Professor Emeritus Moshé Machover, logic and politics

Posted on 09/10/2010 by SnoopyTheGoon

I have stumbled on a new year gift of a kind in the Guardian. It’s a letter by professor Emeritus Moshé Machover, grandly titled “Israel, Jews and the peace process”. The letter is relatively short and is worth reading in its entirety.

In his analysis (‘It’s time to get to work’: 17 years after Oslo, Clinton takes on the Middle East challenge, 3 September), Ian Black describes Netanyahu as demanding that Abbas recognise Israel “as a Jewish state”.

However, according to Chris McGreal’s report on the facing page (‘Together we can lead people to a future that will end conflict’, 3 September), what Netanyahu actually demanded from the Palestinians was recognition of “Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people”. The difference is significant. Netanyahu is a Jewish prime minister, but he is certainly not the prime minister of the Jewish people, as he implicitly claims.

A state defined by ethnic religion is bad enough; but what Netanyahu’s actual demand amounts to is legitimation of Zionism, and the “right” of Israel to speak and act for an alleged Jewish “nation” consisting of Jews everywhere, including the UK.

I wold like to address first the main points of that letter. Since prof. Machover is expert in mathematical logic, one would expect him to be respectful to logic in general. But he goes illogical immediately, starting with his first statement – “Netanyahu is a Jewish prime minister“. Unless prof. Machover means Netanyahu’s Jewishness (which should be, but obviously isn’t irrelevant to professor), Netanyahu is a PM of a state that includes about 1.5 million Arabs, Druze, Bedouin, Bahai and other minorities*. For good or otherwise, he is a legally elected PM of all people.

Then “but he is certainly not the prime minister of the Jewish people, as he implicitly claims”. “Implicitly” means “Without ever expressing so clearly”. It obviously took the combined talents of “mathematician, philosopher, and socialist activist” to derive something that far reaching. Sheer math logic wouldn’t suffice for that feat. And, while I am far from being Bibi’s fan, even Bibi doesn’t pretend on the title of King of All Jews.

That “All” is especially significant, since prof. Machover uses the regular anti-Zionist strawman, where various Israeli VIP’s are accused in trying to speak for all Jews. Now the state of Israel is being blamed for trying to be a state for all Jews. I can already see how grim-looking British immigration officials are dragging kicking and screaming prof. Machover to the El-Al plane warming up its engines on the tarmac. Doesn’t bear imagining, I can tell you already…

But I digress. The national state of the Jews will hardly care to forcefully detach prof. Machover from his beloved United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, an Anglican Church monarchy with 14 fourteen overseas territories**… You may want to say that I am abusing a formal definition of otherwise enlightened democracy – but the definition Bibi is using is also formal, for the reason mentioned above (*).

Now to lesser issues

  1. For some intangible reason prof. Machover prefers the quote from Chris McGreal (not a friend of Israel, to say the least) to that of Ian Black. I have checked some sources, and the formula Bibi used is different on different occasions. “Israel as the Jewish people’s nation“, “Israel as a Jewish state“, “Israel as the state of the Jewish people“, even a lengthy “Israel, not just as a diplomatic or political entity, but as the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people” etc. To me it means that Bibi, while not being letter perfect or sticking to the same formula every time, doesn’t exactly pursue the King of All Jews title.
  2. “A state defined by ethnic religion is bad enough” – yeah, see (**) above.
  3. “Netanyahu’s actual demand amounts to is legitimation of Zionism“. Zionism and its legitimation are anathema to prof. Machover, who spend most of his conscious life fighting Zionism. But, in my humble, Zionism doesn’t require (or, indeed, need) legitimation. At least no more than Communist Party of Israel or Matzpen. It’s a political movement.
  4. “the “right” of Israel to speak and act for an alleged Jewish “nation” consisting of Jews everywhere, including the UK”. That’s another “discovery” of an “implicit” meaning. And another strawman. Becomes quite boring after a time.

To conclude: a short letter, chock-full of illogical claims, blames and political activism.

A short reminder about prof. Machover’s political pedigree: after a stint in Israeli Communist Party, Machover broke with it for the usual ideological reasons (don’t they all?) and established a more radical in many ways Matzpen (nowadays largely moribund). Matzpen gave birth to several new rabidly anti-Israeli / anti-Zionist characters, the more notorious among them Ehud (Udi) Adiv, the “celebrated” Sabra Spy. Probably feeling the hot breath of Shin Bet on his neck, Machover lives and operates in Great Britain since 1968.

Cross-posted on SimplyJews

Posted in Blasts from the past, Israel Derangement Syndrome | Comments Off on Professor Emeritus Moshé Machover, logic and politics

Shanah Tovah

Posted on 09/08/2010 by Meryl Yourish

L’Shanah Tovah Tikatevu to all of my Jewish readers. A sweet and happy new year to you and your families.

My mother is in town. We’re making an apple cake for the Oneg tonight (and keeping half for ourselves!). And as soon as the clouds are gone, the weather will be superb. Dry and in the eighties. I love this time of year.

Posted in Holidays | 8 Comments

Friedman’s forgotten amendment

Posted on 09/08/2010 by Soccerdad

Saudi Time by Thomas Friedman

Some eight years ago, in February 2002, I interviewed then-Crown Prince-now-King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at his horse farm outside Riyadh. I shared with him a column I had written — suggesting that the Arab League put forth a peace plan offering Israel full peace for full withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem for a Palestinian state — when he feigned surprise and said: “Have you broken into my desk?” The Saudi leader said he was preparing the exact same plan and offered it up — “full withdrawal from all the occupied territories, in accord with U.N. resolutions, including in Jerusalem, for full normalization of relations.” He added: “I wanted to find a way to make clear to the Israeli people that the Arabs don’t reject or despise them.”

It was an important, visionary move by Abdullah, and his plan was quickly adopted by the Arab League, with some amendments. It has been floating out there in the ether of diplomatic possibilities ever since. But all that it has been doing is floating. It is time to bring it out of the air. King Abdullah should invite Mr. Netanyahu to Riyadh and present it to him personally.

Never mind that Friedman has since criticized Abdullah for not following though with his “peace plan.” (Actually it’s more of a peace ultimatum or fraud.) But Friedman here, acknowledges “…his plan was quickly adopted by the Arab League, with some amendments…” but doesn’t specify what those amendments were. One of them was the last part of this:

Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

Why’s this important and why does Friedman ignore it? Well two years earlier Israel withdrew from Lebanon and was determined by the United Nations to be occupying Lebanon no longer.

After consultations throughout the weekend, the Security Council this afternoon endorsed the work done by the United Nations as mandated by the Security Council, including the Secretary-General’s conclusion that, as of 16 June, Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with Security Council resolution 425 (1978).

So for the Saudi “peace” plan to demand an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory is dishonest. What happened is that when Abdullah went to drum up support for his plan, he went to Syria. President Bashar Assad insisted that Abdullah include language demanding an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. Toward that end, Assad claimed that Shebaa Farms, which had been captured from Syria in 1967, was really Lebanese territory. This meant that Hezbollah still had a pretext to continue attacking Israel.

It also meant that the Arab world changed the terms of what would be necessary for peace. Israel abided by 425 and now the Arab world said that it wasn’t good enough. What does that say about the future? If this change was allowed, who’s to say that the Arabs wouldn’t change future demands; denying Israeli concessions by changing the terms?

The U.N. in a rare display of integrity, would not endorse the Saudi plan for exactly this reason.

Some provisions in the plan run counter to existing Security Council resolutions, an official here said. Among these is the call by the Saudi plan for an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. The Council does not consider Israel to be in control of any Lebanese land after the Israeli withdrawal from the border area two years ago. In Beirut this week, Lebanon revived its claim to a small part of the Israeli-held Golan Heights known as the Sheba Farms.

Friedman knows this very well, it’s why doesn’t mention it specifically. This amendment including Lebanon, says a lot about the Arab commitment to peace with Israel. Friedman’s silence on the topic says a lot about his integrity.

(h/t My Right Word along with his own objections)

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Media Bias | Tagged | 2 Comments

Erev Rosh Hashana briefs

Posted on 09/08/2010 by Meryl Yourish

So cemeteries aren’t such holy ground after all: The Islamists in Israel freaked out over a claim that Israel is building over a Muslim cemetery. (They’ve even put up fake headstones to “prove” it is an active cemetery; it is not.) But I don’t think you’re going to hear them freak out over their fellow Islamists hiding weapons in cemeteries prior to smuggling them into Gaza. Yeah, another case of utter hypocrisy about Muslim sensibilities. I’m sure you’re as surprised as I am.

It’s the Jew hatred, stupid: If there’s no humanitarian crisis, why are they planning more flotillas? Hm. Let’s think. Support for Hamas? Check. Israel derangement syndrome? Check. Blatant anti-Semitism? Check. Seriously, they’re planning on a flotilla of 20 to 50 ships for what, exactly? The blockade was lifted to pretty much what they’ve been demanding. For the world to demand that Israel allow Hamas to import weapons unchecked, and contribute to its own destruction, is nothing short of Jew hatred. Which is what these flotillas seem to be really all about, once you get rid of the “humanitarian crisis” reasoning.

We’ll never, ever, EVER acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state: Yeah, we already knew this, but it’s good to keep pointing it out. Not only will the Palestinians not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, but the Egyptians are “worried” about that, too. They think that only the UN should be able to declare a state Jewish. Shyeah. Like that would ever happen.

Fidel Castro defending Israel? Yes, really. He’s telling Jeffrey Goldberg that Mad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should stop slandering Jews, stop denying the Holocaust, and stop heading towards war with Israel. Wow. Just—wow.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Gaza, Israel, News Briefs, Religion | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Mysterious decision at Time magazine changed focus of issue from Palestinians to Israel

Posted on 09/08/2010 by Soccerdad

According to unconfirmed reports, this was an early draft of Time Magazine’s now infamous cover for September 13, 2010 issue.

Originally the issue was supposed to focus on:

Abbas telling Jackson Diehl:

Instead, he says, he will remain passive. “I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,” he said. “Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.” In the Obama administration, so far, it’s easy being Palestinian.

The sway extremists hold over Fatah:

And in addition, while Dahlan and Rajoub are presented as young, fresh faces–and they are by no means radical in the context of Palestinian politics, you could even call them pragmatists in that framework, we are talking here about militia leaders, not civic reformers. Dahlan, for example, said just before the congress that Fatah had never recognized Israel and would never ask Hamas to do so either.
There are five real extremists: Muhammad Ghaneim, Salim al-Zanoun, Abbas Zaki, Sultan Abu al-Aynain, and Nasser Kidra. Zanoun is the former head of the Palestine National Council who rejected changing the Charter to accept Israel’s existence; Zaki is an old-style Arab nationalist. Kidra is seen as representing the legacy of his uncle Yasir Arafat. Aynain is a traditional PLO type.

A new Fatah charter that doesn’t liberalize the organization in any way:

And yet offered an opportunity to become a parliamentary political party, a movement clearly dedicated to peaceful politicking and a diplomatic solution, despite massive Western financial subsidies and frequent expressions of support for a Palestinian state from President Barack Obama, Fatah has chosen to remain a revolutionary organization. Indeed, there is no word more used in this charter than “revolutionary.”
“Let us train ourselves to be patient and to face ordeals, bear calamities, sacrifice our souls, blood, time and effort,” says the charter. “All these are the weapons of revolutionaries.
“You must know that determination, patience, secrecy, confidentiality, adherence to the principles and goals of the revolution, keep us from stumbling and shorten the path to liberation.
“Go forward to revolution. Long live Palestine, free and Arab!”

The continued incitement of the Palestinian Authority against Israel:

Speaking about Jerusalem, and with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in the audience, PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash in his Friday sermon threatened that “Jerusalem can ignite a thousand and one wars” and that unless Jerusalem “returns” to the Palestinians, “its owners,” and unless it becomes the capital of the Palestinian people, “there is no peace.”

And the continued glorification of terrorists.

Those were the words of the Palestinian Authority’s Minister for Prisoners’ Affairs, Issa Karake, when he honored a Palestinian woman by awarding her “the Shield of Resoluteness and Giving.”
The Minister of Prisoners’ Affairs, Karake, honors mother of 4 terrorists with PA Shield. [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 28, 2010]
She received this honor because she is the mother of four sons who are serving a total of 18 life sentences in Israeli prisons. They all killed Israeli civilians in terror attacks.

According to these unconfirmed reports, no reason was give for the editorial decision to change the focus on why Palestinians don’t want peace to why Israel doesn’t want peace.

UPDATE: I cajoled Elder of Ziyon into doing a better mockup of the imaginary Time cover. As you can see above, he did a much better job. If you like the image feel free to republish with a credit to Elder of Ziyon for his excellent work.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Media Bias | 4 Comments

Post-holiday briefs

Posted on 09/08/2010 by Meryl Yourish

How to spin a report properly: This Ynet article takes Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report on the state of Israeli education at face value, and gives you depressing statistic after depressing statistic. Israel spent less, teaches fewer hours, has larger classes, pays its teacher less, and as a result has—a higher high school graduation rate than the average OECD member state. Um… and the problem here is…?

The Gaza Humanitarian Crisis: Show jumping not included! The Guardian spotlights Gaza’s riding club, even while insisting that it doesn’t mean Gazans aren’t suffering a humanitarian crisis because the club members are all affluent. Yeah, you could get whiplash watching the justifications slap back and forth. And oh yeah—they smuggled the horses in through the tunnels.

Yeah, but what about “tzedaka”? Google searches for “tzedakah” are at an all-time low. Well, looks like my bleg will be moving to the front of the pack, then.

No compromise, no peace: Mahmoud Abbas, finally realizing that the settlement freeze excuse is wearing thin on the rest of the world, is now saying that the Palestinians will compromise on—nothing. Nor will the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Is anyone out there surprised? Really? You haven’t been reading me very long, have you?

Posted in Israel, News Briefs | Tagged , | 4 Comments

The mythical “last chance” for peace

Posted on 09/07/2010 by Meryl Yourish

While doing some reading around the blogosphere, I came across this phrase in a J Street release on the direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians:

The window of opportunity for progress is brief and closing. This could well be the last opportunity to save the two-state solution.

This is a recurring theme in the narrative on peace talks. It has been brought up many times by the Palestinians, the EU, the State Department, and dozens of op-ed writers in who knows how many media outlets.

But I have a question about the idea that if peace talks fail, there will not be a two-state solution: Says who?

Really, on what are they basing this ridiculous notion? Are they saying that if talks fail now, Israel will never again want to come to the bargaining table? That’s absurd. Are they saying that if talks fail now, the Palestinians will never again come to the bargaining table? That, too, is absurd. (Let us leave out entirely the subject of whether the Palestinians truly want peace.)

Are those who insist this is Israel’s last chance for peace then suggesting that if Israel can’t settle with the Palestinians, there can only be a one-state solution? When they mention this, in the next breath we hear about the demographic issues—the claims that there will be more Arabs between the Jordan and the Mediterranean than there will be Israeli Jews. This claim has actually been shown to be false, but as it goes against the narrative, it is not mentioned widely in the media (or, frankly, at all).

Are they saying that Intifada 3 is going to spring up on the failure of the talks? Oh, we keep hearing veiled references to that by the Palestinian side, but let’s stop and figure the chances of that occurring. The Palestinian leadership is getting rich by not attacking Israelis and receiving international funds, as well as the peace dividends of their ownership in various Palestinian industries. Many checkpoints have been removed, life is getting better for Palestinians in the West Bank—all this would be reversed if the terror war starts up again. And there is also the fact that the IDF is still able to protect Israel from terror cells to a great degree. So I think the chances of another terror war starting if the talks fail are about zero.

So what, exactly, makes these talks the “last chance for peace” that everyone keeps talking about?

Nothing. It’s just words.

Posted in Israel | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Pieces of Time’s “peace”

Posted on 09/07/2010 by Soccerdad

This weeks’ Time Magazine has a cover story that explains, “Why israel doesn’t care about Peace?”

Israelly Cool dismisses it with:

Real serious journalism here. A provocative title and they’ve spoken with a couple of Tel Aviv condo salesmen. All in the name of demonizing the Jewish state.

Elder of Ziyon (who is seconded by FresoZionism) writes:

The title on the cover, and the cover itself, are very clearly implying that Israelis do not care about peace itself. The Time editors do not seem to understand basic English. Right now, there is peace, by and large.

On the other hand, Israelis know that the almost automatic result of giving more concessions is terror, not peace.

Hezbollah was not dismantled when its supposed raison d’etre disappeared when Israel withdrew behind UN-drawn borders – on the contrary, it was strengthened. Hamas didn’t get weakened by Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza – it moved into the vacuum left by an impotent PA, that just happens to be Israel’s “peace partner.” What person it their right mind would support moving into act 3 of this drama?

Daled Amos questions Time’s methodology and JoshuaPundit, its timing.

Mere Rhetoric goes through Time’s history of questionable taste regarding israel, and My Right Word shows that the cover echoes a Newsweek one of years’ past.

Bret Stephens remembers a rhyme from Time Magazine.

In May 1977, when Menachem Begin was elected Israel’s prime minister, Time magazine set out to describe the man, beginning with the correct pronunciation of his last name: “Rhymes with Fagin,” the editors explained, invoking the character from Oliver Twist. Modern Israeli leader; archetypal Jewish lowlife: Get it?

The magazine’s other characterization of Begin was that he was “dangerous.” A year later, he shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Egypt’s Anwar Sadat.

Maybe there’s something in the magazine’s DNA. This week, readers were treated to a cover story by Karl Vick titled, suggestively, “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace.” That’s one way for Time to address the current state of negotiations between the Jewish state and its neighbors, which otherwise barely rate a mention in the article.

Instapundit summarizes VDH’s critique as Those Jews Sure Like Money, Don’t They?. VDH declares (via memeorandum)

I know it’s commonplace to read in the latest issue of Time or Newsweek that Obama is a god, that Islamophobic Americans are collectively prejudiced against Muslims, that the response after 9/11 was overblown and unnecessary (over 30 subsequent terrorist plots have been foiled, and, for some reason, renditions, tribunals, Guantanamo, Predators, intercepts, etc., have all been embraced by the Obama administration), but the recent Time piece on Israel by a Karl Vick is probably the most anti-Semitic essay I have ever read in a mainstream publication.

Ironically, last week’s cover story asked Is America Islamaphobic. The article concluded with:

In Sheboygan County, the good old-fashioned American sense of community came through for Mirza, Hamad and the Khans. But when it comes to Muslims and Islam, America’s better angels are not always so accommodating.

Which sounds like a disapproving “yes” to me. But when the question “is this publication antisemitic?” Time Magazine seems to be leading the charge to say “yes” proudly.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Tagged | 9 Comments

J Street smears ECI: It’s all about lack of context

Posted on 09/07/2010 by Meryl Yourish

J Street knows that the Emergency Committee for Israel is hitting nerves. Joe Sestak has now refudiated signing a letter to Obama urging the lifting of most of the Gaza blockade. So what is J Street doing?

Lying by omission.

The irony of the Emergency Committee’s attacks is that the changes that Members of Congress called for recently become the official policy of the Israeli Government.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu altered Israel’s Gaza blockade policy recently to allow more humanitarian goods into Gaza, stating that the change in policy “eliminates Hamas’ main propaganda claim and allows us and our international allies to face our real concerns in the realm of security.”

So the truth begs the question — shouldn’t the Emergency Committee be running their attack ads against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?

What’s missing from the above? Any context about the Gaza flotilla attack, the world outrage that immediately followed it, and the threatened [even more] isolation of Israel. The Gaza blockade was lifted under pressure, not because Bibi thought it was about time to lift the blockade.

And of course, the letter had it exactly wrong:

Easing the blockade on Gaza will not only improve the conditions on the ground for Gaza’s civilian population, but will also undermine the tunnel economy which has strengthened Hamas.

The tunnel economy is going gangbusters, still.

Of course, the really good news is that nobody other than the New York Times and its readers really gives a damn about J Street. But Bill Kristol is obviously hitting his target if J Street is singling him out for smearing. Job well done, Bill.

Posted in Gaza, Israeli Double Standard Time, Politics | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Why, yes, the site was down for a while

Posted on 09/06/2010 by Meryl Yourish

I was out enjoying the last day of summer with my favorite family. I had backwards dinner tonight—custard at Rita’s with Sarah and the kids, then dinner.

I bought a dining room set today. I won’t have it by the new year, but I will have it long before Passover. So it looks like I’m having a seder again.

Time to start deciding on which Haggadah to use. I no longer like the one I grew up with.

Three unbelievably gorgeous days in a row. Hot but not too hot, and almost no humidity—wow, what a great end to summer.

Posted in Life | 2 Comments

The “World is Flat” Award for the columnist who tries hardest to emulate Thomas Friedman goes to …

Posted on 09/06/2010 by Soccerdad

Kathleen Parker for her silly Facebook and social media offer the potential of peace column the other day.

At the State Department, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sits between Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. There is much gray hair among them.

Not far away, at a sidewalk cafe near George Washington University, four college students converse amicably. One is Israeli, one Palestinian, another Syrian, the fourth African American. (One of my young tablemates knows and identifies them.) Their iPhones join flatware among platters of couscous and falafel. They are speaking English, laughing, trading news and barbs.

The scene just described is not rare in the nation’s capital or in many other cities where colleges and universities attract diverse populations. I’ve witnessed variations of the same tableau dozens of times. Different faces, ethnicities and nationalities, but the same dynamic and, for members of an older generation, the same revelation.

Of course they’re not in their home countries, so this is hardly telling. But there was this observation.

Meanwhile, evidence mounts that sentiments are shifting among younger people, whose worldviews are broader than those of previous generations. Recent polling by Frank Luntz found that American Jewish college students are more willing than their elders to question the Israeli position. They resist groupthink and desperately want peace.

Jewish college students? Hold on. The academy is one of the places where one is subjected to relentless anti-Israel propaganda. This isn’t just a function of student organizations, but often occurs in classes. This is precisely an example of groupthink. Young impressionable people without a full understanding of a situation being led to conclusions by those in authority. As Evelyn Gordon observed regarding the Luntz poll:

But it’s also a travesty because it shouldn’t be hard for any Jewish leftist to explain why Israel, for all its flaws, is still a far better example of the left’s one-time values, such as freedom, democracy, tolerance, and human rights, than any of its enemies.

And of course there was Parker’s followup observation.

Might Palestinian youth feel similarly? Alas, I could find no similar polls.

Hmm. I wonder why (not).

Before she finishes with the column she leaves us with this chilling thought.

If I were dictator for a day, I would arrange for every young person to “friend” another in the enemy camp of their choice, creating virtual student-exchange programs in every neighborhood on the map. While the old folks bicker over their sandboxes, the children could begin building fortresses of friendship.

Kathleen Parker as dictator. Yikes! That’s a frightening thought.

So like Thomas Friedman, Kathleen Parker believes that technology will bring us all together. She also demonstrates a fondness for dictating to others. Fortunately, unlike Thomas Friedman, she doesn’t necessarily pine for Chinese Communism. Unfortunately she betrays a desire to be one herself.

There was a time when I thought that Parker was reasonable. Now that time seems distant.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | Tagged | 1 Comment

Tzedaka for the holidays

Posted on 09/05/2010 by Meryl Yourish

If you’re trying to decide where to send your tzedaka for the high holidays, consider 2020 Vision Quest.

My friend Rachel is heavily involved with the fundraising. She told me that there are about 4 million blind people in the U.S. today, and that only about 10,000 of them can afford Seeing-Eye dogs, which cost about $45. She also said that due to macular degeneration, the Baby Boomers might see that 4 million leap to 32 million blind people by 2020.

When I find the specific charity she’s fundraising for, I’ll pass it along. But every little bit helps, and this is a great cause.

Posted in Life | Comments Off on Tzedaka for the holidays

The wages of cbm’s

Posted on 09/05/2010 by Soccerdad

Last week, in New Chance for Peace the editors of the New York Times observed that:

There are other positive currents. Violence against Israelis is down. Palestinian security forces are increasingly competent at policing the West Bank. Palestinian authorities have clamped down on incitement, including removing imams and teachers who encourage attacks against Israelis. More can still be done.

Last week’s terror attack, I think, raises questions about the competence of the security forces. The murders of the Israelis was clearly planned suggesting an infrastructure. Yet apparently the Palestinian police were unaware of the cells or unwilling to take action against the planners. The ability of Hamas to operate even where the PA is nominally in control, is certainly a sobering reminder of the PA’s weakness.

Nor should we forget that, in the past, the PA police have been responsible for terror.

During an investigation by the Shin Bet security service, the two let it be known that a third person was also involved in the incident: They said that Fadi Jama’, also in the National Security organization of the Palestinian Authority, gave them the weapons they used in the attack.

And while the PA may be taking action against some who preach incitement, it’s hardly comprehensive. (More likely the PA’s taking action against Hamas affiliated preachers and teachers as part of a power struggle.) The leaders of the PA continue to engage in incitement so at best its effort is selective.

So when the Times featured a followup editorial maybe it would demonstrate some dampened enthusiasm for the Palestinian commitment to peace. Yesterday, in Another start for peace talks, the editors were even more enthusiastic.

We have long been skeptical that Mr. Netanyahu really wants a deal. But he insisted he had come to “find a historic compromise” that would end the conflict and that he recognizes that “another people shares this land with us.” He even told Mr. Abbas, “you are my partner in peace.” We will soon see if it was all political theater.

Mr. Abbas came to the table reluctantly. He is the weaker party and most at risk of being blamed for any breakdown. Still, he promised to “work to make these negotiations succeed” and said security — a major issue for Israel — “is vital for both of us.”

It is kind of funny. Netanyahu didn’t walk away from negotiations; Abbas did. Maybe that’s why Abbas is more at risk for being blamed for any breakdown that may occur. Still the next paragraph is awful.

Predictably, peace opponents tried to torpedo the talks. But Mr. Netanyahu didn’t walk out when Hamas rejectionists killed four Israelis near Hebron. And Mr. Abbas not only condemned the attack but his security forces went after those responsible. He didn’t walk out when some Israeli settlers began new settlement construction even before a Sept. 26 moratorium is to expire.

A terror attack that killed Israelis is equated with Israelis building new homes. Worse, as David Horovitz noted:

Netanyahu, the security hawk, rapidly outflanked his dovish predecessor Olmert in removing roadblocks and checkpoints and easing freedom of movement for Palestinians in the West Bank – including in the area near Kiryat Arba where four Israelis were murdered on Tuesday night – taking “calculated security risks” to enable the Palestinian economy to flourish, in the hope that “economic peace” would eventually galvanize Palestinian support for the real deal.

Try as they might to ignore it; Israeli CBM’s entail real risks. My thinking is similar to Aussie Dave’s:

No, actually the goal is to kill Jews. Embarrassing the PA is a bonus at best.

Nor is the main goal it to torpedo peace talks.

And yet despite all this what must Israel do?

Sept. 26 is the next flashpoint. The Washington conference would have had far more impact if the two sides announced an agreement to deal with that. Mr. Netanyahu should extend the moratorium.

If Abbas were really committed to peace why should Israeli building of communities in Judea and Samaria be a “flashpoint?” We’re not talking about a campaign of violence that Israel, as a matter of course, usually does not respond to, regardless of the toll. Why is it that Israel must offer even more CBM’s, when the Palestinians don’t observe the basic elements of peace?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, palestinian politics | Tagged | Comments Off on The wages of cbm’s

Delusions of “peace:” Breaking the conspiracy of silence

Posted on 09/05/2010 by SnoopyTheGoon

This is an article that you will probably find as hard to read as I had.

One certain indication that the peace talks must fail is the flood of mail that I have gotten of late from Palestinian peace and dialog groups, and from every Palestinian or other Arab who ever spoke out for peace or sanity. They beg me to remove this or that article or section from a Web site where they are quoted as advocating peace with Israel or coexistence. They say – not for publication – that they are subject to a reign of terror: Emails; Hints; Phone calls in the night; Officials of the ‘”clean-as-a-whistle” “moderate” “not-like-Arafat” Palestinian National Authority telling them they had better toe the line – or it will be bad for their organization or their personal health.

When a man like Ami Isseroff, who has done more for mutual understanding and peace than many a government institution, writes this, you should take it seriously. It is beyond sad.

Also, by Ami: Founding the Palestinian state of deniability. Another great eye opener.

And as a refreshment after this rather depressing read, here comes a newest and latest Haveil Havalim by Benji.

Cross-posted on SimplyJews

Posted in Israel | 2 Comments

Saturday night open thread

Posted on 09/04/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Been having a life this weekend, since an out-of-town visitor is here. Showed her the Richmond sights, then went to the Byrd Theater for the second-run showing of Prince of Persia. You know, that really is a fun, fun movie. Tonight was the second time I saw it, and I liked it just as much the second time as I did the first. We met my friend Sarah and the kids at the theater, and we got to hear Bob Gulledge at the Mighty Wurlitzer (which was quite awesome).

I think the funniest part was when Max, who is not quite nine yet, laughed as loudly as I did when the prince said something like “If only I could be that lucky” after the princess told him to go die or something. After Max stopped laughing, he said, “It’s ’cause she’s so annoying, isn’t it?” Yep. He is one sharp cookie. This, mind you, is the child that had a discussion with me about what happens after you die—when he was six.

It was a very fun evening. Tomorrow we’re going shooting, something that my New York City visitor doesn’t get to do a whole lot of.

Posted in Life | 1 Comment