Archive for the ‘Prime Minister Netanyahu’ category

Why the PLO-Hamas Reconciliation Makes Peace Impossible: Excerpts from the Hamas Charter

April 29, 2014

The foundation document of Hamas is its charter of 1988.  Rather a lengthy document, it encapsulates all that Hamas stands for and the principles from which they will not waver.  Below, I have shared excerpts from that charter so as to demonstrate how deep seated is their hatred of Israel and Jews and how absolute is their commitment to nothing short of a total military victory in which the Israeli Jews are annihilated.  The following is their words, not mine.  Read and ponder them before you accuse Israel of being intransigent in its refusal to continue the peace negotiations as long as Hamas is a partner with the PLO, and therefore the Palestinian Authority.

 

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).”

“Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realised.”

“they fear Allah and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors, so that they would rid the land and the people of their uncleanliness, vileness and evils.”

“It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned. In the absence of Islam, strife will be rife, oppression spreads, evil prevails and schisms and wars will break out.”

“The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.”

“‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.’ (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).”

“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?”

“As for the real ownership of the land and the land itself, it should be consecrated for Moslem generations till Judgement Day. Those who are on the land, are there only to benefit from its fruit. This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.”

“Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight.”

“the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?”

“‘But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah.’ (The Cow – verse 120).

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

“‘The people of Syria are Allah’s lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation.'”

“The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.”

“The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great. The enemies have realised the importance of her role. They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up they way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs. These organizations have ample resources that enable them to play their role in societies for the purpose of achieving the Zionist targets and to deepen the concepts that would serve the enemy. These organizations operate in the absence of Islam and its estrangement among its people. The Islamic peoples should perform their role in confronting the conspiracies of these saboteurs. The day Islam is in control of guiding the affairs of life, these organizations, hostile to humanity and Islam, will be obliterated.”

“Our enemy relies on the methods of collective punishment. He has deprived people of their homeland and properties, pursued them in their places of exile and gathering, breaking bones, shooting at women, children and old people, with or without a reason. The enemy has opened detention camps where thousands and thousands of people are thrown and kept under sub-human conditions. Added to this, are the demolition of houses, rendering children orphans, meting cruel sentences against thousands of young people, and causing them to spend the best years of their lives in the dungeons of prisons.

In their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children. Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all. They attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money and threatening their honour. They deal with people as if they were the worst war criminals. Deportation from the homeland is a kind of murder.”

“For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.

“So often as they shall kindle a fire for war, Allah shall extinguish it; and they shall set their minds to act corruptly in the earth, but Allah loveth not the corrupt doers.” (The Table – verse 64).

The imperialistic forces in the Capitalist West and Communist East, support the enemy with all their might, in money and in men. These forces take turns in doing that. The day Islam appears, the forces of infidelity would unite to challenge it, for the infidels are of one nation.”

“The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.”

“We should not forget to remind every Moslem that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that “Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women.”

Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. ‘May the cowards never sleep.'”

“Writers, intellectuals, media people, orators, educaters and teachers, and all the various sectors in the Arab and Islamic world – all of them are called upon to perform their role, and to fulfill their duty, because of the ferocity of the Zionist offensive and the Zionist influence in many countries exercised through financial and media control, as well as the consequences that all this lead to in the greater part of the world.”

“World Zionism, together with imperialistic powers, try through a studied plan and an intelligent strategy to remove one Arab state after another from the circle of struggle against Zionism, in order to have it finally face the Palestinian people only. Egypt was, to a great extent, removed from the circle of the struggle, through the treacherous Camp David Agreement. They are trying to draw other Arab countries into similar agreements and to bring them outside the circle of struggle.

The Islamic Resistance Movement calls on Arab and Islamic nations to take up the line of serious and persevering action to prevent the success of this horrendous plan, to warn the people of the danger eminating from leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism. Today it is Palestine, tomorrow it will be one country or another. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

Leaving the circle of struggle with Zionism is high treason, and cursed be he who does that. “for whoso shall turn his back unto them on that day, unless he turneth aside to fight, or retreateth to another party of the faithful, shall draw on himself the indignation of Allah, and his abode shall be hell; an ill journey shall it be thither.” (The Spoils – verse 16). There is no way out except by concentrating all powers and energies to face this Nazi, vicious Tatar invasion. The alternative is loss of one’s country, the dispersion of citizens, the spread of vice on earth and the destruction of religious values. Let every person know that he is responsible before Allah, for “the doer of the slightest good deed is rewarded in like, and the does of the slightest evil deed is also rewarded in like.”

The Islamic Resistance Movement consider itself to be the spearhead of the circle of struggle with world Zionism and a step on the road. The Movement adds its efforts to the efforts of all those who are active in the Palestinian arena. Arab and Islamic Peoples should augment by further steps on their part; Islamic groupings all over the Arab world should also do the same, since all of these are the best-equipped for the future role in the fight with the warmongering Jews.”

“This is the only way to liberate Palestine. There is no doubt about the testimony of history. It is one of the laws of the universe and one of the rules of existence. Nothing can overcome iron except iron. Their false futile creed can only be defeated by the righteous Islamic creed. A creed could not be fought except by a creed, and in the last analysis, victory is for the just, for justice is certainly victorious.”

 

I assume that there will be those who doubt the legitimacy of this text, claiming that it is a calumnious forgery.  Therefore I invite all skeptics to  research this for themselves.  These are truly the words of Hamas, and so being, they make it abundantly clear why Israel cannot consider negotiating peace with anyone who considers themselves a partner with Hamas.  While it would be wonderful if, in the cause of peace, Hamas would renounce this document and re-frame the text of their charter, but sadly, that is more fantasy than probability.

Advertisements

Cuba & Iran: The U.S. Then & Israel Now

November 18, 2013

Over the years, I have amassed quite a collection of DVDs, much to my wife’s chagrin and my daughters’ delight.  The other night, to fill the void of my loneliness, as my children have grown and moved away and my wife’s job has relocated her to Detroit, with only brief weekend visits every other week, I decided to pop in a movie and lose myself in the story on the screen in front of me.  Since we are coming up on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, I thought I would commemorate the event by watching one of my “Kennedy” films.  So I perused my shelves of DVDs and decided on the film “Thirteen Days,” starring Kevin Costner and Bruce Greenwood.  For those unfamiliar with the film, it is a powerful drama about the struggles within the Kennedy administration over how to address the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I imagine that those younger than me can watch this film and find it interesting but a little too talky.  But I have always found this film compelling.  Then again, I remember living through the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For me, the tension that this film seeks to recreate is not just history.  It is memory.  When the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred, I was one month short of my 13th birthday and one month passed my Bar Mitzvah (my parents wanted my Bar Mitzvah reception to be a garden party and a garden party is not a very good idea for November in New York).  I remember sitting in my living room, with my parents and sister, glued to the television as the President addressed the nation, informing us of this very real threat so close to our borders.  This was just the danger for which they had been preparing us in school with those duck-&-cover drills.  It was just the danger which had led so many people to build fallout shelters.  We, in our neighborhood in the Bronx, couldn’t build such shelters.  While we all lived in private homes and had back yards, beneath those back yards were our cesspools, for city sewage pipes had not yet reached our neighborhood.  Unlike so many of my classmates, who lived in apartment buildings with fall out shelters in their basements, in our neighborhood, we had no place to flee in the event of a nuclear attack.  I remember so clearly, the day after President Kennedy’s historic broadcast, standing outside my house with Neal DeLuca, my next door neighbor playmate, sharing our fears and discussing what it would be like to die in a nuclear holocaust.  Over the years, many were the times that he and I played at war, which was common for boys in those days, whether we were playing Cowboys-&-Indians, World War II, acorn fights or snowball fights.  But this was completely different.  This was not our pretend noble deaths of  brave soldiers in combat.  This was a death by fire, completely beyond our control and from which there was no escape and no possibility of being wounded instead of killed.  Nor was it make believe.  It was all too real and all too imminent.  But of course, as school children, we could not help but wonder whether or not school would be cancelled the next day in anticipation of the nuclear holocaust (it was not).  We truly felt that our lives were about to draw to a frightening close and, as you can imagine, especially as children, we had a great deal of difficulty processing this.

Watching that movie reawakened within me all those memories and feelings.  Yet as I reflected upon them, it struck me that what I – and the rest of America – experienced then was probably not that different than what the people, and especially the children, of Israel are experiencing now in regard to the Iranian nuclear threat.  Granted, the threat of nuclear extinction is not as immediate to them today as it was for us during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but still it is no less real.  In some ways perhaps more so because the Iranians have made their intentions abundantly and consistently clear.  They intend to wipe the State of Israel off the map.  Up until now, they have affirmed this intention not only through words but through deeds, such as their significant material support of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah in their terrorist war against Israel and the West.  They have done nothing whatsoever to lead us to any other conclusion but that if allowed to continue to develop their nuclear capabilities they would add their nuclear weaponry to their arsenal in their war against Israel and the West.  They would employ them against Tel Aviv & Jerusalem, Washington & New York, London & Paris.  In the movie “Thirteen Days,” upon first learning of the Russian missile sites in Cuba, Ken Costner’s character said, “I feel like we caught the Jap carriers steaming for Pearl Harbor.”  In terms of our situation today with Iran, it is as if we uncovered the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor while their aircraft carriers were still under construction.

With the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was no acceptable middle ground.  Slowing down the installation of missiles in Cuba, with their ability to strike targets in the U.S., was never considered an option, not should it have been.  When it came to the safety and security of the American people, there was only one acceptable outcome; the complete elimination of those missile sites, either peacefully or militarily accomplished.  Anything less constituted just cause to go to war.  The same can, and should, be said about the Iranian nuclear program.  There can be no middle ground.  Their ability to develop nuclear weapons must be completely dismantled.  They must be left with no possibility of ever waging nuclear war against Israel or any of their enemies, which by the way includes the United States.  Anything less constitutes just cause for war, especially as Israel is concerned.

Concerning the current situation with Iran, it is easy for some Americans to fail to feel the imminent threat experienced by the Israelis, and therefore to assume that the Israelis, especially in the person of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are just being war mongers; that all they want to do is embroil our nation in another costly, drawn out, and inconclusive Middle East war, as we have experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It is easy for some journalists to speak about how a “war weary America” is simply not interested in another military venture.  It is becoming easier and easier for President Obama to compromise his assurances of American protection of Israel and our other Middle Eastern allies from an nuclear armed Iran as he futilely strives to salvage his presidential legacy by disengaging from his failed Middle East policy strategies, leaving a vacuum which Russia is all to happy to fill.  All this is so easy for us Americans because we do not feel the threat as Israel and Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Egypt and Turkey feel it.  Indeed, we have forgotten what that threat feels like as we have two generations of Americans who knew not the Cuban Missile Crisis, just as there “arose a pharaoh who knew not Joseph.”  Yet the threat remains real.  Not only does it remain real for our allies in the Middle East, but it remains real for us as well.  As for those who never personally experienced the fears brought on by the Cuban Missile Crisis, somehow or other they need to be reminded of the fears they felt after the attacks of September 11, 2001.  For those September 11th attacks were conducted by terrorists, not unlike the terrorist today whose violence and bloodshed is primarily sponsored by the same nation of Iran which is seeking to develop a nuclear weapons capability; one which they will direct, not only against Israel and their other Middle East opponents, but against all who they perceive as the enemies of their way of life, and on their list of enemies, America ranks near the top.

What Do We Do About Syria?: One Jewish Perspective

September 8, 2013

Over a week ago, I received a phone call from a dear friend and colleague.  He was seeking my advise as he was preparing some remarks about the situation in Syria which he was planning to deliver to his congregation on Rosh Hashanah, should the United States take action against her by then.  At that point, I told him that I was not going to prepare such a text because the situation was so fluid.  If the need did arise, I most likely would speak extemporaneously.  However, that was before President Obama decided to turn this decision over to the Congress.  With the matter now up for debate in the Congress, with all the variables which that implies, I changed my mind about prepared remarks.  Below are the remarks that I did prepare and present to my congregation at the beginning of our Rosh Hashanah evening service.  They constitute, as my title states, ONE Jewish perspective; obviously one with which I agree.  It is not the only Jewish perspective, but it is mine.  Since these remarks were in addition to the sermon I had prepared for the evening, they were as limited in scope as I was limited in the time I could set aside to present them.  I wish that I could have fleshed them out even further, especially in terms of my vision of what actions the U.S. should and should not take.  In particular, I would have liked to address the multitude of humanitarian actions that the U.S. has yet to take, and should be taking, regarding aid to the thousands of refugees who have fled across the Syrian borders into the lands of several of her neighbors, seeking to escape the ravages of war.  I do want to acknowledge my indebtedness to the authors so many excellent articles, many written by colleagues.  I particular want to mention an article written by Donniel Hartman, entitled “Syria, Moral Responsibilities and Ambiguous Circumstances,” for I found his reflections most stimulating and inspiring.  I now share with you the remarks I shared with my congregation:

As we gather on this Rosh Hashanah eve there is a cloud hanging over our nation and the world.  It is the cloud of war.  President Obama has, in the strongest of terms, expressed his view that it is absolutely necessary that our nation take punitive military actions against Syria in response to that government’s use of chemical weapons against its own people.  In just a few days our Congress will begin to debate whether or not to affirm our President’s call to action.  To read the newspapers and listen to the electronic media, it is clear that public opinion is torn over whether or not to act, and if to act, how to act.

There have been those who have asked me, “What is the Jewish perspective on this issue?”  That is a difficult question, yet a very important one, for how can we gather on the High Holy Days and not ponder the rights and wrongs of this dire situation?  Therefore, I have taken advantage of the early High Holy Days and have chosen to postpone to Yom Kippur my annual Rosh Hashanah Hunger Appeal, which I usually share with you at this time in order that I can take this opportunity to at least open the discussion of how Jewish texts, teachings, values, and experiences can aid each of us in our own decision making as to whether or not to support the President’s call to action.

I would like to be able to say that Jewish sources are clearly on one side of this issue or the other, but they are not.  Just as there are those in our country today who say we must respond and those who say we must not put ourselves at risk by getting involved in another people’s war, so we will find Jewish texts of equally divided opinion.

In the Torah we read “You must not stand idly by while your neighbor’s blood is being shed”[1] – in fact we will read that very text on Yom Kippur afternoon.  Yet the rabbis saw a limitation to that requirement.  They tell us that even though we are required to rescue others, we are not required to do so at the cost us our own lives.  In the Talmud, in Tractate Baba Metzia, there is a case presented in which two people are in the desert but only one of them has a bottle of water.  If they share the water, they both will die while if only one drinks, that person will survive.  What should be done?  The rabbis decided that the owner of the water should keep it for himself, and survive, for one’s own life takes precedence over the life of another.[2]

In these two texts we see the core of both sides of the argument as being waged today.  On one side, in the spirit of Leviticus, there are those who claim we have a moral obligation to rescue those who are being callously slaughtered in Syria.  On the other side, in the spirit of Tractate Baba Metzia, there are those who argue against intervention lest it cost more American lives.  It is this very ambiguity between the perspectives of Leviticus and Baba Metzia which has kept us out of the Syrian conflict up until now.

But now the game has changed as the Asad regime has introduced the use of chemical weapons even though they are illegal and constitute weapons of mass destruction.  What is a weapon of mass destruction?  It is a weapon which when deployed kills on a mammoth scale, making no distinction among its victims between combatants and non-combatants.  In utilizing such weaponry, the Syrian government forces have crossed the line from waging conventional warfare to perpetrating atrocities.  This is the red line of which President Obama has often spoken.

Why is this red line so important?  Because failing to take action when chemical weapons are used because, at this particular time, somebody else and not our people, are the targets, is to give tacit approval to the use of chemical weapons in general; it is to send a message to any despot, any terrorist group, any evil doer that they, too, are free to employ such weapons against any target they so choose.  Today, the target is the Syrian rebels.  Tomorrow it very likely could be Israel.  But it could also be London or Wash­ington or New York.  If our experience with terrorism has taught us anything, it has taught us that if left unchallenged, there is no containing terrorist activities and everyone is a potential target.

That brings us to the argument of self defense; that taking action against Syria now is actually an act of self defense lest at some future time someone chooses to use such weapons against us.  Here, too, Jewish texts have something to say.  In the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch, the Code of Jewish Laws, we are told that we are obligated to take the life of the “pursuer” – someone who is attempting to kill us – in order to save our own life.[3]  So if we view Syria’s use of chemical weapons as potentially opening the door to the proliferation of such use, which in turn would endanger the American people, then  taking action against Syria is necessary.

Stepping away from classical Jewish texts, we also need to look at historical Jewish experience.  One most certainly can draw a parallel between Syria having crossed the line in its use of chemical weapons against its people with the Nazi’s crossing the line in their use of chemical weapons – the gas chambers – against the Jewish victims of the Holocaust.  After the Holocaust, we said “Never Again!”  When we said it, we did not just mean, “Never again will we permit them to do this to Jews.”  Rather what we meant is that “Never again will we permit one group of people to do this to any other group of people.”  We have already failed in that commitment when we turned a blind eye to the slaughter in Rwanda.  And though we spoke a good game about our opposition to the genocide in Darfur, our response was painfully slow and inadequate.  The question becomes, will we once again fail to live up that pledge?  If we do fail, then we have to face up to the fact that there is a great deal of hypocrisy ever time we hold a Yom HaShoah service.

If we choose to act, what should be the outcome we seek?  It should not be regime change or supporting one side over the other in the Syrian civil war.  A civil war is just that; a civil war; an internal national struggle between citizens, which must be resolved internally.  Rather the outcome we should seek is to send a clear and decisive message that if you need to fight to resolve your internal differences, the go ahead and do so, but you must do it with conventional weapons and not with weapons of mass destruction.  We will not tolerate the use of such weapons and we will not stand idly by if they are used.

Lastly, what about Israel?  People on both sides of this issue have claimed that they have Israel’s best interests at heart.  First of all, we need to understand that no matter how the Syrian civil war ultimately resolves, Israel is the loser.  If the rebels win, then Israel will find the rebels’ allies – Al Qaeda – camped along its borders, ready to strike.  If Asad’s forces win, then the hands of Hezbollah will have been strengthened and Iran emboldened.  Yet as great as those threats are to Israel, far more does she fear that American inaction at this time will give her enemies the green light to employ chemical weapons against her.  Nothing could make that clearer than the fact that Israeli leaders from such opposite ends of the spectrum as are Benjamin Netanyahu and Shimon Peres agree on this matter.

It is no easy task to keep the world safe from those who revel in death and destruction.  May we find in this quagmire an all too hidden path to peace.

AMEN


[1]LEVITICUS 19:16.

[2]BABYLONIAN TALMUD, Tractate Baba Metzia 62a.

[3]Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 72a and Shulchan Aruch 425.

Jonathan Pollard: When Is Enough, Enough

August 1, 2013

I have been a supporter of We Are For Israel since the group’s inception.  This past Spring, I was invited to be one of the contributors to its website.  Recently I wrote my first article for We Are For Israel.  I wish to share it with you now on my own blog.

Before I enter into the heart of this essay I wish to openly admit that I have been on a long, emotional journey regarding my attitude toward Jonathan Pollard.  Back in 1985, when it came to light that he had illegally passed to Israel secret American military documents, as a Jew I felt both embarrassed and betrayed.  After all, being a staunch supporter of Israel, I take every opportunity to advocate for her cause before my fellow Americans.  I proudly speak about how she is our closest friend among the nations; the only true democracy in the Middle East.  However as news of the Pollard case broke and spread, it cut like a knife to my heart.  How could this person – in the name of Israel – steal secrets from an America which has stood so firmly by her side?  I was very angry, at the man whose actions so endangered the cordial relations between the two nations which I so dearly loved.  I was firmly convinced that he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and that his punishment should fit his crime.

It was not long after his sentencing to life imprisonment that there were those fellow Jews who stepped forward, petitioning for his release.  To be honest, they irritated me.  Why should he be released?  Because he is Jewish?  Because his crime was committed out of his love for Israel?  No.  What he did was wrong.  He betrayed his country and was being justly punished.  I also love Israel, but still I am an American and I love my country as well.  For Pollard to betray America for the sake of Israel was not helpful but hurtful, both to the American Jewish community and to Israel, for it served to feed the antisemitism of those who claim that Jews cannot hold dual loyalties; that Jews will always choose to be agents of a foreign country – Israel – over being loyal Americans.

The years passed and the calls for Pollard’s release continued.  In 1995 he was even granted Israeli citizenship and Yitzhak Rabin tried to include Pollard’s release as a part of the peace process.  Indeed afterwards the question of his release found its way into every attempt at an American brokered peace.  All to no avail.  My anger morphed into more of a disapproving disinterest.  “Still with the Pollard thing?  Enough already.  Let it go.  He betrayed his country and now he is doing his time.”  Yet with each passing year, I found my sentiments slowly shifting from my “Enough already” meaning “enough with the petitions on his behalf” to meaning “perhaps he has served enough time in prison and we just ought to let him go and put this all behind us.”

Recently, my attitudes have taken a sharp turn in Pollard’s direction.  I have to admit I was a tad surprised to read that Reform Jewish leaders joined with leaders from the other movements in visiting with Pollard in prison and calling for his release.  It is true that back in 1993 the Union for Reform Judaism passed a carefully worded resolution supporting the commutation of his sentence, but aside from that we have remained practically silent on the question until 2010, and even then we did not have that much to say on the matter.  Now, in what appeared to be all of a sudden, the Reform movement is totally on board.

While I was scratching my head, trying to process why the Union for Reform Judaism had ramped up it interest on Jonathan Pollard, I learned of another development in the Pollard odyssey which so angered me that I was moved to re-evaluate my entire approach to the case.  The development of which I speak involved the latest attempt by our country to broker peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  In response to Secretary of State John Kerry’s initial request that Israel release up to 103 Palestinian prisoners, many of which were found guilty of heinous acts of terrorism, Prime Minister Netanyahu called upon the United States, as a show of good faith, to likewise release Jonathan Pollard.  Our government flatly refused.  The U.S. administration expected Israel is to release 103 Palestinian terrorists, with Israeli blood on their hands, while they refuses to release one man who passed secret military documents to a friendly power and ally, and as a result has spent the last 28 years in prison.  Where is the justice in that?  What ever happened to “practice what you preach”?  It would seem that our government prefers a “Do as I say, not as I do” approach.  One would have thought that the release of one person – Jonathan Pollard – would have been a no-brainer for a U.S. administration if in return they could get Israel to make such a major concession to the Palestinians.  Obviously, that was not the case.  And now that Israel has announced its intention to release 104 Palestinian prisoners, it would appear that once again, Jonathan Pollard has been sacrificed on the alter of maintaining good relations with America.

The U.S. refusal of Netanyahu’s request inspired me to look further into the details of the Pollard case.  The more I learned, the more I realized how unjustly Jonathan Pollard has been treated and how it is beyond time to right that wrong.

First of all, it should be noted that Jonathan Pollard was never tried for his crime.  He did enter into a plea agreement with the U.S. in which he did plead guilty and did cooperate fully with the prosecution.  Yet the U.S. reneged on the plea agreement and he was given a life sentence.

It also should be noted that not only was the information which Pollard passed on to the Israelis information which was vital to Israel’s security, but it was also information which the U.S. was required to pass on to Israel, according to an 1983 agreement, but which, in violation of that agreement, they refused to share.  When Pollard discovered that this information was being withheld, he did approach his superiors about it, only to be rebuffed.  It was in light of their refusal to share this vital information, even though they were required to do so, that Pollard decided to take the matter into his own hands.

Still, there is no denying that what Pollard did was a crime; a crime for which he deserved to be punished.  But that leaves us with the question of whether or not his punishment does fit his crime.

Pollard was convicted in 1987 but has served time in jail since his arrest in 1985.  In other words, he has spent the last 28 years behind bars.  One could arguing that considering the fact that he was given a life sentence, 28 years just a fraction of the punishment he earned.  However, to better understand the significance of his 28 year imprisonment, we need to place it into a comparative perspective.

Albert Speer was the only Nazi war criminal not given a death sentence who served his full prison term.  That prison term was 20 years.  Can we honestly claim that Jonathan Pollard’s crime was greater than that of a leading Nazi?

Yet we do not have to turn to the punishment meted out to Nazis to see how excessive it is.  We can easily look to how Jonathan Pollard’s punishment compares to those who have committed similar or even more serious crimes.  Aside from Pollard, the maximum punishment meted out by the U.S. for a similar crime of spying for an ally has been 16 years, with the median sentence being 2 to 4 years.  Indeed, his punishment has been far greater than the vast majority of the punishments meted out for those who have been convicted of spying for enemies of the U.S.  In fact, as I write these words, the news has just been released that Pfc. Bradley Manning, the man who was the source of the WikiLeaks, was found Not Guilty of aiding the enemy, but Guilty of multiple other counts, which could add up to a maximum sentence of 20 years.  There is no question but that his information found their way into the hands of groups like al-Qaeda

So when is enough, enough?  Is it not time to unlock Jonathan Pollard’s jail cell and let him resettle in the land of Israel; the land he loved so dearly that he risked and suffered imprisonment rather than stand idly by, allow our government to deny her information vital to her security?

It is beyond time.  Come on, America!  Show some good faith with your friend and ally, Israel.  As she has done your bidding, releasing 104 known terrorists from her prisons, taking the great risk that these murderers will only strike again, so should you release this one man who tried to do the right thing when his superiors flagrantly violated the terms of an existing agreement between our country and Israel.

Reconsidering a Three State Solution

June 19, 2010

With so much attention these days being directed toward the struggle between the Israelis and Hamas in Gaza, too little attention has been turned toward what is happening in the West Bank.  And for once, we can say what is happening there is good!

Recently, Tom Friedman wrote quite a revealing column (“The Ballgame and the Sideshow”, New York Times, June 4, 2010).  In it, he contrasts the two different approaches of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, under President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.  While Hamas continues to operate under the ideology of “Judge me on how I resist Israel or America,” Abbas and Fayyad have assumed the approach of “judge me by how I perform – how I generate investment and employment, deliver services and pick up the garbage.”

Friedman goes on to point out how very successful has been the Abbas – Fayyad approach.  Since 2007, he informs us, the Palestinian Authority has partnered with Jordan and the U.S. in the training of  the new Palestinian National Security Force, and that the Israelis have been so impressed with the results that they have turned over to them the task of maintaining law and order in all of the major West Bank towns.  This, in turn, has triggered “an explosion of Palestinian building, investment, and commerce in those areas.”  Most telling of all, Prime Minister Netanayahu has reduced the number of manned check points in the West Bank from 42 to 12!  Why do we never hear about that in the world press?

It has become typical of the world’s perspective on Israel that while they are all to ready to condemn her for the Gaza blockade, no one gives even the slightest notice to all this progress in the West Bank, and particularly to Israel’s response to the Palestinian Authority’s peaceful endeavors by actually turning over law enforcement responsibilities to the Palestinian Security Force and so significantly reducing the number of check points.  There is a pitiful irony as we watch everyone anguish over the suffering of the people of Gaza, yet turn a blind eye to the progress in the West Bank; progress which so obviously stands as a model of all the good that could be brought about should Hamas  ever choose to change its tune;  should Hamas ever decide to place the well being of the people of Gaza above their desire to destroy Israel.

This leaves us with a difficult question.  Is the Two State Solution still a viable option in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?  While the Palestinians of Gaza continue to suffer because of the actions of Hamas, should the Palestinians of the West Bank be forced to continue to suffer for them as well?

The time is fast approaching when we must seriously consider another approach – a Three State Solution, with two potential Palestinian states, one on the West Bank and the other in Gaza.  In the past, this idea has been floated and quickly rejected.  The claim has been that the Palestinians are one people and deserve one united state.  Admittedly, that would be the ideal.  But in this world, sometimes we have to settle for that which is less than the ideal.

Why a Three State Solution at this time?

First and foremost because it appears that the Palestinians on the West Bank are seriously moving in a responsible fashion toward the point where they will be ready to have their own state.  To keep them from that cherished goal because of the intransigence of Hamas seems unfair and unjust.  When the time comes that they have accomplished the task of creating those infrastructures which will have earned them the right to be considered a full partner in the community of nations, and a good neighbor to Israel, then they deserve to be rewarded for their efforts.

It would appear that while Palestinian unity is still a desired goal on the part of the Palestinian people, yet with every passing day, the ideological distance between the West Bank and Gaza grows greater.  Indeed, it would seem that their issues with Israel are but a sideshow compared to the differences between these two Palestinian entities.  As much as one could argue for the necessity of an international peacemaking initiative in order to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, one could equally argue the need for such an initiative to resolve the conflict between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

Therefore it would seem that the best – though not ideal – solution would be to look to the eventual establishment of two Palestinian states along side of Israel; one in the West Bank and the other in Gaza.  If matters keep progressing, it would appear that the West Bank Palestinian state could be established in the not too distant future.  As for the Gaza Palestinian state…

Yet there is always hope.  Perhaps the day will arrive when there will be a change of heart – if not of leadership – in Gaza.  Perhaps the people of Gaza will build and earn their own state, much as the people of the West Bank appear to be doing now.  And who knows?  Perhaps the time will come when the people of Gaza can be reunited with the people of the West Bank, and a three state solution will not be necessary, for a two state solution will become viable.  But until that time arrives, we must do all we can to encourage the people of the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority to continue in their state building efforts, and in their pursuit of a peaceful resolution of their conflict with Israel.

The Latest Fiasco in Israel-US Relations

March 20, 2010

Everyone is all abuzz about the latest spat between Israel and the US.  The New York Times, as well as others, have labeled it a “crisis” and the most serious conflict between these two nations in two decades.  I have even read an article which questions whether or not the US has become Israel’s newest enemy!

This matter has certainly gotten way out of hand.  So much so that both sides, more or less, are attempting to tamp the fires which it has set off.  Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has published an op ed piece in the New York Times entitled “For Israel and America, A Disagreement, Not a Crisis” while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who just a few days ago publicly harangued and rebuked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, now declares that proposals offered by the Israeli government to resolve this dispute are both “useful and productive.”

Just briefly, what is at the heart of this matter?  Earlier this year, in the hopes of jump starting the peace process by a show of good faith toward the Arab world, the Obama administration demanded that Israel cease and desist from any further construction on the West Bank.  Of course, in the mind of the Obama administration, as well as in the mind of the Arab world, the West Bank is defined as including all of East Jerusalem, which includes all the primarily Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem as well as the Arab ones.  After much tussling, the Netanyahu government finally did agree to a temporary moratorium on West Bank construction.  Then we arrive at last week’s visit to Israel by Vice President Joseph Biden.  Just as this very positive encounter was drawing to an end, a mid-level official of the Israeli Interior Ministry announced an interim planning phase for the expansion of Ramat Shalom, an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in East Jerusalem; an expansion which would include 1,600 new housing units.  To this announcement, Vice President Biden’s reaction was both immediate and severe.  On the very same day that he proclaimed the Obama administration’s “absolute, total, unvarnished commitment to Israel’s security”, he turned around and expressed his outrage as he condemned the move as “precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now.”  Even though Prime Minister Netanyahu responded by stating that he, too, was surprised and embarrassed by this announcement, the Obama administration refused to be placated.  The Vice President’s expression of outrage was only to be embellished upon by a 45 minute phone call to Prime Minister Netanyahu by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in which she severely chastised him, along with an equally strong statement issued by President Obama.  Needless to say, all this was not received very well by the Israeli people.  Obama’s approval rating in Israel, which has never been very high, plummeted to the single digits.

First of all, let me state that I fully understand and appreciate the frustration felt by the Obama administration.  After all, a deal is a deal.  No construction means no construction.  I cannot help but wonder whether or not this announcement on the part of the Interior Ministry was a deliberate act of provocation, intended to derail any progress in the peace process.  It is no secret that the ultra-Orthodox community of Israel is almost as opposed to the peace process as are Palestinian groups such as Hamas.  The major difference between them is that while groups like Hamas will use missiles and bombs to disrupt the peace process, these ultra-Orthodox groups use their political clout and surprise announcements such as this one to try to get their way.  AND THAT IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE – ONE WHICH SHOULD NOT GO UNNOTICED BY THE CURRENT AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION.

All that being said, I believe that once again, the Obama administration has blown it big time!  It is beyond my understanding why they have insisted upon turning this incident from a “disagreement” into a “crisis” – regardless of what Ambassador Oren has to say on the matter.  They made that choice when they elected to ignore Prime Minister Netanyahu’s initial reaction to the announcement of surprise and dismay.  Instead of working with him to untangle this mess, undoing the obvious sabotage of the Israeli extremists, they decided to proceed as if this was the official course of action of the entire Israeli establishment.  Indeed, they worked to push Prime Minister Netanyahu into a corner where he would need to become belligerent rather than cooperative in order to maintain his own dignity.

There is a profound irony in the facts that shortly after Vice President Biden’s trip to the area, the Palestinians went ahead and dedicated the naming of a public square in the West Bank after a female suicide bomber, Dalal Mughrabi, the Fatah woman who led the 1978 Coastal Road massacre in which 37 Israeli civilians and an American photographer were killed, and 71 were wounded.  And not to be outdone by their West Bank compatriots, Hamas in Gaza conducted a rocket attack on Israel in which a Thai worker was killed, the first Israeli fatality since this winter’s war in Gaza.  And what has been the reaction of the Obama administration to all this – SILENCE, COLD, DARK SILENCE.  Let us see now:  On the one hand a proposed building project, one not necessarily supported by the Israeli leadership, and on the other hand, the official honoring of a terrorist murderess and a lethal rocket attack upon Israeli civilians.  Which is worthy of American outrage and condemnation?  The building project, of course!  What’s wrong with that picture?

What is wrong with that picture is what has been wrong with the picture painted by the Obama administration since day one – and I say this as one who actively supported Barack Obama in his bid for the US presidency.  They profess that they seek to broker a peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but they are anything but evenhanded.  They are beyond quick to chastise and condemn Israel for whatever she does, yet they stand idly and silently by while the Palestinians continue to engage in the most outlandish and hostile of behaviors.  And if that were not bad enough, they refuse to learn from their past mistakes.  If experience should have taught them anything, it should have taught them that whenever they place heavy demands upon Israel, they have only effectively fueled Palestinian and Arab excuses NOT to sit down at the peace table.  No sooner are such demands upon Israel made then the Arabs say that they have nothing to discuss with Israel until those demands are fully met to their satisfaction.

Yet when will the Obama administration place similar demands upon the Arabs, especially upon the Palestinians?  I am waiting, but my patience is running thin.  What demands, you may wonder?  How about a total cessation of all attacks upon Israelis?  How about a cessation of the smuggling of weapons into Gaza?  How about an end to the rearmament of Hezbollah?  How about abiding by the terms of the Road Map to Peace, and putting an end to the teaching of hate to their children, both in their schools and through their children’s television shows?  I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Peace in the Middle East can never be achieved through US intervention if the US policy is one which antagonizes the parties involved.  Rather than beat them up, the US must learn how to work with them, as partners, in removing the roadblocks which stand in the way of bringing peace, security, and freedom to all the residents of the area, both Israelis and Palestinians.  Needless to say, this is not an easy task.  It will require much hard work and endless patience.  There is no room for the US to engage in throwing tantrums, as it has so recently done.  For while Mr. Obama may have gotten some of his frustrations off of his chest, in the end he has not advanced the cause of Middle East peace, but rather has retarded it.