This is a guest post by Yedidya Kennard.
STEP ONE - WRITE THE STORY
This is important. This is the story that you will have to stick to till the end, no matter what. It helps if part of the story is already well known - not true, but well known. For example, if your target is known to be an agressor, whether he is or isn't, this saves you a lot of work. For this reason it is important to keep a running campaign of libels, making all of them easily accepted.
The setting for your story is important. Boats are good, they bring to mind sun, beaches, deck chairs etc. If you can make it look like your target is bringing violence to a peaceful place, its always good. Of course, if your target is an army, you have an added advantage - soldiers are always associated with violence.
Try to link words with yourself that are associated with non-violence, that way even if you clearly are shown to be violent people will still be more inclined to believe you. Words like 'humanitarian' are good. Try and create a name for yourself involving words like 'freedom' or similar. It doesnt have to be relevant or true in any way, but if you can make it stick in the media they won't change it, no matter how clearly it is wrong.
STEP TWO - THE ACTION
It is important to be seen to lose. People like an underdog. Most people won't care who started or what happened; the main thing is the result. It may seem strange, but here you only win if you are seen to lose. After that, nothing else is really important. Also important is equipment, again you want to be seen here as the underdog. Words again are key. 'Guns' sounds bad, 'sticks' sound like a playground fight - even if you can kill people with them. 'Slingshots' are great too, remember, they are effective, they were once the long range weapon of choice, but now they sound like toys. Even knives and broken bottles sound harmless when put against guns. If you have to provoke at long range then you can still use this - call your rockets 'homemade' and all people will see is Grandma baking cookies. Harmless.
STEP THREE - GET YOUR STORY OUT FAST.
Speed is key here. Once the story is out there it won't stop being out there. Remember, journalists need stuff to report all the time, so if you get your story out there even 2 or 3 hours before the target gets his version out, you have a massive advantage. Journalists wont check if your story is true or not, as long as it is said by someone, they can report it. Once it is out there and there is no response from the other side, it becomes accepted as fact. It is far harder to change a story, or to challenge an established narrative, than it is to start one.
STEP FOUR - STICK TO THE SCRIPT!
This is perhaps the most difficult and most critical part. Once the other side get their act together they will of course challenge your account, and may even have evidence to back themselves up. What you have to understand here is that evidence is irrelevant. A story, however obviously wrong, will never die. However, some skill is needed to keep it as the mainstream version of events. You need to be able to lie with a straight face, despite the evidence against being right in front of you. You can practise this by looking at the sky and declaring 'The sky is green!". Once you can say this and even believe it, try to make other people believe it.
Remember, someone out there already believes your story; he will want to keep on believing it instead of seeing it being proven wrong. Help him - if he sees someone else denying the evidence, then it's easier for him to do so as well.
A great tactic to use here is emotive language. Put evidence against emotion, emotion always wins. Words again are key. If your side is seen using violence, call it 'passive resistance', it sounds good even if it's wrong. It has the word 'resistance' in it so it sounds plausible. If you can say it enough times, instead of seeing your person stabbing someone, all the viewer will see is an old wisened man in a loincloth. Also, if your words stick, then anyone challenging them is seen to be obviously changing the accepted version of events, which is very hard to do.
That's it! It all comes down to the words, whether they have any bearing on reality at all is totally irrelevant. Get your story out first, get the media to accept your words and the story will run and run. Of course, if you have a media and a population for some other reason ready to accept your version, so much the better! Always remember, the truth is irrelevant, it's the Story that counts.
Showing posts with label Gaza. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gaza. Show all posts
Monday, June 07, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
The Dual Tragedy of The Flotilla
The events off the coast of Gaza in the early hours of Monday morning were a significant moment in the history of the State of Israel. More than that, they were a dual tragedy.
Before we go any further, it must be made abundantly clear that neither I nor anyone I know rejoices in the deaths of these activists. It is not in our nature to celebrate the deaths of anyone, not even those who were part of a group that had earlier chanted “Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, Jaish Muhammad saya'ud," meaning "Jews remember Khaybar, the army of Mohammed is returning," a reference to a seventh-century Muslim massacre and expulsion of Jews from Khaybar, which is in modern-day Saudi Arabia. Despite this despicable loathsomeness, with the benefit of hindsight, I'd much rather that the ships had safely docked in Gaza than lives being needlessly wasted.
At the time of going to press, 15 people have died as a result of the IDF’s boarding the flotilla as it approached Gaza, but this does not mean that I criticize the actions of the IDF. Neither do I reserve criticism of the actions of these "human rights" activists. Taking a glance at some of the headlines from the world media, one would be forgiven that Israel had stormed aid ships for no particular reason. "Deadly clashes at sea as Israel intercepts Gaza-bound aid ships," reports the Times of London. "10 Reported Killed as Israel Raids Boats Headed to Gaza" announces the New York Times.
Even reading the headline on the Jerusalem Post, "At least 15 activists dead, dozens hurt in flotilla clashes", it is hard to get away from the pervading sense of injustice felt from that now all too familiar of situations; Israeli troops acting heavy-handedly and killing unarmed civilians. Irrespective of whether their actions were right or wrong, the balance appears so lop-sided, peace activists on the one hand and soldiers on the other, that most people's minds are made up well before they read the articles themselves.
But a serious question lies at the heart of the affair. How and why did a supposedly passive peace demonstration turn rowdy to the degree for the military forces who had boarded the boat to feel threatened enough to open fire? The answer has been stated repeatedly of the last few days and stares us in the face: these were no peace activists. These were no human rights activists, these people had a very clear agenda in mind: the delegitimization of Israel.
Much has been said of this deligitimization of Israel, but what is it? What is being delegitimized, exactly? Well, Israel's right to defense, for one. When every single defense operation is questioned, criticized and consequently condemned, we would do well to realize that we are witnessing the systematic denial of Israel’s right to defend herself.
Similarly, when events like the death of Mohammed Al-Dura in 2000, the so-called “Massacre in Jenin” in 2002, the bombing of Hezballah forces in Qana, Lebanon in 2006, and the “disproportional” Israeli offensive on Hamas in Operation Cast Lead are spun out of all proportion, we must understand that the damage done to Israel’s image is long lasting and its ability to strike out at terrorists is being methodically wiped out.
There’s one question I’ve asked myself repeatedly over the last few years: “And how would you handle it?” I’ve imagined this question being asked of Kofi Annan, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and now I ask it of these activists and their supporters. Maybe Israel’s actions aren’t always correct, but Israel has the sovereign right to act in the way it deems fit. If you don’t like the way we deal with terrorists, how about proposing an alternative solution to prevent Hamas proliferating its stockpile of military grade weaponry? If you don’t like human shields, and you shouldn’t if you care about human rights, how do you propose that the IDF tackles Hamas, an extremist group bent on Israel’s destruction that also happens to make extensive use of this tactic?
News agencies worldwide reported that the Israeli Navy stormed a flotilla carrying hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists and tons of supplies for Gaza on Monday morning. But they didn’t give more than passing mention to the fact that these pro-Palestinian activists had intentionally and deliberately provoked the IDF into acting. Amid reports from the IDF which claims that soldiers were met by well-planned lynch involving concealed handguns, knives, bats and metal pipes, we would do well to note that prior to boarding the flotilla, Maj. Gen. Eliezer Marom, Commander of the Israeli Navy, briefed the forces who participated in the interception of these protest boats, and called on them not be dragged into provocations with the passengers of the ship.
Referring to previous experience with such protesters, Marom explained that no matter what “provocation that they may create, and there are here a number of soldiers that participated in past events, for example to throw cigarettes, spitting, cursing, and so forth; we do not respond to these types of actions.” While Marom correctly identified these “peace activists” as paradoxically unpleasant to deal with, even he could not have predicted that there would be those amongst their number who would attempt to steal the soldiers’ guns, let alone stab them. But that is precisely what occurred. For us to regard these people as genuine peace activists would be a real tragedy.
Gen. Maj. Marom explained that “we have no intention of harming any of these people”, but that was sadly not the case with the activists. Beyond physically hurting the soldiers, their intention to give Israel’s image a good hiding could not be clearer. We may call them pro-Palestinian activists, but that would be a fib, for they had plenty of other options available to them, but instead went for the cheap PR stunt. And yet the PR stunt is the one way that wins. Israel yet again emerges as the loser, it’s entitlement to protect its population damaged. Worse still, this affair sets a dangerous precedent. Even after the criticism has faded and the media move on to the next big story, Israel will be left as many as 15 “Rachel Corries” to explain, 15 more images of Israeli brutality, injustice, violent excess. No matter whether the deceased foolishly tried to provoke soldiers in their last moments, they will become icons for the anti-Israel movement for an eternity.
The events off the coast of Gaza in the early hours of Monday morning were a dual tragedy. People died, and for that I grieve. But if Israel’s right to defend itself continues to be eroded, and if a precedent has been set here, more people will die. And that would be an even greater tragedy.
Before we go any further, it must be made abundantly clear that neither I nor anyone I know rejoices in the deaths of these activists. It is not in our nature to celebrate the deaths of anyone, not even those who were part of a group that had earlier chanted “Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, Jaish Muhammad saya'ud," meaning "Jews remember Khaybar, the army of Mohammed is returning," a reference to a seventh-century Muslim massacre and expulsion of Jews from Khaybar, which is in modern-day Saudi Arabia. Despite this despicable loathsomeness, with the benefit of hindsight, I'd much rather that the ships had safely docked in Gaza than lives being needlessly wasted.
At the time of going to press, 15 people have died as a result of the IDF’s boarding the flotilla as it approached Gaza, but this does not mean that I criticize the actions of the IDF. Neither do I reserve criticism of the actions of these "human rights" activists. Taking a glance at some of the headlines from the world media, one would be forgiven that Israel had stormed aid ships for no particular reason. "Deadly clashes at sea as Israel intercepts Gaza-bound aid ships," reports the Times of London. "10 Reported Killed as Israel Raids Boats Headed to Gaza" announces the New York Times.
Even reading the headline on the Jerusalem Post, "At least 15 activists dead, dozens hurt in flotilla clashes", it is hard to get away from the pervading sense of injustice felt from that now all too familiar of situations; Israeli troops acting heavy-handedly and killing unarmed civilians. Irrespective of whether their actions were right or wrong, the balance appears so lop-sided, peace activists on the one hand and soldiers on the other, that most people's minds are made up well before they read the articles themselves.
But a serious question lies at the heart of the affair. How and why did a supposedly passive peace demonstration turn rowdy to the degree for the military forces who had boarded the boat to feel threatened enough to open fire? The answer has been stated repeatedly of the last few days and stares us in the face: these were no peace activists. These were no human rights activists, these people had a very clear agenda in mind: the delegitimization of Israel.
Much has been said of this deligitimization of Israel, but what is it? What is being delegitimized, exactly? Well, Israel's right to defense, for one. When every single defense operation is questioned, criticized and consequently condemned, we would do well to realize that we are witnessing the systematic denial of Israel’s right to defend herself.
Similarly, when events like the death of Mohammed Al-Dura in 2000, the so-called “Massacre in Jenin” in 2002, the bombing of Hezballah forces in Qana, Lebanon in 2006, and the “disproportional” Israeli offensive on Hamas in Operation Cast Lead are spun out of all proportion, we must understand that the damage done to Israel’s image is long lasting and its ability to strike out at terrorists is being methodically wiped out.
There’s one question I’ve asked myself repeatedly over the last few years: “And how would you handle it?” I’ve imagined this question being asked of Kofi Annan, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and now I ask it of these activists and their supporters. Maybe Israel’s actions aren’t always correct, but Israel has the sovereign right to act in the way it deems fit. If you don’t like the way we deal with terrorists, how about proposing an alternative solution to prevent Hamas proliferating its stockpile of military grade weaponry? If you don’t like human shields, and you shouldn’t if you care about human rights, how do you propose that the IDF tackles Hamas, an extremist group bent on Israel’s destruction that also happens to make extensive use of this tactic?
News agencies worldwide reported that the Israeli Navy stormed a flotilla carrying hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists and tons of supplies for Gaza on Monday morning. But they didn’t give more than passing mention to the fact that these pro-Palestinian activists had intentionally and deliberately provoked the IDF into acting. Amid reports from the IDF which claims that soldiers were met by well-planned lynch involving concealed handguns, knives, bats and metal pipes, we would do well to note that prior to boarding the flotilla, Maj. Gen. Eliezer Marom, Commander of the Israeli Navy, briefed the forces who participated in the interception of these protest boats, and called on them not be dragged into provocations with the passengers of the ship.
Referring to previous experience with such protesters, Marom explained that no matter what “provocation that they may create, and there are here a number of soldiers that participated in past events, for example to throw cigarettes, spitting, cursing, and so forth; we do not respond to these types of actions.” While Marom correctly identified these “peace activists” as paradoxically unpleasant to deal with, even he could not have predicted that there would be those amongst their number who would attempt to steal the soldiers’ guns, let alone stab them. But that is precisely what occurred. For us to regard these people as genuine peace activists would be a real tragedy.
Gen. Maj. Marom explained that “we have no intention of harming any of these people”, but that was sadly not the case with the activists. Beyond physically hurting the soldiers, their intention to give Israel’s image a good hiding could not be clearer. We may call them pro-Palestinian activists, but that would be a fib, for they had plenty of other options available to them, but instead went for the cheap PR stunt. And yet the PR stunt is the one way that wins. Israel yet again emerges as the loser, it’s entitlement to protect its population damaged. Worse still, this affair sets a dangerous precedent. Even after the criticism has faded and the media move on to the next big story, Israel will be left as many as 15 “Rachel Corries” to explain, 15 more images of Israeli brutality, injustice, violent excess. No matter whether the deceased foolishly tried to provoke soldiers in their last moments, they will become icons for the anti-Israel movement for an eternity.
The events off the coast of Gaza in the early hours of Monday morning were a dual tragedy. People died, and for that I grieve. But if Israel’s right to defend itself continues to be eroded, and if a precedent has been set here, more people will die. And that would be an even greater tragedy.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Goldstone the fool?
I stumbled an interesting article on the Muqata blog last week that I want to share with you.
'JoeSettler,' the blogger who penned this entry, points out that “there seems to be a lot of confirmation that this story is true, and it doesn’t say much for Goldstone's credibility as an investigator of war crimes.”
In 1995, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) prosecutor’s office listed a certain Serb named Gruban as a serious war criminal. Very serious. They had a lot of details of his war crimes.
But it seems that the Prosecutor’s office had mistakenly identified the criminal involved. The person linked to this case of mistaken identy was none other than head prosecutor himself; Richard Goldstone.
From 1994 until 1996 Goldstone was the head Prosecutor at the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the UN, and here is a link to the text of his indictment against Gruban. The ICTY's PDF is extracted here:
'JoeSettler,' the blogger who penned this entry, points out that “there seems to be a lot of confirmation that this story is true, and it doesn’t say much for Goldstone's credibility as an investigator of war crimes.”
In 1995, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) prosecutor’s office listed a certain Serb named Gruban as a serious war criminal. Very serious. They had a lot of details of his war crimes.
But it seems that the Prosecutor’s office had mistakenly identified the criminal involved. The person linked to this case of mistaken identy was none other than head prosecutor himself; Richard Goldstone.
From 1994 until 1996 Goldstone was the head Prosecutor at the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the UN, and here is a link to the text of his indictment against Gruban. The ICTY's PDF is extracted here:
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
THE PROSECUTOR OF THE TRIBUNAL
AGAINSTZELJKO MEAKIC, MIROSLAV KVOCKA, DRAGOLJUB PRCAC, MLADEN RADIC a.k.a. "KRKAN," MILOJICA KOS a.k.a. "KRLE," MOMCILO GRUBAN a.k.a. "CKALJA," ZDRAVKO GOVEDARICA, GRUBAN
INDICTMENT
Richard J. Goldstone, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, pursuant to his authority under Article 18 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ("The Statute of the Tribunal"), charges...
But in 1998 the ICTY dropped all charges against the above-named Gruban:CC/PIU/314-E
The Hague, 8 May 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PROSECUTOR FOLLOWING THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE CHARGES AGAINST 14 ACCUSED
On 5 May and 8 May respectively, Judge Vohrah and Judge Riad granted the leave requested by the Office of the Prosecutor to withdraw the charges against 14 accused in the Omarska and Keraterm indictments:
The charges against the following 11 accused in the Omarska indictment are withdrawn: Zdravko GOVEDARICA, GRUBAN, Predrag KOSTIC, Nedeljko PASPALJ, Milan PAVLIC, Milutin POPOVIC, Drazenko PREDOJEVIC, Zeljko SAVIC, Mirko BABIC, Nikica JANJIC and Dragomir SAPONJA
(Note that this Gruban is not to be confused with Momcilo Gruban who was imprisoned in 2002 and is also mentioned in that first document and indictment. The charges are maintained against 5 accused who are still at large, namely:
Zeljko MEAKIC (alleged Omarska camp commander, charged with genocide), Dragoljub PRCAC (one of the two alleged deputy commanders), Milojica KOS, Momcilo GRUBAN (one the three alleged guards shift commanders) and Du{an KNEZEVIC (one of the five persons who allegedly visited the camp to commit atrocities).
There are two Grubans here and this Gruban is obviously a different Gruban entirely than the one who had the charges against him dropped. So who was this “Gruban” who turned out to be completely innocent?
Gruban Malić, given his full name, is a very well known character in Serbia. And a character he is; Gruban Malić is a fictional character in the book “Hero on a Donkey” written by Miodrag Bulatović'.
Not to comment at all on that war, but Goldstone fell for a joke someone pulled on him and his court. All the Serbs were laughing at how stupid he and his court was. It certainly destroyed any credibility they might have had for the court.
Sound familiar? Is this any different then what happened in Gaza?
The Gazans of Pallywood told Goldstone stories which he willingly and unquestioning swallowed up whole, and spit back at us. Like in Serbia, the Gazans are laughing at him while Goldstone uses their lies to attack Israel.
What is more interesting is that besides in Serbia, in the office of the ICTY this embarrassing mistake was apparently well known, and of course it wasn't publicized outward, instead they tried to basically cover up Goldstone's mistake by "dropping the charges".
That's a shame about the cover-up, because certainly everyone should remember to associate Richard Goldstone's name with the Serbian war criminal Gruban Malic' - and his donkey.
Now, is it any wonder why Goldstone was sent to Gaza to investigate Israel for war crimes?
-------------------------------------------
(Source: M'kor Rishon online newspaper)
Monday, June 15, 2009
Bibi responds to Obama
A few hours ago, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at Bar Ilan University in his first major public appearance since Barack Obama's "message of peace" at Cairo University last week. Netanyahu's reaction was hotly anticipated, and he certainly did not let the press down, stating for the first time in Israel's history, support for the creation of a Palestinian state. The one caveat to this support is that it must be a demilitarised state - a suggestion that many will find unacceptable.
Overall, the reaction from Israelis has been one of appreciation and approval. My facebook page was swamped with messages posted such as "Have we found a leader?" and "Bibi gave a good, eloquent and uplifting speech." Such sentiments seem typical of the general Israeli reception of the speech. Whereas the biggest story in the foreign press was the historic call for the Palestinians to finally have a state of their own, Israelis seemed generally unperturbed by such a statement; even if hasn't actually happened yet, most Israelis have accepted the need for a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Because Israel has never seen true peace, its Prime Ministers have tended to be men who previously served as high ranking officers in the IDF. Moreover, as the prospects of a Palestinian state being formed next to Israel become more and more realistic, Israelis increasingly feel that any leader who gives land to the Palestinians must not be construed as "weak." As such, Benjamin Netanyahu stands in a different category entirely to the competition - he is trusted by a large swathe of the public in a way that no other politician in Israel is. There is no doubt that he cares desperately. Although Netanyahu does not make a habit of mentioning his late brother, Yoni, (a hero who was the sole casualty of an extraordinary IDF rescue mission in 1976) today he did. Speaking as one who understands the pain and emotion his country has undergone, Netanyahu said clearly "I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war" to great applause. Whereas often Israelis feel that displaying our exhaustion is a interpreted by our enemies as a sign of weakness, Netanyahu sounded absolutely honest and crucially avoided coming across as sounding weak or resigned to American coercion.
While Prime Minister Netanyahu's statement was the first time an official had gone on record to lend support to a future Palestinian state, it is not really a shock. Last week, I read newspaper headlines saying that Netanyahu "may give in to Obama's demands," or "cave to American pressure," but here the reality couldn't be further from the truth; in 1997 Yassir Arafat and Benjamin Netanyahu, during his first stint as the Israeli PM, agreed to hand over control of Hebron to the PA. This was well before Obama came to power. The withdrawal from this city was made against huge internal pressure, and serves to prove that Netanyahu, a man who is perceived as being right-wing and hawkish, actually wants a Palestinian state to be built alongside Israel.
For a Prime Minister's first major policy speech, it is undeniable that Mr. Netanyahu spoke extremely well and made a very solid case for Israel, but I still have reservations as to whether he has done enough. Many people in the western world are misinformed (or worse) and believe that the settlements are a major stumbling block to peace in the region, whereas many Israelis know that this simply isn't the case. Despite this, Netanyahu conceded that settlement building needs to stop - a statement that should go some way to appeasing Obama's insistence on a freeze on all settlement activity. Truth be told, Netanyahu only presented a minor bargaining chip there - even though no he agreed that no more settlements can be built, and that Israel is obligated to dismantle a number of settlements, he refused to make the natural growth of existing settlements illegal. I think that the majority of Israelis agree with this position, and that even those who don't (on either extreme of the political spectrum) will be able to deal with this solution.
And yet, I was disappointed with the speech. It's not that Netanyahu said anything wrong - far from it - without understatement I can say that I agreed with every word. Importantly, Netanyahu set Barack Obama straight on the issue the historical rights of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria. (Something which is not connected to the Holocaust.)
There's an element of Israelis and Jews who are convinced that Obama is anti-Zionistic and anti-Semitic. They refer to his middle name, Hussein, and his religious background, and say that he either is a Muslim, or at the very least sympathises with Muslims. I don't buy into this theory at all. I prefer to believe that Obama is an highly ideological man, a true liberal who wants to see both Palestine and Israel flourish. Unfortunately, no matter how much Barack Obama wants to bring peace to the Middle East, he will only be allowed to fulfill his dream if the Palestinians want to share in his vision. For as long as the Palestinian people are engaged in terrorism, they compromise their ability to be true partners in a real peace process, and forcing Israel to accept a two-state solution at such a time is recklessly naive. Netanyahu has invited the Palestinians to talk peace, but we all know that talking peace is cheap - doing peace is so much more expensive. At the present time, we have no signs that the Palestinians are ready for peace, neither spoken or in action, and as such it would be foolish to create a Palestinian state at this moment in time.
It is not by chance that Netanyahu spoke at the Begin-Sadat Center, which was named after the Israeli and Egyptian leaders who signed the historic 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace treaty. The centre was named after two leaders who put an end to a longstanding bloody conflict with the declaration of "no more wars," a statement that resonates deeply within the Israeli psyche. This centre is part of Bar Ilan University, a campus universally recognised as the most conservative in Israel. Yet, no one objects to the naming of a peace research institute after an Arab man. Such a thing would be unthinkable in an Arab state, but in Israel this is a cause for pride. Twice in his speech, Netanyahu mentioned Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin and expressed admiration for their work and Israel's hope that we can follow in their footsteps. Regrettably though, neither Mahmoud Abbas (leader of the PA) and Ismail Haniyeh, (one of Hamas' chief leaders) are good candidates for making peace with Israel. Both are committed to stifling a Jewish state from thriving - Haniyeh by taking the extremist and belicose stance, and Abbas by playing the role of the reasonable moderate who argues that a Jewish state is racist.
I am disappointed that while Netanyahu expressed support for a Palestinian state and offered to meet Arab leaders "in any place and at any time, in Damascus, Riyadh and Beirut, and of course Jerusalem," he didn't at least mention his disappointment with the Arab world for their continued denial of the existence of the Jewish state and their stubborn refusal to even set foot in Israeli territory. I am disappointed that while Netanyahu endorsed the creation of a future Palestinian state that will neighbour Israel, he didn't stress his dismay that Palestinian terrorism has killed hundreds, maimed thousands and bereaved families will be affected for the rest of their lives. Netanyahu invited the Palestinians to the table without any "pre-conditions," but shouldn't a pre-condition be that Hamas stops firing rockets at the civilians of Sderot and that Fatah accept the concept of Jewish sovereignty in Israel just as the overwhelming majority of Israelis accept that Palestinians deserve autonomy?
For all the sweet talk for Obama's benefit, Netanyahu's speech was met by disgust in the Arab world. To quote Melanie Phillips: "How can there be a ‘two state solution’ when the Palestinians refuse to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state? Quite obviously, such a solution is off the table as far as the Palestinians are concerned."
Overall, the reaction from Israelis has been one of appreciation and approval. My facebook page was swamped with messages posted such as "Have we found a leader?" and "Bibi gave a good, eloquent and uplifting speech." Such sentiments seem typical of the general Israeli reception of the speech. Whereas the biggest story in the foreign press was the historic call for the Palestinians to finally have a state of their own, Israelis seemed generally unperturbed by such a statement; even if hasn't actually happened yet, most Israelis have accepted the need for a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Because Israel has never seen true peace, its Prime Ministers have tended to be men who previously served as high ranking officers in the IDF. Moreover, as the prospects of a Palestinian state being formed next to Israel become more and more realistic, Israelis increasingly feel that any leader who gives land to the Palestinians must not be construed as "weak." As such, Benjamin Netanyahu stands in a different category entirely to the competition - he is trusted by a large swathe of the public in a way that no other politician in Israel is. There is no doubt that he cares desperately. Although Netanyahu does not make a habit of mentioning his late brother, Yoni, (a hero who was the sole casualty of an extraordinary IDF rescue mission in 1976) today he did. Speaking as one who understands the pain and emotion his country has undergone, Netanyahu said clearly "I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war" to great applause. Whereas often Israelis feel that displaying our exhaustion is a interpreted by our enemies as a sign of weakness, Netanyahu sounded absolutely honest and crucially avoided coming across as sounding weak or resigned to American coercion.
While Prime Minister Netanyahu's statement was the first time an official had gone on record to lend support to a future Palestinian state, it is not really a shock. Last week, I read newspaper headlines saying that Netanyahu "may give in to Obama's demands," or "cave to American pressure," but here the reality couldn't be further from the truth; in 1997 Yassir Arafat and Benjamin Netanyahu, during his first stint as the Israeli PM, agreed to hand over control of Hebron to the PA. This was well before Obama came to power. The withdrawal from this city was made against huge internal pressure, and serves to prove that Netanyahu, a man who is perceived as being right-wing and hawkish, actually wants a Palestinian state to be built alongside Israel.
For a Prime Minister's first major policy speech, it is undeniable that Mr. Netanyahu spoke extremely well and made a very solid case for Israel, but I still have reservations as to whether he has done enough. Many people in the western world are misinformed (or worse) and believe that the settlements are a major stumbling block to peace in the region, whereas many Israelis know that this simply isn't the case. Despite this, Netanyahu conceded that settlement building needs to stop - a statement that should go some way to appeasing Obama's insistence on a freeze on all settlement activity. Truth be told, Netanyahu only presented a minor bargaining chip there - even though no he agreed that no more settlements can be built, and that Israel is obligated to dismantle a number of settlements, he refused to make the natural growth of existing settlements illegal. I think that the majority of Israelis agree with this position, and that even those who don't (on either extreme of the political spectrum) will be able to deal with this solution.
And yet, I was disappointed with the speech. It's not that Netanyahu said anything wrong - far from it - without understatement I can say that I agreed with every word. Importantly, Netanyahu set Barack Obama straight on the issue the historical rights of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria. (Something which is not connected to the Holocaust.)
There's an element of Israelis and Jews who are convinced that Obama is anti-Zionistic and anti-Semitic. They refer to his middle name, Hussein, and his religious background, and say that he either is a Muslim, or at the very least sympathises with Muslims. I don't buy into this theory at all. I prefer to believe that Obama is an highly ideological man, a true liberal who wants to see both Palestine and Israel flourish. Unfortunately, no matter how much Barack Obama wants to bring peace to the Middle East, he will only be allowed to fulfill his dream if the Palestinians want to share in his vision. For as long as the Palestinian people are engaged in terrorism, they compromise their ability to be true partners in a real peace process, and forcing Israel to accept a two-state solution at such a time is recklessly naive. Netanyahu has invited the Palestinians to talk peace, but we all know that talking peace is cheap - doing peace is so much more expensive. At the present time, we have no signs that the Palestinians are ready for peace, neither spoken or in action, and as such it would be foolish to create a Palestinian state at this moment in time.
It is not by chance that Netanyahu spoke at the Begin-Sadat Center, which was named after the Israeli and Egyptian leaders who signed the historic 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace treaty. The centre was named after two leaders who put an end to a longstanding bloody conflict with the declaration of "no more wars," a statement that resonates deeply within the Israeli psyche. This centre is part of Bar Ilan University, a campus universally recognised as the most conservative in Israel. Yet, no one objects to the naming of a peace research institute after an Arab man. Such a thing would be unthinkable in an Arab state, but in Israel this is a cause for pride. Twice in his speech, Netanyahu mentioned Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin and expressed admiration for their work and Israel's hope that we can follow in their footsteps. Regrettably though, neither Mahmoud Abbas (leader of the PA) and Ismail Haniyeh, (one of Hamas' chief leaders) are good candidates for making peace with Israel. Both are committed to stifling a Jewish state from thriving - Haniyeh by taking the extremist and belicose stance, and Abbas by playing the role of the reasonable moderate who argues that a Jewish state is racist.
I am disappointed that while Netanyahu expressed support for a Palestinian state and offered to meet Arab leaders "in any place and at any time, in Damascus, Riyadh and Beirut, and of course Jerusalem," he didn't at least mention his disappointment with the Arab world for their continued denial of the existence of the Jewish state and their stubborn refusal to even set foot in Israeli territory. I am disappointed that while Netanyahu endorsed the creation of a future Palestinian state that will neighbour Israel, he didn't stress his dismay that Palestinian terrorism has killed hundreds, maimed thousands and bereaved families will be affected for the rest of their lives. Netanyahu invited the Palestinians to the table without any "pre-conditions," but shouldn't a pre-condition be that Hamas stops firing rockets at the civilians of Sderot and that Fatah accept the concept of Jewish sovereignty in Israel just as the overwhelming majority of Israelis accept that Palestinians deserve autonomy?
For all the sweet talk for Obama's benefit, Netanyahu's speech was met by disgust in the Arab world. To quote Melanie Phillips: "How can there be a ‘two state solution’ when the Palestinians refuse to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state? Quite obviously, such a solution is off the table as far as the Palestinians are concerned."
Monday, February 02, 2009
The Power of A Letter
A letter that was printed in the Israeli daily, Ma'ariv, has been circulating on the internet recently; on facebook, emails and blogs. The letter in question had apparently been written by an Israeli soldier, a reservist who was called up by the IDF and who consequently found himself in Gaza. The letter was purportedly left to the owners of a property held by the IDF in which the soldier spent an unspecified period of time during Operation Cast Lead.
The letter provoked some heated debate. Many doubted its veracity; some voiced their scepticism loudly, dubbing the letter shameless "propaganda," while others like myself were more passive and took the letter at face value. In the end, (and I suppose that it is a shame that more people don't know this,) the letter was proved to be a fake; a friend of mine who is currently serving in Golani stated quite clearly that no reserve soldiers actually entered Gaza and so this letter cannot have been authentic.
I still feel however that there is something very telling about this letter. While it transpires that it was not really written by an Israeli soldier who entered Gaza, I still find it deeply revealing of Israeli culture and Israelis' attitude to the Palestinian people. The "JBlogosphere," (a term coined for the worldwide network of jewish blogs,) seized upon this letter and quickly republished it. Arutz Sheva, a 'parallel' media outlet that leans very much to the right-wing, did too. All over the world, dedicated Zionists and Jews read this letter and felt connected to the letter's compassion for the Palestinian people. The letter is in no way apologetic for Israeli actions; it makes very clear that the writer believes that Israel's actions were just and neccessitated by Hamas' callous terrorism, but it nevertheless does reach out to the Palestinians, and attempts to empathise and sympathise with their pain.
What made this letter so believable is that its tone is very much in line with the norm in Israel. After terror attacks people often are polarised and given to repeating mindless mantras like "Kill all the Arabs," or "Carpet-bomb Gaza, that'll teach Hamas," but to be honest that is not the way most people think most of the time. The average Israeli, while proud of his country, also recognises the effect that this operation, and ones like it before, have had on the people "on the other side."
Yes, it is most likely that this letter is cleverly crafted propaganda, but that somebody who aligns themselves with the Israeli side of this conflict would so much as dream of writing a letter like this to people on the other side is already rather telling.
Any Palestinian who goes out of their way to make peace with Israelis is immediately dismissed as an apologist or is slurred and termed a "puppet" of the evil Zionists. Note how Hamas accuse Mahmoud Abbas (leader of Fatah and self-proclaimed Holocaust denier) of being exactly that.
The Israeli peace lobby, on the other hand, has a very real place in Israeli society. Dissenting voices are not demonised, they are respected, and ultimately have a very real (and, take note Hamas, *truly democratic*,) effect on the military's actions. Organisations such as B'Tselem, Yesh Din and Machsom Watch all place a tremendous amount of value on Palestinian human rights, often to the detriment of Jewish and Israeli human rights.
The reason why the letter touched so many people is because it was a perfect reflection of Israeli and Jewish attitudes to the people of our enemy. Though we might be engaged in a bloody war with Hamas (and even with a great number of other Palestinians, too) we never celebrate the spilling of blood, even of our enemies. Though Israel is locked in a painful war of attrition with Hamas, we do not wish our enemies dead; we would much rather that they prosper. There is very rarely an absolute proof for anything in this world, but while the so-called "civilised" countries in the West might well accuse us of war crimes, the best proof I can think of is that such atrocities are completely out of character with the genuine compassion that is so innate within the Jewish people.
This letter may well be propaganda, but for it to flourish it required another crucial ingredient; that it would be well received by Israelis and Jews around the world. The letter has spread around the world like wildfire, and it is no surprise to me why that is so. The point of this letter is one that resonates profoundly within Jews around the world. The point of the letter is that beyond the politics and the posturing, many of us Jews and Israelis are acutely uncomfortable with the effects of this (and any other) military operation on the people of "the other side." We are not apportioning blame, though we might make it exceedingly clear where we feel the blame lies for this needless and tragic loss of life, rather we are lamenting the hideous suffering that we have been compelled to impose upon another people.
The letter provoked some heated debate. Many doubted its veracity; some voiced their scepticism loudly, dubbing the letter shameless "propaganda," while others like myself were more passive and took the letter at face value. In the end, (and I suppose that it is a shame that more people don't know this,) the letter was proved to be a fake; a friend of mine who is currently serving in Golani stated quite clearly that no reserve soldiers actually entered Gaza and so this letter cannot have been authentic.
I still feel however that there is something very telling about this letter. While it transpires that it was not really written by an Israeli soldier who entered Gaza, I still find it deeply revealing of Israeli culture and Israelis' attitude to the Palestinian people. The "JBlogosphere," (a term coined for the worldwide network of jewish blogs,) seized upon this letter and quickly republished it. Arutz Sheva, a 'parallel' media outlet that leans very much to the right-wing, did too. All over the world, dedicated Zionists and Jews read this letter and felt connected to the letter's compassion for the Palestinian people. The letter is in no way apologetic for Israeli actions; it makes very clear that the writer believes that Israel's actions were just and neccessitated by Hamas' callous terrorism, but it nevertheless does reach out to the Palestinians, and attempts to empathise and sympathise with their pain.
What made this letter so believable is that its tone is very much in line with the norm in Israel. After terror attacks people often are polarised and given to repeating mindless mantras like "Kill all the Arabs," or "Carpet-bomb Gaza, that'll teach Hamas," but to be honest that is not the way most people think most of the time. The average Israeli, while proud of his country, also recognises the effect that this operation, and ones like it before, have had on the people "on the other side."
Yes, it is most likely that this letter is cleverly crafted propaganda, but that somebody who aligns themselves with the Israeli side of this conflict would so much as dream of writing a letter like this to people on the other side is already rather telling.
Any Palestinian who goes out of their way to make peace with Israelis is immediately dismissed as an apologist or is slurred and termed a "puppet" of the evil Zionists. Note how Hamas accuse Mahmoud Abbas (leader of Fatah and self-proclaimed Holocaust denier) of being exactly that.
The Israeli peace lobby, on the other hand, has a very real place in Israeli society. Dissenting voices are not demonised, they are respected, and ultimately have a very real (and, take note Hamas, *truly democratic*,) effect on the military's actions. Organisations such as B'Tselem, Yesh Din and Machsom Watch all place a tremendous amount of value on Palestinian human rights, often to the detriment of Jewish and Israeli human rights.
The reason why the letter touched so many people is because it was a perfect reflection of Israeli and Jewish attitudes to the people of our enemy. Though we might be engaged in a bloody war with Hamas (and even with a great number of other Palestinians, too) we never celebrate the spilling of blood, even of our enemies. Though Israel is locked in a painful war of attrition with Hamas, we do not wish our enemies dead; we would much rather that they prosper. There is very rarely an absolute proof for anything in this world, but while the so-called "civilised" countries in the West might well accuse us of war crimes, the best proof I can think of is that such atrocities are completely out of character with the genuine compassion that is so innate within the Jewish people.
This letter may well be propaganda, but for it to flourish it required another crucial ingredient; that it would be well received by Israelis and Jews around the world. The letter has spread around the world like wildfire, and it is no surprise to me why that is so. The point of this letter is one that resonates profoundly within Jews around the world. The point of the letter is that beyond the politics and the posturing, many of us Jews and Israelis are acutely uncomfortable with the effects of this (and any other) military operation on the people of "the other side." We are not apportioning blame, though we might make it exceedingly clear where we feel the blame lies for this needless and tragic loss of life, rather we are lamenting the hideous suffering that we have been compelled to impose upon another people.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Here we go...
And a little over a week after the one-week ceasefire was announced, what passed for peace here in Israel might be crumbling. I desperately hope not, but after events this morning, we'll have to wait and see. In case you didn't know, an Israeli soldier was killed and three were wounded this morning when the jeep they were in hit a mine during a standard patrol on part of the Gaza strip perimeter. Consequently Israel was drawn into a relatively low-key gun battle with terrorists and an Arab farmer caught in the crossfire was killed. A number of drones and helicopters were deployed on aerial patrols and one caused a sonic boom over Gaza by way of a statement from the IDF. (EDIT: Later on in the afternooon, 20 tanks and 7 armoured bulldozers backed up by air support entered Gaza but did not engage in heavy fighting. An air strike targeted a terrorist on a motorbike, causing him and a bystander severe injuries, but other than that nobody was reported injured.)
People have asked me whether the ceasefire will hold and I have told them that I am very pessimistic. Hamas undoubtedly want to attack Israel, and have never seen a ceasefire as a reason to actually cease their fire. During the six month period between June and December last year when an uneasy calm existed between Israel and Gaza, there were still over 300 rockets and mortars fired into Israeli terrirtory in defiance of the supposed "Hudna." If Olmert, Livni and Peres were serious when they said Israel had to change the status quo and that it will no longer tolerate such a threat and will respond to each and every rocket, then all Hamas has to do to grab the initiative is to fire a high volume of rockets into Israel. If we do not respond, we will be externally perceived as weak and internally perceived as unable to back up our assurances to the residents of Sderot and Ashkelon, and if we respond then the ceasefire will disappear and we will back in a war-like situation. I fully expect Hamas will most likely wait till closer to the elections and then step up rocket attacks once again to test this theory out. Either way, the Israeli government made a terrible mistake in withdrawing from Gaza as it did - it undermined a huge amount of progress. Hamas can now rebuild it's tunnels, (it already is, and furiously so,) and wait till the right time to attack again.
When will we learn?
People have asked me whether the ceasefire will hold and I have told them that I am very pessimistic. Hamas undoubtedly want to attack Israel, and have never seen a ceasefire as a reason to actually cease their fire. During the six month period between June and December last year when an uneasy calm existed between Israel and Gaza, there were still over 300 rockets and mortars fired into Israeli terrirtory in defiance of the supposed "Hudna." If Olmert, Livni and Peres were serious when they said Israel had to change the status quo and that it will no longer tolerate such a threat and will respond to each and every rocket, then all Hamas has to do to grab the initiative is to fire a high volume of rockets into Israel. If we do not respond, we will be externally perceived as weak and internally perceived as unable to back up our assurances to the residents of Sderot and Ashkelon, and if we respond then the ceasefire will disappear and we will back in a war-like situation. I fully expect Hamas will most likely wait till closer to the elections and then step up rocket attacks once again to test this theory out. Either way, the Israeli government made a terrible mistake in withdrawing from Gaza as it did - it undermined a huge amount of progress. Hamas can now rebuild it's tunnels, (it already is, and furiously so,) and wait till the right time to attack again.
When will we learn?
Monday, January 12, 2009
A quick entry
I'm just posting a quick blog entry to say that you should expect a reduction in the amount of blog posts I make as I have a big examination in just under two weeks. Regular readers have no doubt realised that my weekly D'var Torah has not made its usual appearance late on Friday afternoon - it's just too time-demanding. Similarly, I'm warning you that entries of a political nature are unlikely to be posted frequently until after the 25th. Thank you!
In the meantime... Is it just me, or is there something all too familiar about the outcome of this "peace" demonstration, reported in the Jerusalem Post? (There are a few events reported, so look for where the small paragraph at the bottom starting, "A demonstration outside the Prime Minister's residence...")
The only surprise is that, given the increasing number of Peace Now rallies held in Israel by "anti-occupationist" (self-hating) Jews against the IDF's actions in Gaza, ironically it was not a socialist-leaning Jewish sympathiser who decided to violently suppress opposition to his cause, but that it was an Arab. And what did he do? He threw a rock. Talk about reverting to type! Please note that I do recognise that the passing pro-Israel supporter was indeed abusive, but I also appreciate the difference between verbal abuse and what amounts to physical intimidation.
In the meantime... Is it just me, or is there something all too familiar about the outcome of this "peace" demonstration, reported in the Jerusalem Post? (There are a few events reported, so look for where the small paragraph at the bottom starting, "A demonstration outside the Prime Minister's residence...")
The only surprise is that, given the increasing number of Peace Now rallies held in Israel by "anti-occupationist" (self-hating) Jews against the IDF's actions in Gaza, ironically it was not a socialist-leaning Jewish sympathiser who decided to violently suppress opposition to his cause, but that it was an Arab. And what did he do? He threw a rock. Talk about reverting to type! Please note that I do recognise that the passing pro-Israel supporter was indeed abusive, but I also appreciate the difference between verbal abuse and what amounts to physical intimidation.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
In case we weren't absolutely sure why Israel launched this operation:
If there was any doubt as to whether Hamas' rudimentary Kassams have any real effect on the residents of Southern Israel, here's a resounding yes for you.
(Hat tip: Muqata)
Translated from Arutz Sheva Israel:
9 year old "Shir" wrote a list for herself in case of rocket attacks on her home in Southern Israel. This way she knows how long it takes to run to the bomb shelter from everywhere in her home, from the time she hears the air raid siren.
From the living room -- 10 seconds to run to the bomb shelter.
From Or's bedroom -- 10 seconds to run to the bomb shelter.
From the dining room -- 6 seconds to run to the bomb shelter.
From Shir's Bedroom -- 13 seconds to run to the bomb shelter
From my parents bedroom -- 10 seconds to run to the bomb shelter.
From the hall bathroom -- 10 seconds to run to the bomb shelter.
That unfortunately, is little Shir's reality. She has to know how long it takes her to run from place to place, because it might well save her life.
I don't know about you, but that is not normality. That is no way for a nine year old girl to live. That is unacceptable, and that is why Israel has finally acted.
(Hat tip: Muqata)
Translated from Arutz Sheva Israel:
9 year old "Shir" wrote a list for herself in case of rocket attacks on her home in Southern Israel. This way she knows how long it takes to run to the bomb shelter from everywhere in her home, from the time she hears the air raid siren.
From the living room -- 10 seconds to run to the bomb shelter.
From Or's bedroom -- 10 seconds to run to the bomb shelter.
From the dining room -- 6 seconds to run to the bomb shelter.
From Shir's Bedroom -- 13 seconds to run to the bomb shelter
From my parents bedroom -- 10 seconds to run to the bomb shelter.
From the hall bathroom -- 10 seconds to run to the bomb shelter.
That unfortunately, is little Shir's reality. She has to know how long it takes her to run from place to place, because it might well save her life.
I don't know about you, but that is not normality. That is no way for a nine year old girl to live. That is unacceptable, and that is why Israel has finally acted.
So who's fault is it?
Foreign governments trying to be "neutral" (see my earlier post about what that's all about,) experience real difficulty in admitting the reality of the current situation in and around Gaza, but ironically enough the Egyptians have no such qualms.
(Hat tip to Little Green Footballs and in turn, to Aaron.)
(Hat tip to Little Green Footballs and in turn, to Aaron.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
