Welcome back to America, ambassador.
Michael Oren, who grew up in northern New Jersey before moving to Israel, experienced firsthand the crude tug-of-war between advocates for Israel and the Arabs.
The newly-minted Israeli ambassador to the United States was shouted down by a group of Arab students at the University of California, Irvine, on Monday, Feb. 8. The criminal disruption exemplifies - but hardly exceeds - the vicious nature of many recent incidents arising from the Israeli-Arab conflict. You are not in West Orange any more, Michael Oren.
The debate in America and our Canadian neighbor has been anything but civil discourse. While neither side is pure, the pro-Arab corner can praise itself for employing perhaps 80 percent of the disgusting tactics that characterize the conflict.
The 11 thugs who were arrested after disrupting Oren’s talk are altar boys compared to some of their compatriots in Manhattan, Toronto, Philadelphia and Miami Beach. They habitually employ tasteless tactics, level broad-based accusations, distort the facts, compare Israel to Nazi Germany, commit low-level criminal offenses and downright lie.
The incident at UCI is appalling, but there have been far worse episodes - some a matter of personal experience. When Oren spoke, intruders had spread out through the audience of 500 and interrupted him 10 times. “Israel is a murderer,” one shouted. “How many Palestinians did you kill?” cried another.
Oren left the stage after the first four outbursts and returned 20 minutes later to withstand six more verbal assaults before dozens of jeering students stormed out to conduct a demonstration outside, according to The Los Angeles Jewish Journal and other media sources.
The reception at UCI should have been a cakewalk for the ambassador. Oren grew up in the suburb of West Orange, west of Newark, before moving to Israel, and survived a Syrian ambush in Lebanon in 1982 while serving as a paratrooper. He also served in the two-front war against Hamas and Hezbollah in 2006 and last year’s invasion of Gaza. In between, he wrote two best-selling books, “Six Days of War” and “Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East.”
The hecklers at UCI also face possible disciplinary action, which could include expulsion.
That same night, in nearby Los Angeles, a small group of demonstrators were escorted out of a room at the UCLA School of Law after they filed into line in front of an Israeli speaker, legal advisor Daniel Taub, and stood in silence with signs taped to their stomachs reading “Turn Your Backs on War Crimes,” the Journal reported. Taub spoke about the Goldstone report.
The California events reflect a long tradition of offensive conduct. Early in the past decade, activists chose Miami Beach’s Holocaust memorial for an anti-Israel demonstration that afforded comparisons of Israeli tactics to Hitler’s storm troopers.
Outside Philadelphia’s Israeli consulate, protesters burned an Israeli flag and marched for a mile to Independence Hall, tying up rush-hour traffic. Pro-Arab students at the University of Pennsylvania crafted Israeli-style checkpoints on campus to prevent other students from moving freely between classes, forcing them to discover how the poor Palestinians feel when they must wait at checkpoints on the West Bank.
They chose Israel anniversary festivals in Boston and San Francisco to gather en masse outside the festival sites and make certain that attendees could hear their taunts. If memory serves, Jews at the Boston site had to pass through a gauntlet of demonstrators to reach the event site.
These activists have disrupted pro-Israel speakers at other venues, including Benjamin Netanyahu in Canada a few years before he was elected prime minister of Israel last year.
Several months ago, Jewish students at York University in Toronto were chased by dissidents to the campus Hillel office, and these ruffians surrounded the place and would not let them leave. In Berkeley, Calif., pro-Arab supporters vandalized a site associated with Jewish students. Did I mention my personal experiences? I’ll summarize:
At Times Square last year, I was part of a small counter-protest after more than 700 protesters against the Gaza war had formed. The 30 of us were kept a block away, yet a few hundred of them surged to the corner across from us taunting and shouting at us. “Shame on you!” a chorus screamed at one point. A few held aloft some shoes, as did the Iraqi who tossed his shoes at President Bush, and someone tossed a few small objects across the street at us.
At a government office, a senior manager tacked up a poster on a bulletin board that depicted a Palestinian flag accompanied by the words, “There will be no peace until there is justice.” She posted a similar sign two days later. Jewish employees, myself included, regarded these signs as anti-Israel and filed complaints with an anti-discrimination agency. The agency rebuffed us, contending that this was a free-speech issue even though she knowingly created a hostile environment.
What to do? Above all, press law enforcement authorities to swiftly enforce the law when these goons so much as jaywalk. As noted above, colleges and employers should impose disciplinary action and victims should inquire about complaints with anti-discrimination agencies. Offenders who are not citizens should be referred to immigration.
If they want “justice” so badly, let us by all means give them justice.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Hamas was prime culprit in Gaza attack
The United Nations’ Goldstone report is little more than a melodramatic sideshow, yet it has evolved into somewhat of a battle cry for advocates of the poor Palestinians. Now they can wave the report in the air and compare the Israel Defense Forces to Hitler’s storm troopers.
Israel’s invasion of Gaza more than a year ago amounts to a far more nuanced episode. Israeli leaders and their advocates in the United States and elsewhere must cease being so defensive. There are reasonable responses to be found. To its credit, Israel has made a respectable comeback with its formal response to the report; it was composed of a UN commission headed by former South African Justice Richard Goldstone.
Israel’s needs to expand on its reason for attacking Gaza; explain why civilians were victimized; take the UN to task for its sweeping and unsupported accusations; apologize for refusing to cooperate with investigators; acknowledge mistakes; and take a hard look at its military operations.
Israel’s foremost lapse was its understated characterization of the three-week war that began in late December 2009. Israel’s persistent line was its goal of stopping rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel. How does that sound in the context of what ensued? Hamas clearly commits an act of war by firing thousands of missiles, but must Israel respond by killing 1,400 people that includes a countless number of civilians? Israel could not even meet its objective - eliminating Gaza’s threat of firing more missiles.
If I believed that was Israel’s main reason, I would have taken to the streets in protest.
It does not take a military strategist to figure out why Israel invaded Gaza. Hamas, which controls Gaza, was obviously building a war machine intended to damage and perhaps one day destroy Israel as a proxy for Iran.
It makes sense. Arab extremists have been trying to drive the Jews into the sea long before the state of Israel was created. A century later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledges the destruction of Israel as he engineers the development of a nuclear device. Hamas has been habitually smuggling weapons into Gaza for years, kidnapped an Israeli soldier in 2006 and seized control of Gaza the following year in a violent coup. All the while, they progressively fired rockets with greater ranges into Israel.
Israel had to react forcefully. They probably sought to weaken Hamas as much as possible, and they likely succeeded for the time being. Unfortunately, Hamas is believed to be rebuilding its arsenal, which would mean that another confrontation is inevitable.
When Israel swooped in, they fought an enemy that infiltrated the public at large. Hamas forced civilians to act as human shields, causing them to be caught in the crossfire. Israel had to choose between the safety of Gaza civilians and that of Israeli civilians.
The commission wrecked its credibility when it accused Israel of deliberately killing civilians without producing sufficient evidence. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz fired off a detailed analysis of the report to the U.N. Secretary General complaining of “the distortions, misuses of evidence and bias of the report and those who wrote it.”
Dershowitz tackles the report’s reference to Israeli officials who proclaimed that Israel should bombard Gaza’s infrastructure. Maybe some Israeli leaders and extremists feel that way, but how does this mindset translate to public policy? There is no hard evidence that this notion is equivalent to the Israeli government’s tactics.
Dershowitz hotly disputes this allegation, and so should Israel. The U.N. must be placed on the hot seat for this.
Nonetheless, Israel undermined its credibility by refusing the commission’s request for cooperation. It makes Israel look guilty, and in turn Goldstone and his investigators might believe the worst. Prosecutors tend to come down very hard on evasive suspects.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that Israel produced a formal response conceding that the IDF was spurred to examine its actions in part by pressure from the Goldstone report and various human rights groups. “We take a look at ourselves and where we were right and where mistakes were made,” said Capt. Barak Raz. “I can’t deny that these reports also contributed to our ability to be made aware.”
Israel’s response reveals that it launched 150 separate investigations that were either initiated by the army or in reaction to complaints from Arab civilians and other outside sources. So far, 36 probes led to criminal prosecutions that include 19 involving shooting toward civilians and 17 linked to using civilians as human shields, mistreating detainees and theft, according to JTA.
Israel’s decision to conduct 36 prosecutions does not indict the entire IDF, but it compounds the disclosure after the 2006 war that Israel’s military is plagued by severe problems. At the time, reservists could not find ammunition and supplies, and they lacked sufficient training for the fighting in which they participated. On three occasions in recent years, terrorists slipped through boundaries of military bases to kill or kidnap IDF soldiers.
It is no wonder if the IDF misfired, literally, during the latest hostilities. Whatever the cause, transgressions on Israel’s part cannot be justified. The IDF is due for a housecleaning.
The issues involved with the Goldstone report still amount to a sideshow. Had Hamas lived in peace with Israel, we would not be squabbling over a Goldstone report today.
Israel’s invasion of Gaza more than a year ago amounts to a far more nuanced episode. Israeli leaders and their advocates in the United States and elsewhere must cease being so defensive. There are reasonable responses to be found. To its credit, Israel has made a respectable comeback with its formal response to the report; it was composed of a UN commission headed by former South African Justice Richard Goldstone.
Israel’s needs to expand on its reason for attacking Gaza; explain why civilians were victimized; take the UN to task for its sweeping and unsupported accusations; apologize for refusing to cooperate with investigators; acknowledge mistakes; and take a hard look at its military operations.
Israel’s foremost lapse was its understated characterization of the three-week war that began in late December 2009. Israel’s persistent line was its goal of stopping rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel. How does that sound in the context of what ensued? Hamas clearly commits an act of war by firing thousands of missiles, but must Israel respond by killing 1,400 people that includes a countless number of civilians? Israel could not even meet its objective - eliminating Gaza’s threat of firing more missiles.
If I believed that was Israel’s main reason, I would have taken to the streets in protest.
It does not take a military strategist to figure out why Israel invaded Gaza. Hamas, which controls Gaza, was obviously building a war machine intended to damage and perhaps one day destroy Israel as a proxy for Iran.
It makes sense. Arab extremists have been trying to drive the Jews into the sea long before the state of Israel was created. A century later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledges the destruction of Israel as he engineers the development of a nuclear device. Hamas has been habitually smuggling weapons into Gaza for years, kidnapped an Israeli soldier in 2006 and seized control of Gaza the following year in a violent coup. All the while, they progressively fired rockets with greater ranges into Israel.
Israel had to react forcefully. They probably sought to weaken Hamas as much as possible, and they likely succeeded for the time being. Unfortunately, Hamas is believed to be rebuilding its arsenal, which would mean that another confrontation is inevitable.
When Israel swooped in, they fought an enemy that infiltrated the public at large. Hamas forced civilians to act as human shields, causing them to be caught in the crossfire. Israel had to choose between the safety of Gaza civilians and that of Israeli civilians.
The commission wrecked its credibility when it accused Israel of deliberately killing civilians without producing sufficient evidence. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz fired off a detailed analysis of the report to the U.N. Secretary General complaining of “the distortions, misuses of evidence and bias of the report and those who wrote it.”
Dershowitz tackles the report’s reference to Israeli officials who proclaimed that Israel should bombard Gaza’s infrastructure. Maybe some Israeli leaders and extremists feel that way, but how does this mindset translate to public policy? There is no hard evidence that this notion is equivalent to the Israeli government’s tactics.
Dershowitz hotly disputes this allegation, and so should Israel. The U.N. must be placed on the hot seat for this.
Nonetheless, Israel undermined its credibility by refusing the commission’s request for cooperation. It makes Israel look guilty, and in turn Goldstone and his investigators might believe the worst. Prosecutors tend to come down very hard on evasive suspects.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that Israel produced a formal response conceding that the IDF was spurred to examine its actions in part by pressure from the Goldstone report and various human rights groups. “We take a look at ourselves and where we were right and where mistakes were made,” said Capt. Barak Raz. “I can’t deny that these reports also contributed to our ability to be made aware.”
Israel’s response reveals that it launched 150 separate investigations that were either initiated by the army or in reaction to complaints from Arab civilians and other outside sources. So far, 36 probes led to criminal prosecutions that include 19 involving shooting toward civilians and 17 linked to using civilians as human shields, mistreating detainees and theft, according to JTA.
Israel’s decision to conduct 36 prosecutions does not indict the entire IDF, but it compounds the disclosure after the 2006 war that Israel’s military is plagued by severe problems. At the time, reservists could not find ammunition and supplies, and they lacked sufficient training for the fighting in which they participated. On three occasions in recent years, terrorists slipped through boundaries of military bases to kill or kidnap IDF soldiers.
It is no wonder if the IDF misfired, literally, during the latest hostilities. Whatever the cause, transgressions on Israel’s part cannot be justified. The IDF is due for a housecleaning.
The issues involved with the Goldstone report still amount to a sideshow. Had Hamas lived in peace with Israel, we would not be squabbling over a Goldstone report today.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
An unwanted loyalty test in Mass. election
Jewish voters had Martha Coakley’s back.
The special Jan. 19 election in Massachusetts to fill the vacancy left by Sen. Edward Kennedy’s death was evidence once again that Jewish voters passed an unwanted loyalty test.
As a Democrat, Coakley offered to bolster President Obama in pursuing progressive measures long supported by American Jews. Republican Scott Brown threw his lot in with a political party that promises unmistakable backing for Israel; Obama is on shaky ground in this arena.
Brown swept affluent suburbs of Boston where turnout was high while Coakley performed well in urban areas with low turnout, despite being edged out by Brown statewide, according to The Boston Globe.
In towns with a strong Jewish presence, Coakley trounced Brown in Newton 23,456 to 11,352 where turnout was 63 percent and took Sharon 4,461 to 3,536 with turnout at 66 percent, as evidenced by The Globe‘s rundown of individual towns. Brookline voters backed Coakley 15,264 to 5,217; turnout was 49 percent. Coakley also took Needham, Wellesley and Framingham, all towns with a strong Jewish presence.
Brown won the adjacent North Shore towns of Marblehead (5,285 to 4,657) and Swampscott (3,222 to 3,121), both of which comprise a large number of Jewish residents.
We can only speculate why Brown won these last two towns. Maybe many Jews there are fed up with Obama because of his careless approach to Israel, or they simply oppose his domestic policies.
Most American Jews would embrace Obama’s domestic agenda, but are at best confused by the president’s Israeli initiatives, setting up Jews for an inadvertent dual-loyalty test. That test was probably played out to some degree in Massachusetts. American Jews have not had this problem recently until Obama ran for president.
Many Americans believe that Jews wield heavy influence on presidents and Congress on Israel’s behalf, without questioning Israel‘s policies. That impression could apply to the minority of Jews who operate pro-Israel lobbying groups, but not to the vast majority of American Jews. Jews usually vote for Democratic presidential candidates by a range of 75 to 80 percent. If Jews support hawkish Israeli policies and the invasion of Iraq, why would they have voted for Al Gore and John F. Kerry?
To be clear, most Jews who vote for Democrats or moderate Republicans are in solid support of Israel, but they do not condone Israel’s actions that they believe are misguided.
Jews have for decades voted for Democrats or seemingly moderate Republicans for their liberal or centrist positions on progressive issues. Centrist and liberal Jews took for granted that presidential candidates for both major parties support Israel, if in different ways. The more hawkish Jews, who probably comprise 20 percent of America’s Jewish population, only trust the Republicans to be in Israel’s corner.
Until Obama ran for president, the vast majority of Jews had the best of both worlds in
Democratic candidates - staunch support for Israel and a progressive domestic agenda. Most
Jewish voters are with Obama on the domestic side, but they legitimately wonder about his stance on Israel. His administration attempted to intimidate Israeli leaders; vaguely compared the Arabs to pre-Civil War slaves; ignored recent Middle East history; and acted as if a peace settlement could be reached by waving a magic wand.
Right-wing Jews have made up their minds about Obama, but other Jews must take a hard look at the situation. Domestic concerns directly affect us all, but Israel also has a fundamental effect on Jews. Israel remains a refuge for Jews, and more than 5 million of my people live there. We expect the United States to be there for Israel so long as it is in the right.
Fortunately, Obama has softened his stance with Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is no pushover. Besides, the Palestinian Authority refuses to negotiate with Israel because it wants what Israel is unlikely to allow.
Maybe it is best if it stays that way. Who needs a loyalty test?
The special Jan. 19 election in Massachusetts to fill the vacancy left by Sen. Edward Kennedy’s death was evidence once again that Jewish voters passed an unwanted loyalty test.
As a Democrat, Coakley offered to bolster President Obama in pursuing progressive measures long supported by American Jews. Republican Scott Brown threw his lot in with a political party that promises unmistakable backing for Israel; Obama is on shaky ground in this arena.
Brown swept affluent suburbs of Boston where turnout was high while Coakley performed well in urban areas with low turnout, despite being edged out by Brown statewide, according to The Boston Globe.
In towns with a strong Jewish presence, Coakley trounced Brown in Newton 23,456 to 11,352 where turnout was 63 percent and took Sharon 4,461 to 3,536 with turnout at 66 percent, as evidenced by The Globe‘s rundown of individual towns. Brookline voters backed Coakley 15,264 to 5,217; turnout was 49 percent. Coakley also took Needham, Wellesley and Framingham, all towns with a strong Jewish presence.
Brown won the adjacent North Shore towns of Marblehead (5,285 to 4,657) and Swampscott (3,222 to 3,121), both of which comprise a large number of Jewish residents.
We can only speculate why Brown won these last two towns. Maybe many Jews there are fed up with Obama because of his careless approach to Israel, or they simply oppose his domestic policies.
Most American Jews would embrace Obama’s domestic agenda, but are at best confused by the president’s Israeli initiatives, setting up Jews for an inadvertent dual-loyalty test. That test was probably played out to some degree in Massachusetts. American Jews have not had this problem recently until Obama ran for president.
Many Americans believe that Jews wield heavy influence on presidents and Congress on Israel’s behalf, without questioning Israel‘s policies. That impression could apply to the minority of Jews who operate pro-Israel lobbying groups, but not to the vast majority of American Jews. Jews usually vote for Democratic presidential candidates by a range of 75 to 80 percent. If Jews support hawkish Israeli policies and the invasion of Iraq, why would they have voted for Al Gore and John F. Kerry?
To be clear, most Jews who vote for Democrats or moderate Republicans are in solid support of Israel, but they do not condone Israel’s actions that they believe are misguided.
Jews have for decades voted for Democrats or seemingly moderate Republicans for their liberal or centrist positions on progressive issues. Centrist and liberal Jews took for granted that presidential candidates for both major parties support Israel, if in different ways. The more hawkish Jews, who probably comprise 20 percent of America’s Jewish population, only trust the Republicans to be in Israel’s corner.
Until Obama ran for president, the vast majority of Jews had the best of both worlds in
Democratic candidates - staunch support for Israel and a progressive domestic agenda. Most
Jewish voters are with Obama on the domestic side, but they legitimately wonder about his stance on Israel. His administration attempted to intimidate Israeli leaders; vaguely compared the Arabs to pre-Civil War slaves; ignored recent Middle East history; and acted as if a peace settlement could be reached by waving a magic wand.
Right-wing Jews have made up their minds about Obama, but other Jews must take a hard look at the situation. Domestic concerns directly affect us all, but Israel also has a fundamental effect on Jews. Israel remains a refuge for Jews, and more than 5 million of my people live there. We expect the United States to be there for Israel so long as it is in the right.
Fortunately, Obama has softened his stance with Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is no pushover. Besides, the Palestinian Authority refuses to negotiate with Israel because it wants what Israel is unlikely to allow.
Maybe it is best if it stays that way. Who needs a loyalty test?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)