Historia Shel Hakolnoah Israeli

When I began this blog in 2005, my intent was to write much more on Israeli films. I ran a Jewish film festival for eight years, and have worked in the film industry for *cough* 20 years so it seemed like a good idea. But, for some reason, I've spent more time writing on political and historical subjects and have only touched on the entertainment industry.

Fortunately, someone has started the blog I meant to write. Amy Kronish, who was a guest of the Vancouver Jewish Film Festival some years ago, has written and lectured on Israeli film for years. The blog features film reviews and links to film resources.

Check it out here.

Massacre Mania 2

Perusing Palestinian websites for information on the 'Naqba' (1947-48), one finds anecdotal claims of so many massacres, it's astonishing that 6,000, let alone 600,000, refugees survived to flee the country.

I was recently asked to look into one such massacre claim, on behalf of someone whose family came from Palestine. He was told that his Uncle survived a massacre of Saliha which killed almost everyone else.

Saliha was a small Arab Muslim village in the Upper Galilee Mountains next to the Lebanese border, near present-day Moshav Avivim. The village was known for its Taggart fort, built in 1938 by the British as a garisson fort. The Taggart forts were part of a larger plan to build a "northern fence" to separate Palestine from Lebanon at the height of the Arab rebellion (1936-1939).

After months of conflict, the War of Independence began in earnest when statehood was declared: May 14, 1948. Israelis forces had fought back the Arab Liberation Army in the north, July 8-18, 1948, during Operation Dekel. The final battle for the Galilee began in late October 1948. Thousands of Arab fighters led by Fawzi Kaukji returned from Lebanon and occupied positions inside Arab villages two kilometeres beyond the truce lines established by the UN. After a warning by the UN Security Council, Kaukzi claimed on October 24 that his troops were withdrawing, but they returned a few days later and continued to occupy several strategic positions, including a hill a few yards from the Metullah-Tiberias crossroads. Despite repeated attempts by the UN to prevent a conflagration, both sides remained poised for battle: Jewish forces refused to accept a cease-fire until Kaukzi returned to the previous ceasefire position; Kaukzi refused to budge until the Jewish fighters accepted the ceasefire.

With Arab forces firmly entrenched in defensive positions in western Galilee, Canadian-born Ben Dunkelman, commander of the 7th Brigade, presented plans for conquering the Galilee to Moshe Carmel (1911-2003), Israel's northern front commander. Despite some reservations Dunkelman was given a "green light" to dislodge the Arab Liberation Army and drive it back into Lebanon. On the evening of October 27, 7th Brigade engineers began clearing the Safed-Meron road as the rest of the brigade moved from its base in western Galilee to the hills around Safed. Operation Hiram began at dawn, October 28.

According to many sources, most of the residents of the Galilee had actually begun to flee in May 1948, after the capture of the Arab part of the city of Safed by Palmach forces. By August the UN reported at least 50,000 Galilean Arab refugees had crossed the border and fled to the nearby Metawali villages in southern Lebanon. Nevertheless, it's clear thousands of civilians remained.

Benny Morris, who cites Saliha in several books, doesn`t provide an exact an date for the massacre but Palestinian sources say it took place on October 30. The actual events surrounding the destruction of Saliha are not at all clear. Some sources claim the residents were forced into a mosque and shot; others say they were shot in the village square; others quote Benny Morris' who wrote that "94 ... were blown up with a house."

Unfortunately, even Morris can't quite get his story straight. In one book (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, Cambridge Middle East Library, pg. 230) he claims this information came from a briefing given by Israel Galili, head of the Haganah National Command; in a later book he says the briefing was made by Moshe Erem, to the Political Committee of Mapam ("Revisiting the Palestinian Exodus of 1948," Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim (eds.), The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 59)

The UN record suggests civilian casualites were much lighter than anecdotal evidence would have some believe. Given that there were several hundred observers watching both Israeli and Arab forces - there were approximately 300 UN Observers in the Middle East at this time. Around 245 were in Israel according to US Ambassador to Israel James G. Macdonald - one would expect that mass killings would be difficult to conceal; in fact, only one was reported to the security council during this period. On November 3, 1948, A. R. Azzam, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, filed a complaint that "Zionist forces, in a raid on the Arab locality known as Dawayma, ruthlessly massacred Arab women, children and old people, thus perpetuating barbarities rivaling in horror those committed by the Nazis."

Despite official assurances to the contrary (and the fact that Dawayam was north of Hebron, nowhere near the Galilee), rumours of a massacre in Dawayma were taken seriously and both the UN and the Israeli army investigated. Two UN observers visited Dawayma on November 7 and found no evidence of a massacre but it's likely the village had already been cleaned up before their arrival. Veterans of the accused 89th Battallion have claimed that some soldiers sought revenge for the massacre of 200 Jews in Kfar Etzion several months earlier. Dawayma, they claimed, was "filled with the loot of Etzion Bloc." UN Chief negotiator Ralph Bunche's reports reveal only "that United Nations Observers had reported extensive looting of villages in Galilee by Israeli forces, who carried away goats, sheep and mules."

The Dawayma incident is interesting in several respects. Although the alleged massacre occured in another part of the country, it confirms that the nascent Israeli government was aware of attacks against civilians. Significantly, it's obvious that it was difficult in such a tiny country to prevent rumours of atrocities from quickly spreading - regardless of whether or not the allegations were true. The attack on Deir Yassein, after all, was front-page news in the country. Other incidents may not have made the news but they were known to the government and UN observers. Moshe Carmel, for his part, even issued a reprimand to his troops as word of unacceptable behaviour came to light.

"Our brilliant victory...in the Galilee was marred as some soldiers allowed themselves a shameful outburst by looting and condemnable crimes against the Arab population after its surrender...ill-treatment of the inhabitants, murder and robbery, are not a military activity or acts of courage. They are a disgrace to our army...These acts must cease immediately and with all severity." (IDFA 437/49/84 25 November 1948)

Of course, many of the reports were made after the fact, and long after any evidence of wrong-doing was erased. Morris, whose books are most often cited concerning Galilee massacres, conceded that "knowledge of the details of these massacres is limited mainly to Arab oral and written testimony and some United Nations and Israeli civilian documentation."

After the war, the stories spread and took on lives of their own. Respected journalist Martha Gellhorn interviewed Palestinian refugees in Israel. In one village, she spoke with the schoolteacher...

"...an attractive lean young man, with prematurely gray hair, working in his garden in the cool of the evening...After hours of listening to him, I had grasped the lacking clue, and felt hopeless."

"Great Britain helped the Jews," he said. "The English gave weapons to the Arab countries, and they gave weapons to us. In this village we were all armed; we all fired at the Jews, every one of us. But our bullets were no good; the English gave bad bullets to the Arabs. Four out of five of the bullets were no good. When we saw this, we ran away to Lebanon for two weeks and then we came back."

"Were any of you killed in these battles?"

"No, no one."

"The Christian schoolteacher sent me on to a friend of his, a Muslim schoolteacher, in a village called Masra on the plain near Acre...Before 1948, the population of Masra was 350; now it is 200. They owned little land, they had worked on neighboring kibbutzim and in Acre factories. They always had good relations with the Jews. "No one here shot at Jews; and no Jews shot at us." (Note the order of the sentence.) But now Masra had grown and swollen; 900 refugees lived here.

"Refugees?"

"Yes, people from those villages."

He gestured out the door, across the fields.

"What? From villages nearby?"

"Yes, yes. Those villages. They are maybe seven kilometers away."

"And you consider them refugees?"

"Of course. There was no fighting near here, but the people are frightened, so they fled to the Druse villages, where they know they will be safe, because the Druses were always friendly with the Jews, and after, they came here. The Israeli government will not let them go back to their villages. The government offered them other land, but they will not take it."

Gellhorn also spoke with Palestinians who had fled northward to Lebanon.

"Their headman, or village leader - the Muktar talked. Seventeen people of his village were massacred, which was why they fled, but an old blind woman of 104 was left behind and the Jews poured kerosene over her and burned her alive. How did they know, if they had all fled? Well, then the Jews went away and some villagers crept back and found her, and besides, the United Nations Truce Commission also found her...My guide looked embarrassed."

Which brings us back to Saliha. Despite compelling anecdotal evidence, there's little else to substantiate many of the massacre allegations in the area, Saliha included. Mass graves have never been found - or reported - and government reports, those that have been seen, are sketchy, contradictory, evasive or all of the above. None of which means civilians weren't killed in Saliha and other Galilean villages. But, sixty years later, having missed the opportunity to conduct comprehensive investigations with the cooperation of UN observers, Israel has unwittingly left the door open for the plethora of claims which now overwhelm and drive the 'ethnic cleansing' debate.

And sixty years later, one cannot help but see similar trends in recent events: while Israel's cynicism toward the UN Human Right's Council and its tainted investigation in Gaza is understandable, perhaps a better strategy would have been for the Israeli government to call an immediate internal investigation of violations of the IDF Moral Code with international representation on the investigating committee. Could the UN dismiss an Israeli report which included input from someone like Mary Robinson? or Jimmy Carter? We'll have to add this one to the long list of missed opportunities by both sides.

As for Saliha, we'll never really know. But, one thing is certain: perception of events can carry more weight than reality even reaching mythological levels. And it's very hard to refute a myth.

Vanity Fair

This week's edition of Haveil Havalim, hosted by Esser Agaroth, is up.

Founded by Soccer Dad, Haveil Havalim is a carnival of Jewish blogs -- a weekly collection of Jewish & Israeli blog highlights, tidbits and points of interest collected from blogs all around the world. It's hosted by different bloggers each week and coordinated by Jack. The term 'Haveil Havalim,' which means "Vanity of Vanities," is from Qoheleth, (Ecclesiastes) which was written by King Solomon. King Solomon built the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and later on got all bogged down in materialism and other 'excesses' and realized that it was nothing but 'hevel,' or in English, 'vanity.'

For a great collection of articles, news, thoughts and jokes from the Jewish blogosphere, go here.

Oh yeah. I'm on the list :)

Atonement

As some of you may know, I actually contribute to two blogs: this one, which I started as a showcase for published and non-published articles, and the one I co-write with my wife. I tend to keep the more political stuff here, and use the other one for our shared experiences since making aliyah in 2008. I don't often cross-blog, but I've decided to with a poetical essay I wrote for Yom Kippur. It was, to be honest, my first bit of creative writing (other than ongoing screenplay work) in awhile, and I was pleased with the results. I hope you are to. (click on the image for the full-page version)

גמר חתימה טובה.

Massacre Mania Part 1

When dealing with Palestinian discourse, four words tend to overwhelm every discussion: 'settlements,' 'occupation,' 'apartheid' and, of course, 'massacre.'

There have been practically no encounters between Israel and Arabs in which an accusation of a massacre of some sort wasn't made. The most recent incident, last December's Gaza operation, is being played out now, as both sides offer discrepant civilian death counts and cite contradictory 'expert' sources. A UN war crimes investigation, led by Kapo, former South African judge Richard Goldstone, has just concluded, based on evidence that is already being challenged, that "Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity."

The report demands that Israel conduct an investigation of its own within the next three months. Amongst other information the report appears to have ignored, is the fact that the IDF has already examined more than 100 allegations regarding the conduct of its forces during Operation Cast Lead, which have resulted in a further 23 criminal investigations.

The fact that no other investigation is underway against any other state, despite recent conflicts in which thousands of civilians have been killed, is yet another example of the double standard Israelis find so infuriating. For example, for years the government of Sri Lanka fought Tamil rebels in the north of the country. The Tamils are claiming independence for this area where they constitute a majority of the population. Over the course of this period it is estimated some 70,000-80,000 civilians have been killed (as compared to the 500-700 Gaza civilians killed in the recent fighting). Has the UN Human Rights Council equally condemned Sri Lanka and singled it out as it has Israel? In fact, they dismissed it as "an internal matter."

How about Russia where the recent invasion of Georgia claimed, according to some sources, around 20,000 lives? As for Chechnya, there are no solid figures for the number of civilians killed since the second war began in late 1999, but estimates range anywhere between 25,000 and 200,000. When Russian soldiers have admitted brutality, condemnation from the UN has been conspicuously absent. "I remember a Chechen female sniper," a Russian soldier told L.A. Times reporter Maura Reynolds. "We just tore her apart with two armored personnel carriers, having tied her ankles with steel cables. There was a lot of blood, but the boys needed it."

It would appear that it is only the Jewish 'moral compass' that some critics see as out of whack. But our ‘moral compass’ is just fine, thank you. Anyone who knows anything about Judaism will understand the abhorrence at taking lives - any lives - Israeli soldiers feel. While I'm not dismissing the possibility that terrible incidents have occured - we're still dealing with flawed humans in a citizen's army, after all, who make mistakes, get angry, are stupid - anyone familiar with the situation knows that much of the criticism of the recent mission in Gaza came from Israelis. Self-criticism and introspection is alive and well here.

Beyond Gaza, it's worth remembering that other alleged 'massacres,' such as the Jenin libel, have already been debunked, even by experts generally sympathetic to the Palestinian cause (Most NGOs and international human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch, tend to deal in half-truths, which are more difficult to counter, rather than outright lies).

All of which reminds me of a saying about truth and war. But Benjamin Disraeli really put it best when he wrote: "It is easier to be critical than correct."

Jaffa

As a former festival director (Vancouver Jewish Film Festival, 1997-2004), I truly appreciate the complex challenge in programming films and events at film festivals. As such, I want to commend Toronto International Film Festival for this year's decision to acknowledge Tel Aviv as an important artistic centre. The result of that brave decision, sadly, has been a thuggish smear and boycott campaign against the festival.

Tel Aviv is a brilliant, loud, brash, and diverse beast of a city. It's also arguably one of the most artistic, open-minded places I've ever visited. Despite - or perhaps due to - the city's history, diverse artistic expression is celebrated, even when specific artists or pieces are derided. That's the nature of art.

Like many great cities, Tel Aviv's past haunts it. Jaffa, its ancient neighbour, shares a history with Tel Aviv that is sad and unfortunate. But, it's a complex history. Those who see only one chapter in Jaffa's life ignore, perhaps willfully, the experiences of the city's Jewish population, once a majority in this place. Jaffa (the name comes from the Hebrew word yaffe which mean beautiful) is mentioned serveral times in the Bible and in many historical documents. The population was Jewish, and then mixed Jewish/Christian until the Arab invasion in the 7th century. The Crusades and Turkish occupation both affected demographics.

Nevertheless, Jaffa remained an important Jewish centre for centuries. In 1909, upon purchasing beachfront properties near Jaffa, the city of Tel Aviv was established. Many of Jaffa's Jewish residents chose to resettle in the new city; and Jews still represented a large percentage of Jaffa's population, despite riots in the 1920's (the worst of which in May 1921) which drove out many Jews. Following the successful UN partition vote of November 29, 1947, Jaffa and Tel Aviv came into more immediate conflict. Arab snipers and mortar squads in Jaffa began targeting Jewish neighbourhoods in Tel Aviv. Dozens were killed and several hundred injured in these attacks. Thousands of Jewish residents were forced to flee the area. And Haganah reprisals were taking lives in Jaffa. The situation was quickly deteriorating. “As long as mortar bombs are fired from Jaffa at Tel-Aviv, life in that city is...precarious," wrote Palestine's British High Commissioner General Sir Alan Cunningham. ('An Analysis of the Palestine Situation, April 1948', Cunningham Papers, IV/5/33)

By April 1948, the country was engaged in civil war, with many Jewish and Arab communities caught up in the conflict. It was feared that the strategically important port of Jaffa might fall to Egyptian troops who would use the city as a base from which to destroy Tel Aviv. This was an untenable risk, and the decision was made to surround and control Jaffa. Irgun fighters, followed by the Haganah, succeeded in taking the city, despite British intervention. On May 12, a deputation of Arab notables from Jaffa arrived at Haganah headquarters in Tel Aviv and, after negotiations, signed a surrender agreement.

Both Haganah and Irgun made it clear that civilians were not to be harmed. Irgun leader (and future PM) Menachem Begin spoke to his fighters before the attacks: “Strike at the foe! Aim well! Spare ammunition! In this battle, show no mercy to the enemy, as he knows none towards our people [but] Spare women and children. Spare the life of anyone who raises his hands in surrender. He is your captive. Do not harm him...”

Nevertheless, civilians panicked and fled once Jewish forces had captured the Arab suburb of Manshiyeh. “Ninety percent of the population of Jaffa have just run away," Sir Henry Gurney, Chief Secretary to the Palestine Mandate Government and no friend of Zionism or Jews, recorded in his diary on May 5, 1948, "... The mayor has gone, without even saying goodbye, and the remnants of the [Arab irregular] Liberation Army are looting and robbing. This is what the Palestine Arabs get from the assistance provided by the Arab states.”

It is fair to say the Jewish takeover of the city precipitated the exodus, an attack which was necessitated by relentless Arab attacks against Tel Aviv. But, according to even Arab sources,"the Arab Exodus ...was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by the Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy."

(Jordanian daily newspaper, Al Urdun, April 9, 1953.)

And it is equally true that Arab forces were attacking and destroying Jewish settlements in both Judea and Samaria (in particular Kfar Etzion) and land designated to be part of a Jewish state. Such is war.

In June 1948, the new Israeli cabinet met to discuss the refugee issue. All agreed that Arabs who fled the fighting to other parts of Israel should return to their homes. As Moshe Sharrett put it: "These (Arabs) should be returned to their places, with full ownership of their lands etc., and with full [citizenship] rights. We should not, as a matter of principle, discriminate against an Arab who had stayed inside [Israel] and thereby accepted its rule. He should enjoy full rights, including his property [rights]—unless there are decisive emergency considerations, security-wise. This should be the instruction to governors, commanders, etc.(Shimoni, "Tamtsit," pg. 3)

Indeed, The Palestine Post reported that several days after the battle for Jaffa, the Haganah invited representatives of Magen David Adom to visit Arab women, children and seniors who had fled to Tel Aviv. Those who wanted to return to Jaffa and other Arab areas were turned over to the Red Cross which escorted them back.

But the others, those who fled to Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan would not be permitted back. Ben-Gurion was clearly angry when he proclaimed, "Jaffa will become a Jewish city. War is war; it is not us who wanted war. Tel-Aviv did not wage war on Jaffa, Jaffa waged war on Tel-Aviv. And this should not happen again. We will not be "foolish hasidim." Bringing back the Arabs to Jaffa is not just but rather is foolish. Those who had gone to war against us — let them carry the responsibility after having lost." (Ben-Gurion, Be-hilahem Israel, pp. 130-131.)

And so, here we are. While the political ramifications of that decision are still being felt today, the issue at hand is artistic boycotts. I don't think I can put this any better than Bruce Kirkland, film critic for the Toronto Sun, who writes,

"Art should encourage debate -- including on the complex Israeli-Palestinian question that so vexes the protesters -- and not repress it through bully tactics and censorship."

I highly recommend his whole response which can be read here.

UPDATE: The National Post's Charles Lewis jumps into the fray:

"Charles Lewis: Boycotting the Israel boycotters"

Sweden for the Swedes

The appearance in a Swedish newspaper this week of a blatantly antisemitic article (posing as anti-Israel news) should come as no surprise. Sweden has been a source of both anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim sentiment for some time.

The article in question claims the IDF has kidnapped and stolen organs from Palestinians. While we can take some comfort in an immediate rebuttal from a competing Swedish newspaper, the invocation of the ancient blood libel is disturbing to say the least. But, as a I said, not surprising.
An article in Haaretz (reprinted here) from 2004 revealed that many Swedes now publicly hide their Jewish identities for fear of verbal and physical abuse. One "does not dream of walking down the street while wearing a skullcap, Star of David or T-shirt with Hebrew on it." In 2002, 131 antisemitic incidents were recorded against a community of only 18,000 Jews. Many suspect the bulk of abuse comes from members of Sweden's 400,000 strong Muslim community. Nevertheless, leftist academic and literary attacks against the Jewish state continue often mingled with traditional antisemtic terminology and imagery.

A 2006 Swedish study, 'Anti-Semitic attitudes and perceptions', a joint project between the National Council for Crime Prevention and the Forum for Living History, revealed that 26% of Swedes believe that there is a 'Jewish influence' over the world's economy, and 15% say that influence to be 'too great'. The study also showed that 14% believed that Jews exploit the Holocaust for political or economic purposes.

Sweden is also the home of an antisemitic writer named Jöran Jermas who for several years has been posing as an Israeli-Russian writer named 'Israel Shamir.' As 'Shamir' Jermas pretends to disclose deep, dark secrets of Judaism and Israel. His work is so virulent that even some Palestinian representtives - Ali Abunimah, a media critic on the Electronic Intifada website, and Hussein Ibish, press spokesman of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) - have distanced themselves from his support, identifying him as a Jew-hater.

The source of much antisemitic (posing as anti-Zionist) discourse are Sweden's influential Left Party and members of the leading Social Democrats who have, in the past, called for the expulsion of Israel's ambassador to Sweden.

Last week, NGO Monitor revealed that both the Swedish government and Sweden-based Non-Governmental agencies have been funding anti-Israel activities within Israel. NGO Monitor "examined over 20 major NGOs funded through the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), Diakonia, the multi-national NGO Development Center (NDC), and the Swedish Mission Council (SMR)." According to Gerald M. Steinberg, NGO Monitor head and professor of political science at Bar Ilan University, "many of these NGOs routinely accuse Israel of "genocide," "ethnic cleansing," and "apartheid," and some compare Israeli military and political officials to Nazis. This propaganda warfare is waged through the façade of "research" reports which routinely quote Palestinian "testimonies," taken and repeated without question."

This intrusion into the political affairs of another state seems to me to be at the very least, inappropriate. But, of course, it's business as usual for Israel. I've said in the past that I'm reluctant to accuse anyone of Jew-hatred. Except when it is.

An Irving Layton poem comes to mind:

POST-CREMATORIA

Gray-haired, soft-spoken, and her blue eye bright,
No, she's not your graceless anti-semite;
For while decrying them does she not use
That nice word Israelites instead of Jews?

UPDATE, Aug. 25, 2009: Much to the chagrin of the Swedish government, this story doesn't look like it's disappearing anytime soon. Here are a few articles and blog posts well worth reading.

Yaacov Lozowick, no stranger to the subject as the former director of the Yad Vashem archives, writes on Swedish antisemitism here.

This Op-ed, 'Abusing Freedom of Speech', by Michelle Mazel, wife of former Israeli Ambassador to Sweden, Tzvi Mazel, is a must-read.

No surprises here. The family of one of the Palestinian 'victims' says "We didn't say organs taken...The mother denied that she had told any foreign journalist that her son's organs had been stolen." Khaled Abu Toameh of Jerusalem Post spoke with the family and reports here.

You Can't Do That on Television

When I was growing up, Les Lye was an Ottawa institution. He was well-known in Ottawa for his announcing work with CFRA radio and on TV on the popular children's show, Uncle Willy and Floyd, with fellow broadcaster Bill Luxton. Outside of Ottawa, he was best known for his characters on You Can't Do That on Television. The show began in Canada in 1979 and was picked up by Nickelodeon in the US where it ran for years. I spent several years as a production coordinator with Carlton Productions, which produced YCDTOTV, and remember Les as a nice guy and a dedicated performer. Les died on Tuesday in Ottawa. He was 84. May his memory be a blessing.

Nuclear Secrets

Is the United States changing its policy toward a nuclear Israel?

I've written an article on this subject. Here are the first few paragraphs:

Hot on the heels of an statement by Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller urging Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Washington Times asserts that the US and Israel have maintained a secret accord for 40 years to keep from the public Israel's nuclear weapons capabilities. The Times' Eli Lake presents a declassified memo between Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon as evidence and writes that 'by the end of 1970, Israel would likely have 24 to 30 French surface-to-surfaces missiles, 10 of which would have nuclear warheads.'

An historical perspective is in order.

It was clearly in America's interests to avoid a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which would diminish stability an already volatile neighbourhood and surely engage the USSR in some way.

Since the Johnson Administration (1963 to 1969), the US has kept a close watch on Israel's nuclear aspirations and has repeatedly asserted the importance of keeping nukes out of the region. Throughout March 1965, State Department and Israel officials were engaged in heavy negotiations over President Johnson’s regional water plans. Johnson hoped to settle water disputes between Israel and her neighbours by proposing "an aggressive and imaginative program to advance progress in large-scale desalting of sea water.” The plan involved “a combination of large-scale nuclear power plants and large-scale desalting plants could produce power and water.” The nuclear weapons issue came up on many occasions, each time Israel insisting it was not pursuing nuclear weaponry.

The State Department, a recurrent thorn in Israel’s side, stressed the US position to Israeli authorities. "We've already made and remade every point...in far stronger terms, especially on nuclear weapons. I'm surprised Israelis still speak to me," wrote Robert W. Komer, the President's Deputy Special Assistant for National Security Affairs.

In fact, Israel never denied the possibility of such a pursuit, reserving the right to do so depending on Egypt’s actions. Israel was convinced at the time that Egypt also had a nuclear agenda.

Nevertheless, the Americans remained certain that Israel was already pursuing nuclear weapons technology. "All indications are toward Israeli acquisition of a nuclear capability," wrote Rodger Davies, Director of the Office of Near Eastern Affairs. “There is little realization in Israel of the intensity of U.S. opposition to nuclear proliferation. U.S. hesitation and delays in pressing for the recent inspection of the Dimona reactor plus the failure to insist upon a two-day visit have led the Israelis to believe we are not serious."

The Americans at this point stepped up the pressure. The State Department informed the Embassy in Israel that an "offer to supply arms in the future [would be] carefully hedged and made contingent upon Israeli acceptance of undertakings on Jordan waters and on nuclear development..."

Want more? The full article is ready for your magazine or website now. Contact me.

A Cry from Iran

There's an assumption some people have that non-Western peoples aren't truly interested in democracy. This is a widespread belief of the Arab and Muslim states. But, in truth, most of the residents of these places would welcome democratic reforms, but there are two challenges: dictators allied with western powers, and religious opposition. But, even this opposition must be considered in context. Islam is not antithetical to democracy: in many ways it is very democratic, holding political leaders subject to the same religious laws as commoners, but there are 'trappings' of democracy that are problematic. An open democracy, for example, means more western influence on fashion and food, and more diverse books and magazines for sale.

We think of democracy as putting a ballot in the box every few years. People in the Middle East look at democracy and they see a bigger picture. Yes, it’s putting a ballot in a box. But it’s also giving rights to women, rights for children to marry whom they want, when they want. The freedom to be secular. The right to have free speech. They look at democracy and they see a civilization that has lost many of its family values, consumed by drugs and alcohol, full of sexual promiscuity. They don’t want that. I don't blame them.

Iran is interesting. Iranians have good reasons to distrust the West. So do I. But, that's a separate issue from seeking democracy; the problem is that in much of the world, especially the Middle East, any form of democratization is seen as Americanization. Western countries who advocate democracy then are perceived as 'colonizers' whose goal is to blanket American hegemony over the region. And because some aspects of democracy are problematic (ie: sexual freedom), there is a tendency to reject the whole, rather than seek, for example, a uniquely Islamic form of democracy. There is also a tendency across the region to blame others (Arabs, in particular, believe conspiracy theories well above normal levels) rather than self-criticize and self-correct.

Iran's Persian populace is different. Iran has a young population that is well-educated, essentially western in attitude, and which has privately expressed disapproval of the country's Islamist President and clerical rulers. The problem has been that this group has seemed more interested in skiing and doing drugs than overthrowing a radical government. Let's be fair: this is a problem that is prevalent in the Middle East and endemic, I think, to Islam. By definition, Islam means submission. It's contrary to Islam to defy religious and familial authority figures. This is still, in many ways, a tribal culture. As long as young Iranians have been unwilling to rise against their parents and Imams, nothing has changed.

Today's reaction to allegations of voter fraud might be the beginning of a democratic revolution in Iran, or not. Revolutions, like forest fires, often start small and smolder for awhile before the big conflagration. But, these revolutionaries face the ultimate foe: Iran's leaders were themselves the revolutionaries of a previous generation. They can anticipate the strategies and actions of the protesters and prevent the spread of anti-government riots. They've already cut cell-phone service and blocked access to social media sites like Twitter. There are reports that police have arrested opposition leaders. Foreign media have reported that they're being prevented from covering the protests.

Furthermore, it will take more than a few riots to bring down this government; it will require the involvement of the military and police, and a willingness to fight and die for reform. And even a change in Presidents will only bring about small change. Regardless of who really won this election, the real power still lies with 'the Mullah behind the curtain', Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Iranians will not know democracy until his absolute authority is expunged.

Has the revolution begun? We can only hope. The fall of Iran's fascist, Islamic government would have positive repercussions across the region. At the very least, it could prevent a conflict between Iran and Israel.

Lebanon Dream

After the war in Lebanon in 2006, I suggested that it's "impossible to know the long-term benefits of this conflict. There are many that believe the conflict will only fuel more terrorism; I don't believe this is true."

The first positive result of this attitudinal change was the lack of response from Hezbollah to Israel's operation in Gaza. Although there were many who claimed Hezbollah had only grown stronger after the war in 2006, this claim was mostly based on Hezbollah's own propaganda machine. Nothing is quantifiable. Hezbollah CLAIMS it's stronger. Is it? There are reports that it has more rockets. Does it? This has yet to be seen. Is the group more popular? Yes, according to polls, which are notoriously unreliable in the Middle East, and of course, Hezbollah itself.

What IS quantifiable is that there hasn't been a single rocket, or kidnapping attempt by Hezbollah since the end of the war. In fact, when rockets were fired from Lebanon in June 2007 and January 2009, Hezbollah quickly denied responsibility! Say what you will about Israel's failure to destroy Hezbollah, they were still smacked hard enough they have yet to use whatever rockets they have, even as their so-called Palestinian brothers were being bombed in Gaza. They haven't even sought revenge over last February's killing of their number two guy, Imad Mughniyeh, in Syria.

I also proposed that there would positive political repercussions.

I wrote: “Lebanon's sectarian population has always been split, with Christians and Druze generally supporting Israel's efforts to remove militant forces (thousands of Christians actually fled to Israel in 2000 fearing a rise in militant Islam in the south, and possible retribution against Christians who supported Israel after 1982). Shiite Moslems have generally supported or condoned both the PLO and Hezbollah because they see these groups as armies in a larger conflict: Pan-Arabism (until 1982) and Global Jihad (after 1982). I don't believe this current conflict will increase support, and its likely that many Lebanese, of all stripes, will blame Hezbollah for their recklessness (even if they hold Israel responsible for the deaths.) The Arab street traditionally display public support for its leaders and their military exploits, even when privately they may be critical. It's quite possible that Hezbollah will now lose some of the political support they've enjoyed, and their seats in parliament. We'll know with the next election.”

Well, that election has now been held and lo and behold, the Lebanese responded exactly as I expected, voting along sectarian lines while denying Hezbollah the victory it predicted.

Official results issued by the Interior Ministry on Monday confirmed that the March 14 Forces achieved victory in the elections, with 71 seats against 57 seats for the opposition forces. Lebanese President Michel Sleiman expressed his satisfaction over "the transparent elections, and the high spirit of democracy.

The Lebanese parliament will now have to deal with Hezbollah demands to continue the veto vote it earned through violence. It also must continue to deal with Hezbollah's state-within-a-state in southern Lebanon. Nevertheless, election results indicate at least some anger with Hezbollah's partisan politics and continued advocacy of violence against Israel.

Lebanon has suffered through a civil war, a consequence of religious and political fragmentation, but today enjoys some semblance of democracy and normality. Hezbollah's ongoing attempts to derail this balance may yet bear fruit, and the Lebanese would be well-advised to consider the long term benefits of conciliation and compromise. And they should strongly consider extending that attitude toward her southern neighbour, Israel, a move that would further push Hezbollah and its sponsors, Syria and Iran, into the margins, and contribute to the economic and political health of the region.

Race-O-Rama

It seems like as soon as there's any conflict involving Israel, I begin to hear the word 'anti-Semitism' a lot more often. Either it's an accusation against anti-Zionists, or an accusation by anti-Zionists convinced that they'll be accused of anti-Semitism for any criticism of Israel.

I think these accusations need to be considered more carefully. I'm well aware of the debate within Jewish circles and in the press. But the argument is never - well, let's be fair and say rarely - that Israel is being criticized, but how it's being criticized, and the absence of fair criticism of the other side, or even of other countries. For example, I'm very careful with my criticism of other nations because I'm very aware of Canada's abuse of Natives; our treatment of our indigenous people is shameful. And Canada's not alone, sadly. So, the complaint from some people is when Israel gets singled out, and is criticized in a vacuum - it's not the criticism itself. Perhaps this is a subtle difference, but it's also crucial. When Israel is cited by the UN Human Rights Committee endlessly without a mention of China, Syria, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, etc, that's anti-Semitism. When newspapers put Israel on the front page, but ignore hundreds of thousands of deaths in Darfur, that's anti-Semitism. When Churches and Universities advocate boycotts of Israel while ignoring the persecution of Tamils, or basic human rights abuses in dictatorships from Libya through Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, that's anti-Semitism. Unless someone has another explanation.

It's pretty obvious to me when anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. I don't often make the accusation, because your average anti-Semite simply can't recognize it in himself. I've met a lot of Christians like that; they claim to love Jews, but will turn around and call us 'incomplete, 'Pharisaical,' and 'stiff-necked.' Criticism of Israel is even worse, as I've pointed out, and often suggests an unfair double-standard is at play (ie. if you're going to call yourselves the Chosen People, you must do better than every other people on the planet); or there's this sense that the Jewish emergence from powerlessness that occurred after the Second World War has really thrown a wrench in some people's plans. WE weren't supposed to restore Israel ourselves; we weren't supposed to even survive the Holocaust intact let alone more powerful than before. There are a lot of folks out there, and I'm including quite a few Jews, that are very uncomfortable with Jewish power - and I don't mean just political power - I'm talking about Jews running around with guns, God Forbid, defending ourselves, asserting our right to self-determination, reclaiming what was taken from us by force, well, it's enough to make secular, bagel-loving American Jews blush with embarrassment (and fear of being accused of being Communists, or spy or Fifth Columnists or whatever else could undermine their hard-earned assimilation.)

Speaking of racism, anti-Zionists also love to accuse Israel of abusing its Arab citizens. Show me a country that doesn't have race (or for that matter, gender) issues. When Israel was liberating Gaza (and yes, I used that word deliberately because it was Israel in 1967 that for the first time since 1948, permitted refugees to travel to the West Bank and beyond and work in Israel), the US was engaged in race riots across the country that left hundreds dead and injured. When Israel was permitting Arab women to vote for the first time anywhere in the Middle East, Swiss women still couldn't vote or participate in parliament (they got the vote in 1971). Some would say hatred and anger are pervasive in this part of the world, but we don't judge a society on its faults alone (after all, who is faultless?); we judge it on its actions to correct these faults, through prevention and corrective laws.

And it's worth noting, anti-Jewish and Christian racism isn't just condoned in most Islamic countries: it's actively promoted and funded. That's the difference. While Muslims wail about cartoons featuring Mohamed, images like this regularly appear in state-funded Arab newspapers: Source: Al-Watan (Qatar), April 2, 2007

Then again, maybe the problem isn't anti-Semitism at all? Perhaps it's not Israel being held to a higher standard, but the Muslim world being held to one much lower? Either way, it's hard not to feel that the great experiment, the United Nations, which aims to to, "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small," has failed.

The Double Standard

Speaking of double-standards and hypocrisy, which I do from time to time, it's impossible to ignore this blatant example. Anyone been following Sri Lanka's campaign against the Tamil Tigers? Human rights organizations have reported thousands of civilians killed, some during a barrage that struck a hospital. Even the UN has acknowledged, "nearly 6,500 ethnic Tamil civilians were killed in the last three months of fighting." Other sources suggest the death toll may be much higher. "An investigation by The Times into Sri Lanka’s civilian casualties, however — which was conducted in a week-long visit to Sri Lanka — has found evidence of a civilian death toll of 20,000, almost three times that cited previously."

We should expect some sort of investigation soon, right? Don't hold your breath. The UN human rights council has actually praised the Sri Lankan government's "victory over the Tamil Tigers and refused calls to investigate allegations of war crimes by both sides in the final chapter of a bloody 25-year conflict." It then passed a resolution describing the conflict as a "domestic matter that doesn't warrant outside interference."

Indeed.

Trekkies

Before I say a few words about the new Star Trek film, and you know I must, I need to describe going to the screening, our first 'movie date' in Israel. Israel is a modern country, and that applies to its movie cinemas. The experience was all very familiar, but just different enough to be memorable.

I knew I was going to have to deal with Hebrew subtitles; I didn't expect that everyone in the theatre would be English speaking. I expected to be able to get kosher food; I was surprised to discover that the popcorn was also pareve (as was another patron who deliberately had pizza for dinner assuming the popcorn would be 'dairy.')


I resigned myself to the inevitable commercials before the film; I never anticipated a 5 minute intermission in the middle of the film. Do Israelis have unusually small bladders? I hoped we might run into people we knew; instead, we got a lift with total strangers, and talked about the film all the way home.

Anyway, I was talking about Star trek. I've been watching Star Trek for, um, ever. I actually remember watching the original series with my Dad and recording the Animated series on cassette tapes (pre-VCRs, folks). I also have a scrapbook I started when they first started talking about a new film in the mid-70`s. Those of you who came into the series with TNG can`t imagine how exciting a time it was, going to conventions when they were still run by the fans and not those money-making scum who took them over, meeting other Trekkers, waiting and hoping for a movie or another series, or even just a chance to meet someone associated with the show. It`s easy now to be jaded, after Voyager and Enterprise, but the scene was so different during the 70`s. What a time it was. I`m so grateful to have been a part of it.

So, as one of Trek's 'old fossil' fans, I was admittedly nervous when the news of a reboot was made official. But, I was actually pretty excited, too. It's worth remembering that in many ways, Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), albeit with the original cast, also felt to many of us like a reboot. There some of the same concerns leading up to the release of the film about the new look of the Enterprise and the Klingons, and the new production team, especially director Robert Wise who knew nothing about Trek. Even Wrath of Khan reinvented much of what we now consider canon. And most of all, this is Science Fiction. What does canon mean in a genre which has already established that events and characters can be altered?

A few months ago, I found myself actually looking through my Star Trek comics and memorabilia from the late 60's/ early 70's. I started to get excited about this one, and enjoyed seeing people hyped up the way I was before the first Trek film came out. I thought: I'm sure there are going to be things about this film I hate but I don't care. As Kirk said: "Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant!"

Well, I've now seen the new one and, frankly, I'm undecided. It looked great. The actors were all very good. I especially liked Karl Urban, although my wife felt he was copying DeForest Kelly rather than just playing the part like the others. The weak one for me was Zoë Saldana as Uhura. She was fine, but lacked the grace and elegance of Nichelle Nichols. I liked the comedy but felt like Scotty was a bit too much comic relief, which is I'm sure why they went with Simon Pegg rather than Paul McGillion, who would have made a great Scotty.

In all honesty, though, my big issue with the reboot has nothing to do with dialogue, plot or even casting, none of which was consistently brilliant in any incarnation of Trek. JJ Abrams, whose work I greatly respect, has said on record that he preferred Star Wars to Star trek, and that he wanted to reboot Trek in that mold for a younger, ostensibly more A.D.D. audience. But, in fact, both film genres originally ran simultaneously, with TMP actually following the first Star Wars film (because, in large part, of the success of that film, Paramount was willing to go ahead with TMP.)

For years, we had both SW and Trek, one franchise fast, fun and FX heavy, the other more thoughtful and character oriented. In a sense, they complimented each other. I have enjoyed both series for different reasons.

In other words, I don't need my Star Trek to feel like Star Wars. It was possible to reboot the series, adding more FX, introducing a new, hip cast, and even adrenalizing the stories without sacrificing the philosophical nature of Star Trek. I'm not convinced they accomplished this even though I enjoyed the film. But, I am willing to cut them a fair bit of slack because this was a first film with a new cast and crew. My hope is that a sequel will put more emphasis on the hopeful future of the Star Trek universe. I really do wish them luck. I'd still like to believe that the world needs Star Trek.

Washington Merry-Go-Round

I want to hate Michael Oren.


He's not only a terrific historian, eloquent and clear, but he's also far too dashing for his own good. Oren, who was born in the US but has called Israel home for decades, is also a fervent Zionist, an army reservist who has served as a government spokesperson during times of war, and a father of a serving soldier. And now, as if I couldn't hate him any more, he's Israel's new Ambassador to the US.

If Benjamin Netanyahu is remembered for anything it may be this brilliant appointment of a most deserving and appropriate candidate. I've never met Michael Oren, unfortunately, but I would welcome the chance to tell him in person what I'm writing here. Mr. Oren, serve us well. Be honest. Be passionate. Be yourself. Make a difference. And good luck.

If you're not familiar with Michael Oren, you deserve it to yourself to read some of his political and historical articles (and get out there and buy his books, too. Oren is the author of Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East and of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: The United States in the Middle East, 1776 to 2006.) He never fails to educate and entertain.

From The TNR Archives: Michael B. Oren

The New Republic has made available a long list of articles, all worth checking out. "Unfriendly Fire: Why Did Israeli Troops Attack The USS Liberty?" from July 23, 2001 is essential reading.

Also, check out, at the Azure Magazine website:

Jews and the Challenge of Sovereignty
Michael B. Oren | Is "Jewish state" a contradiction in terms?

Levi Eshkol, Forgotten Hero
Michael B. Oren | Israel’s third prime minister offers a different model of Jewish leadership.

The Second War of Independence
Michael B. Oren | Fifty years later, the lessons of the Suez War are only now becoming clear.

Did Israel Want the Six Day War?
Michael B. Oren | Newly released documents reveal the government's true motives during the tense weeks leading up to June 5, 1967.

Save the Citizens’ Army
Michael B. Oren, Benjamin Balint

Zohan and the Quest for Jewish Utopia
Michael B. Oren | Adam Sandler's hit comedy reflects a deep divide between Israeli and American Jews.

Orde Wingate: Friend Under Fire
Michael B. Oren | The new historians take aim at the father of the IDF.

The 'USS Liberty': Case Closed
Michael B. Oren | June 8, 1967: Why did the IDF open fire on an American spy ship?

UPDATE: Two more articles, both from Commentary Magazine.

Seven Existential Threats
Michael B. Oren, May 2009

Does the U.S. Finally Understand Israel?
Michael B. Oren, July/August 2002

Law and Disorder

International law is not cut and dry, but there are a number of precedents that have been established in past conflicts. International law defends, as a minimum, the right of a state to act to protect against threats to its political independence or territorial integrity [Brunson MacChesney, "Some Comments on the `Quarantine' of Cuba," The American Journal of International Law, 57 (No. 3, 1963), 595.] and to act when the imminence of attack was of such a high degree that a nonviolent resolution of a dispute was precluded.[McDougal, "The Soviet-Cuban Quarantine and Self-Defense," p. 598]

International law also insists that the recognized purpose of self-defense is to deter aggression and to protect the interests of the state. [James Francis Gravelle, "The Falkland (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain." Military Law Review, 107 (1985), 56. ]

Its goal is preventive in nature and not retributive. [D. W. Bowett, Self-Defense In International Law (New York: Fredrick A. Praeger, 1958), p. 20]

We can argue until the cows come home if Israel's military and political strategy will achieve this goal; only time will tell. But, Israel is in her right to respond to attacks against her citizens and territory.

The problem is that the nature of warfare is evolving as we speak. International and human rights laws concerning warfare that were written post-Second World War, in the aftermath of the devastation of Europe and America's bombing of Japan fail to address the sort of conflicts Israel now faces; there was little consideration, or even knowledge of the kind of warfare that exists today between state and non-state entities. It is a maddening fact that so-called political groups like Hamas cannot be tried for blatant violations of human rights laws; even the Palestinian Authority could not be held responsible, as they do not as of yet represent a state (and there are many that believe it was Arafat's intent to prevent statehood in order to distance the group from accountability).

To those who suggest Israel does not regard international law, I would say just the opposite is true. In fact, the IDF even has a legal department that considers and advises on all aspects of law and warfare. It would be more correct to say that all modern, western states are aware that international laws concerning both war and human rights are generally ambiguous and can be pushed and stretched as the need demands. In Gaza, however, Israel went above and beyond what any other state would do to protect civilians. This is an interesting interview with a British former military officer on the subject, and a British soldier with the Intelligence Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan comments here.

The IDF is actually one of the few western armies that has a moral code. Here's a relevant article on the subject. I would agree with this quote:

"The Israeli Defence Forces’ ethical standards are different from, and in some ways higher than, the British army’s, says Paul Robinson, but in the end the question is not whether IDF actions are moral, but whether they are wise." This is, of course, a whole other issue.

That said, I think it's generally true that no party in this conflict is seeking 'peace' as such. Israel demands security and recognition; the Palestinians demand justice and compensation; and the Arab world demands a restoration of honour and lost lands. Peace will be the outcome of these demands being met.

Therefore, all parties are equally responsible for achieving peace. The problem with placing the onus on any one party is that it is, in the end, counterproductive. Any unilateral moves made by, for example, Israel, such as the return of Gaza to Palestinian rule, actually sets back peace in that it reduces Israel's sense of security. And as we saw, as soon as rockets and mortars began flying over the border, Israeli lives and well being were also threatened.

There is also a problem with the notion of moral equivalency in these kinds of conflicts. There are acts which must be condemned; blindly criticizing the use of force when it is clearly a response to acts of terror, and then suggesting that both sides are equally responsible is simplistic. And this conflict is anything but simple.

I cannot describe the problem any better than this:

"Sometimes the desire to form a balanced judgement of the conflict, and not to attribute responsibility for the conflict largely to one side, a generally positive aspiration, may prove a pitfall and distort the picture...Symmetries in objectives, modes of action, and interrelationships of two sides in the conflict must be examined carefully. It is sometimes the very desire to adopt the stance of a neutral judge that leads the observer to close his eyes to inconvenient patterns of behaviour on the part of one side or the other in the conflict or at least to regard them benignly. Adopting a neutral stand is liable to intoxicate the observer with a euphoria of self-righteousness; he will derive great satisfaction from his rectitude and from his capacity to transcend issues and view them from lofty heights. His awareness of affinity with one side of the conflict may inculcate in him a tendency towards ostentatious neutrality, leading him to tip the scales and do violence to the facts." (Y. Harkabi: Nuclear War and Nuclear Peace, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, 1966, p. 270).

Making the Cut

It's always around this time, when Israel is a little more in the news than usual, that I notice more discussions of the dangers and cruelty of male circumcision. A blog I follow went so far as to accuse parents of this "evil, ancient practice" of putting their own wants ahead of their child's rights.

No, I would say they do just the opposite. They place his spiritual needs ahead of their personal fears and reservations.

This is called parenting, which involves far more than ensuring a child has food and shelter. Any good babysitter can meet basic human needs; good parents create a human being. My parents confirmed my status in a 3,500-year-old community, and then gave me a basis in Jewish knowledge and family life. How could I make that decision for myself as a child? Thank G-d I didn't have to go through circumcision as an adult. By all accounts, it's a painful and much more risky operation.

Responsible parents make hard decisions. Why would a parent of any religion assume that their child would likely abandon the faith and not need to be a member? It makes no sense. It would be like a parent saying, "Well, let's not bother setting up a College Trust Fund since we don't know that he's going to go to college. We'll let him decide if he wants to start one himself when he's an adult." Now before you say, but a snipped foreskin isn't the same as a college education, both are investments toward a more fulfilled life. Good parents anticipate and create the foundation for a complete life - physical and spiritual - for their children. To do less would be an abdication of responsibility.

I'm not being sarcastic here; would the world really be a better place if everyone only looked out for themselves? This was the innovation of Judaism thousands of years ago: A covenantal relationship to a higher power, a land, and each other; a community separate and distinct, because we're not all the same, and a set of laws that were unprecedented at the time. It's easy now to dismiss this fact, because these laws have shaped the Western world, but thousands of years ago, the Jewish world was a haven of human rights in a region where child sacrifices were the norm. And every member of this society understood the responsibility to ensure the group's survival; every Jew was gladly willing to make personal sacrifices to ensure the survival of the group because the future of mankind was at stake. This was their perspective. For many, it still is.

Declaring publicly through the brit milah one's allegiance to this covenant is something we take great pride in. The covenental experience is really something difficult to describe, but I can tell you, I've never been to a brit milah where people, men and women, aren't crying. There's a lot of baggage attached to this ritual; we understand this. Through the ages, Jews have certainly died because they could be identified. It's not something that's taken lightly; just the opposite. But I know this: from the first week of my life, I belonged to this community, and it belonged to me. As long as I live, I will never be alone.

War and Peace

Governments - indeed most people - will defer to the simpler, easier solutions whenever possible. There's a good reason why the US hesitated before entering both world wars: they're messy, expensive and cost many, many lives. So, I don't entirely blame those who say, shouldn't Israel have continued to pursue peace before looking at military solutions? But, there's also a point where we say, the pursuit of peace is a stalling tactic to avoid an inevitable conflict, not a sincere goal in itself. Every administration wants to put off expensive, difficult conflicts until the next government.

Look, the truth of the matter is neither Israel nor the Arabs (including the Palestinians) are seeking peace, as such. 'Peace' was attainable many years ago. Jewish Zionists could have recognized the White Paper of 1939, allowed immigration to slow to a trickle, and accepted permanent minority status in Palestine - with whatever reduced privileges that might have entailed, and assuming the Jews already in Palestine weren't expelled. Likewise, the Arabs could have long ago accepted a Partition Plan (which would have given them a much larger state than any negotiations today might produce). And there were certainly other opportunities for peace squandered by both sides.

Today, the reality is that Israel demands first-and-foremost a) security and b) recognition. The Arab world wants a) the restoration of Arab honour (through Israeli acknowledgment of culpability) and b) reasonable compensation for those displaced by the wars of 1948 and 1967. 'Peace' will be the result of these demands being met.

It's also worth noting that many polls over the years, since before 1948, have maintained that most Palestinians are actually more interested in economic and social stability than independence or autonomy. They want normalcy, which is not an unreasonable demand. Yet, there has been a minority element within the Arab world for years which has persisted in making impossible demands to the detriment of their own people. When the international community accedes to the will of Palestinian extremists, they are essentially spitting in the face of moderate Palestinians who want their voices to be heard, too. But, as I said, this is the easy way out: listen to the guys with the guns, because the alternative is to try to understand and maneuver through the complexities of the Arab and Islamic worlds. Frankly, I blame Edward Said, but that's another story.

Eyeless in Gaza

I received an interesting, but disconcerting email the other day. An old friend accused me of - wait for it - changing. He harangued me for my present political position on Gaza and Israel's need to attack Hamas, and suggested the guy he used to know would never have supported the use of force. Apparently, I was much more of a Leftist in my youth. True enough. I like to think of myself now as a pragmatist, that is, I believe governments and people should conduct themselves according to reasoned need and not based on rules in some out-of-date ideological handbook. He changed, too. The guy I knew back then would have done more research before making such uninformed comments. In fact, I still remember him chewing me out for speaking out of my backside on Northern Ireland. But he has been living in the UK for many years, so I suppose he can be forgiven.

However, I felt his comments deserved a response. Gaza, after all, is a very complex situation.

If anything, I wrote, Israel has been far too patient with the Gazan Arabs. Border cities in Israel have been under constant rocket bombardment for 8 years; well over 6,500 rockets have fallen on Sderot alone since Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005. In fact, my wife was there the other week. She had to take shelter TWICE during a 3 HOUR visit. Residents get only 15-seconds' warning before a rocket strike (residents of nearby kibbutzim get 6 seconds warning). One kassam struck close enough that the building she was in trembled.

Residents of Sderot and nearby kibbutzim go through this every day. Despite incessant terror attacks, only a few dozen people have been killed (and many Arabs have been killed in Gaza by rockets falling short - two young girls were killed last week - or blowing up while being built), but this is only because we all have 'safe rooms' lined with metal and concrete. As well, cities like Sderot have bomb shelters everywhere. Most homes and business have shelters, so the argument that not that many Israelis have died (and therefore some will claim the response is disproportionate) is unfair and disingenuous. We have bomb shelters BECAUSE people are trying to kill us with rockets. And while a miraculous few have been killed, hundreds have been injured, many disfigured and paralyzed; a recent study found that 1 in 3 kids are suffering from PTSD.

It's important to talk about "proportionality." This has little to do with how many people have been killed or injured (this would make reprisals nothing but acts of revenge), but are based on assessments of threat. Hamas has been primarily using Kassam rockets, which aren't meant to cause widespread death and destruction, but rather are weapons of TERROR, deliberately filled with metal ball-bearings and shrapnel, with the specific goal of maiming and injuring civilians. How many children need to have legs and hands blown off before a government must act? They're now firing Grad rockets - 3 meters high! - capable of blowing the top off an apartment building, and with much more range than Kassams. IDF Home Command informed us a few days ago to take precautions as we are now in rocket range.

But believe it or not, I'm also very concerned for civilians in Gaza. They've been seriously short-changed by an evil regime that sees their deaths and suffering as nothing more than fuel in a PR campaign. Nevertheless, Israel has been doing its best to minimize civilian suffering, permitting humanitarian aid to enter Gaza on a daily basis; Israel is providing medical assistance for Gazan civilians (and paying for it since the Palestinian Authority is unwilling to pay for their medical care in Israel because they say Hamas is responsible). Israel is even informing, with phone calls and leaflets, neighbourhoods before IAF attacks. As such, the vast majority of those killed, according to the Palestinians themselves, have been members of Hamas.

Sadly, civilians are still going to be killed and injured as long as Hamas hides its forces and weapons in schools and mosques, and in crowded residential neighbourhoods (all War Crimes, incidentally).

That's the problem with fighting asymmetrical warfare with an enemy that lauds death and loathes weakness. It's almost a no-win scenario, but that doesn't mean Israel shouldn't try. The alternative would be for the government to ignore its responsibility to its own citizens, and permit constant attacks against its sovereignty. This is, obviously, unacceptable.

I'm especially disappointed in the international community that has all but ignored years of rocket attacks on Israelis, but is suddenly concerned about civilians in Gaza. Why, I ask, aren't the Gazans responsible for the government they elected? They knew full well what Hamas represented (the destruction of Israel and death of Jews everywhere - it's actually in their Charter), and voted for them anyway. Why are so many people willing to treat the Gazan Arabs like children? Isn't collective responsibility a basic principle of the democratic process? I'm responsible for the actions of my government; why aren't they? Frankly, coddling the Palestinians and absolving them of responsibility for acts of terror is condescending, if not racist.

It is well past time for Hamas to live up its obligations as a democratically elected government (this is actually arguable as the President of the PA has denounced them as usurpers, and has even blamed them for the current conflict). A democracy, despite what most in the Arab world seem to believe, means far more than simply 'a vote.' As the elected rulers of Gaza, Hamas has responsibilities under international law: first and foremost, is an obligation to respect international treaties and agreements signed by previous governments, such as the Oslo Agreement in which the PA recognized the State of Israel. Hamas has failed to fulfil this obligation. Hamas also has an obligation to secure its borders. Again, Hamas has failed to do so, permitting militants to kidnap an Israeli soldier, and allowing the firing of rockets into Israel.

Hamas had an opportunity to renounce the use of violence and agree to negotiate in good faith with Israel for normalized relations; they failed to do so and are now being brought to task. They're really a gang of well-armed thugs that have managed to elevate themselves (in part, due to Israeli and international mismanagement of terror groups and thanks to the sponsorship of the neighbourhood psycho, Iran) to real power. Think Al Capone, with heavy weapons and clan connections at every level. They're also prepared to sacrifice thousands of civilians for the cause. They truly don't care, as long as they emerge victorious in the end. And anyone who believes that "the end justifies the means" is very dangerous indeed.

The difference between me today and 20 years ago is simple. I'm now much better informed. I hope my friend will still be visiting next month. I'd like to continue this discussion over a beer, like the good old days when the world seemed much simpler.

A Comic Zoom

My latest published article, and my first in Israel, is now available in this week's issue of the Jerusalem Report.

Here's a short extract of the article from Issue 16, November 24, 2008 of The Jerusalem Report.

You won't find caped crusaders or masked superheroes in any of these comic books. Instead, Miriam Libicki's "jobnik!" chronicles her day-to-day life in the Israeli army in frank, often blunt terms. Jobnik is Israeli slang for soldiers in non-combat roles. More of an illustrated diary than a comic, "jobnik!" takes us behind the heroic façade, to where soldiers wash dishes, file reports and fool around.

"I wonder if, as the no-longer-new girl here, I should warn them about Asher," ponders Libicki's comic persona, recalling a foolish fling with a base scoundrel as she escorts new recruits to the women's barracks. "But I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't just make me look bad."

Originally published as individual comics, the first six issues have recently been reworked into a single graphic novel, "jobnik! An American girl's adventures in the Israeli army," distributed by Diamond Comic Distributors, the largest distributor of comic books in North America, available at comic stores in December. Securing a distribution deal for an independently produced comic on this unlikely subject was no easy feat. "The truth is they rejected it at first," admits Libicki. "So I sent them reviews from Publisher's Weekly and, after some discussions, they finally agreed to distribute it."

You can also read an longer excerpt here. But, I think you need to go out and buy a copy.

The article is a review of Jobnik!, an autobiographical comic book by Vancouver-based Miriam Libicki. I met with her at Comics N Vegetables (the coolest comic store in the Middle East) in Tel Aviv in September. Here we are in the middle of the interview. What do you think of my professional interview shorts?