There are a lot of people making the argument right now that the American Studies Association's boycott of Israeli universities is wrong because it violates academic freedom. This is not, however, the best or even the most important argument against the boycott. A stronger argument would have been, that the ASA boycott is wrong because it is detached from the reality of the facts and history of the region. It is a fact that Israel has made three good faith attempts to end the so-called occupation in this century. In 2000, at Camp David, Prime Minister Barak offered to withdraw from most of the West Bank and all of Gaza, which offer was rejected by Arafat in favor of starting the Second Intifada. In 2005 Israel began a process of unilateral withdrawal, which would have likely continued, had it not been for the election of Hamas in Gaza. In 2008 Prime Minister Olmert again offered to leave most of the West Bank, but Abbas never responded to this offer. For those who, like the ASA, are apparently oblivious to recent history, it's described very well here: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112617/israel-palestine-and-end-two-state-solution
If any one of those overtures had been accepted, there would be no "occupation" today. And the alleged root cause of all evil in the West Bank, settlement construction, would not be ongoing. The allegations that Israel would not allow "some" professors into the West Bank (by which I assume boycott proponents are referring to noted Israel-hater Noam Chomsky) would be moot. Even now, as the ASA took its vote, negotiations are taking place between Israel and the PA -- negotiations that Israel had to bribe the PA, by releasing Palestinian murderers from jail, just to attend. So it is not very clear what, exactly, the ASA would like Israel to do at this point. What is clear is the goal of the BDS movement, at whose behest the ASA acted, and that is, to bring about the end of the world's only Jewish state.
As this issue is being taken up next by the Modern Language Association, and presumably others to come, it would behoove opponents of these boycott motions to speak up about the real reason this boycott is wrong.
As an aside, perhaps it is not surprising that the ASA is oblivious to the facts of recent Israeli history, as the ASA does not even seem to be well aware of the facts of its own existence, and is unable to accurately name its own institutional members. At least three institutions listed by the ASA as members have denied membership in the organization, as is reported here: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/12/willamette-rejects-israel-boycott-denies-being-institutional-member-of-american-studies-assoc/
Friday, December 20, 2013
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Dear Palestinian Authority: I don't think "negotiate" means what you think it means.
As part of a deal for the release of over 100 terrorists being held in Israeli jails, Abbas and his Palestinian Authority have made a pledge to negotiate with Israel for nine months, with the goal of reaching a final status agreement. To date, 52 of these murderers and assassins have been released. Israel is holding up its end of the bargain. But Abbas has repeatedly stated that he does not intend to make any concessions in the negotiations. Such statements were reported again today. See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4459571,00.html , http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/174639#.UpoIVMRDss8
Is Abbas so dense that he simply does not understand what the word "negotiate" means? How does he intend to reach a final agreement if, as reported, he will "never give up an ounce of the Palestinians' demands"? With the negotiations cloaked in secrecy, one has to wonder, what exactly is occurring there, if the PA is not prepared to offer one single concession. And how is it, exactly, that John Kerry has the gall to reprimand Israel, to threaten another intifada, when Abbas is making such statements?
It is possible, of course, that Abbas is simply posturing for PR. It is possible that he does not want to incur the type of backlash that he faced a year ago when he admitted that he does not have a right to return to Safed. See http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-i-wasnt-giving-up-right-of-return-i-was-just-speaking-personally/ But he must realize that he cannot present his people with a fait accompli and expect them to accept it. He must begin preparing his people for the concessions that they will have to make to achieve peace. Where two groups hold positions that are diametrically opposed, each group must be prepared to give up something in order to live in peace. Abbas does not seem to understand this most basic principle, a principle that most children learn on the playground.
At this point it certainly appears that while Abbas and the PA were more than happy to accept the bribe of the release of murderers, and to welcome them home as heroes, they did so under false pretenses. They clearly never intended to live up to their end of the deal, which is, to negotiate in good faith. Indeed, in releasing those murderers, Israel has already made a huge concession towards peace, one that is irreversible and that has not been given the recognition that it is due. Abbas and the PA have still made none, and have made it clear that they never intended to.
Update, 3/22/14: In case anyone did not get the message last time, here he is saying the same thing again.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/178770#.Uy3Tiq1dVXc
Is Abbas so dense that he simply does not understand what the word "negotiate" means? How does he intend to reach a final agreement if, as reported, he will "never give up an ounce of the Palestinians' demands"? With the negotiations cloaked in secrecy, one has to wonder, what exactly is occurring there, if the PA is not prepared to offer one single concession. And how is it, exactly, that John Kerry has the gall to reprimand Israel, to threaten another intifada, when Abbas is making such statements?
It is possible, of course, that Abbas is simply posturing for PR. It is possible that he does not want to incur the type of backlash that he faced a year ago when he admitted that he does not have a right to return to Safed. See http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-i-wasnt-giving-up-right-of-return-i-was-just-speaking-personally/ But he must realize that he cannot present his people with a fait accompli and expect them to accept it. He must begin preparing his people for the concessions that they will have to make to achieve peace. Where two groups hold positions that are diametrically opposed, each group must be prepared to give up something in order to live in peace. Abbas does not seem to understand this most basic principle, a principle that most children learn on the playground.
At this point it certainly appears that while Abbas and the PA were more than happy to accept the bribe of the release of murderers, and to welcome them home as heroes, they did so under false pretenses. They clearly never intended to live up to their end of the deal, which is, to negotiate in good faith. Indeed, in releasing those murderers, Israel has already made a huge concession towards peace, one that is irreversible and that has not been given the recognition that it is due. Abbas and the PA have still made none, and have made it clear that they never intended to.
Update, 3/22/14: In case anyone did not get the message last time, here he is saying the same thing again.
"The PA has already formally refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state throughout talks, stating that 'the Arab states will never recognize a Jewish state.' In addition, the PA Chairman will reportedly only agree to extend talks if Israel allows a "right of return" for Palestinian Arabs, free terrorist leaders, and withdraw from Judea and Samaria."
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Double Standard for Israel Strikes Again at NPR
A couple of days ago NPR published a piece on the plight of the Eritrean refugees in Israel, highlighting the complaints that Israel has been slow to process asylum applications, leaving refugees in legal limbo while the applications are pending.
Interestingly, searching NPR's website, I did not see any stories about the plight of the Eritrean refugees in Egypt, where they are kidnapped for human trafficking. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/21/in-sinai-i-saw-hell-refugees-are-easy-prey-for-bru/?page=all. I also did not see any stories on NPR about the plight of the Eritrean refugees in Jordan, where they are deported to Yemen, or stories about Eritrean refugees in Yemen, where they are imprisoned. http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/05/15/jordan-don-t-deport-eritrean-refugees-yemen http://www.unhcr.org/4de64e9a6.html. Better to just complain about Israel, where they are "slow to process applications."
The story about the refugees in Israel also did not mention that these refugees currently number about 1% of the population of Israel -- a big number for such a small country. That's like 3 million asylum seekers coming to the US in less than two years, all of whom need assistance with food, housing, education, employment, and language, all at taxpayer expense. Usually the US gets less than 100,000 asylum seekers a year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States That was also not mentioned in the story.
Interestingly, searching NPR's website, I did not see any stories about the plight of the Eritrean refugees in Egypt, where they are kidnapped for human trafficking. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/21/in-sinai-i-saw-hell-refugees-are-easy-prey-for-bru/?page=all. I also did not see any stories on NPR about the plight of the Eritrean refugees in Jordan, where they are deported to Yemen, or stories about Eritrean refugees in Yemen, where they are imprisoned. http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/05/15/jordan-don-t-deport-eritrean-refugees-yemen http://www.unhcr.org/4de64e9a6.html. Better to just complain about Israel, where they are "slow to process applications."
The story about the refugees in Israel also did not mention that these refugees currently number about 1% of the population of Israel -- a big number for such a small country. That's like 3 million asylum seekers coming to the US in less than two years, all of whom need assistance with food, housing, education, employment, and language, all at taxpayer expense. Usually the US gets less than 100,000 asylum seekers a year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States That was also not mentioned in the story.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Can the New York Times Sink any Lower? The Answer Is Always "Yes."
Just when I think that New York Times can't possibly sink any lower, they do.
Less than a week after publishing Ian Lustick's lurid fantasy in which a massive bloodbath is the precursor to the end of the world's only Jewish-majority state, the Times has printed what I suppose is its attempt to appear unbiased in the form of MK Danny Danon's Op-Ed titled "Israel Should Annul the Oslo Accords."
Danon is, of course, correct that, in hindsight, Oslo brought more bloodshed and not the peace it promised. Anyone familiar with the facts, however, knows that Danon's proposed course of action, i.e., that Egypt and Jordan should take control, respectively, of Gaza and the West Bank, is a non-starter, as those two countries have made it clear that they are not willing to regain sovereignty over the areas that they controlled prior to 1967.
What is astounding, however, is the vitriolic comments, almost all of which condemn Israel, especially with regard to Israel's settlement building in the West Bank. Granted I did not read all 246 of them, but I did not see any that mentioned Israel's demonstrated willingness to dismantle settlements, as it did in 2005 when it sent its 18- and 19-year old girls and boys, also knows as "soldiers," to remove its own citizens, by force, from their homes in Gaza. Or any that mentioned that, if Arafat had taken the 2000 offer that Danon mentions, or if Abbas had taken the 2008 offer, there would be no settlement construction going on in those areas today. Or any that mentioned that the steep decline in terrorist attacks in the past few years corresponds to Israel's building of the so-called "Aparthied Wall."
For a minute I wondered why the comments seemed so one-sided, but it did not take me long to see the reason. The piece was published on the second day of Sukkot, going in to Shabbat, times when most observant Jews do not use computers (or phones or ipads). Conveniently, the comments section was closed before Shabbat ended on the East Coast.
So, in an attempt to show how unbiased it is, the Times ran a nonsensical right-wing Op-Ed and posted it for its already brainwashed readers to read and respond to, right at a time when Jews would not be able to speak up.
Less than a week after publishing Ian Lustick's lurid fantasy in which a massive bloodbath is the precursor to the end of the world's only Jewish-majority state, the Times has printed what I suppose is its attempt to appear unbiased in the form of MK Danny Danon's Op-Ed titled "Israel Should Annul the Oslo Accords."
Danon is, of course, correct that, in hindsight, Oslo brought more bloodshed and not the peace it promised. Anyone familiar with the facts, however, knows that Danon's proposed course of action, i.e., that Egypt and Jordan should take control, respectively, of Gaza and the West Bank, is a non-starter, as those two countries have made it clear that they are not willing to regain sovereignty over the areas that they controlled prior to 1967.
What is astounding, however, is the vitriolic comments, almost all of which condemn Israel, especially with regard to Israel's settlement building in the West Bank. Granted I did not read all 246 of them, but I did not see any that mentioned Israel's demonstrated willingness to dismantle settlements, as it did in 2005 when it sent its 18- and 19-year old girls and boys, also knows as "soldiers," to remove its own citizens, by force, from their homes in Gaza. Or any that mentioned that, if Arafat had taken the 2000 offer that Danon mentions, or if Abbas had taken the 2008 offer, there would be no settlement construction going on in those areas today. Or any that mentioned that the steep decline in terrorist attacks in the past few years corresponds to Israel's building of the so-called "Aparthied Wall."
For a minute I wondered why the comments seemed so one-sided, but it did not take me long to see the reason. The piece was published on the second day of Sukkot, going in to Shabbat, times when most observant Jews do not use computers (or phones or ipads). Conveniently, the comments section was closed before Shabbat ended on the East Coast.
So, in an attempt to show how unbiased it is, the Times ran a nonsensical right-wing Op-Ed and posted it for its already brainwashed readers to read and respond to, right at a time when Jews would not be able to speak up.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
No Good Deed . . . .
Here is a hypothetical: refugees fleeing genocide and civil war arrive in a small country, uninvited, seeking asylum. Although the refugees have no connection whatsoever to the host country, the host country takes in a number of refugees close to 1% of the pre-existing population. With school districts overcome by sudden population influx, that country spends its own money to build new schools to accommodate the children of these refugees. Yet, so-called liberal pundits proceed to condemn the new host country.
Sounds crazy, I know. Except it's not hypothetical, it's real, and of course, the host country is the one country on the planet that can do nothing right, ever -- Israel.
That is the gist of last week's Open Zion column claiming that Israel has set up apartheid schools for children of refugees from war-torn Eritrea and Sudan. Of course, all one has to do is google translate -- well, and read down to the very last paragraph -- the supposed source of Lisa Goldberg's piece to see that "The municipality said: 'Kindergartens are established according to the needs of the neighborhood. [The] Municipality considers its duty to provide adequate education to every child everywhere, so the children of the foreign community in Tel Aviv - Jaffa integrated in all schools in the city." http://www.mynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4420418,00.html.
To the columnists of Open Zion, of course, this does not matter. Neither does the report in the Jerusalem Post, which states:
The Tel Aviv Municipality has not enacted any policy of segregation that would see local preschools exclusively for the children of asylum-seekers and other preschools for the rest of the children, the city said on Monday.
A municipality representative said that no such policy has been enacted, and that the only determining factor for where a child attends preschool is their place of residence.
The representative said that in order to accommodate the 2,716 new preschool students in the city, Tel Aviv has opened 70 new kindergarten classrooms ahead of the new school year, and that a large number of these are in neighborhoods with a high concentration of children of African asylum-seekers.
Sounds crazy, I know. Except it's not hypothetical, it's real, and of course, the host country is the one country on the planet that can do nothing right, ever -- Israel.
That is the gist of last week's Open Zion column claiming that Israel has set up apartheid schools for children of refugees from war-torn Eritrea and Sudan. Of course, all one has to do is google translate -- well, and read down to the very last paragraph -- the supposed source of Lisa Goldberg's piece to see that "The municipality said: 'Kindergartens are established according to the needs of the neighborhood. [The] Municipality considers its duty to provide adequate education to every child everywhere, so the children of the foreign community in Tel Aviv - Jaffa integrated in all schools in the city." http://www.mynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4420418,00.html.
To the columnists of Open Zion, of course, this does not matter. Neither does the report in the Jerusalem Post, which states:
The Tel Aviv Municipality has not enacted any policy of segregation that would see local preschools exclusively for the children of asylum-seekers and other preschools for the rest of the children, the city said on Monday.
A municipality representative said that no such policy has been enacted, and that the only determining factor for where a child attends preschool is their place of residence.
The representative said that in order to accommodate the 2,716 new preschool students in the city, Tel Aviv has opened 70 new kindergarten classrooms ahead of the new school year, and that a large number of these are in neighborhoods with a high concentration of children of African asylum-seekers.
http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Tel-Aviv-denies-policy-of-segregation-in-pre-schools-for-new-year-324319
With almost 3,000 new students, the city has a choice of overcrowding it's schools, or building new facilities. So it builds new facilities. Only in Israel would such an action be labelled "apartheid."
Of course, no one at Open Zion is crying for the children of the 2 million Syrian refugees, who are living in tents in Jordan and Turkey, who are not going to school at all this fall.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Israel's Plan B
A few days ago I wrote that one thing that is very different about the negotiations currently underway between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is that Hamas has been considerably weakened by the downfall of its Egyptian allies in the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as by Iran's and Hezbollah's current preoccupation with Syria. There is another difference as well: Thanks in part to Hamas, Israel now has a Plan B.
Seth Mandel speculated in Commentary a few days ago as to whether or not Israel has a Plan B, and if so, what the effect of that would be on the negotiations. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/08/02/doomsday-diplomacy-and-the-middle-east/#.Uf0GtRG6LYY.twitter Since Israel's most recent incursion into Gaza, in November of 2012, Israel's Plan B has emerged.
Prior to last November, unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, similar to what occcured in Gaza in 2005, was not widely discussed as a viable option. This was because Israel's major population centers in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were considered too close to the would-be West Bank border. Watching the barrage of rockets from Gaza into southern Israel, withdrawal from the West Bank without a peace agreement was considered too dangerous. Iron Dome, however, has changed that.
It is thanks to Hamas that we saw how well the Iron Dome missile defense system worked. Even the longer-range missiles that Hamas aimed at Tel Aviv were rendered ineffectual. Now that we know that Israel can protect its major cities from a close and hostile enemy, disengagement without a peace agreement seems viable. In December, the Jerusalem Post reported that 45% of Israelis supported unilateral withdrawal. http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Poll-45-percent-of-Israelis-support-unilateral-withdrawal This option was seriously considered at the Jerusalem Post conference that I attended in April of this year, and appears to have been seriously discussed at the Herzliya Conference in March (which I did not attend).
What would such a move by Israel mean? To start, it would mean that Israel alone would decide on the borders of the land it would cede to Palestine. Israel could theoretically keep a presence in the Jordan Valley, and keep as many of the settlement blocs as it chose. Jerusalem would not be up for discussion at all. And certainly, no descendants of Palestinian "refugees" would be allowed into Israel.
The threat of putting Israel's Plan B into action could be what finally pushed Abbas back to the table. Either way, let's just hope he stays there.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Forces from Right and Left Involved in Netanyahu's Decision to Release Terrorists
Many people are asking why Netanyahu has made the wildly unpopular decision to release Palestinian murderers and other terrorists from Israeli jails, as well as why the US pressured him to do so. (For example, Elliott Abrams, here: http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2013/07/29/why-is-the-united-states-asking-israel-to-release-terrorists/#cid=soc-twitter-at-blogs-why_is_the_united_states_askin-072913)
Here is my entirely speculative guess. First, Kerry is primarily interested in creating his own legacy. While he may be peripherally concerned with the best interests of the parties involved, his main goal is to be remembered for something other than the man who lost to George Bush. As an outside observer, it seems fairly clear to me that he put an extraordinary amount of pressure on Netanyahu to make some concession in order to jump start the process.
My guess would be, however, that Kerry would not have had a strong preference for prisoner release over settlement freeze. That pressure (again, I am speculating wildly) probably came from within his coalition. Can anyone doubt that Nafatli Bennett's HaBayit HaYehudi party would have left the coalition over a settlement freeze? Bennett has vociferously protested the prisoner release, to be sure, but he has not announced any intention to leave the coaltion over it.
On the other side, Labor's Shelley Yachimovich bears some responsibility as well. While she urges Netanyahu not to be "led by the extremists in his government" (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4410416,00.html) she has vowed to remain in the opposition, thereby forcing Netanyahu, in some cases, to do exactly that which she urges him not to do. (http://www.timesofisrael.com/as-coalition-forms-yachimovich-vows-to-lead-true-opposition/) If Yachimovich would join the coalition, Netanyahu would not be beholden to Bennett. With prospects for peace, while still slim, at least, better than they have been in years, now is the time for Yachimovich and her party to put partisan differences aside and step up to provide Netanyahu with the votes he needs to defy extremists is his coaltion.
UPDATE 8/11/13: As I continue to give this issue a lot of thought, I want to add that, given the choice between a settlement freeze and prisoner release, it is also possible that it was Abbas who picked the prisoner release. A settlement freeze means nothing is happening. Abbas has a victory but it is not visual. There are no pictures of a settlement freeze. And when the talks fall apart, the building can always resume.
A prisoner release is a much more tangible victory. Of the 26 prisoners set to be released this week, twelve will go to the West Bank. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/12/us-palestinians-israel-idUSBRE97A06320130812 Abbas will greet these murderers with a hero's welcome, he will hold parades in their honor. It will be a glorious PR move for Abbas. And, it is irreversible. Once released, the prisoners can't be taken back.
So, perhaps it was not Bennett, after all.
UPDATE 8/11/13: As I continue to give this issue a lot of thought, I want to add that, given the choice between a settlement freeze and prisoner release, it is also possible that it was Abbas who picked the prisoner release. A settlement freeze means nothing is happening. Abbas has a victory but it is not visual. There are no pictures of a settlement freeze. And when the talks fall apart, the building can always resume.
A prisoner release is a much more tangible victory. Of the 26 prisoners set to be released this week, twelve will go to the West Bank. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/12/us-palestinians-israel-idUSBRE97A06320130812 Abbas will greet these murderers with a hero's welcome, he will hold parades in their honor. It will be a glorious PR move for Abbas. And, it is irreversible. Once released, the prisoners can't be taken back.
So, perhaps it was not Bennett, after all.
Friday, July 19, 2013
How Are These Negotiations Different from All Other Negotiations?
After several days of rumors and retractions, Secretary Kerry announced this evening that direct talks between "Israelis and Palestinians" were to resume (note how he cleverly avoids using the word "Palestine").
The announcement was greeted with skepticism (as reported here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/07/19/obama-kerry-middle-east-israel-palestinians/2569373/), and I am pretty skeptical myself. If Abbas could not accept Olmert's 2008 offer, it is difficult to imagine him accepting anything Netanyahu will offer -- although I do believe Bibi when he says he wants two states for two peoples, it seems highly unlikely that he will offer to give up, for example, sovereignty over the Temple Mount (aka Al-Aqsa Mosque).
But there is one thing that is very different now, and that is, Hamas. With Hamas's biggest supporters either deposed in Egypt or preoccupied with backing Assad in Syria, Hamas may be in a weaker position than it has been during any previous round of negotiations. If the real reason that Arafat walked away from Camp David in 2000, and Abbas did the same in 2008, was fear of Hamas -- fear of widespread violence within the Palestinian territories/would-be-state, fear of assassination -- then maybe, just maybe, this weakening of Hamas can allay those fears just enough to give pragmatism and moderation enough edge to carry the day.
There is of course, a host of other reasons the talks can fail, and I am not optimistic. But there is always hope.
The announcement was greeted with skepticism (as reported here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/07/19/obama-kerry-middle-east-israel-palestinians/2569373/), and I am pretty skeptical myself. If Abbas could not accept Olmert's 2008 offer, it is difficult to imagine him accepting anything Netanyahu will offer -- although I do believe Bibi when he says he wants two states for two peoples, it seems highly unlikely that he will offer to give up, for example, sovereignty over the Temple Mount (aka Al-Aqsa Mosque).
But there is one thing that is very different now, and that is, Hamas. With Hamas's biggest supporters either deposed in Egypt or preoccupied with backing Assad in Syria, Hamas may be in a weaker position than it has been during any previous round of negotiations. If the real reason that Arafat walked away from Camp David in 2000, and Abbas did the same in 2008, was fear of Hamas -- fear of widespread violence within the Palestinian territories/would-be-state, fear of assassination -- then maybe, just maybe, this weakening of Hamas can allay those fears just enough to give pragmatism and moderation enough edge to carry the day.
There is of course, a host of other reasons the talks can fail, and I am not optimistic. But there is always hope.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Once Again, Democrats Throw the LGBT Community Under The Bus
Usually I write about Israel and the Middle East, but there is so much that is wrong with the Immigration Bill that is about to be voted on in the Senate, I just had to say a few words about it.
I am not sure which aggravates me more, the fact that our Senate appears to be too dumb to understand that rewarding illegal behavior encourages further illegal behavior, or that once again Democrats have ignored the needs of a constituency that they know has no recourse.
The Democratic party, that is, the supposedly liberal party that is supposed to be the friend to lesbian, gay, and bisexual Americans, has omitted any provision that would allow for citizenship for same-sex spouses of American citizens. I am not sure why this should be a surprise to me, as it was after all, a Democratic president who signed DOMA into law in 1996. But yet, I continue to be amazed at the willingness of the Democratic party to throw under the bus a constituency that it knows has no viable political alternative. True, if the Supreme Court holds that the federal definition of marriage in DOMA is unconstitutional, this will prove to be moot, but as of today, what the Court will do is still anyone's guess, and this does not seem to be of concern to the Democratic party.
On the other hand, an amnesty program for people who are currently here illegally will only incentivise more people to come here illegally in the future. The height or number of patrol personnel on a border fence does not change this. Rewarding illegal behavior encourages illegal behavior -- this is a fact of human nature.
One final point. The inability of the national discourse on immigration to acknowledge the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is confounding and frustrating. I am not anti-immigrant -- I am anti-illegal immigrant. Increasing the number of individuals we allow to come here legally is a totally separate issue from rewarding people who come here and break our laws by working without authorization to do so, and commit fraud by using phony social security numbers (yes, even if they are paying into the system, they are still committing fraud). If people who have come here without authorization to do so are now given amnesty, this will come at the expense of law abiding, would-be immigrants, who have waited their turn to come here lawfully. There is no justice in that.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Would You Think I Was Crazy if I Said the U.S. Should Invade Canada?
It is no secret that our neighbor to the north has had some disagreement with its First Nation population (people who, in the U.S., would be known as "Native Americans"). Earlier this year, the Chief of Attawapiskat went on a hunger strike to call attention to "unfinished business in terms of relationships, Aboriginal rights, and in terms of our relationship with the land.” See http://bit.ly/WQD2I3. And this week, Huffington Post Canada reports, the Hupacasath Nation is in court with the Canadian government, trying to stop a trade deal with China which it claims will negatively affect its rights in natural resources. See http://huff.to/1925ksB.
Would you think I was certifiable if I said that the U.S. should invade Canada to militarily impose a solution that we deem fit on Canada and its First Nation people? Well, yes, of course you would! And if, eleven years from now, I tried to disown or explain away those comments, would you still think that I was, at best, pretty nutty, that I made outlandish statements about a country and a situation about which I obviously was quite ignorant, and that I was unfit to hold a high diplomatic position? Probably.
That is how Samantha Power sounds to people who are knowledgeable about Israeli history and society. In the 2002 interview in which she advocated a U.S. military imposition on Israel of a solution that the U.S. would deem fit to the Palestinian issues, she displays complete ignorance of the events at Camp David in 2000 and at Taba in 2001. She also sounds certifiably insane. This is not a woman who should be named the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
And as far as today's column in the Washington Post by Max Fisher trying to somehow explain those comments away, well, we all can, and all should, watch the video ourselves and hear for ourselves what she said.
Would you think I was certifiable if I said that the U.S. should invade Canada to militarily impose a solution that we deem fit on Canada and its First Nation people? Well, yes, of course you would! And if, eleven years from now, I tried to disown or explain away those comments, would you still think that I was, at best, pretty nutty, that I made outlandish statements about a country and a situation about which I obviously was quite ignorant, and that I was unfit to hold a high diplomatic position? Probably.
That is how Samantha Power sounds to people who are knowledgeable about Israeli history and society. In the 2002 interview in which she advocated a U.S. military imposition on Israel of a solution that the U.S. would deem fit to the Palestinian issues, she displays complete ignorance of the events at Camp David in 2000 and at Taba in 2001. She also sounds certifiably insane. This is not a woman who should be named the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
And as far as today's column in the Washington Post by Max Fisher trying to somehow explain those comments away, well, we all can, and all should, watch the video ourselves and hear for ourselves what she said.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Sympathy for Terrorists at New York's Paper of Record
The New York Times. Do I love to hate them? No, I just hate them. The Times's chronic anti-semitism, which dates back to the WWII era, has led them to become soft apologists for terrorists. First, for terrorists who act against Israel, and by extension, all terrorists. No where is this more apparent than in the headline shown in this screen grab, which sympathises with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/19/new-york-times-sympathy-for-the-devil/#ixzz2QwNJfnVK (Mysteriously, the headline has been changed, which is why my link is to a blog showing the screengrab.)
We have also seen this phenomenon in action when they refer to Guantamo as a "political prison," implying that its prisoners are political prisoners, as described in this blog: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/04/the-new-york-times-declares-al-qaeda-membership-legitimate-political-activity/
Perhaps that puts some context on Times Magazine covers like the one in this screenshot (again, the headline and main graphic have been changed on the Times's website, and are now availably only through screengrabs that document it, like this one) http://www.israellycool.com/2013/03/17/ben-ehrenreich-and-the-ny-times-paint-false-picture-of-terror-and-violence-advocates/
We have also seen this phenomenon in action when they refer to Guantamo as a "political prison," implying that its prisoners are political prisoners, as described in this blog: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/04/the-new-york-times-declares-al-qaeda-membership-legitimate-political-activity/
Perhaps that puts some context on Times Magazine covers like the one in this screenshot (again, the headline and main graphic have been changed on the Times's website, and are now availably only through screengrabs that document it, like this one) http://www.israellycool.com/2013/03/17/ben-ehrenreich-and-the-ny-times-paint-false-picture-of-terror-and-violence-advocates/
Friday, April 12, 2013
The One-State Solution – Why Not?
The New York Times editorial page has been
publishing pieces advocating a one-state solution in Israel and the West Bank for
some time. Recently, Saree Makdisi and
Joseph Levine graced the Times’s Op-Ed pages, and perhaps most infamously, in
2009, an OpEd by Muammar Qaddafi put forth the same proposition. (You can read Qaddafi’s column here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22qaddafi.html?_r=0.)
To Americans, Jews and
non-Jews, who were raised with the American ideal of the “melting pot,” or, in
other metaphors, the “tossed salad,” or “beautiful mosaic” this may sound like
the perfect solution. Two peoples want
the same land, why shouldn’t they share it?
Why can’t they live together, the way that the different ethnic groups
that make up the United States do? Ms.
Makdisi asserted in her Times piece that in a single, binational state, “what
[Jews] will gain . . . is the right to live in peace.”
The fact that this
proposal was advocated by Qaddafi ought to be enough to give one pause. But setting that point aside, one way that we
can assess the possibility of success for this proposal is by turning to
history. Throughout history, as long as
Jews have lived in Muslim majority states, we, like any other religious
minority in those states, were forced to live with so-called dhimmi
status. This was a second-class status,
mandated by Islamic law, that allowed religious minorities to live in Muslim
majority countries, but with many political restrictions, subject to a special
dhimmi tax, and always subject to persecution.
“But that is the past,”
the melting-pot advocates will cry. “In the current times, we have all moved
beyond that. Modern Muslims would live
in equality with Jews in this binational state.” To see how preposterous this suggestion is, one
only has to look at the current situation of Egypt’s Coptic Christians.
Egypt is a U.S. ally,
perhaps one of our closest Muslim allies.
After the overthrow of Mubarak, it held ostensibly democratic elections,
the product of which was the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power. Since that time, the persecution of women has
increased and religious minorities have come under fire. In October of 2011, between 25 and 35 Coptic
Christians were killed by Egyptian police attempting to disperse a peaceful
protest against religious suppression.
(You can read about it here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/279657/situation-worsens-egypts-coptic-christians-kurt-j-werthmuller.)
Just last Friday, four more Christians
were killed in sectarian violence, and on Sunday, the police attacked mourners
at the funeral for those killed. (You
can read about it here: http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/04/07/funeral-for-killed-copts/ and
here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/07/us-egypt-clashes-idUSBRE93503A20130407.) And, of course, let’s not forget the reaction
of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to the recent Declaration from the U.N.
Commission on the Status of Women. The
Brotherhood denounced the statement for advocating, among other things, to
raise the minimum age of marriage, grant equality to gays and lesbians, and
provide contraception. (You can read the
official brotherhood response here: http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=30731.)
A bi-national state would mean a return to dhimmi
status, and persecution, as soon as the Muslim population outnumbered the
Jewish population (or possibly sooner, due to the fractionalized political
system). Anyone who is familiar with the history of the region knows this, that is why it is not being advanced as a serious solution by anyone of any sense. But no one wants to articulate it, because to do so would appear bigoted. U.S. liberals need to
understand that co-existence in “Israstine,” as Qaddafi put it, is simply not
an option.
UPDATE: Just today, 4/18/13, the Times has published an Op-Ed by Marci Shore, which seems at first to be about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and pretends that its topic is a hero of that uprising, but ends with this line: "
UPDATE: 5/11/13. This morning I said to my husband something I never thought I would say: "there was a good editorial in the Times yesterday. . . ." I was referring to Manan Ahmed Asif's editorial on Pakistan. If one wants to know what a bi-national state in Israel will look like by the end of this century, just read Asif's description of what is happening now in Pakistan. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/opinion/pakistans-tyrannical-majority.html?_r=1&
UPDATE: Just today, 4/18/13, the Times has published an Op-Ed by Marci Shore, which seems at first to be about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and pretends that its topic is a hero of that uprising, but ends with this line: "
UPDATE: 5/11/13. This morning I said to my husband something I never thought I would say: "there was a good editorial in the Times yesterday. . . ." I was referring to Manan Ahmed Asif's editorial on Pakistan. If one wants to know what a bi-national state in Israel will look like by the end of this century, just read Asif's description of what is happening now in Pakistan. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/opinion/pakistans-tyrannical-majority.html?_r=1&
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Ha'aretz and Israel's Imaginary Ethnic Cleansing
I am an upper middle class woman living in a New York suburb. I am a US citizen and English is my native language. I am in the fortunate position of having access to the best medical care that money can buy. And still, I have had medications prescribed for me without being made fully aware of the side effects.
Why? Well sometimes doctors are rushed and don't take the time to fully explain all the possible side effects of medications. Sometimes doctors are arrogant and don't think they need to do so. Sometimes doctors are forgetful and there are oversights.
These phenomena will obviously be compounded in a clinic-like setting, especially when combined with a language barrier. So is it true, as Ha'arezt reported in March, that some Ethiopian women were prescribed and administered Depo-Provera without being fully aware of what the medication was? Well, unfortunately, it probably is true. Was this deliberate ethnic cleansing? Doubtful.
Think about this: Why would the Israeli government pay to bring these people from Ethiopia to Israel, footing the bill for not only the travel but also for absorption (olim get a generous package from the government including financial assistance, rent assistance, tuition assistance, and more) as well as any social services they will need for the foreseeable future, only to commit genocide on them? This doesn't even make any freakin' sense! The proposition that Israel went out of its way to bring people to the country only to forcibly sterilize them is completely illogical. And contrary to the initial reports by Ha'aretz, the government never admitted that this happened. Rather, upon allegations that some women were receiving Depo-Provera without being fully made aware of what it was, the government took remedial measures to ensure that, if such incidents had happened, they would not be repeated. You can read the actual facts here: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=55&x_article=2411
But Israel's detractors are determined to see only the bad. So much so that they are determined to believe that the government has done something so completely illogical. And despite Ha'aretz's retraction, almost a month later, this allegation is still being circulated.
Ha'aretz needs to understand that Israel's detractors are waiting with bated breath to pounce on sensationalist stories like this. This is not to say that Ha'aretz should not expose racism where it occurs. But before printing allegations such as this, they ought to make damn sure that what they are printing is true.
I am an upper middle class woman living in a New York suburb. I am a US citizen and English is my native language. I am in the fortunate position of having access to the best medical care that money can buy. And still, I have had medications prescribed for me without being made fully aware of the side effects.
Why? Well sometimes doctors are rushed and don't take the time to fully explain all the possible side effects of medications. Sometimes doctors are arrogant and don't think they need to do so. Sometimes doctors are forgetful and there are oversights.
These phenomena will obviously be compounded in a clinic-like setting, especially when combined with a language barrier. So is it true, as Ha'arezt reported in March, that some Ethiopian women were prescribed and administered Depo-Provera without being fully aware of what the medication was? Well, unfortunately, it probably is true. Was this deliberate ethnic cleansing? Doubtful.
Think about this: Why would the Israeli government pay to bring these people from Ethiopia to Israel, footing the bill for not only the travel but also for absorption (olim get a generous package from the government including financial assistance, rent assistance, tuition assistance, and more) as well as any social services they will need for the foreseeable future, only to commit genocide on them? This doesn't even make any freakin' sense! The proposition that Israel went out of its way to bring people to the country only to forcibly sterilize them is completely illogical. And contrary to the initial reports by Ha'aretz, the government never admitted that this happened. Rather, upon allegations that some women were receiving Depo-Provera without being fully made aware of what it was, the government took remedial measures to ensure that, if such incidents had happened, they would not be repeated. You can read the actual facts here: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=55&x_article=2411
But Israel's detractors are determined to see only the bad. So much so that they are determined to believe that the government has done something so completely illogical. And despite Ha'aretz's retraction, almost a month later, this allegation is still being circulated.
Ha'aretz needs to understand that Israel's detractors are waiting with bated breath to pounce on sensationalist stories like this. This is not to say that Ha'aretz should not expose racism where it occurs. But before printing allegations such as this, they ought to make damn sure that what they are printing is true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)