Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘cnn’

Tea Party Senate Candidate Denies Separation of Church and State in Constitution

Wednesday, October 20th, 2010


Anderson Cooper played some riveting video tonight on his CNN show displaying Christine O’Donnell’s monumental ignorance of the U.S. Constitution.  When her opponent pointed out that creationism shouldn’t be taught in schools because of the constitutional princple of the separation of church and state, O’Donnell was incredulous:

“The First Amendment does?” O’Donnell asked during the Tuesday morning debate. “Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

Coons responded by quoting the relevant text: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

“That’s in the First Amendment?” a still skeptical O’Donnell replied smiling, as laughter could be heard from the crowd.

Earlier in the debate, O’Donnell flat out asked, “Where in the Constitution is separation of Church and State?” – a question that Coons did not appear to take seriously.

Unfortunately for O’Donnell, the Tea Party-backed candidate also stumbled over the Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendments when asked if she would support repealing them.

“I’m sorry, I didn’t bring my Constitution with me. Fortunately, senators don’t have to memorize the Constitution. Can you remind me of [them]?” O’Donnell said.

I watched the video of the debate and I was flabbergasted that someone so ignorant might actually be elected a U.S. senator.  It’s one thing to be corrupt or engage in sexual escapades, but quite another to know next to nothing about the nation’s foundational document when you seek to join its highest legislative body.

CNN’s Rick Sanchez: ‘White Liberal=Jew’

Friday, October 1st, 2010
rick sanchez hangs self

Rick Sanchez hangs self on air

In reading the melodrama of Rick Sanchez’ implosion in front of a national radio audience when he called Jon Stewart both a “white liberal,” “bigot,” and “Jew,” not necessarily in that order, I was reminded how racism is an equal opportunity employer.  Just because you’re a discriminated-against minority doesn’t mean that you too can’t be racist.  During a radio interview meant to plug his new book, Sanchez recounted his own history of being the victim of prejudice at the hands of a CNN boss who wouldn’t consider him as a news anchor.

Then he proved that despite suffering prejudice, he could dish it out as well:

Mr. Sanchez called Mr. Stewart a “bigot,” but later took the word back, calling the comedian “prejudicial” instead.

Prejudicial “against who?” Mr. Dominick asked.

Mr. Sanchez said, “Against anybody who doesn’t agree to his point of view, which is very much a white liberal establishment point of view.”

One of the co-hosts of the radio show brought up the fact that Mr. Stewart is a Jew, saying to Mr. Sanchez, he is a minority “as much as you are.”

Mr. Sanchez answered sarcastically, “Yeah. Yeah. Very powerless people.” He let out a high-pitched laugh.

Everybody that runs CNN is a lot like Stewart,” Mr. Sanchez said. “And a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart. And to imply that somehow they — the people in this country who are Jewish — are an oppressed minority? Yeah.”

Of course, what’s ironic about all this is that Sanchez had his many detractors at CNN, but one of his supporters was Jonathan Klein, undoubtedly one of those white-liberal-Jew-Jon Stewart types he so despises.  Contemporary society pits all minorities against each other in a dog-eat-dog world.  It’s divide and conquer so The Man ends up always winning.  So if Rick Sanchez doesn’t get his promotion it must be because of all those white liberal Jew CNN editors like Jon Stewart who disparage him because he’s Hispanic.

I know who will snatch up his contract: FoxNews.  That’s a marriage made in heaven–or Republican National Committee headquarters.

Israel and Neocons: Selling Regime Change Again (This Time, Iran)

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

Comment is Free published a shortened version of the following piece today.  The comment thread is interesting so it might be worth a visit to check out what the right and left are saying:

Those guys who brought you regime change in Iraq, fake WMD, the fake Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, 4,000 dead GIs, and a trillion dollar war–they’re selling snake oil again.

This time it’s Iran.  Not content to allow Iranians to fight their own battles for democracy, the neocon war party is beating the drum for U.S. intervention.  Recently Paul Wolfowitz and Charles Krauthammer weighed in on the subject.  Their views aren’t unexpected.  You’d just have thought they’d allow a decent interval to lapse after Iran’s streets flowed with young blood before they’d inveigle us with their fraudulent vision of events there.

The neocon meme goes like this—the brave Iranians we see on our TV screens and computer monitors aren’t demonstrating about a stolen election.  They’ve gone whole hog and become counter-revolutionaries.  They want to dump the corrupt, tyrannical system, turn their backs on “radical” Islam, and install a Bush-era Middle East secular democracy.  Bush redeemed.

This is from Krauthammer:

…This incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The…provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren’t dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy….

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What’s at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime — and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen…or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

…Our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.

In a more sophisticated fashion, Marc Reuel Gerecht makes the suspect claim that Islam and democracy are fundamentally incompatible.  He’s even given the protests a new name none of its supporters would ever choose, the ”June 12th Revolution:”

…In Iran in the aftermath of this month’s fraudulent elections…we are witnessing…the unraveling of the religious idea that has shaped the growth of modern Islamic fundamentalism since the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928.

The Islamic revolution in Iran encompassed two incompatible ideas: that God’s law — as interpreted by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — would rule, and that the people of Iran had the right to elect representatives who would advance and protect their interests.

…Yet in the current demonstrations we are witnessing not just the end of the first stage of the Iranian democratic experiment, but the collapse of the structural underpinnings of the entire Islamic approach to modern political self-rule.

…Westerners would do well to understand the magnitude of what is transpiring in the Islamic Republic. Iran’s revolution shook the Islamic world. It was the first attempt by militant Muslims to prove that “Islam has all the answers”…But the experiment has failed.

…Whether he intended it or not, Mr. Moussavi — and indirectly Ayatollah Khamenei because of his crude determination to keep the former prime minister from power — has probably begun the final countdown on the Islamic Republic.

The only Iranians who want what the neocons claim the former want (a secular anti-clerical revolution) are the discredited  Mujahadeen Khalq.   This is what real Iranians want (from the NIAC Iranian-American blog):

Dear friend, if you have any contacts within the American Administration, please send them this message on behalf of us, ordinary Iranians in Iran. Tell your contacts in the Administration that their point of view regarding Iran is by far the best position that an American Government has ever taken. We appreciate this and thank the President.

During the last two or three decades not one American president had “understood” Iran. All of them got caught in the traps of the mollahs…but this time the intelligent president has decided not to join in their game, bravo.

It is normal that he is criticized vividly…by most Republicans: [for some] time they have been asking…that America attack Iran and change the regime…without wanting to know what today’s young Iranian wants here and now.

Stephen Kinzer, in Comment is Free earlier this week penned the most persuasive attack on the neocon position:

The US sowed the seeds of repression in Iran by deposing Mossadeq in 1953, and then helped bathe Iran in blood by giving Saddam Hussein generous military aid during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Militants in Washington who now want the US to intervene on behalf of Iranian protesters…delude themselves into thinking that Iranians have forgotten it. Some of them [militants], in fact, are the same people who were demanding just last year that the US bomb Iran – an act which would have killed many of the brave young protesters they now hold up as heroes.

America’s moral authority in Iran is all but non-existent. To the idea that the US should jump into the Tehran fray and help bring democracy to Iran, many Iranians would roll their eyes and say: “We had a democracy here until you came in and crushed it!”

To which we should add, that American interference in Iranian affairs will be used quite effectively by the very repressive forces we claim to oppose in attacking the Iranian reformers.

As we know from our eight years of Bush smearmongering, when a nation is in danger it is only too easy to sully the reputation of political opponents.  You question their judgment, their patriotism, you associate them with foreign enemies, you put them on the defensive.  They are marginalized.  If we truly wish to see Iran open to the world and Iranians living freer lives, why would we want to do this to those who can bring this about?

I think the answer is that many neocon partisans care little about the actual people of Iran.  They are merely pawns in a geo-strategic chess game between Islam and the west.  The Iranian regime must fall.  Whoever helps in that goal is useful, but not terribly important.  That is why the Israelis and neocons, during the election, disparaged Moussavi as warmed-over Ahmadinejad.  These rightist ideologues do not want a reformed Iran, as Moussavi does.  They want an Iran shorn of Islam, or at least political Islam.  That is something almost no Iranian wants.  But again, that matters very little to the Krauthammers and Wolfowitzes of the punditocracy.  They would be just as happy seeing democracy “imposed” on Iran as they were to see it imposed on Iraq.  And it would work just as “well” as it has in Iraq.  Matt Duss at Think Progress has written convincingly on some of these questions.

Israel works hand-in-glove with the neocon effort.  Its leaders too wish to see the Iranian regime overthrown.  That is why we see Bibi Netanyahu on our TV screens here, interviewed for Meet the Press. During his appearance, in terms reeking of motherhood and apple pie, he praised the Iranian demonstrators for unmasking the true terrorist nature of the Iranian regime and yearning for freedom.  In doing so, he conflated two issues which no Iranian ever would.  He attempted to transform Iran’s reformers into counter-revolutionaries who would turn their back on Iran’s foreign commitments supporting Israel’s enemies in Gaza and Lebanon.  In effect, he has co-opted the demonstrators and turned them into Israel’s ally.  If anyone in Iran were to believe Bibi, the opposition would be dead.

But for Bibi it makes little difference.  If the opposition wins, he wins since it may change Iran’s policy.  And if the opposition loses, Bibi still wins because the more bloodshed in Teheran, the more favorably the world will view Israel’s case for regime change (or at least a massive bombing campaign against nuclear facilities).  In fact, as far as the Israeli right is concerned, if the opposition loses it will be better for them.  That’s why they care very little how much damage they do to its cause with such ill-advised statements.

The American mass media can sometimes become unintended co-conspirators in the campaign to smear Iran and advance Israel’s interests.  Take a CNN interview in which a purported Iranian student called the American Morning show and provided an entirely suspect summary of the goals of the opposition.  The host, John Roberts first asks him:

Roberts: Mohammad, Are the students seeking regime change? Are they looking to bring down the Ayatollah and completely change the form of government there in Iran? Or are you looking for – as has been suggested – more civil rights, more freedoms within the context of the existing regime?

Mohammad: Yes. Let me tell you something. For about three decades our nation has been humiliated and insulted by this regime. Now Iranians are united again one more time after 1979 Revolution. We are a peaceful nation. We don’t hate anybody. We want to be an active member of the international community. We don’t want to be isolated…We don’t deny the Holocaust. We do accept Israel’s rights. And actually, we want — we want severe reform on this structure. This structure is not going to be tolerated by the majority of Iranians. We need severe reform…

…Americans, European Union, international community, this…is definitely not elected by the majority of Iranians. So it’s illegal. Do not recognize it. Stop trading with them. Impose much more sanctions against them. My message…to the international community, especially I’m addressing President Obama directly – how can a government that doesn’t recognize its people’s rights and represses them brutally and mercilessly have nuclear activities? This government is a huge threat to global peace. Will a wise man give a sharp dagger to an insane person? We need your help international community. Don’t leave us alone.

Actually, this regime is really dependent on importing gasoline. More than 85% of Iran’s gasoline is imported from foreign countries. I think international communities must sanction exporting gasoline to Iran and that might shut down the government.

This statement reflects Israel’s talking points on this subject so precisely that I frankly have strong suspicions that “Mohammed” is not who he claimed to be.  I am trying to verify what sort of due diligence, if any, the show’s producers did to authenticate the man’s claim to be an Iranian student. It is certainly within the realm of possibility for Israeli intelligence to engage in this sort of media manipulation to advance its interests within this country.

As if to reinforce this notion, Aipac released a statement pointing to this interview in order to remind the American public about its own lobbying push for draconian sanctions against Iran.  The pro-Israel community here is worried that the unrest in Iran has derailed their ongoing political campaign against Iran’s nuclear program.  A statement like this is a shot in the arm.  Can I prove Mohammed is a fraud?  No.  But there are only two sets of interests which could benefit from the type of malarkey Mohammed is peddling: Israel and the mullahs.  And I doubt the mullahs are thinking much about using CNN to smear the reformers (though I could be wrong).

Snag Films Drops Third Jihad, CNN Asks Whether ‘Foreign’ Money Funds Clarion

Wednesday, October 15th, 2008

I’m pleased to report that Snag Films, the free online distribution service for indie documentaries that was featuring Third Jihad at its site, has removed the film supposedly at the request of the filmmakers. That’s laughable since the exposure and credibility Clarion would’ve received via Snag made the producers salivate. One of my readers, Robin, wrote to Steve Case (yes, of AOL fame) and his wife Jean, who are backers of the site, and warned them of the hateful nature of the film. I too wrote to the site owners via their feedback form. It was gone within a day.

CNN, which earlier had aired portions of Obsession, has finally gotten religion. What took ‘em so long. Most of the rest of the media has covered the story of the distribution of the 28 million DVDs in swing states long ago. Journalist Ali Gharib informs me that CNN has finally gotten with the program and aired its own segment critical of the film. Naturally, the reporters don’t note that CNN had previously been a willing promoter of the film.  A reader notes that Hunter Thompson described the TV industry as a bunch of “thieves and pimps.”  Though my guess is that the reporters probably didn’t even know of CNN’s previous role (though they should have).

In the story, Clarion’s PR flack, Gregory Ross, refuses to reveal who’s financing all the garbage, but pointedly denies that it comes from “foreign” (i.e. Israeli) money.  Which ignores the obvious conclusion that the funding is coming from an American Jew who supports Aish HaTorah, Clarion, the Republican Party, and anti-Muslim hysteria.  Wonder who that could be?

Israel Attacked Syrian Missile Complex

Wednesday, September 12th, 2007

As I said during the Azmi Bishara case a few months back, things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser regarding Israel’s attack on Syria last Thursday. After hearing Syria claim Israel fired missiles into the ground and Israel look like the cat that swallowed the canary while it stayed mum about the entire affair–Josh Landis notes that CNN is confirming that Israel actually did attack a Syrian military installation–possibly a missile factory or a shipment of missiles. Christiane Amanpour, who reports the story, goes on to make the astounding claim that IDF ground forces may have even been involved:

But the sources told CNN the military operation, which happened Wednesday into Thursday, may have also involved Israeli ground forces who directed the airstrike, which “left a big hole in the desert” in Syria.

Man, if that’s true this is going to be one holy mess. It’s bad enough to bomb another country. But to land ground troops there as well? Of course, the Syrians deny this but given the lies or misinformation they’ve been spreading one wonders what they know about what’s happening right under their own noses on their own territory.

The Bush Administration of course is mighty pleased with Israel flexing its muscles against one of the Axis of Evil wannabe powers. In fact, the Bushites seem to elevating Syria to North Korea status with this NY Times quotation:

One Bush administration official said Israel had recently carried out reconnaissance flights over Syria, taking pictures of possible nuclear installations that Israeli officials believed might have been supplied with material from North Korea.

That’s right. The fact that North Korea gave or sold Syria god knows what nuclear detritus has been elevated to a “nuclear installation.” As if Syria has now become an Arab nuclear power. This nonsense has John Bolton (or maybe Dick Cheney) written all over it. Remember he’s the guy who said the Syrians and Cubans were preparing biological and chemical weapons with only a bit more evidence than Mel Gibson had when he told that Malibu cop that Jews ran the world.

The Times quotes a Bush Administration source saying:

He said it was unclear whether the Israeli strike had produced any evidence that might validate that belief.

One of those lovely government-speak phrases that often float from the lips of untrustworthy Israeli and U.S. sources who wish to insinuate that something might exist which likely doesn’t. If there were any such “evidence” both countries would be touting it in the news media as proof of North Korean-Syrian nuclear perfidy.

Don’t you just love this Times explanation of why they granted their source anonymity:

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a military action by another government.

Ah, yes we do respect Israel’s sovereignty in this matter and wouldn’t deign to do anything to step on their toes. But Syria’s sovereignty? Well, now that’s another matter entirely. Besides, this guy’s lyin’ through his teeth. Why would attaching his name to what he said be seen as impinging on Israel’s attack against Syria?

Condi Rice must be going absolutely apoplectic right about now. A week or so ago she’s touting a nuclear accord with North Korea. Then here comes Johnny Bolton and Dick Cheney pulling the rug right out from under her. She thought she was a good bureaucratic infighter. The neocons respond in true Jay Geils Band-fashion: “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet, baby.” They’re out to make her look like an utter fool. And what does this say about the Bush Administration? It seems like a Roman gladiatorial ring with the neocons battling to the death against the moderates. I’d say in this sort of internal chaos some of the worst damage can happen in a presidential administration. Just watch out regarding Iran. This bodes ill.

Josh thinks there still something “off” about the CNN story. And I agree. I still think that this is an opening salvo in the coming war against Iran. This is an Cheneyesque shout out to the mullahs letting them know what’s in store. I think we’re seeing the initial outline of a coordinated U.S.-Israeli military strategy that will further develop down the line. This attack tells us to expect military action against Iran; and to expect that it will either be done solely by Israel but with deep U.S. support. Or that it will be done by the U.S. and Israel with each taking a portion of the military operation.

Josh does us the service of quoting in full a pitch-perfect column in the Jerusalem Post, of all places, by Larry Derfner castigating the Israeli media for the docile approach to this important story:

For once, Israelis seem to believe that Syria is telling the truth – that Israeli jets invaded Syria’s airspace last Thursday…

The reason Israelis believe the Syrian story is because if it wasn’t true, Israel would deny it. Why would Israel deny it? Because countries aren’t supposed to fly their jets into another country’s airspace without permission. It’s considered an invasion. An act of aggression. It gives the invaded country a causus belli – a justification to strike back.

In short, it’s wrong. It’s the sort of thing that starts wars, and countries are supposed to try to avoid wars, not start them.

So Israeli leaders have nothing to say about the Syrian reports. This is the diplomatic equivalent of a wink. Everyone understands.

What’s hard to understand, though, is how the Israeli media can be so docile, so obedient, in the face of such a reckless Israeli act. I was watching Channel 2 Thursday night, and I couldn’t believe what I was hearing, or rather not hearing.

None of the journalists, who clearly assumed that this incident had really taken place, thought it worth mentioning that Israel had just risked starting a war with Syria. None of them challenged Israeli officials on the wisdom of this. All they talked about was what Syria might do now, whether Syria would go to war. That Israel had just provoked Syria, had just escalated the conflict, was the elephant in the newsroom that they pretended not to see.

This has been the tenor of the coverage ever since…hardly a hint about the incredible risk Israel took, about the morality of tossing a lighted match in a dry forest as this country’s leaders just did.

It’s almost surrealistic. It’s like there’s a conspiracy of silence. The people who are supposed to ask questions act as if they’ve been lobotomized. I feel a little bit like I’m living in a police state.

Here Derfner castigates Israel’s leaders for the hypocrisy of their actions:

Since Thursday, spokesmen for this country have been trying to calm everyone down, assuring everyone that Israel doesn’t want war.

What a joke. If Israel wanted to calm things down with Syria, why did it fly its jets into Syrian airspace at a time like this? If Israel doesn’t want war, why did it risk war?

Derfner here raises an important comparison to Israel’s behavior during the Lebanon war:

IT TURNS OUT that nothing has changed since last summer’s war in Lebanon. With rare exceptions, the Israeli media didn’t ask any questions then, and they aren’t asking any questions now. Same with the public. In fact, the situation seems to have gotten worse. Last summer’s war was started, after all, by Hizbullah, so even Meretz, even I supported it at first. The failure by the media and the public came later, when they didn’t ask what purpose Israel had in continuing the fighting indefinitely. Now we’ve got a situation where the country has gone mum after its leaders behaved recklessly not in self-defense, as in Lebanon, but in aggression.

I’d agree with Derfner. Though I would say that everything about the Lebanon war mirrors this action. The Israeli response was reckless, ill-prepared and ill-focused. It was the military equivalent of chest-thumping, rather than a well-executed, surgically-precise operation. The Syrian incursion promises to be more of the same. Though Israel hasn’t gone on the rampage as it did in Lebanon, it wouldn’t take much to start a bloodbath between Israel and Syria which might drag other powers into the maelstrom.

Finally, this common sense from Derfner is what is sorely lacking both in Israel and the White House right about now. Alas, there’s little hope that anyone with any say in the matter is listening or even cares what such a sensible analyst has to say, and that’s the tragedy of the situation:

We’ve set up a strict double standard for ourselves and the Arabs. We believe Israel is entitled to breach Syrian airspace, or Lebanese airspace, because – well, because they’re bad and we’re good. But if they breach ours? If Syrian jets dared fly over Israeli territory, everybody knows what would happen – we’d shoot them down without a moment’s hesitation. And afterward we’d complain to the whole world, we’d say, “You see? The Arabs are trying to kill us all, just like the Nazis.” Yet if, on the other hand, Israeli jets fly over Syria – and get away with it? Wink, wink. The little country with the big heart has done it again. Damn, we’re good.

Despite what some readers think, I’m not one of those people who blame Israel for all of the Middle East’s troubles, who think the Arabs would leave Israel alone if we’d only leave them alone. That’s a ridiculous idea. But it’s no less ridiculous to claim that Israel wants peace with its whole being and it’s only the Arabs who are preventing it. I think Thursday’s incident showed otherwise.

Israeli Foreign Minister Livni Suggests Talks with Abbas Whom Prime Minster Olmert Calls “Powerless” and “Helpless”

Monday, May 22nd, 2006

Mahmoud Abbas and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni of Israel met Sunday in Egypt in the highest-level contact between the sides since Hamas…won the Palestinian elections in January.

The two met on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Sharm el Sheik…and Ms. Livni said she envisioned talks between Mr. Abbas and the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert.

“After some preparations, a meeting of the president with Prime Minister Olmert will be the next step,” Ms. Livni said, according to Reuters.
NY Times

I’m afraid that President Mahmoud Abbas doesn’t have even the power to take charge of his own government. So how can he represent that government in the most crucial, complex and sensitive negotiations…

Mahmoud Abbas was deprived of all his powers [after Hamas' election victory]. He is powerless. He is helpless. He is unable to even stop the minimal terror activities amongst the Palestinians, so how can he seriously negotiate with Israel and assume responsibility for the most major, fundamental issues that are in controversy between us and them?
–Ehud Olmert on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer

It’s a pretty shell game that the Israeli government is playing all for the benefit of George Bush and Condi Rice as Olmert arrives for his first White House meeting since becoming prime minister. You see, Israel has to look like it is open to talking to (if not negotiating with) the Palestinians–hence Livni’s making nice-nice at Sharm. But it also has to set up the game so it can vitiate the idea of talking even before it happens. We’ll talk with the dwarf but you can’t seriously expect us to talk about anything significant, can you?

Meanwhile at almost the same precise moment, Olmert in the above interview pats little Mahmoud on the head saying he’s a lovely fellow, but rather a nonentity when it comes to representing his people and therefore no real partner for a serious negotiation. As Robert Rosenberg says in today’s Ariga.com column, Abbas certainly seems to be a figure supported by the U.S., the international community and the Palestinians themselves. The only party who holds Olmert’s views seems to be–you guessed it, Israel! What a coincidence:

The Israelis have given up on Abbas — but the Americans and Europeans have not. Indeed, even the Palestinians seemingly have not given up on Abbas. Polls still show Abbas’ pro-negotiations position to be the most popular political position among Palestinians, with the two state solution…as their choice.

The Israelis aren’t fooling anyone. Certainly not the Palestinians. Not even the Americans who’ve told Olmert to tamp down the expectations that his “convergence” plan will be seriously considered at this meeting. The only ones the Israeli government may be fooling is themselves. They must really believe they’re presenting a serious and moderate face to the world which will go far toward securing their plans for squeezing the Palestinians into a territorial cantonment while it appropriates territory to which it has no right. Such delusions can only be met by at some point by the cold, hard reality that they have been rejected by the entire world community. At that point, it will be something like the cold, hard brutal reality that faced Ariel Sharon and the Israeli public who’d supported the settler movement for decades only to realize last summer that it’d led the nation down a dead end. This is something like what will happen to Olmert’s convergence plan and his idea that he can render Abbas pasul (“unsuitable”) simply by waving his magic wand at him and mumbling the words: “No partner.”

Some day Israel will negotiate with Mahmoud Abbas or his successor. It will have to be dragged screaming and kicking to do so. And when it does it will have hurt itself and its Palestinian interlocutor no end by all the previous bad-mouthing. Israel will look the fool for doing the very thing it swore it would never do: negotiate with a “dwarf.”

Hamas Proposes Long-Term Truce in Return for Israeli Withdrawal to 1967 Borders

Monday, January 30th, 2006

It is dangerous to parse pronouncements coming from Hamas by crediting them with too much optimism, but I find Mahmoud Al-Zahar’s interview with Wolf Blitzer to be both maddening and intriguing at the same time (interview transcript). While there were certainly no breakthroughs in his statements, and plenty to be deeply concerned about, I found Al-Zahar’s change of emphasis from the normal run of the mill Hamas talking points to be intriguing.

mahmoud al-zaharHamas’ Al-Zahar speaking with Wolf Blitzer

While he refused to turn his back on Hamas’ professed desire to destroy Israel, he presented his perspective on this in a more realistic way than he has in the past:

Blitzer: If Israel were to accept a complete withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, including giving up East Jerusalem, would you then accept a two-state solution?

AL-ZAHAR: We can accept to establish our independent state on the area occupied in ’67, and we can give a long-term hudna.…Believe me, Israel is not going to recognize a state even on a square meter in the hands of the Palestinians, because they are not accepting [anything] except the Jewish state. So at that time, we can give long-term hudna or long-term truce, can be (inaudible). More than that, under certain conditions. And after that, let time heal (ph)…

BLITZER: …Do you want to establish a dialogue, conversations, negotiations, talks, whatever you call it, with Israeli officials? Will you talk to them?

AL-ZAHAR: Negotiation is not our aim. Negotiation is a method. If the Israeli is ready to give us the national demand, to withdraw from the occupied area ’67, to release our detainees, to stop their aggression, to make a geographic linkage between Gaza Strip and West Bank, at that time, and with assurance from other side, we are going to accept to establish our independent state at that time, and give up one or two, 10, 15 years time in order to see what is the real intention of Israel after that.

While I’m not an expert on Hamas and don’t know what statements they’ve made in the past on these subjects, I’ve never heard a Hamas official (and Al-Zahar is reputed to be a hardline representative) say the group would be willing to accept Israel’s return to 1967 boundaries as a basis of recognition or hudna.

I think Al-Zahar’s argument on the return to 1967 borders shows some sophistication on his part since Israel’s refusal to accept an international border opens it to accusations of territorial aggrandizement at the expense of the Palestinians:

BLITZER: Are you prepared to accept a two-state solution, Palestine living alongside Israel?

AL-ZAHAR: First of all, I would like to address that. PLO, in 1988 accept[ed] existence of two states.

Since that time, Israelis expanded the borders, occupied ’67, confiscated our right in Jerusalem, put a separating wall between the people and their own homeland. And since that time nobody is able to live as a human being.

They [the PLO] accepted that and they signed an agreement…But, tell me, what is the border of Israel right now? What is the official border to accept this state?…

If we are going to say we are accepting the two states, on what border? Border of ’67? It is already taken by the big settlement around Jerusalem. Mr. Olmert, just yesterday, said Jerusalem is an eternal capital for Israel. Jerusalem is a united city for Israel. So, about what are we going to accept these argument?

If Israel is ready to tell the people, the international community, what is the official border, after that we are going to answer the question.

I think he has a reasonable point here. Israel has laid down conditions for negotiations, saying it will not talk till the Palestinians end terror. Hamas here makes a reasonable condition that Israel first make its territorial claims explicit before negotiations might begin. Of course, Al-Zahar advances this condition because he knows that Israel would never negotiate solely on the basis of a return to 1967 borders. Clinton’s Camp David agreement (rejected by Arafat) called for a return to 1967 borders minus 5-10% of Palestinian territory on which Israel’s major settlement bloc stands. In return, Palestine would have gotten a transfer of Israeli territory in the Negev. It seems clear to be that such a proposal would be a non-starter for Hamas. Which in turn means that Hamas’s sincerity in declaring a long term hudna may likely never be tested. A very cynical ploy on his part though we can also say that Israel’s statements on the same subject have been equally cynical.

You’ll note that Al-Zahar is quick to undermine his offer by declaring his “certainty” that Israel will never accept the creation of a Palestinian state no matter what statements it makes to the world community. While of course many Mideast commentators and Israelis themselves join Al-Zahar in questioning the sincerity of Israel’s claim that it would accept such a state, it would’ve been far more diplomatic for Hamas to put its offer on the table and not prejudge the other side’s (bad) intentions. I think this is an example of a Hamas which is not “ready for primetime” on the international stage. But I digress.

Al-Zahar has another interesting response to a Blitzer question about Hamas’ commitment to annihilate Israel, which indicates a certain pragmatism within Hamas that may eventually trump its arch-rejectionist ideology:

All the time, you are describing [us as] not accepting Israel to exist. I think it is unfair to speak like that, because we are — we are not a supreme power. We are a single people who are living in these occupied territories. Why is our enemy having an atomic bomb? Who is going to destroy the other? Hamas is going to destroy atomic state, or the atomic state is threatening the international security, especially Middle East security?

Why are you insisted to describe us as if we are having the power to destroy Israel? I think it’s fair to speak about the ability of Israel to destroy all the Middle East by their 200 bombs (inaudible) can destroy all the Middle East and Arabic countries…

I note that Al-Zahar accepts the basic premise that Hamas cannot destroy Israel even if it wished to. So while of course everyone outside of Hamas, Iran and Al Qaeda wants to hear the golden words renouncing this objective (and we haven’t), I do think it is progress when the group’s leading representative accepts reality on this score.

Now for the bad stuff. Al-Zahar’s interview also included a lot of Iranian style lunacy and gross distortion of reality. It turns out that my friend, Ray Hanania is right about Hamas’ intent to create an Islamic theocratic society in Palestine:

BLITZER: What about a future Palestinian state? A Hamas would like to see that as part of an Islamic theocracy as opposed to a secular Palestinian state. Is that right?

AL-ZAHAR: Do you think the secular system is serving any nation? Secular system allows homosexuality, allows corruption, allows the spread of the loss of natural immunity, like AIDS. We are here living under Islamic control. Nothing will change. Islam is our constitution. It’s controlling our relationship among the Palestinian society, among the Arabic, and also with the international community.

If you are going to give a hint that Islamic societies will be against the modern life, I think it’s incorrect. Please ask Crown Prince (inaudible) the role of Islam as a major constructive system in the human civilization, building hospitals, universities, while Europe in the Middle Ages were sinking in a deep corruption…

Al-Zahar can swear up and down that Hamas does not and will not accept financial subsidies from Iran nor will it take its marching orders from Iran, but what is this if not a recipe for an Iranian-style Islamic theocracy? The only thing that reassures me is that while Iran’s ayatollah’s never were elected to their positions, Hamas has been elected in a free and fair election. That means that unless Hamas plans to do away with such elections in future (a disastrous mistake should they try it), they could be booted out should Palestinians’ tire of the group’s theocratic notions.

Of course, his notions about AIDS and homosexuality are off the charts nuts, but one must hasten to add that many non-Islamic countries hold similar views. Compare Hamas’ ideas about AIDS with those of Thabo Mbeki, South Africa’s president. Not far off. I think the proper response is not to dismiss Hamas out of hand as a band of extremist monsters, but to probe their beliefs to see if they can moderate or change when they are engaged by the outside world. In other words, I urge the international community to judiciously and cautiously attempt to create a dialogue with this movement. It may prove to be futile in the end. But it’s better to try and fail than to immediately dismiss Hamas as a rogue outlaw movement with which we can never do business.

Finally, Al-Zahar raises an anti-Israel shibboleth I’d never heard before (and I thought I’d heard most of ‘em):

AL-ZAHAR:…Tell me, what is the border of Israel right now?…The Israelis are putting on their flag two blue lines. That means the river Nile and the Euphrates…

BLITZER: The two blue lines on the Israeli flag that are on top of the Star of David, is that what you’re talking about?

AL-ZAHAR: They are indicating — they are saying that frankly — it is indicating the River Nile and Euphrates (inaudible). On one coin, the gold shekel, there was — it was a map, including Palestine, Sinai, Syria, Jordan and part of Saudi Arabia. So they are not denying that. Ask them about this question…

BLITZER: Well, let’s just be clear about this. What you’re saying is that Israel wants to establish a state between the Nile and the Euphrates, is that what you’re saying?

AL-ZAHAR: Yes. It is written in their Bibles. They are even — it is written in the Knesset. That is the meaning of the David Star that was said as the land of Israel. This is the historical land of Israel.

I don’t make a claim to know every aspect of Zionist thought or practice, but I’d never heard this comment about the Israeli flag. It seems like the paranoiac fantasy of a deluded mind to me. Not that I’m saying Palestinians don’t have plenty of reasons to doubt Israel’s good intentions. But to look for conspiracies in every symbol of the state and Zionist ideology is really too much.

No doubt the basis for this charge lies in the Jabotinsky-era Likud anthem which declares “”one side of the Jordan is ours and so is the other.” By which it means the West Bank and Kingdom of Jordan. But this is a far cry from having Israeli designs on all the territory between the Nile and Euphrates. That’s purely the product of a fevered imagination. That being said, I have to add that there are equally paranoiac statements about Hamas, Palestinians and the Arab world emanating from Israelis, Jews and Dick Cheney, for that matter. I guess paranoia is a two way street.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE