Carter at Cardozo: What next?

This past Monday morning I received an email advising me that a student group at Yeshiva University's Cardozo Law School was planning to honour former President of the United States Jimmy Carter with an award for his years as an international mediator. I was stunned.

It isn't only that President Carter has done grievous harm to the State of Israel over the years, slandering it as an "apartheid state" and lending the stature of the American presidency to delegitimization of Israel. I can accept that someone might have a view that is different from mine. My problem is that Mr. Carter has been overtly dishonest and stubbornly close-minded on the matter of Israel. He has shut his ears to reasoned, lucid criticism. [See Professor Alan Dershowitz's brief list of criticisms of his work here; for an extensive account of President Carter's response and non-response to criticism of his book, Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid, see the footnotes here.] Is this someone to be honoured for peacemaking? How could students at a Jewish university not be aware of the cloud over the man's head?

Of course, it was immediately obvious that nothing was going to change. Realistically, no American university is going to rescind a student invitation to a former American President. Further, the university itself - as noted by President Joel here and by the Cardozo Board of Overseers here - does not control what a student organization does.


Nonetheless, I think there is something to be done, beyond this particular crisis. Education is required, perhaps via public awareness and education programs, as well as student activities. In a Jewish university, it should be obvious to all - Jewish and non-Jewish - that no award should be given to a person like President Carter.

This is true beyond Yeshiva University, in all of our high schools and elementary schools. The views of President Carter and his ilk are popular, and their unwillingness to consider all of the evidence and address their opposition directly is swept under the rug by their supporters. This is our competition, and our children are exposed to it all the time. May we re-double our efforts with our children and students, to make sure they are exposed to our perspective as well.

Is it Syria? Or is it Gaza?

Definitely not Memorex. And definitely not Gaza, either. Not that this stops anyone from accusing Israel...

Click on each photo to see the story behind it. There are many more out there; this is just a small collection from five minutes of looking around.

President Obama Flip-Flops on Jerusalem

So Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney travels to Israel and proclaims that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, in line with an act of Congress going back nearly 20 years.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest responds:
"Well, our view is that that’s a different position than this administration holds. It’s the view of this administration that the capital is something that should be determined in final status negotiations between the parties."

But Earnest did not leave the point only at the idea of the parties themselves determining their borders consensually. Rather, he added that, "I’d remind you that that’s the position that’s been held by previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican. So if Mr. Romney disagrees with that position, he’s also disagreeing with the position that was taken by Presidents like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan."

Sounds like President Obama disagrees with Mitt Romney. But if so, then why do we have video of him proclaiming, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided"?

Cue the video, Mr. Earnest:




Or how about, "And I continue to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. And I have said that before and I will say it again" - even though he also noted that these were "final status issues", he had no problem making the explicit declaration for which his surrogates now castigate the Republican.

More video, Mr. Earnest:



Oh, wait - That was 2008? When he was running for office? And speaking to a pro-Israel audience?

I see. Yes, that does explain a lot, doesn't it.

In Honor of Purim: Nuclear Duck

(hat tip: The Muqata)

You want us to make ourselves vulnerable to this?

CNN has this article running today, on "crimes against humanity" in Syria:

Report: Syrian abuses could be 'crimes against humanity'
The Syrian regime has carried out a "systematic" series of abuses against protesters that could "qualify as crimes against humanity," and the United Nations must hold the government accountable, a leading humanitarian watchdog organization said Wednesday.

Human Rights Watch makes these assertions in a report titled "'We've Never Seen Such Horror': Crimes against Humanity in Daraa."

The 57-page document contains chilling detail from dozens of victims and witnesses to abuses in Daraa province, the southwestern Syrian powder keg where the anti-government protest movement began in mid-March before spreading across the country. The government reacted with a tough crackdown against protesters.

At present, the report says, there have been about 887 deaths "across Syria," including at least 418 people in Daraa province.

"For more than two months now, Syrian security forces have been killing and torturing their own people with complete impunity," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.

"They need to stop -- and if they don't, it is the Security Council's responsibility to make sure that the people responsible face justice."

'We've never seen such horror', indeed.

So tell me - You want us to hand such people the Golan Heights, so that they can do this to us, too? If Syrians will do this to their own, why do you think they'll do any differently to Israelis?

Despite the AIPAC explanation, all I hear is: Throw the Jew down the well

Listening to President Obama describe the challenges and problems of the Middle East last Thursday, addressing the "problem" of Jewish residence in their ancient land right along with repression of millions; governments that shoot their own citizens; rampant poverty, illiteracy and repression; Sunni-Shiite fighting, and so on, I can only think of Borat's song, "Throw the Jew down the well":



For every problem, there is a simple solution, as there has always been - Throw the Jew down the well, then have a party.

Having now read CNN's positive summary and reivew of the president's Sunday speech at AIPAC, as well as the JTA's takeaways, I do understand his explanation: That he believes this is in Israel's long-term, global interests, and that he wants to see mutually agreed-upon land swaps.

Nonetheless: In making this verbal move, he has given such major diplomatic support to Israel's antagonists that all I hear is this:

In the Middle East there is a problem
And that problem is the Kings
They take all the people’s freedom
And they never give it back

Throw the Jew down the well
So Middle East can be free
If we can make the Middle East judenrein
Then we’ll have a big party

In the Middle East there is a problem
And that problem is Sunni-Shiite war
They blow up each other’s mosques
And supermarkets and schools too

Throw the Jew down the well
So Shiites and Sunnis will make peace
Iran will give up on their nukes
Then we’ll have a big party

In the Middle East there is a problem
And that problem is poverty
Oil money goes to kings and emirs
Whose people are illiterate and broke

Throw the Jew down the well
Kuwait will fund mass literacy
Saudi Arabia will bankroll job growth
Then we’ll have a big party

In the Middle East there is a problem
And that problem is human rights
They block the Net and shut down Twitter
Allow honor killings and slavery

Throw the Jew down the well
So Arab citizens will be free
Muslim countries will tolerate dissent
Then we’ll have a big party

Feel free to add your own verses in the comments... I only wish the Republican Party would put up a decent opposition candidate.

Enough of "They Kill, We Build"

[Haveil Havalim is here]

The sentiment is all over the blogs, Netanyahu has emphasized it, all sorts of ambassadors and consuls and spokesmen have underscored it, but I can’t get into it.

"They kill, we build," the line goes. "They murder tiny infants, we build homes for families."

But it’s no consolation for the massacre of the Fogel family in Itamar.

And more, the public relations argument that we build and Palestinian Arabs murder babies is irrelevant, a response to a straw man argument that no one has alleged.

The world doesn't claim we destroy. The world's actual argument is that we are stealing land. So to them, the government’s permission to build hundreds more apartments is, “They kill, we steal.”

I'm not saying we shouldn't build. We must build. But stop making an empty PR argument out of it.

The world doesn't get it, they won't get it, and certainly not when we respond to straw men.

Sorry to be so depressing this morning, but there it is.

Blaming the victim?

[Post I'm thinking about - Jared Lee Loughner at Everyone Needs Therapy]

Why is it that when an insane twenty-something shoots up a political event, kills Judge John Roll and wounds Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the fault lies with the people who incited him…

...But when terrorists bomb, shoot and knife Israelis, the fault lies not with the Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and so on handlers who incited them, but with the Israelis the terrorists were angry at – the victims, in other words?

...And when 20 Muslims fly planes into the World Trade Center, killing thousands, the fault lies not with the imams who incited them, but with the Americans the imams were angry at – the victims, in other words?

Why not blame the victims - Congresswoman Giffords, Judge Roll - the same way that the world blames Israelis and Americans for the actions of the people who attack them? Why not blame Democrats, or moderates, for the reaction of Jared Lee Loughner? As repugnant as I find the idea, wouldn't it be consistent with society's general approach?

Or, perhaps, might it be correct to change society's general approach, and to stop blaming the American government, or Israelis, for the actions of the terrorists who attack them?

I’m just asking.

UNIFIL: Our activities could not be implemented without the cooperation of the Lebanese Army

Thanks to the Jerusalem Post, I know that UNIFIL has now completed its investigation into the murder of an Israeli by Lebanese soldiers a few weeks ago:

Lebanese soldiers shot and killed an Israeli battalion commander earlier this month in an unprovoked attack along the northern border, according to a report sent Wednesday to the IDF by UNIFIL on the organization’s investigation into the attack.
The report was submitted to the IDF and Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). UNIFIL confirmed its preliminary conclusions that the IDF soldiers had not crossed the internationally recognized border between Israel and Lebanon known as the Blue Line when pruning a tree on the other side of the fence but still within Israeli sovereign territory.

This matches the New York Times report from back on August 5:
The United Nations peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, Unifil, said Wednesday that it had concluded that Israeli forces were cutting trees that lay within their own territory before a lethal exchange of fire with Lebanese Army troops, largely vindicating Israel’s account of how the fighting started.

But you wouldn’t know it from CNN, of course.

Back on August 3, CNN reported some degree of confusion:
Two separate narratives emerged about the incident.
Israel said the Lebanese fired on Israeli soldiers who were on the Israeli side of the border.
In Jerusalem, Israeli Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor said the incident was captured on video and that it all occurred on Israeli soil...
The Lebanese army's account and a report from Lebanese media said, however, that the hostilities occurred when Israel wanted to remove a tree.
A Lebanese army unit stopped the Israelis, and the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon intervened, the National News Agency said.
The Lebanese army said it asked the U.N. force to arbitrate the issue, but the Israeli forces didn't comply and entered Lebanese territory. That led the army to open fire, with Israeli forces returning artillery fire and hitting a house in the village of Odaise.
But Lebanese President Michel Suleiman said Israel violated U.N. Resolution 1701 in crossing the blue line and by bombing a Lebanese army checkpoint in Odaise. He said Israeli aggression needs "to be confronted, whatever the sacrifices are" and that he will pursue the issue diplomatically.

And on August 4, in contrast to the New York Times coverage of the preliminary UN report, CNN simply said:
"The U.N. announcement today clearly corroborates the Israeli version of events," said Mark Regev, an Israeli government spokesman, in a written statement. "Our routine activity yesterday was conducted entirely SOUTH of the frontier -- on the Israeli side -- and that the Lebanese army opened fire without any provocation or justification whatsoever."
But UNIFIL said, "The investigations are still ongoing" and the body's findings will be released only after they conclude.

So where’s the CNN update, now that the investigations are complete? Where’s the opportunity to set the record straight?

Of course, this is all part of the bigger picture on the Lebanese border, the attempt to beatify the Lebanese army at the expense of Israel. After all, consider that on the same day UNIFIL released this report, they also donated 24 vehicles to the Lebanese army, at a ceremony on which UNIFIL itself reported:

UNIFIL Force Commander Major-General Alberto Asarta Cuevas stressed that conditions on the ground have significantly improved and that cooperation between UNIFIL and LAF has become a “central cornerstone in the implementation of our mandated tasks.”
“Our activities could not be implemented without the cooperation of the Lebanese Army, which has demonstrated – time and again – its professionalism and commitment to UN Security Council resolution 1701 working in close partnership with UNIFIL troops,”

Indeed.

Elias Abuelazam? Not a Jew

I wanted to leave this morning's Rav Kook post on top for several days, but my ire is up.

Like pretty much every other North American citizen, I've spent the past news cycle reading about Elias Abuelazam and his killing spree - apparently a racist attack against African-Americans, to boot. And every report I've read in the North American press has identified him as "an Israeli."

Great - A Jew goes off the rails and starts knifing people in the US, that's another one for the anti-Jewish crowd to eat up. They've wrung every drop of Jewish blood they could out of the Flotilla ambush, and they did their best with the Lebanese border attack until video showed that the Lebanese army had staged it, so they need a new reason to attack Jews - and Elias Abuelazam, aka "Israeli citizen arrested in serial stabbing case," is ideal.

But it ain't quite the way the media is painting it. People hear "Israeli," they assume, "Israeli Jew." But, in fact, he is an Arab Christian.

You wouldn't know that from the major news outlets. To quote headlines collected by a blogger named Sheila B:
New York Times: '...arrested at the airport as he tried to board a plane to Israel...'
CNN: First two words in headline, 'Israeli Citizen'.
NBC: Headline, 'Serial Stabbing Suspect Nabbed on Way to Israel'.
CBS: Headline, 'Israeli Suspect Nabbed in Deadly Stabbing Spree'.
ABC: Headline: 'Serial Stabber Suspect Arrested in Airport Trying to Flee to Israel'. And finally, finally, ABC did mention he's an 'Israeli-Arab'.
FOX described him as an Israeli citizen.

Of course, it doesn't matter whether he is Jew, Christian, Muslim or Martian - people have been murdered, families have been destroyed. The killer's ethnicity shouldn't be the story.

But it bugs me. What justification is there for this obfuscation? The media are normally not allergic to identifying Israeli Arabs as separate from Jews; just the opposite, they look to play up differences between the two populations, even when there are none. Remember the "Apartheid state" canard?

So why is he simply an "Israeli" now? Why encourage people to blame the Jews?

Please Investigate the Gaza Freedom Flotilla

[This week's Toronto Torah is here]

Even though I am instinctively against subjecting Israeli soldiers to the hostility of biased investigators, I would love to see an international investigation of the raid on the Mavi Marmara – if it would truly look at both sides in order to determine the truth.

I tend to think that the truth about this ship is more complex than, “They are all terrorists.” Rather, I suspect that a few hundred of them were simply being used. They believed themselves to be on a humanitarian aid mission, knew nothing of the realities of Gaza, knew nothing of the rifle scopes and night vision goggles they were transporting, and knew nothing about the group lying in wait for the Israelis to board. This is the group that was down below when the initial boarding took place, and they sincerely believe that the Israelis must have shot first, because no one in their group would have dreamed of assaulting anyone. They were being used by the Turks, whose goals were anything but humanitarian.

Investigators could verify the above, and find out exactly what happened; all that is needed is a serious, impartial investigation, which would include:
• Subpoenas of the cell phone records of the travelers;
• Subpoenas of the text messages and emails sent in the month before the Flotilla departed Turkey;
• Subpoenas of the financial ties of the travelers on the boat.

This should be sufficient to clarify the intentions and roles of all of the seafarers.

Of course, this is exactly what would not appear in any international investigation. The presumption and basis for an actual international investigation would be that the IDF acted inappropriately, disproportionately, aggressively, and so on. In such an investigation, it is assumed that the travelers are the victims, the soldiers are the aggressors, and so there is no point in harrassing the poor victims and invading their privacy.

And then you wonder why Israel doesn’t want an international investigation?

We Con the World

Even if you haven't seen the latest pictures of "aid" - the night vision goggles, rifle scopes and bulletproof vests that surely constitute "humanitarian aid" for terrorists, this video pretty much says it all. (Thanks for sending it along, Jack!)



Let's see - for those keeping score at home, so far we've seen the following claims disproved:
* There were no weapons on the boat - FALSE
* The boarding in international waters was illegal - FALSE
* The Israelis fired first - FALSE
* The people on the boat were sleeping - FALSE
* The boats carried only basic human needs - FALSE

Do you guys have anything left?

Gaza Flotilla - Who fired first?

One constant refrain among the Freedom Flotilla folks has been that IDF soldiers fired first. Herewith some excerpts:

AOL News: In almost all cases, their eyewitness accounts conflict with the narrative set out by the Israeli military and government. Avital Leibovich, a spokeswoman for the Israeli Defense Force, and other officials have said commandos used their firearms -- killing at least nine activists, and injuring dozens more -- only in self-defense after being attacked by knife- and club-wielding activists aboard the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara. However, Iara Lee, a Brazilian filmmaker traveling on the ship, claimed Israeli troops opened fire without provocation before boarding.

The Christian Science Monitor: The various versions of what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara differ starkly. Aid workers say the Turkish ship was on a purely humanitarian mission to deliver building materials, food, medical supplies, and clothing to the Gaza Strip, which has been under a blockade since 2007 when the militant Hamas took over the government there. They say Israeli naval commandos fired first.

New York Times: The Israeli soldiers dropped onto the deck and “opened fire on sleeping civilians at four in the morning,” said Greta Berlin, a leader of the pro-Palestinian Free Gaza Movement, speaking by phone from Cyprus on Monday.

Chicago Sun-Times: The Israeli government released video of activists attacking commandos with metal poles, but activists claim the Israelis fired first.

And, of course, the BBC: Mr Nowarah, originally from Ramallah, said he was the first to be sent home because he had injured his leg during the raid. He runs the Glasgow-based group Justice for Palestine and was in one of the smaller ships in the convoy. "The minute they landed into our vessels they were shooting and killing innocent people," he told the BBC. "We were in the international water, we were not a threat of any kind to the Israeli civilan, government or army." He said an Israeli soldier hit him on his back and leg with his gun. "We were unarmed, all we had were the chairs and tables we were sitting on to defend ourselves from the Israeli guns," he said.

I wonder: What do they do with these videos from the boat's own security cameras?


and



As Tommy Lee Jones asked in The Fugitive, as he held the evidence in his hands - "Do you want to change your b------- story?"

For more updates, see Jameel...

Fact Checking MuslimMatters.org

Muslim Matters has a page here, purportedly fact-checking Israel’s defense for its raid on the “Freedom Flotilla” ships that tried to run the Gaza blockade.

Fact checking is good. Propaganda masquerading as fact-checking is bad. Muslim Matters has published the latter.

Let’s go item by item, using their own material:

1. Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon said Monday morning that the pro-Palestinian activists on the flotilla sailing to the Gaza Strip were carrying weapons on board
RESPONSE: Nothing could be further from truth. The ships had discharged from Turkey after the government checked for weapons. Forget the Turkish claims; common sense dictates that symbolism of peaceful resistance that the flotilla mission was engaging in would not allow the presence of weapons. Finally, the video released by the IDF itself shows that those on board were using miscellaneous items to fight off the soldiers (pirates), not any arms.
“Allegations that there were weapons aboard the Turkish ship are baseless,” Fevzi Gulcan, the head of customs at the Mediterranean port city of Antalya, said on Monday. He added that passengers had been allowed to board the Mavi Marmara ship after they were searched and scanned via X-Ray, the Anatolia news agency reported.”

So Muslim Matters says there were no weapons because:
• Turkey says there were no weapons;
• Common sense dictates there were no weapons;
• The videos show miscellaneous items being used;
• Turkey says there were no weapons.

The first and fourth items are identical, and have no credibility – Turkey was the first government to condemn Israel, without so much as a nod to the idea of an investigation.

The “common sense” argument is silly; one could easily counter that people looking to create an international incident, such as a group that is using a sea route rather than the readily available land route specifically “to call attention to the blockade,” certainly will bring weapons.

And the videos show no such thing – they show metal bars, which certainly are weapons when someone is aiming them at your head.

Verdict: FALSE.

Next:
“Israel, though, insists its forces fired in self-defense. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says they had to “defend their lives, or they would have been killed.”
RESPONSE: Like all the “self-defense” claims that Israel as one of the world’s mightiest military power makes against kids with stones, this one doesn’t fly either. See the video below released by none other than the IDF. Let’s assume for argument’s sake, that the NGO participants on board the ship started the altercation. As an illustration of the hollowness of the self-defense argument, let’s assume my neighbor comes to my house and kicks and punches me. I am in full military fatigue, I have all the weapons, while my neighbor is employing his boots to the best of his ability. In return, I take him and his family out. What would the court say to my self-defense argument?
Furthermore, there are strict guidelines on the response by military and police in law enforcement situations. Under San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, Section II (Armed conflicts and the law of of self-defence)...

So Muslim Matters says that individual IDF soldiers were not defending themselves, since:
• The Israeli army is strong;
• The soldiers were wearing fatigues;
• The soldiers had weapons;
• San Remo requires proportionality.

Again, this is silly. Having a strong army won’t save an individual soldier’s life. Wearing fatigues won’t save a soldier’s life. Having a weapon won’t save a soldier’s life. And proportionality is dictated by circumstance – if you come over to my house and swing a metal bar at my head, “proportionality” means anything I need to do to keep you from crushing my skull.

Verdict: FALSE.

Next:
Israel maintains that it has the right to defend its territorial integrity, in accordance with international laws.
RESPONSE: The attack took place in international waters, so in fact, Israel was in full breach of international laws. For instance, Russia’s Foreign Ministry has already come out in asserting that Israel’s attack on aid flotilla violated international law.
Robin Churchill, a professor of international law at the University of Dundee in Scotland, said the Israeli commandos boarded the ship outside of Israel’s territorial waters. “As far as I can see, there is no legal basis for boarding these ships,” Churchill said. Also, a group of lawyers in Israel have petitioned the High Court, charging that Israel had violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea by capturing the boats in international waters.
Under the same San Remo manual, Part II, Section I, hostile actions are forbidden on neutral waters, and clearly the Israeli action took place in international waters by all accounts...
Furthermore under Section V, Line 67, Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked. Clearly the flotilla flying the flags of Greece and Turkey fall under this category. The exceptions to this default state include “reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade… engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy” and a bunch of other categories where there is clearly an “enemy” involved. While Israel may state that the ships were breaching a blockade, this argument is patently false, since the blockade itself is illegal and not approved by the international community.
But there is even further qualification, by exemptions for certain type of vessels, under Section IV,
136. The following vessels are exempt from capture:
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable o the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;

According to Muslim Matters, the raid is illegal because:
• They were in international waters;
• Russia (occupiers of Chechnya) and Robin Churchill of Scotland say it’s illegal;
• San Remo protocols allow attacking [and not only boarding!] ships that are running a blockade, but Israel’s blockade is not internationally sanctioned

But this is incorrect; as Muslim Matters notes, San Remo states:
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

I don’t know Robin Churchill’s logic, I don’t see why Russia has any credibility on the topic, and San Remo does not require the blockade to be internationally sanctioned. San Remo’s Section II lists the requirements for a legitimate blockade, and Israel’s blockade of Gaza meets all of them.

Verdict: FALSE

Muslim Matters then tries the classic Straw Man, claiming that Israel justifies its actions by citing links between the boat and Al Qaeda. However, they only quote someone named Arthur Avnon, before challenging him that this is only rumor.
In truth, Israel has said nothing of the kind. (Although I will not be stunned if it turns out to be true!)

Verdict: Straw Man.

Try for Truth, folks. Even Mohammed, mass murderer that he was, knew that truth matters.

Gaza Flotilla

Update: Newly released video (12:32 PM EDT) (hat-tip - Jameel)


Aargh.

This is going to be an impossible, ugly, hate-filled day.

The world's governments have already decided what happened on the boats. Ambassadors summoned, partnerships cancelled, condemnations issued.

Videos like the ones below show the violence that met the Israelis who came to investigate the boats:




And


We know this script, we've seen it before. It's Rachel Corrie multiplied by a few hundred - a more 'civilized' version of the suicide bomber, but with the same idea: We are willing to give our own lives in order to destroy you. If we can take down Israel, it's worth the sacrifice.

So they attack the teenage soldier, force him to use his gun to save his own life, and then claim 'Police Brutality.'

No matter how much video there is to demonstrate that the Israelis were only reacting, the response is still going to be the same: International Waters, Aid Flotilla, Benign human rights activists and so on.

I wondered all along why the IDF was insisting on boarding these ships - although, of course, the answer is that they had to do it, because the people on the boats believe in 'armed resistance,' and believe in providing weapons for Gaza. Need evidence? Look at the shipments of weapons already provided under the guise of 'aid,' and look at the violence today.

I want Peace, but I understand that when someone attacks me, I have to defend myself.

But no explanations are going to suffice.

The world loves this stuff.

Get your updates from Jameel here.

Israel's New Chad Gadya - in translation

Here's the video, from LATMA:



The agrammatic pseudo-Aramaic makes translation a little choppy, but here goes:

One house, one house, that my father built for me for two zuz

Then came the tattler who photographed the house that my father built for me for two zuz

Then came the newspaper [Haaretz] who wrote that the tattler photographed the house that my father built for me for two zuz

Then came Bibi who was pressured by the newspaper who wrote that the tattler photographed the house that my father built for me for two zuz

Then came Obama who struck Bibi who was pressured by the newspaper who wrote that the tattler photographed the house that my father built for me for two zuz

Then came the foolish one [Tzipi Livni] who rejoiced that Obama struck Bibi who was pressured by the newspaper who wrote that the tattler photographed the house that my father built for me for two zuz

Then came the ben kalba [definition here for those who need it] [Ahmadinejad] who rejoiced that the foolish one rejoiced that Obama struck Bibi who was pressured by the newspaper who wrote that the tattler photographed the house that my father built for me for two zuz

Then came the nuclear bomb built by the ben kalba who rejoiced that the foolish one rejoiced that Obama struck Bibi who was pressured by the newspaper who wrote that the tattler photographed the house that my father built for me for two zuz

Then came the Air Force and bombed the bomb built by the ben kalba who rejoiced that the foolish one rejoiced that Obama struck Bibi who was pressured by the newspaper who wrote that the tattler photographed the house that my father built for me for two zuz

Then came the tattler and cried to the UN which condemned the air force that bombed the bomb built by the ben kalba who rejoiced that the foolish one rejoiced that Obama struck Bibi who was pressured by the newspaper who wrote that the tattler photographed the house – and what is the conclusion?

A powerful kick to the UN and to the tattler and to the ben kalba and to Obama and to the foolish one and to the newspaper who have still not learned anything and make a tumult and desperately want to trigger an Intifada, and make the whole world jump, because of the one house my father built for me for two zuz.

Israel Apartheid Week at York University

[This week's Toronto Torah is here.]

The week has been a packed week, and it’s not over yet. Purim was so busy, and Pesach preparation is hitting hard. We have many Pesach programs to plan, learning to do, shiurim to prepare, as well as all of the usual shiurim. And, on Sunday I’m hopping an early morning flight to YU for the Chag haSemichah, to return that night having lost my one day with my kids.

So when someone suggested yesterday afternoon that I stop in at York University to witness firsthand the inhuman wickedness that is licensed under the oxymoronic Israel Apartheid Week banner and with the complicity and funding of York University’s biased administration, I had excuses ready to hand: Had the suggestion come earlier, I could have worked it in, but I just don’t have any gaps in the schedule. Meetings through lunch and dinner, the last day of this orgy of hatred is Thursday so there’s no time, you know the story.

But that’s not really why I don't want to go.

It’s not that I don’t know how to do the campus thing. I’ve attended rallies and demonstrations. Alongside an esteemed professor, I debated two anti-Israel professors at Moravian College several years ago, in front of a very hostile crowd. I’ve written newspaper articles and engaged in on-line activism. I know how to be present even if the apostles of animus and pablum propagandists won’t listen.

I just really don’t want to do it. I can’t see going and shouting down mobs of haters. I don’t need to be there; who volunteers for root canal, without anesthesia? And so I’m reluctant to go.

But that’s bad, very bad. Because that’s exactly what they’re counting on. They’re counting on me, and thousands like me, to sit this one out. Sitting this one out makes it easier for us to sit out the next one, and the next one. And, eventually, the voices speaking out against their lies and their trumped-up narrative become smaller and weaker, and the boycotts become stronger, and the voice of civilization and humanity and kindness is outshouted by ugly people with ugly visions for what they will do to those nasty Jews who dare to survive and thrive in the middle of Dar al-Islam.

So I guess I will go, after all. Today.

Yuck.

[Update: I went - and it was a dud, I'm glad to say. Nothing at all going on. A small lecture to an interested group in a classroom, no big demonstrations or displays around - other than the pro-Israel booths! I'm relieved.]

Like a Waving Flag

Ever since catching a piece of the song on the radio a couple of weeks ago, I’ve been taken with K’naan’s Like a Waving Flag. The lyrics, the music, K’naan’s own Somalian history grab me. I love the Balboaesque, רבים ביד מעטים defiance. Listening to the song, which is also the official anthem of the 2010 World Cup, it’s obvious that so much of it could be a history of the Jewish people.

But the other day I saw a homemade Youtube video set to the song, featuring pictures of victim children from around the world. Sudan, Tamil Tigers, Segregation-era US, Iran, and, of course, inevitably, Palestinian Arab children holding weapons, depicted not as victims of their parents’ militance but rather as victims of Israeli aggression. No pictures of Sderot's children, of course. And now I can’t hear the gentle iron of K’naan’s voice without thinking of those pictures and feeling outraged.

We've seen this before, of course; the world loves its youthful victims, embracing and even idolizing them for their suffering martyrdom. These children tug at our consciences, their pain is our pain, their faces the faces of our own youth, and helping them, or even contemplating helping them, makes us feel better about our own luxury. That their narrative can be so simply described – “Jews moved in, took their land and consigned them to poverty” – helps their cause, too; the world is hardly as sympathetic to Chechnyan children, for example, whose story seems so much more murky.

This is a professional martyrdom, a calculated decision to continue as victims in order to rally the world’s sympathy, and it drives me up the wall. The greatest sin of modern Israeli history is the decision of a nation to defend itself, and the Divine as well as international aid which made that effort a success.

Had the Jewish state remained a pitiful, besieged enclave, surviving at subsistence level, the world would have been most sympathetic, and aid for Israel would be as attractive a cause as tsunami relief was in 2004. But, instead, Israel is cast as the aggressor for its relative success in creating a strong and free society – you cannot be strong unless you are also guilty, apparently – and the Palestinian Arab child, consigned by his family to hunger to afford ammunition, is the poster child for a song about longing for freedom.

Natan Sharansky’s Aliyah

Mother in Israel has this week’s Haveil Havalim out here, and she mentions Russian olim to Israel:

When we arrived in the early 90’s, large numbers of educated immigrants from the former Soviet Union had difficulty finding employment. In light of this, an Israeli satire show had a skit about a Russian speaker cleaning the streets. An Israeli comes over to him and says, “In Russia, you were a doctor. How come you’re sweeping streets?” The immigrant replies, “Protektzia.“

I was going to post about something else tonight, but with that lead I had to mention that this morning I sat in shul with my kids and was privileged to watch Natan Sharansky be oleh to the Torah.

[As someone observed to me this morning, one of the perks of being part of our Toronto Beit Midrash is that the world’s Jewish leaders come here. It’s true, and it definitely adds to the experience of our avrechim. Last week it was R’ Mordechai Greenberg, Rosh Yeshiva at Kerem b’Yavneh. Next week it will be R’ Chaim Druckman, Gd-willing. This morning was Mr. Sharansky.]

I turned to my older son after Mr. Sharansky’s aliyah and told him, “When I was younger than you are now, I went to rallies to free him from a Soviet prison. Now I can hear him make a berachah on kriat hatorah!”

Of course, that necessitated an explanation of what the Soviet Union was, and why they imprisoned Jews, etc. Similarly, this afternoon I heard one collegiate describe Sharansky as, “A big Israeli.” The whole “Let My People Go” movement is an historical footnote now.

After davening, Mr. Sharansky delivered a dvar torah on ויותר יעקב לבדו. He riffed on ויותר (as in ויותר יעקב לבדו – Bereishit 36:25 – “Yaakov remained alone”) as a word associated with being מוותר, to forgive one’s rights. After apologizing for what is clearly a homiletic, he made the point that עשו always expects the Jew to be מוותר, to give up element after element of what makes him special, what makes him a Jew. Yaakov, indeed, was willing to give up much, sending Esav a gift, calling Esav “my master,” etc. But the world always wants more; the world always wants the Jew to be מוותר on piece after piece, until nothing is left.

Mr. Sharansky applied the theme to peace talks and Israel, as well; despite all sorts of offers, the bottom line for the world is that Israel cease to exist as a Jewish state. But like Yaakov, and like the Jew in a Soviet prison, Israel will not find success by granting that request. Survival, and a thriving future, will come when the Jew stands firm in the declaration that on some things we simply cannot be מוותר.

A simple lesson, to refuse to be מוותר, and a dvar torah anyone could have given – but coming from someone who lived it, the message meant much more.

Defending Israeli Exceptionalism

Roger Cohen takes exception with exceptionalism, in general. Here he bashed Sarah Palin for exceptionalism, here he bashes Americans for their exceptionalism. I would guess he was also a fan of last month’s New York Times-hosted Op-Ed on Chinese exceptionalism.

Cohen doesn’t like the idea that people or nations should see themselves as special, lest that vision lead them to justify illegal or immoral activity in the name of their outside-the-norm status.

In particular, Cohen doesn’t like the way that Israel sees itself as under siege, since that view grants Israelis – in their own minds – exceptional status, licensing them to do as they see fit in order to survive. As Cohen wrote in the New York Times last week:

Some of Israel’s enemies contest its very existence, however powerless they are to end it. But the death-cult terrorists-versus-reasonable-Israelis paradigm falls short. There are various civilizations in the Middle East, whose attitudes toward religion and modernism vary, but who all quest for some accommodation between them.

One casualty of this view, of course, is Israeli exceptionalism. The Jewish state becomes more like any other nation fighting for influence and treasure. I think President Obama, himself talking down American exceptionalism, is trying to nudge Israel toward a more prosaic, realistic self-image.

In general, the point about Exceptionalism is valid. My problem, though, is that in addressing the Middle East Cohen resembles the carpenter who only possesses a hammer – to him, every problem looks like a nail.

To my mind, blaming the problem on Exceptionalism is simply wrong. Sometimes you are paranoid, but sometimes they really are out to get you.

1. Cohen argues that not everyone wants to destroy Israel. He points to “several (unnamed) Iranian leaders” who will accept a deal with Israel – even as Ahmedinejad continues to call of Israel’s destruction. He points to “various (unnamed) civilizations in the Middle East” who quest for accomodation with Israel, but elides the several who fund terrorism directly, or host it in their lands.

Perhaps these unnamed peacemakers really do exist – but why does that matter? If one nation fires a nuclear missle into Tel Aviv, will the hand-wringing of the others bring back the dead?

2. Cohen also argues that terrorists do not pose an existential threat to Israel, writing, “Some of Israel’s enemies contest its very existence, however powerless they are to end it."

Tell me something, Mr. Cohen: Would you mind if a weaker person only chopped off your arm, since he lacked the power to kill you? Are only existential threats worth opposing?

3. And Cohen’s most offensive line is this: “The Holocaust represented a quintessence of evil. But it happened 65 years ago. Its perpetrators are dead or dying. A Holocaust prism may be distorting. History illuminates — and blinds.”

Cohen ignores the realities of recent history, in his attempt to remove the Holocaust from the debate. Which evil disappeared with the Holocaust 65 years ago, leaving a bright new world in its wake?

• If “Holocaust” represents “enemies trying to destroy Israel,” why not update it with the 1967 invasion of Israel, the 1973 invastion of Israel, the 2006 double-hit of Hamas and Hizballah on separate borders?

• If “Holocaust” represents “enemies being capable of destroying Israel,” why not update it with Iraq’s failed attempt at nuclear weapons in 1981, Syria’s failed attempt at nuclear weapons in 2007, and Iran’s current attempt? (Please don’t tell me you believe their nuclear program is peaceful; if you believe that, I have a mountain in Qom to sell you.)

• If “Holocaust” represents “nations destroying entire popultaions,” why not update it with Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur and any number of other genocides in recent years?

The Holocaust was not a once-and-done; it remains, and the reasons for exceptionalism remain. Nations still exist who want to destroy Israel. Israel's enemies are capable of inflicting great harm. And the spirit of the Holocaust lives on, as evidenced on multiple occasions in recent history.

As long as there are nations who want to kill you, even if those nations are the minority, common sense dictates that you keep your guard up. And if that guard means to go outside the law, then you had better do it. Because even should the whole world oppose Ahmedinajad, that wouldn’t save us on the day he would push the button.

(For another take on Cohen’s article, take a look at The Bernstein Blog here.)