Saturday, June 24, 2006

Sederot, Kassam-rockets and the Symmetry of Terror





Achlama Peretz, a Sederot resident and the wife of Amir Peretz, said that Sederot needed more employment and education, before security. That's what I said when I lived in Kiryat Shmona.

The best defense that Israel can provide is to make peace. The Disengagement plan is not making peace, and my humble opinion is that whoever expected the fire to stop, doesn't understand the situation. If the Palestinians stopped the fire, then there was no reason to give them anything else. We in the left would be willing to give them, but we are not the majority and certainly this evil government (like all governments preceding it) isn't going to do anything without pressure.

Now if you think that I am justifying the firing of Kassam rockets on Sederot, then I must say this: I think that there's a difference between justifying, and realizing that an immoral measure, such as Kassam or suicide bombing, is effective, and maybe even the ONLY way for the Palestinians to achieve their goal; as for their goal, I think that it is a just one.
One can say, that in that sense, the Kassams are just like the bombing of Israel on Gaza. Because you can regard the Israeli bombing as either:
(1) A necessary evil, one that we cannot live without, therefore it is morally OK (I believe that this is the opinion of most Israelis, which I respect as a legitimate opinion).
(2) Immoral, but one that may be the only way to achieve some security to Israelis.
(3) Immoral, because there are other ways.
Suppose that I sided with opinion no. (2). Then I would say that we are no different from them. Here is why:
Imagine the following situation: A man is constantly harassed and intimidated by a gang of criminals. They beat him, steal from him, and the police is doing nothing to stop it. In his despair, he takes a gun and kills one of the gang. The harassment stops immediately. Was the killing justified? No!! Was there another way to do justice? Who knows. Would we do the same if we were in the same situation? I cannot swear that I wouldn't. Ehud Barak, in a rare moment of honesty for a politician, said (in an interview with Gideon Levy), that if he was a Palestinian he would become a terrorist. If one has the assertive character of Barak, and one is on this side, then he is brought up to be the opposite of the Jew of the Galut (Diaspora), he doesn't want to be a sucker, he becomes a super-hero and a brilliant General. But, if you are on the other side and you don't want to be a sucker, you become a terrorist.



Take Nasrallah (of Hezbollah) for instance. He is ordering to kill civilians, and so does Lieutenant General Halutz (IDF Commander-in-Chief). He wants to destroy Israel, and so do most of our politicians, to the Palestinians. So I think that there is no difference. We are not fighting now for our security, because this fighting will not bring us any security in the long run. We may kill Nasrallah, just like we killed Abas El-Musaui (his predecessor), but another one will come instead. We can't kill them all. Therefore we are only fighting for our stupid "honor", but in the meantime we are only being humiliated by a primitive guerrilla movement. I don't see an end to that until we really make peace with them. They are teaching us an important lesson, and that is: we cannot do everything by force. Therefore it's not a shame to say to them: "all right, you win, we were arrogant to think that we could solve all of our problems with force, now we realize that it can't be done. Let's give you your independent state and live in peace."


But of course this will not happen, because we will not learn this lesson. Because out "Dignity" is more important to us than the lives of young soldiers and a few hundreds of Israeli and Palestinians and Lebanese civilians. And because a guy like Nasrallah will not agree to that, and they will use our arrogance to keep fighting. I believe that most Arabs are willing to live in peace with us, but of course we wont be fooled by them... So the fighting will continue until your sons and mine and their sons will go to the military, and fight too until we will all say: enough.


Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Our friend Haim sent us this:

Read what Ami Ayalon had to say about our actions in Gaza:

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?contrassID=1&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&itemNo=726401

To which Yair responded:
I read, and, you'll not be surprised that as much as I am sorry for the innocent victimes, my heart goes first to
the people of Sderot who are having "Gehinom" as life for the last who knows months/years.

The stupid and evil Palestinians will not stop throwing Kasams even if we leave Tel Aviv, they are a bunch
of idiots. I guess this is part ofthe war they have between themselves.

I hope we don't stop bombing Gaza as Ayalon proposed. I want them to live in a bigger hell than we do.

Sorry,
Yair

My humble response was:
I still think that the fact that we have to kill civilians for our "security" (let's assume for the sake of the argument that it enhances security), is an inherent attribute of the occupation. Therefore it is not justified. A nation in war, which does not occupy, doesn't need to kill civilians.
The only way to stop the hell (which is in both sides, but much more in Gaza than in Tel Aviv), is to really end the occupation. Not Hitnatkut, not Hitkansut, Hitkarbelut, Hitztanfut, etc. etc. Complete withdrawal, with possible border adjustments, but one that make a Palestinian state viable (and not the "95%" of Barak).
Don't be sorry, I think your opinion is legitimate...
Avner


Then Haim said:
כל דעה היא לגיטימית, אך בסופו של דבר, מה שצריך להכריע הוא השיקול התועלתי: האם לאחר כל ההפגזות והסיכולים הממוקדים, יש ירידה או הפסקה בירי הקסאמים
אם זה היה מועיל במשהו, הייתי יכול לקבל את גישתו של יאיר, עם כל ההסתיגויות המוסריות שיש לי (וכאן אני קרוב מאוד בדעותי לאבנר), אך מה שאנו עושים בעזה הוא פשוט הוצאת העצבים שלנו בבחינת - עין תחת עין. וכאן אני כבר עונה לשאלה המתבקשת של יאיר: אין לי תרופות פלא, אבל לכל הפחות, בוא נתמקד, לכל היותר, בסיכולים ממוקדים וקפדניים ביותר (ומי הוא זה בממשלה הנאורה שלנו שמציע לגלח את כל בית להאיה?)

הפתרון הוא פוליטי, כמו שמציין אבנר. ושוב, לשאלה שיעלה כאן יאיר - אם גם אז, כאשר תהיה לפלסטינאים מדינה, והם ימשיכו לירות קסאמים (מה שאני מתקשה להניח) - אז תהיה לנו לגיטימציה , במיוחד מצד העולם, לבצע פעולות צבאיות. בבחינת - מדינה אחת (פלסטינאית) תוקפת מדינה אחרת (ישראל), ולצד המותקף יש זכות חוקית ומוכרת בינלאומית להגן על עצמה

Saturday, May 13, 2006

מחשבות על יהודים, כאן ושם, בעקבות א.ב. יהושע


http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=715247&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0

את מצב היהדות בישראל כולנו מכירים, והוא לא מזהיר לדעתי. אכן ההתבוללות היא תופעה מדאיגה, והיא כנראה כבר חיסלה את רוב העם היהודי במהלך ההיסטוריה. הזרם האורתודוקסי מכנה אותה, בצדק מסויים, "השואה השקטה", עם כל הזוועה שיש בביטוי הזה. אבל אני לא בטוח שהכיוון התרבותי, הערכי והחינוכי שהמדינה שלנו הולכת אליו הוא טוב יותר. ה"יהדות" נשלטת היום על ידי מה שכיניתי "הזרם האורתודוקסי ביהדות", וזה לדעתי הכינוי הראוי לחובשי הכיפות שבינינו. (מעניין ששליטתם היא על דעתם ועל דעת החילונים כאחד). זהו זרם חשוב ודומיננטי, שיש לו עוצמה גדולה, השפעה וחיות חזקים, אבל עדיין רק זרם אחד (ואף לא הגדול ביותר) ביהדות, שכוללת גם חילונים, מסורתיים, אתאיסטים, רפורמים וקונסרווטיבים. הזרם הזה הולך לכיוון יותר קיצוני, מתבדל, משיחי, וגם גזעני במידה
אנחנו חוזרים לשאלה הנצחית, לשם מה הוקמה המדינה. כדי לספק מקום בטוח ליהודים? - היום ישראל היא המקום הפחות בטוח בעולם. כדי להיות "אור לגויים"? עדיין, יותר יהודים בעולם עוסקים ומשפיעים בתחומי רוח מאשר בישראל, כפי שציין שריד בצדק לדעתי. גם צמד המדענים שזכו בנובל בשנה שעברה, הקפידו לציין שהם תוצר של החינוך של שנות החמישים, ושהזכייה שלהם איננה בזכות אלא למרות החינוך הישראלי

האם המצב של היהודים כאן טוב יותר, מבחינה פיזית ורוחנית, מזה שבישראל? אני לא מכיר כאן מספיק יהודים כדי לענות על כך. כפי שאמרתי, את ישראל אנחנו מכירים, כולל ההתדרדרות המוסרית והחינוכית. כאן (בארה"ב) בטוח יותר, היהודים חופשיים יותר, ומשפיעים יותר; אבל גם מתבוללים יותר. שם לעומת זאת, אנחנו אדונים לעצמנו, אנחנו קובעים את החוקים, לטוב ולרע (למעשה לא אנחנו, אלא הפוליטיקאים העלובים שאנחנו בוחרים באין ברירה אחרת); אין כמעט נישואי תערובת, אבל יש כיבוש מנוול ומשחית. מה עדיף? השאלה נשארת מבחינתי פתוחה. עובדה שאנחנו כאן ולא שם, אמנם כנראה כולנו נחזור, אבל מה צופן העתיד איש אינו יודע. כמו שאמר הרה"ג דני סנדרסון, נחיה, נמות ואז נראה

Monday, May 1, 2006

Why Mordechai Va’anunu should get the Nobel Peace Prize



Because he helped stir SOME discussion on this matter, which hardly exists and I think there should be.
Let's assume for a moment that Israel HAS a right to have a nuclear bomb, more than, say, Iran. In this case, who is to decide on this matter? Who's in charge that all benefits and risks are considered? Who's responsible to make sure that all possible safety measures are taken? In the best case, there is somebody, but nobody knows if he or she is doing the job properly, because there is no discussion and nobody wants to know anything. I think that leaving all this to the good will of the government, which has already been proven irresponsible on many issues, is naive and in fact crazy. Nothing should be left uncontrolled, even (or rather, especially) security matters. Even if I believed that Israel has a right to possess this weapon, I would want a number of matters to be kept open to public debate and scrutiny, such as: who decides, what are the circumstance under which it's OK to use it, how are safety issues handled, etc. Not where the bombs are and how many - those should be secrets. These are the main points of Prof. Avner Cohen, who is a world expert on this subject.
You could say that all this is in contradiction to the Opacity policy, which was Israel's only option to carry out this program. I don't think that the opacity is any more justified, morally, than Iran's lies to the Security Council. Because in my view, opacity means that (a) we are not telling the truth, (b) we get away from being liars because we are "opaque". I see this as another form of hypocrisy, no better than Iran being a liar. I don't believe that because of the opacity, any other country gave up its nuclear programs, because they didn't know for sure if we had it. Everybody knows today, and everybody could reasonably assume that we had the bomb back then; and my guess, that this was what drove Pakistan, Iraq and Iran to pursue their programs, is no worse, to say the least, than anybody else's guess that thanks to opacity, countries like Egypt gave it up. Nobody can know for sure.

Now, on top of all that, my personal opinion is that no country has the right to have the bomb, no matter how much democratic it is. A democratic regime is by no means a guarantee for anything. In fact, the only one country which used this weapon, under very questionable and controversial circumstances, is "the greatest democracy in the world." This is a WMD of the worst kind which no country should possess (and if you say that its existence is a fact of life, then this undermines the validity of any argument against other countries which are working on their own programs). Va'anunu has paid a tremendous price in order to start some discussion about this, and by doing that, I would think that he didn't even cause any damage, even if I believed in Israel's right for having the bomb! Because the opacity policy is based on the assumption that the world WILL know, or at least will fear, that we have the bomb. So, actually Va'anunu did a great service to Israel, by telling everybody that we had the bomb, without Israel having to admit it!
The fact that Va'anunu is probably mentally troubled or even sick, is another issue completely. I judge him first by his contribution to peace, and not to his poor family and friends.
The fact that he converted to Christianity is Prof. Leibowitc's problem (otherwise he would support him), but not mine.

Monday, April 24, 2006

דיון סוער על "קדימה", לקראת הבחירות

:ידידי יאיר כתב
I know I support Kadima more than you guys, but please don't make me the Olmart advocate. I am not.
I don't think all politicians are corrupted (Yossi Sarid was not), BUT Peres is not clean either and it's just a coincidence he is not in the Avoda. Also, I don't think Perez took money to his own pocket but his ties with th unions don't smell that well, since these unions are the most corrupted organizations in Israel. Still, I am not happy with the corrupted politicians in Kadima, and I must say that Avoda look better from that perspective. Again, I am not sure what would have been my vote had I have to do the act. Quite possible it would vote Avoda after all.

I don't know about Peres (I just don't like the man), but Perez did not collect money
but collected power, and a lot of it, by using the unions for his needs.
Again, I am not Olmart's advocate and I'll never be. I am sick of the corruption that pervade so deeply to our system but Perez is not the answer I was waiting for. Apparently, the same way the power caused the Mapa"i people to be corrupt, any other party in control will become sooner or later corrupted.
It's probably the way it works. Some people are more corrupted and some
less (like Rabin or Begin). It's sad but apparently inevitable. Olmart unfortunately is on the bad side (how did he manage to buy a 2.7 millon house in the first place ?????)
Power coruupts and absolute power... you know.


יאיר, מה אתה רוצה מעמיר פרץ? לאיזה צרכים אישיים הוא השתמש בכוח שצבר? כדי לצבור עוד כח? אני סולד מכוח כמו משלטון ומכסף גדול, אבל מה לעשות, כדי להלחם בכוח העצום שיש לממשלה ולמעסיקים צריך כוח נגדי. תקשיב לכל הפועלים האומללים במתפרות, במפעלי המתכת והטקסטיל שטוענים שרק ההסתדרות בראשות פרץ עזרה להם. היום זה באופנה לשנוא את ההסתדרות, אבל אני חושב שזה אחד המפעלים המפוארים שהקימה הציונות, לפני 86 שנה, עם כל החולשות ושגיאות הניהול שלה. כאילו שמגזר ההי-טק, שתומכי נתניהו נשבעים בשמו, נקי משגיאות ניהול, לפעמים קולוסאליות ממש. ואיך נתניהו, נסיך ההפרטה והשקר, ניהל את המדינה? יותר טוב מפרץ

על פרס אני לחלוטין לא מצטער, הוא איננו מושחת כספית אבל הוא מייצג מערכת ערכים רקובה, שבה השלטון הוא הערך העליון. מה פירוש הטיעון שלך, שרק במקרה הוא לא ב"עבודה"? היא הנותנת - מבחינה מוסרית, מקומו ב"קדימה", ולשם השליכה אותו ההיסטוריה. כך נפטרה ה"עבודה" מרוב האשפה המוסרית שלה, אם כי חלק נשאר (בן-אליעזר, יתום, סנה). אף אחד לא מושלם
מפא"י אכן היתה מושחתת אבל היא נחלת העבר. אני מסכים לחלוטין שכל שלטון משחית, אבל הדמוקרטיה מיוסדת על בחירה, וראוי לתת לכל מפלגה את ההזדמנות לה, בתקופה שבין הבחירה בה לבין השחתתה, לעשות משהו טוב
אני לא עומד להצביע לעבודה, אבל חייבים להכיר בהבדל העצום בינה לבין כל המפלגות הגדולות האחרות. האדמו"ר שלי בעניינים פוליטיים, חיים ברעם, אפילו טען השבוע שהעבודה כבר עדיפה אפילו על מר"צ (!) בראשות ביילין, שהוא פוליטיקאי שאני עוד מעריך

Friday, April 21, 2006

Shimshon, or Der-Nebechdiker?

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=707453&contrassID=2&subContrassID=13&sbSubContrassID=0

An excerpt from the article above: "In a Jewish state, where the Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) parties have more and more power, the Haredi youth feel more confident, and don't fear to get into fights". This is basically my main argument which tries to explain why Jews were so quiet when they were a minority in the Diaspora, and why some Muslims are so violent: I think that since they have their own countries, they feel confident and become more aggressive.

According to the article, Haredim traditionally despise violence. True, there is no Jewish violence in Brooklyn... but look how in Israel they defended a father who killed his son... and conducted violent demonstrations so many times.
I know we haven't got as far as being suicide bombers (a few exceptions were: Dr. Baruch Goldstein and... Shimshon Hagibor). But give us a few more decades of independence and occupation, and... who knows. (that's not a proof, just a thought).

Shabat Shalom

Friday, April 7, 2006

On Corruption and Hypocrisy




This morning I read this piece by Israel Harel, a settler columnist:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=703243&contrassID=2&subContrassID=3&sbSubContrassID=0

I was preparing to write my monthly letter to the editor about this, but the talk-backs no. 3, 4, 9 were quicker. Read especially no. 15, a dear woman from the good old Judaism.

Of course Sharon is (was...) corrupted. The point is to hear it from Israel Harel! What a wonderful hypocrisy.
These guys have no problem getting money from a corrupt minister; from a gambling tycoon (Moskowitz); from fundamentalist Christians who will turn antisemitist overnight if that what it takes to convert everybody to Christianity.
All of a sudden they care so much for clean government, transparency, human rights! Welcome messiah!
I guess that only Jews are humans in their eyes (see "חמורו של רכלבסקי").

Thursday, April 6, 2006

No more bets, please!...

Following this piece by Miron Benbenisti:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=703242&contrassID=2&subContrassID=3&sbSubContrassID=0

I had a bet with my friend Amir Shahal:

(Amir:)
Here is a suggested bet:
At least 7,000 will be evacuated by Ulmert until 2010.
The loser will buy dinner for two.


so I took the challenge:

I will buy 1 dinner per every 10,000 of "our brothers" who are brought back home by 2010.
Plus, I will eat:
a Liberal-Orthodox yarmulke, for 7,000
a Kipa Sruga for 10,000
a Braslav yarmulka for 20,000
a baseball hat for 30,000
a ski helmet for 70,000.

As I said, I am an optimist. I think that by 2010, we will all eat SHIT.
(A pessimist is one who doesn't believe that there will be enough shit for everyone).

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Christianity, Islam, and War Crimes


My friend Yair mentioned East Timor, as an example of a major massacre of Christians committed by Muslims. In our jargon, this mentioning is called "Setting for a Spike", as in volleyball. So I have no choice but to spike.

Well, Yair, good that you mentioned East Timor. The Indonesians (mostly Muslims) invaded this poor country (Catholic) in 1975, and killed more than 100,000. They probably could not have done that unless their dictator, Suharto, met in 1975 with president Gerald Ford (a Protestant) and Henri Kissinger (Jewish), who gave him the OK, because East Timor was considered Communist. The American media virtually ignored the slaughter.
This and Cambodia puts Dr. Kissinger, a Peace Nobel prize laureate, on the top of the list of war criminals. Did I mention that he is Jewish?
Muslims will have to work very hard to catch up with the death toll committed by Christians.
Like I said, it's all politics, not religion.


To which Yair responded:
You astonish me again! Muslims kill Timorians, and you blame the Jews again. What is wrong with you. Do you really think it's Kissinger's fault? (and I am not trying to defend
American policy here).
So, let's leave Timor for the moment, and let's talk about Algeria. Is that America/Jews problem too, or is it an Islamic (yes Islamic, not political) problem.
Why do you get out of your skin to defend Islam? What is your point there?

You did not answer my points when I talked about Judaism compared to Islam. You keep talking about Christianity and its horrible actions from 300 years ago, but I am talking today. Can't you see that there is something wrong here?
Every other Islamic nation is involved with bloodshed, one pseudo democratic Islamic country, suicide bombers, medieval religious laws practiced only in these countries, and what you have to say in return is: Kissinger is evil!
Christianity was evil too.
Sekila (Hebrew for: Stoning) was practiced by Jews 2500 years ago (so we are actually Afghanistan).

Avner, you are smarted than that.

I can get your claim that it is not the religion, but who practices it (I don't know Islam very well but I suspect that is not really the case). But even if that is the case, then Communism was a great idea, the practice was wrong, so - who do we blame? We blame the Communists because there was probably something wrong with the way
people interpreted it. The same with today’s Islam. The Koran might be the best, most gentle book ever, even better than "Le Petit Prince", but for me Islam is what I see. Humeini, Saudi Arabia, suicide bombers in the name of Allah, Hamas, Algeria, Sudan, No democracy, terrible attitude to women. Until they change it, for me Islam is an evil religion.


My response:
To say that I blamed the Jews for East Timor is "just a little" demagogy. I blamed the Indonesians first, and President Ford and his secretary of state second. Not all the Jews. My only point was that you don't have to be a Muslim to be responsible for terrorism.

If you only look on today, then you miss some of the picture. Even if I accepted your definition of terrorism, then the fact that most "terrorists" today are Muslims (I will doubt that in a minute), doesn't prove that Islam is terroristic in essence. I'm keeping mentioning the medieval times, because I think that this is evidence that there is no direct link between any religions, to evil doing. If Christians, and even Jews, could do evil on a large scale, even if it was 500 years ago (the Inquisition) or 3,000 years ago (the horrible things which OUR bible describes about Jews wrong-doing) - then my point is that no religion has a monopoly on either the Truth, Goodness, or Evil.

I am not defending Islam, I'm just defending my views of this world. I may be wrong.

Using Terror is not characteristic of Islam, more than it's of Christianity. Claiming that Islam is violent and murderous because of 9/11, is like saying that Christianity is a terrorist religion because Bush sent troops to kill ~130,000 Iraqi civilians (and that's just one case). Bush also does this in the name of "God", why doesn't anybody call him a "Militant Christian"? He does it for a good cause, such as spreading democracy? - Even if this was true (I think it's for the oil prices, but never mind) - so do the other terrorists. It's for what they see as "good cause" - to spread the Islam. He would do it without killing civilians if he could? - so would the other terrorists.
It's just so happened that today, democracy is predominantly Christian. It was not so forever and probably won't be forever.

Now to the definition of terror. This is going to upset you, but it's necessary to make my point. I think that the definition of terror is also political, and it's dominated by those who are in power. Therefore, in the West, a terrorist is one who kills people from the West; but somebody who just kills Iraqis, Palestinians, etc., is a fighter in "the War on Terror". On the other hand, in the Muslim world, a terrorist is one who kills people from the Muslim world, and whoever kills Jews or Christians is a "freedom fighter". My opinion is that both definitions are wrong to the same extent. I think that a terrorist is one who kills civilians, either on purpose, or in an action during which they know in advance that civilians would be killed. This definition includes Bin-Laden, Bush, and some Israeli generals.

I know that you distinguish between those who killed (or sent others to kill, in this sense Bin-Laden is no different than Bush) with a deliberate purpose, and those who wished that civilians would not be killed (like Bush, or Dan Halutz on a much smaller scale). I know that this is hard for you to accept (not to agree, God forbid, but even to accept that others think this way); but to me this is not a big difference. I think that most terrorists on the "bad" side (which is of course always "the Other" side), also wished that they were in a situation that they didn't need to kill. This is how they see it - I don't think they "need" to kill, but they honestly think that this is the only way to achieve their goals, some of which I justify - the goals, not the means - and frankly, I think that we (Israel) give them many reasons to think so: the recent shift in Israeli public opinion, whether you think it's good or not (I know that Yair thinks it's good, maybe Idit thinks it's not good, I respect both views, but the shift is a historic fact) - would not have occurred if it was not for the terrorist Intifada.
The concept that we, the "good guys", wish that we were in a situation in which we didn't "need" to kill, and this is something that most of us feel and think, is just similar!
Yair, you say that you don't know Islam and you can only judge upon what you see. "אין לו לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות" – “The Judge can only decree based on what he sees.” This is very true. I'm afraid that most of what we know about the Islamic world (myself included, I'm no expert by any means) comes from the Western media, which is not very sympathetic. There are 1 billion Muslim people, most of who are just normal human beings, like you and me. This may sound naive but this is truly what I think.
Yes, I agree that there is a significant difference in the way that Jews and Muslims behaved under oppression. My view is that the difference comes from the way people were led to act, the tradition that they kept, the particular interpretation of their religion and tradition, which in both cases could have easily been interpreted in a complete different manner! "טוב שבגויים הרוג" – “Thou shalt kill even the best of the Gentiles” (most Orthodox people don't even know that such a horrible phrase exists in the Talmud, and that's very good that they don't know), could have been interpreted in the same way that Muslims interpreted the more evil verses of the Koran. We both have all the material in the world to take to whichever direction we want - good or evil. The Jews chose the good paths during most of history. Today, and only in the last few generations, manyMuslims choose the evil way. But that's not a necessity that stems from neither Islam nor Judaism! This is a result of a political situation. When people live in their own countries, ruling their own lives, they tend to develop a kind of "self confidence" that sometimes pushes them to be more demanding, more assertive and sometimes even violent. This even works for people of the same ethnicity when they live outside of their own countries - like the Muslims in France. On the other hand, Jews who lived in other people's countries throughout most of history, and didn't have their own country, developed a sort of humbleness, that made them both very ambitions, creative but at the same time very passive when it came to their self defense. This is exactly why the state of Israel was established - to give Jews, both in Israel and outside, the self confidence and feeling of pride and activeness that they lacked. As we well know, for some Israelis, this proposition was so successful, that it even went a little too far...
I'm not justifying any of the atrocities that took place in France, the Netherlands etc., just tried to explain why I see parallels. I know that it's hard for me to explain, I do my best and this is what comes out.
And on top of all that, I see people like GW Bush as bigger terrorists than Bin-Laden (just counting by the number of dead they are responsible for). They are one and the same in my eyes, although one has a beard and the other is a "nice white person in a nice suit".

I think that you've had enough of me for today.

"Happy Purim, Hevraia!" (a quote from Chanan Porat, in Purim of 1994, in the morning after the massacre by the Jewish terrorist, Dr. Baruch Goldstein)

Friday, March 3, 2006

On War Criminals, on both sides




Prof. Ruth Lapidot, who is about to receive "The Israel Award," called it "a very good judicial system":
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=689376&contrassID=2&subContrassID=2&sbSubContrassID=0

And, here is the reality:
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//868931

I know that I'm going to step on very sensitive nerves here, but I have to say this: Prof. Lapidot says that since Israel has "a very good judicial system", there is no need to prosecute Military officers in the International Court. My opinion is, that prosecuting Dan Halutz, Mofaz and other major officers is the only way that these issues will be ever addressed, just as it was done against South Africa, because of the way Israel is treating her own issued reports.
As hard as it may sound to you guys, I truly think that Israel resembles the Apartheid to a great degree...


To which my dear friend Yair responded:

Avner,
Please tell me you do not support what is going on against Israeli officers in Europe. I just read about, it and about how the Hamas leaders can travel all over the world while Israeli officers can not. If you tell me you support any of this outrageous activity, it will be a new mark in our relations.
Being left wing is one thing, being anti Israeli, as you were in some events, is way way way over the limit.


So I wrote to him:

Yair,
I think that once again you confuse anti-terrorism and anti-humanism with anti-Israelism. I am an Israeli who is 100% in favor of my country, and THEREFORE I think that war criminals such as Halutz and Mofaz must be punished. Yesh Gevul has tried to bring them to court in Israel, but the supreme court has not been willing to rule in the case for a few years now. Note: they didn't say "this is not a judicial issue, therefore we wont discuss it", or: "we decree that under these circumstances, it is a necessary evil to do Targeted Killing", as you would expect if there was no case - it looks like they think that there IS a case, so they don't want to rule. Yesh Gevul didn't want to take this to the ICJ, but the "good judicial system" of Israel does not do it's duty (even to dismiss the case!), so they had no choice if they didn't want to be passive supporters of these crimes. Read Akiva Eldar for yourself! Who is supposed to take care of settlements, who the government of Israel itself declared as illegal? Where is the Attorney General? Where are the judges? This has become almost exactly like South Africa, and only international pressure can be effective here.
I am writing this with goose bumps and my hands are sweating. It's very difficult for me to be against everybody, I don't like it at all. But I truly believe in that, after thinking about this every day, a few times a day, of the past 24 years.
I once asked a Jewish lawyer who is involved in this activity, why everybody is after Israeli officers and nobody says anything about the Hamas and other terrorists. He replied that we, the Israelis, are after the Hamas, and nobody is really doing anything to Israeli war criminals. I think that he is right.
I'm sorry, our friendship is precious to me but I cannot lie to you nor to myself. I will understand you if this will be the last email you''ll read from me... Sorry for the tragic situation.

Then Yair wrote:
This is the third answer I amwriting (the previous two were not sent). I envy you Avner - you always have the answers and you always know what is right.
Let's just summarize what we do not agree upon:
Haluz = Yassin
Israel = South Africa
Avner = Mother Theresa
Yair = Kadima supporter
I believe you that your hand are shaking and I also believe that when you're older and our hands really shake you'll remember these days with shame. Just like Jane Fonda members her visit to the Vietnamese base.
Shabat Shalom



I wrote:
If you don't want to talk about this, that's fine. But your reply was unfair.
I don't have all the answers. I just have an opinion. It's different then yours, sorry about that.
Halutz is not like Yassin (he is more handsome). He is like Barguti maybe.
Israel is less racist than SA, but resembles it to the extent that deserves much criticism. Not everything that is not the holocaust, is right. The holocaust was so immense, and South Africa was SO racist, that even 1/10 of that is bad enough. Sometimes what kills an elephant, can be good to kill a fly. Mishlei Esopus.
I am no Mother Theresa. Therefore I hate, and therefore I was not sad when Arafat died, and I wont be sad when Sharon will pass away, either. That's not nice to say, and that's no Mother Theresa but that's me. You can vote Kadima if you like, no hard feelings. That's a legitimate party.
Shabat Shalosh.


Yair wrote:
One more thing.
Behind all the racism in Israel there is one thinking. WE actually do not want the Arabs in Israel to feel at home. And you know what, I can understand this. Had the Arab countries accepted us after 1948, it would have beed different, totally different. I trully believe that Israelis (all of them) would have accepted Arabs as their neighbours, their coworkers and so on. We are pretty good people inside and I truly believe we are better than others. The war situation between Arab countries and Israel (Ahmadinajad was not the first to talk like that) caused Israelis to be very suspectful towards all Arabs. That caused the discrimination (that I admit exists). And that's why comparing us to SA is wrong. You can compare us to the Greek/Turkey situation. There is not much love there and a Greek will not feel at home in Turkey. That doesn't mean Turkey is racist toward Greeks and vice versa. In SA, blacks were slaves, in Israel Israeli Arabs are not slaves, they are not first class citizens because deep inside we suspect tht they all want to get rid of us. The fact that legally they have all the rights (voting, universities and more) proves that in a perfect situation they would have been perfect citizens.
Bottom line, we (Jews) are better then other nations and that includes our army, our judicial system and more. The reason I call you Theresa is that you don't think it's enough and ignore (I think) the global reasons why things are as they are.
Having said that, we still agree that we (Israelis) have to clean the bad and rotten apples we have and we have a lot of them (because of the situation). Halutz, in my opinion, does not deserve in any context to be called one of these apples.

To which I responded:
Here you make some very good points, which I find very difficult to argue with. I agree that the Arabs did not and do not make my task as an extreme leftist very easy, because they have screwed things up much more than necessary, for their basically right cause of getting independence. The fact that they didn't accept us here 60 years (= a long time) ago is true. I can understand that they felt that they were required to pay off for the result of the holocaust, which they had nothing to do with. It is easy to get carried away by hatred when new people take over your land, even when it's done perfectly legally, and people in this situation are very much prone to instigation. Having said that, I completely don't justify taking violent measures. But I think that we can understand them, with all the evil that they (some of them) did, at least to the extent that people expect me to understand the settlers, with all the evil that they (some of them) have done. And I still believe that basically they are no different then us, but they were instigated by some evil leaders to do that. I can realte to your feeling, that we are basically good people inside, but I think that we are not aware that the Arabs feel exactly the same about themselves, and they don't understand how we can be so evil to them. This is another example of how good people can sometimes do evil things. As you know, I think that this insight applies to all people, Jews included. Sorry, but I see a complete symmetry here. This is not because I'm more sensitive than you are, I just happen to think differently for some strange reason. But in light of your good points it is very difficult for me to back this opinion of mine. I still think so but I cannot prove it. I may be just a stupid stubborn, but I think that I'm in good company of most people who wont change their minds even if you show them day from night.

We are repeating these things over and over again, but I still find it interesting.

Avner

Friday, February 10, 2006

In response to the Open Ceremony Keynote by Prof. Israel Aumann




Prof. Aumann, Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics, gave this Keynote Address in the 6th Herzeliah Conference, 2006:
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1394&CategoryID=215

Well, I am not one of those who demand to revoke the Nobel price from Prof. Aumann because of his racist views. But I think that his case is an evidence of my claim, that there is no problem of anti-Semitism in particular, but anti-Semitism is part of a wider problem of racism. And racism is a sickness that we suffer from as well.
Prof. Aumann says that the "refugees" are not law breakers? Come on. They broke every law in the book, they had 1000 chances to leave and get all the compensation and alternative housing, but they refused. Sorry, I'm no mother Theresa so I cannot feel mercy for them now that they are living for 6 months is hotels, while most Palestinians who suffered because of those criminals, would love to trade their poor houses for those hotels.Prof. Aumann was asked a question relating to mathematics. Instead of saying: "sorry, this question is not relevant to my profession", he gave a propaganda speech which was completely out of the scope.Never say again that the Europeans are all anti-Semitist, because this racist man got the Nobel price (with full just I assume), which proves that the world is not against us, but we are being criticized on a to-the-point basis for our crimes against the Palestinians.

Wednesday, February 8, 2006

In response to "Anti-semitism Now," an article by Irit Linoor




Irit Linoor, a very articulate and ex-Leftist Israeli journalist and a public figure, published this in Ynet:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3212503,00.html

Here is the Hebrew version:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3211771,00.html

I don't agree with Linoor, although she makes very good points. I didn't think about some of the points she raised (the suits being inspired by Tarantino, or "the last supper"), but they are very good points.
But the main theme of her article is wrong, I think. What difference does it make if it's a Palestinian movie or not? Is a Palestinian who lives in Holland any less Palestinian than we are Israelis?
The suicide bombers are criminals, but not Nazis. The movie is not anti-semitist, it's a great movie about the tragedy of the occupation. Linoor has decided long ago that there is no partner, and this is her right. But I don't agree that you can't sympathies with terrorists. I can sympathize with Dan Halutz or GW Bush... who are far worse than any Hamas terrorist.
But I admit that I cannot compete with her expressions skills.