Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Flash!! - Olmert/Peretz Military Strategy Revealed!

1. In 1967, after six days, using obsolete French Mirage planes and
similar archaic equipment, Israel had defeated the combined militaries of
the Arab world and was sitting on the Suez Canal. In 1973, at this stage
in the fighting, Israel was 60 miles from Cairo. In 1976, Israel operated
thousands of miles from home to rescue the hostages being held in Entebbe.

In 2006, the Olmert-Peretz official military doctrine is to attempt to
hold a one-kilometer security zone alongside Israel's northern border
inside Lebanon, and otherwise to drop some bombs from planes on empty
buildings and leaflets urging the Lebanese to defang the Hezbollah. It is
all intended to "signal" that Israel is really-really serious this time.
And maybe to get some extra UN troops assigned to the area to scare the

Those of you finding this all a bit confusing are probably missing the
obvious. You see, Olmert and Peretz have engineered the country's entire
military strategy in this war in order to prevent Edward Said, Columbia
University's pseudo-Orientalist, from throwing rocks at Israel.

As you perhaps recall, several years ago, Said was paying a courtesy visit
to his Hezbollah friends when he was photographed on the Lebanese side of
the border throwing stones at an Israeli military post
( ).

Olmert and Peretz decided that the best way to win is to create a
one-kilometer cordon along the border so that Said cannot throw any more
stones at the Jews. Someone really should let them know that Said has

2. Meanwhile, yesterday 40 members of "Anarchists against the Wall,"
a group of Israeli and foreign anarcho-fascists permitted to sabotage
Israel's security fence to allow more suicide bombers to get through and
to attack Israeli cops and soldiers as "protest", were allowed to protest
at the entrance to an Air Force base. They attempted to obstruct access
to the base to prevent planes from taking off and defending Israel.
Twelve were arrested but not summarily shot.

One of the leaders of the group, by the way, is Dr. Kobi Snitz, who
teaches math at Ben Gurion University. You may wish to ask the new
president of BGU what that is. She is Prof. Rivka Carmi at; Fax: 972-8-6472803.

3. The mood in Israel has changed. Israelis want war and victory.
The Israeli government wants to conduct a make-pretend "war" in the
kilometer near the border. Olmert sacked the commander of the northern
front yesterday for failure to achieve total victory over the Hezbollah by
operations inside that kilometer.

4. The ultras from the Left are nevertheless coming out more and more
openly for a Hezbollah victory, reverting to caricature.

Hagit Ofran, a leader in Meretz, has a guest Op-Ed in Haaretz today
declaring that the only way to achieve military security is to cut defense
spending and spending enormous amounts on social welfare handouts. Moshe
Negbi, an (ex-?) Trotskyist and extremist leftist legal commentator as
well as instructor at Hebrew University (want to ask its Law School Dean
how come?), also has a guest Op-Ed in Haaretz today. He defends the arab
politicians cheering the Hezbollah and calling for more kidnappings of
Israeli soldiers by terrorists. Negbi insists that just because an Arab
politician is a traitor, that is no reason why he should be called a
traitor. Really!

Oh and read these words from Yossi Beilin, who is personally
responsible for all the suicide bombings, in . Note that while saying
it was justified to war against the Hezbollah, Israeli capitulation is
still the only path to peace.

Want to know what Israelis really think? Take a look at this .
Note . it is composed by leftists at the leftist Steinetz Peace Institute
at leftist Tel Aviv University (why is a leftist-propaganda "peace
institute" operating at TAU? Maybe should ask the TAU heads?), published
in leftist Haaretz. And it reads: "The Jewish citizens of Israel
currently believe almost unanimously (93 percent) that the campaign in
Lebanon is justified. Only 5 percent view it as unjustified, and the rest
have no position. A segmentation by gender reveals that an overwhelming
majority of both sexes justify the campaign, but the majority is slightly
smaller among women - 90 percent compared to 97 percent among men.
Seventy-nine percent of the total Jewish public favors continuing the
fighting until the goals that were set are achieved, while only 16.5
percent want an immediate declaration of a cease-fire and the beginning of
a process at the international level leading to political negotiations."

Imagine what the reported stats would be if a non-leftist conducted the

4. Another anti-Semitic leftist seditious "academic" files another
frivolous "libel suit" against a patriot:

5. Red State Jews

August 9, 2006; Page A10 Wall Street Journal

This is a soul-searching moment for the Jewish left. Actually, for many
Jewish liberals, navigating the gloomy politics of the Middle East is like
walking with two left feet.

I would know. For six years I was the literary editor of Tikkun magazine,
a leading voice for progressive Jewish politics that never avoided
subjecting Israel to moral scrutiny. I also teach human rights at a Jesuit
university, imparting the lessons of reciprocal grievances and the moral
necessity to regard all people with dignity and mutual respect. And I am
deeply sensitive to Palestinian pain, and mortified when innocent
civilians are used as human shields and then cynically martyred as
casualties of war.

Yet, since 9/11 and the second intifada, where suicide bombings and
beheadings have become the calling cards of Arab diplomacy, and with Hamas
and Hezbollah emerging as elected entities that, paradoxically, reject the
first principles of liberal democracy, I feel a great deal of moral
anguish. Perhaps I have been nave all along.

And I am not alone. Many Jews are in my position -- the children and
grandchildren of labor leaders, socialists, pacifists, humanitarians,
antiwar protestors -- instinctively leaning left, rejecting war, unwilling
to demonize, and insisting that violence only breeds more violence. Most
of all we share the profound belief that killing, humiliation and the
infliction of unnecessary pain are not Jewish attributes.

However, the world as we know it today -- post-Holocaust, post-9/11,
post-sanity -- is not cooperating. Given the realities of the new Middle
East, perhaps it is time for a reality check. For this reason, many Jewish
liberals are surrendering to the mindset that there are no solutions other
than to allow Israel to defend itself -- with whatever means necessary.
Unfortunately, the inevitability of Israel coincides with the
inevitability of anti-Semitism.

This is what more politically conservative Jews and hardcore Zionists
maintained from the outset. And it was this nightmare that the Jewish left
always refused to imagine. So we lay awake at night, afraid to sleep.
Surely the Arabs were tired, too. Surely they would want to improve their
societies and educate their children rather than strap bombs on to them.

If the Palestinians didn't want that for themselves, if building a nation
was not their priority, then peace in exchange for territories was nothing
but a pipe dream. It was all wish-fulfillment, morally and practically
necessary, yet ultimately motivated by a weary Israeli society -- the
harsh reality of Arab animus, the spiritual toll that the occupation had
taken on a Jewish state battered by negative world opinion.

Despite the deep cynicism, however, Israel knew that it must try. It would
have to set aside nearly 60 years of hard-won experience, starting from
the very first days of its independence, and believe that the Arab world
had softened, would become more welcoming neighbors, and would stop
chanting: "Not in our backyard -- the Middle East is for Arabs only."

It is true that Israel has entered into peace agreements with Egypt and
Jordan that have brought some measure of historic stability to the region.
But with Israel having withdrawn from Lebanon and Gaza, and with Israeli
public opinion virtually united in favor of near-total withdrawal from the
West Bank, why are rockets being launched at Israel now, why are their
soldiers being kidnapped if the aspirations of the Palestinian people, and
the intentions of Hamas and Hezbollah, stand for something other than the
total destruction of Israel? And if Palestinians and the Lebanese are
electing terrorists and giving them the portfolio of statesmen, then what
message is being sent to moderate voices, what incentives are there to
negotiate, and how can any of this sobering news be recast in a more
favorable light?

The Jewish left is now in shambles. Peace Now advocates have lost their
momentum, and, in some sense, their moral clarity. Opinion polls in Israel
are showing near unanimous support for stronger incursions into Lebanon.
And until kidnapped soldiers are returned and acts of terror curtailed,
any further conversations about the future of the West Bank have been set

Not unlike the deep divisions between the values of red- and blue-state
America, world Jewry is being forced to reconsider all of its underlying
assumptions about peace in the Middle East. The recent disastrous events
in Lebanon and Gaza have inadvertently created a newly united Jewish
consciousness -- bringing right and left together into one deeply cynical
red state.

Mr. Rosenbaum, a novelist and professor at Fordham Law School, is author,
most recently, of "The Myth of Moral Justice" (HarperCollins, 2004).

6. For the past 14 years, Israel has invested all of its energy in
pursuit of make-pretend peace.

Now the Olmert government has at last changed direction. The Olmert
government is, instead, conducting a make-pretend war.

7. Nice piece - Let Israel Win:

8. Why the katyushas are falling:

9. English version of that piece about Tanya Reinhart (thanks to Ted

The University of Tel Aviv Embittered my Life
by Sagi Elbaz

\bullet Two days before she left the country for good, Professor Tania
Reinhart explained, to the _Tel Aviv_ daily, what brought her
to this life-changing decision.

\bullet Everything began after she signed a petition supporting the
Palestinian struggle and calling for sanctions against Israeli

\bullet Since then, according to her, the university's attitude to her
changed 180 degrees: "The plotting against me went on for three

\bullet Now she hopes to begin a new chapter in her life -- overseas,
far from this country's criminal attitude to the Palestinian people,
and far from the university's chilly attitude to her.

\bullet "The one thing that still binds me to this place is the struggle."

\bullet The university rejects her arguments.

Professor Tania Reinhart will not read the following article in
Israel. The interview with her, last Saturday evening, took place
just two days before she left the country for good, together with her
husband, the poet Dr. Aharon Shavtai, after four complicated years.

Until recently, Professor Reinhart, a teacher of literary theory at
Tel Aviv University and a leader in the world of linguistics, was one
of an elite circle of respected members of the Tel Aviv University
faculty. However, as she says, everything changed four years ago,
when she put her signature on a British petition that supported the
Palestinian struggle and called for the imposition of sanctions on
Israeli academe.

Professor Reinhart, a well-known left-wing activist, believes with all
her heart that since she signed that petition, Tel Aviv University,
which she had served for thirty years, turned its back to her. "Tel
Aviv University made my life miserable", she says, in an attempt to
explain what brought about her by-no-means simple decision to abandon
her life here and start anew overseas -- far from where Israel, in her
words, commits criminal acts against the Palestinian people, and
farther yet from the Tel Aviv academic community's cold shoulder.

\heading A divergent voice : "All my life I knew I'd stay here"

June 14, 2006 was not a routine day for Professor Reinhart. On that
day, she stood, for the last time, in front of a class of her
students, and in a voice choked with tears announced her departure --
from the university as well as from Israel itself. Until that moment,
and for course of the semester, she had kept a straight face, if in a
somewhat detached way. But at that moment all the years of
frustration came to a head and it was no longer possible to hold back
the emotions which took hold of her.

Professor Reinhart joined the teaching staff of Tel Aviv University in
1976, upon completion of her PhD in the United States (under Noam
Chomsky). She traces the change in the university's attitude toward
her back to the petition she signed (a petition promulgated by British
left-wing activists).

"It began about one year after the beginning of the second Intifada",
she said this week. "Back then, I was very active: I wrote a great
deal, especially for the international news media. I wrote tough
essays that a lot of people didn't like, and then, in 2002, I signed
that British petition that called for an end to the European
oragnization's cooperation with Israeli universities. I expressed my
support for the academic boycott within other forums as well -- an
economic/institutional boycott, not a personal one. That was after
the events in Jenin."

The university's reaction was not long in coming. "And then,
gradually, invisibly, the university began to make my life miserable:
assistant professors I recommended for promotion weren't promoted. It
became a fact", she says calmly. The linguistics department decided
that I would no longer recommend assistant professors for promotion,
or chair promotion committees, lest I damage people's careers.
Previously, a letter of recommendation from me was an asset; now it
became a liability to the people working with me."

"Over the years, I'd divided my time between Holland [as a lecturer in
Utrecht -- author] and Israel, so that I worked in Tel Aviv one
semester a year. In 2002, the university administration made a rule
that prohibited me from taking a leave of more than one month even
during the summer vacation, and got me to sign onto that. I didn't
have time to turn to tribunals and be around for legal proceedings.
So I gave in, and signed. At the end of the process, they let me know
they were also rescinding my privilege to hold the joint appointment
with Utrecht. It's that kind of subterfuge that went on for three
years, until I decided that I couldn't take it any longer, that I
would just leave."

The decision to emigrate was not a simple one for her. "All my life I
knew that I would stay here, that this is the place for me to live",
she says. "I considered myself closely tied both to the country, and
to the political struggle. At first I was very sad; it was very hard
for me. I couldn't believe I was actually going to emigrate, but at a
certain stage I came to accept it. I loved Tel Aviv in a very
personal way; I was tied to it. In the 80s, when I began teaching,
I'd hang out at bars, at coffee houses, at clubs on the beach. I
loved the sea and every thing connected to Tel Aviv."

Her change of attitude came with the intensifying Israeli-Palestinian
crisis. Professor Reinhart expressed her opinions through
tough-minded political activism, outside the warm confines of the
general consensus. In 2005, her book _Lies about Peace_ was
translated to Hebrew. In it, she shattered the conventional wisdom as
regards the failure of negotiations with the Palestinians, undermining
the accepted Israeli narrative which blamed Yasser Arafat for the
failure of the Camp David talks and the outbreak of the second

The deteriorating political situation only strengthened her decision
to emigrate from the country she loved so much. "Since the intifada,
I could no longer participate in the party atmosphere that always
characterised Tel Aviv, when I knew about the slaughter that we were
committing everywhere in the territories", she says, levelling
difficult accusations -- difficult all the more so for the average
Israeli's ears -- about Israel's responsibility for the situation.

"Just a few kilometers from here, people are rotting in prisons,
trapped between walls, while the Israeli army in Gaza kills whenever
it wants to. All the things I loved so much over here -- the
landscape, the people, the spirit -- no longer carry the same meaning.
They no longer speak to me.'

\section I am the struggle

During the course of the interview, nothing about Professor Reinhard
betrays the fact that in just two days she is to separate herself from
the Israeli experience. In her Tel Aviv home, the many books and
records are still in their places, the household appliances have not
yet been packed up, and everything is still orderly. The tone of her
voice and the expression on her face also say nothing about the change
about to take place in her life and about the coming transition to a
new chapter in her life -- a chapter she would skip if only she could
continue teaching at the university in the way she once did and if
only she could reconcile herself to the Israeli political reality.

"All my life I believed I would remain here, that I would work here, I
would live here and continue to struggle to make this a place worth
living in. I've had many opportunities to emigrate; this isn't the
first time I've had the opportunity to get a job at a foreign
university. I considered myself very connected to Israel and to the
struggle. I didn't just make a sudden decision to emigrate. First I
decided to leave the university, and then I had to think about moving
to another place of work. It was during that process that I came to
feel I had to emigrate."

"The University of Tel Aviv is the best place for linguistics; there's
no other place like it in Israel, and that professional angle is
important to me. I didn't want to be just another teacher at
'university high'. And I assume that because of my political
background, no Israeli university would take me anyway."

Last Monday, she got on board a plane to Amsterdam, together with her
husband, Dr. Aharon Shavtai, a poet and lecturer in literature at Tel
Aviv University, and the brother of the late author Yaakov Shavtai
(the couple has no mutual children). They will spend the second half
of the academic year in the United States, where she has been offered
a prestigious post at prestigious New York University.

The difficult events in Lebanon caught her just a moment before she
was to pack her bags and say good-bye. Most political leftists, who
had criticised Israel's policy in the territories, lined up behind the
government in the current battle over Lebanon. This does not really
impress Professor Reinhart. Here too, her position is very clear, one
might even say outrageous.

"Israel could have reacted in a limited, localized way; we could have
considered an exchange of prisoners, as we did in the past", she says
with determination. "Those were the options, but Israel did not
choose any one of them. Instead, the government declared all-out war
on Lebanon. The government left no room for diplomacy, for
negotiation. Israel initiated a war. It was clear from the start
that an attack like that would elicit a reaction from Hizbollah. It
was clear that the Israeli action had been planned for a long time."

On the question of whether Israel was looking for a pretext to launch
a war, she answers unequivocally: "Yes, that was clearly the case,
that's how the [first] Lebanon war began too. Then too, they looked
for a justification to launch a war. Then, it was the attempted
assassination of Shlomo Argov, Israel's ambassador in London. Israel
has been waiting a long time to start this current operation, where
the opportunity to do so meant that the international situation was
ripe. Bush's policy is to apply force against any and every instance
of Arab resistance to American control."

Over the years, Professor Reinhart has supported many leftist
organizations, and especially the Women's Coalition for Peace. Beside
that, she joined in signing petitions identified with the radical
left, among them a position paper, by university and college staff,
that called on soldiers to refuse service in the occupied territories.
About two years ago she added her signature to a petition that called
for the release of Tali Fakhima, and last week she signed, together
with a list of artists and writers, against the background of the
recent events in Lebanon, a letter entitled "Israel is committing
widespread war crimes."

About her political activity, she recounts enthusiastically, that "The
only thing that really still binds me to this place is the struggle.
I participated in the struggle and in the demonstrations against the
building of the wall. In 2003, in the village of Maskha, Israeli and
Palestinian activists built a squatters' camp to protest day and night
against the building of the wall. That gave us a great deal of hope,
because it was the first time in the history of the occupation that
Israelis and Palestinians -- people, not leaders -- struggled

"A very nice struggle developed there, but in the two years since
then, the army's repression has become brutal. Protestors are exposed
to huge amounts of tear gas, people get injured, they throw concussion
grenades at you. The protest in Bil'in could have been huge. Huge
numbers of Israelis and Palestinians could have arrived there if the
army had allowed it. Therefore what was left was a group of young
people, very strong and determined."

"As far as I am concerned, the only form of existence possible in
Israel today is the struggle. The struggle requires a democratic
context, and in my opinion Israeli society is not exactly democratic.
There is a formal democracy, there are elections, but in practice it's
entirely hollow."

Her sharp criticism does not spare the top leadership either, whether
on the right or on the left: "The problem is that the leadership lies
all the time. Every since Oslo they've been lying when they've said
that the intention was to leave the territories. Rabin had that
intention, and then Barak and Sharon and now Olmert. For thirteen
years we have "intended" to leave the territories. The difference
between me and other people in my camp is the belief in this lie.
They believed Rabin, even though they saw the number of settlements
double. After that they believed Barak, Sharon and Olmert, though
less so. I insist on analyzing reality and on calling things what
they are -- and here I am an outsider."

"The citizens here have no way to influence policy, but the truth is
that the government itself has no influence. The prevailing force in
Israeli socity is the army. Governments come and go, but the army is
the one stable force that determines policy. Peretz is a marionette
in the hands of army brass pulling its strings. Decisions are made by
the army, and the government just ratifies them. It's been this way
for years already. It doesn't matter if the Prime Minister is or
isn't a general; the army is the leading force."

\section We alone are guilty

Within the framework of Reinhart's willingness to slaughter the most
sacred of cows, she can show understanding for Hizbollah's
motivations. "Hizbollah always argued that the only reason Israel
left southern Lebanon in 2000 was the resistance, but that Israel
intended to return and recapture southern Lebanon", she says. "Right
now, it looks like this is exactly what Israel is trying to do. The
present war in Lebanon, exactly like the one of 1982, is not a war of
defense. From the army's point of view the purpose is to establish a
natural border with Lebanon, on the Litani River. In order to achieve
this goal, it's necessary to create a 'new order' in Lebanon."

"The logical thing for Israel, in my opinion, was to agree to an
exchange of prisoners and to try solving the border controversy over
the Shab'a Farms. The all-out war on Lebanon is not justified. This
is not an acceptable reaction to a border violation. It's not right
to expell civilians from their villages, even though I agree that
there was a violation here by Hizbollah -- exactly as there have been
past violations by Israel. Israel's objective has, even today,
remained identical to what it was in 1982 on the eve of the Lebanon

An attempt to object to the other side's policies is unfruitful,
something that is most striking when she speaks about the political
reality in Gaza and on the West Bank. "I have no doubt that we are to
blame in this conflict", she says. "Since 1967, we have been
occupying the Palestinian territories and we have not been willing to
relinquish them. In '88 the Palestinians recognized Israel and
settled for a state within the '67 borders. Since then, the blame
falls on us absolutely. I deplore Palestinian terror, but since
January 2005 all the Palestinian groups, except for Islamic Jihad,
have declared a cease-fire. We are the attackers presenting ourselves
as the attacked."

The changes on the Palestinian front do not make her more moderate.
Here too she expresses different points of view -- anomalous ones, or
as some would say, those of a dreamer. About the convergence plan she
says: "In practice, Israel has exchanged the previous form of
occupation in Gaza, for a new one. There is no more need to have an
army in there, to defend settlements. The idea is to turn Gaza into a
prison surrounded by the Israeli army. The armed forces have complete
control in the air, in the sea and on the land; they can also go in."

"In the last few months, there's an ongoing, massive bombardment of
Gaza day and night; up to 5,000 artillery shells have been fired, per
month, on Gaza. Israel has not fulfilled a single line of the
border-crossings agreement which holds that Gaza will at least be able
to maintain economic ties with the West Bank and Egypt. We aren't
letting them have any sort of independent economy. They're being held
in a huge prison, deprived of any chance of survival. On the other
hand, this current form of occupation is cheaper for us, since from
the moment that Israel declared it's not the occupying force anymore,
it shed any responsibility for the well-being of the inhabitants."

"An occupied people, with no hope and cut off from the outside world,
will always find a way to fight its oppressor", she believes. "The
Palestinians in Gaza have found such a way to fight, by means of the
Kassam [rockets] which cause little real damage but that's their
answer to the war Israel has declared against them. There's no way to
stop the Kassams as long as you persist with the occupation of Gaza.
Under international law, too, an occupied people has the right to try
and fight an occupation."

Professor Reinhart also has an interesting theory about the Israeli
reaction in Gaza, a theory independent, to her mind, from the
Palestinian attack in Kerem Shalom and the kidnapping of the soldier
Gilad Shalit. "What's happening in Gaza now has no connection to the
kidnapping of Gilad Shalit", she says determinedly. "This is
something that began long before that. Israel prepared a campaign to
wipe out the Hamas regime. At first, Israel tried to bring down the
Hamas government by starvation, and after that they tried to produce a
civl war. Nothing worked."

"The military operation in Kerem Shalom and the kidnapping of Shalit
came after a month of massive bombardments that killed many
Palestinian civilians (supposedly by mistake). For all practical
purposes, in the seventeen months since Hamas declared a cease fire in
January 2005, Hamas did not take part in a single act of terrorism.
No group connected to Hamas even participated in launching Kassams, in
spite of the fact that such launches are not an act of terrorism.
There is no solution short of an end to the occupation, and that
Israel is not prepared to do."

Professor Reinhart wants to emphasize that the political reality in
the territories has changed: Hamas is now the one who represents the
Palestinian people, and not the chairman of the Palestinian Authority,
Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). "For the first time, the Palestinian
people have a representative that declares its intention to represent
its people rather than just to think about how to collaborate with
Israel. Over the years we've become accustomed to the idea that the
Palestinian authority's role is to ensure Israel's security."

"Hamas says: 'You also need to recognize us and we don't see any sign
of that.' We're talking about an independent government that is
responsible to the Palestinian people alone. In practice, Israel is
not prepared to speak with even Mahmoud Abbas, despite the fact he was
prepared to surrender and collaborate. Hamas won't do that, and
that's what the war in Gaza is about."

In closing, Professor Reinhard wants to emphasize that she intends to
continue her struggle from overseas: "I will continue to be active
from abroad as well, through my writing, and in the desire and hope
that I will return to live here."

\section The University of Tel Aviv's comment

The university administration this week refused to comment on
Professor Reinhart's points. The official comment was: "The
inaccuracies are such that the University of Tel Aviv does not see fit
to comment on them."

10. More jihad at San Fran State:

11. The best reason yet to bomb Lebanon:

12. Reuters issues Zionist Pig death threat:

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?