Perhaps it was their futile attempt at humor.
Eight students at the University of California Irvine passed up their chance to answer university charges that they disrupted a speech presented by Israeli Ambassador Michael B. Oren last Feb. 8, a UCI administrator stated in a letter. Instead, they invoked their “Fifth Amendment” rights - as if they were being criminally prosecuted.
Actually, Lisa Cornish, UCI’s director of student housing, stated in the letter that the students' attorney said they believe criminal charges "are pending" against them.
Cornish’s letter informed the students that UCI administrators have recommended that the Muslim Student Union be suspended as a campus organization for a full year and placed on disciplinary probation the following year; and that group members collectively perform 50 hours of community service. The MSU is appealing through the university system as it is allowed to do.
Good start, but no self-respecting advocate for Israel will accept that as sufficient. The disruptive students should individually be subject to harsh university discipline and prosecution by the Orange County District Attorney’s office.
For the past decade, the pro-Palestinian side has engaged in protest tactics that are at best crude and abrasive and at times plainly violations of criminal laws. Finally, an afflicted institution hammered a group of thugs who brazenly disregarded all the rules and laws that applied to their actions. Still, more hammering is necessary.
When Oren attempted to speak at a UCI gathering, Muslim students interrupted his talk one at a time by shouting taunts at Oren, who served in the Israeli military and authored the best-selling "Six Days of War" that chronicles the 1967 war; Oren grew up in West Orange, N.J. before moving to Israel. The offending students were cheered by supporters.
Eleven of the participants, eight of whom attended UCI, were arrested by campus police and cited for disturbing a public event. Under campus procedures, UCI police were slated to investigate the episode and turn over a report to the Orange County District Attorney's office. The district attorney would decide whether to prosecute, a university spokesperson said.
The report prepared by Cornish charged that the disruption was planned at a meeting of the Muslim Student Union, while the plotting strangely enough called for participants to deny that the MSU had anything to do with it. Shrewd, aren't they?
The report adds that the group's goal was to "send the speaker a message" and develop a plan to disrupt Oren's speech. The plan identified students willing to participate, drafted scripted statements and urged supporters to attend and cheer each disruption, The Orange County Register reported.
According to the newspaper, UCI reported that MSU members "fabricated information," "obstructed" a campus activity, engaged in "disorderly or lewd conduct" and participated "in a disturbance of the peace or unlawful assembly." The university said it compiled extensive evidence to support its case.
A few Jewish leaders commended UCI, but privately they could be saying that the university's action falls short of what needs to be done. Again, hopefully this is just the beginning. Nothing was mentioned about individual students who were caught acting out. The university initially accused them of violating local, state or federal laws, yet it is not known if they face disciplinary action. Some supporters of Israel would predictably demand their expulsions; at the least, they should be suspended.
Also unmentioned is the outcome of a criminal investigation. The Orange County District Attorney's office is expected to decide whether to press charges on the basis of the campus police investigation.
Cornish wrote that all suspects in the incident refused to respond to the university's charges. In fact, they declared their "Fifth Amendment" rights. There are no Fifth Amendment rights in Syria and Saudi Arabia, are there?
The disruption of Oren's speech probably amounts to such criminal offenses as disorderly conduct, harassment and conspiracy. If their views have merit, they do not need to violate the law. They employed America's freedoms to call attention to their concerns, and then disregarded our laws and cried discrimination when they were called to account for it. Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. never whined about the consequences of their actions.
The Muslim Student Union and its associates learned nothing from this. They insist on playing victim. Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, issued this defensive statement: "It appears to be politically motivated to silence any future peaceful and legitimate criticism of Israel's brutal practices. This was nothing but a peaceful and symbolic protest."
It would surprise nobody if Ayloush's organization coached the MSU on tactics for disrupting Oren's speech and/or comparable events.
There are plain signals that the university is attempting to orchestrate the fallout from the incident. News of the MSU's suspension broke as soon as school was out of session. Few if any students would have been on campus. The spring session ended on Friday, June 11, and the news was released on the following Monday, June 14; summer classes start on June 21.
It was a local Jewish organization which had the satisfaction of announcing the story after obtaining Cornish's letter through the Freedom of Information Act.
My educated guess is that university officials will not be upset by even the harshest reproach from supporters of Israel who criticize the punishment as too light. College presidents, chancellors, boards of trustees, principals, headmasters and so forth share a tradition of being displeased with negative publicity. They do not enjoy it when an international incident occurs at their school, causes discomfort to a foreign nation's ambassador, discourages students of a respected ethnic/religious group from applying to their school and prompts a very aggressive Jewish organization - namely, the Zionist Organization of America - to urge donors to find better places to spend their money.
It is very possible that they are waiting for law enforcement authorities to prosecute these troublemakers, a move that could result in fines and prison terms. This would give them an excuse to expel or at least suspend those offensive parties still attending UCI.
University officials might enjoy sending these students "a message."
Monday, June 28, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Helen Thomas' view: How extensive here?
The nine words that drove Helen Thomas “the hell out of” the White House - thanks to a Long Island rabbi - are far more disturbing than the veteran journalist herself, for surely her attitude is shared by some harsh critics of Israel.
The malicious smears against Israel have been acute, distorted and relentless over the years. Israel is oppressing the Palestinians and occupying their land. The army lays siege to Gaza and massacres women and children. The list goes on, though we cannot deny that Israel makes serious mistakes at times.
It is not hard to respond to their accusations. Explain the facts when you believe a critic is wrong, but acknowledge their claims when they are right. There is no rational way to deal with the Thomas stance.
Thomas uttered her fateful words a few days before Israel’s clash with the Turkish ship on Memorial Day, but her outburst was not brought to light until a week after the violent attempt to break the blockade of Gaza. Outside a White House function, Long Island Rabbi David Nesenoff asked her to comment on Israel. Her words:
“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, it’s not Poland.”
Nesenoff, an independent filmmaker, asked where they should go, and she said, “They should go home.” He asked, “Where’s home?” Her response: “Poland, Germany and America, and everywhere else.”
How does our Israeli brethren reconcile with that attitude? How do we satisfy Helen Thomas? Price real estate in Warsaw? Book a flight to Dachau? We are willing to recommend Boca Raton.
Of course, neither Israel nor the Jewish people will ever accept the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state. Nobody can accomplish this goal without inciting World War III. Does Thomas want an all-out, scorched-earth war?
Most disturbing is the question of how prevalent is this viewpoint. No doubt that many Arabs in the Middle East and some of their brethren in the United States envision Israel’s destruction, but how many Americans and Europeans lacking a direct emotional tie share this view?
True, Thomas’s parents emigrated from Lebanon, but they moved to the United States long before the state of Israel was created and prior to when Lebanon became involved in the conflict, and that originated with the Palestine Liberation Organization’s influence there 35 years ago. She is also a Christian. Islamic loyalty is a major influence of Arab hostility toward Israel and Christians may well be more vulnerable to Muslim extremists than Jews.
Thomas would not be the first person in America, including some of European and African background, to believe that Israel should not exist. I have heard the phrase “From the river to sea” expressed a few times in America, particularly during an anti-Israel program at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. They were talking about supplanting the land mass - namely, Israel - that stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterreanean Sea.
The more restrained Israel critics have leveled excessive accusations, but they still claim to support Israel’s existence. Others may oppose Israel’s existence, but they grudgingly recognize that compromise is necessary - probably in the form of an independent Palestinian state.
Yet one subset wants the Jews out altogether. End of story. The Jews left Palestine 2,000 years ago and Arabs have owned land there for centuries, they will assert. They will also claim that Europeans and Russians who converted to Judaism moved into Palestine before World War II and subsequently the international community created Israel to salve its Holocaust guilt - at the expense of the Palestinians. So the Jews must leave to return the land to its rightful owners.
Some Americans of diverse backgrounds think this way, but the number of individuals in this category could make a crucial difference in influencing government policies. How extensive is this attitude? So far, their efforts are not working. When Helen Thomas opened her big mouth, few people stepped forth to defend her.
Her compatriots were too cowardly to stand up for her, but they are probably complaining that Helen Thomas was left twisting in the wind. Kind of what they have sought to do to Israel.
The malicious smears against Israel have been acute, distorted and relentless over the years. Israel is oppressing the Palestinians and occupying their land. The army lays siege to Gaza and massacres women and children. The list goes on, though we cannot deny that Israel makes serious mistakes at times.
It is not hard to respond to their accusations. Explain the facts when you believe a critic is wrong, but acknowledge their claims when they are right. There is no rational way to deal with the Thomas stance.
Thomas uttered her fateful words a few days before Israel’s clash with the Turkish ship on Memorial Day, but her outburst was not brought to light until a week after the violent attempt to break the blockade of Gaza. Outside a White House function, Long Island Rabbi David Nesenoff asked her to comment on Israel. Her words:
“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, it’s not Poland.”
Nesenoff, an independent filmmaker, asked where they should go, and she said, “They should go home.” He asked, “Where’s home?” Her response: “Poland, Germany and America, and everywhere else.”
How does our Israeli brethren reconcile with that attitude? How do we satisfy Helen Thomas? Price real estate in Warsaw? Book a flight to Dachau? We are willing to recommend Boca Raton.
Of course, neither Israel nor the Jewish people will ever accept the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state. Nobody can accomplish this goal without inciting World War III. Does Thomas want an all-out, scorched-earth war?
Most disturbing is the question of how prevalent is this viewpoint. No doubt that many Arabs in the Middle East and some of their brethren in the United States envision Israel’s destruction, but how many Americans and Europeans lacking a direct emotional tie share this view?
True, Thomas’s parents emigrated from Lebanon, but they moved to the United States long before the state of Israel was created and prior to when Lebanon became involved in the conflict, and that originated with the Palestine Liberation Organization’s influence there 35 years ago. She is also a Christian. Islamic loyalty is a major influence of Arab hostility toward Israel and Christians may well be more vulnerable to Muslim extremists than Jews.
Thomas would not be the first person in America, including some of European and African background, to believe that Israel should not exist. I have heard the phrase “From the river to sea” expressed a few times in America, particularly during an anti-Israel program at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. They were talking about supplanting the land mass - namely, Israel - that stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterreanean Sea.
The more restrained Israel critics have leveled excessive accusations, but they still claim to support Israel’s existence. Others may oppose Israel’s existence, but they grudgingly recognize that compromise is necessary - probably in the form of an independent Palestinian state.
Yet one subset wants the Jews out altogether. End of story. The Jews left Palestine 2,000 years ago and Arabs have owned land there for centuries, they will assert. They will also claim that Europeans and Russians who converted to Judaism moved into Palestine before World War II and subsequently the international community created Israel to salve its Holocaust guilt - at the expense of the Palestinians. So the Jews must leave to return the land to its rightful owners.
Some Americans of diverse backgrounds think this way, but the number of individuals in this category could make a crucial difference in influencing government policies. How extensive is this attitude? So far, their efforts are not working. When Helen Thomas opened her big mouth, few people stepped forth to defend her.
Her compatriots were too cowardly to stand up for her, but they are probably complaining that Helen Thomas was left twisting in the wind. Kind of what they have sought to do to Israel.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Peace activists or accomplices?
Is it just me, or did you also wonder how these “peace activists” found the free time to join the mission defying Israel’s blockade? Did you also wonder how they could afford to travel the world for this purpose?
Here’s the critical question: How could educated, compassionate people fail to sense something strange about their compatriots? How were they so incapable of figuring out the current facts of life in the Middle East before they even stepped foot on the Mavi Marmara or one of its sister ships?
These “peace activists” may be intelligent, idealistic people, but they have a stupid side. Either they could not comprehend the realities or they did not care. I can absolve the first group, but the latter group is despicable and probably anti-Semitic.
The motives of some activists merit consideration, and the Israeli government and military should not escape legitimate criticism when it emerges. Even if the military made mistakes when it intercepted the Mavi Marmara on Memorial Day, the passengers should never have pushed Israel into that position in the first place. As readers are aware, Israel said that its commandos were attacked by extremists and killed nine of them to defend themselves.
The peaceniks chose between Israel’s security and ostensibly aiding the Gazan people. Who made their choice knowingly and who genuinely misunderstood Israel’s situation?
Israel was stuck in a corner. Its leaders feared that these ships, supposed to be carrying humanitarian supplies, could be smuggling weapons and other materials that Hamas, the terrorist pack that dominates Gaza, might employ for future attacks on Israel. Hamas is pledged to Israel’s destruction and for years launched rockets into southern Israeli towns. In another act of war, Hamas persists in holding Israeli Sgt. Gilad Shalit hostage after nearly four years.
Some longtime critics of Israel were probably accustomed to assailing past misguided Israeli policies - especially, the 1982 Lebanon war and the construction and retention of settlements throughout Gaza and the West Bank. In the interim, Israel offered the Palestinian Arabs their own state in 2000; pulled out of Gaza in 2005; and mainly undertook military operations that were defensive in nature. Now Israel faces ongoing threats from terrorists in Iran, Gaza and Lebanon.
These developments have been front-page news for the last decade, so the peaceniks are hardpressed to explain how they could be so ignorant of this.
Quoting several analysts, The New York Times reported that the Free Gaza Movement, which sponsored the flotilla, is a varied coalition of groups and individuals, “often with little in common apart from opposition” to the blockade. Varied media reports said that peace activists included members of national legislatures, a writer, a physician, a retired diplomat and a retired registered nurse from Cape Cod.
Some activists sound like good people who genuinely wanted to help the needy. The nurse has helped victims of Haiti’s earthquake. Another passenger was an Irish politician whose father is a retired marine in Massachusetts who once organized opposition to the Vietnam war. Former American diplomat Edward Peck, who served in the Reagan administration, no doubt remembers the Lebanon war.
News reports suggest that the peaceniks did not trust the Israeli government to deliver the humanitarian supplies to Gaza. On top of that, I would speculate that they took into consideration that the Israeli government is controlled by a coalition of rightwing parties headed by Likud.
What they may need to understand is that Likud’s return to power directly resulted from the ongoing hostility Israel faced from the Palestinians despite its significant strides to peace. Israeli voters tend to play good cop/bad cop.
The peaceniks might not engage in violence, but they joined a flotilla filled with fanatics who would employ violence, and did. You would think the peace activists might notice signs of bizarre behavior and even spot devices that could be used as weapons.
Some years ago, when Israel announced the discovery of 90 tunnels in Rafah, the southern border town in Gaza, it occurred to me that members of the International Solidarity Movement like Rachel Corrie must have been aware of them. They probably observed weapons carried by Palestinian Arabs in the towns where they stayed. Corrie is the 23-year-old ISM member who was killed when she attempted to block an Israeli bulldozer.
Likewise, I suspect that the American and European passengers on the flotilla were aware of clues that something was amiss.
Even if the “peace activists” neither lifted a hand against the commandos nor had any idea about the intentions of extremist passengers, they still participated in an act of war simply by trying to break a blockade arranged by a sovereign nation that, whatever its lapses, was trying to protect its citizens.
For smart people, they are extraordinarily dumb.
Here’s the critical question: How could educated, compassionate people fail to sense something strange about their compatriots? How were they so incapable of figuring out the current facts of life in the Middle East before they even stepped foot on the Mavi Marmara or one of its sister ships?
These “peace activists” may be intelligent, idealistic people, but they have a stupid side. Either they could not comprehend the realities or they did not care. I can absolve the first group, but the latter group is despicable and probably anti-Semitic.
The motives of some activists merit consideration, and the Israeli government and military should not escape legitimate criticism when it emerges. Even if the military made mistakes when it intercepted the Mavi Marmara on Memorial Day, the passengers should never have pushed Israel into that position in the first place. As readers are aware, Israel said that its commandos were attacked by extremists and killed nine of them to defend themselves.
The peaceniks chose between Israel’s security and ostensibly aiding the Gazan people. Who made their choice knowingly and who genuinely misunderstood Israel’s situation?
Israel was stuck in a corner. Its leaders feared that these ships, supposed to be carrying humanitarian supplies, could be smuggling weapons and other materials that Hamas, the terrorist pack that dominates Gaza, might employ for future attacks on Israel. Hamas is pledged to Israel’s destruction and for years launched rockets into southern Israeli towns. In another act of war, Hamas persists in holding Israeli Sgt. Gilad Shalit hostage after nearly four years.
Some longtime critics of Israel were probably accustomed to assailing past misguided Israeli policies - especially, the 1982 Lebanon war and the construction and retention of settlements throughout Gaza and the West Bank. In the interim, Israel offered the Palestinian Arabs their own state in 2000; pulled out of Gaza in 2005; and mainly undertook military operations that were defensive in nature. Now Israel faces ongoing threats from terrorists in Iran, Gaza and Lebanon.
These developments have been front-page news for the last decade, so the peaceniks are hardpressed to explain how they could be so ignorant of this.
Quoting several analysts, The New York Times reported that the Free Gaza Movement, which sponsored the flotilla, is a varied coalition of groups and individuals, “often with little in common apart from opposition” to the blockade. Varied media reports said that peace activists included members of national legislatures, a writer, a physician, a retired diplomat and a retired registered nurse from Cape Cod.
Some activists sound like good people who genuinely wanted to help the needy. The nurse has helped victims of Haiti’s earthquake. Another passenger was an Irish politician whose father is a retired marine in Massachusetts who once organized opposition to the Vietnam war. Former American diplomat Edward Peck, who served in the Reagan administration, no doubt remembers the Lebanon war.
News reports suggest that the peaceniks did not trust the Israeli government to deliver the humanitarian supplies to Gaza. On top of that, I would speculate that they took into consideration that the Israeli government is controlled by a coalition of rightwing parties headed by Likud.
What they may need to understand is that Likud’s return to power directly resulted from the ongoing hostility Israel faced from the Palestinians despite its significant strides to peace. Israeli voters tend to play good cop/bad cop.
The peaceniks might not engage in violence, but they joined a flotilla filled with fanatics who would employ violence, and did. You would think the peace activists might notice signs of bizarre behavior and even spot devices that could be used as weapons.
Some years ago, when Israel announced the discovery of 90 tunnels in Rafah, the southern border town in Gaza, it occurred to me that members of the International Solidarity Movement like Rachel Corrie must have been aware of them. They probably observed weapons carried by Palestinian Arabs in the towns where they stayed. Corrie is the 23-year-old ISM member who was killed when she attempted to block an Israeli bulldozer.
Likewise, I suspect that the American and European passengers on the flotilla were aware of clues that something was amiss.
Even if the “peace activists” neither lifted a hand against the commandos nor had any idea about the intentions of extremist passengers, they still participated in an act of war simply by trying to break a blockade arranged by a sovereign nation that, whatever its lapses, was trying to protect its citizens.
For smart people, they are extraordinarily dumb.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Class and crass over Gilad Shalit
What a touch of crass. The Free Gaza Movement lacked the sense to even pretend that they recognize Jewish humanity when it smacks them in the face.
Before the violent Memorial Day clash with Israeli commandos, their Freedom Flotilla was supposedly packed with food, clothing and construction materials to the people of Gaza, but they had no room for a letter and package that Noam Shalit and his family wanted to send to his son, Gilad Shalit, held hostage by Hamas since June 25, 2006, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports.
In Washington, D.C., two congressmen - a Jew and a Christian, a Democrat and a Republican, a New “Yawker” and a “heartlander” - jointly introduced House Resolution 1359 urging the immediate release of Shalit, the Israel Defense Forces sergeant seized by Hamas terrorists in a cross-border raid, according to the JTA. They hope the measure passes before the fourth anniversary of Shalit’s kidnapping.
Rep. Gary Ackerman, whose district covers Jewish communities in Queens and Nassau County, chairs the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, and represents portions of Queens and Nassau County. Rep. Dan Burton, of Indiana, co-sponsored the resolution in his capacity as senior Republican member of the subcommittee; about 10,000 Jews are estimated to live in or near Burton’s district.
The timing of 1359 affords supporters of Israel an ideal opportunity to reassess efforts to seek Shalit’s release. No sustained drive to press for his freedom has ever been evident in the United States, though loosely organized efforts crop up every so often. Strong street protests in Israel may even be counter-productive, writes Haifa University Professor Steven Plaut.
Their common cause reflects the elementary injustice of Shalit’s plight. What Hamas persists in doing to the sergeant is intolerable. It is a compelling issue that ranks in priority close to Iran’s nuclear threat and the arms build-up in Gaza and southern Lebanon. Shalit’s kidnapping is a blatant act of war that justifies use of force by Israel. How can anyone dispute this?
Our protests in both America and Israel must be persistent, coordinated and full-throated, but we cannot be optimistic that it will spur Shalit’s release. That would be the best result, but at minimum we need to call the world’s attention to Shalit’s struggle. When critics pressure Israel, we should remind them of Ackerman’s words when he announced his legislation: “This outrageous and deeply immoral conduct is absolutely contrary to both international law and the most basic standards of human conduct.”
It is refreshing that the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism - the umbrella organization for the Conservative movement - announced its launch of a drive to raise awareness of Shalit’s plight.
As JTA reports, participants can join a Yellow Balloon campaign to mark the fourth anniversary by e-mailing virtual yellow balloons that say “Bring Gilad Home” and draw attention to the campaign over Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites. The campaign, run by USCJ’s youth and young adult services department, urges the display of real yellow balloons in front of synagogues, affiliated organizations and private residences during the week of June 21.
“We know that it is only if the world is reminded of his plight that he stands any chance of being freed,” says Richard Moline, USCJ’s youth and young adult services director, as quoted by JTA.
USCJ also calls upon people to lobby their elected officials and write his parents to express support.
In this vein, we can all write to our representatives in Congress asking them to sign onto Resolution 1359, especially those members of Congress perceived as harshly critical of Israel.
Interestingly, some members of Congress called on Israel to expand access of supplies to Gaza without mentioning Shalit’s situation. That group includes Rep. Joe Sestak, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania.
This is also an opportune time for Jewish organizations to demand that leaders of the Free Gaza Movement explain why they refused to deliver the Shalit family’s letter to Gilad.
Congress passed at least one resolution on Shalit’s behalf a few years ago. If you are learning this only now, you are not alone. Coverage of Shalit’s situation has been sporadic in the mainstream daily newspapers, and reporting in American Jewish newspapers has not been much better.
The media share the blame with Jews and other supporters of Israel who exerted limited effort to make news about Shalit. They were too busy pursuing less substantial matters such as disparaging Jimmy Carter, objecting to a potential Israel-bashing conference, slating a demonstration against a mosque near Ground Zero and hunting down Mel Gibson with the zeal of Tommy Lee Jones in “The Fugitive.”
These other concerns are important and should be addressed, but we are talking proportions here. We need to focus on what is most significant, and I think a soldier’s kidnapping qualifies.
Israelis have been active holding demonstrations, but Haifa’s Steve Plaut reports in a commentary that they may be hurting Shalit’s cause. He writes, “These protests issue demands to and put pressure on the Israeli government rather than on Hamas. Hamas is indifferent to the desires and passions of the demonstrators. By demanding that ‘everything’ be done to obtain Shalit’s release, the only real effect of the protests is to raise the price it will take to obtain Shalit’s freedom. The protests also make such a release more remote and unlikely.
“The terrorists understand perfectly well that all this only serves to increase the pressure on the Israeli government to offer ever-greater capitulations,” he adds.
Many people are appalled that Israel would even consider Hamas’ demand that it release 1,000 or more Arab prisoners including - perhaps especially - mass murderers in exchange for Shalit. Israelis correctly fear that releasing prisoners will only encourage Hamas and other terrorist organizations to abduct more Israelis.
Maybe there are other ways for Israel to retrieve Shalit. One suggestion: Perhaps Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can refer to the attack on Gaza last year by telling Hamas, “If you return Sgt. Shalit, we will not finish the job.”
Hamas may never give up Shalit no matter what we do. Yet if Jews do not show that we care, why should the rest of the world care?
Before the violent Memorial Day clash with Israeli commandos, their Freedom Flotilla was supposedly packed with food, clothing and construction materials to the people of Gaza, but they had no room for a letter and package that Noam Shalit and his family wanted to send to his son, Gilad Shalit, held hostage by Hamas since June 25, 2006, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports.
In Washington, D.C., two congressmen - a Jew and a Christian, a Democrat and a Republican, a New “Yawker” and a “heartlander” - jointly introduced House Resolution 1359 urging the immediate release of Shalit, the Israel Defense Forces sergeant seized by Hamas terrorists in a cross-border raid, according to the JTA. They hope the measure passes before the fourth anniversary of Shalit’s kidnapping.
Rep. Gary Ackerman, whose district covers Jewish communities in Queens and Nassau County, chairs the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, and represents portions of Queens and Nassau County. Rep. Dan Burton, of Indiana, co-sponsored the resolution in his capacity as senior Republican member of the subcommittee; about 10,000 Jews are estimated to live in or near Burton’s district.
The timing of 1359 affords supporters of Israel an ideal opportunity to reassess efforts to seek Shalit’s release. No sustained drive to press for his freedom has ever been evident in the United States, though loosely organized efforts crop up every so often. Strong street protests in Israel may even be counter-productive, writes Haifa University Professor Steven Plaut.
Their common cause reflects the elementary injustice of Shalit’s plight. What Hamas persists in doing to the sergeant is intolerable. It is a compelling issue that ranks in priority close to Iran’s nuclear threat and the arms build-up in Gaza and southern Lebanon. Shalit’s kidnapping is a blatant act of war that justifies use of force by Israel. How can anyone dispute this?
Our protests in both America and Israel must be persistent, coordinated and full-throated, but we cannot be optimistic that it will spur Shalit’s release. That would be the best result, but at minimum we need to call the world’s attention to Shalit’s struggle. When critics pressure Israel, we should remind them of Ackerman’s words when he announced his legislation: “This outrageous and deeply immoral conduct is absolutely contrary to both international law and the most basic standards of human conduct.”
It is refreshing that the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism - the umbrella organization for the Conservative movement - announced its launch of a drive to raise awareness of Shalit’s plight.
As JTA reports, participants can join a Yellow Balloon campaign to mark the fourth anniversary by e-mailing virtual yellow balloons that say “Bring Gilad Home” and draw attention to the campaign over Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites. The campaign, run by USCJ’s youth and young adult services department, urges the display of real yellow balloons in front of synagogues, affiliated organizations and private residences during the week of June 21.
“We know that it is only if the world is reminded of his plight that he stands any chance of being freed,” says Richard Moline, USCJ’s youth and young adult services director, as quoted by JTA.
USCJ also calls upon people to lobby their elected officials and write his parents to express support.
In this vein, we can all write to our representatives in Congress asking them to sign onto Resolution 1359, especially those members of Congress perceived as harshly critical of Israel.
Interestingly, some members of Congress called on Israel to expand access of supplies to Gaza without mentioning Shalit’s situation. That group includes Rep. Joe Sestak, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania.
This is also an opportune time for Jewish organizations to demand that leaders of the Free Gaza Movement explain why they refused to deliver the Shalit family’s letter to Gilad.
Congress passed at least one resolution on Shalit’s behalf a few years ago. If you are learning this only now, you are not alone. Coverage of Shalit’s situation has been sporadic in the mainstream daily newspapers, and reporting in American Jewish newspapers has not been much better.
The media share the blame with Jews and other supporters of Israel who exerted limited effort to make news about Shalit. They were too busy pursuing less substantial matters such as disparaging Jimmy Carter, objecting to a potential Israel-bashing conference, slating a demonstration against a mosque near Ground Zero and hunting down Mel Gibson with the zeal of Tommy Lee Jones in “The Fugitive.”
These other concerns are important and should be addressed, but we are talking proportions here. We need to focus on what is most significant, and I think a soldier’s kidnapping qualifies.
Israelis have been active holding demonstrations, but Haifa’s Steve Plaut reports in a commentary that they may be hurting Shalit’s cause. He writes, “These protests issue demands to and put pressure on the Israeli government rather than on Hamas. Hamas is indifferent to the desires and passions of the demonstrators. By demanding that ‘everything’ be done to obtain Shalit’s release, the only real effect of the protests is to raise the price it will take to obtain Shalit’s freedom. The protests also make such a release more remote and unlikely.
“The terrorists understand perfectly well that all this only serves to increase the pressure on the Israeli government to offer ever-greater capitulations,” he adds.
Many people are appalled that Israel would even consider Hamas’ demand that it release 1,000 or more Arab prisoners including - perhaps especially - mass murderers in exchange for Shalit. Israelis correctly fear that releasing prisoners will only encourage Hamas and other terrorist organizations to abduct more Israelis.
Maybe there are other ways for Israel to retrieve Shalit. One suggestion: Perhaps Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can refer to the attack on Gaza last year by telling Hamas, “If you return Sgt. Shalit, we will not finish the job.”
Hamas may never give up Shalit no matter what we do. Yet if Jews do not show that we care, why should the rest of the world care?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)