July 2006

This war has spawned its first refusenik, Capt. Amir Pasteur. Pasteur was sentenced to 28 days imprisonment for refusal to take part in the war in Lebanon. During his trial, Pasteur declared that he did not want to take part in a war which “runs contrary to the values upon which he was brought up”.

Refusal to serve in certain fronts has always been a hot topic, but this specific case irks me. I can understand (not agree with) not wanting to serve in the West Bank or Gaza for ideological reasons, or even refusing to serve in Gaza during the hitnatkut, but not during this current war. Israel was attacked over a soveriegn international border and two of its soldiers were kidnapped and hundreds of thousands of rockets have fallen down on Israel and Amir doesn’t want to serve because it is “contrary to the values upon which he was brought up”? I think thats bologna.

We have come to a turning point. Andrea Stanton, a History PhD student from Columbia, writes at Time Magazine,

When I told them that I had just come from Beirut, one shook his head and said: the Israelis are crazy. I was stunned: no one in Syria seems to actually utter the word Israel. No one says Israeli. Israel features frequently in political conversations, but only via euphemisms or circumlocutions. Now, though, with Israeli tanks massing at the Lebanese border and Israeli warplanes continuing their strikes throughout the country, there is no way to avoid these words. I wonder what consequences, if any, this change will bring — whether Syrians’ ability to name the enemy will make Israel and its people more real and easier to relate to. Much of anti-Israeli sentiment that I have heard in Syria before has been rhetorical, operating at the most general level with references to “the Zionist enemy” and “the Jews” and the sense of an eternal conflict. In Beirut, by contrast, I was frequently startled to hear everyone from cab drivers to political figures pragmatically compare Israel and Lebanon, wondering whose service sector would dominate once peace was made.

This war was provoked by an idea–a very powerful idea, propagated by Nassrallah and Hizbullah, that Israel was no more than a spiderweb awaiting a harsh, dissolving wind.

Now it is the idea of Nassrallah’s that has been blown away. As you see in the quote above, and in Andrea’s article, peace with Israel has become inevitable due to the fact that Israel has proven once and for all that even the Party of God cannot uproot us from our ancient soil.

Force certainly does not solve all things. Not even most. But, in this case, it was the harsh pinch of reality that woke up those in the Middle East to a morning in which Israel is no longer a fleeting dream.

In an excellent op-ed piece published in The Jerusalem Post on 22 July Alan Dershowitz, as usual, hits the nail squarely on the head in describing how “The Predictable Condemners” of Israel in the media and among human rights groups are used to further the aims of Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, and the other terrorist groups currently waging war on Israel with the aid of Iran and Syria. As I see more and more condemnations of Israel in the media it seems like an appropriate time, to me, to note Dr. Dershowitz’ words:

The Hizbullah and Hamas provocations against Israel once again demonstrate how terrorists exploit human rights and the media in their attacks on democracies.

By hiding behind their own civilians the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians.

[…]

There is one variable that could change this dynamic and present democracies with a viable option that could make terrorism less attractive as a tactic: The international community, the anti-Israel segment of the media and the so called “human rights” organizations could stop falling for this terrorist gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote the terrorist agenda.

[…]

IT SHOULD BE obvious by now that Hizbullah and Hamas actually want the Israeli military to kill as many Lebanese and Palestinian civilians as possible. That is why they store their rockets underneath the beds of civilians; why they launch their missiles from crowded civilian neighborhoods and hide among civilians. They are seeking to induce Israel to defend its civilians by going after them among their civilian “shields.” They know that every civilian they induce Israel to kill hurts Israel in the media and the international and human rights communities.

They regard these human shields as shahids - martyrs - even if they did not volunteer for this lethal job. Under the law, criminals who use human shields are responsible for the deaths of the shields, even if the bullet that kills them came from the gun of a policeman.

[…]

The very idea that terrorists who use women and children as suicide bombers against other women and children shed crocodile tears over the deaths of civilians they deliberately put in harm’s way gives new meaning to the word “hypocrisy.” We all know that hypocrisy is a tactic of the terrorists, but it is shocking that others fall for it and become complicit with the terrorists.

Since the beginning of this war, Israelis have been thinking nonstop about how much sacrifice and pain our society is able to endure. Indeed, whereas Israeli society once embraced Trumpeldor’s brave last words that “it is good to die for one’s country,” today, the thought of more extensive casualties among our soldiers in Lebanon has shaken the country to its core.

The latest issue of Azure (where I work, free registration for the site) just published an editorial that directly addresses this question, arguing that the Zionist ethos of heroism and selfless sacrifice must be upheld as our single greatest assset in this war against Islamist terrorism:

But Israel, we must remember, is a nation at war. Much as Israelis may want to, they cannot simply abandon the heroic Zionist ethos that fortified and encouraged the nation during so many trials in the past. The dreams of founding a peace-loving civilization in a “New Middle East,” where every man sits under his vine and fig tree, have long been discredited. This is the bitter reality of the life that Israelis face today. There is something not merely illusory, but even dangerous, in seeking solace and distraction in the rhetoric of “normalcy,” as though this alone will bring prosperity and peace in a new global economic order. Indeed, this is precisely what the enemies of the Jewish state-who consistently underestimate the fortitude of the Israeli citizen-are counting on. So long as the assault on the right of the Jews to live as a sovereign nation continues, there is no choice but to believe that despite everything, and to the very end, it is good to die for our country.

This doesn’t mean that we should want our soldiers (in essence ourselves and our families) to die, or needlessly endager them, or justify any death in the name of Zionism. What it does mean is that at times we face a great threat: a threat to our freedom, to our long term safety, and to our vision of a peaceful and productive existence in our homeland. At these times the ultimate sacrifice becomes necessary and worthwhile. The fight up north is exactly such a fight, and while we shall mourn our losses we all must be ready to pay this price.

Which basically means that in these final hours before the window for action in Lebanon slams shut, the government needs to take direct and massive action to end the Hezbollah terror, regardless of the threat of Israeli casulaties. And the citizens who wear the country’s uniform, and their families on the front line, must be squarely behind this necessary evil.

From last Friday’s noon UN briefing:

There were two direct impacts on UNIFIL positions from the Israeli side in the past 24 hours and five other incidents of firing close to UN positions from the Israeli side. It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of five UN positions.

This quote is problematic because it should read that “Israel shelled UNIFIL positions because of Hezbollah launch positions in their vicinity.” Indeed, the briefing acknowledged the fact that Hezbollah is using the UN positions as bases of operation:

Asked about Hezbollah tactics near UN positions, the spokesperson said that Hezbollah sometimes uses UN positions as a shield.

However, according to the briefing “Hezbollah was not in the vicinity of Khiam when that post was demolished.”

First of all, I wonder what it means when they say “Hezbollah was not in the vicinity of Khiam when that post was demolished.” Were they there a few minutes before? Did they launch and run, as Israel has conclusively shown they do from civilian and other target areas that are high risk shots for Israel (like UN positions)? Were they even there the day before, or planning to come back the next day?

If any of these were the case, how–and it is eminently clear that they do–can the media and world leaders expect Israel to refrain from defending itself by hitting those positions? With the amount of Hezbollah fire from sensitive areas it is a testament to Israeli restraint that civilian casualties have been as low as they are.

The point being, with such clear evidence from UN officials and aerial footage, it is irresponsible for the media to continue giving the Hezbollah a pass on its responsibility for the civilian and UN deaths in Lebanon. As long as that context is clear they are more than welcome to critique the Israeli offensive. But without that, well, it is blatant bias.

Check out this hilarious Shai v’Dror crank call to the local Beirut Burger King.

According to Ha’aretz:

[Olmert] told Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema, with whom he met yesterday in Jerusalem, that the fighting would cease “as soon as the international force arrives in Lebanon.”

Why would we think that anything has changed regarding the way that the world treats the Jews? During the time of the enlightenment, some Jews dreamt that the period of “secular grace” that had developed would give them all of the God-given rights that they wished for, and that the world would accept the Jews.

It turned out quite different.

Why is it any different now? Why would we ever expect the “international system” to ever accept the “Jew among the nations”, the Jewish State? I am highly skeptical that any sort of international force will ever do what is best for the Jewish State, just as the world has never done what is best for the Jews. If anything has shown the complete and utter failure of the international system it is the way that it treats the Jews.

We should tell the world: We do not need, nor do we want, the world to meddle with the policies of the Jewish State. We should tell the world: We can most certainly handle maintaining our own morality, thank you very much, considering that we invented the concept. We should tell the world: We are a sovereign nation, and will defend ourselves even if the world would rather that we roll over and die.

www.crisisinisrael.com

Could it be that the disaster at Kfar Qana–where 54 human beings lost their lives–was not under the responsibility of Israel? Ha’aretz reports,

The Israel Defense Forces convened a press conference Sunday evening, admitting that while the IAF did indeed strike the building in which the civilians were killed, the attack itself occurred near midnight, while reports of an explosion and the structure’s collapse were only received at around 8:30 A.M.

The air force did resume bombing Qana at 7:30 A.M., however the strikes were carried out on targets at a distance of 460 meters from the building.

“The question we don’t have an answer to is what happened between 12 midnight and 8 in the morning,” said IAF Brigadier General Amir Eshel.

Lebanese villagers in Qana who were witness to the bombing, however, say that the building’s collapse occurred in the wee hours of the night.

Witnesses at the scene corroborated the IDF claim that the strike on the building, which is located in the Hariva neighborhood of Qana, was carried out at 1:00 A.M. After the initial strike, some of the building’s residents exited in an attempt to survey the damage, in effect saving themselves.

A few minutes later, IAF planes struck the building once again, causing the walls to collapse on the residents who did not vacate, killing them in the process.

Arab media began reporting on the incident after dawn Sunday, approximately seven hours after the strike. The reports did not note, however, that the building collapsed a short time prior to Arab journalists’ arrival on the scene.

In other words, could there be a pattern of “blame Israel for Hizbullah tactics” emerging, at first represented strongly in the UNIFIL bombing and now in Qana?

Over a week ago, the Secretary General of the United Nations–Kofi Annan–blamed Israel for purposefully targeting a UN position in South Lebanon. Now it seems that even the people hit in the UN position didn’t blame Israel. Ha’aretz reports,

Messages sent by the Canadian UNIFIL officer killed in the Israel Air Force attack on a UN post in Lebanon last week indicate that Hezbollah had been firing rockets at Israel from a location near the post “on a daily basis” prior to the IAF attack…

General Louis Mackenzie, the first UN commander in Saravejo at the start of the war in Bosnia in the early 1990s, told Canadian media that he has no doubt that von Kruedener’s intenוtion was to explain that Hezbollah forces had been operating near the post, and that he therefore understood Israel’s need to carry out strikes in the area.

This scandal teaches us two things:

1. The UN, and specifically Kofi Annan, cannot be trusted. That’s a lesson we should have learned already from the fact that the same Annan who claimed powerlessness when it came to raising awareness regarding the genocides in Rwanda, Kosovo and Darfur now shows, yet again, that when it comes to Israel he magically grows balls.

2. A multinational force cannot and should not be the solution to the problem in Southern Lebanon. Hizbullah and other assorted fanatics read the political map very well, and use the UN as a shield even when the UN would rather, well, not be a human shield. By providing Hizbullah with cover we will only be prolonging the conflict, and ensuring a greater flare-up in the future once Hizbullah restocks and learns its lessons from the current escapade.

In other words, Israel’s only chance at this moment is to tell Kofi to stuff it, and tell France that they’re wanted in the Ivory Coast and the Sudan. No UN presence, no multinational force, will solve the problems that Israel and its neighbors alone can solve.

— Next Page »