Fabian Spagnoli
Escribiendo desde Italia, se advierte esta situacion:
Si bien siempre puede haber acuerdos entre enemigos, hay una realidad quebrandose.
Europa no se dio cuenta que esta en juego ella misma.
El modelo de familia, la posibilidad de realizacion de un proyecto personal, la posibilidad de estudiar, el desarrollo de los derechos individuales, la existencia de sistemas juridicos, el respeto por el vecino, el saludo, la cordialidad, la educacion, el sistema democratico, la libertad religiosa, la costumbre de hacerse obsequios, la fina diplomacia; todo lo que podriamos resumir como modelo de vida europeo, es lo que esta en juego, aun lejos de Europa.
Israel esta defendiendo -ademas- esta bandera.
Europa vive sacudida, confundida. No ha tomado conciencia. Su juventud se encuentra desesperada, drograda, materialista y deprimida por no saber que hacer con sus vidas, porque Europa, ya fue perdiendo esta guerra.
La llamada civilizacion judeo-cristiana, esta en juego en el viejo continente. Solo le queda al viejo continente un despertar, un retorno a la Verdad, que en su momento copio y distorsiono (politica y relgiosamente), realizando mucho daño, con las consecuencias que hoy vive.
A Europa solo le queda depurar y rectificar sus errores de siglos. Y esta vez, no dejar solo a Israel.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Somos Reféns
Dr. Guido Maisuls
Kiriat Bialik, Israel
Aquí en el norte de Israel, todos los que habitamos la tierra o simplemente vivimos nuestras vidas somos rehenes, si rehenes.
Desde hace un tiempo somos rehenes porque no podemos trabajar, pasear por nuestras calles, disfrutar de nuestra familia, reunirnos con nuestros amigos, comer y dormir tranquilos ya que las alarmas y las explosiones nos conducen rápida e inexorablemente al temor y a nuestros refugios.
Somos rehenes porque muchísimas familias fueron obligadas a abandonar sus hogares y refugiarse en el centro y el sur de Israel, empujadas por la destrucción y la muerte que viene desde el norte.
Ciudades y poblados florecientes convertidos en soledad, angustia y tristeza.
Somos rehenes del miedo, de la incertidumbre, de las alarmas, de las explosiones, de las sirenas, del humo, de las imágenes de edificios destrozados, de las noticias de heridos y de muertos de inocentes ciudadanos.
Somos rehenes del terror de los katiushas, del terror de la Hizbollah, del terror de Hamas, de Irán y de Siria, del terror del fundamentalismo islámico.
Somos rehenes de la complicidad de una buena parte del mundo que nos acusan de agresores, de genocidas, de usar desproporcionadamente nuestras fuerzas, de ser agentes del mal y de la destrucción, cuando naturalmente solo tratamos de defendernos.
Somos rehenes de muchos medios de comunicación del mundo occidental que nos crucifican sin piedad y justifican increíblemente al terrorismo y al fundamentalismo mas medieval y retrogrado como Clarín, El Mundo, la BBC, etc.
Somos rehenes de gobiernos, regimenes y grupos supuestamente progresistas y democráticos que nos demonizan, mientras justifican lo injustificable del oscurantismo medieval islámico como los Zapateros, los Chavez, los Castros, la ONU, los piqueteros argentinos, las Bonafini, los Pérez Esquivel, la izquierda radical, los antiglobalizadores, etc.
Somos rehenes y con mucho dolor, de grupúsculos de la ultra izquierda israelí, de los ultra ortodoxos de Naturei Karta, de judíos progres del mundo, que manifiestan, justifican, firman solicitadas y condenan sin tapujos los supuestos crímenes del sionismo, en una hora muy difícil para todos los israelíes y los judíos del mundo.
Pero a pesar de todo, tengo la mas absoluta certeza que muy pronto volveremos a nuestra preciada libertad, a nuestra vida cotidiana, a nuestra familia y a nuestros amigos, a nuestros trabajos, a nuestra cultura, a nuestra vida plena de fe y esperanza en nuestra hermosa tierra de Israel.
Si, dejaremos de ser rehenes por la valiente y decidida lucha que libra nuestra tzava, por nuestros combatientes, que en estos momentos se están jugando la vida y mucho mas para liberarnos de nuestros enemigos del norte.
Entonces volverán liberados los jaialim secuestrados.
Entonces volveremos a vivir en paz.
Entonces dejaremos de ser rehenes.
ISRAEL VENCERÁ
Guido Maisuls
Kiriat Bialik
Israel
Canción de los Rebeldes:Yaacov Cahan
Nos levantamos, volvimos jóvenes vigorosos
Nos levantamos, volvimos nosotros los rebeldes
A redimir nuestra tierra, en la tempestad y en la guerra
Abrazamos nuestra heredad con mano levantada.
En sangre y en fuego cayó Judea
En sangre y en fuego se levantará.
Guerra por la libertad, guerra por la tierra
Y si muere la libertad viva la venganza.
Si no hay justicia en la tierra, que la espada juzgue
Y si caemos en la arena, no renunciamos a nuestro derecho.
Kiriat Bialik, Israel
Aquí en el norte de Israel, todos los que habitamos la tierra o simplemente vivimos nuestras vidas somos rehenes, si rehenes.
Desde hace un tiempo somos rehenes porque no podemos trabajar, pasear por nuestras calles, disfrutar de nuestra familia, reunirnos con nuestros amigos, comer y dormir tranquilos ya que las alarmas y las explosiones nos conducen rápida e inexorablemente al temor y a nuestros refugios.
Somos rehenes porque muchísimas familias fueron obligadas a abandonar sus hogares y refugiarse en el centro y el sur de Israel, empujadas por la destrucción y la muerte que viene desde el norte.
Ciudades y poblados florecientes convertidos en soledad, angustia y tristeza.
Somos rehenes del miedo, de la incertidumbre, de las alarmas, de las explosiones, de las sirenas, del humo, de las imágenes de edificios destrozados, de las noticias de heridos y de muertos de inocentes ciudadanos.
Somos rehenes del terror de los katiushas, del terror de la Hizbollah, del terror de Hamas, de Irán y de Siria, del terror del fundamentalismo islámico.
Somos rehenes de la complicidad de una buena parte del mundo que nos acusan de agresores, de genocidas, de usar desproporcionadamente nuestras fuerzas, de ser agentes del mal y de la destrucción, cuando naturalmente solo tratamos de defendernos.
Somos rehenes de muchos medios de comunicación del mundo occidental que nos crucifican sin piedad y justifican increíblemente al terrorismo y al fundamentalismo mas medieval y retrogrado como Clarín, El Mundo, la BBC, etc.
Somos rehenes de gobiernos, regimenes y grupos supuestamente progresistas y democráticos que nos demonizan, mientras justifican lo injustificable del oscurantismo medieval islámico como los Zapateros, los Chavez, los Castros, la ONU, los piqueteros argentinos, las Bonafini, los Pérez Esquivel, la izquierda radical, los antiglobalizadores, etc.
Somos rehenes y con mucho dolor, de grupúsculos de la ultra izquierda israelí, de los ultra ortodoxos de Naturei Karta, de judíos progres del mundo, que manifiestan, justifican, firman solicitadas y condenan sin tapujos los supuestos crímenes del sionismo, en una hora muy difícil para todos los israelíes y los judíos del mundo.
Pero a pesar de todo, tengo la mas absoluta certeza que muy pronto volveremos a nuestra preciada libertad, a nuestra vida cotidiana, a nuestra familia y a nuestros amigos, a nuestros trabajos, a nuestra cultura, a nuestra vida plena de fe y esperanza en nuestra hermosa tierra de Israel.
Si, dejaremos de ser rehenes por la valiente y decidida lucha que libra nuestra tzava, por nuestros combatientes, que en estos momentos se están jugando la vida y mucho mas para liberarnos de nuestros enemigos del norte.
Entonces volverán liberados los jaialim secuestrados.
Entonces volveremos a vivir en paz.
Entonces dejaremos de ser rehenes.
ISRAEL VENCERÁ
Guido Maisuls
Kiriat Bialik
Israel
Canción de los Rebeldes:Yaacov Cahan
Nos levantamos, volvimos jóvenes vigorosos
Nos levantamos, volvimos nosotros los rebeldes
A redimir nuestra tierra, en la tempestad y en la guerra
Abrazamos nuestra heredad con mano levantada.
En sangre y en fuego cayó Judea
En sangre y en fuego se levantará.
Guerra por la libertad, guerra por la tierra
Y si muere la libertad viva la venganza.
Si no hay justicia en la tierra, que la espada juzgue
Y si caemos en la arena, no renunciamos a nuestro derecho.
Comunidad Internacional versus Israel. Una opinión.
"La gata de Doña Flora"
Alberto Mazor (Desde Israel)
Pareciera absurdo pero es real; uno se levanta de mañana, escucha las noticias por radio, ve las imágenes por televisión, termina de leer y releer casi todos los diarios, semanarios y revistas y no tiene más remedio que llegar a la complicada conclusión de que hay sólo un ítem, apenas uno, capaz de formar coaliciones tan extrañas que consiguen poner bajo un mismo techo a Hugo Chávez con Jacques Chirac, Fidel Castro con Rodríguez Zapatero, Irán con la Unión Europea, Gran Bretaña con Corea del Norte, ‘Granma’ con el ‘The New York Times’ o ‘Izvestia’ con cualquier periódico español, boliviano o la ‘BBC’… ¿Problemas ecológicos?, de ninguna manera ¿el hambre en el mundo? ¡No, qué va!...
El accionar de Israel.
Así, como "la gata de Doña Flora", cualquier maniobra que lleve a cabo el Estado judío, provenga ésta de tal o cual orientación política, casi siempre estará supeditada a críticas parciales, malintencionadas y unilaterales tanto de los distintos medios como de los gobernantes y políticos de turno.
Aparentemente, si todo el mundo critica o condena, uno piensa… - Y bueno, algo debe haber…nunca hay humareda sin fuego…
Sin embargo, aquellos que son un poco testarudos, a los que le cuesta entender esas coaliciones repentinas y extrañas, se preguntan: - si por un lado, cuando Israel reacciona contra actos terroristas con mano dura, de la misma forma que lo haría cualquier país civilizado que se considere responsable por la seguridad de sus ciudadanos, actúa de forma irresponsable, y por otro, cuando abandona territorios conquistados, con el objeto de reactivar un agónico proceso de paz, también es reprochada ¿qué es lo que realmente está pasando?
¿Qué puede explicar tales críticas constantes de la mayor parte de la Comunidad Internacional hacia Israel?
Los terroristas palestinos de Hamas, amparados por un gobierno electo democráticamente, han respondido a la retirada de los colonos israelíes de Gaza en el 2005, disparando constantemente cohetes Kassam contra ciudadanos dentro de Israel. Hace tres semanas mataron a dos soldados, secuestraron a un tercero, asesinaron a sangre fría a un civil y prometieron seguir haciendo lo mismo a otros.
Hezbollah irrumpió con un intenso bombardeo de cohetes Katiushas sobre ciudades y poblaciones a lo largo de la frontera internacional entre Israel y El Líbano determinada por la ONU, la cual gozaba de una relativa calma desde el año 2000. Así mismo, Hezbollah violó las leyes internacionales invadiendo territorio israelí, asesinando y secuestrando soldados.
Sería de esperar que estos ataques terroristas contra Israel fueran vistos por las naciones responsables de manera similar a la violencia jihadista de la que somos testigos a diario en todo el mundo, es decir, como los islamistas radicales que decapitan a diplomáticos rusos en Chechenia, como el exterminio de miles de inocentes en Nueva York, Madrid, Londres, París, Estambul o Singapur, entre otros, o como los que amenazan con asesinatos a causa de las caricaturas danesas.
Pero ese no es el caso. Israel es observado siempre como una extraña excepción que, por alguna razón, haga lo que haga, se merece lo que le suceda.
Otros estados pueden responder con impunidad, torturando o matando de manera brutal a miles de terroristas musulmanes, mientras Israel es condenado cuando abate a quien continuamente planea dañarla.
Cuando a fines de 1999 los rusos entraron por la fuerza en Grozny, miles de musulmanes de Chechenia murieron; pero la prensa permaneció prácticamente en silencio. Tanto la Siria de Hafez y Bashar al-Asad como el Egipto de Anwar Sadat y de Hosny Mubarak acechan hace decenas de años a los grupos de la Hermandad Musulmana, destruyendo sus células y matando, quizás, a más de 10.000 personas. Ellos no provocan muchas resoluciones de la ONU o esfuerzos internacionales para ayudar a los perseguidos.
Hasta la fecha, nadie conoce la horrible cifra exacta de cadáveres a causa de la insurrección islámica en Argelia. Darfour, en Sudán, recibe -por fin- espacio televisivo solamente después de que decenas de miles perecieron. Pero eso sí, el cerco a la ciudad de Jenín, en Cisjordania, por parte de Israel en el 2002, donde menos de 80 personas murieron en total por ambos bandos, fue evocado como "genocidio" por parte de los mismos que, en Medio Oriente, a menudo, niegan el verdadero genocidio que se llevó las vidas de 6.000.000 de judíos.
Cuando Israel responde al terrorismo por aire, es etiquetado por la prensa como "blitz", como si fuera comparable al bombardeo masivo nazi de Londres durante la Batalla de Inglaterra.
La barrera de seguridad fronteriza de Israel, que consigue aminorar los ataques terroristas, es denominada "Muro de Berlín" por medios de prensa españoles o americanos, pero nunca se los escucha describir la enorme y sofisticada empalizada levantada por España en Melilla para mantener alejada a la miseria africana, o a la cerca electrónica colocada por Estados Unidos en su frontera con México, tan larga como la esperanza de los mexicanos que intentan burlarla.
Después está la herida abierta, gangrenada y terriblemente dolorosa de los territorios ocupados en Cisjordania; pero olvidando constantemente que toda una serie de guerras encaminadas a destruir a Israel se originaron, en parte, desde "Palestina", o que Israel ha entregado tierra adquirida en guerra en el marco de su estrategia contínua de "tierras por paz".
¿Qué hay tan en especial en Cisjordania que engulle a todas las demás crisis a causa del espacio en disputa desde islas como Chipre o las Malvinas hasta países enteros como el el Tibet? ¿Por qué el diminuto Israel ha ocupado más resoluciones de condena de las Naciones Unidas que todas las firmadas contra las demás naciones del mundo juntas?
No es que Israel sea un Estado criminal. Durante más de medio siglo ha sido la única democracia liberal en Medio Oriente; su sistema judicial es envidiable; los científicos israelíes han dado al mundo infinidad de elementos con los cuales es posible mejorar las actuales condiciones de vida.
El petróleo explica parte de esta extraña discrepancia en como ve el mundo a determinados países. Se desvía de la política. Resten el petróleo árabe e iraní -y, por lo tanto, el riesgo de otro embargo petrolero o ascenso de precios manipulado- y los temores occidentales a los estados petroleros de Oriente Medio se desvanecerán. El mero interés propio determina la política exterior de la mayor parte de las naciones.
El tamaño de Israel es también aquí un factor. Israel tiene una población no muy superior a los 6.000.000 de habitantes y está rodeado por cerca de 350.000.000 de árabes musulmanes. La mayor parte del mundo cuenta a unos y otros y ajusta sus posturas en consecuencia.
El antiguo antisemitismo es, por supuesto, otro ingrediente que explica la animada versión mostrada contra Israel. Ni siquiera a los occidentales multiculturales sensibles les preocupa que sus aliados árabes retraten con frecuencia a los judíos como cerdos o monos en los medios de prensa controlados por el Estado. Obras odiosas como "Mein Kampf" o "Los Protocolos de los Sabios de Sión" aún se venden hasta agotarse en Palestina, y el dinero iraní y del Golfo continúa subvencionando una mini-industria de revisionismo del Holocausto.
Finalmente, como ya saben los norteamericanos por su propia frontera sur, en el mismo momento en que una nación exitosa, de carácter occidental, limita con un país en desarrollo, las emociones primordiales como el honor o la envidia nublan la razón.
Así, en lugar de reconocer que la democracia de corte occidental, las libertades personales o la igualdad ante de la ley explican porque un Israel próspero y estable se levantó del polvo y las piedras, los palestinos en particular y el mundo árabe en general tienen fijación con el sionismo, el colonialismo y el racismo. No es de extrañar que lo hagan; sin ese chivo expiatorio, tendrían que enfrentarse directamente con un tribalismo intratable, el apartheid de sexo, el terrorismo interno y el fundamentalismo religioso, mientras construyen una sociedad abierta basada en el mandato de la ley.
Cada una de las razones arriba mencionadas no alcanzarían por sí solas para determinar dicha relación crítica y una condena constante de la Comunidad Internacional para con el Estado de Israel.
En cambio, la unión de todas ellas posibilita que el síndrome de "la gata de Doña Flora" se apodere de los países más civilizados, de sus dirigentes, de sus políticos, de sus intelectuales, de sus académicos y de su prensa la cual, después de todo, necesita lectores, oyentes y televidentes para poder competir dentro de un mundo dirigido por la libertad del mercado.
Lo fundamental es no olvidar, nunca, que en la multifacética y salvaje selva del mercado libre, las gallinas están libres y los zorros también.
Alberto Mazor (Desde Israel)
Pareciera absurdo pero es real; uno se levanta de mañana, escucha las noticias por radio, ve las imágenes por televisión, termina de leer y releer casi todos los diarios, semanarios y revistas y no tiene más remedio que llegar a la complicada conclusión de que hay sólo un ítem, apenas uno, capaz de formar coaliciones tan extrañas que consiguen poner bajo un mismo techo a Hugo Chávez con Jacques Chirac, Fidel Castro con Rodríguez Zapatero, Irán con la Unión Europea, Gran Bretaña con Corea del Norte, ‘Granma’ con el ‘The New York Times’ o ‘Izvestia’ con cualquier periódico español, boliviano o la ‘BBC’… ¿Problemas ecológicos?, de ninguna manera ¿el hambre en el mundo? ¡No, qué va!...
El accionar de Israel.
Así, como "la gata de Doña Flora", cualquier maniobra que lleve a cabo el Estado judío, provenga ésta de tal o cual orientación política, casi siempre estará supeditada a críticas parciales, malintencionadas y unilaterales tanto de los distintos medios como de los gobernantes y políticos de turno.
Aparentemente, si todo el mundo critica o condena, uno piensa… - Y bueno, algo debe haber…nunca hay humareda sin fuego…
Sin embargo, aquellos que son un poco testarudos, a los que le cuesta entender esas coaliciones repentinas y extrañas, se preguntan: - si por un lado, cuando Israel reacciona contra actos terroristas con mano dura, de la misma forma que lo haría cualquier país civilizado que se considere responsable por la seguridad de sus ciudadanos, actúa de forma irresponsable, y por otro, cuando abandona territorios conquistados, con el objeto de reactivar un agónico proceso de paz, también es reprochada ¿qué es lo que realmente está pasando?
¿Qué puede explicar tales críticas constantes de la mayor parte de la Comunidad Internacional hacia Israel?
Los terroristas palestinos de Hamas, amparados por un gobierno electo democráticamente, han respondido a la retirada de los colonos israelíes de Gaza en el 2005, disparando constantemente cohetes Kassam contra ciudadanos dentro de Israel. Hace tres semanas mataron a dos soldados, secuestraron a un tercero, asesinaron a sangre fría a un civil y prometieron seguir haciendo lo mismo a otros.
Hezbollah irrumpió con un intenso bombardeo de cohetes Katiushas sobre ciudades y poblaciones a lo largo de la frontera internacional entre Israel y El Líbano determinada por la ONU, la cual gozaba de una relativa calma desde el año 2000. Así mismo, Hezbollah violó las leyes internacionales invadiendo territorio israelí, asesinando y secuestrando soldados.
Sería de esperar que estos ataques terroristas contra Israel fueran vistos por las naciones responsables de manera similar a la violencia jihadista de la que somos testigos a diario en todo el mundo, es decir, como los islamistas radicales que decapitan a diplomáticos rusos en Chechenia, como el exterminio de miles de inocentes en Nueva York, Madrid, Londres, París, Estambul o Singapur, entre otros, o como los que amenazan con asesinatos a causa de las caricaturas danesas.
Pero ese no es el caso. Israel es observado siempre como una extraña excepción que, por alguna razón, haga lo que haga, se merece lo que le suceda.
Otros estados pueden responder con impunidad, torturando o matando de manera brutal a miles de terroristas musulmanes, mientras Israel es condenado cuando abate a quien continuamente planea dañarla.
Cuando a fines de 1999 los rusos entraron por la fuerza en Grozny, miles de musulmanes de Chechenia murieron; pero la prensa permaneció prácticamente en silencio. Tanto la Siria de Hafez y Bashar al-Asad como el Egipto de Anwar Sadat y de Hosny Mubarak acechan hace decenas de años a los grupos de la Hermandad Musulmana, destruyendo sus células y matando, quizás, a más de 10.000 personas. Ellos no provocan muchas resoluciones de la ONU o esfuerzos internacionales para ayudar a los perseguidos.
Hasta la fecha, nadie conoce la horrible cifra exacta de cadáveres a causa de la insurrección islámica en Argelia. Darfour, en Sudán, recibe -por fin- espacio televisivo solamente después de que decenas de miles perecieron. Pero eso sí, el cerco a la ciudad de Jenín, en Cisjordania, por parte de Israel en el 2002, donde menos de 80 personas murieron en total por ambos bandos, fue evocado como "genocidio" por parte de los mismos que, en Medio Oriente, a menudo, niegan el verdadero genocidio que se llevó las vidas de 6.000.000 de judíos.
Cuando Israel responde al terrorismo por aire, es etiquetado por la prensa como "blitz", como si fuera comparable al bombardeo masivo nazi de Londres durante la Batalla de Inglaterra.
La barrera de seguridad fronteriza de Israel, que consigue aminorar los ataques terroristas, es denominada "Muro de Berlín" por medios de prensa españoles o americanos, pero nunca se los escucha describir la enorme y sofisticada empalizada levantada por España en Melilla para mantener alejada a la miseria africana, o a la cerca electrónica colocada por Estados Unidos en su frontera con México, tan larga como la esperanza de los mexicanos que intentan burlarla.
Después está la herida abierta, gangrenada y terriblemente dolorosa de los territorios ocupados en Cisjordania; pero olvidando constantemente que toda una serie de guerras encaminadas a destruir a Israel se originaron, en parte, desde "Palestina", o que Israel ha entregado tierra adquirida en guerra en el marco de su estrategia contínua de "tierras por paz".
¿Qué hay tan en especial en Cisjordania que engulle a todas las demás crisis a causa del espacio en disputa desde islas como Chipre o las Malvinas hasta países enteros como el el Tibet? ¿Por qué el diminuto Israel ha ocupado más resoluciones de condena de las Naciones Unidas que todas las firmadas contra las demás naciones del mundo juntas?
No es que Israel sea un Estado criminal. Durante más de medio siglo ha sido la única democracia liberal en Medio Oriente; su sistema judicial es envidiable; los científicos israelíes han dado al mundo infinidad de elementos con los cuales es posible mejorar las actuales condiciones de vida.
El petróleo explica parte de esta extraña discrepancia en como ve el mundo a determinados países. Se desvía de la política. Resten el petróleo árabe e iraní -y, por lo tanto, el riesgo de otro embargo petrolero o ascenso de precios manipulado- y los temores occidentales a los estados petroleros de Oriente Medio se desvanecerán. El mero interés propio determina la política exterior de la mayor parte de las naciones.
El tamaño de Israel es también aquí un factor. Israel tiene una población no muy superior a los 6.000.000 de habitantes y está rodeado por cerca de 350.000.000 de árabes musulmanes. La mayor parte del mundo cuenta a unos y otros y ajusta sus posturas en consecuencia.
El antiguo antisemitismo es, por supuesto, otro ingrediente que explica la animada versión mostrada contra Israel. Ni siquiera a los occidentales multiculturales sensibles les preocupa que sus aliados árabes retraten con frecuencia a los judíos como cerdos o monos en los medios de prensa controlados por el Estado. Obras odiosas como "Mein Kampf" o "Los Protocolos de los Sabios de Sión" aún se venden hasta agotarse en Palestina, y el dinero iraní y del Golfo continúa subvencionando una mini-industria de revisionismo del Holocausto.
Finalmente, como ya saben los norteamericanos por su propia frontera sur, en el mismo momento en que una nación exitosa, de carácter occidental, limita con un país en desarrollo, las emociones primordiales como el honor o la envidia nublan la razón.
Así, en lugar de reconocer que la democracia de corte occidental, las libertades personales o la igualdad ante de la ley explican porque un Israel próspero y estable se levantó del polvo y las piedras, los palestinos en particular y el mundo árabe en general tienen fijación con el sionismo, el colonialismo y el racismo. No es de extrañar que lo hagan; sin ese chivo expiatorio, tendrían que enfrentarse directamente con un tribalismo intratable, el apartheid de sexo, el terrorismo interno y el fundamentalismo religioso, mientras construyen una sociedad abierta basada en el mandato de la ley.
Cada una de las razones arriba mencionadas no alcanzarían por sí solas para determinar dicha relación crítica y una condena constante de la Comunidad Internacional para con el Estado de Israel.
En cambio, la unión de todas ellas posibilita que el síndrome de "la gata de Doña Flora" se apodere de los países más civilizados, de sus dirigentes, de sus políticos, de sus intelectuales, de sus académicos y de su prensa la cual, después de todo, necesita lectores, oyentes y televidentes para poder competir dentro de un mundo dirigido por la libertad del mercado.
Lo fundamental es no olvidar, nunca, que en la multifacética y salvaje selva del mercado libre, las gallinas están libres y los zorros también.
Un análisis bastante objetivo que visualiza en amplitud el conflicto…
Cephimo
Centro de Estudios Político e Históricos de Israel y del Medio Oriente
Auspiciado por B’nai Brith Perú
_________________________________________________________________
Centro de Estudios Político e Históricos de Israel y del Medio Oriente
Auspiciado por B’nai Brith Perú
_________________________________________________________________
Una distracción fraudulenta
"Cuando nada más funciona, siempre queda Israel". Así le gustaba describir al difunto periodista egipcio Lutfi al-Juli el lema del radicalismo árabe hace décadas.
El análisis era válido, porque la obsesión árabe con Israel sí funcionó en incontables ocasiones. Los déspotas utilizaron a Israel como excusa de su brutal gobierno. Los líderes corruptos adoptaban la retórica anti-israelí como medio de desviar la atención de sus malas obras. Los intelectuales confusos utilizaban a Israel como objeto de odio para esconder su ineptitud.
Tampoco eran solamente los radicales árabes. El difunto ayatolá Ruholah Jomeini, padre de la República Islámica de Irán, también utilizaba la retórica anti-Israel cuando quiera que se encontrara contra las cuerdas.
Más recientemente, tres hombres han intentado jugar la baza de Israel como medio de escapar de sus respectivos atolladeros: el Presidente de la República Islámica Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, el Presidente de Siria Bashar al-Assad, y Hassán Nasralah, líder de la rama libanesa de Hezbolá. Todos se encuentran bajo creciente presión, tanto de sus electorados nacionales como de la opinión internacional.
Ahmadinejad se encuentra presionado para responder a la oferta de incentivos de los cinco miembros permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU mas Alemania. Sabe que una respuesta positiva a la oferta podría marcar el final de su estrategia de extender la influencia de la República Islámica por todo Oriente Medio - pero un rechazo del paquete podría aislar a su régimen, provocar sanciones internacionales, y debilitar su ya inestable régimen dentro de Irán.
Para evitar tener que hacer esa elección, Ahmadinejad decide jugar la baza de Israel. Esto significa movilizar el activo de Hezbolá que la República Islámica creó en el Líbano en 1982 y que ha financiado, entrenado y armado durante el último cuarto de siglo.
No es ningún accidente que, durante las diez últimas semanas, los suministros de armas a Hezbolá se hayan incrementado dramáticamente. En el mismo período, el ministro de defensa de Irán se reunió con los líderes y comandantes de Hezbolá en al menos dos ocasiones. Los medios iraníes dicen que la República Islámica también incrementó el tamaño de su delegación militar de asesoría a Hezbolá como "precaución contra la agresión israelí".
El Assad de Siria también se encontró en posición de necesitar "un señuelo Israel". Los miembros de su familia y él y su administración se arriesgan a una condena por la presunta implicación en el asesinato del difunto premier libanés Rafik Hariri. Lo que es peor, los detractores de su régimen acaban de crear un frente unido en el que antiguos altos cargos baazistas se sientan junto a lideres de la Hermandad Musulmana y destacadas figuras socialdemócratas y liberales. Assad ha intentado sobrevivir convirtiéndose en un vasallo feudal de Teherán; pero sabe que sus amos iraníes podrían abandonarle en cualquier momento.
Provocar un nuevo conflicto con Israel a lo largo del Líbano podría dar a Assad la posibilidad de presentarse en el papel de pacificador. Buthaina Shaaban, uno de los ayudantes de Assad, ha destacado que, si se les permite volver al Líbano, los sirios están dispuestos a desarmar a Hezbolá y cerciorarse de que la frontera libanesa con Israel está tan tranquila como lo ha estado la frontera de tregua entre Siria e Israel durante décadas. Assad también podría estar dispuesto a abandonar a Hamas, igual que Siria abandonó al grupo terrorista kurdo PKK como parte de un acuerdo con Turquía hace una década.
Hezbolá también necesita un señuelo. Con la salida de los sirios y el inicio de la democratización del Líbano, el grupo se encuentra cada vez más aislado. Sus resultados en las primeras elecciones generales democráticas del Líbano fueron decepcionantes -- y su fracaso en las calles más aún. Cada vez que Hezbolá organizaba una manifestación contra las fuerzas democráticas, las segundas respondían con concentraciones cada vez mayores.
Está claro que la aplastante mayoría de los libaneses quiere ver desarmado a Hezbolá de modo que el país pueda tener un único ejército bajo control gubernamental. Así que, ¿qué mejor táctica para Hezbolá que inventar una nueva guerra contra Israel para recordar a los libaneses que aún necesitan a la milicia como su "resistencia nacional"?
El problema para Ahmadinejad, Assad y Hezbolá es que el señuelo Israel puede no funcionar esta vez como lo hizo en el pasado.
El presente conflicto puede haber desviado parte de la atención del G-8 del dossier nuclear iraní. Pero es improbable que el tema desaparezca.
Ahmadinejad sabe que no existe un electorado sustancial anti-Israel dentro de Irán. Su esperanza, por tanto, es lograr el apoyo de los regímenes y las masas árabes gracias a su postura ultra-radical contra Israel. Pero eso no sucedido. A excepción de Siria, ningún régimen árabe ha apoyado a la República Islámica en el tema nuclear. En cuanto a la mitológica "calle árabe", no hay pruebas de que esté a punto de "explotar" en apoyo de Ahmadinejad.
En cuanto a Siria, es improbable que el conflicto en el Líbano desvíe la atención internacional de la implicación del régimen de Assad en el asesinato de Hariri. Tampoco hay ninguna prueba de que Washington esté dispuesto a llegar a un acuerdo con Damasco para apuntalar el régimen de Assad a cambio de su cooperación en otros temas, incluyendo el desarme de Hezbolá.
El mayor perdedor bien podría ser Hezbolá. Ni Irán ni Siria están dispuestos a arriesgarse a una guerra mayor con el fin de salvarle de la destrucción. Esto quedaba claro el viernes, cuando Ahmadinejad, dando un discurso en una gira provincial, pedía a "la comunidad internacional" que pusiera fin al conflicto "conteniendo a Israel". Esto era extraño viniendo de un nombre que, antes del presente conflicto, había llamado a destruir Israel en más de una docena de ocasiones.
Dentro del Líbano, Hezbolá no ha logrado alistar el apoyo ni siquiera de sus aliados formales, incluyendo a Nabih Berri, el líder del Movimiento Amal chi'í más moderado, o el General Michel Aoun, el político maronita que había firmado una alianza con Nasralah.
Ahmadinejad, Assad y Hezbolá bien podrían haber planeado un conflicto limitado con Israel, en el que el estado judío retrocedería, granjeándoles una victoria moral. Su plan podría haberse basado en la premisa de que Israel no se atrevería a expandir el alcance de la guerra provocada por Hamas y Hezbolá.
Hoy, el trío se encuentra solo. La mayor parte de los árabes rechazan verse arrastrados a una guerra mayor en la forma de la cual nadie les dio vela. Además, la mayor parte de los libaneses no ve el motivo por el que debieran arriesgarse a la destrucción de su país únicamente para permitir a Hezbolá conservar un estado dentro del estado.
A la táctica del "señuelo Israel" se le podría haber pasado la fecha de caducidad.
*Amir Taheri, es periodista y autor iraní educado en Teherán y radicado en Europa. Ocupó la dirección del mayor diario iraní, el Kayhán, hasta su huída con la llegada de Jomeini y el exterminio de la prensa libre.
El cuarteto islamista del terror -¿¡animo judios! frenemos a Israel?- envia kolisraelorg y club de amigos de internet
Rafael T.Perez
Recibo un mensaje con el siguiente título: ¡Animo judíos! Frenemos a Israel. Quien piense que la voz "Judíos" es un insulto demuestra que en realidad no piensa con lucidez o piensa con la parte más inferior de la espalda, pero después de leer el resto del contenido que acompañaba al título mencionado no he podido preguntarme sino ¿y por que alguien que dice amar a Israel o expresar cierto grado de amistad/afinidad dice "judíos" y no "amigos" o "amigos judíos"? ¿y por qué tanto énfasis en "frenar a Israel" y no a las organizaciones terroristas culpables del presente conflicto reconocido aun hasta por paises tan poco receptivos a Israel como lo pueden ser Egipto, Arabia Saudí y algunos de los Emiratos golferos? ¿o por que no pedir frenar a Irán y a Siria que son los actores tras las bambalinas de las acciones terroristas de sus ahijados contra Israel?...no se quien habrá sido el autor o autora del escrito que he citado y si bien en una sola cosa coincido, con la paz, pero con la auténtica, en todo lo demás se aprecia cierto tufo sospechoso.
Sugiero la lectura del artículo que incluyo en este mensaje, por ejemplo y para empezar, y quien no haya comprendido todavía que se está cociendo en las calderas de Oriente medio es que o se ha resignado a no analizar, no pensar, no conocer, no indagar, no averiguar y a permanecer por siempre ignorante aunque eso si muy muy progre, o es que acaba de aterrizar en este planeta.
La paz no tiene precio, desde luego, o quizá sí y dependa solo del que le ponen los terroristas islamicos contra Israel y contra el occidente. Si hay que frenar a alguien, ese alguien o esos alguien son exclusivamente a los matarifes del terrorismo islamico y a aquellos que en la sombra los encubren, los amparan y los jalean.
Quisiera D-s que se cumplieran ya las palabras del profeta Isaías cuando dice que llegará un día en el -De las lanzas se construirán arados y de las espadas podaderas, no se levantará nación contra nación ni se prepararan más para la guerra- más entre tanto ese día llega, a Israel, contra el terrorismo y los terroristas, no hay que frenarlo.
Y que nadie dude que de mis palabras se puedan extraer conclusiones belicistas o conformes con el dolor de cualesquiera que sean los que sufren, la paz junto con la libertad son dos palabras que deberían estar inscritas en cada corazón humano pues como escribiera en Por un minuto de silencio:
Maldito sea el hombre cuyo corazón no es tierra fértil donde florece la primavera, sino lugar de estiercol donde surgen del alma atormentada el odio, el odio, el odio. Maldito sea el hombre que mata bajo el influjo místico de un dios que no existe y de una religión que roba conciencias y las transforma en somas indelebles de la muerte que respiran. Maldito sea el hombre que en su odio lastima solo con la mirada y asesina con la palabra, maldito, maldito el que su brazo levanta para truncar la vida y no para dar la dicha de gozarla. Maldito el hombre que en su odio muere y mata en nombre de una ideología asesina, de un poder que no puede nada o de una falsa y perversa creencia inventada, de una teología adversa. Maldito aquel que odiando camina buscando no valles donde plantar un manzano sino tierras valdías donde solo su odio haga brotar espinos y lágrimas.
Paz sí, terrorismo contra Israel y el pueblo judío, no. ¿Frenar a Israel?.
Recibo un mensaje con el siguiente título: ¡Animo judíos! Frenemos a Israel. Quien piense que la voz "Judíos" es un insulto demuestra que en realidad no piensa con lucidez o piensa con la parte más inferior de la espalda, pero después de leer el resto del contenido que acompañaba al título mencionado no he podido preguntarme sino ¿y por que alguien que dice amar a Israel o expresar cierto grado de amistad/afinidad dice "judíos" y no "amigos" o "amigos judíos"? ¿y por qué tanto énfasis en "frenar a Israel" y no a las organizaciones terroristas culpables del presente conflicto reconocido aun hasta por paises tan poco receptivos a Israel como lo pueden ser Egipto, Arabia Saudí y algunos de los Emiratos golferos? ¿o por que no pedir frenar a Irán y a Siria que son los actores tras las bambalinas de las acciones terroristas de sus ahijados contra Israel?...no se quien habrá sido el autor o autora del escrito que he citado y si bien en una sola cosa coincido, con la paz, pero con la auténtica, en todo lo demás se aprecia cierto tufo sospechoso.
Sugiero la lectura del artículo que incluyo en este mensaje, por ejemplo y para empezar, y quien no haya comprendido todavía que se está cociendo en las calderas de Oriente medio es que o se ha resignado a no analizar, no pensar, no conocer, no indagar, no averiguar y a permanecer por siempre ignorante aunque eso si muy muy progre, o es que acaba de aterrizar en este planeta.
La paz no tiene precio, desde luego, o quizá sí y dependa solo del que le ponen los terroristas islamicos contra Israel y contra el occidente. Si hay que frenar a alguien, ese alguien o esos alguien son exclusivamente a los matarifes del terrorismo islamico y a aquellos que en la sombra los encubren, los amparan y los jalean.
Quisiera D-s que se cumplieran ya las palabras del profeta Isaías cuando dice que llegará un día en el -De las lanzas se construirán arados y de las espadas podaderas, no se levantará nación contra nación ni se prepararan más para la guerra- más entre tanto ese día llega, a Israel, contra el terrorismo y los terroristas, no hay que frenarlo.
Y que nadie dude que de mis palabras se puedan extraer conclusiones belicistas o conformes con el dolor de cualesquiera que sean los que sufren, la paz junto con la libertad son dos palabras que deberían estar inscritas en cada corazón humano pues como escribiera en Por un minuto de silencio:
Maldito sea el hombre cuyo corazón no es tierra fértil donde florece la primavera, sino lugar de estiercol donde surgen del alma atormentada el odio, el odio, el odio. Maldito sea el hombre que mata bajo el influjo místico de un dios que no existe y de una religión que roba conciencias y las transforma en somas indelebles de la muerte que respiran. Maldito sea el hombre que en su odio lastima solo con la mirada y asesina con la palabra, maldito, maldito el que su brazo levanta para truncar la vida y no para dar la dicha de gozarla. Maldito el hombre que en su odio muere y mata en nombre de una ideología asesina, de un poder que no puede nada o de una falsa y perversa creencia inventada, de una teología adversa. Maldito aquel que odiando camina buscando no valles donde plantar un manzano sino tierras valdías donde solo su odio haga brotar espinos y lágrimas.
Paz sí, terrorismo contra Israel y el pueblo judío, no. ¿Frenar a Israel?.
Uk Jew Tony Klug says Jews should distance them selves from Israel if we want to be safe!
Who is Tony Klug...see below.
Anti-Semitism wrong label for this sentiment
Author: Tony Klug is co-founder of the Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights, UK.Date: 29/07/2006Words: 1234Source: AFR
Publication: The Financial Review
Section: NewsPage: 62
Recent actions by the Israeli military in Gaza and Lebanon, and the responses to them, have prompted renewed fears of anti-Semitism. Yet some voices are quick to deny any link between Israeli policies and anti-Jewish feelings. Rather, current enmity towards Jews and Israel, notably from within the Arab and Muslim worlds, is explained as a phase in Jew hatred stretching back centuries.
Melanie Phillips promotes such a theme in her book Londonistan, where she writes: "The fight against Israel is not fundamentally about land. It is about hatred of the Jews", who she says are viewed by Islam as "a cosmic evil".
From this it follows that the way Israel conducts itself is at most a minor factor in the hostility directed towards it.
This is certainly a convenient argument for those who have an interest in making it. But the evidence points in the opposite direction, as exemplified by the Israeli-Palestinian accords of the "Oslo years" in the mid-1990s, which sent Israel's stock to unprecedented heights, both in the Arab world and globally.
In the same period, according to leading Jewish research institutions, "a general lessening of anti-Semitic pressure was recorded".
As for the claim of historical "Jew hatred" in the Islamic world, its validity has been repudiated by no less an authority than veteran historian Bernard Lewis. In a presentation in 1985, he distinguished three kinds of hostility to Jews: "Opposition to Zionism; 'normal' prejudice (what has been described as 'the normal rough and tumble between peoples'); and that peculiar hatred of Jews which has its origins in the role assigned to Jews in certain Christian beliefs."
Lewis identified three factors that gave rise to a more recent "European-style anti-Semitism in the Islamic world": the rise of the European empires, the collapse of the old political structures, and Jewish resettlement in Palestine along with the creation of Israel and subsequent Israeli-Arab wars.
While arguing anti-Semitism played a part from the start of the mandate period, Lewis claims "the real change began after the Sinai War of 1956 and was accelerated after the Six-Day War of 1967".
What distinguished the 1967 war from previous battles was that it concluded with Israeli military rule over occupied territories that contained more than 1 million Palestinian Arabs, a number that has more than tripled since then.
The importance of the distinction between the centuries-old European Christian prejudice, with its demonic conception of the Jew, and the more recent antipathy sparked by bitter, contemporary political conflict is compelling.
Using the word "anti-Semitism" to cover antagonism to almost anything Jewish - including Israeli policies, Zionism as an ideology or even the existence of Israel - and rationalising this modern tendency by slapping on the prefix "new" risks debasing the coinage.
On the other hand, in certain circumstances the different anti-Jewish phenomena may blend into and nourish each other.
Consider the following hypothetical case. In the context of a fierce, longstanding dispute, Armenia occupies a chunk of neighbouring Turkish territory, builds Armenian-only settlements and highways, allows militant settlers to intimidate local inhabitants, imposes curfews and closures, erects myriad checkpoints, demolishes Turkish homes, imprisons a large segment of Turkish youth and periodically bombards Turkish-inhabited towns.
Instead of dissociating themselves from such conduct, imagine that organised diaspora Armenian communities around the world - haunted by memories of massacres of their kinfolk - elect to defend and justify it in a show of solidarity while displaying no tolerance for the dissenters, "self-hating Armenians", in their ranks.
In these circumstances, would it be surprising if a certain anti-Armenian sentiment developed in a spread of countries, not only among those who felt an affinity with people of Turkish or Muslim origin but also among those committed to human rights and international law? Yet Armenian communities, feeling besieged and misunderstood, might put the animosity down to a historical Muslim antipathy towards Christians and a latent anti-Armenianism on the part of not just the Turkish people but much of the rest of the world too.
For their part, the Turks and their supporters might investigate their own or Armenian scriptures to see if they could uncover historical explanations for what might seem to them the cruel and treacherous nature of their oppressors. In this hypothetical case, the search would possibly lead nowhere.
However, an equivalent investigation targeted at Jews in the case of the very non-hypothetical Arab-Israeli conflict would be certain to produce the sought-after results, if only because of the ancestral battles that took place between the Jewish tribes of Medina and the contemporaneous followers of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.
In general, however, Muslim scriptures are not bountiful source material for Jewish perfidy. It's not just that the messages they give out are not consistent but also that Jews are not an especial preoccupation of Muslim literature.
And this is where bona fide anti-Semitic ideas eagerly step in. Imported into the Muslim and Arab worlds where once it was alien, the anti-Semitic "explanation" is now increasingly embraced by disaffected people with minds primed to be receptive to a simple it's-all-the-Jews'-fault answer to many problems.
In short, what distinguishes the Jewish predicament from the hypothetical Armenian one is that in the Jewish case a potent, ready-made ideology is lurking in the wings. Thus what starts out as a political "anti-Jewish sentiment" may, in given circumstances, metamorphose into classical anti-Semitism.
While helping to explain the cause of the phenomenon, none of this justifies the rise of anti-Semitism in the Arab and Muslim worlds, or anywhere else. It poisons the conflict and is intensely inimical to a solution. As a strategy, it is counterproductive: indeed, it was the spread of anti-Semitism that played the decisive role in winning so many Jews to the Zionist cause in the first place.
As a tactic, it is highly divisive - confusing and alienating Jewish sympathisers of the Palestinian cause as well as many others who despise racism of all types. Moreover, stereotyping one party is liable to prompt equally pernicious and ignorant counterstereotyping.
The charge of anti-Semitism against Palestinians and others who champion their cause is often made too flippantly. It lumps together real anti-Semites with the real victims of oppressive Israeli policies. Equally, many Arabs, Muslims and their supporters too easily dismiss the accusation of anti-Semitism as just a device for defending shameful Israeli policies. While this is sometimes true, the accusation is sometimes true too - just consider the Hamas covenant.
Some leading Palestinian figures have not only acknowledged the infiltration of anti-Semitism into Arab society but have been outspoken in their rejection of it. But the longer the broader conflict continues, the greater likelihood that anti-Semitism per se will indeed take root throughout the region. In that event, it would not only outlive the putative end of the Arab-Israeli conflict but enormously complicate its resolution in the first place.
If only for their own protection, Jewish communities around the world have a strong interest in distancing themselves from Israel's repressive practices and annexationist tendencies. Beyond this, they are sometimes in a position to influence Israeli policies and to help bridge the gaps between the antagonistic parties. But to engage in such initiatives would entail jettisoning their more common instinct of unquestioningly following the Israeli government's cue, whatever it may be
Tony Klug left wing human rights advocate {for palestinians of course} Pin up boy of Australian Jewish Democratic Society and an example how Brittish Jews have lost the plot!!!
--- this article on AJDS website
'Why Oslo Died' (Jewish Chronicle, April 13, 2001)
Tony Klug considers the fatal flaws of a peace process that should have taken the Middle East into a new era of reality, reconciliation and prosperity
---------------------------------
As the land so cherished by Jews and Arabs is drenched once more with their fresh blood, there is at least one point of near-universal agreement - it is all the fault of the other guys. Simplistic, self-serving narratives along these lines are again the rage on both sides - pandering to old prejudices and stereotypes, requiring almost no knowledge or understanding of the issues and obviating any need for self-criticism.As explanations of what went wrong, they are wonderfully satisfying and woefully inadequate. For a fuller understanding, we need to dig a little deeper.What was special about Oslo was not the voluminous amount of legal detail in the accords but the mere fact that, after generations of bitter struggle, both leaderships simultaneously ditched their zero-sum approaches to the conflict and embraced instead the essentially symbiotic nature of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship.No longer would each side measure its advances in terms of the setbacks of the other. Rather, to paraphrase the "Declaration of principles", there would be "peaceful co-existence, mutual dignity and security" based on a "historic reconciliation" and "a spirit of peace." The sub-text - unwritten but widely understood - was a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. Without the prospect of independence, and the end of the despised Israeli occupation, the accords would not have garnered the support of either the Palestinian leadership or the Palestinian street.A swiftly executed withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, buoyed by optimistic opinion polls, would have been firmly in Israel's interests, too. Apart from freeing Israeli society, once and for all, from the burdensome occupation, thus averting the curse of the recurrent intifada, negotiations over the difficult final-basket issues would eventually have resumed on a less frenzied and more equitable state-to-state basis. In practice, however, the Oslo process reversed this order by making the termination of the Israeli occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state contingent on the prior resolution of all other outstanding matters - effectively blocking the realisation of a Palestinian state and condemning Israel, willy nilly, to continue the occupation. This was its first fatal flaw.The process prescribed a long, drawn-out programme of mini-withdrawals in exchange for Palestinian good behaviour. This was a huge gift to both sides' saboteurs who repeatedly used the time to practise their art. This was the second fatal flaw.The third fatal flaw was the whole notion of drip-feeding rewards to the Palestinians once they proved to the Israelis, at every stage, that they could be trusted. It would be difficult to conceive of a more patronising, humiliating and illusory approach.Patronising because it reflected an essentially colonial mentality - an unhealthy product of some 30 years of occupation - which assumed that the "natives" did not have the right to run their own lives on their own territory, but had to earn it on a daily basis. Humiliating because it entrenched accountability in just one direction and so acted as a constant reminder of the inherently unequal relationship between the two peoples. And illusory because it rested on the highly dubious assumption that it was possible to build mutual trust between an occupying force and an occupied people. Rather, suspicion, contempt, even hatred, were the predictable legacies. The fourth fatal flaw was the attempt to steamroller decisions on the complex andsensitive final-basket issues, including Jerusalem and the1948 refugees, almost before the debates had even been initiated. Ehud Barak's final offer to Yasir Arafat, much trumpeted within Israel as unprecedently far-reaching, came with the impossible condition that all other claims must forthwith and forever be withdrawn. Driven by the imminence of the US presidential election, this was a desperate throw by a well-intentioned but inexperienced politician who should have known, for example, that Arafat had no authority to relinquish, just like that, all claims on behalf of the 1948 refugees. It would have been a gross act of betrayal and, had he succumbed, he would simply have dealt himself out of the picture, or worse. The political options would have been quite different, though, had a Palestinian state already been in place to provide a practical alternative destination for the exercise of the Palestinian right of return.The clumsy attempt to foreclose this vital issue propelled it prematurely on to centre stage, obliging the Palestinian negotiators to promptly reaffirm this historic right. But it was not of their doing. In Israel, the sudden re-emergence of this issue was rashly interpreted, even by many followers of the peace camp, to mean that, all along, the Palestinians had intended the eradication of the Israeli state. All the old mutual animosities came flooding back but this time with a vengeance that only a deep sense of trust betrayed could trigger. The Oslo principles were a great leap forward, but the process was deeply flawed and contained the seeds of its own undoing. In time, the pendulum will surely swing again and the corrosive occupation will come to an end. Meanwhile, the soil will turn a deeper red and we will all go on blaming the other guys.
______________________________
Tony Klug is an international relations specialist and co-chair of the Council for Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue
----------------------------------------------------
Dr Tony Klug,30
St Albans Road,
London NW5 1RD, UK.
Tel:+44-20-7267 6444Fax: +44-20-7485 0102.
e-mail: tonyklug@compuserve.com
Anti-Semitism wrong label for this sentiment
Author: Tony Klug is co-founder of the Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights, UK.Date: 29/07/2006Words: 1234Source: AFR
Publication: The Financial Review
Section: NewsPage: 62
Recent actions by the Israeli military in Gaza and Lebanon, and the responses to them, have prompted renewed fears of anti-Semitism. Yet some voices are quick to deny any link between Israeli policies and anti-Jewish feelings. Rather, current enmity towards Jews and Israel, notably from within the Arab and Muslim worlds, is explained as a phase in Jew hatred stretching back centuries.
Melanie Phillips promotes such a theme in her book Londonistan, where she writes: "The fight against Israel is not fundamentally about land. It is about hatred of the Jews", who she says are viewed by Islam as "a cosmic evil".
From this it follows that the way Israel conducts itself is at most a minor factor in the hostility directed towards it.
This is certainly a convenient argument for those who have an interest in making it. But the evidence points in the opposite direction, as exemplified by the Israeli-Palestinian accords of the "Oslo years" in the mid-1990s, which sent Israel's stock to unprecedented heights, both in the Arab world and globally.
In the same period, according to leading Jewish research institutions, "a general lessening of anti-Semitic pressure was recorded".
As for the claim of historical "Jew hatred" in the Islamic world, its validity has been repudiated by no less an authority than veteran historian Bernard Lewis. In a presentation in 1985, he distinguished three kinds of hostility to Jews: "Opposition to Zionism; 'normal' prejudice (what has been described as 'the normal rough and tumble between peoples'); and that peculiar hatred of Jews which has its origins in the role assigned to Jews in certain Christian beliefs."
Lewis identified three factors that gave rise to a more recent "European-style anti-Semitism in the Islamic world": the rise of the European empires, the collapse of the old political structures, and Jewish resettlement in Palestine along with the creation of Israel and subsequent Israeli-Arab wars.
While arguing anti-Semitism played a part from the start of the mandate period, Lewis claims "the real change began after the Sinai War of 1956 and was accelerated after the Six-Day War of 1967".
What distinguished the 1967 war from previous battles was that it concluded with Israeli military rule over occupied territories that contained more than 1 million Palestinian Arabs, a number that has more than tripled since then.
The importance of the distinction between the centuries-old European Christian prejudice, with its demonic conception of the Jew, and the more recent antipathy sparked by bitter, contemporary political conflict is compelling.
Using the word "anti-Semitism" to cover antagonism to almost anything Jewish - including Israeli policies, Zionism as an ideology or even the existence of Israel - and rationalising this modern tendency by slapping on the prefix "new" risks debasing the coinage.
On the other hand, in certain circumstances the different anti-Jewish phenomena may blend into and nourish each other.
Consider the following hypothetical case. In the context of a fierce, longstanding dispute, Armenia occupies a chunk of neighbouring Turkish territory, builds Armenian-only settlements and highways, allows militant settlers to intimidate local inhabitants, imposes curfews and closures, erects myriad checkpoints, demolishes Turkish homes, imprisons a large segment of Turkish youth and periodically bombards Turkish-inhabited towns.
Instead of dissociating themselves from such conduct, imagine that organised diaspora Armenian communities around the world - haunted by memories of massacres of their kinfolk - elect to defend and justify it in a show of solidarity while displaying no tolerance for the dissenters, "self-hating Armenians", in their ranks.
In these circumstances, would it be surprising if a certain anti-Armenian sentiment developed in a spread of countries, not only among those who felt an affinity with people of Turkish or Muslim origin but also among those committed to human rights and international law? Yet Armenian communities, feeling besieged and misunderstood, might put the animosity down to a historical Muslim antipathy towards Christians and a latent anti-Armenianism on the part of not just the Turkish people but much of the rest of the world too.
For their part, the Turks and their supporters might investigate their own or Armenian scriptures to see if they could uncover historical explanations for what might seem to them the cruel and treacherous nature of their oppressors. In this hypothetical case, the search would possibly lead nowhere.
However, an equivalent investigation targeted at Jews in the case of the very non-hypothetical Arab-Israeli conflict would be certain to produce the sought-after results, if only because of the ancestral battles that took place between the Jewish tribes of Medina and the contemporaneous followers of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.
In general, however, Muslim scriptures are not bountiful source material for Jewish perfidy. It's not just that the messages they give out are not consistent but also that Jews are not an especial preoccupation of Muslim literature.
And this is where bona fide anti-Semitic ideas eagerly step in. Imported into the Muslim and Arab worlds where once it was alien, the anti-Semitic "explanation" is now increasingly embraced by disaffected people with minds primed to be receptive to a simple it's-all-the-Jews'-fault answer to many problems.
In short, what distinguishes the Jewish predicament from the hypothetical Armenian one is that in the Jewish case a potent, ready-made ideology is lurking in the wings. Thus what starts out as a political "anti-Jewish sentiment" may, in given circumstances, metamorphose into classical anti-Semitism.
While helping to explain the cause of the phenomenon, none of this justifies the rise of anti-Semitism in the Arab and Muslim worlds, or anywhere else. It poisons the conflict and is intensely inimical to a solution. As a strategy, it is counterproductive: indeed, it was the spread of anti-Semitism that played the decisive role in winning so many Jews to the Zionist cause in the first place.
As a tactic, it is highly divisive - confusing and alienating Jewish sympathisers of the Palestinian cause as well as many others who despise racism of all types. Moreover, stereotyping one party is liable to prompt equally pernicious and ignorant counterstereotyping.
The charge of anti-Semitism against Palestinians and others who champion their cause is often made too flippantly. It lumps together real anti-Semites with the real victims of oppressive Israeli policies. Equally, many Arabs, Muslims and their supporters too easily dismiss the accusation of anti-Semitism as just a device for defending shameful Israeli policies. While this is sometimes true, the accusation is sometimes true too - just consider the Hamas covenant.
Some leading Palestinian figures have not only acknowledged the infiltration of anti-Semitism into Arab society but have been outspoken in their rejection of it. But the longer the broader conflict continues, the greater likelihood that anti-Semitism per se will indeed take root throughout the region. In that event, it would not only outlive the putative end of the Arab-Israeli conflict but enormously complicate its resolution in the first place.
If only for their own protection, Jewish communities around the world have a strong interest in distancing themselves from Israel's repressive practices and annexationist tendencies. Beyond this, they are sometimes in a position to influence Israeli policies and to help bridge the gaps between the antagonistic parties. But to engage in such initiatives would entail jettisoning their more common instinct of unquestioningly following the Israeli government's cue, whatever it may be
Tony Klug left wing human rights advocate {for palestinians of course} Pin up boy of Australian Jewish Democratic Society and an example how Brittish Jews have lost the plot!!!
--- this article on AJDS website
'Why Oslo Died' (Jewish Chronicle, April 13, 2001)
Tony Klug considers the fatal flaws of a peace process that should have taken the Middle East into a new era of reality, reconciliation and prosperity
---------------------------------
As the land so cherished by Jews and Arabs is drenched once more with their fresh blood, there is at least one point of near-universal agreement - it is all the fault of the other guys. Simplistic, self-serving narratives along these lines are again the rage on both sides - pandering to old prejudices and stereotypes, requiring almost no knowledge or understanding of the issues and obviating any need for self-criticism.As explanations of what went wrong, they are wonderfully satisfying and woefully inadequate. For a fuller understanding, we need to dig a little deeper.What was special about Oslo was not the voluminous amount of legal detail in the accords but the mere fact that, after generations of bitter struggle, both leaderships simultaneously ditched their zero-sum approaches to the conflict and embraced instead the essentially symbiotic nature of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship.No longer would each side measure its advances in terms of the setbacks of the other. Rather, to paraphrase the "Declaration of principles", there would be "peaceful co-existence, mutual dignity and security" based on a "historic reconciliation" and "a spirit of peace." The sub-text - unwritten but widely understood - was a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. Without the prospect of independence, and the end of the despised Israeli occupation, the accords would not have garnered the support of either the Palestinian leadership or the Palestinian street.A swiftly executed withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, buoyed by optimistic opinion polls, would have been firmly in Israel's interests, too. Apart from freeing Israeli society, once and for all, from the burdensome occupation, thus averting the curse of the recurrent intifada, negotiations over the difficult final-basket issues would eventually have resumed on a less frenzied and more equitable state-to-state basis. In practice, however, the Oslo process reversed this order by making the termination of the Israeli occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state contingent on the prior resolution of all other outstanding matters - effectively blocking the realisation of a Palestinian state and condemning Israel, willy nilly, to continue the occupation. This was its first fatal flaw.The process prescribed a long, drawn-out programme of mini-withdrawals in exchange for Palestinian good behaviour. This was a huge gift to both sides' saboteurs who repeatedly used the time to practise their art. This was the second fatal flaw.The third fatal flaw was the whole notion of drip-feeding rewards to the Palestinians once they proved to the Israelis, at every stage, that they could be trusted. It would be difficult to conceive of a more patronising, humiliating and illusory approach.Patronising because it reflected an essentially colonial mentality - an unhealthy product of some 30 years of occupation - which assumed that the "natives" did not have the right to run their own lives on their own territory, but had to earn it on a daily basis. Humiliating because it entrenched accountability in just one direction and so acted as a constant reminder of the inherently unequal relationship between the two peoples. And illusory because it rested on the highly dubious assumption that it was possible to build mutual trust between an occupying force and an occupied people. Rather, suspicion, contempt, even hatred, were the predictable legacies. The fourth fatal flaw was the attempt to steamroller decisions on the complex andsensitive final-basket issues, including Jerusalem and the1948 refugees, almost before the debates had even been initiated. Ehud Barak's final offer to Yasir Arafat, much trumpeted within Israel as unprecedently far-reaching, came with the impossible condition that all other claims must forthwith and forever be withdrawn. Driven by the imminence of the US presidential election, this was a desperate throw by a well-intentioned but inexperienced politician who should have known, for example, that Arafat had no authority to relinquish, just like that, all claims on behalf of the 1948 refugees. It would have been a gross act of betrayal and, had he succumbed, he would simply have dealt himself out of the picture, or worse. The political options would have been quite different, though, had a Palestinian state already been in place to provide a practical alternative destination for the exercise of the Palestinian right of return.The clumsy attempt to foreclose this vital issue propelled it prematurely on to centre stage, obliging the Palestinian negotiators to promptly reaffirm this historic right. But it was not of their doing. In Israel, the sudden re-emergence of this issue was rashly interpreted, even by many followers of the peace camp, to mean that, all along, the Palestinians had intended the eradication of the Israeli state. All the old mutual animosities came flooding back but this time with a vengeance that only a deep sense of trust betrayed could trigger. The Oslo principles were a great leap forward, but the process was deeply flawed and contained the seeds of its own undoing. In time, the pendulum will surely swing again and the corrosive occupation will come to an end. Meanwhile, the soil will turn a deeper red and we will all go on blaming the other guys.
______________________________
Tony Klug is an international relations specialist and co-chair of the Council for Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue
----------------------------------------------------
Dr Tony Klug,30
St Albans Road,
London NW5 1RD, UK.
Tel:+44-20-7267 6444Fax: +44-20-7485 0102.
e-mail: tonyklug@compuserve.com
Dear Friend of Jerusalem
Tens of thousands of people attended Monday’s New York City rally in support of Israel. We would like to extend a special thank you to the many One Jerusalem supporters who responded to our invitation and attended.
The battle for supporting Israel is waging across the Internet as well. We feel that it is crucial for all One Jerusalem members to be both active and vocal in such forums. Here are two ways that you can speak up.(1)
VOTE ONLINE – Major news organizations are casting online polls of the public’s support for Israel’s actions in Lebanon. Please go to CNN’s poll, scroll down to the QUICKVOTE box on the right side, and cast your vote for support of Israel. According to CNN’s stats, a majority of web voters (10%) are against Israel’s actions. We believe that this is a gross misrepresentation. We have the power to reverse the polls. Please vote now!
(2) CONTACT THE US SENATE – At the time of this writing, the United States Senate is considering a bill in support of Israel’s positions against Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran. Unfortunately, Senator John Warner is challenging the bill.We urge all of you – Israel’s faithful friends and supporters – to email Senator Warner and express your support for Israel.
We suggest the following text: Dear Senator Warner – We stand in our full support of Israel’s activities in Lebanon. Please support the bill for Israel, as Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Please do not legitimize the evil enemies of the United States and Israel.
Allen Roth
President, One Jerusalem
P.S. Please pass this important message along to friends and family.
The battle for supporting Israel is waging across the Internet as well. We feel that it is crucial for all One Jerusalem members to be both active and vocal in such forums. Here are two ways that you can speak up.(1)
VOTE ONLINE – Major news organizations are casting online polls of the public’s support for Israel’s actions in Lebanon. Please go to CNN’s poll, scroll down to the QUICKVOTE box on the right side, and cast your vote for support of Israel. According to CNN’s stats, a majority of web voters (10%) are against Israel’s actions. We believe that this is a gross misrepresentation. We have the power to reverse the polls. Please vote now!
(2) CONTACT THE US SENATE – At the time of this writing, the United States Senate is considering a bill in support of Israel’s positions against Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran. Unfortunately, Senator John Warner is challenging the bill.We urge all of you – Israel’s faithful friends and supporters – to email Senator Warner and express your support for Israel.
We suggest the following text: Dear Senator Warner – We stand in our full support of Israel’s activities in Lebanon. Please support the bill for Israel, as Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Please do not legitimize the evil enemies of the United States and Israel.
Allen Roth
President, One Jerusalem
P.S. Please pass this important message along to friends and family.
IM: Israel Messenger
iM: Israel Messenger is a monthly newspaper connecting American Jewish teens to Israel with engaging and real stories about Israeli life and culture.
Written in English, it is produced jointly with The Jerusalem Post, Israel’s largest English daily newspaper, and its contents will stress modern Israel and its diverse population. iM: Israel Messenger will offer our high school students a chance to relate and feel closer to their Israeli peers.
Articles will be written especially for iM by Jerusalem Post writers, and each issue will also contain an article written by a student reporter. There will be a Student Editorial Board involved in many aspects of the paper -- writing, research and sales. Students who participate will receive a letter of recommendation from The Jerusalem Post and Jewish National Fund.
Scheduled to officially launch in October 2006, iM will offer two free 8-page sample editions -- one for Spring 2006, and one for Summer 2006 to be distributed at the JCC Maccabi games, and then to classrooms and youth groups in September. Starting in October 2006, iM will provide subscribers with 24 pages of relevant stories on topics ranging from pop culture to politics written with teens in mind. Nine monthly editions will be published yearly.
Free Issues and Subscriptions
Below are links to receive your free issue of iM, to subscribe to the newspaper and to view the sample Spring 2006 issue of iM and the Leader’s Guide on line.
Subscription Request for Schools and Synagogues
Subscription Request for Other JNF Supporters
Download the Spring sample issue as a PDF
Leader's Guide
Leader's Guide for Spring Issue
Written in English, it is produced jointly with The Jerusalem Post, Israel’s largest English daily newspaper, and its contents will stress modern Israel and its diverse population. iM: Israel Messenger will offer our high school students a chance to relate and feel closer to their Israeli peers.
Articles will be written especially for iM by Jerusalem Post writers, and each issue will also contain an article written by a student reporter. There will be a Student Editorial Board involved in many aspects of the paper -- writing, research and sales. Students who participate will receive a letter of recommendation from The Jerusalem Post and Jewish National Fund.
Scheduled to officially launch in October 2006, iM will offer two free 8-page sample editions -- one for Spring 2006, and one for Summer 2006 to be distributed at the JCC Maccabi games, and then to classrooms and youth groups in September. Starting in October 2006, iM will provide subscribers with 24 pages of relevant stories on topics ranging from pop culture to politics written with teens in mind. Nine monthly editions will be published yearly.
Free Issues and Subscriptions
Below are links to receive your free issue of iM, to subscribe to the newspaper and to view the sample Spring 2006 issue of iM and the Leader’s Guide on line.
Subscription Request for Schools and Synagogues
Subscription Request for Other JNF Supporters
Download the Spring sample issue as a PDF
Leader's Guide
Leader's Guide for Spring Issue
Parashá Devarim
GOOD MORNING!
Rabi Kalman Packouz
I was brought up in Reform Judaism in Portland, Oregon. Though I saw very few Orthodox Jews, I grew up with certain perceptions and perhaps even misconceptions. As I went off to college (University of Washington) and later traveled, I found that many people shared my perceptions of Orthodox Judaism.
While I and others carried these beliefs about Orthodox Judaism, there was also a certain fascination about them - the closeness of family life, low divorce rate, happy kids, integrated lifestyle. When I was 22 I started learning about my heritage while visiting Jerusalem. I found it fascinating to finally find someone Orthodox to discuss my understanding (or misunderstanding) about the Orthodox and the Torah way of life. I thought it might possibly be of interest to share with you what I found out:
(1) "The Orthodox judge me. They look down upon me. They don't consider me to be Jewish."
The truth: There will always be individuals who are judgmental and negative; however, the Torah teaches that God is the One Who judges, not us.
Ultimately, at the end of one's life, it is between the individual and his Maker to determine how he led his life. This is what Orthodox Jews believe.
There is widespread confusion that Orthodox Jews look upon anyone who is not Orthodox as not being Jewish. Untrue! If one is born of a Jewish mother or converted according to the Shulchan Aruch, Code of Jewish Law, one is Jewish - even if he espouses Hinduism, Atheism, Christianity or any other 'ism.'
(2) "It's all or nothing. I either have to do all the commandments or none."
The truth: No one, no matter how observant, is able to fulfill all of the mitzvot. Fulfilling all of the commandments is a goal and a means to perfecting oneself and this world. If one finds a diamond mine, he may want every last diamond in it, but he won't refuse to dig because he cannot have them all.
(3) "Orthodoxy takes away all joy in life. One's life is restricted as to what he can do, eat and enjoy."
The truth: Just like parents want us to have everything that is good, the Almighty, our Father in Heaven, wants the same for us - to get as much pleasure as possible. It takes wisdom to know true pleasure and to understand the value of restrictions. The Torah is the instruction book for life. It teaches how to obtain real pleasure from life!
(4) "Being Orthodox is an escape from the real world. You don't have to think anymore."
The truth: It is interesting that one can make that statement and in the same breath lambaste Orthodox for their "Talmudic point of view" -turning over a point 100 different ways. The Almighty made us personally responsible to seek truth and know truth. That is why a Jew is always answering a question with a question. We are taught not to blindly accept assumptions. (To answer a question in the manner it is asked, means that you accept the assumptions it is predicated upon.) The Almighty also commands us in the Torah to take responsibility for the whole world - Tikun Olam -to take care of it, improve it and to care for our fellow human beings. This is what the Torah teaches, the Orthodox believe and what they have given to the world.
Orthodoxy is the wellspring of our 3,300 year tradition. It is worth knowing our roots and the wisdom of our heritage. After all, so many other religions have drawn from it to form their own, it must have something of value to add to our own lives!
Torah Portion of the Week
Moshe pleads with God to enter the Holy Land, but is turned down. (Remember, God always answers your prayers - sometimes with a "yes," sometimes with a "no" ... and sometimes with a "not yet.") Moshe commands the Children of Israel not to add or subtract from the words of the Torah and to keep all of the Commandments. He then reminds them that God has no shape or form and that we should not make or worship idols of any kind.
The cities of Bezer, Ramot and Golan are designated as Cities of Refuge east of the Jordan river. Accidental murderers can escape there to avoid revengeful relatives. They then await there until tried.
The Ten Commandments are repeated to the whole Jewish people. Moshe then expounds the "Shema," affirming the unity of God, Whom all should love and transmit His commandments to the next generation. A man should wear Tefillin upon the arm and head. All Jews should put a Mezuzah (the scroll is the essential part) upon each doorpost of their home (except the bathroom).
Moshe then relays the Almighty's command not to intermarry "for they will lead your children away from Me." (Deut. 7:3-4)
* * *
Dvar Torah based on Growth Through Torah by
Rabbi Zelig Pliskin
The Torah states, "And you shall know this day, and you shall take this to your heart, that the Almighty is God in the Heavens above and upon the earth below, there is no other" (Deuteronomy 4:39). What is the essence of this verse?
The Chofetz Chaim, Rav Yisroel Meir Kagan, used to stress that this verse tells us that all that happens in our lives is from the Almighty. All the profits and losses in a person's life are from the decree of the Almighty. Similarly, any pain that a person suffers, such as when someone curses or insults him, is from Heaven to atone for one's transgressions. The person doing the cursing and insulting is guilty of committing a transgression, but the recipient is receiving something that is ultimately beneficial for him.
A person who internalizes this attitude will have the strength and courage not to reply to the insults thrown at him. When one washes with hot water to remove something that is very sticky, during the cleansing process the hot water hurts; however, in the end the person becomes clean.
There are two factors: (1) Having the intellectual knowledge that all that happens in our lives is from the Almighty. (2) having the emotional reality of the concept - internalizing it so that it becomes a part of us and has a practical effect on our emotions. It is our job to work on internalizing this important concept - "Everything is from the Almighty" -by repeating it to ourselves. With each repetition it becomes more and more a part of our inner reality.
* * *
TO HELP ISRAEL, YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE TO:
Friends of the IDF
GMJF Israel Crisis Fund
JNF Operation Security Blanket
Magen David Adom
http://www.israelsoldiers.org
https://www.jewishmiami.org/icf.cfm
http://www.jnf.org
http://www.afmda.org
Postagem: André Veríssimo, Presidente KoaH
CANDLE LIGHTING - August 4(or Go to http://www.aish.com/shabbat/candlelighting.asp)
Jerusalem 6:59Guatemala 6:12 - Hong Kong 6:44 - Honolulu 6:50J'Burg 5:23 - PORTO 8:26 - Los Angeles 7:34Melbourne 5:17 - Mexico City 6:53 - Miami 7:48New York 7:51 - Singapore 6:58 - Toronto 8:20
Rabi Kalman Packouz
I was brought up in Reform Judaism in Portland, Oregon. Though I saw very few Orthodox Jews, I grew up with certain perceptions and perhaps even misconceptions. As I went off to college (University of Washington) and later traveled, I found that many people shared my perceptions of Orthodox Judaism.
While I and others carried these beliefs about Orthodox Judaism, there was also a certain fascination about them - the closeness of family life, low divorce rate, happy kids, integrated lifestyle. When I was 22 I started learning about my heritage while visiting Jerusalem. I found it fascinating to finally find someone Orthodox to discuss my understanding (or misunderstanding) about the Orthodox and the Torah way of life. I thought it might possibly be of interest to share with you what I found out:
(1) "The Orthodox judge me. They look down upon me. They don't consider me to be Jewish."
The truth: There will always be individuals who are judgmental and negative; however, the Torah teaches that God is the One Who judges, not us.
Ultimately, at the end of one's life, it is between the individual and his Maker to determine how he led his life. This is what Orthodox Jews believe.
There is widespread confusion that Orthodox Jews look upon anyone who is not Orthodox as not being Jewish. Untrue! If one is born of a Jewish mother or converted according to the Shulchan Aruch, Code of Jewish Law, one is Jewish - even if he espouses Hinduism, Atheism, Christianity or any other 'ism.'
(2) "It's all or nothing. I either have to do all the commandments or none."
The truth: No one, no matter how observant, is able to fulfill all of the mitzvot. Fulfilling all of the commandments is a goal and a means to perfecting oneself and this world. If one finds a diamond mine, he may want every last diamond in it, but he won't refuse to dig because he cannot have them all.
(3) "Orthodoxy takes away all joy in life. One's life is restricted as to what he can do, eat and enjoy."
The truth: Just like parents want us to have everything that is good, the Almighty, our Father in Heaven, wants the same for us - to get as much pleasure as possible. It takes wisdom to know true pleasure and to understand the value of restrictions. The Torah is the instruction book for life. It teaches how to obtain real pleasure from life!
(4) "Being Orthodox is an escape from the real world. You don't have to think anymore."
The truth: It is interesting that one can make that statement and in the same breath lambaste Orthodox for their "Talmudic point of view" -turning over a point 100 different ways. The Almighty made us personally responsible to seek truth and know truth. That is why a Jew is always answering a question with a question. We are taught not to blindly accept assumptions. (To answer a question in the manner it is asked, means that you accept the assumptions it is predicated upon.) The Almighty also commands us in the Torah to take responsibility for the whole world - Tikun Olam -to take care of it, improve it and to care for our fellow human beings. This is what the Torah teaches, the Orthodox believe and what they have given to the world.
Orthodoxy is the wellspring of our 3,300 year tradition. It is worth knowing our roots and the wisdom of our heritage. After all, so many other religions have drawn from it to form their own, it must have something of value to add to our own lives!
Torah Portion of the Week
Moshe pleads with God to enter the Holy Land, but is turned down. (Remember, God always answers your prayers - sometimes with a "yes," sometimes with a "no" ... and sometimes with a "not yet.") Moshe commands the Children of Israel not to add or subtract from the words of the Torah and to keep all of the Commandments. He then reminds them that God has no shape or form and that we should not make or worship idols of any kind.
The cities of Bezer, Ramot and Golan are designated as Cities of Refuge east of the Jordan river. Accidental murderers can escape there to avoid revengeful relatives. They then await there until tried.
The Ten Commandments are repeated to the whole Jewish people. Moshe then expounds the "Shema," affirming the unity of God, Whom all should love and transmit His commandments to the next generation. A man should wear Tefillin upon the arm and head. All Jews should put a Mezuzah (the scroll is the essential part) upon each doorpost of their home (except the bathroom).
Moshe then relays the Almighty's command not to intermarry "for they will lead your children away from Me." (Deut. 7:3-4)
* * *
Dvar Torah based on Growth Through Torah by
Rabbi Zelig Pliskin
The Torah states, "And you shall know this day, and you shall take this to your heart, that the Almighty is God in the Heavens above and upon the earth below, there is no other" (Deuteronomy 4:39). What is the essence of this verse?
The Chofetz Chaim, Rav Yisroel Meir Kagan, used to stress that this verse tells us that all that happens in our lives is from the Almighty. All the profits and losses in a person's life are from the decree of the Almighty. Similarly, any pain that a person suffers, such as when someone curses or insults him, is from Heaven to atone for one's transgressions. The person doing the cursing and insulting is guilty of committing a transgression, but the recipient is receiving something that is ultimately beneficial for him.
A person who internalizes this attitude will have the strength and courage not to reply to the insults thrown at him. When one washes with hot water to remove something that is very sticky, during the cleansing process the hot water hurts; however, in the end the person becomes clean.
There are two factors: (1) Having the intellectual knowledge that all that happens in our lives is from the Almighty. (2) having the emotional reality of the concept - internalizing it so that it becomes a part of us and has a practical effect on our emotions. It is our job to work on internalizing this important concept - "Everything is from the Almighty" -by repeating it to ourselves. With each repetition it becomes more and more a part of our inner reality.
* * *
TO HELP ISRAEL, YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE TO:
Friends of the IDF
GMJF Israel Crisis Fund
JNF Operation Security Blanket
Magen David Adom
http://www.israelsoldiers.org
https://www.jewishmiami.org/icf.cfm
http://www.jnf.org
http://www.afmda.org
Postagem: André Veríssimo, Presidente KoaH
CANDLE LIGHTING - August 4(or Go to http://www.aish.com/shabbat/candlelighting.asp)
Jerusalem 6:59Guatemala 6:12 - Hong Kong 6:44 - Honolulu 6:50J'Burg 5:23 - PORTO 8:26 - Los Angeles 7:34Melbourne 5:17 - Mexico City 6:53 - Miami 7:48New York 7:51 - Singapore 6:58 - Toronto 8:20
Rozitchner y el suicidio colectivo
Alberto Mazor
ISRAEL
¿Podemos seguir siendo judíos? pregunta León Rozitchner en la edición del periódico argentino ‘Página/12’ del 23 de julio de 2006.
En tal interrogante quedan denotadas dos preocupaciones principales: la determinación de la identidad propiamente dicha y la pluralidad de la misma. Rozitchner parte de una hipótesis tan anti judía, según la cual, al parecer, existe sólo una posibilidad de formación judía que, en cualquier momento dado de la historia todos podemos o debemos adoptar o desechar.
Rozitchner lleva a recordar una fábula que sirve como analogía de lo que en ocasiones nos sucede a los judíos:
En cierta ocasión se reunieron las tortugas a debatir cómo escapar de las fauces del caimán que estaba acabando con la comarca.
- Bueno, compañeras -dijo la presidenta encabezando la sesión-, debemos preparar una estrategia para eludir el ataque del caimán.
- Sí, a ese ritmo terminará acabando con todas, cada día es más gigantesco y su apetito es más y más grande, dijo uno de las asistentes.
- Ataquémoslo entre todas y acabemos con él -fue la primera idea lanzada-.
- ¡No! -afirmó la presidenta- eso sería un suicidio colectivo, su piel es muy dura y no podríamos dañarlo. ¿Qué podemos hacer? - reiteró.
- Cambiemos de domicilio, opinó alguien.
- Todos nuestros ancestros, nuestro pasado, lo que somos… está aquí; un caimán foráneo no puede exiliarnos, respondió la filósofa.
- No salgamos de nuestros refugios o de nuestras caparazones, expresó otra.
- Moriríamos de hambre, exclamó la presidenta.
- Disfracémonos, opinaron todas.
- Nos reconocería, objeto la filósofa.
En la medida en que el tiempo transcurría, la fluidez de ideas mermaba y los aportes disminuían.
- Corramos más rápido, dijeron.
- Tendríamos que practicar y mientras tanto nos seguiría devorando, expresó la presidenta.
Fue en esos momentos que irrumpió el caimán y devoró a la presidenta de un bocado.
Las concurrentes a la reunión, alteradas por el acontecimiento, obraron de diversas maneras. Algunas atacaron al caimán en distintas partes blandas ocasionándole severos daños, otras huyeron despavoridas del lugar, unas cuantas se escondieron en el lodo, varias nadaron raudamente en diversas direcciones logrando confundir al dolorido reptil, y otro puñado juntó provisiones y se escondió…
Al cabo de un tiempo, las infecciones, las epidemias, la disminución de la población de las tortugas obligaron al caimán a cambiar de domicilio. Las tortugas paulatinamente recuperaron sus moradas y eligieron nueva presidenta… Pero el daño ya estaba hecho…
Los caimanes dominantes
Las dificultades nos devoran no por la ausencia de ideas, pues los judíos -como las tortugas- poseemos un inmenso arsenal de propuestas para problemas temporales que nos atiborran, pero solemos renunciar a las soluciones al no dejar madurar las ideas el tiempo suficiente o bien, porque rápidamente desechamos las hipótesis de solución sin que las hayamos estructurado y fundamentado adecuadamente.
Además, abandonamos las soluciones, porque no son como las esperamos, pensamos, creemos o queremos que sean. Pero, sobre todo, nos convertimos en víctimas porque cedemos las decisiones cardinales a los otros; por ejemplo a quienes nos dirigen. En lugar de luchar por lo que creemos, por nuestra legítima identidad, por nuestra integridad, preferimos la subordinación acomodaticia, la obediencia infantil mediante una sutil hipocresía; preferimos no participar activamente, dejando que los demás hagan lo que les venga en gana. Olvidamos que la única autoridad genuina y legítima que existe es la autoridad moral. Por eso los caimanes nos siguen engullendo.
La dirigencia eterna
Pareciera que una buena parte de los judíos desearía seguir siendo niño eternamente, no quiere crecer ni asumir sus responsabilidades, no quiere ser formal. Un trozo de nuestra alma, cuando andamos entre las dificultades, ansía que alguien la abrigue, la proteja y le diga que todo saldrá bien. Esa porción es la que siempre se encuentra dispuesta a delegar la responsabilidad de tomar las decisiones esenciales de la vida.
Solamente hay que observar esa costumbre judía en que delegamos nuestra responsabilidad para "arriba".
Así es, el alumno le pasa la carga a su maestro, los miembros de la colectividad a sus dirigentes, y éstos a los gobernantes de Israel, sean quienes sean. Al final, buscamos que sea algo como una "idishe mame": quien nos solucione nuestros problemas existenciales.
Erich Fromm (en ‘El miedo a la libertad’) sostenía que el pueblo alemán, a pesar de ser tan culto y preparado, permitió el acceso al poder de una persona tan funesta y gris como Hitler, debido a que los problemas por los que atravesaban personalmente eran tan abrumadores que, al creer que no tenían solución, llegaron a la desesperación total.
Fue entonces que resolvieron suicidarse colectivamente apegándose a una sola voz que inspiraba confianza, que decía síganme, pero sin hacer preguntas, “hagan todo lo que les digo y los sacaré del embrollo”. “Yo les diré cuándo podemos ser y cuándo no”. “Yo me encargo de todo”. “Yo tengo las respuestas”.
La desesperación conduce a los pueblos, y a algunos de sus filósofos, a elegir opciones que proponen caminos demagógicos, los más rápidos y populistas, los que abusan de la ignorancia de la gente pero terminan siendo una catástrofe.
La seguridad de la pasividad
Las tortugas pensaron y se manifestaron, pero no analizaron adecuadamente las opciones para accionar.
Conocían la problemática, pero no tenían la convicción, el compromiso y menos la continuidad de lo que se proponían acometer. Quizá, en el fondo, querían suicidarse, la carga era demasiado pesada, implicaba mucha responsabilidad.
La pasividad genera una extraordinaria seguridad, es como mantener una embarcación en el puerto, lejos del embravecido mar. Indudablemente allí, cerca del muelle, hay resguardo, pero con el tiempo corre un peligro imperceptible: ahí mismo, en su inamovilidad, el barco se desfondará; porque, no olvidemos, fue hecho para navegar.
A veces me pregunto si esas actitudes, tan característicamente diaspóricas y fáciles a la vez, de negación de la identidad, de postergación y falta de acción, no encierran -acaso- la intención de cometer un suicidio colectivo, tal como las tortugas de la fábula.
Y luego imagino que nuestros infortunios son porque, fundamentalmente, no queremos comprometernos demasiado y admitir esa identidad.
¿Será que no sabemos distinguir que las oportunidades suelen disfrazarse de problemas.
Judíos de la DAIA
Leon Rozitchner
Que el Episcopado promueva la censura, en este caso contra León Ferrari, es un pecado diminuto dentro de la historia de la Iglesia. Pero que la DAIA, representante de las instituciones judías argentinas, salga a pedirle disculpas por una acusación que el mismo León Ferrari hizo al denunciarla como antisemita es, como se dice, algo que no tiene nombre. Y sí, lo tiene: lleva el nombre de la DAIA.
Entonces sus dirigentes, con la estrella de David entre las piernas, corrieron presurosos a la Curia: obsecuentes hasta la náusea, se presentan espontáneamente para pedirle disculpas a la Iglesia: nosotros, que representamos a los judíos, no dijimos eso, Dios nos libre y guarde. Resulta que un incrédulo osó calificar a la Iglesia de antisemita y entonces ellos, precisamente porque son judíos y sobrevivieron, pueden testimoniar que esa evidencia es falsa. Y no utilizan el lenguaje de la Biblia hebrea sino la jerga de la economía neoliberal para confesar que la Iglesia, con ayuda de las entidades judías, está”reduciendo los bolsones de prejuicios” antisemitas, como si se dijera que Caritas “reduce los bolsones de pobreza”. Aparte de ser mentira en ambos casos, nos introduce de lleno en el dilema que enfrenta la mayoría de judíos en el mundo: denunciar el origen de una tragedia bimilenaria que amenaza destruir la humanidad, o inscribirse en el triunfalismo del imperio occidental y cristiano. Borrón y cuenta nueva elige la DAIA.
Entonces recordemos. El antijudaísmo histórico, y el posterior antisemitismo, apareció en el mundo sólo con el cristianismo: es la flor más negra del fúnebre amor cristiano que los judíos conocen. Antes del cristianismo no existía el odio al judío por el hecho de serlo, ni su caritativa propuesta de persecución y exterminio, que fue creada y suscitada únicamente con la expansión de la religión cristiana.
Digamos que el cristianismo emerge luego de la destrucción a sangre y fuego de la resistencia popular judía por las legiones romanas de Tito (siglo I), y la consecuente diáspora para los judíos despojados de una tierra milenaria que compartían –conquistaban o eran conquistados– con otras tribus y otras culturas semitas. El cristianismo aparece con su vocación imperial, católica (universal) desde San Pablo, y se convierte en religión de Estado con el Imperio Romano, que se consolida, se transforma y se sobrevive como Imperio Cristiano. Y, como estamos viendo, el cristianismo culmina en el último siglo como condómine del Imperio Europa-EE.UU. hasta nuestros días, señoreando y aureolando con su Espíritu el dominio tenebroso del Capital en el mundo. La Cruz acompañó siempre a la Espada y al Dinero en la expansión de su mercado: mercado para el capital y mercado para las almas.
El cristianismo, al acusar a los judíos de deicidas, de ser ni más ni menos que asesinos de su Dios, introdujeron en el mundo una acusación inédita y monstruosa por su alcance: justicieros de la fe, validan el crimen vengador que absuelve y dignifica al asesino en el mismo acto en que lo comete contra el judío. Esa acusación está presente en la figura misma del crucificado: cuando un cristiano mira la imagen deificada de Cristo ve aparecer detrás de su figura –se lo enseñó la Iglesia– el fantasma culpable del judío. (¿Qué halo bondadoso de amor contenido, señores de la DAIA, vieron ustedes brillar en los ojos del cardenal Bergoglio cuando los miró llegar a la Curia?) Y es esa historia milenaria de la culpabilidad judía la que culmina en la Shoá alemana, es decir en la masacre y el genocidio más monstruoso organizado por la racionalidad científica de occidente cristiano luego de la prédica milenaria y el apoyo cómplice de la Iglesia, cuyo solución final en Europa hubiera sido inimaginable sin ella. Lo han escrito teólogos católicos.
Pero ustedes, herederos de un judaísmo trágico y administradores de una comunidad judía, ¿cómo han hecho para enmudecer esa certidumbre irrefutable y venir en apoyo de una Iglesia culpable que –para no ir máslejos– solicitó entre nosotros mismos “la depuración por la sangre” que produjo 30.000 desaparecidos, muchos de ellos judíos argentinos? En nombre de un futuro ilusorio niegan la terrible realidad del pasado y del presente. Ustedes, descendientes de esclavos liberados de Egipto, como argentinos y latinoamericanos llevan también la herencia, aunque se desentiendan de ella, de las luchas de los pueblos americanos que fueron aniquilados, destruidos sus dioses, sus culturas y sus obras, ya que forman parte de esta tierra en la que nacieron y viven como judíos argentinos. Esta tierra que pisamos es también polvo enamorado de tantas vidas humilladas y muertas. Lo que León Ferrari denuncia no son “prejuicios” contra los judíos: son juicios eclesiásticos, extensos silogismos teológicos que atraviesan toda su dogmática y dejaron durante siglos y siglos una inabarcable estela de perseguidos y de muertos. Con tantos judíos que lo ocultan es bueno que nos lo haya recordado.
Friday, July 28, 2006
How the UN legitimizes terrorists
Alan M. Dershowitz
Published July 25, 2006
If anyone wonders why the UN has rendered itself worse than irrelevant in the Arab-Israeli conflict, all he or she need do is read UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's July 20 statement.
Annan goes to great pains to suggest equal fault and moral equivalence between the rockets of Hezbollah and Hamas that specifically target innocent civilians and the self-defense efforts by Israel, which tries desperately, though not always successfully, to avoid causing civilian casualties. In his statement, Annan never condemns, or even mentions, terrorism, which is a root cause and precipitator of the conflict.
Even Annan was forced to acknowledge that "Hezbollah's provocative attack on July 12 was the trigger of this particular crisis"; that Hezbollah is "deliberate[ly] targeting ... Israeli population centers with hundreds of indiscriminate weapons"; and that Israel has the "right to defend itself under Article 51 of the UN charter." But he doesn't stop there. He goes out of his way to insist on equating Hezbollah's terrorists with Israeli military response, which he labels "disproportionate" and "collective punishment." He condemns both Hezbollah and Israel. He also criticizes Israel for its efforts at preventing Qassam rocket attacks against its civilian populations, noting that the Hamas rockets have produced no "casualties in the past month." (This, of course, is not for lack of trying.) He ignores Hamas' long history of terrorism against innocent civilians.
Annan then calls for an "immediate cessation of indiscriminate and disproportionate violence" on both sides, again suggesting a moral equivalence. Among the most immoral positions anyone can take is to suggest a moral equivalence between morally different actions.
Part of the goal of organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas is to gain moral legitimacy for their terrorist tactics by having them equated with the conventional military tactics used by democratic regimes. Only the morally obtuse--or perverse--cannot recognize the difference between a terrorist group that targets civilian population centers with anti-personnel weapons designed to maximize civilian casualties and a democracy that seeks to prevent terrorism by employing smart bombs designed to minimize civilian casualties.
Annan knows better than to suggest a moral equivalence. He is fully aware of the tactic employed by terrorists of launching their rockets from, and hiding behind, civilian shields, so as to make democracies have to kill some civilians to get at the terrorists.
But Annan heads an organization that is so anti-Israel that as the late Abba Eban, the early Israeli ambassador to the UN, once put it: "If Algeria proposed a resolution that the Earth was flat and that Israel has flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 120 to 3, with 27 abstentions.
"Many such resolutions have been passed by the General Assembly, including the notorious one equating the Jewish national liberation movement with "racism." Other one-sided resolutions have been passed by the General Assembly legitimating terrorism. Only the U.S. veto--which does not operate in the UN General Assembly--has prevented one-sided resolutions by the Security Council.
If a space alien from a distant planet were to land at the UN, he would come away with the impression that Israel is not only the sole offender in the Middle East, but the worst offender in the entire world. He would single out Israel for condemnation and exclude it from membership on many UN bodies, on which Syria, Lebanon and Iran serve in positions of honor.
Annan himself has a long history of one-sided condemnations of Israel. In March 2004, Annan "strongly condemned" Israel's targeted killing of Sheik Ahmad Yassin, the terrorist leader of Hamas, without condemning Yassin for his murderous actions or his organization for the murder of Jewish civilians. In December 2003, Annan "strongly condemned" Israel's assault on a Palestinian refugee camp where two gunmen were thought to be hiding. And in 2005, he issued the most tepid of statements--expressing "dismay"--at threats by Iran's president to "eliminate" Israel, a member nation of the UN. The list goes on and on.
And even worse than the one-sided condemnations that ignore Hezbollah and Hamas are the numerous statements that perversely suggest moral equivalence.The UN peacekeepers on the Lebanese border have turned out to be collaborators with Hezbollah, videotaping the Hezbollah kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers in 2000 and then refusing to release the video--which could have helped in the rescue--on the grounds that it might compromise their "neutrality."This is a real test for the UN. If it cannot--or will not--distinguish between terrorists who target civilians and a democracy that seeks to stop the terrorism while minimizing civilian casualties, it has become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
----------
Alan M. Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard and the author of "Pre-emption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways."
Middle East: Shaken Awake by War
Israel is fighting two-headed enemies, one preaching moderation, the other hate.
David Grossman, Israeli novelist
DAVID GROSSMAN is the author of "Death as a Way of Life: Israel Ten Years After Oslo." This article was translated by Haim Watzman.
July 18, 2006
There is no justification for the large-scale violence that Hezbollah has unleashed from Lebanese territory on dozens of peaceful Israeli villages, town and cities. Israel has counterattacked, and it has every right to do so. No country in the world would remain silent and abandon its citizens when its neighbor strikes without any provocation. Six years ago, Israel withdrew from all the Lebanese territory occupied in 1982 and redeployed behind the international border. Immediately, Hezbollah began violating the relevant United Nations resolutions. It established armed positions along the border and began building up its military strength, with the aid of Syria and Iran. For years, the government of Lebanon has avoided direct confrontation with Hezbollah. Israel, seeking not to heat up the border, also abstained from taking any real action against Hezbollah. Israel is now acting against Lebanon because Lebanon is officially responsible for Hezbollah. It is also the address from which missiles and Katyusha rockets are being fired at Israeli cities. Hezbollah's leaders are members of the Lebanese Cabinet and participate in setting the country's policies. At this writing, millions of innocent civilians — Israelis and Lebanese — are under heavy fire. In Beirut and in Haifa, in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley and in the Israeli Galilee, children and adults face the horrors of war. Israel and Lebanon must do all they can to not harm innocent people. But even those who hope for an immediate end to violence and the opening of negotiations must acknowledge that Hezbollah cynically and deliberately created the crisis. Israel had no choice but to respond to the severe attack on its territory. This latest eruption of hostilities underlines the problematic similarities between the governments of Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority.
Both have two heads, whose behavior contradicts one another. One Lebanese and one Palestinian head act as statesmen, using diplomatic channels, conducting themselves with relative moderation. The two other heads declare that they are free to do whatever they wish — to use racist rhetoric and terror against civilians and to call openly for the destruction of Israel. This dual phantasm is the main reason that a great majority of Israelis, including many in the peace camp, have in recent years lost all confidence in the good intentions of the more moderate elements in the Arab world. (Another complication is that a similar double phantasm — if less extreme and without aspirations of destroying its enemy — is also evident in Israel's behavior toward the Palestinians.)
The scenarios for the future do not look good. Of course, Israel does not intend merely to respond to the Hezbollah attacks. It is also acting to reshape the realities on its border with Lebanon and to force the Lebanese government to move Hezbollah out of the country's south. Israel's goal is logical and just, but the aggressive conduct of the operation is dangerous. The Lebanese government is weak, and Lebanon itself could again slip into general collapse and civil war. Such a local conflict could easily develop into a regional one, with unpredictable consequences. In recent decades, Israel has gotten tangled in military operations in Lebanon again and again. It never succeeded in achieving its goals. Previous attempts to shape the Arab world in accordance with Israel's needs have failed. (Today, President Bush can also testify to the doubtful efficacy of such attempts.) Another goal declared by many of Israel's military and political leaders is to break Hezbollah's power and influence. This is doomed from the start. It recalls the shortsightedness of Israeli leaders in 1982, when they declared that they would destroy the Palestine Liberation Organization. Even though Israel has vastly superior forces, Hezbollah has very strong backing in Iran, Syria and the Arab world. Anyone who thinks Israel can achieve a knockout victory lives an illusion.And there is also a fundamental difference between Hezbollah and the Palestinian front. Hezbollah is, openly, an Iranian agent in the Middle East, a bridgehead for its murderous plans against Israel. Iran is doubtless committed to the Palestinian cause, but its aspirations do not include an equitable peace between Israel and Palestine. Its ideology and actions demonstrate that, even if Israel and the Palestinians reach a peace agreement, Hezbollah will oppose compromises. It will continue to fight Israel and will thus threaten the fragile stability that such an agreement achieves.
Israel's relations with the Palestinians are utterly different. These two peoples must achieve peace if they wish to live. Their fates are intertwined and cannot be separated. Both have a clear interest in reaching a compromise in which each will give up some of its most central demands. Both sides know that ultimately their conflict cannot be resolved by force. Hezbollah's deadly attack this week impels the great majority of Israelis to view the two fronts as one, both constituting threats to Israel's existence. While this instinct may not reflect the military balance, it could lead not only to a disproportionate attack on Lebanon but to an indefinite postponement of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Many citizens of Israel, like those of prosperous, Westernized Beirut, wanted to believe that they were no longer really part of the Middle East conflict. Despairing of its bloody, fundamentalist, hopeless nature, they built themselves bubbles of comfort, escapism and luxury. In Israel, many even managed to sublimate the current war with the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the rockets that the Palestinians have been firing on southern Israel and the suffering the Palestinians are enduring from Israel's counterattacks.The events of the last few days have shaken everyone awake. The war has reached their doorsteps, reminding them what materials make up life here. Diplomatic acumen will no longer suffice to turn those materials into a stable peace. It looks as if only an alchemist's lore can do that now.
Proportionality in the War in Lebanon
Abraham H. Foxman
Israel's case before the world in its military conflict against Hezbollah is as strong as the nation has ever had. Not occupying territory from whence the aggression came, facing a foe which is recognized by the international community as terrorist and illegitimately in control of the southern part of Lebanon, being the victim of an unprovoked attack and kidnapping by the terrorist group, Israel is seen even by the usual knee-jerk critics of the Jewish state as having the right of self-defense.
The problem for Israel lies beyond first causes, in the now oft-repeated accusation that Israel is engaged in a "disproportionate" response.
Sometimes this charge takes the form of accusing Israel of destroying Lebanon just to redeem two soldiers. Sometimes it takes the form of comparing the ratio of the civilian death toll, about ten Lebanese for every Israeli. Or other times it appears in the comment that Lebanon had finally begun to emerge from three decades of war, division and destruction, and now Israel was setting the country back irreparably.
These are serious charges. Israel does have a responsibility to itself and the international community to avoid, if possible, civilian casualties and destruction of Lebanese infrastructure. However, the accusation against Israel completely fails to recognize the context out of which this conflict has come to pass.
Israel did not go to war because of kidnapped soldiers, though the redemption of these soldiers is and must remain a priority. The war came because of Israel's need to eliminate the missile attacks on its population in the north and incursions into its territory from Hezbollah.
Israel's northern cities and towns have continuously been under threat of missile attacks, especially as Hezbollah amassed an arsenal in the years since Israel left southern Lebanon. If not dealt with by Israel, Hezbollah would have evolved into a far greater threat to the fundamental security of the State of Israel.
Because the international community did nothing about Hezbollah's control of southern Lebanon despite the Security Council passing UN resolution 1559, the terrorist group had already accumulated an estimated thirteen thousand rockets, some reportedly with a range of 125 miles. Had Israel not acted when it did, Damascus and Tehran would have undoubtedly proceeded to elevate the quantity, quality and range of missiles, with chemically-tipped weapons surely part of the future mix.
So when the issue of proportionality is raised, one must consider the size of the threat of a semi-autonomous, terrorist entity in southern Lebanon, committed to Israel's destruction, and with an open-ended supply of ever more sophisticated weapons from Syria and Iran.
Moreover, the Hezbollah infrastructure within Lebanon is significant. It would be a difficult enough task for Israel to deal with rocket launchers, thousands of missiles, logistical support and media outlets in different parts of the country. It is made even more difficult by the fact that Hezbollah places its missiles in civilian locations, that it is continually looking for re-supply through Damascus and is being egged on and armed by Tehran. In other words, Hezbollah is a big and complex operation that poses a big threat.
Also, let us not forget that the international community has known for a number of years exactly what was going on. Resolution 1559, demanding the dismantling of Hezbollah and its replacement in the south by the Lebanese army, understood this was hardly a small matter, but a big deal that would have involved major actions and confrontations. In the end, unfortunately, neither the Lebanese government nor the international community implemented 1559 seeing it as too big a job. So proportionate to what?
Additionally, as Alan Dershowitz pointed out in the Wall Street Journal on July 18, the element of proportionality which comes into play because of civilian deaths and infrastructure damage must take into consideration Hezbollah's sinister strategy. By deliberately targeting Israeli civilians with its admittedly inaccurate missiles while making it well-nigh impossible for Israel to hit its military infrastructure and arms without harming civilians; they calculatedly put Israel in an impossible dilemma: avoid imposing civilian casualties in Lebanon by leaving Hezbollah missiles intact, putting Israeli citizens in a vulnerable position, or taking out Hezbollah missiles with civilian casualties, leaving Israel condemned by the international community.
In the end, Israel won't allow itself to be paralyzed by this conundrum. It observes the first responsibility of a state - to protect its people from outside attack. And, in the process tries its best to minimize the damage to the Lebanese. The results may be mixed in this regard but this is not only the moral posture to assume but the wisest, since Israel needs to avoid alienating the Lebanese people who must fill the vacuum when Israel defeats Hezbollah.
Finally, the proportionality accusation is presented in the context of a Lebanon which was returning to normalcy prior to this conflict. On many levels this is true and it is sad what has occurred, though it is Hezbollah that is ultimately responsible for what has happened. On a deeper level, however, it must be stated that it was an illusion to talk about a normal, independent Lebanon as long as a terrorist group, armed to the teeth by two of the most dangerous states on the planet, held sway in the southern part of the country.
Looking at the conflict from this angle, as a big picture, Israel's response is not out of proportion at all. Fortunately, the Bush Administration understands this and supports Israel in its historic, proportional struggle.
This article originally appeared in Ha'aretz on July 23, 2006
Thursday, July 27, 2006
An 'e-mail from Nasrallah'
Tom Segev
A man named Nasrallah whom I don't know sent me an e-mail this week. I thought that he was from Beirut. So I asked, naturally, and with no little hope, if there were a connection. As often happens in dialogues with our neighbors - this was the wrong question to ask. He has no connection to that Nasrallah, he replied, probably in a slightly reproachful tone.
The man in question is Yousry Nasrallah, the Egyptian film director. Recently he had directed the film "Bab al-Shams" ("The Gate of the Sun"), based on the book by Elias Khoury. Nasrallah forwarded to me a public appeal from Beirut, composed by Lebanese theater director Roger Assaf. He's one of the best there is in that country, Nasrallah wrote.
Along with the pope, the French president, the German chancellor and, of course, Israel, Assaf denounced the alliance between Syria and Iran, which has nothing at all to do with the true interest of Lebanon and has brought disaster upon it. His language is poetic. He writes about his dreams of a better world - one in which the children of Israel won't grow up amid the spirit of hatred and nationalist-militarist hysteria, one in which Palestinian and Lebanese children won't grow up amid the spirit of vengeance. He and his friends live in the spirit of Plato and Gandhi and Albert Camus and other humanist philosophers and intellectuals, he said.
Yousry Nasrallah sent me a second e-mail in which he explained the background to Assaf"s letter: "In July 2006, there are people (maybe I should use the past tense) who are neither with Iran, nor with Syria, nor with Hezbollah, nor with Israel. People who do not want to be used by either of these powers as human shields or targets. People who have tried these past few years to build a new Lebanon that is free from all this."
He sounds like a few people I know in Haifa.
The news of the deterioration this week in Ariel Sharon's condition caught many Israelis by surprise: Oh, yeah, Ariel Sharon. His illness spared him what would have been a terribly embarrassing confrontation with his failures: the growing power of Hezbollah in Lebanon, right under his nose; and the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections and the firing of Qassams at the south. The man who in his last days earned the admiration of the entire world, as if he were a great statesman and architect of peace, now appears to have been one of the worst prime ministers Israel ever had, maybe even worse than Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak.
If it weren't for the current war in Lebanon, this week everyone would almost certainly have been talking about the withdrawal from Gaza, on its first anniversary, and the summary isn't very positive: Instead of the areas of the settlements evacuated by Israel being put to use for the welfare of the Palestinians, they were taken over by the Qassam gangs. The Israel Defense Forces intensified the means of oppression and Gaza is on the verge of a humanitarian disaster. A further withdrawal in the West Bank, in an effort to make good on the promises made by Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz, doesn't appear possible right now.
Did all this have to happen? Maybe not. In this sense, the withdrawal from Gaza is similar to the Oslo Accords: a missed opportunity. Had the withdrawal been carried out in the context of an agreement with the Palestinians, rather than as a unilateral "disengagement," or had free passage been allowed meanwhile between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank - perhaps everything would have been different. In any event, the Gush Katif settlements were a reckless adventure and their dismantling has not caused a national trauma. But after almost a year of Qassam fire, a giant "We told you so" is hanging over the public discourse.
The forced evacuation of thousands of Israelis, which was executed without too much difficulty, threatens to lay the groundwork for an eventual expulsion of masses of Palestinians, too. The bombardment of Beirut and the instigation of mass flight by inhabitants of south Lebanon are turning the harming of civilians into a matter of routine. This is the legacy of Ariel Sharon: The fate of human beings always interested him less than military considerations.
If he could still speak today, one wonders whether Sharon would admit that he erred. Maybe not. So few politicians are capable of that. I would like to show Sharon Errol Morris' film, "The Fog of War" (2003), about Robert S. McNamara and tape his reaction. It's a movie that is well worth watching again, especially this week.
One night, during World War II, the Americans bombarded Tokyo, causing about 100,000 residents to be burned alive in their homes. Countless civilians were killed in other Japanese cities, all before the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No, this wasn't proportional to the war objectives of the United States, says McNamara, the former U.S. secretary of defense.
A graduate of Harvard, McNamara was the president of the Ford Motor Company where, among other things, he introduced seatbelts in cars. He joined the Kennedy administration as secretary of defense and stayed on in the Johnson administration. Toward the end of 1967, McNamara realized that the war in Vietnam was lost and he proposed to Johnson that the United States stop its bombardments of cities in North Vietnam. Johnson reacted angrily and McNamara ended up leaving to take charge of the World Bank. Four years and about 60,000 dead later, he gazes into Errol Morris' camera and, with the wisdom of hindsight, says simply: We made a mistake. He bears part of the blame for this terrible failure and is doing his best to impart to the world the lessons that he learned. He came up with 11 lessons in all, including the importance of intelligence, before and during the course of the war, and the need to get into the mind of the enemy and to understand him.
McNamara says the United States didn't understand the motivations of North Vietnam and that the latter did not understand those of the United States: North Vietnam was not a pawn in the hands of the Communist Bloc, as the Americans believed - and America did not aspire to rule Vietnam as a colonial power, as the Vietnamese believed. McNamara warns of the tendency to assume that rational thinking will halt acts of madness: The three protagonists in the Cuban missile crisis - Nikita Krushchev, Fidel Castro and John F. Kennedy - were all rational people. A review of the historic documentation shows that all three were prepared to go all the way - to nuclear war, that is.
The seventh lesson that McNamara offers to history is the most important of all: Very often, heads of states and armies do not really see what they think they see. They see what they expect to see, what they want to see, what's convenient for them to see. McNamara suggests that leaders take a second look at their assumptions at the moment of reckoning: Not only can intelligence be faulty, the basic conceptions guiding them may also be flawed. The communist threat that stood at the center of the Western world's thinking turned out years later to be an optical illusion. Today the Western world believes in the Islamic threat. The rhetoric accompanying the war in Lebanon sounds in part like it was borrowed from the Vietnam War.
What will happen to small nations if we abandon Vietnam to communism? - that was the question frequently posed by President Johnson. And McNamara spoke of the "domino effect": If South Vietnam falls to the communists, all of East Asia will follow suit. He wasn't lying. He sincerely believed that. Looking back, he offers his own definition of the phrase "the fog of war": an unclear vision of reality.
Politicians like to pat themselves on the back for the inner conviction that guides them, and for their determination to do what they deem to be right. McNamara advocates a more important quality: skepticism. The skepticism that eventually saved America from itself was born in the media there.
The film "The Fog of War," which earned an Oscar for its creator, is available for rental at local video libraries.
A diplomatic dispute erupted a little while ago between the State of Israel and the kingdom of Great Britain, and this week it was resolved before the IDF would have, very regretfully, been compelled to bombard London. Interior Minister Roni Bar-On told the tale in the Knesset.
Her Majesty's ambassador had protested a sign put up by the Jerusalem Municipality marking the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel. The British wanted the sign removed. Negotiations began. The sign that veterans of the Irgun underground had wanted to erect said that the British were warned ahead of time but, "despite this, for reasons known only to them, the British did not evacuate the hotel." In other words - the British are to blame. The original sign listed the identity of the 92 victims, who included Jews and Arabs and others. The new sign that was put up this week says only: "The hotel was not evacuated." According to the sign, the losses caused were "very regrettable," i.e., the intention was to carry out an attack without casualties.
In the English version that was on the original sign, the stronger term "dismay" was added. Dismay that the British didn't evacuate the hotel. On the new sign - that additional word is gone.
There are other differences. Here is a good topic for a study of Israelis' attitudes to terror attacks. A bit of this came up in the Knesset discussion, too.
Reuven Rivlin (Likud) complained that Israel had given into the Brits' demands: "In wake of this letter, will they be able to come with other letters? For example, that the daughter of one of the Irgun leaders can't serve as foreign minister? Or will the appointment or election of Menachem Begin as prime minister of Israel for two terms in a row be retroactively nullified? Will (Israel) Eldad's son be unable to serve as a Knesset member? These are questions that just need to be asked. After all, we're talking about the blowing up of the command center that was the symbol of the British Mandate in Palestine that prevented the immigration of the uprooted from the fields of the burning of our people in Europe."
Meir Porush (United Torah Judaism), on the other hand, protested the whole idea of honoring the attack on the hotel: "I really don't understand what this celebration is all about ... We're acting like the goyim. Blood was spilled. Dozens of people were killed. What's to celebrate?"
The interior minister brought the discussion to a close with these timely words from the Passover Haggadah: "In every generation there are those who rise up against us and seek to destroy us. But the Holy One, blessed be He, saves us from their hands."
A man named Nasrallah whom I don't know sent me an e-mail this week. I thought that he was from Beirut. So I asked, naturally, and with no little hope, if there were a connection. As often happens in dialogues with our neighbors - this was the wrong question to ask. He has no connection to that Nasrallah, he replied, probably in a slightly reproachful tone.
The man in question is Yousry Nasrallah, the Egyptian film director. Recently he had directed the film "Bab al-Shams" ("The Gate of the Sun"), based on the book by Elias Khoury. Nasrallah forwarded to me a public appeal from Beirut, composed by Lebanese theater director Roger Assaf. He's one of the best there is in that country, Nasrallah wrote.
Along with the pope, the French president, the German chancellor and, of course, Israel, Assaf denounced the alliance between Syria and Iran, which has nothing at all to do with the true interest of Lebanon and has brought disaster upon it. His language is poetic. He writes about his dreams of a better world - one in which the children of Israel won't grow up amid the spirit of hatred and nationalist-militarist hysteria, one in which Palestinian and Lebanese children won't grow up amid the spirit of vengeance. He and his friends live in the spirit of Plato and Gandhi and Albert Camus and other humanist philosophers and intellectuals, he said.
Yousry Nasrallah sent me a second e-mail in which he explained the background to Assaf"s letter: "In July 2006, there are people (maybe I should use the past tense) who are neither with Iran, nor with Syria, nor with Hezbollah, nor with Israel. People who do not want to be used by either of these powers as human shields or targets. People who have tried these past few years to build a new Lebanon that is free from all this."
He sounds like a few people I know in Haifa.
The news of the deterioration this week in Ariel Sharon's condition caught many Israelis by surprise: Oh, yeah, Ariel Sharon. His illness spared him what would have been a terribly embarrassing confrontation with his failures: the growing power of Hezbollah in Lebanon, right under his nose; and the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections and the firing of Qassams at the south. The man who in his last days earned the admiration of the entire world, as if he were a great statesman and architect of peace, now appears to have been one of the worst prime ministers Israel ever had, maybe even worse than Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak.
If it weren't for the current war in Lebanon, this week everyone would almost certainly have been talking about the withdrawal from Gaza, on its first anniversary, and the summary isn't very positive: Instead of the areas of the settlements evacuated by Israel being put to use for the welfare of the Palestinians, they were taken over by the Qassam gangs. The Israel Defense Forces intensified the means of oppression and Gaza is on the verge of a humanitarian disaster. A further withdrawal in the West Bank, in an effort to make good on the promises made by Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz, doesn't appear possible right now.
Did all this have to happen? Maybe not. In this sense, the withdrawal from Gaza is similar to the Oslo Accords: a missed opportunity. Had the withdrawal been carried out in the context of an agreement with the Palestinians, rather than as a unilateral "disengagement," or had free passage been allowed meanwhile between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank - perhaps everything would have been different. In any event, the Gush Katif settlements were a reckless adventure and their dismantling has not caused a national trauma. But after almost a year of Qassam fire, a giant "We told you so" is hanging over the public discourse.
The forced evacuation of thousands of Israelis, which was executed without too much difficulty, threatens to lay the groundwork for an eventual expulsion of masses of Palestinians, too. The bombardment of Beirut and the instigation of mass flight by inhabitants of south Lebanon are turning the harming of civilians into a matter of routine. This is the legacy of Ariel Sharon: The fate of human beings always interested him less than military considerations.
If he could still speak today, one wonders whether Sharon would admit that he erred. Maybe not. So few politicians are capable of that. I would like to show Sharon Errol Morris' film, "The Fog of War" (2003), about Robert S. McNamara and tape his reaction. It's a movie that is well worth watching again, especially this week.
One night, during World War II, the Americans bombarded Tokyo, causing about 100,000 residents to be burned alive in their homes. Countless civilians were killed in other Japanese cities, all before the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No, this wasn't proportional to the war objectives of the United States, says McNamara, the former U.S. secretary of defense.
A graduate of Harvard, McNamara was the president of the Ford Motor Company where, among other things, he introduced seatbelts in cars. He joined the Kennedy administration as secretary of defense and stayed on in the Johnson administration. Toward the end of 1967, McNamara realized that the war in Vietnam was lost and he proposed to Johnson that the United States stop its bombardments of cities in North Vietnam. Johnson reacted angrily and McNamara ended up leaving to take charge of the World Bank. Four years and about 60,000 dead later, he gazes into Errol Morris' camera and, with the wisdom of hindsight, says simply: We made a mistake. He bears part of the blame for this terrible failure and is doing his best to impart to the world the lessons that he learned. He came up with 11 lessons in all, including the importance of intelligence, before and during the course of the war, and the need to get into the mind of the enemy and to understand him.
McNamara says the United States didn't understand the motivations of North Vietnam and that the latter did not understand those of the United States: North Vietnam was not a pawn in the hands of the Communist Bloc, as the Americans believed - and America did not aspire to rule Vietnam as a colonial power, as the Vietnamese believed. McNamara warns of the tendency to assume that rational thinking will halt acts of madness: The three protagonists in the Cuban missile crisis - Nikita Krushchev, Fidel Castro and John F. Kennedy - were all rational people. A review of the historic documentation shows that all three were prepared to go all the way - to nuclear war, that is.
The seventh lesson that McNamara offers to history is the most important of all: Very often, heads of states and armies do not really see what they think they see. They see what they expect to see, what they want to see, what's convenient for them to see. McNamara suggests that leaders take a second look at their assumptions at the moment of reckoning: Not only can intelligence be faulty, the basic conceptions guiding them may also be flawed. The communist threat that stood at the center of the Western world's thinking turned out years later to be an optical illusion. Today the Western world believes in the Islamic threat. The rhetoric accompanying the war in Lebanon sounds in part like it was borrowed from the Vietnam War.
What will happen to small nations if we abandon Vietnam to communism? - that was the question frequently posed by President Johnson. And McNamara spoke of the "domino effect": If South Vietnam falls to the communists, all of East Asia will follow suit. He wasn't lying. He sincerely believed that. Looking back, he offers his own definition of the phrase "the fog of war": an unclear vision of reality.
Politicians like to pat themselves on the back for the inner conviction that guides them, and for their determination to do what they deem to be right. McNamara advocates a more important quality: skepticism. The skepticism that eventually saved America from itself was born in the media there.
The film "The Fog of War," which earned an Oscar for its creator, is available for rental at local video libraries.
A diplomatic dispute erupted a little while ago between the State of Israel and the kingdom of Great Britain, and this week it was resolved before the IDF would have, very regretfully, been compelled to bombard London. Interior Minister Roni Bar-On told the tale in the Knesset.
Her Majesty's ambassador had protested a sign put up by the Jerusalem Municipality marking the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel. The British wanted the sign removed. Negotiations began. The sign that veterans of the Irgun underground had wanted to erect said that the British were warned ahead of time but, "despite this, for reasons known only to them, the British did not evacuate the hotel." In other words - the British are to blame. The original sign listed the identity of the 92 victims, who included Jews and Arabs and others. The new sign that was put up this week says only: "The hotel was not evacuated." According to the sign, the losses caused were "very regrettable," i.e., the intention was to carry out an attack without casualties.
In the English version that was on the original sign, the stronger term "dismay" was added. Dismay that the British didn't evacuate the hotel. On the new sign - that additional word is gone.
There are other differences. Here is a good topic for a study of Israelis' attitudes to terror attacks. A bit of this came up in the Knesset discussion, too.
Reuven Rivlin (Likud) complained that Israel had given into the Brits' demands: "In wake of this letter, will they be able to come with other letters? For example, that the daughter of one of the Irgun leaders can't serve as foreign minister? Or will the appointment or election of Menachem Begin as prime minister of Israel for two terms in a row be retroactively nullified? Will (Israel) Eldad's son be unable to serve as a Knesset member? These are questions that just need to be asked. After all, we're talking about the blowing up of the command center that was the symbol of the British Mandate in Palestine that prevented the immigration of the uprooted from the fields of the burning of our people in Europe."
Meir Porush (United Torah Judaism), on the other hand, protested the whole idea of honoring the attack on the hotel: "I really don't understand what this celebration is all about ... We're acting like the goyim. Blood was spilled. Dozens of people were killed. What's to celebrate?"
The interior minister brought the discussion to a close with these timely words from the Passover Haggadah: "In every generation there are those who rise up against us and seek to destroy us. But the Holy One, blessed be He, saves us from their hands."
Duas palavras sobre isso: a proporcionalidade
André Veríssimo *
Não existe qualquer justificação para a violência de larga-escala que o Hizbullah tem lançado desde o território israelita, aldeias vilas e ciades desde o Norte do Líbano.
Israel contra-atacou e tem o legítimo direito de o fazer. Como diz David Grossmann autor de Death as a Way of Life: Israel Ten Years After Oslo, nenhum país permaneceria em silêncio ou abandoria os seus concidadãos que foram atacados, sem qualquer provocação da parte israelita. Há seis anos Israel retirou-se de território libanês ocupado em 1982 e reposicionou-se para cá da fronteira internacional. No imediato, o Hizbullah começou a violar as resoluções relevantes das Nações Unidas. Estabeleceu posições bélicas ao longo da fronteira e começou e a edificar a sua força militar, com a ajuda da Síria e do Irão.
Durante anos o Governo do Líbano evitou confrontar-se directamente com o Hizbullah.
Israel, procurou não trespassar a fronteira, e absteve-se de levar a cabo alguma real acção contra o Hizbullah. Israel está agora a actuar contra o Líbano porque o Líbano é oficialmente responsável pelo Hizbullah. O Líbano é também o espaço de onde têm sido emitidos os mísseis Katiyusha contra as cidades iarelitas. Os líderes do Hizbullah são membros do Governo libanês e participam na administração das políticas desse estado. Neste mesmo momento acrescenta David Grossman, milhões de inocentes, civis, israelitas e libaneses, estão sob fogo pesado. Em Beirute e em Haifa, no vale de Becá, no Líbano e na Galileia israelita, crianças e adultos enfrentam os horrores da guerra.
Hoje, nós os judeus, estamos numa guerra de defesa, sem desespero nem medo. Estamos alerta ao rol que nos chama a cumplir a realidade de quanto é verdade. Sabemos de que faz mil anos, como termina esta história be'ezrat Hashém, e devemos ocupar-nos diz, por exemplo, Ginerman, entretanto, de fazer Bem quanto se encontra em nossas mãos.
Israel e o Líbano devem tudo fazer para não ferir gente inocente. Mas mesmo aqueles que esperam por um imediato fim da violência e pela abertura das negociações devem estar advertidos de que o Hizbullah criou cínica, consciente e irracionalmente esta crise. Israel não teve escolha senão o de responder aos vários ataques sobre o seu território. Este último brotar de hostilidades sublinha as similaridades problemáticas entre o Governo libanês e a Autoridade Palestina.
É tempo, por outro lado, de trabalhar com afinco, tanto em termos materiais como espirituais. Há que aumentar os méritos da Torá somando os mitsvót às nossas vidas: há que empenharmo-nos por uma teshuváh completa; há que revelar até aos seus limites mais extremos a nossa capacidade de amar e fazer bem aos outros, acrescenta, sabiamente DaniEl Ginerman.
Em conjunto com isto devemos actuar sobre a “face da terra”. Numa guerra como a que absurdamente e reprovavelmente começa com a autoria dos radicais xiitas, que nos abarca a todos (os judeus) e da qual o mundo inteiro vai tomando progressivamente parte, todos somos de algum modo soldados, e todos estamos em missão. Por isso é também dever teleonómico, geral e particular, responder à imprensa mentirosa, aos políticos tontamente oportunistas, e a todos os que nesciamente neles acreditam.
Como diz Abraham Foxman: a comunidade internacional nada fez acerca do Hizbullah e para o controle das suas actividades subversivas no Sul do Líbano apesar do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas ter aprovado a resolução 1559, O grupo terrorista acumulou o equivalente a treze mil mísseis. Alguns com alcance de 125 milhas. Uma vez que Israel não actuou no tempo certo, Damasco e Teerão agiram de forma a elevar a quantidade e qualidade dos mísseis, com ogivas químicas que farão parte, no futuro, seguramente deste tipo de tecnologia bélica mista. Portanto quando o estafado argumento da proporcionalidade é usado, devemos considerar o tamanho da ameaça duma entidade terrorista semi-autónoma no sul do Líbano, comprometida com a destruição de Israel, sem fim à vista, como receptora de fornecimentos de armas cada vez mais sofisticadas pela Síria e pelo Irão. Além de que, a infraestrutura do Hizbullah dentro do Líbano é significante. É uma tarefa imensa para Israel lidar com lançadores de mísseis, milhares de foguetões, apoio logístico e pataformas de media e informação nas diferentes partes do país dos cedros. Ainda mais difícil se torna porque o Hizbullah localizou os seus mísseis nos meios civis, e é continuamente reabastecido através de Damasco e apoiado, fortalecido e armado por Teerão. Por outras palavras, o Hizbullah é uma grande e complexa operação que coloca ao povo de Israel (Am Israel) uma imensa ameaça.
* Director CEIMOM
Não existe qualquer justificação para a violência de larga-escala que o Hizbullah tem lançado desde o território israelita, aldeias vilas e ciades desde o Norte do Líbano.
Israel contra-atacou e tem o legítimo direito de o fazer. Como diz David Grossmann autor de Death as a Way of Life: Israel Ten Years After Oslo, nenhum país permaneceria em silêncio ou abandoria os seus concidadãos que foram atacados, sem qualquer provocação da parte israelita. Há seis anos Israel retirou-se de território libanês ocupado em 1982 e reposicionou-se para cá da fronteira internacional. No imediato, o Hizbullah começou a violar as resoluções relevantes das Nações Unidas. Estabeleceu posições bélicas ao longo da fronteira e começou e a edificar a sua força militar, com a ajuda da Síria e do Irão.
Durante anos o Governo do Líbano evitou confrontar-se directamente com o Hizbullah.
Israel, procurou não trespassar a fronteira, e absteve-se de levar a cabo alguma real acção contra o Hizbullah. Israel está agora a actuar contra o Líbano porque o Líbano é oficialmente responsável pelo Hizbullah. O Líbano é também o espaço de onde têm sido emitidos os mísseis Katiyusha contra as cidades iarelitas. Os líderes do Hizbullah são membros do Governo libanês e participam na administração das políticas desse estado. Neste mesmo momento acrescenta David Grossman, milhões de inocentes, civis, israelitas e libaneses, estão sob fogo pesado. Em Beirute e em Haifa, no vale de Becá, no Líbano e na Galileia israelita, crianças e adultos enfrentam os horrores da guerra.
Hoje, nós os judeus, estamos numa guerra de defesa, sem desespero nem medo. Estamos alerta ao rol que nos chama a cumplir a realidade de quanto é verdade. Sabemos de que faz mil anos, como termina esta história be'ezrat Hashém, e devemos ocupar-nos diz, por exemplo, Ginerman, entretanto, de fazer Bem quanto se encontra em nossas mãos.
Israel e o Líbano devem tudo fazer para não ferir gente inocente. Mas mesmo aqueles que esperam por um imediato fim da violência e pela abertura das negociações devem estar advertidos de que o Hizbullah criou cínica, consciente e irracionalmente esta crise. Israel não teve escolha senão o de responder aos vários ataques sobre o seu território. Este último brotar de hostilidades sublinha as similaridades problemáticas entre o Governo libanês e a Autoridade Palestina.
É tempo, por outro lado, de trabalhar com afinco, tanto em termos materiais como espirituais. Há que aumentar os méritos da Torá somando os mitsvót às nossas vidas: há que empenharmo-nos por uma teshuváh completa; há que revelar até aos seus limites mais extremos a nossa capacidade de amar e fazer bem aos outros, acrescenta, sabiamente DaniEl Ginerman.
Em conjunto com isto devemos actuar sobre a “face da terra”. Numa guerra como a que absurdamente e reprovavelmente começa com a autoria dos radicais xiitas, que nos abarca a todos (os judeus) e da qual o mundo inteiro vai tomando progressivamente parte, todos somos de algum modo soldados, e todos estamos em missão. Por isso é também dever teleonómico, geral e particular, responder à imprensa mentirosa, aos políticos tontamente oportunistas, e a todos os que nesciamente neles acreditam.
Como diz Abraham Foxman: a comunidade internacional nada fez acerca do Hizbullah e para o controle das suas actividades subversivas no Sul do Líbano apesar do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas ter aprovado a resolução 1559, O grupo terrorista acumulou o equivalente a treze mil mísseis. Alguns com alcance de 125 milhas. Uma vez que Israel não actuou no tempo certo, Damasco e Teerão agiram de forma a elevar a quantidade e qualidade dos mísseis, com ogivas químicas que farão parte, no futuro, seguramente deste tipo de tecnologia bélica mista. Portanto quando o estafado argumento da proporcionalidade é usado, devemos considerar o tamanho da ameaça duma entidade terrorista semi-autónoma no sul do Líbano, comprometida com a destruição de Israel, sem fim à vista, como receptora de fornecimentos de armas cada vez mais sofisticadas pela Síria e pelo Irão. Além de que, a infraestrutura do Hizbullah dentro do Líbano é significante. É uma tarefa imensa para Israel lidar com lançadores de mísseis, milhares de foguetões, apoio logístico e pataformas de media e informação nas diferentes partes do país dos cedros. Ainda mais difícil se torna porque o Hizbullah localizou os seus mísseis nos meios civis, e é continuamente reabastecido através de Damasco e apoiado, fortalecido e armado por Teerão. Por outras palavras, o Hizbullah é uma grande e complexa operação que coloca ao povo de Israel (Am Israel) uma imensa ameaça.
* Director CEIMOM
Mai più pace con quelle bestie
Il Punto
Articolo di: July/2006
Antimo Marandola
Il 17 di Tamuz si digiuna in ricordo della breccia fatta dal nemico nelle mura di Gerusalemme e di nuovo siamo ad assistere alla profanazione di Eretz Israel da parte di Amalek.
Sarebbe fin troppo facile dire che l’avevamo detto: la pazzia che ha colto la classe dirigente di Israele nel lasciare prima il Libano e poi Gaza si sta ritorcendo amaramente contro il popolo d’Israele drogato dalle promesse di pace e ipnotizzato dalla prospettiva di raggiungere accordi con i lupi. La sirena David Grossman ha scritto “… i recenti eventi lungo la frontiera libanese hanno dato a tutti noi una scossa…” dimostrando che era torpore intellettuale quello di cui era preda quando ironizzava sui “coloni”, sulle “concrete” prospettive di Ginevra o sul fastidio che procuravano coloro che lo costringevano a vivere in un paese che non si liberava delle speranze messianiche! Ma adesso anche Grossman ha avuto la “scossa” e c’è da augurarsi che mai più Israele regali il sangue delle sue figlie e dei suoi figli a coloro che spudoratamente dichiarano che vogliono la distruzione di Israele.
Basta parlare di pace con i redivivi nazisti e facciamo pagare carissimo a loro ogni dito alzato. Sappiano che ogni loro velleità gli costerà un prezzo insostenibile andando dritti al cuore del problema distruggendo, una volta per tutte, ogni arma, compresi i tric trac, in mano ai nemici d’Israele, che siano a Beirut, a Damasco o a Teheran. Andiamo fino in fondo perché si possa poi vivere finalmente in pace.
Siamo “sproporzionati”? Ebbene accontentiamo questo branco di bestie immonde che si permette di giudicare così un popolo che si difende e usiamo la forza “sproporzionata” per garantirci che nessun Israeliano venga più rapito, che nessun bambino “con la stella di David” salti in aria nella propria casa o in pizzeria, che nessun padre circonciso debba lasciare la sua famiglia per andare in guerra. Ma ricordiamoci anche di sputare in faccia quando incontreremo coloro che come sciacalli lottizzano la memoria e vengono a fare i commossi quando si commemora quello sterminio che i loro compagnucci di merende vorrebbero portare a termine.
Particolare disgusto ha provocato la dichiarazione del cardinale Sodano che ha dichiarato: “La Santa Sede deplora l'attacco al Libano che è uno stato libero e sovrano. Il diritto alla difesa non esime dal rispetto delle norme del diritto internazionale, soprattutto per quel che riguarda la salvaguardia delle popolazioni civili” collezionando in una sola frase una montagna di falsità e di oscenità degne di un camorrista. Questo scribacchino che fa accapponare la pelle si ricorda che ad essere attaccato è stato Israele e che il Libano è libero e sovrano a casa propria come lo è un ergastolano visto che metà del paese è sottratto al controllo del governo ed è regno incontrastato di bande di terroristi che come tali sono stati riconosciuti dal tanto caro “diritto internazionale”? Sodano dimostra di essere solo un ciarlatano della peggiore specie quando dimentica che il suo “diritto internazionale” con la risoluzione Onu 1559 ha intimato ai terroristi di sgomberare il libano del sud per la “salvaguardia delle popolazioni civili”! Ma il pataccaro Sodano, degno discendente della macelleria dell’Inquisizione, non si spreca a considerare “popolazioni civili” gli ebrei attaccati con centinaia di missili. I suoi maestri gli ebrei li bruciavano vivi quindi allora come oggi non sono degni della sua carità cristiana ma sempre carne da macello sono!! Ha fatto rimpiangere addirittura i silenzi del suo degno compare Pio XII!
Gli ha fatto eco la squadraccia che sta al governo: Prodi ha detto "Deploriamo escalation violenta di Israele" mentre la commerciante Bonino resta incollata alla poltrona e non si sente affatto a disagio nel far parte della banda che ha collezionato dichiarazione degne di una postfazione del Mein Kampf: Franco Giordano di rifondazione comunista «Dobbiamo fermare Israele. Fermare il governo di Olmert che occupa Gaza e minaccia il Libano”, Gennaro Migliore vuole mandare i caschi blu e Luisa Morgantini scrive “Fermiamo Israele” mentre Manuela Palermi del pdci chiede al governo di ritirare l'ambasciatore italiano da Israele e all'Ue di interrompere ogni rapporto commerciale, trovando disponibili pure i Verdi: «Credo che la presenza di una forza di interposizione sarebbe utile — dice il sottosegretario Paolo Cento —, ma serve anche un'azione politica forte perché è chiaro che l'attacco al Libano rientra in una vera e propria strategia di guerra. Ora non è più il caso di parlare di equivicinanza». La parata continua con Gloria Buffo: «in questo modo non si può andare avanti. Dire che Israele ha fatto un uso sproporzionato della forza è un'espressione tutt'altro che esagerata».
Noi “sproporzionati” ricordiamo invece che il 16 ottobre 1986 le bestie libanesi hanno catturato l’Israeliano Ron Arad e l’unica notizia filtrata fino ad ora è che è stato venduto agli iraniani che gli hanno segato la colonna vertebrale per essere sicuri che non fuggisse mentre scorrono anni di speranze, di tribolazioni, di una figlia cresciuta senza padre, senza sapere dove sia, di una madre morta di crepacuore mentre la Croce Rossa Internazionale che fino a poche settimane fa neppure voleva Israele tra i propri membri, non si degna di raccogliere neppure uno straccio di notizia su Ron come faceva per gli ebrei nei campi di sterminio!
Noi “sproporzionati” ricordiamo che altri ragazzi catturati dalle bestie libanesi sono stati restituiti a Israele ed alla pietà dei loro cari solo dopo essere stati fatti letteralmente a pezzi!
Noi “sproporzionati” ricordiamo che Israele è stato attaccato sul proprio territorio e che tanti ragazzi sono stati uccisi mentre facevano il loro dovere o mentre tornavano a casa con l’autostop!
Noi “sproporzionati” ricordiamo che centinaia di migliaia di Israeliani devono vivere chiusi nei rifugi e che una generazione di bambini si è vista negare l’infanzia!
Noi “sproporzionati” ricordiamo che sono più di mille i morti e decine di migliaia i feriti nell’ultima ondata terroristica!
E allora si, facciamo gli “sproporzionati” e sradichiamo i terroristi una volta per tutte perché abbiamo il sacro diritto di vivere senza più temere le bombe sugli autobus o in pizzeria o un missile sul tetto o di sentire qualcuno che vuole distruggerci. E la pace facciamola pure con i nemici ma solo dopo averli battuti, sradicati e distrutti.
Intanto Kol ha kavod ve todà le Tsahal, congratulazioni e ringraziamenti all’Esercito Israeliano!
Articolo di: July/2006
Antimo Marandola
Il 17 di Tamuz si digiuna in ricordo della breccia fatta dal nemico nelle mura di Gerusalemme e di nuovo siamo ad assistere alla profanazione di Eretz Israel da parte di Amalek.
Sarebbe fin troppo facile dire che l’avevamo detto: la pazzia che ha colto la classe dirigente di Israele nel lasciare prima il Libano e poi Gaza si sta ritorcendo amaramente contro il popolo d’Israele drogato dalle promesse di pace e ipnotizzato dalla prospettiva di raggiungere accordi con i lupi. La sirena David Grossman ha scritto “… i recenti eventi lungo la frontiera libanese hanno dato a tutti noi una scossa…” dimostrando che era torpore intellettuale quello di cui era preda quando ironizzava sui “coloni”, sulle “concrete” prospettive di Ginevra o sul fastidio che procuravano coloro che lo costringevano a vivere in un paese che non si liberava delle speranze messianiche! Ma adesso anche Grossman ha avuto la “scossa” e c’è da augurarsi che mai più Israele regali il sangue delle sue figlie e dei suoi figli a coloro che spudoratamente dichiarano che vogliono la distruzione di Israele.
Basta parlare di pace con i redivivi nazisti e facciamo pagare carissimo a loro ogni dito alzato. Sappiano che ogni loro velleità gli costerà un prezzo insostenibile andando dritti al cuore del problema distruggendo, una volta per tutte, ogni arma, compresi i tric trac, in mano ai nemici d’Israele, che siano a Beirut, a Damasco o a Teheran. Andiamo fino in fondo perché si possa poi vivere finalmente in pace.
Siamo “sproporzionati”? Ebbene accontentiamo questo branco di bestie immonde che si permette di giudicare così un popolo che si difende e usiamo la forza “sproporzionata” per garantirci che nessun Israeliano venga più rapito, che nessun bambino “con la stella di David” salti in aria nella propria casa o in pizzeria, che nessun padre circonciso debba lasciare la sua famiglia per andare in guerra. Ma ricordiamoci anche di sputare in faccia quando incontreremo coloro che come sciacalli lottizzano la memoria e vengono a fare i commossi quando si commemora quello sterminio che i loro compagnucci di merende vorrebbero portare a termine.
Particolare disgusto ha provocato la dichiarazione del cardinale Sodano che ha dichiarato: “La Santa Sede deplora l'attacco al Libano che è uno stato libero e sovrano. Il diritto alla difesa non esime dal rispetto delle norme del diritto internazionale, soprattutto per quel che riguarda la salvaguardia delle popolazioni civili” collezionando in una sola frase una montagna di falsità e di oscenità degne di un camorrista. Questo scribacchino che fa accapponare la pelle si ricorda che ad essere attaccato è stato Israele e che il Libano è libero e sovrano a casa propria come lo è un ergastolano visto che metà del paese è sottratto al controllo del governo ed è regno incontrastato di bande di terroristi che come tali sono stati riconosciuti dal tanto caro “diritto internazionale”? Sodano dimostra di essere solo un ciarlatano della peggiore specie quando dimentica che il suo “diritto internazionale” con la risoluzione Onu 1559 ha intimato ai terroristi di sgomberare il libano del sud per la “salvaguardia delle popolazioni civili”! Ma il pataccaro Sodano, degno discendente della macelleria dell’Inquisizione, non si spreca a considerare “popolazioni civili” gli ebrei attaccati con centinaia di missili. I suoi maestri gli ebrei li bruciavano vivi quindi allora come oggi non sono degni della sua carità cristiana ma sempre carne da macello sono!! Ha fatto rimpiangere addirittura i silenzi del suo degno compare Pio XII!
Gli ha fatto eco la squadraccia che sta al governo: Prodi ha detto "Deploriamo escalation violenta di Israele" mentre la commerciante Bonino resta incollata alla poltrona e non si sente affatto a disagio nel far parte della banda che ha collezionato dichiarazione degne di una postfazione del Mein Kampf: Franco Giordano di rifondazione comunista «Dobbiamo fermare Israele. Fermare il governo di Olmert che occupa Gaza e minaccia il Libano”, Gennaro Migliore vuole mandare i caschi blu e Luisa Morgantini scrive “Fermiamo Israele” mentre Manuela Palermi del pdci chiede al governo di ritirare l'ambasciatore italiano da Israele e all'Ue di interrompere ogni rapporto commerciale, trovando disponibili pure i Verdi: «Credo che la presenza di una forza di interposizione sarebbe utile — dice il sottosegretario Paolo Cento —, ma serve anche un'azione politica forte perché è chiaro che l'attacco al Libano rientra in una vera e propria strategia di guerra. Ora non è più il caso di parlare di equivicinanza». La parata continua con Gloria Buffo: «in questo modo non si può andare avanti. Dire che Israele ha fatto un uso sproporzionato della forza è un'espressione tutt'altro che esagerata».
Noi “sproporzionati” ricordiamo invece che il 16 ottobre 1986 le bestie libanesi hanno catturato l’Israeliano Ron Arad e l’unica notizia filtrata fino ad ora è che è stato venduto agli iraniani che gli hanno segato la colonna vertebrale per essere sicuri che non fuggisse mentre scorrono anni di speranze, di tribolazioni, di una figlia cresciuta senza padre, senza sapere dove sia, di una madre morta di crepacuore mentre la Croce Rossa Internazionale che fino a poche settimane fa neppure voleva Israele tra i propri membri, non si degna di raccogliere neppure uno straccio di notizia su Ron come faceva per gli ebrei nei campi di sterminio!
Noi “sproporzionati” ricordiamo che altri ragazzi catturati dalle bestie libanesi sono stati restituiti a Israele ed alla pietà dei loro cari solo dopo essere stati fatti letteralmente a pezzi!
Noi “sproporzionati” ricordiamo che Israele è stato attaccato sul proprio territorio e che tanti ragazzi sono stati uccisi mentre facevano il loro dovere o mentre tornavano a casa con l’autostop!
Noi “sproporzionati” ricordiamo che centinaia di migliaia di Israeliani devono vivere chiusi nei rifugi e che una generazione di bambini si è vista negare l’infanzia!
Noi “sproporzionati” ricordiamo che sono più di mille i morti e decine di migliaia i feriti nell’ultima ondata terroristica!
E allora si, facciamo gli “sproporzionati” e sradichiamo i terroristi una volta per tutte perché abbiamo il sacro diritto di vivere senza più temere le bombe sugli autobus o in pizzeria o un missile sul tetto o di sentire qualcuno che vuole distruggerci. E la pace facciamola pure con i nemici ma solo dopo averli battuti, sradicati e distrutti.
Intanto Kol ha kavod ve todà le Tsahal, congratulazioni e ringraziamenti all’Esercito Israeliano!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
