharon, 3/24/2008 ynetnews opinion piece.

Many people around the world, including some Israelis, believe that the moment the conflict between us and the Palestinians would be resolved, the reason for the Arab and Muslim world’s hostility towards us will disappear. Peace will prevail among Israel and all Arab states, tensions between Islam and the West will fade, and the terror threat against Western nations will be lifted.

This conviction is naïve and false – the Palestinian issue is the pretext; a means used to slam Israel. It is not the problem.

The Arab world never reconciled itself to our existence as a Jewish state in the Mideastern space. The only Arab maps where the State of Israel appears are military maps. When it comes to the maps used in geography classes at schools, we do not exist.

Arab states have no interest whatsoever in the fate of the Palestinians. Syria’s defense minister referred to Arafat as the “son of 60,000 whores,” while Egypt’s president once urged the Palestinian leader to do something by telling him: “Come on already, you dog.” We must understand the meaning of such insult in the Arab world, and this is nothing compared to the declarations that were not uttered in public.

If the Palestinian issue bothered Arab states so much, what stopped them from establishing a Palestinian state before 1967 and the Six-Day War?

The argument that the suffering and distress experienced by the Palestinians are the reason for terror against Israel and the West is also unfounded. Terrorism against Jews in Israel started more than 120 years ago, much before the Six-Day War and the War of Independence; before we were accused of expulsion or occupation. Just as it was then, today too the hatred for Jews and rejection of our existence here are the reason for terrorism.

Let’s examine, for example, the despicable terrorist who carried out the attack at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem. We are talking about the son of a wealthy family who lived in a nice house and made a nice living through those he murdered via the family’s transportation company. He did not act because of distress, but rather, because of hatred.

Aggressor can’t be appeased
If we look back at the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks in the United States, we would discover that most of them were Saudis and that the funding and assistance they received is also related to the Saudis. It is difficult to claim that the Saudis suffer from any kind of distress, at least not in financial terms. Perhaps life is a bit boring for them, or the weather is too hot, but there is no shortage of money there.

The reason for that and other offensives is radical Islamic fanaticism that is unwilling to accept the West and its way of life and culture, and seeks to enforce its dark and zealous beliefs on all global residents through any means available. Live in line with our ways, or die – this is what they say.

It would be good for the US and Europe to realize that pressing Israel to make concessions would not bring them the calm they so covet and would not allow them to go back to a life of hedonistic euphoria. Giving in to terrorism and violence does not serve to appease the aggressor, as was proven by Hitler, but rather, only encourages it.

It would be good if people around the world and around here too would realize that the zealot demon that came out of the bottle cannot be compromised with. We can only push it back into the bottle with strength and determination and bury it deeply in the sands of the Arabian Peninsula.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3522443,00.html

Jerusalem Post : Does PA accept premise for peace?

Not just a gimmick

THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 20, 2008

The Palestinian leadership - not the one in Gaza, but the Palestinian Authority - seems to be backing an initiative by a PA minister, reported earlier this week in The Jerusalem Post, to respond to Israel's 60th anniversary by encouraging Palestinians to enact their "right of return" by showing up on Israel's doorstep. On May 14 this year, Palestinians would attempt to "return," suitcases in hand, in order to relocate to places like Jaffa and Haifa, inside Israel.

While obviously more of a propaganda stunt than an effort with direct effect, even gimmicks say something about where Palestinians stand. After all, the Palestinians are presumably divided between Hamas, which openly backs terrorism and Israel's complete destruction, and Fatah, which is presumably committed to a two-state solution and to peace with Israel.

This is the basis of the Annapolis process, of billions of dollars of assistance now flowing to the PA, and countless missions by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Just this month in Ramallah, standing by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, Rice said, "I believe and I've heard you say that the strategic choice of a path of negotiation is the only way for lasting peace, security and prosperity for the people of the Palestinian territories, the Palestinian people, and for the Israelis. The establishment of two states living side by side in peace and freedom, Israel and Palestine, will lead to that outcome."

The basis of the entire process, then, is the principle of two states. For the Palestinians, this means abandoning a century-long struggle to prevent or reverse the establishment of a Jewish state in favor of a different struggle to establish a Palestinian state along side Israel.

The planned stunt, however, indicates that at least some of those in the hierarchy of our supposed PA peace partner do not accept the basic premise of the process. Without mutual recognition by each side of the other's right to a state, what is the point of discussing all the "final status issues" that would define the two states, such as borders and other arrangements between peaceful neighbors?

The claim of a "right of return" is not just another topic for negotiation or splitting the difference, but one that goes to the essence of whether the two-state principle is accepted or rejected. Indeed, though roughly one-fifth of Israel's population is Arab, and all those who have chosen to become citizens can vote and are represented in the Knesset, those in the PA who are backing the "return" gimmick evidently still insist not only that all Jews must leave what will become Palestine, but that Palestinians should be allowed to move to Israel.

This is a classic case of asserting that "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine." After all, either the Palestinians are working to build their own state, or to destroy Israel; they cannot do both at the same time. It is also, though, an attempt to create "Greater Palestine" instead of Israel, superficially similar to the now defunct idea of creating "Greater Israel" by annexing the areas where a Palestinian state would have been created.

Of course, a key difference between the two maximalist, one-state visions is not just that the Israeli version has been abandoned by all but a small fringe. The real difference is that the Israeli version never involved destroying an existing state.

While clothed in the language of human rights and international law, in practice, the "right of return" is simply a dressing up of the genocidal agenda of those who would "wipe Israel off the map." It is an attempt to be Hamas with a human face.

Israel would not have been established if the pre-state Yishuv had not worked for decades to build institutions of effective self-governance. The PA, despite or because of billions of dollars in international assistance, has become a conduit for corruption, patronage and warring "security services." This will not change until the Palestinians decide to truly embrace a two-state model, rather than covering the goal of Greater Palestine with a thin veneer of talk about justice and peace.

The Palestinians and the Arab world have been rejecting two-state offers and plans for the last century. They can continue for another century, or they could decide to truly embrace peace. Here in Israel, peace is our dream, and we are ready to pursue it and to defend ourselves against the alternative.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420742013&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Force, Violence and the “One-State” Formula
Published by Ben on March 20, 2008 in Z word blog. Aggregated from solomonia.com

Counterpunch, the online journal which recently coined the term “Neo-Jew” - arguably the most significant development in the etymology of Jew-hating since Wilhelm Marr popularized the term “anti-Semite” - is at it again. This time, the debate is over which solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be more effective in wiping out Zionism.

In the two-state corner, please find Michael Neumann, a Canadian who teaches philosophy. In the one-state corner, meet Jonathan Cook, a British writer based in Nazareth, Israel. It seems odd that Neumann, who in the past has happily exhorted us to “have some fun with antisemitism”, should be advocating a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which would permit the loathed Zionist entity to continue breathing. He has not, of course, joined Peace Now. He just thinks that the one-state formula is an airheaded ideal which would actually end up rewarding the Zionists, “because it leaves ‘Jewish property’, including the settlements, in place.”
So what is Neumann’s theory of justice, as it applies to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? “It would require,” he says, “that the Jews who came as Zionists to Palestine leave, and with them their descendants.” (By the way, he adds, that’s not ethnic cleansing. Glad he cleared that one up.)

Since this absolute justice can’t be achieved, Neumann continues, and since recent experiments with the multinational or multiconfessional state model have gone awry (think of Lebanon or the former Yugoslavia), the best option for the Palestinians is to consolidate their fight for a smaller state alongside Israel. Neumann does recognize a critical factor which most western advocates of the one-state formula are in denial over; that one-state would amount to a bloodbath. Palestinians and Israelis would kill each other in large numbers - and one suspects, given Neumann’s overall emphasis on power relations, that he thinks the Israelis would have the edge on the killing - so anyone interested in justice for the Palestinians would have to acknowledge the blind alley ahead there.

Nothing in Neumann’s piece should suggest that he regards two states as a permanent solution. The foundation of his argument, essentially a realist one, is that material power counts for much more than moral principles and noble declarations: the Israelis will thus never be persuaded of the need for a one-state solution. It can only be imposed on them: as Neumann says, the “right of return” is an empty demand until the Palestinians become “powerful enough to enforce it.”

The arrival of that day is, no doubt, one of Neumann’s favorite fantasies, but that’s not good enough for Jonathan Cook. Neumann, he complains, has taken his eye off the doctrinal imperative of discrediting Zionism. Two-states, Cook argues, is just as impractical as one-state; just as the Israelis won’t surrender their sovereignty, neither will they surrender their occupation. Cook offers a number of reasons for why this is so, ranging from the unimaginative (they don’t want to give up the West Bank’s water resources) to the outlandish (they would, apparently, lose their “usefulness” to the US in terms of managing the occupation of Iraq).

So who wins, in this particular battle of anti-Zionist wits? I say Neumann, hands down. Cook is woefully short on detail. He ends by insisting that attacking Zionist ideology will, eventually, lead the “respectable facade” of Zionism to crumble. As I’ve argued elsewhere on this blog, it’s fundamentally dishonest to make this particular case and not deal with the contention that one-state could only come about through the imposition of enormous violence against Israelis.

Neumann, on the other hand, does, perversely, get it. That’s why he asks the difficult questions (”Will the settlers be kicked out of their settlements?…Will Zionists be expelled from the armed forces?”) which the commanders of Hamas and Hezbollah would be delighted to answer. If you support a one-state formula, you have to accept that it won’t be possible without coercion. And every Qassam rocket which slams into Sderot is deadly proof of that.