Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Israel. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Israel. Mostrar todas las entradas

miércoles, junio 27, 2007

Los "progresistas" británicos... muestran sus preferencias

The call for a boycott against Israeli academicians by the British University and College Union (UCU) reflects the depths to which vicious hostility against Israel has become ingrained in British society.

It is an abomination for "educators," purporting to be liberal or progressive, to sanction a dastardly resolution boycotting academics from the only democratic state in the Middle East. It is especially bizarre because Israeli universities are pluralistic with no limitations on the enrolment of Israeli Arab students. In stark contrast, many Palestinian Arab "universities" promote a cult of death, suicide bombers and the destruction of the Jewish state.

It may be politically incorrect to describe such boycotts as anti-Semitic rather than anti-Israel. But the time has now surely come to call a spade a spade.

To demonize Israel while ignoring the brutal denial of human rights in Islamic states - with 400,000 murdered in Darfur alone - does not merely reflect distorted double standards. Notwithstanding the high proportion of turncoat Jews among boycott proponents (and even ex-Israelis), by any benchmark this must be deemed an anti-Semitic act.

The noxious atmosphere radiating venom against Israel is now so intense that it is reminiscent of what European Jews must have endured in the 1930s when they were transformed into pariahs.

Whereas the early Nazi anti-Jewish boycott initiatives were against Jewish enterprises, today these activities are directed against the surrogate of the Jewish people, the Jewish state. Of course Jews in England are not about to be herded into concentration camps. But there are undoubtedly other ominous similarities.

It is noteworthy that in the 1930s, liberals and the Left defended Jews against the Nazis. Yet today they are leading the pack against Israel and align themselves with the darkest forces of fundamentalist Islam who proudly proclaim their intent to fulfill the Nazi objective of annihilating Jews and their institutions.

The nightmare is heightened when even many of those who recognize the potency of the Islamic threat to Britain's open society blame these Islamic excesses on Israel. In their distorted world view, had Israel not been created, Muslims would not have been humiliated and the rage against the West would not have eventuated. The extent of the grotesque distortion of reality is reflected in opinion polls which demonstrate that the average Briton has been brainwashed into believing that Israel represents the greatest threat to world peace, even exceeding Iran.

Of course, much responsibility for this negative climate rests with successive Israeli governments which failed to grapple with the war of ideas or provide guidance to Diaspora Jewish communities. The cynical outbursts of failed politicians like Avrum Burg who demonize their own country and the utilization of Israeli universities as launching pads for anti-Israeli activity by extremist post- Zionist academics also contributed toward the delegitimization of the Jewish state.

However, all this does not invalidate the obligation of Anglo Jewry to defend itself.

On previous occasions I expressed concern about the passivity of those Anglo-Jewish leaders who, as an act of faith, rely unduly on silent diplomacy and maintain a low profile out of a concern not to rock the boat.

The impotence of their proclaimed policy of "whispering" rather than "shouting" in response to anti-Semitic acts and delegitimization of Israel is exemplified by the recent painful debates over whether to hold public activities on the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War lest it provoke the enemy, and Jewish inclinations to hold protest meetings in closed areas.

Such attitudes have resulted in Anglo-Jewish leaders frequently being depicted as "trembling Israelites." Their behavior contrasts starkly with the French Jewish leaders who displayed courage and determination in the face of anti-Semitism.

The core of the problem is that many British Jewish leaders remain in denial and either downplay or refuse to face the reality of the waves of anti-Semitism - disguised as anti- Zionism - which are engulfing them. This was reflected at the annual president's banquet of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. At a time of profound crisis in Israel, with anti-Semitism at an all time high in England, I was reliably informed that the address by board president Henry Grunwald centered on the obligation of Anglo-Jewry to protest against the infringement of human rights in Darfur.

Of course what is happening at Darfur is an outrage to humanity to which Jews must be especially sensitive. But for a Jewish leader to refer at such an occasion almost exclusively to Darfur, virtually ignoring the fires that are burning in the Jewish world and the existential threats facing Israel, says it all.

In the wake of the reprehensible boycott resolution, the Board of Deputies stands exposed in all its nakedness. There is of course no guarantee that tougher counter action would necessarily have prevented the passage of the resolution. But we will never know, because Anglo-Jewish leaders relied principally on back channels to combat the resolution and were shocked when it was carried. Now they have launched a campaign to reverse the decision.

After the passage of such an abominable resolution, one would surely have expected every Jewish leader, every rabbi, and every activist, to stand up and express anger and disgust against such a moral outrage. Instead we heard expressions of regret, and reasoned academic responses. What were lacking were outpourings of moral indignation that such a biased and evil resolution could have been incubated by educators in the birthplace of democracy.

Of course there are voices of protest. Melanie Phillips the courageous journalist and author of the acclaimed Londonistan is having a major impact. Ronnie Fraser has been conducting a tough uphill campaign on behalf of Academic Friends of Israel. Andrew Balcombe, the chairman of the British Zionist Federation, in an interview with the BBC accused the UK of being the most anti-Semitic country in Europe. Many rank and file British Jews are willing to confront the anti-Semites but are being deterred by "leaders" who insist that strident protest activities are counterproductive.Perhaps the time has come for British Jews to bypass their timid representatives and initiate action independently.

The greatest negative fallout from the passivity of Anglo Jews is not that anti-Semitism will grow - which it undoubtedly will. It is the impact that such cowardly behavior will have on future generations of British Jews. What can one expect in the years to come from today's youngsters who see their parents and leaders fail to confront those who demonize Israel and the Jewish people? If the official leadership of Anglo-Jewry does not change its attitude, the current malaise may only represent the tip of the iceberg.

The writer chairs the Diaspora-Israel Relations Committee of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs and is a veteran international Jewish leader.
ileibler@netvision.net.il

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1182409638498&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

miércoles, junio 20, 2007

Gaza

Palestinian comment: Gaza coup will bring Islamization

Palestinian Walid Salem offers this projection of events. His prediction that Hamas will attempt to Islamize Egypt is alarming. It is interesting in view of persistent reports that Egypt will support the Hamas in order to combat Al-Qaeda. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Both sides will try to use each other. As he points out, Hamas will probably make order in Gaza, providing some benefit to the average citizens. This is, in fact already beginning to happen according to reports.

(Leer más en: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZNN/message/865)

jueves, mayo 03, 2007

Gaza, Hamas y Al Fatah ¿Qué hacer?

Gaza, Hamas and Fatah - What to do?

Posted by: "Ami Isseroff" ami-iss@013.net ami_iss

Wed May 2, 2007 5:05 pm (PST)

Coming soon - The role of Media in the Israeli-Hezbollah War
Gaza, Hamas and Fatah - What to do?
02.05. 2007
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000380.html
Original content copyright by the author
Zionism & Israel Center http://zionism-israel.com

There were some expected, and some unexpected, reactions to the article about Gaza Strategy. Since
each reader who writes probably represents many more who do not, we should deal with some of these
reactions.

Let's try to remember what this was really about: whether or not Israel should invade Gaza to stop
terrorist activity from there, and what we might gain from it. The conclusion was, that we would not
gain anything. I did not see any reaction that presented a real world argument about what might be
gained by an Israeli incursion into Gaza. Since I wrote the article, there was yet another article,
this time quoting Chief of Staff Ashkenazi, claiming that an Israeli incursion in Gaza is
"inevitable.". Ashkenazi wants an invasion that will "clean out" the terrorists. In his imagination,
this might be a quick operation. This is clearly a fantasy, unless he intends to denude Gaza of
every male over the age of 15. The following quote is perhaps significant:

At the same time, Ashkenazi said a permanent presence in Gaza - with IDF outposts and pillboxes -
was not the answer, since these would then only become targets. He reminded the ministers that there
were frequent attacks on Israel from Gaza even when the IDF was well ensconced inside the Gaza
Strip.

That is quite true. If so, what could be accomplished by a raid such as the one he contemplates? Any
"clean up" that the IDF might do, would be annulled in a month, and the terrorists would be back in
force.

One reader did present a "solution." I am ashamed to write about it. I am ashamed that Jews and
Zionists could think that way. But ideas like these have been circulating on the Web and we need to
explain why they are not carried out, to all those people who think that the solution is at hand,
and is not adopted because Israeli leaders are weak or "traitors" perhaps. What was proposed was
massive retaliation and collective punishment: destroy large areas of civilian dwellings in Gaza for
every rocket. Even the Reichswehr did not go quite that far in World War I. It is the sort of thing
Saddam Hussein might do. The IDF does not do such things, and it is well that they do not. Zionists
and Jews do not do such things. Those who cannot understand the moral implications, should consider
the practical ones. Every time the IDF has damaged property in Gaza, even unintentionally, even on a
relatively minor scale, it provoked a huge outcry and UN resolutions manufactured by Mr. John Dugard
and his friends. It doesn't require any imagination to understand that this policy would bring down
the condemnation of the world upon us. The first time we did it, the Hamas would gain the support of
the world community, the embargo on the Palestinian government would be lifted, and the Fatah and
the Hamas would join in the cause of fighting the "Zionist enemy" in earnest, backed by supplies
that would flow in abundance through the sieve of the Rafiah crossing. If we were to continue in
such a policy, we might find that we were the ones being invaded and occupied, and our leaders might
be tried like Saddam Hussein and his cronies. That may not seem "fair" to some people, but it is a
realistic appraisal of what would be likely to happen. Remember that in general, a major reason why
Israeli military action in Gaza cannot be effective is that it would be limited by US and EU
pressures. They certainly would not allow Israel to carry out war crimes such as those suggested,
which would have no strategic objective. In any case, it is not 1864 any more, and we can't do what
William Tecumseh Sherman did in Georgia.

The second set of objections revolved around the question of "is Fatah different from Hamas?" This
question is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not to invade, and therefore it will be treated in
a separate article. It arose only because I wrote what almost everyone takes for granted, that with
the passage of time, the Palestinian people will find that the Hamas are worse than the Fatah, and
will return the Fatah to power. If the invasion of Gaza were so beneficial in stopping terror, it
would gut the Hamas, and that theoretically would hasten the return of the Fatah. But we know that
would not happen anyhow. An invasion will strengthen the Hamas, because like the Hezbollah they
would survive, and like the Hezbollah, even if there were only ten of them left at the end, they
could claim "victory" and recruit new followers very quickly.

Ami Isseroff