Steven Plaut |
Original articles on Israel and related issues written by Steven Plaut, a professor at an Israeli university. |
Friday, October 31, 2003
1. Naive or Treasonous? The Metamorphosis of Israel?s Left by Steven Plaut In a recent opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post, Sarah Honig, one of the paper?s better columnists, raised the question of whether Israel?s Left should be regarded as stupid or crazy. She raised the question in response to the latest gambit by Yossi Beilin, the Mother Hen of the Oslo debacle, and his friends - the so-called ?Geneva Understandings?, which should be better termed the Geneva Misunderstandings. Honig?s question deserves to be taken seriously. The most correct answer to her question is that while many leftists are indeed crazy or stupid or both, increasingly Israel?s Left is composed simply of people who are evil. This third possibility should be taken very seriously. The growth in the weight of the evil amongst the stupid and the crazy in Israel?s Left has a simple explanation. While the Israeli Left at the time when the first Oslo Accords were perpetrated consisted mainly of the naïve and the foolish, these people have in large part disappeared by now from its ranks. In most cases, they simply became less foolish and naïve over time, and consequently abandoned the Left. They were mugged by reality and succumbed to the years of daily empirical demonstrations that the Left?s understanding of the conflict in 1993 was simply wrong, demonstr ably wrong, disastrously wrong. These were the people whose earlier beliefs had remained open to a certain amount of testing and proving in the pudding, whose minds had not been hermetically locked closed. When the pudding proved how wrong they had been, they had second thoughts. They awoke and sniffed the coffee the rest of us had long been sipping. They removed their primrose blinders from their eyes Among the manifestations of these having second thoughts were the near-complete implosion of the leftist Meretz party, which lost half its Knesset representation, and the landslide defeat of Amram Mitzna and the Labor Pa rty Left in the last Israeli election. As the naïve abandoned the Left in droves, a process of adverse selection occurred. Those who remained in the Israeli Left despite the past decade of Oslo experiences are today by and large people who are evil. They constitute the Satanic Left. Some used to be foolish leftists who evolved into evil leftists. They remain in the Left because they are motivated by hostility to Israel, animosity towards Jews, by self-hatred. That a political movement like the Israeli Left could be taken over by those motivated by dislike of their own country and hatred of their own people should not come as too much of a surprise. After all, the American campus Left is also today little more than a movement of anti-Americanism. It will support any Third World butcher it thinks is sufficiently hostile to the United States and the West. It supports everything imaginable that can harm the United States. In 1993, most Israeli leftists sincerely believed that if Israel would recognize and legitimize the PLO, if it would just make goodwill gestures towards the Palestinians and release them from Israel ?occupation?, if it offered the Palestinians their own state alongside of Israel, if it allowed Arafat and the leadership of the PLO to relocate from Tunis to the West Bank, and if it showed itself somewhat flexible in terms of the status of Jerusalem, then the Palestinians would respond to the generosity with generosity. The Left genuinely expected that demonstrations of Israeli goodwill would trigger outpourings of Palestinian goodwill and moderation, that good sportsmanship would be rewarded with niceness. A decade of goo dwill measures later, we now have ample proof. Of course the Left was totally wrong. Israeli niceness did not produce Palestinian niceness but rather Palestinian nazification. Israeli goodwill gestures triggered Palestinian fanaticism. Israeli offers to compromise produced Palestinian digging in of heals and insistence that only Israel?s destruction through some ?right of return? was an acceptable solution. When Israel turned over the bulk of the West Bank and Gaza to the PLO, along with perhaps 95 % of the Palestinian population, those areas were not used by the PLO for nation building and economic development. Instead, they were used for nothing except perpetrating endless terrorist attacks, rocket attacks, and mass murders against Jews. It became evident very quickly that Palestinian terrorism was not being caused by Israeli ?occupation? but rather was skyrocketing as a direct consequence of the REMOVAL of Israeli occupation. Each and every Israeli concession and offer to compromise was met with escalating Palestinian savagery and barbarism, along with blood-curdling screams and demonization of Jews. It became obvious that the terror bonfire was not being fanned by any construction of Israeli ?settlements? but rather by Israeli offers of appeasement that included proposals to REMOVE those settlements. We are now more than a decade after the infamous White House handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yassir Arafat. Frankly, intelligent people should have seen in 1993 that Oslo was not a peace process at all but rather a process of appeasement and defeatism that would end up NOT with a suppression of Palestinian terror but rather with its takeoff to new dimensions without precedent. But in fairness, honest people with good intentions could well have believed in 1993 that Oslo was the path to follow. They were motivated by wishful thinking, by a complete misunderstanding of the Middle East conflict, and by exhaustion. Fast forwarding to 2004: Every single day since the Oslo Accords were implemented has served as new empirical proof that those Accords were founded on a totally incorrect concept of what the Middle East conflict was about. The Middle East conflict was not about any need for Palestinian ?self-determination? but rather about the total refusal by the Arab world to acquiesce in any form of Jewish self-determination. The problem was not Israeli unwillingness for territorial compromise but Arab rejection of any territorial compromise at all as a form of solution, if it were to allow a rump Jewish state to continue to exist. Oslo proved that the Arabs would not be satisfied with some form of Palestinian statehood restricted to the West Bank and Gaza, but rather would demand all of Israel as well, perhaps in the name of the right of ?self-determination? for the Arabs of Nazareth and the Negev and Jaffa. If the years of daily proofs were insufficient, surely the events at Camp David II should have been more than enough to convince even the most diehard idealist and obstinate naif on the Israeli Left of the errors of its ways. At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians EVERYTHING: virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza purged of their Jewish settlers, all of East Jerusalem including the Western Wall, swaths of pre-1967 Israel, financial tribute, and admission of tens of thousands of Palestinian ?refugees? into the areas that Israel would retain as partial implementation of the Palestinian ?right of return?. The PLO response to this suicidal offer by the leader of Israel?s Left at the time was complete rejection and the launching of what has now become universally misnamed the ?Al-Aqsa Intifada?, which should in fact more properly be dubbed the Oslo Pogroms. The carnage is now about 900 murdered Israelis, just since October 2000, and counting. The Left?s response to the pogroms was characteristically revisionism, to deny that Barak had actually made any generous offer at Camp David at all. It is said that remarriage is the victory of hope over experience (as well as common sense). Israel?s Leftist politicians continued to court the ugly Palestinian bride who had divorced them over and over and over. To believe after Camp David II that offers of generosity by Israel could ever defuse Palestinian barbarism was simply to divorce oneself from reality and take refuge in fantasy. While the ranks of the Left in Israel dwindled, it retained much of its powers, including its near-totalitarian hegemony over Israel?s media and universities. But who exactly are these people still in the Left? First of all, they are people who insist that Israel continue to pursue the failed Oslo ?strategy? as if the past ten years of failure never took place. Beilin?s Geneva Misunderstandings are perhaps the best illustration. Going somewhat beyond even what Barak had offered at Camp David, they are once again based on endless Israeli concessions, appeasements, and capitulations to Arab demands with absolutely no quid pro quo. They are the child of the same ?Concept? that has been discredited daily ever since 1993. The only thing the Beilin ?accord? offers Israel is a promise of yet another empty rhetorical commitment by the PLO to suppressing the terror, which is the same old used Buick the PLO has been reselling to Israel without ever delivering, over and over for the past decade. The PLO was unwilling to countenance even the duplicitous language in the Beliin Capitulations that made it appear that it might someday maybe agree to some compromise over the Palestinian ?Right of Return?, which is the Palestinian demand for unlimited immigration into Israel even AFTER some Palestinian state is established. The Gargoyle of Ramallah rejected Beilin?s Munich offer because of this. Second, the Op-Eds and the official canon being preached by Israel?s Left today is increasingly one of treason. Increasing numbers of the remnants who are still denizens of the Left openly propose that Israel?s existence be terminated. A growing number of Israeli Leftists are promoting the so-called ?One State Solution? or the ?Bi-National Solution,? which should more properly be called the Rwanda Solution. This is essentially a No-State Solution. According to it, Israel would cease to exist as a Jewish state. It would be entirely enfolded into a Palestinian state stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan with the Arabs the majority and the Jews a minority, tolerated at best like the other non-Arab or non-Moslem minorities in the Arab world. Israeli Leftists are increasingly recruiting themselves to serve the very worst anti-Semites of the planet. There are today Israeli leftist professors promoting the views of Holocaust Deniers. Scores of Israeli professors endorse the boycotts being organized by overseas anti-Semites directed against Israel, including even boycotts of the Israeli institutions that pay them their salaries. Israeli leftists are regulars on Islamist fundamentalist web sites and are the universal legitimizers of the very worst haters of Jews throughout the world. There exists today a true axis of evil, which links Jewish leftism with Islamofascism. Third, Israel?s Left has always been fundamentally anti-democratic, opposing the right of free expression for non-leftists, demanding that non-leftists be prosecuted as ?inciters?. The Left has long insisted that Yitzhak Rabin was in fact murdered because non-leftists and Oslo opponents were permitted to exercise their right to free speech. But lately the Left?s anti-democratic inclinations have taken a turn towards extremism and outright subversion. The Left has long been of the opinion that Leftists should not be expected to obey the law nor submit to the will of the majority because their motives are so nice and pure. Leftists (and Arab fascists) should be able to call openly for violence with impunity. Leftists should be excused from serving in the army or obeying laws or paying taxes if the policies being implemented by the government or the army are not those advocated by the most extremist leftist 5% of the electorate. The Left has for years been trying to foment mutiny and ?resistance? among Israeli soldiers. It has organized groups who refuse to report to duty as long as Israel ?occupies? any portion of the West Bank and Gaza. These are people who explicitly refuse to submit themselves to the will of the majority of their fellow citizens. These are not people willing to promote their ideas through persuasion and argument, but rather through subversion and defiance of the rule of law. They seek to impose their minority views on the country through force. Their latest gambit is to organize mutiny among Israeli pilots in the air force, who will refuse to shoot at terrorist mass murderers until Israel ends its ?occupation? on those leftist terms opposed by the bulk of the electorate. Polls are showing that Israelis oppose the Beilin-proposed capitulations by at least two to one, and Israeli Jews oppose them by about five to one. In 1993 most Israeli leftists supported the Left because they believed its ideas would benefit Israel and the Jewish people. Today most leftists support those same ideas because they know they will harm Israel and Jews. In 1993 most Israeli leftists believed in leftist ideas because they thought ?Palestine? would pursue peace. Today those remaining on the Left support Palestinian statehood because they know ?Palestine? will pursue war. In 1993 most leftists believed in leftist ideas because they thought Israeli concessions would lead to Arab moderation. Today?s leftists know that these concessions are seen as signs of weakness that catalyze and energize Arab violence and that is why they demand more of them. In 1993 most leftists believed in Israeli restraint because they thought it would stimulate Palestinian goodwill. Today?s leftists demand endless restraint because they do not want Israel to fight terror at all. They want terror to triumph. In 1993 most leftists believed in leftist ideas because they thought Israel would emerge stronger if Oslo were implemented. Today?s leftists advocate the very same ?process? ? witness the Beilin-proposed Capitulations ? because they desire to see Israel weakened and dismembered. The Left of 1993 was by and large a Left that could be awakened from its delusions by Palestinian atrocities, endless violations of PLO commitments, Arab betrayal, and the increasingly nazified rhetoric of both Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. The Left of 2004 does not need awakening because it has no delusions that Oslo and its ?Road Map? will produce peace. It supports the Road Map precisely because it knows it will not lead to peace but to a new all-out Arab assault on Israel. The Leftists and their overseas apologists will do anything in their power to underm ine the will of the electorate in Israel and the will of the Jews to survive. They will undermine any government the Israeli voters select. They have no scruples when it comes to collaboration with the worst anti-Semites of the planet. The Leftists of 2004 have no delusions that an independent ?Palestine? will live at peace alongside Israel. They demand a solution precisely because they know it will NOT live at peace with Israel. 2. Rabbi Seidler-Fuller is a far letist Hillel Rabbi associated with Mikey Lerner and the Tikkun cult, with a long history of bashing Israel. Read on: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rabbi30oct30,1,5742062,print.story?coll=la-headlines-california LOS ANGELES a d v e r t i s e m e n t UCLA Rabbi Accused of Kicking Woman By Peter Y. Hong Times Staff Writer October 30, 2003 The Los Angeles city attorney's office said Wednesday that it will hold an administrative hearing on allegations that a prominent UCLA rabbi and peace activist kicked a woman after a lecture on campus last week. City attorney spokesman Eric Moses said the office would not pursue a criminal investigation. Rachel Neuwirth, a writer, accused Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller, the director of the Hillel Center for Jewish Life at UCLA, of kicking her Oct. 21 outside an auditorium after a speech by Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz. Seidler-Feller declined to comment, referring calls to his attorney, Donald Etra. Etra would not comment on whether the rabbi struck Neuwirth. He acknowledged that an argument took place, and said Neuwirth called Seidler-Feller a "capo," referring to Jews who served as overseers in Nazi concentration camps. The rabbi was not arrested. "For someone active in the Jewish community, someone who has devoted his life to service in the Jewish community, whose family experienced the Holocaust, one could imagine that type of allegation is quite incendiary," Etra said. Neuwirth, who writes about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for Internet sites, said Seidler-Feller kicked and scratched her as they were leaving Royce Hall. Neuwirth said Seidler-Feller had been discussing an upcoming speech by Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al Quds University, an Arab institution in Jerusalem, when she mentioned her belief that Nusseibeh had helped direct missile attacks on Israel in 1990. Neuwirth said Seidler-Feller then attacked her until he was restrained by several students. She acknowledged calling the rabbi a "capo" but said it was not until after he attacked her. Moses said it is "a fact of the case" that Seidler-Feller struck Neuwirth, but that Neuwirth uttered provocative statements to Seidler-Feller. "The facts show the actions of more than one party led to this incident," he said. Moses likened Neuwirth's action to "an instigating penalty" in hockey, saying "one incident triggered another." "Based on the facts of the case, the best resolution will be outside the criminal justice system," Moses said. At a city attorney hearing, parties meet with a hearing officer, who can order binding actions to resolve a dispute, Moses said. In a case such as this one, Moses said, an officer could order parties to stay away from each other or direct one or the other to attend anger management classes. Etra said he is "pleased and gratified" by the city attorney's decision. Neuwirth's attorney, Robert Esensten, said he plans to pursue a civil lawsuit. If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. Thursday, October 30, 2003
1. Israel this week is in a minor ruckus over the Chief of Staff of the army using the term ??hope??. He joined the politically correct crowd in insisting that the entire past decade of Palestinian savagery and atrocities was due to Israel failing to provide the Palestinians with ??hope??, and that unless they are provided now with ??hope??, then much greater violence will soon erupt. The ??hope?? canon has long been repeated so endlessly that it has become as unchallengeable as the ??cycle of violence??, ??the settlements are obstacles to peace??, and ??occupation corrupts??. It has long been asserted nearly universally by pols and the press throughout the planet that the entire war was always a matter of ??hope?? or its absence. President Bush himself has repeated it often. The Palestinians are behaving like Nazis because they need hope, must be provided with hope, have been offered insufficient hope. All of which is a bit strange because the ??hope canon?? is completely false. Indeed the exact opposite is the truth. Did Nazi Germany launch World War II because its people were denied hope or because they were offered hope hope of world conquest? The past decade of Palestinian atrocities occurred precisely BECAUSE Israel offered the Palestinians hope. The Israeli Osloids and their fellow travelers restored to the Arabs their hope, largely considered futile after the 1967 Six Day War, that Israel could be militarily annihilated and that the Jews were at long last on the run. Oslo restored their hope that they would succeed in ridding the region of the Zionist entity after all. Oslo granted the Arabs hope that the Israelis had lost their will to resist and survive. The only effective strategy for suppressing Palestinian barbarism is the diametrical opposite of the conventional wisdom. Israel has to ELIMINATE Palestinian hope. Israel must squash Palestinian hopes that they will succeed in annihilating Israel. It is true that demonstrations of Israeli weakness and defeatism, including the weekly goodwill gestures, the shows of restraint, and the lifting of Israeli sanctions every time the Palestinians do nothing to comply with their Oslo obligations, all do indeed raise Palestinian hopes. They raise Palestinian hopes that the Jews will soon be tossed into the sea. 2. Nice piece: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/mort/zuckerman_new_anti_sem.php3 3. The following is a bit long but worth plowing thru: Edward Said and Me By Justus Reid Weiner In September 1999, Commentary Magazine [1] published an article by Justus Reid Weiner, a Scholar-in-Residence with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which demonstrated that the autobiographical references of Edward Said, a University Professor at Columbia University, were fundamentally inaccurate. Contrary to his depiction, Said was in fact not exiled from Jerusalem by the Haganah in December 1947. Nor was there any basis to his claim that he "spent most of his formative years" in Jerusalem and that he " left with my [his] family for Cairo" by "the end of 1947." Similarly Said's assertion that he lost "my [his] beautiful old house" in the Talbieh neighborhood was revealed to be false. Actually, this avatar of the Palestinian refugees was the scion of a wealthy Cairene family. As was discovered, his father was an American citizen who moved to Cairo from Jerusalem a decade before Edward was born. Living in Cairo until his departure to attend prep school in America in 1951, Edward Said resided with his family in luxurious apartment buildings in the exclusive Zamalek neighborhood where he was attended to by maids and a butler, he played with childhood friends in the manicured private gardens of the Aquarium Grotto, he attended private English and American schools, he was driven around in his father's large black American cars by his chauffeur, and he enjoyed the facilities at the exclusive Gezira Sporting Club as the son of one of its only Arab members. In 1952 a revolutionary mob burned Said's father's flagship store (and a branch) to the ground, and several years later the nationalization program instituted by Egyptian President Nasser ultimately forced Said's father out of the country. Thus, the truly devastating financial losses suffered by Said's father were in no way connected to Israel, the country from which Edward Said demands reparations. In a September 20, 2000 discussion at the Middle East Forum in New York, Mr. Weiner spoke about repercussions of his widely publicized expos??. My Interest in Edward Said Early on in the Oslo peace process, I was researching an article dealing with the pessimists who opposed the peace process for the Cornell International Law Journal. Edward Said had just published a book entitled Peace and it Discontents, which placed him in the front rank of the intellectuals who rejected the peace process as a betrayal of Palestinian interests. In the course of my inquiry, I became fascinated with they way Said employed his childhood travails to advance his political argument, especially as I had lived on Jabotinsky Street in the Talbieh neighborhood of Jerusalem, a two-minute walk from the building Said had described as "my beautiful old house." Further, my former office overlooked the playground of Saint George's School in eastern Jerusalem, the very school Said claimed to have attended before being driven out of Jerusalem into exile in Cairo, by a Haganah forces sound van in December 1947. These specific claims, together with others regarding his 'father's business' on Jaffa Road, depicted a life firmly rooted in Jerusalem which was abruptly, and permanently destroyed with the emergence of Israel in 1948. Inquiring about Said's Past To better understand where Edward Said came from and the formative experiences he showcased in his articles, books, lectures, interviews and television documentaries, I began to conduct on-site research into Edward Said's childhood. First, I went to St. George's School to inquire about Said's days as a pupil there. The headmaster showed me the pre-1948 enrollment records. Based on Said's age, I expected to find that he had been enrolled during the period from 1941 to 1948. I spent hours going through the three leather-bound enrollment ledgers, page by page. To my astonishment, I found no mention of Edward Said. To double-check my results I went back to St. George's for a second visit and again, going through the same records page-by-page, I found no evidence that Edward Said was ever enrolled there. This got me hooked. I spared no effort to uncover the truth about Said's childhood. Let me illustrate obsessive thoroughness of my research: I went to the "beautiful old house--now one of the offices of the International Christian Embassy--and eventually located and interviewed six former residents. None of them had any recollection of Edward Said or his parents ever having lived in the house. In addition, research assistants and I read six months of each of the following nine newspapers: the Palestine Post, the New York Times, the London Times, the Egyptian Gazette, Defa, Falistin, Yideot, Ma'ariv, and Ha'aretz; from November 29, 1947 (the United Nations General Assembly partition resolution) to May 15, 1948 (the Israeli Declaration of Independence). I wanted to determine when and why Palestinian Arabs left the Talbieh neighborhood. Suffice it to say that Said's claim of being driven out by a Haganah sound van in mid-December 1947 was without any support in these contemporaneous records. Checking numerous archives and libraries, in Israel and abroad, I located scores of who's who books, telephone directories and business directories for Jerusalem and Cairo during the relevant years. These enabled me to ascertain where Edward Said and his parents had lived (in Cairo) and where his father's business was located (also in Cairo). I consulted the original Registry of Deeds volume to find out who actually owned the house in Talbieh which Said (falsely) claimed. I sent Arabic-speaking researchers to interview Said's cousin in Amman and a childhood neighbor in Cairo. Other stops on the trail included the Library of Congress, the declassified public records of the British Mandatory government in Palestine and the map and aerial photographs department at Hebrew University. I located Said's birth and baptismal certificates. In addition, I sought out people who might recall Said or his family and interviewed some 85 individuals whose recollections, together in some instances with their family photo albums, shed light on the enigma of the origins of Edward Said and/or conditions in Cairo or Jerusalem prior to, or during, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Several months of extensive research made clear that there was something fundamentally wrong with the picture Said presented of himself??that of a Palestinian exile/refugee deserving of reparations from Israel. When I began discovering discrepancies in Said's frequent autobiographic references, I telephoned his office at Columbia University to request an interview, but Said did not return the call. And, even where Said gave a snapshot of the truth, as with his frequent claim, "was born in Jerusalem," he was economical with the truth. Thus Said chose to omit that his parents, who resided permanently in Cairo, chose to visit relatives in Jerusalem in preparation for his birth. Their motive-- they feared hygienic conditions in Cairo hospitals after their previously born son died of an infection within days of his delivery. Thus I discovered that Edward Said's birth certificate bore no entry in the box marked "local address." However it did list a permanent address: "Cairo." Thus, even when he does use actual facts, Said deploys them in a way intended to deceive the reader. For example, he mentions a number of dates when he was present in Palestine between his birth in 1935 and 1947, then repeats them frequently, suggesting to the listener or reader that he was continuously in Palestine during this twelve-year period. As it turned out, however, Said spent virtually his entire childhood in Cairo. [2] Triggering A Major Controversy in the Media The publication of my expos?? triggered a major controversy, "detonating one of the nastiest rows of its kind to rend New York's intelligentsia in years," according to the British Observer. To date I am aware of more than 150 articles, which have appeared in far-flung publications from Finland to India, and from Syria to Canada. As responses to my article began to pour in, an obvious dichotomy emerged. On the one side were articles by Said and his friends, not one of which attempted, in any systematic way, to refute my evidence. Instead, Said's network of friends echoed and amplified his attacks, publishing suspiciously similar criticisms of my work. Not only are the specific points of attack frequently identical, but similar phraseology suggests common parentage. This network of Said's friends had come up frequently in my research into his writings. Their articles, editorials, and book reviews lauded Said the man and often even Said the icon. Interestingly, the admiration was mutual, as Said had written favorably about them (or their writings). For example, in 1986 Salman Rushdie reviewed Said's book After the Last Sky in the Guardian; then Said wrote favorably about Rushdie in the Washington Post and reviewed his book The Jaguar Smile in the London Review of Books. On at least three other occasions Rushdie and Said have engaged in mutually flattering conversations which were later published. Since the current controversy broke, Rushdie has jumped in on Said's side with an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail (Canada) which also appeared in The Age (Melbourne) and De Welt (Germany). Next there is Christopher Hitchens, who in 1988 co-edited Blaming the Victims with Said and later wrote a laudatory foreword to Said's book Peace and Its Discontents. In response to me article Hitchens has devoted two of his columns in The Nation and a review of Said's Out of Place for the (Canadian) National Post to vitriolic attacks on me and my critique of Said's intellectual dishonesty. In a recent radio interview, Said referred to Hitchens as "my defender." Said's close connection with Alexander Cockburn goes back to at least the early 1980s, when a scandal broke concerning an undisclosed $10,000 "grant." In 1982, the now-defunct Institute of Arab Studies secretly gave Cockburn a $10,000 "grant" to write a book on the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.10 When the payment was exposed, Cockburn, who had never disclosed it to his editor or readers, was sacked from the Village Voice. Meanwhile his friend Edward Said, Chairman of the Board of the Institute of Arab Studies, under questioning arising out of the scandal, defended its work in the New York Times. Apparently undeterred by the uproar, Cockburn's book Corruptions of the Empire was reviewed by Edward Said in the London Review of Books under the title of "Alexander the Brilliant." Said wrote, "Why, in the desert of today's journalistic mediocrity and cowardly trimming, anyone with Cockburn's gifts and courage should be modest, or mock-modest, I shall leave to others to discuss." Cockburn later provided a blurb for the inside cover page of Said's Representations of the Intellectual. He has on at least two occasions touted Said in his column in The Nation, and recently devoted his column in that magazine to a no-holds-barred attack on my research. Cockburn also published similar attacks in his columns in the Los Angles Times and in the New York Press. Fortunately there was another side to the coverage. Many dedicated journalists who took the trouble to examine my evidence. This group, none of whom I have ever had dealings with, includes Daniel Johnson of the Daily Telegraph, Jeff Jacoby syndicated in the Boston Globe, Dan Kennedy in the Boston Phoenix, Premen Addy in The Hindu, Charles Krauthammer in Time, Mark Berley in the New York Post, Neil Seeman in the (Canadian) National Post, Hillel Halkin in The Forward, and David Horowitz at salon.com. Despite their efforts, judging from what appeared in print, not a single journalist succeeded in pinning down Said on even one of the direct quotes which I included in my article. I was repeatedly told that he became angry and simply dismissed any effort to address the key evidence of his duplicity. Confirmation of My Findings Said's supporters faced an unenviable problem--a month after my article was published, Said's memoir Out of Place arrived in the bookstores, confirming the essence of what I had uncovered. And why did Said choose to (finally) publicize this much less dishonest description of his past in Out of Place, which differs so fundamentally from his previous parable? As he has offered no explanation of the disparity this question is likely to resonate for years to come. My theory, as I wrote in Commentary, is: I cannot rule out the possibility that these [my 85] interviews, including many with persons known to him, alerted him to the urgency of retrieving from amnesia Out of Place's astonishingly detailed reconstruction of his Cairo childhood. If so, that very fullness, characterized by a near-photographic recall of everything from his parents' conversations to his adolescent wet dreams, might well be intended as a stay against skepticism; for how could anyone so forthright ever have intended to conceal anything? Repercussions of the Expos?? Said's fraud continues to be important a full year after the publication of my Commentary article. This controversy raises larger questions than simply the myth-making and selective memory of Edward Said. As a world-class intellectual, it would be revealing to pose to him the following questions: Should intellectuals lie? Should they deceive or misrepresent personal or historical facts? Should they remember and forget selectively? Is such conduct ever justified? While some radical intellectuals go so far as to claim that all knowledge is a form of duping and others deny the very existence of "truth," Professor Edward Said, despite his radical politics, has taken a traditionalist approach to this topic. Writing in Le Monde Diplomatique, Said has noted that "there is a great difference between political and intellectual behavior. The intellectual's role is to speak the truth, as plainly, directly and as honestly as possible....the intellectual's constituency is neither a government nor a corporate or a career interest: only the truth unadorned. If Said really felt that he, as an intellectual, should speak "only the truth unadorned," then how exactly does his statement "I was born in Jerusalem and spent most of my formative years there and, after 1948, when my entire family became refugees, in Egypt??" (London Review of Books, May 7, 1998) fit into this model? In his far from intellectual responses to my charges, Said responds on this particular point that while he was not a refugee, his entire family in fact was and blames Israel for "ethnic cleansing." This might fit into the Bill Clinton model of truth telling, but we all know that that model is not exactly "plain, direct and honest." Also President Clinton is a politician. Said, by contrast, enjoys the status of a world-class intellectual. And let us not forget, Clinton's errant conduct resulted in him being impeached and nearly convicted while Said has never even been called to account by his employer. It is indeed interesting to consider that Columbia University now has been the employer of perhaps the two best liars ever known to academia. [3] One paid for his mendacity with his job; the other continues on as an academic superstar, reaping the benefits of his years of deceit while Columbia turns a blind eye to the entire charade. The first liar was Charles Van Doren, the infamous contestant on the quiz show Twenty-One, and the subject of the Robert Redford/Ralph Fiennes movie Quiz Show. He was a junior faculty member in the English Department at the time. Van Doren was furnished with the questions and often the answers for these quiz shows beforehand, and won $129,000, the largest sum ever on that hugely popular TV program. When the quiz shows began to be investigated, he initially denied that he had been given any help at all; however, under the eyes of a Congressional Subcommittee he came clean and admitted receiving questions and answers. The evening after Van Doren made his admissions publicly and also offered his reluctant resignation, the Trustees of the University decided to accept the resignation effective immediately. Van Doren never taught again, but Columbia demonstrated its fidelity to the principles of honesty and integrity. The University has now been given the unfortunate chance to demonstrate once again that none of its professors are untouchable. Regrettably, the opposite has been proven. Assuming a posture of damage control, Virgil Renzulli, the Associate Vice President for Public Affairs, denied that the Said controversy "pertain[ed] to his status as a Columbia University faculty member, where his position is as a literary scholar and critic." However, this was not a mitigating factor for Van Doren, also a literary scholar and critic, whose fraud was also perpetrated off campus. Attempting to evade the essence of the controversy, Renzulli asserted, "It is a dispute that has to do with political positions he has taken over a period of time, not his scholarship." Renzulli's distinction is utterly artificial. Even Columbia's website claims "Middle East politics" is one of Said's academic specialties. Moreover, my Commentary article focuses on Said's intellectual integrity and moral authority, not his politics. I wonder if Renzulli ever saw Quiz Show, because there seems to be a double standard; no one in the Columbia administration offered Van Doren an out. Yet Said retains his position as one of only a handful of University Professors among Columbia's faculty of 7,500. Although Said's Teflon surface has begun to wear thin, as evidenced by the Columbia Spectator's recent staff editorial entitled "Said's Affinity for Fiction" [4] and the student paper's op-ed "Said's Shameful Summer: Rocks and Terrorists," [5] he has yet to admit any error in conduct or judgment. Columbia Provost Jonathan R. Cole even defended as protected under the principles of academic freedom Said's recent gratuitous violence--and I am not referring to verbal violence--hurling a stone at IDF soldiers manning a guardpost on the Lebanese border. Had Said committed the same act at Columbia it would have been sanctioned by suspension or dismissal according to the university's rules of conduct. Implications for Prospects for Peace I want, in closing, to draw attention to an additional unfortunate aspect Said's fraud. The cause of peace between Israelis and Palestinians is ill served by historical lies. Where and under what circumstances an intellectual or academic grew up would ordinarily be of little consequence, but this case is different. Edward Said in fact created a parable out of the first twelve years of his life and used it to perpetrate a multi-level deception on Western intellectuals and his Palestinian admirers alike. The fact that the avatar of Palestinian suffering has made wholesale political and personal use of his supposed victimization at the hands of Israel, weaving a myth of expulsion and dispossession out of one or two circumstances and a raft of inventions is hardly conducive to bridging the differences. Palestinians and the Israeli Left have urged Israelis to reevaluate their country's formative experiences. Said has been touting Israeli post-Zionists, or New Historians, and tries to make it seem as though they are all in full agreement. My Commentary article explicitly stipulates that "hundreds of thousands of (genuine) Palestinian refugees [left] the Mandatory territory for various reasons," and in a note I add that "whatever his own personal circumstances may have been, I am hardly questioning Said's right to support personal and property claims by Palestinian refugees in general." What I am questioning--what I have demonstrated to be wholly fraudulent--is Said's claim to have been among those refugees and to have suffered such losses. Clearly anyone genuinely concerned with the Palestinian refugees would find Said's deceit truly outrageous--morally a quite shameful attempt to piggyback on the hard experiences of others for the sake of personal and political aggrandizement. Why, I wonder, as Israelis give up their historical myths in the interest of moving closer to the Palestinians, do the latter clutch their my their myths ever tighter? _____ [1] Summary account by Assaf Moghadam. Justus Reid Weiner's Commentary magazine article, with full documentation, can be downloaded from the Internet at www.commentarymagazine.com to the editor, and Justus Reid Weiner's response, can likewise be downloaded from the same website by selecting the month "January 2000." [2] It is natural to ask why not one of the Egyptians or Palestinians who knew of Said's fraud from their personal contacts with him came forward to question his claims of growing up in and being dispossessed from Jerusalem. What values did they place higher than the truth? Could it be that they share the views of Palestinian journalist Ray Hanania, who defended Said by claiming, "Edward Said and his writings are used as intellectual weapons by the Palestinian Revolution, its allies and its advocates in much the same manner as the AK-47 has led many of their guerrilla battles." Ray Hanania, Book Review: Out of Place??Edward Said's Autobiography of Palestinian Life, Arab Media Syndicate, visited Oct. 30, 2000 http://www.hanania.com/columns/col11149.htm. [3] For a more comprehensive analysis of the implications of Edward Said's off-campus fraud for his employer, Columbia University, see Justus Reid Weiner, A Tale of Two Frauds, Academic Questions, Summer 2000, at 46-55. [4] Staff Editorial, Said's Affinity for Fiction, Columbia Spectator, Sept. 5, 2000, at 4. [5] Gregory Shill, Said's Shameful Summer: Rocks and Terrorists, Columbia Spectator, Sept. 14, 2000, at 5. This op-ed criticized Said for meeting with Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and endorsing his terrorist methods. 4. In the book Cat??s Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut, there is an ex-nazi scientist who is working as a volunteer MD on a Caribbean island, saving lives. He figures he saves 3000 lives a year and at that rate he will make up for all his crimes within 50 years. I am reminded of that story when I read the recent articles by Amnon Rubinstein. Rubinstein has been writing some fine pieces recently, attacking the ??Post-Zionist?? Left, attacking leftist anti-Semitism. The problem of course is that Rubenstein bears more than his fair share of blame for the Oslo debacle. He served for many years as leader of the Far Left semi-Marxist Meretz party, was instrumental in imposing Oslo on the country, and as Education Minister introduced politically correct Newspeak into the schools. Here is his latest piece: The anti-Semitism of the liberal left 0100090000032100000000000500000000000400000003010800050000000b0200000000050000000c0202000200030000001e00040000002701ffff030000000000 0100090000032100000000000500000000000400000003010800050000000b0200000000050000000c0202000200030000001e00040000002701ffff030000000000 By Amnon Rubinstein 0100090000032100000000000500000000000400000003010800050000000b0200000000050000000c0202000200030000001e00040000002701ffff030000000000 0100090000032100000000000500000000000400000003010800050000000b0200000000050000000c0202000200030000001e00040000002701ffff030000000000 Who would have believed that at the start of the 21st century, less than 60 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, anti-Semitism would be back in the headlines? Not long ago, French television broadcast a special program on the subject, and several new books about modern anti-Semitism have been published, including works by American jurist Alan Dershowitz, French Jewish philosopher Alain Finkielkraut and the American author Phyllis Chesler. 0100090000032100000000000500000000000400000003010800050000000b0200000000050000000c0202000200030000001e00040000002701ffff030000000000 What all these people share in common is that they are liberal Jews fighting for human rights. Chesler even has bonafide credentials from the radical left in both America and Israel (she also demonstrated at the Western Wall for joint prayers of men and women). Nevertheless, each of the three was astounded to see that criticism of Israel wears a form of renewed hatred of Jews, and each was infuriated at the way attacks on the very existence of Israel has become fashionable among members of the liberal and intellectual left. These circles extend to intellectuals and civil rights advocates in Israel, in whose virtual world there is nothing but Zionist guilt. These same authors were shocked at the proliferation of attacks against Jews, from the fact that enlightened public opinion is not rallying on their behalf, and by the articles in which the establishment of the Jewish state is regarded a historic error. In these terms, they remind one of the precursors and leaders of the Zionist movement - Moshe Hess, Herzl, Leo Pinsker and Max Nordau - assimilated Jews who one day wake up and are astounded to see how the society in which they have struck roots has become a Jew-hating society. True, most terror attacks against Jews have been carried out by extremist Muslims, and true, Jews in the West do not face the sort of dangers they did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Moreover, what is being written on occasion against Israel in Europe cannot even compete with what is being said by Israeli academics. Nevertheless, one could have assumed that a centuries-old tradition of anti-Semitism would not vanish overnight, and that it would be directed against the Jewish state. Based on this tradition, the Jew is always different, other, and the suspicions that he provokes do not fade away even when he looks "like one of us." The realization of this concept of "otherness," assigned in the Western culture to Jews and giving rise to the hatred of them, is wonderfully exemplified in James Joyce's "Ulysses." Leopold Bloom, who lives in Dublin in 1910, is the son of a Jewish father who converted to Christianity and a non-Jewish mother. He is married to an Irishwoman and his friends are Irish. An acquaintance makes the accusation that the Jews are robbing widows and orphans, and at one point threatens to kill him. Why kill Bloom, who is an Irishman through and through? However, Bloom is different. He serves his wife breakfast in bed - blatantly subversive behavior, unlike that of a real Irishman. In his genius, Joyce foresaw the fires of hatred that would consume Europe. The traditional anti-Semitic right has an easy time identifying Israel with this other - the covetous, oppressive person who may look like an ordinary person, but is different. But it is not this right that the liberal Jewish writers are so shocked about. They are shocked by the betrayal of the intellectual and liberal left, just as Pinsker was shocked at the support of the revolutionary socialist movement Narodnaia Volia, in the pogroms in Russia in 1881. How has the liberal lobby, that patron of human rights, come to single out Israel and remain apathetic to the distress of the Jews? The main answer is that in their eyes, the other is not the "soft Jew" a la Bloom, but the Palestinian who the Israelis, with the support of Jews in the Diaspora, are depriving of human rights. The other is no longer a Jew, but his Arab "victim." The conflict in the Middle East, also because of Israel's actions, is seen not as a war of survival of a small Jewish island, but through the prism of an Israeli tank stationed on a settlement in the Gaza Strip facing off against helpless Palestinians. 5. Cute: California Here I Come! The New California Governor has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the state, rather than German which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, The Terminator's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5-year phase-in plan that would become known as "Austro-English" (or, if nobody will be offended, "Austrionics").. In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favor of the "k". This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with the "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter. In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away. By the 4th yer peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru. If zis mad yu smil, pleas pas it on to oza pepl. Wednesday, October 29, 2003
?Painful? Concessions In recent years one of the mantras heard so often in Israel is the insistence that Israel must make painful concessions for peace. Naturally, in all case those demanding the painful concessions have been incapable of delivering any peace. The ?Land for Peace? concept was always a fantasy of Israeli politicians. It was never the Arab position. Israeli politicians deluded themselves into believing that Israel could buy peace by giving up lands. The Arab position was that Israel should give up land in order to be dismembered and easier to finish off and annihilate. But it is not the fallacy of purchasing peace with ?painful concessions? that I wish to contest here. It has been asserted so often and in such Pavlovian repetition that those proposing the swap of land for peace regard the loss of the land as ?painful? that virtually no one today challenges the idea. In fact those demanding painful concessions for peace do not regard those concessions as painful at all. Let me clarify. Whatever the positions of the Likud leadership, and I personally am not sure they believe in anything at all, the rank and file of people who vote for the Likud would indeed find it ?painful?, excruciatingly so, for Israel to lose control over Judea and Samaria, and they would find it completely unbearable for the Old City of Jerusalem to be turned over to the PLO barbarians. I do not doubt the authenticity of their pain. I do completely doubt the authenticity of the ?pain? postured by the Israeli Left, including the Labor Party and Meretz. I do not believe they would regard Israeli loss of Jerusalem and of the West Bank as painful. I believe they would regard those losses with ecstasy. Their ecstasy at the idea of Israel losing the West Bank and Jerusalem is NOT because they actually think such losses will buy peace. The past decade of Oslo is more than sufficient to prove to the most deluded leftist that it will not do so. The Left no longer sincerely thinks it will buy peace with these Israeli concessions. It wants those concessions IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY WILL NOT BUY PEACE!! The Left wants Israel to give up the West Bank and Jerusalem because the Left thinks it is the proper thing to do. It is irrelevant whether the concessions buy peace. That is why the Left continues to demand Israeli abandonment of the West Bank and Jerusalem even as Palestinian atrocities accelerate. The Left wants Israel to give up these territories because the Left finds their loss a source of ecstasy. The reason why the Left seeks to force Israel to lose Jerusalem and the West Bank is that these areas stand in the way of the Left?s dream of divorcing Israeliness from its Jewish roots. The Left seeks to create a new being, an Israeli, but a ?Canaanized? Israeli, a post-Jewish Israeli. He could be an Israeli who might light Hannuka candles and pay lip service to Jewish traditions, just as long as he never takes his Jewishness too seriously. The Israeli that the Left wishes to engineer has no real connection with Jewishness. Arabs and Druse can become these Canaanized Israelis as easily as Jews, which is how the Left thinks the war will be resolved. But Jerusalem stands in their way. Jerusalem is the center of the Jewish universe, but not the universe for the Canaanized Israeli. The post-Jewish Israeli does not need Jerusalem. Indeed, it is a nuisance, a barrier to driving the herd to its post-modernist cosmopolitan demise. The West Bank is also an impediment, what with its Cave of the Patriarchs, Joseph?s Tomb, Beth-El and Shiloh. It ozzes Jewishness, and that is what offends those seeking to engineer the Canaanized Israeli. Abandoning these territories causes excruciating pain to Israelis who feel Jewish, and that is a large part of why the Left wishes Israel to lose them. The Left does not want to torment Hamas terrorists nor Tanzim stormtrooper, but dreams of tormenting Jewish Jews. That being the case, the Left needs Israel to lose those territories to promote the Left?s social engineering agenda. The Palestinians have nothing to do with it. The Left could not care less whether the Palestinians will indeed reduce their terror and savagery if they are awarded Jerusalem. The Left?s slogan and bumper sticker has long been: Get out of the Territories for ISRAEL?s sake. For Israel?s sake? For the sake of the post-Jewish Israeli the Left seeks to engineer and clone. And that is why removing Israel and Jews from the West Bank and from the Western Wall and the Old City of Jerusalem are hardly matters of pain for the Left. They are matters of the ultimate joy. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears Tuesday, October 28, 2003
The Peace Nazis: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10528 and also http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031026-105112-4588r.htm 1. A Must read: Anti-Globalization Movement Anti-Semitism (Foreign Policy): http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/story.php?storyID=13958 2. For the past two decades, many of the liberal organizations in North American Jewry have been allying themselves with the radical homosexual movement. They are supporting "Homosexual Marriage" propositions and insisting that homosexual "marriage" and homosexual "equality" are intrinsic components of traditional Jewish ethics. The Reform movement and the Reconstructionists have been most outspoken, and today officially send their clergy to officiate at gay "weddings". There is rising pressure in the Conservative movement to do the same. To clarify, these are NOT Jewish organizations seeking some sort of generic civil rights protestion for homosexuals, such as their rights to compete for most jobs. They are NOT simply opposing violence directed against homosexuals. They are not simply lobbying for more money for AIDS research (never mind that it is already grossly OVER-funded.) Obviously, their endorsement of homosexuality as "legitimate" and "normal" and their promotion of gay "marriage" just happen to be diametrically opposed to everything in Judaism. The Torah declares homosexuality an abomination equivalent to bestiality (the Torah's words, not mine) and even makes sodomy a capital offense. While I can live with the idea that the state and police should stay out of people's bedrooms, while I can live with homosexuals signing civil contracts if they wish to share property or leave inheritance to one another, I have always been nonplussed by the militant homosexual movement's attempt to coerce everyone else into denying that homosexuality is a behavior disorder and perhaps a personality disorder. True, people with disorders deserve sympathy and should be protected from violence. I find even more outrageous the anti-scientific and simple falsification claims of the movement, starting with the 10% of humans lie and continuing to denial that child molestation is much more common for homosexuals than heteros. But the greatest pseudo-scientific PC lies of all are the promotion of the "gay gene" gambit of superstition and the insistence that homosexuality cannot be cured. It may not be curable in all cases and some homosexuals, like those suffering from other disorders, may prefer NOT to be cured, which is their right. Nevertheless, and despite decades of cowardice by the psychiatric profession, there is a great deal of evidence that homosexuality often is curable, while there is no evidence at all that homosexuality is genetically determined. There are several highly respectable blue-chip organizations currently fighting for rational, scientific, and ethically responsible discourse about homosexuality. One of the best is the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuals, NARTH, at www.narth.com. There is a Jewish group that works with NARTh called Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH), at www.jonahweb.org. These consist of highly respectable psychologists, doctors, and academics. Both web sites are worth a visit. 3. The NYTimes does not like Jews: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10484 4. Terror on Campus by Sharansky: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10506 Monday, October 27, 2003
1. Worth reading: Dennis Praeger on the Second American Civil War Part I http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=4712 Part II http://www.chronwatch.com/featured/contentDisplay.asp?aid=4824 2. The great refugee scam BY SHMUEL KATZ Int'l. Jerus. Post The story of the Arabs who left the coastal areas of Palestine in the spring of 1948 encapsulates one of the great international frauds of the 20th cen-tury. The Arabs are the only declared "refugees" who became refugees by the initiative of their own leaders. The concoction of the monstrous charge that it was the Jews who had driven out the Arabs of Palestine was a strategic decision made by the leaders of the Arab League months after the Arabs' flight. The Arab "refugees" were not driven out by anyone. The vast majority left at the order or exhortation of their leaders - always with the same reassurance - that it would help the Arab states in the war they were about to launch to destroy the State of Israel. The fabrication can most easily be detected by the simple circumstance that at the time the alleged expulsion of the Arabs by Zionists was in progress, nobody noticed it. Foreign newspapermen abounded in the country, in daily contact with all sides - and they did, in fact, write about the flight of the Arabs, but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that the flight was not voluntary. In the three months that the major part of the flight took place, the London Times, a newspaper most notably hostile to Zionism, published 11 leading articles on the situation in Palestine, in addition to extensive news reports. In none was there even a remote hint that the Zionists were driving Arabs from their homes. Even more pertinent: No Arab spokesman made such a charge. At the height of the flight, the Palestinian Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, Jamal Husseini, made a long political statement (on April 27) that was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress) the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees. Why did they leave? Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub, in the summer of 1948: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the `Zionist gangs' very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile." The initiative for the flight was indeed no secret. One of the famous American newspapermen of the time, Kenneth Bilby, who had covered Palestine for years, explained the Arab leaders' rationale for the flight in his book New Star in the East, published in 1950: "Let the Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab countries to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea." There is also the piquant report in the files of the British police at Haifa, of how the leaders of the Jewish community pleaded with the leaders of the Arab community not to leave Haifa, and how the Arabs refused. There is too, in the annals of the UN Security Council, a speech by Jamal Husseini heaping praise on the Arabs of Haifa for refusing to stay put and insisting adamantly on leaving their homes. The British police then kindly provided transport and helped the Haifa Arabs across the Lebanese and Transjordanian borders. When, four months after the invasion, the prospect of the flightlings' retuning "in a few weeks" had faded, there were some recriminations. Emil Ghoury, a member of the Palestinian Arabs' national leadership, said in an interview with the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph: "I don't want to impugn anybody, but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. "The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem." The policy adopted inside the country was emphasized by the leaders of the invasion. The prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Said, thundered: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." One of the Arabs who fled later succinctly summarized the story of the refugees in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Difaa: "The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in." Later, after the fighting began, many Arab villagers who believed the false rumors of a massacre at the village of Deir Yassin "panicked and fled ignominiously before they were threatened by the progress of the war." So wrote the British general Sir John Glubb, who commanded the Transjordanian army. Throughout the war there were two incidents - at Ramle and Lod - in which a number of Arab civilians were driven out of their homes by Israeli soldiers. The total number of Arabs who evacuated, even according to the British Mandate's statistics, could not have been more than 420,000. This figure conforms roughly also to the figure published from Arab sources, and by the UN. The central, horribly cruel fact is that the Arab states - who had brought about their plight - denied them residence rights; and the idea was bom that they should be left in camps and used as a weapon for Israel's destruction. "The return of the refugees," said president Nasser of Egypt years later, "will mean the end of Israel." It was in the immediate aftermath of the war that the refugee scam was developed into an international operation. As soon as the UN Disaster Relief Organization started providing food, shelter, clothing and medical attention to the Arabs who had fled Palestine, a mass of needy Arabs descended on the camps from all over the Arab states. The organization had no machinery for identification; so the arrivals simply signed the register as refugees and received the free aid. Already in December 1948, the director of the Relief Organization, Sir Rafael Cilento, reported he was feeding 750,000 "refugees." By July 1949 the UN reported a round million. The Red Cross International Committee joined the party. It pressed for the recognition of any destitute Arab in Palestine as a refugee. Thus about 100,000 were added to the list. To add a touch of mordant humor, the Red Cross authority wrote about the additional people that: "It would be senseless to force them to abandon their homes to be able to get food as refugees." So these people stayed at home, received their free services there, and were added to the rolls of the refugees. Thus - and by other more expectable means of humanistic falsification we have, in the third generation, a large amorphous mass of Arabs, all of them comfortably lumped together in official UN lists as Arab refugees, describ-ed as "victims of Israeli aggression" and demanding the right of "return." While everybody in Israel has rejected the Arab demand for accepting the return of the "refugees," the government has not rejected the idea that if negotiations for a settlement take place the problem of the refugees will be discussed. Moreover, there has been talk of "compensation" by Israel. There have even been voices suggesting the return of a "symbolic few" of the refugees. Israel must, from the outset and forever, unequivocally reject such ideas. Once and for all, Israel must remind whoever has to be reminded that the responsibility for the displaced Arabs lies wholly and absolutely on the shoulders of the Arab states. Their utterly unprovoked invasion of the territory of Israel in May 1948 was a crime. Its declared intent was a crime. Six thousand Israel citizens were killed in that war, and thousands of others were injured. It was the Arab states that called on the Arab population to evacuate, all in order to facilitate accomplishment of their evil purpose. It is a hutzpa of historical dimensions and significance to ask Israel to even discuss giving an inch or paying a penny of the price of the refugee problem. And it is dangerous for any Israeli spokesman to even agree to take part in any discussion of the subject - at any forum or in any context whatsoever. Indeed, the Israeli government should long ago have declared - but even now it is not too late: "We shall not participate in any discussion of the so-called refugee problem. This is a problem the Arab nation must solve for itself in its own spacious territories." The writer, a co-founder with Menachem Begin of the Herut Party and member o f the first Knesset, is a biographer and essayist. Sunday, October 26, 2003
Tch tch tch. It seems someone out there just does not like Knesset Member Isam Mahul very much. Mahul is an Arab Knesset Member from Israel's HADASH communist party, a party that has yet to get around to renouncing Stalinism. The party and Mahul himself have a long history of endorsing and cheering terrorism directed against Jews and make little secret of their desire to see Israel's existence ended. Far Leftist daily infommercial Haaretz just adores Mahul and praises him as someone who strives for achieving peace by allying together Jews and Arabs, and by that they mean Arabs devoted to Israel's annihilation with Jews also devoted to Israel's annihilation. The Haaretz praise of Mahul comes from the fact that he prevented some of his commie Hadash comrades from purging from the party Madame Gulag, Tamar Goszynski, as the party's token Jew. Now over the weekend it seems someone placed a bomb under Mahul's car, mafia style. And like any good mafiosi, Mahul had sent his wife out to start the car's ignition, perhaps to be on the safe side. Well, the explosive went off, without anyone getting hurt. Haaretz has already decided that shadowy members of the Israeli Right are behind the act, although I think it at least as plausible that disgruntled members of the HADASH party, people who would like a larger share of the party's loot, were behind the bomb. When mafiosi cars in the US get blown up, who is the most likely culprit behind it? Now I dwell on this story for a diffeent reason. Over the past few years, Israel's leftist Attorney General has developed the "Rubinstein Doctrine", which holds that mere praise for acts of terrorism that have ALREADY taken place do not constitute criminal incitement to violence, only open explicit calls to perpetrate terrorism do. This Doctrine has been used as the figleaf for the leftist Attorney General never ever prosecuting Israeli Arab fascists who sing the praises of suicide bombers and other civics activists, nor of Israeli Jewish leftist professors praising the acts of murder by Palestinians. Among such Arabs praising terror are of course the leaders of Mahul's own Stalinist party. Now, as it turns out I am NOT going to praise those who placed the bomb beneath Mahul's car. Even if it should turn out that the perps were NOT other members of Mahul's own Gulag party. I have long opposed vigilantism against Arab fascists, including Stalinist fascists. I believe the only way to fight Arab terror and its support networks is via the Israeli army and the national government, and it cannot and should not be done via vigilantes from the private sector. Having noted that, I would nevertheless like to see whether Elyakim Rubinstein is willing to apply his Rubinstein Doctrine to any hotheads among the country's Jews who come out in open praise of the perps who tried to bomb Knesset Member Mahul's car. It would be a darned interesting test of free speech in an Israeli court. More on the Arutz7 Saga: 1. http://israelnn.com/article.php3?id=2874 2. Free the airwaves (Jer Post editorial) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oct. 22, 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Earlier this week Arutz Sheva was finally felled. It was defeated via a lawsuit submitted by Labor's Eitan Cabel to the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court, which upheld his assertion that it was broadcasting illegally. Yet two decades ago Israel's Left mounted an aggressive campaign, both within and without the Knesset, to legalize Abie Nathan's Voice of Peace shipboard radio broadcasts. The argument was that Nathan proved his enterprise a commercial success, had an audience and several years in the business. He deserved, it was ardently argued, special consideration. It would have doubtlessly been granted, had Nathan not succumbed meanwhile to severe medical and financial problems. But the very same arguments raised in his favor are even more cogent for Arutz Sheva, which alone gives voice to settlers and their supporters. Without Arutz Sheva, that portion of the population popularly dubbed "the national camp" is effectively silenced. This station fills a niche and a need, which no other does, far beyond anything that Nathan could remotely claim. So it's no less than dismaying that the very Left which so enthusiastically lobbied for Nathan now so fervently fights Arutz Sheva's right to voice the opinions of its many adherents. It's difficult to escape the impression that what's really wrong with Arutz Sheva isn't that its ship didn't distance itself sufficiently from Israel's territorial waters or that studios in Beit El were used. What differentiated it from Nathan's venture was politics. Thus after 15 years on the air, during which the station proved itself financially viable, professionally capable, and exceptionally popular, it was silenced. Its loyal audience wasn't limited to the settlements. It was avidly listened to within the Green Line, as most taxi passengers can verify. Particularly disconcerting was Justice Minister Yosef Lapid's outburst against ministers who pleaded Arutz Sheva's case, warning that they'll have "blood on their hands" if a plane crashes due to radio interference. With all due respect, such scare-mongering is demagogic. Arutz Sheva never endangered aviation. Those who do are numerous small-time pirates with home-based transmitters, often operated by reckless teens. There are plenty of laws against such delinquents. They need only be enforced. Equating Arutz Sheva with them is a cynical red herring. Arutz Sheva has become a staple of popular culture and we consider it is grossly imprudent to close it precisely because it satisfied proven demand for its journalistic product. Denying the public what it wants and had grown used to will inevitably give rise to charges of politically motivated muzzling. No amount of legalistic sanctimony will erase this perception. This country urgently needs legislation to democratize the airwaves. This is the case elsewhere in the free world. It's time we live up to our liberal pretensions. A phenomenon like FOX Television would be impossible here. Nothing, however, prevented a television network with a different ideological bent from giving itself an electronic media platform in America. It's time our regulations tolerated radio offerings that appeal to a range of political and ideological preferences, as they do to musical tastes. There's no reason an outfit like Arutz Sheva should not be able legally to obtain a broadcasting license. At present this is nearly a mission impossible. Red tape and demands for competition in a tender load the dice. Entries for local radio tenders repeatedly feature varying combinations of the same groupings and individuals with identical political slants. Arutz Sheva is unlikely to prevail against them. With its record, it shouldn't now be forced into a contest. The uniqueness of Arutz Sheva's audience must be recognized. Likewise, there'd be no harm if the haredi community, the kibbutz movement, or any reincarnation of the Voice of Peace were also awarded radio licenses. Ideological pluralism must be promoted in a polarized society such as ours. A silenced plurality isn't in democracy's best interest. Those who do not wish to see extremism flourish ought to be the first to make sure that sizable segments of opinion, on the Right and Left, are allowed free expression. Citizens who feel stifled, marginalized, and delegitimized aren't likely to espouse moderation. 3. The lesson of Maharam of Rothenburg By Shai Solberg Last week, the Supreme Court permitted the publication of the circumstances under which Elhanan Tannenbaum was taken captive in Lebanon. In any event, it is clear, pending the publication of all the facts in the case, that Tannenbaum was not taken captive while on a state mission. There are many shortcomings in the cognitive process of the public and the country's decision makers, stemming from the ancient ethos of redemption of captives, which in Israeli society has taken on a special coloring. Would we, for example, be ready to release imprisoned terrorists as part of a deal with the Colombians who kidnapped Israeli backpackers? Would we be ready to release Sheikh Obeid - whom Israel has been holding as a "bargaining chip" in connection with the missing air force navigator Ron Arad - as part of such a deal? The answer is clear: no Israeli government would be willing to release terrorists within that framework. How is the Tannenbaum case different? On the face of it, the Tannenbaum episode has two distinctive characteristics: the harsh prison conditions and the possibility that Tannenbaum will reveal state secrets that he may have acquired as a senior officer in the reserves. However, would any government release terrorists for Israeli prisoners who are languishing in the harshest conditions in Thailand or any other country? It's also hard to believe that after three years in custody, Tannenbaum still has secrets he didn't reveal. And if there are, the probability is that what remained a secret during three years of interrogation will remain a secret. On the other hand, just as we would not be ready to give Hezbollah fighter planes and ammunition in return for Tannenbaum, they must not be given human bombs, either. The conclusion is clear: the Tannenbaum deal should not be implemented. What, then, is making us hesitate and perhaps even agree to the deal? The answer lies in a unique cocktail consisting of an ancient Jewish ethos and a contemporary Israeli one. Down through the centuries, Jewish society has had a special attitude toward the redemption of captives. The Jewish people, whose constituent experience entailed the redemption of captives (when the Creator took the Israelites out of Egypt), made that experience a formative element in the Jewish ethos. According to Rambam (Maimonides), "There is no greater commandment than the redemption of captives," and the Shulhan Arukh (Code of Jewish Law) states categorically, "Every moment that one delays in redeeming captives, where it is possible to be speedy, is like shedding blood." It was on the basis of the ancient Jewish ethos that the State of Israel and the Israel Defense Forces formed a modern-day ethos of redeeming captives. The state and the IDF made prodigious efforts and undertook great risks to free prisoners of war and captives, whether civilians or soldiers. At some stage, the proportions were lost. Probably the watershed in this regard was the "Jibril deal" in 1985, when Israel released 1,150 security prisoners in return for three soldiers who were taken captive in the Lebanon War. It is this ethos that today hovers, whether consciously or subconsciously, over the decision makers. To this has been added the ethos of Ron Arad, who was taken captive 17 years ago and has not been heard from since. Our forebears were already aware of the weakness of the heart our people showed when any of our brethren fell into captivity. The Mishna states, "We must not redeem captives for more than their value, this is a measure of public benefit" (Jastrow translation). The reason for this, Rambam explains, is "so our enemies will not pursue people to capture them." The heroic story of Maharam (our teacher Rabbi Meir) of Rothenburg, the greatest Gemara sage of the 13th century, illustrates the correct and intelligent application of this insight. Maharam was imprisoned by the authorities, who understood his "price" and therefore demanded a huge amount of money from the Jewish community for his release. The community duly collected the ransom. When Maharam heard of this, he forbade the payment and he remained in custody under brutal conditions until his death. Maharam understood that raising the price of a captive would motivate others to capture more people, for whom they would demand an even larger ransom, and so on and so forth. This is all the more true when the kidnappers are demanding a higher payment: the release of terrorists who are liable to perpetrate new acts of terrorism once set free. My heart is with Tannenbaum. Every Shabbat, I recite a special prayer, along with my congregation, for the well-being and return form of those who are in captivity or are missing in action. At the same time, I feel it is my moral duty to write this article, weeping. The risk to the security of the state in the Tannenbaum deal is enormous. If implemented, it will lead to more kidnappings of Israelis and to the execution of unreasonable deals with terrorist organizations. Attorney Solberg is an economist who holds an MBA and is an ordained rabbi. 4. Excellent article: Time to dismantle the university monopoly By Eliezer Fuchs Two weeks ago, the Council of Higher Education (CHE) decided to petition the High Court of Justice against the government's decision to adopt the report of the Maltz Commission, which proposes that the management of Israel's universities be based on methods that meet the needs of the 21st century. Similar, though more comprehensive, proposals were published by this writer in 1996. The fact is that the organizational structure and the management of the country's universities hasn't changed in decades. A thorough reform is needed in the management and budgeting of the universities. In the 1970s, the government transferred its policy-setting powers in the sphere of higher education to the CHE, a body that was formed mainly by the universities and was given the task of allocating the resources to the institutions of higher education via the Planning and Budgeting Commission, which also consists largely of representatives of the universities. In other words, the CHE was given a monopoly in both academic licensing and in allocation of resources. The universities exploited, and continue to exploit, this monopoly for all it is worth. The seriousness of this situation was reduced somewhat after the Colleges Law was passed, but no fundamental solution has been found to the inherent conflict of interest that derives from the structure and composition of the CHE or to the fundamental problems relating to the management and functioning of the universities. The reform would give expression to the following ideas: l Policy setting in this sphere will revert to the government, which will establish a separate and independent statutory body which will have the task of proposing policy. l The CHE will be in charge of academic licensing only. Under certain conditions, the move initiated by the education minister concerning the council's composition could constitute an opening for a general reform of the system. l The tuition fees in the institutions of higher education create a distortion in the allocation of resources and aggravate the inequality in income distribution in the country. The proposal is for tuition fees to cover the real costs, with the exception of certain spheres. Subsidies will be made available to needy students rather than to the institutions. Under this method, the students become consumers and the institutions will compete for their money by giving them the best service possible. Adopting this proposal will require a radical change in the Planning and Budgeting Commission and will encourage partial privatization of the institutions of higher learning in the future. One result will be a clear distinction between the various research budgets, which must be retained at their present level and even increased. The major change will take place in the methods of financing and budgeting teaching. l The tenure system, which was introduced to meet the needs of academic freedom, is no longer fulfilling that goal. A more flexible system of employment is needed, involving long-term contracts that can be broken. The connection between academic rank and salary will be severed. The academic rank will reflect the level the professor has reached in the areas of research and publication, whereas for salary purposes additional elements, such as level of teaching and contribution to the institution, will be taken into account. l In place of the system of dual management of the universities - both a rector and a president - it would be preferable to have each institution headed by a president who would be responsible to the board of directors and the trustees. The president would be appointed by the board of directors, which would also have the power to fire him. At the faculty level, the method today is that the teaching staff elects the deans and the department heads, with the result that those in charge are dependent on the choice of their subordinates. The management of the institutions of higher learning should be placed in the hands of professionals. l The historical development of higher education in Israel created a uniform model of institutions, apart from the Haifa Technion and the Weizmann Institute of Science in their first years. The dimensions of the country and its financial and human limitations would seem to point in the direction of specialist universities. l Israel imports systems of higher education which are generally inferior to its own. The foreign branches should be turned into Israeli institutions that will be under the full academic supervision of the CHE. The system of higher education must be made to operate according to principles of efficiency and effectiveness. There is no contradiction between academic freedom and the management of an institution on the basis of economic principles. It is interesting to see that the same models that academe puts forward as recipes for the amelioration of other bodies encounter fierce resistance when applied to the universities. The writer was director-general and head of the College of Management. 1. The world press is reporting with anger the shutting down in Zimbabwe of the very last independent newspaper in the country, the Daily News, that is, the only paper that did not repeat mindlessly the slogans of the ruling class and of Robert Mugabe. Eighteen journalists from the paper are under arrest. I thought this worth noting because Israel is increasingly indistinguishable from Zimbabwe when it comes to freedom of the press. Israel ALSO just shut down the only independent media outfit that did not repeat mindlessly the blather of the Far Left. It has shut down Arutz 7. It is seeking also to indict the owners of Arutz7 on criminal charges for operating a pirate radio station. (see also the bottom of http://conservativetruth.org/opinionet/archives2/ccsp/ccsp99.htm) 2. In trying to market the ridiculous deal regarding swapping live terrorists for bodies of murdered Israeli troops, the deal Sharon's people are trying to complete with the Hizbollah, Sharon and the establishment are trying to justify the deal on grounds of traditional Jewish values and in particular the importance of "pidyon shivuyim" or redemption of captives. Putting aside the amusement of watching people with no connection with traditional Judaism trying to coopt religion for their political agenda, the abuse of "pidyun shivuyim" is outrageous for other reasons. The deal would put hundreds of murderers and terrorists back on the streets as the price for getting the bodies of three IDF soldiers murdered by the Hizbollah returned and also a live Israeli drug smuggler and criminal being held captive. In fact redeeming captives in Jewish tradition is explicitly forbidden if the price of the redemption is either excessive or if it involves the endangerment of OTHER people! It also does not apply to dead bodies, no matter how emotionally outraged we are at those being held as "captives". And it is not clear whether it even applies to people who got themselves taken captive as part of criminal activities they themselves initiated or as part of terrorist treason (the Lori Berenson story). Now just to put everything in its correct perspective, consider the guest Op Ed in Haaretz Oct 26 by Shai Solberg, a lawyer, economist, and Rabbi. He suggests that everyone in Israel take a deep breath and learn from the history of the great Rabbi of Rotenberg known as the Maharam (Meir ben Baruch), who lived in 13th century Germany. The Rabbi, regarded as the leading scholar of his age, was seized by the authorities and held for ransom, demanding a huge sum from the Jews. The Rabbi issued a prohibition on the Jews to pay the ransom! The Rabbi stayed in the prison until his death. His reasoning was that payment of the extortion would result in the seizure of other Jews and their being held for extortion. Paying the ransom would result in the endangerment of other Jews and in the escalation of extortion. Israel has a long history of rewarding terrorist extortion and paying ridiculous "ransoms" to save captives that resulted in the mass murder of other Jews, in many of these cases were perpetrated by Likud governments. Probably the worst was the "Jibril exchange" by Yitzhak Shamir's government, in which thousands of cut-throats were released from prison in order to win the release of a few Israelis being held in captivity by the terrorists. Several of the terrorists released then went on to commit murders. Wouldn't it be nice, the next time Israeli politicians wanted to justify a decision through appeal to "Jewish values and ethics", if they actually bothered to learn something about Jewish ethics and values? 2. There are several new web sites (I am not responsible for any of them) that make fun of Rachel Corrie, the pro-terrorist ISM bimbo who played chicken with an Israeli tractor in order to prevent Israel from destroying terrorist tunnels in which weapons were being smuggled to murder Jews, a game of chicken that she won. Here is the Corrie Halloween Mask (for strong stomachs only): http://www.geocities.com/rachel_ism/halloween Here is another: http://www.nukevet.com/mt/archives/003080.html Friday, October 24, 2003
Subject: Lori's Match Yesterday, a Palestinian terrorist with an explosives belt on blew himself to hell when the detonator went off "pre-maturely". Like the nazi who blew up the Maxim restaurant in Haifa a couple of weeks back, this terrorhoid was a lawyer. Speaking of terrorist lawyers.... I have in the past devoted several postings to the Loony Lori Lobby, the lobbyists for convicted Stalinist terrorist Lori Berenson. Lori is the daughter of two Jewish NY Marxies who went down to Peru to enlist in the communist terrorist brigades there and is rotting in an Andes prison. The assimilationist Jewish liberals (asslibs) of the US have enlisted on her behalf, including the Reform movement's Religious Action Center (David Saperstein presiding), lots of other libs, and even Elie Wiesel. Had Lori not been busted in Peru, I suspect she would today be out there trying to replicate ISM and Rachel Corrie's adventures in blocking Israel's attempts to fight its terrorists. Well, it seems Lori wants to get married to a terrorist, who is not Jewish, but is a lawyer. Read on: Terrorist Wedding By Michael Radu FrontPageMagazine.com | October 24, 2003 Are American (especially American-born) citizens who are members of terrorist organizations abroad entitled to special (i.e. American-style) treatment, at a time when the United States demands all countries to choose between being with us or against us in the war on terrorism? Lori Berenson thinks so. The 34-year-old New Yorker, who is serving 20 years in a Peruvian prison on terrorism charges, criticizes the authorities for keeping her groom from the wedding they just recently arranged. The groom, An?bal Apari, a 40-year-old ?law student? recently released from prison after serving 12-1/2 years of a 15-year sentence as a member of the Castroite Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA), was represented by his father, since the authorities did not permit him to leave Lima. Very moving, indeed, at least in the Manhattan circles in which her progressive and vocal parents, both academics, move. They joined their ?persecuted? daughter in protesting that the groom was unable to participate in the happy event. The newly wedded Mrs. Apari, a former MIT student, has a romantic penchant for terrorists. Apari is her second husband. Her first was another ?idealistic? Marxist gunfighter she met in El Salvador, who later left her. She arrived in Peru and rented a home with Panamanian MRTA member Pacifico Castrellon, who later testified against her. The Berenson case is a study of everything wrong with American mentalities, including wrong-headed Congressional behavior, at least prior to 9/11. Arrested in 1995 on charges of collaborating on a planned MRTA seizure of Congress?she had used questionable U.S. press credentials to gain access to Peru?s Congress?she was tried for treason and given a life sentence by Peru?s military courts under then President Alberto Fujimori. Average Peruvians, weary of terrorism, were unanimously unsympathetic to her cause, but American and international human rights groups succeeded in obtaining a new civilian trial, which was held in June 2001. For this trial, she had the charges reduced to terrorism, which carried a lesser minimum sentence, even though she has consistently maintained that MRTA is revolutionary, not terrorist. On these charges she received a 20-year sentence. Following the first verdict, Berenson shared the same uncomfortable prison in the Andes as others MRTA and Shining Path members, except that she had weekly visits and comfortable help from the U.S. embassy. Later, she was moved to a lowland prison, where she is free to communicate with family and write nonsensical screeds, which are immediately posted at her parents? website. (Peruvian prisoners, especially terrorists, barely have access to outside food or family contacts, let alone the ability to communicate with the world at large.) Berenson complains about the prison conditions, but she was and is able to finish her sentence in U.S. jails. She has refused to do this out of solidarity with her MRTA. She remains a terrorist, a totalitarian and ideological dinosaur: a Stalinist/Castroist long after even committed communists departed from solidarity with Fidel & Co. The MRTA was founded during the 1980s by the kind of people with whom Berenson was comfortable. The leader, Victor Polay Campos, was son of a senator, brother of a congressional candidate, and roommate of future President Alan Garc?a at the Sorbonne. Originally, MRTA was a faction of Garc?a?s Popular American Revolutionary Alliance, which is still Peru?s best-organized political party, with Garc?a well placed to win the next presidential election. At no time more than a few hundred strong, it engaged in spectacular kidnappings of businessmen, keeping its victims in narrow holes in the ground, where they sometimes died of starvation. It assassinated military personnel--usually retired ones, who made easier targets. In desperation, in 1996 it undertook its largest operation ever, taking hundreds of hostages at a ball at the Japanese ambassador?s residence (this after the Congress operation Berenson was involved in, up to drawing the building?s floor plans and giving her rented house to the MRTA for planning, was thwarted). The December 1996 operation ended up badly for Berenson?s MRTA friends. All the hostages were released following a commando operation, and all the kidnappers were killed. But, she was still ?different,? born in Manhattan, a fashionable ?professional revolutionary? with many friends ? including some at the New York Times. Few congressmen were informed, or cared, about what she did in South America. Before 9/11, more than 100 members of Congress, Republicans included, signed letters to the Clinton and then the Bush White House, demanding special treatment for Berenson. But this died down after John Lindh and other U.S. citizens demonstrated that there is a problem with Americans training abroad for terrorism. September 11 was, for Berenson, a worse defeat than her arrest. Americans started learning and stopped sympathizing with fellow Americans who were involved in murdering strangers in exotic places. So now Berenson is again ?married? to a fellow terrorist and expects to be treated preferentially ? not, she says, because she is American, but because of some ?universal human right? to the pursuit of happiness. Peruvians, even under the present confused and weak government of Alejandro Toledo, object to this and remain unmoved the persistent demands of a gringa who sought to kill their countrymen. Ultimately, the ?wedding? of a convicted terrorist and a paroled one ? neither of whom has expressed any regret for their actions ? seems yet another attempt to ?humanize? them and make us forget their shared past. Apari?s comment that ?People understand that Lori and I are human beings and like everybody else we have every right to make a life, to find happiness and love? seems not much different than the Free Lori website?s assertions that Lori ?could be anyone?s daughter, raised by caring, intelligent parents.? It is not going to work in Peru and it should not work in post-9/11 America, either. Westerners have obtained a habit in joining murderous terrorist groups in the Third World, without renouncing their citizenship. Germans in Turkish Kurdistan, Americans in Latin America, and Britons in Israel or Afghanistan who kill or help others kill seem confident that they can expect assistance from their embassies or bleeding-heart NGOs if their actions land them in hot water. But Western governments cannot give these terrorists special rights just because the victims are non-Westerners, nor can they expect other nations to assist in the war on terrorism if their own citizens are exempted from prosecution. There is no legal, moral, or political reason to take seriously Berenson?s incessant demands for yet another trial, or for American terrorists abroad to be given any more rights than those we would be prepared to give the foreign terrorists whom we want in our custody. Michael Radu is Senior Fellow and Co - Chair, Center on Terrorism and Counterterrorism, at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia. 2. Sweden goes Anti-Semitic: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10487 3. Arab terror: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10489 4. Paul Krugman - anti-Semite? http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/contentDisplay.asp?aid=4798 5. More Massacres by Israel: http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/contentDisplay.asp?aid=4804
|