Occidental Israeli Rotating Header Image

‍‍ אדר / ניסן תשסט - March, 2009:

Reading, Misc.

‍‍ז אדר תשסט - Mar 31st, 2009
by LB.
1 comment

I know I have not written in a while, and I hope to return to a somewhat regular blogging schedule in the near future.

In the mean time, I am starting a ‘feature,’ the idea for which, I hope Alex Stein does not mind I borrow. Over the past few weeks Alex Stein at False Dichotomies, has been posting a weekly “Abbreviated Read.” It is “the Top 10 interesting things [he's] read online during the week,” yet “[m]aking it onto the list doesn’t necessarily mean [he] endorse[s] the message.”

The same will be true in “Reading, Misc.” Your thoughts, as always, are welcome.

  1. Khaled Abu Toameh on his speaking tour in the US: “[W]e should not be surprised if the next generation of jihadists comes not from the Gaza Strip or the mountains and mosques of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but from university campuses across the U.S.”
  2. Religious Soldiers walk out of an official event, to avoid hearing a female singer
  3. Judea Pearl: Anti-Zionism might not be antisemitism, but is it worse?
  4. Jeffrey Goldberg argues with the JCC’s Theater J director of Seven Jewish Children
  5. J-Street, Redefining “Pro-Israel”
  6. The American Thinker on the “Two State Solution” (H/T CiJ)
  7. Baghdad Today
  8. Root: מז”ג
  9. A Team of Zionists
  10. The Facebook Haggadah

Is a Boycott Just? Who Cares – Does it Work?

‍‍כב אדר תשסט - Mar 17th, 2009
by LB.
No comments yet

To Boycott or Not to Boycott, That Is the Question No it’s not. Stanley Fish, law professor, and NY Times blogger, appears reasonable in debating whether or not an academic boycott of Israel is a good idea. However reasonable, though, he does not come to a concrete conclusion about such a boycott until the very end where he briefly mentions that “those actions, [the boycott of South Africa].. were and are antithetical to the academic enterprise, which while it may provide the tools (of argument, fact and historical research) that enable good and righteous deeds, should never presume to perform them.”

What he does is attempt to rebut arguments of opponents of the boycott. One such argument is that such a narrow focus on Israel is dishonest and hypocritical. The claim presents the question: Where are the calls for boycott of, and divestment from Sudan and China, not to mention Saudi Arabia and Iran? Picking Israel is dangerously close to antisemitism (if not more dangerous).

Yet Fish says, “If you supported the boycott of South Africa and the disinvestment by universities from companies doing business in or with that country, you are obligated, by your own history, to support the boycott of Israeli academics.”

“Anti-boycotters” do not (nor should not) argue what Fish paraphrases. Such an argument is moot, if not harmful in the end, since South Africa was clearly apartheid.Israel, on the other hand, has, by and large, acted justly (if not a bit meekly).

Fish misses the point entirely. Whether or not the theoretical boycott of a criminal state may be an interesting philosophical question, but is irrelevant with regards to Israel. Fish’s starting point seems to be that Israel is wrong and has committed crimes – and that the problem at hand is how to address these crimes.

I should expect more from a law professor. I don’t, but I should. Over 2,000 words, and not one actually deals with the question of Israel’s culpability. Fish’s implies that whether or not Israeli academics are responsible, the Israeli government is wrong, and is criminal. Indeed, his starting point is that Israel’s actions today are as wrong as apartheid South Africa’s were.

Nowhere does he look at Israeli actions in Gaza this past December/January, actual attacks, what preceded them, Israeli aid to Gaza, whether there was a causus belli, Israel’s jus ad bellum and jus in bello, and examine them in light of relevant international law – the UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, treaties to which Israel is a signatory. He just decides that 2009 Israel = 1948 South Africa. This is one academic that has definitely not performed “the tools of argument, fact and historical research.”

JCC Promoting Antisemitism

‍‍כ אדר תשסט - Mar 16th, 2009
by LB.
5 comments

Antisemitic plays in the guise of legitimate criticism of Israel are nothing new. In 2005, there was the British polemic about the “activist” Rachel Corrie. The most recent of these artistic expressions of racism, Seven Jewish Children, does not even make an honest attempt to mask its antisemitism.

Antisemitism will probably persist as long as the sun rises in the east, but what I learned from the NY Times today has truly managed to shock me. The JCC in Washington, DC is serving as a mouthpiece to this modern blood libel. This is not the first time the JCC has promoted “progressive causes,” and pretty crudely, too. This past September, Sandra Bernhard warned “Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers.”

This, however, is a new low. This is the JEWISH community center. On their blog, Theater J, run by the Washington DC JCC, Ari Roth, director of this trash, says “[t]he play is this year’s My Name is Rachel Corrie.” Of course it is. But is he really implying that is something positive?

He says the play is “problematic… [for] suggesting that there is a Jewish ownership—not merely an Israeli military’s responsibility—for the recent violence in Gaza.” I don’t even know where to start. Never mind that diaspora Jewish communities do not even come close to taking an active role in the welfare of the Jewish state, thinking that throwing money at “their brothers” is sufficient. Forget that those who Israel targeted were, and still are, trying to effect a genocide upon the Jews. But no, the play is only “controversial.”

Next time your local Jewish Community Center asks you for a donation – ask them if they, too, promote antisemitism.

Cohen: Murder Leads to Peace

‍‍טו אדר תשסט - Mar 11th, 2009
by LB.
2 comments

Roger Cohen is either a racist, a fool, or suicidal. His utterly stupid column this week has been parsed by plenty of others, and I have no desire to rehash his drivel.

Cohen doubts that “Hamas is sincere in its calls for Israel’s disappearance.” That must mean that the recent poll conducted in the P.A. shows that a majority within Palestinian society actively seeks peace (Hebrew Ynet). How else can one explain that if elections were held today, genocidal Hamas, led by Haniyeh would win 47% v. Fatah, led by Holocaust denier Abbas.

The Times. Again.

‍‍יא אדר תשסט - Mar 6th, 2009
by LB.
No comments yet

The NY Times came out today with yet another backwards analysis of the Middle East and what needs to be done. How has the West and the the Obama administration (and the NY Times is a fairly accurate representative of the administration) not yet learned that more often than not that the blind pursuit of peace at all costs will result not in peace, but endless war?

Former President George W. Bush made a serious mistake by shunning Syria, pushing it further into Iran’s arms. Coaxing Syria away from Tehran would benefit Washington, deepening Iran’s isolation on the nuclear issue and encouraging Syrian cooperation in stabilizing Iraq. It would benefit Israel, giving Syria greater incentives to cut off arms flows to Hezbollah in Lebanon. And it would benefit Syria, by providing the wider diplomatic and economic opening Damascus has been seeking.

Bush made plenty of mistakes. Shunning Syria was not one of them. Not placing enough effective pressure on Iran was. Creating an environment in which Iran is truly an outcast, even to Russia (and North Korea? maybe not), would leave Syria with no patron. Sometimes the sticks work without carrots.

Negotiating with Syria will not “benefit Israel” in any way. It will do nothing but endanger Israel further. Syria has never done anything for Israel. It has nothing to truly offer Israel. It needs to submit. As cliche as it may sound to liberal ears, giving up the Golan will only embolden Israel’s enemies, and Israel has no real incentive to do so.

The Times continues by rewriting history, blaming “widespread civilian suffering in January” on Israel (Operation Cast Lead), and accusing Israel of “damag[ing] Mr. Abbas’s credibility as an effective defender of Palestinian interests.” That one is fine with me. However, since when is it a country’s responsibility to help the credibility of their enemy’s leader?

The rest of the editorial is just as ridiculous, and calls for Hillary Clinton to undertake more stupid ventures in an area of the world that is not under American jurisdiction.

I think that the NY Times editorial board needs to spend some time in Gaza or Iran as ordinary citizens, and then editorialize about how benevolent they think these societies are.

Two State Solution – Fatahland and Hamastan?

‍‍ח אדר תשסט - Mar 4th, 2009
by LB.
1 comment

For years, the world seems to already have the answer to Israeli-Arab conflict. It’s called the “Two-State Solution.” Solution to what, however? What exactly will the formation of two states solve?

Allegedly, this is the answer to war – there will be peace. An honest belief that simply creating two states between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River will bring about peace ex machina, is the result of either serious delusion or the campaign of misinformation waged against Israel. It will not create peace – national aspirations of sovereignty are only the tip of the enormous iceberg of problems that comprise the Israeli-Arab conflict.

As Giora Eiland writes, “The Palestinian ethos is based on values such as justice, victimization, revenge, and above all, the ‘right of return.’” In other words, Israel has no place. As cliche as it sounds, Gaza is proof. It is a clear-cut example that our Arab neighbors do not want to rule themselves, do not want to help their own, do not accept Israel in any way shape or form.

In his piece at Ynet, Eiland offers a number of different solutions for the regional conflict. I do not quite agree with any of them, but the end of the “two state orthodoxy” is a good step in the right direction.

Not every problem can be solved by Western powers drawing more lines in the sand. Doing that in the first place after WWI contributed greatly to the mess in the greater Middle East today. It’s time to realize that the gospel of two states has to be re-examined.