The State of the Jews

The Simon Wiesenthal Center released its latest top-ten list of suspected Nazis yet to be brought to justice. Yes, they’re old. Then again, given the opportunity, they murdered people.

THE LIST:

1. Dr. Sandor Kepiro – Hungary

Sandor Kepiro (Alliance)

2. Milivoj Ašner – Austria

Milivoj Asner (l), Croatian Ustashi victims (r) (The Sun)

3. Samuel Kunz – Germany

4. Adolf Storms – Germany

5. Klaas Carel Faber – Germany

6. Karoly (Charles) Zentai – Australia

Charles Zentai (Deutsche Welle)

7. Soeren Kam – Germany

Soeren Kam (About.com)

8. Peter Egner – United States

Peter Egner (Seattle Weekly)

9. Algimantas Dailide – Germany

Algimantas Dailide (About.com)

10. Mikhail Gorshkow – Estonia

Not on the list, possibly dead:

Alois Brunner – Syria

Alois Brunner (Deutsche Welle)

Dr. Aribert Heim – Location unknown

Aribert Heim (Deutsche Welle)

It’s no secret Ha’aretz represents the left-wing fringe in Israeli politics, with columnists who openly question Jewish statehood and a reflexive assumption of Israeli responsibility for anything that goes wrong in the region.

Still, even for Ha’aretz, this is crazy. In an editorial titled: “Netanyahu, the US has given you a second chance. Use it.” the paper tries to argue that (a) the Americans are offering a “second chance” that, presumably, may not return, (b) “the US had demanded that Netanyahu … agree to deliberations on all the core issues,” and (c) that “Netanyahu will commit a grave error if he is tempted to continue the damaging clash with Obama, and if he uses the pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), to enlist the president’s political enemies to advance the positions of the Israeli right wing.”

The degree of disinformation contained in this piece is staggering, and begs the question: Are Ha’aretz’s savvy editors so disconnected from reality, or are they knowingly lying to advance their politics?

Why do the Palestinian Baruch Goldsteins rule the Palestinian public square? What possible conclusions are we supposed to draw from the decision to name a Ramallah square after Dalal Mughrabi, “who led the worst terror attack in Israel’s history when she and other terrorists hijacked a bus and murdered 37 civilians in 1978″?

And why is Ramallah doing it on the anniversary of the attack?! I know this blog has a handful of readers in Arab lands. Anyone care to explain?

From Palestinian Media Watch:

Not only does [the Ramallah municipality] still intend to name the square after the terrorist, but the date chosen for the inaugural ceremony is this Thursday, March 11, the 32nd anniversary of the terror attack.

…

Headline: “Preparations for inauguration of Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi Square complete”
“The El-Bireh Municipality has completed construction work at the Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi Square in the Um Al-Sharait region, and has commenced preparations for its inauguration this Thursday, the anniversary of Mughrabi’s Martyrdom. The mayor, Jamal Al-Tawil, said that… this year the municipality will celebrate the inauguration of the Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi Square in order to commemorate her memory and her sacrifice as a Palestinian woman who resisted the occupation. City Council member Aida Abu-Ubeid said that the square is considered a symbol of the sacrifice of the Palestinian woman. She also noted that flowers and trees will be planted there, and that a picture of the Shahida Dalal Mughrabi will be placed at the center of the square.”
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 7, 2010]

There has been no public comment from the Obama administration about the PA’s honoring of the terrorist.

It’s been almost two weeks of crazy busy-ness. Apologies to visitors. The good news is I’ve been bookmarking some interesting things you may have missed in this time which I’ll be posting shortly.

First is Jimmy Carter’s extremely short apology “for any words or deeds of mine that may have” caused Israel to be “stigmatized.”

You know, like putting “apartheid” on his book cover (a book which, incidentally, sells alongside Ilan Pappe on Amazon), or accusing the Israel lobby of being something other than a legitimate expression of a particular American grassroots feeling, or willfully forgetting any Palestinian culpability for their condition, etc. ad infinitum.

Notice how Carter never actually admits to doing anything wrong, but merely apologizes in case his actions “may have” had immoral results. As any rabbi will tell you around Yom Kippur time (no worries, still nine months away), the first step of forgiveness is acknowledgment of culpability. Carter hasn’t done that yet.

In a letter released exclusively to JTA, the former U.S. president sent a seasonal message wishing for peace between Israel and its neighbors, and concluded: “We must recognize Israel’s achievements under difficult circumstances, even as we strive in a positive way to help Israel continue to improve its relations with its Arab populations, but we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel. As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so.”

We’ve already noted that the Obama administration’s demands for a settlement freeze wreaked havoc on the peace process by undermining the moderate Palestinian leadership.

The demand was ridiculous – Obama wanted not just a geographic freeze to the size of settlements, which Bibi Netanyahu gave him, but a demographic freeze. Israel was not to build kindergartens for the 960 children born each year in settlements. And “settlements” included Jerusalem.

No Israeli leader, on Left or Right, could agree to this as a pre-negotiation concession. And once uttered by the Americans, no Palestinian leader could demand any less. By undermining the Palestinians, Obama has set back all of us.

Dr. Alex Yakobson

But now I’m starting to wonder if my thinking on this may have been premature. Yes, the Obama administration goofed as only self-righteous fools can. But maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

Dr. Alex Yakobson of Hebrew University, my teacher on these issues and a family friend, made some important points in Ha’aretz last week, suggesting that acceding to Obama’s demands now would leave Israel better off strategically even in the short term.

First, he notes, the American public’s support for Israel is strong and getting stronger:

…According to the poll, 64% of Americans continue to believe that Israel is serious about reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians. By a 3:1 ratio, the American people express more sympathy with Israel than with the Palestinians: 45% to 15%.

This support, however, is based on the perception that Israel genuinely sought and continues to seek peace. The settlement debate, says Yakobson, is getting in the way:

The support of a majority of Americans is still a much more important factor than all the attacks on Israel and the calls for a boycott. The American people would never have awarded such support to a country they viewed as not pursuing peace.

This is an asset of enormous importance, and it should not be wasted on a dispute with the Obama administration over the expansion of the settlements. The settlements are the main cause for questioning Israel’s desire for peace and its willingness for a two-state solution. Even among our best friends in the United States and elsewhere, the great majority disagrees with Israel over this issue.

…

There is no real gap between the Obama administration’s positions on the settlements and those of the Bush administration. The only difference is that Obama has decided to focus public and diplomatic attention on this issue. From the moment this happened it became clear – beyond any ideological or political dispute – that it is an essential Israeli interest to find a way to reach an agreement with the Americans on a formula for a settlement freeze.

He concludes:

Such a prolonged and public dispute with the United States over the settlements harms Israel. It is a battle where even victory would be a serious defeat. Netanyahu understands America well enough to know that. The question is whether such a critical national interest is a good enough reason in his eyes to confront the extremists within his coalition and party.

Devil’s advocate for a moment: What can Bibi give Obama on settlements without paying an exorbitant political price? And is it worth the trouble just to make the Palestinians willing to talk?

It’s all been said, but I’ll say it again. It’s important. There are two points to be made about the November 5 rampage at Fort Hood, it seems to me.

One, it was an evil attack by a man who saw himself serving a radicalized interpretation of Islam that seeks the destruction of the liberal world. No, Major Nidal Malik Hasan didn’t suffer “secondary PTSD” from counseling vets. Since when do psychiatrists exhibit PTSD-based outbursts of violence from hearing patients? How can anyone even suggest this seriously?

Second, and equally important, Major Hasan is not an example of the danger Muslims pose to America, but of the lack of that danger. Much like with its Jews, Buddhists and other religious and ethnic minorities, American Muslims are so integrated into the larger liberal individualistic American society that Hasan is, in fact, the freak aberration from the norm. In showing clearly the face of Islamist terrorism, Hasan is a stark reminder that America’s Muslims are nothing like him.

Yes, Hasan represents an outright evil, an evil that has to be challenged and destroyed.

But no, he does not represent American Muslims. In fact, the surprising lack of American Muslim terrorism – millions of Muslims produced a small handful of actual or attempted attacks – is the real story.

Is there any other way to see this story?