243 North American Immigrants Arrive in Israel
Thursday, August 10, 2006 / 16 Av 5766
The first chartered plane of a record-setting week of Western Aliyah arrived in Israel Thursday, with not a single one of the 243 immigrants signed up backing out or postponing due to the war.
The plane touched down and pulled alongside a special hangar near Ben Gurion Airport’s Terminal 1, where the new immigrants were greeted by hundreds of well wishers, family, friends, IDF soldiers, Public Security Minister Avi Dichter and prominent American Aliyah supporter Rabbi Hershel Schachter.
The flight was the 18th chartered flight of immigrants organized by the Nefesh b’Nefesh Aliyah assistance organization, together with the Jewish Agency.
“A few months ago, 243 people registered to be a part of this flight today,” Nefesh b’Nefesh co-founder Rabbi Yehoshua Fass said. “They listened to the news and watched the scenes of war on television. But today, that plane landed with 243 olim (immigrants to Israel). We asked G-d to comfort the Jewish people on [the fast of] Tisha B’av last week. Not one person cancelled, and it brings great comfort to all of Israel.”
At every welcoming ceremony, one of the arriving families takes the stage and receives their Aliyah identity card, holding it up and saying a few words. Wednesday, as people awoke to the news of 15 fallen reservists in battles in Lebanon, Harold Sternlicht, one of the new immigrants said: “For many years people have come to Israel running away from things – the Holocaust, persecution. Today we are running to Israel!”
The audience of new and veteran olim cheered and IDF soldiers who had been brought to the ceremony to greet the arrivals looked on in awe. “This is extremely emotional,” said Rachel, who added that when Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah turns on his television and sees the new arrivals, “he will see that the nation of Israel is stronger than he ever imagined.”
Judy, another soldier, herself came on Aliyah from Los Angeles almost two years ago. She has been in the IDF for a year, in a soldier/teacher program working with underprivileged kids. She says that the sight of crowds of new immigrants reminds her of why she chose to make Israel her home.
Kim Richardson, 21, is arriving from Poughkeepsie, New York. She is joining her sister, Jen, who moved to Israel two years ago. Both sisters say they never thought about moving to Israel while growing up, but attended a program called Netiv their freshman year of college, during which they worked on Kibbutz Saad, studied at Hebrew University and fell in love with the Jewish state.
“The hair stylist I went to before I boarded the plane yesterday understood why I decided to move here the best,” Kim said. “His name was Hugo, and he told me, ‘It’s all about your generation – you can change the world.’”
Friday, August 11, 2006
Brigitte Gabriel, a Christian Lebanese, speaking for Israel (October 2004)
Remarks of Brigitte Gabriel, delivered at the Duke University Counter Terrorism Speak-Out held Thursday, October 14, 2004
I'm proud and honoured to stand here today, as a Lebanese speaking for Israel , the only democracy in the Middle East . As someone who was raised in an Arabic country, I want to give you a glimpse into the heart of the Arabic world.
I was raised in Lebanon , where I was taught that the Jews were evil, Israel was the devil, and the only time we will have peace in the Middle East is when we kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea.
When the Moslems and Palestinians declared Jihad on the Christians in 1975, they started massacring the Christians, city after city. I ended up living in a bomb shelter underground from age 10 to 17, without electricity, eating grass to live, and crawling under sniper bullets to a spring to get water.
It was Israel who came to help the Christians in Lebanon . My mother was wounded by a Moslem's shell, and was taken into an Israeli hospital for treatment. When we entered the emergency room, I was shocked at what I saw. There were hundreds of people wounded, Moslems, Palestinians, Christians, Lebanese, and Israeli soldiers lying on the floor. The doctors treated everyone according to their injury. They treated my mother before they treated the Israeli soldier lying next to her. They didn't see religion, they didn't see political affiliation, they saw people in need and they helped.
For the first time in my life I experienced a human quality that I know my culture would not have shown to their enemy. I experienced the values of the Israelis, who were able to love their enemy in their most trying moments. I spent 22 days at that hospital. Those days changed my life and the way I believe information, the way I listen to the radio or to television. I realized I was sold a fabricated lie by my government, about the Jews and Israel , that was so far from reality. I knew for fact that, if I was a Jew standing in an Arab hospital, I would be lynched and thrown over to the grounds, as shouts of joy of Allah Akbar, God is great, would echo through the hospital and the surrounding streets.
I became friends with the families of the Israeli wounded soldiers: one in particular Rina, her only child was wounded in his eyes.
One day I was visiting with her, and the Israeli army band came to play national songs to lift the spirits of the wounded soldiers. As they surrounded his bed playing a song about Jerusalem , Rina and I started crying. I felt out of place and started waking out of the room, and this mother holds my hand and pulls me back in without even looking at me.She holds me crying and says: "it is not your fault". We just stood there crying, holding each other's hands.
What a contrast between her, a mother looking at her deformed 19 year old only child, and still able to love me the enemy, and between a Moslem mother who sends her son to blow himself up to smithereens just to kill a few Jews or Christians.
The difference between the Arabic world and Israel is a difference in values and character. It's barbarism verses civilization. It's democracy verses dictatorship. It's goodness versus evil.
Once upon a time, there was a special place in the lowest depths of hell for anyone who would intentionally murder a child. Now, the intentional murder of Israeli children is legitimized as Palestinian "armed struggle".
However, once such behaviour is legitimized against Israel, it is legitimized everywhere in the world, constrained by nothing more than the subjective belief of people who would wrap themselves in dynamite and nails for the purpose of killing children in the name of God.
Because the Palestinians have been encouraged to believe that murdering innocent Israeli civilians is a legitimate tactic for advancing their cause, the whole world now suffers from a plague of terrorism, from Nairobi to New York , from Moscow to Madrid , from Bali to Beslan.
They blame suicide bombing on "desperation of occupation". Let me tell you the truth. The first major terror bombing committed by Arabs against the Jewish state occurred ten weeks before Israel even became independent.On Sunday morning, February 22, 1948 , in anticipation of Israel 's independence, a triple truck bomb was detonated by Arab terrorists on Ben Yehuda Street, in what was then the Jewish section of Jerusalem. Fifty-four people were killed, and hundreds were wounded. Thus, it is obvious that Arab terrorism is caused not by the "desperation" of "occupation", but by the VERY THOUGHT of a Jewish state.
So many times in history in the last 100 years, citizens have stood by and done nothing, allowing evil to prevail. As America stood up against and defeated communism, now it is time to stand up against the terror of religious bigotry and intolerance. It's time for all stand up, and support and defend the state of Israel , which is the front line of the war against terrorism.
For more about Brigitte Gabriel and the American Congress for Truth, go to
http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/
I'm proud and honoured to stand here today, as a Lebanese speaking for Israel , the only democracy in the Middle East . As someone who was raised in an Arabic country, I want to give you a glimpse into the heart of the Arabic world.
I was raised in Lebanon , where I was taught that the Jews were evil, Israel was the devil, and the only time we will have peace in the Middle East is when we kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea.
When the Moslems and Palestinians declared Jihad on the Christians in 1975, they started massacring the Christians, city after city. I ended up living in a bomb shelter underground from age 10 to 17, without electricity, eating grass to live, and crawling under sniper bullets to a spring to get water.
It was Israel who came to help the Christians in Lebanon . My mother was wounded by a Moslem's shell, and was taken into an Israeli hospital for treatment. When we entered the emergency room, I was shocked at what I saw. There were hundreds of people wounded, Moslems, Palestinians, Christians, Lebanese, and Israeli soldiers lying on the floor. The doctors treated everyone according to their injury. They treated my mother before they treated the Israeli soldier lying next to her. They didn't see religion, they didn't see political affiliation, they saw people in need and they helped.
For the first time in my life I experienced a human quality that I know my culture would not have shown to their enemy. I experienced the values of the Israelis, who were able to love their enemy in their most trying moments. I spent 22 days at that hospital. Those days changed my life and the way I believe information, the way I listen to the radio or to television. I realized I was sold a fabricated lie by my government, about the Jews and Israel , that was so far from reality. I knew for fact that, if I was a Jew standing in an Arab hospital, I would be lynched and thrown over to the grounds, as shouts of joy of Allah Akbar, God is great, would echo through the hospital and the surrounding streets.
I became friends with the families of the Israeli wounded soldiers: one in particular Rina, her only child was wounded in his eyes.
One day I was visiting with her, and the Israeli army band came to play national songs to lift the spirits of the wounded soldiers. As they surrounded his bed playing a song about Jerusalem , Rina and I started crying. I felt out of place and started waking out of the room, and this mother holds my hand and pulls me back in without even looking at me.She holds me crying and says: "it is not your fault". We just stood there crying, holding each other's hands.
What a contrast between her, a mother looking at her deformed 19 year old only child, and still able to love me the enemy, and between a Moslem mother who sends her son to blow himself up to smithereens just to kill a few Jews or Christians.
The difference between the Arabic world and Israel is a difference in values and character. It's barbarism verses civilization. It's democracy verses dictatorship. It's goodness versus evil.
Once upon a time, there was a special place in the lowest depths of hell for anyone who would intentionally murder a child. Now, the intentional murder of Israeli children is legitimized as Palestinian "armed struggle".
However, once such behaviour is legitimized against Israel, it is legitimized everywhere in the world, constrained by nothing more than the subjective belief of people who would wrap themselves in dynamite and nails for the purpose of killing children in the name of God.
Because the Palestinians have been encouraged to believe that murdering innocent Israeli civilians is a legitimate tactic for advancing their cause, the whole world now suffers from a plague of terrorism, from Nairobi to New York , from Moscow to Madrid , from Bali to Beslan.
They blame suicide bombing on "desperation of occupation". Let me tell you the truth. The first major terror bombing committed by Arabs against the Jewish state occurred ten weeks before Israel even became independent.On Sunday morning, February 22, 1948 , in anticipation of Israel 's independence, a triple truck bomb was detonated by Arab terrorists on Ben Yehuda Street, in what was then the Jewish section of Jerusalem. Fifty-four people were killed, and hundreds were wounded. Thus, it is obvious that Arab terrorism is caused not by the "desperation" of "occupation", but by the VERY THOUGHT of a Jewish state.
So many times in history in the last 100 years, citizens have stood by and done nothing, allowing evil to prevail. As America stood up against and defeated communism, now it is time to stand up against the terror of religious bigotry and intolerance. It's time for all stand up, and support and defend the state of Israel , which is the front line of the war against terrorism.
For more about Brigitte Gabriel and the American Congress for Truth, go to
http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/
A personal note to my readers
Jerusalem, August 11, 2006
Dear Readers of the Daisyima Blog
You will have noticed that in the last few days, less and less material has been put on this blog. Not because there isn't any material, but because I have reached the point in my professional life where I must return to the business of providing my clients (one of whom has been called up and is up North, together with one of our lawyers...) with the work that they have entrusted to me.
Although putting material on a blog is not a particularly time-consuming activity, it does take a while, and I will therefore not be doing much of it for a while.
Which in a sense is a good thing - it shows that life is going on.
But unfortunately, so is the war.
And whatever the final outcome, what is clear is that both the Lebanese and the Israeli peoples are definitely losers in this local version of the global struggle between different outlooks or Weltanschauungen.
As has been said famously, after war, war comes jaw, jaw.
And often it would have been better to pass on the first part.
So for the moment, as the Katyushas in the North (and doubtless the Qassams in the South) continue to fall, Daisy Ima is going back to work.
With one important update:
Daisy had her nails clipped on Tuesday. They were clipped by Sandy, whom Daisy doesn't know (well, she didn't till then). We walked over to Beit Hakerem, via Gan Sacher and the Rose Garden, and we handed Daisy over to Sandy at the vet's where she works on Tuesdays, and then David and I went outside. About five minutes later, Daisy was done - and no fuss, no shrieks, no hassle.
And all for 10 shekels.
The walk was lovely, the nails are great, and our dog is adorable.
Some things are going well in the country.
Daisy's nails have been done without any hassle.
David and Ruth, aka Daisyima, are indeed privileged.
May the suffering of those residents of this country directly and less directly affected by this still-more-or-less-undeclared (!) war come to an end.
This is not a war that should have been started; this is not a war that can be won. This may be a just war, but as they say in Hebrew:
Don't be right - be smart...
(Incidentally, do you know that apparently President Bush has not spoken once to Prime Minister Olmert since this began?!)
Dear Readers of the Daisyima Blog
You will have noticed that in the last few days, less and less material has been put on this blog. Not because there isn't any material, but because I have reached the point in my professional life where I must return to the business of providing my clients (one of whom has been called up and is up North, together with one of our lawyers...) with the work that they have entrusted to me.
Although putting material on a blog is not a particularly time-consuming activity, it does take a while, and I will therefore not be doing much of it for a while.
Which in a sense is a good thing - it shows that life is going on.
But unfortunately, so is the war.
And whatever the final outcome, what is clear is that both the Lebanese and the Israeli peoples are definitely losers in this local version of the global struggle between different outlooks or Weltanschauungen.
As has been said famously, after war, war comes jaw, jaw.
And often it would have been better to pass on the first part.
So for the moment, as the Katyushas in the North (and doubtless the Qassams in the South) continue to fall, Daisy Ima is going back to work.
With one important update:
Daisy had her nails clipped on Tuesday. They were clipped by Sandy, whom Daisy doesn't know (well, she didn't till then). We walked over to Beit Hakerem, via Gan Sacher and the Rose Garden, and we handed Daisy over to Sandy at the vet's where she works on Tuesdays, and then David and I went outside. About five minutes later, Daisy was done - and no fuss, no shrieks, no hassle.
And all for 10 shekels.
The walk was lovely, the nails are great, and our dog is adorable.
Some things are going well in the country.
Daisy's nails have been done without any hassle.
David and Ruth, aka Daisyima, are indeed privileged.
May the suffering of those residents of this country directly and less directly affected by this still-more-or-less-undeclared (!) war come to an end.
This is not a war that should have been started; this is not a war that can be won. This may be a just war, but as they say in Hebrew:
Don't be right - be smart...
(Incidentally, do you know that apparently President Bush has not spoken once to Prime Minister Olmert since this began?!)
Prominent authors to PM: Accept ceasefire plan
Prominent authors to PM: Accept ceasefire plan
Yediot Ahronot (Ynet), Friday, August 11, 2006
David Grossman, A.B. Yehoshua and Amos Oz urge government to accept ceasefire plan as basis for talks. Oz: The idea of defeating the ‘Axis of Evil,’ creating a ‘new Middle East’ and changing the face of Lebanon seems delusional to us
Meirav Yudelovitch
Just a few days after they called on the Israeli government to agree to an immediate ceasefire with Hizbullah, authors David Grossman, A.B. Yehoshua and Amos Oz held a joint press conference on Thursday in which they urged Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to accept Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s 7-point plan as a basis for negotiations.
"Israel is making a serious effort to reach a ceasefire,” Yehoshua said. “We were at the Litani River twice and we have no desire to return. The entrance to Lebanon was forced upon us and the IDF’s retaliation was justified, but now that there’s a response from Lebanon, when there is a willingness and a possibility for the deployment of Lebanese troops in the south instead of Hizbullah, we cannot miss the opportunity."
Yehoshua said Israel must resume talks with the Palestinians especially when the fighting in Lebanon rages on.
'Restrain evil forces'
Oz spoke vehemently against what he referred to as “radical and militant Islam,” and pointed an accusatory finger at Iran.
“This war is the result of Iran’s attempt, through Hizbullah, to see whether it can topple Israeli society by ever-increasing provocations,” he said.
“The idea of defeating the ‘Axis of Evil,’ creating a ‘new Middle East’ and changing the face of Lebanon seems delusional to us.”
Oz said Siniora’s plan abides by Israeli demands and should therefore be accepted.
“Israel must get back to a less pretentious goal and act to restrain the evil forces of the world, not try and crush them,” he said.
David Grossman, for his part, contends that Israel has long since exhausted its right to self-defense.
“The claim that IDF presence along the Litani River will prevent rocket fire at Israel is false,” he said. Hizbullah wants us to enter deeper and deeper into the Lebanese ‘swamp’; should the current conflict continue Lebanon will collapse, chaos will ensue and Hizbullah will take over. This disastrous scenario can be prevented right now.”
Yediot Ahronot (Ynet), Friday, August 11, 2006
David Grossman, A.B. Yehoshua and Amos Oz urge government to accept ceasefire plan as basis for talks. Oz: The idea of defeating the ‘Axis of Evil,’ creating a ‘new Middle East’ and changing the face of Lebanon seems delusional to us
Meirav Yudelovitch
Just a few days after they called on the Israeli government to agree to an immediate ceasefire with Hizbullah, authors David Grossman, A.B. Yehoshua and Amos Oz held a joint press conference on Thursday in which they urged Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to accept Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s 7-point plan as a basis for negotiations.
"Israel is making a serious effort to reach a ceasefire,” Yehoshua said. “We were at the Litani River twice and we have no desire to return. The entrance to Lebanon was forced upon us and the IDF’s retaliation was justified, but now that there’s a response from Lebanon, when there is a willingness and a possibility for the deployment of Lebanese troops in the south instead of Hizbullah, we cannot miss the opportunity."
Yehoshua said Israel must resume talks with the Palestinians especially when the fighting in Lebanon rages on.
'Restrain evil forces'
Oz spoke vehemently against what he referred to as “radical and militant Islam,” and pointed an accusatory finger at Iran.
“This war is the result of Iran’s attempt, through Hizbullah, to see whether it can topple Israeli society by ever-increasing provocations,” he said.
“The idea of defeating the ‘Axis of Evil,’ creating a ‘new Middle East’ and changing the face of Lebanon seems delusional to us.”
Oz said Siniora’s plan abides by Israeli demands and should therefore be accepted.
“Israel must get back to a less pretentious goal and act to restrain the evil forces of the world, not try and crush them,” he said.
David Grossman, for his part, contends that Israel has long since exhausted its right to self-defense.
“The claim that IDF presence along the Litani River will prevent rocket fire at Israel is false,” he said. Hizbullah wants us to enter deeper and deeper into the Lebanese ‘swamp’; should the current conflict continue Lebanon will collapse, chaos will ensue and Hizbullah will take over. This disastrous scenario can be prevented right now.”
Between cholera and the plague
Between cholera and the plague
Ha'aretz, Editorial, Friday, August 11, 2006
By Akiva Eldar
Much has been said and written about the idyllic relationship between Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz. And indeed, the two arrived at yesterday's cabinet meeting hand in hand, having identical interests and suffering similar pressures. The prime minister and the defense minister, the leaders of the two biggest parties, both need an unequivocal victory in this war to the same extent. They both have the same fear of receiving a grade of "barely satisfactory" on the final exam that has suddenly landed on their heads during their first year of political science studies. Both of them have wives at home who would be happy to hear on the radio that the cabinet had voted against sending Israel Defense Forces soldiers into the inferno.
Nevertheless, there is a significant difference between these two politicians, who will apparently meet, sooner or later, on opposing sides of the ballot box. There are those in their intimate circles who are already wagering that it will be sooner rather than later. The war in the north has put an end to the slight chance left by the conflict in the south for the unilateral convergence plan - the only glue that holds the government together.
The grade given to the defense minister is calculated first and foremost by the relationship between the quantity of rocket launchers and the number of Hezbollah fighters that the IDF destroys, on one hand, and the quantity of missiles that turn the Galilee into a scorched ghost town and the number of civilians and soldiers killed in the war, on the other. The prime minister's grade also, and perhaps primarily, depends on the war's diplomatic outcome and its long-term implications.
Confidants who have spoken with Olmert in the past few days received the impression that he is well aware of the danger that the situation on the ground on the day after a second unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon will be similar to the situation in the territories on the day after the first disengagement from the Gaza Strip. That is to say, instead of a weak secular government with pro-western leanings, we will get an Islamic regime under strong Iranian influence in Lebanon. According to Olmert's own statements, he regards Hezbollah as the object that sprays the missiles, Syria as the pipeline and Iran as the main faucet.
The prime minister entered the cabinet meeting after having been told that an expanded offensive, even if it were to end with a result that could be considered a "victory," might throw the baby out with the bath water. The baby in this case is the Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora. Both the Americans, who were so proud of the democratic process that brought Siniora to power, and Israeli analysts believe that if the IDF expands its military operation to the Litani River and perhaps even beyond, Siniora will not be the only one who will be left crying. They warned that an "achievement" of this kind would lead to the dissolution of the Lebanese government, which is very shaky in any case. According to the constitution, the governing authority would then be put in the hands of President Emile Lahoud, one of the politicians who is closest to Syria and Hezbollah. Another "victory" of this kind and Olmert will lose power completely.
These differences may explain why the "left-wing" Peretz is eager to pursue the military option while the "Likudnik" Olmert wavers over whether to pursue diplomatic moves. From his talks yesterday with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Peretz decided that the media should receive the following message: "Israel will not agree to a diplomatic solution that does not ensure stability and quiet for many years." Not a word about Siniora's proposal to deploy the Lebanese Army in the south, backed by an international force. Olmert actually said that this is in fact the original objective of UN Resolution 1559, which Israel and the international community are saying should be implemented. The prime minister even went so far as to describe the proposal as "interesting."
This time, Olmert did not shoot from the hip. Every word of his was not only well thought out, but also coordinated with the American administration. Since the Americans are also coordinating with Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister's proposal did not hit the Israeli prime minister out of the blue. For that same reason, Olmert's response did not surprise Siniora. The Lebanese prime minister also did not fall off his chair when he heard Israel's reservations about the Lebanese government's proposal to forgo a strong international force in favor of an "upgraded" UNIFIL force. Siniora would not only have been surprised, he would have been very disappointed if Olmert had welcomed the compromise proposal worked out between him and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Siniora understands better than anyone else why Nasrallah prefers to have UNIFIL peacekeepers watching Hezbollah rather than an international force with a broad mandate from the UN Security Council. For exactly the same reason, Siniora opposes this suggestion.
The situation assessment given the prime minister before the cabinet session also included Russia and China, which are prepared to fight the Americans and the British to the last drop of Israeli and Lebanese blood. A broad Israeli military offensive that leads to the downfall of the Lebanese government would help the Russians and Chinese bury Resolution 1559, which deals mainly with the Lebanese government's imposition of sovereignty in the south of the country. A Russian-Chinese veto could kill the international force while it is still in the Security Council's womb. Without a determined decision by the international community to send a strong force to Lebanon, the last obstacle to Iran's acquisition of control over Israel's northern neighbor will have been removed. Without Syrian cooperation in the attempt to change the course of events in the region, no power in the world will be able to block the weapons pipeline from Iran to Lebanon. Those smuggling arms from Syria will not have to sweat like their brothers in the Gaza Strip. Their tunnels will be dug by bulldozers manufactured in 2006.
The result of this whole mess is that an incursion deep into Lebanon will leave Israel with a choice between cholera and the plague, between sitting for a prolonged period in fortified positions in the killing fields around the Litani or abandoning the whole of Lebanon to the hands of the war coalition of Hezbollah-Syria-Iran. Olmert's problem was that, at this stage, after more than 100 dead and 3,000 missiles, the decision to refrain from a massive ground forces incursion was also not like the choice between a vacation in Tuscany or a trip to Provence. Its price tag included an agreement in principle to give up the Shaba Farms, which, even if they were formally handed over to Siniora, would be chalked up as a victory for Mr. Nasrallah. And if Olmert abides by his word "to do everything" to bring the abducted soldiers home, he will be forced to hand over Lebanese prisoners to Hezbollah.
Had he chosen this route, Peace Now, which has only now awakened from its summer slumber, would have cheered him on. But according to the latest Peace Index poll, the vast majority wants "victory" - no matter what the cost. Olmert from Kadima and Peretz from Labor have given them what they want.
Ha'aretz, Editorial, Friday, August 11, 2006
By Akiva Eldar
Much has been said and written about the idyllic relationship between Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz. And indeed, the two arrived at yesterday's cabinet meeting hand in hand, having identical interests and suffering similar pressures. The prime minister and the defense minister, the leaders of the two biggest parties, both need an unequivocal victory in this war to the same extent. They both have the same fear of receiving a grade of "barely satisfactory" on the final exam that has suddenly landed on their heads during their first year of political science studies. Both of them have wives at home who would be happy to hear on the radio that the cabinet had voted against sending Israel Defense Forces soldiers into the inferno.
Nevertheless, there is a significant difference between these two politicians, who will apparently meet, sooner or later, on opposing sides of the ballot box. There are those in their intimate circles who are already wagering that it will be sooner rather than later. The war in the north has put an end to the slight chance left by the conflict in the south for the unilateral convergence plan - the only glue that holds the government together.
The grade given to the defense minister is calculated first and foremost by the relationship between the quantity of rocket launchers and the number of Hezbollah fighters that the IDF destroys, on one hand, and the quantity of missiles that turn the Galilee into a scorched ghost town and the number of civilians and soldiers killed in the war, on the other. The prime minister's grade also, and perhaps primarily, depends on the war's diplomatic outcome and its long-term implications.
Confidants who have spoken with Olmert in the past few days received the impression that he is well aware of the danger that the situation on the ground on the day after a second unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon will be similar to the situation in the territories on the day after the first disengagement from the Gaza Strip. That is to say, instead of a weak secular government with pro-western leanings, we will get an Islamic regime under strong Iranian influence in Lebanon. According to Olmert's own statements, he regards Hezbollah as the object that sprays the missiles, Syria as the pipeline and Iran as the main faucet.
The prime minister entered the cabinet meeting after having been told that an expanded offensive, even if it were to end with a result that could be considered a "victory," might throw the baby out with the bath water. The baby in this case is the Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora. Both the Americans, who were so proud of the democratic process that brought Siniora to power, and Israeli analysts believe that if the IDF expands its military operation to the Litani River and perhaps even beyond, Siniora will not be the only one who will be left crying. They warned that an "achievement" of this kind would lead to the dissolution of the Lebanese government, which is very shaky in any case. According to the constitution, the governing authority would then be put in the hands of President Emile Lahoud, one of the politicians who is closest to Syria and Hezbollah. Another "victory" of this kind and Olmert will lose power completely.
These differences may explain why the "left-wing" Peretz is eager to pursue the military option while the "Likudnik" Olmert wavers over whether to pursue diplomatic moves. From his talks yesterday with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Peretz decided that the media should receive the following message: "Israel will not agree to a diplomatic solution that does not ensure stability and quiet for many years." Not a word about Siniora's proposal to deploy the Lebanese Army in the south, backed by an international force. Olmert actually said that this is in fact the original objective of UN Resolution 1559, which Israel and the international community are saying should be implemented. The prime minister even went so far as to describe the proposal as "interesting."
This time, Olmert did not shoot from the hip. Every word of his was not only well thought out, but also coordinated with the American administration. Since the Americans are also coordinating with Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister's proposal did not hit the Israeli prime minister out of the blue. For that same reason, Olmert's response did not surprise Siniora. The Lebanese prime minister also did not fall off his chair when he heard Israel's reservations about the Lebanese government's proposal to forgo a strong international force in favor of an "upgraded" UNIFIL force. Siniora would not only have been surprised, he would have been very disappointed if Olmert had welcomed the compromise proposal worked out between him and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Siniora understands better than anyone else why Nasrallah prefers to have UNIFIL peacekeepers watching Hezbollah rather than an international force with a broad mandate from the UN Security Council. For exactly the same reason, Siniora opposes this suggestion.
The situation assessment given the prime minister before the cabinet session also included Russia and China, which are prepared to fight the Americans and the British to the last drop of Israeli and Lebanese blood. A broad Israeli military offensive that leads to the downfall of the Lebanese government would help the Russians and Chinese bury Resolution 1559, which deals mainly with the Lebanese government's imposition of sovereignty in the south of the country. A Russian-Chinese veto could kill the international force while it is still in the Security Council's womb. Without a determined decision by the international community to send a strong force to Lebanon, the last obstacle to Iran's acquisition of control over Israel's northern neighbor will have been removed. Without Syrian cooperation in the attempt to change the course of events in the region, no power in the world will be able to block the weapons pipeline from Iran to Lebanon. Those smuggling arms from Syria will not have to sweat like their brothers in the Gaza Strip. Their tunnels will be dug by bulldozers manufactured in 2006.
The result of this whole mess is that an incursion deep into Lebanon will leave Israel with a choice between cholera and the plague, between sitting for a prolonged period in fortified positions in the killing fields around the Litani or abandoning the whole of Lebanon to the hands of the war coalition of Hezbollah-Syria-Iran. Olmert's problem was that, at this stage, after more than 100 dead and 3,000 missiles, the decision to refrain from a massive ground forces incursion was also not like the choice between a vacation in Tuscany or a trip to Provence. Its price tag included an agreement in principle to give up the Shaba Farms, which, even if they were formally handed over to Siniora, would be chalked up as a victory for Mr. Nasrallah. And if Olmert abides by his word "to do everything" to bring the abducted soldiers home, he will be forced to hand over Lebanese prisoners to Hezbollah.
Had he chosen this route, Peace Now, which has only now awakened from its summer slumber, would have cheered him on. But according to the latest Peace Index poll, the vast majority wants "victory" - no matter what the cost. Olmert from Kadima and Peretz from Labor have given them what they want.
Time for truth, not spin
It's time for truth, not spin
Ha'aretz, Friday, August11, 2006
By Ari Shavit
First there was the aerial spin. We'll attack, we'll bomb, we'll grind them into the dust. The superiority of our planes will bring down the enemy, the precise weapons will defeat fanatic terror. Therefore, there is no need for a ground effort, which is unpopular with the public. After all, if not today, then tonight. And if not tonight, then tomorrow. In the next sortie, by sending the right bombs into the right bunker, the battle will be won.
After that came the ground spin. It's true that we promised there would be no ground invasion, but now there is no choice. And still we hereby declare that we will not occupy; we will only conduct raids. We will enter and leave immediately. We will not repeat the old Lebanon War, but will conduct a new and innovative Lebanon war, sophisticated and cautious; after all, there is no question: Hassan Nasrallah is under pressure, pale with fright. And Maroun al-Ras has already been cleansed, and Bint Jbail is in our hands. In another moment, the Israel Defense Forces will flatten the border outposts and chalk up the amazing achievement of a renewal of the security zone. So there is no place for cowardice. There is no place for a general national draft. Soon the Hezbollah fighters in the villages emptied of their residents will be exposed, and the group will fold under the pressure. Just give us time. A few more days. Patience, and we'll win.
Then came the diplomatic spin. It's true that the aerial battle did not succeed, and the ground battle has become mired, but in the diplomatic battle, we have the upper hand. Read the headlines: Great satisfaction in Jerusalem with the Franco-American proposal. Satisfaction in the government because of the stance of U.S. President George W. Bush (who has not bothered to speak to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert even once since the beginning of the conflict). After all, why did we embark on the war, if not to ensure that French soldiers will protect Israel from the Hezbollah rocket battery. And in order to ensure that the Shaba Farms will be given to Nasrallah as a starting point for the next war. Hurray for the prime minister, who has conducted the diplomatic campaign mindlessly and looking ahead. Hurray for the foreign minister, whose appearance on the foreign networks convinced the spectators and led public opinion to side with us. Hurray to the entire cabinet, which promised to bring about a fundamental change in the Middle East situation, and has in fact done so.
At the same time, there was the civilian spin. The strong home front. The home front gives us strength, we come to the home front to strengthen and find ourselves strengthened. Therefore, there is no reason to worry about the home front; we sit with our hands folded while it is sitting in bomb shelters. After all, it was not the home front that brought us to power, but the top 1,000th percentile. And that percentile is making large profits in the stock market. That percentile is secure.
Thus we can continue to maintain calm and conduct the war weakly and complacently. After all, whatever the outcome - we will always be able to create spin around it. We will always be able to cast the blame on former prime minister Ariel Sharon, on IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, or on the head of the Northern Command Udi Adam.
No more. The culture of lies that has surrounded the war from its first day must disappear. The attempt to confront an existential challenge by means of virtual false presentations must cease. A war is not a real-estate transaction, or even an election campaign. It invites a real encounter with history, which is looking deep into our eyes.
Therefore, we can no longer postpone the internal Israeli soul searching aroused by the war until it is over. We have no choice: The post-war clarification must begin already during the course of the war. We must change things and change ourselves during the course of fighting. Because if the war continues to be conducted as it has been conducted until now, it will end badly.
A war of spin is a war that is divorced from reality, without an accurate reading of the map and without the necessary determination; a war without a goal and without a vision. Such a war cannot lead to victory.
Therefore, what is needed now is not the replacement of one officer with another. What is needed is a dramatic military step, accompanied by a sharp change in values. What is needed is a decisive counterattack, which will require a new spirit.
Yesterday's cabinet decision was a correct one, if unfocused. If the present government is capable of changing its ways from one day to the next - great. However, if it finds it difficult to do so, public pressure must be applied, which will require it to form an emergency cabinet immediately. The name of the game now is national will. Only a full enlistment of national will and all national resources will lead to a crucial national victory on the battlefield. This national will cannot be enlisted on the basis of spin, but only on the basis of truth. It can be enlisted only when the war is once again defined as a just war, which is trying to achieve just goals, and is being conducted by a truthful leadership.
Ha'aretz, Friday, August11, 2006
By Ari Shavit
First there was the aerial spin. We'll attack, we'll bomb, we'll grind them into the dust. The superiority of our planes will bring down the enemy, the precise weapons will defeat fanatic terror. Therefore, there is no need for a ground effort, which is unpopular with the public. After all, if not today, then tonight. And if not tonight, then tomorrow. In the next sortie, by sending the right bombs into the right bunker, the battle will be won.
After that came the ground spin. It's true that we promised there would be no ground invasion, but now there is no choice. And still we hereby declare that we will not occupy; we will only conduct raids. We will enter and leave immediately. We will not repeat the old Lebanon War, but will conduct a new and innovative Lebanon war, sophisticated and cautious; after all, there is no question: Hassan Nasrallah is under pressure, pale with fright. And Maroun al-Ras has already been cleansed, and Bint Jbail is in our hands. In another moment, the Israel Defense Forces will flatten the border outposts and chalk up the amazing achievement of a renewal of the security zone. So there is no place for cowardice. There is no place for a general national draft. Soon the Hezbollah fighters in the villages emptied of their residents will be exposed, and the group will fold under the pressure. Just give us time. A few more days. Patience, and we'll win.
Then came the diplomatic spin. It's true that the aerial battle did not succeed, and the ground battle has become mired, but in the diplomatic battle, we have the upper hand. Read the headlines: Great satisfaction in Jerusalem with the Franco-American proposal. Satisfaction in the government because of the stance of U.S. President George W. Bush (who has not bothered to speak to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert even once since the beginning of the conflict). After all, why did we embark on the war, if not to ensure that French soldiers will protect Israel from the Hezbollah rocket battery. And in order to ensure that the Shaba Farms will be given to Nasrallah as a starting point for the next war. Hurray for the prime minister, who has conducted the diplomatic campaign mindlessly and looking ahead. Hurray for the foreign minister, whose appearance on the foreign networks convinced the spectators and led public opinion to side with us. Hurray to the entire cabinet, which promised to bring about a fundamental change in the Middle East situation, and has in fact done so.
At the same time, there was the civilian spin. The strong home front. The home front gives us strength, we come to the home front to strengthen and find ourselves strengthened. Therefore, there is no reason to worry about the home front; we sit with our hands folded while it is sitting in bomb shelters. After all, it was not the home front that brought us to power, but the top 1,000th percentile. And that percentile is making large profits in the stock market. That percentile is secure.
Thus we can continue to maintain calm and conduct the war weakly and complacently. After all, whatever the outcome - we will always be able to create spin around it. We will always be able to cast the blame on former prime minister Ariel Sharon, on IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, or on the head of the Northern Command Udi Adam.
No more. The culture of lies that has surrounded the war from its first day must disappear. The attempt to confront an existential challenge by means of virtual false presentations must cease. A war is not a real-estate transaction, or even an election campaign. It invites a real encounter with history, which is looking deep into our eyes.
Therefore, we can no longer postpone the internal Israeli soul searching aroused by the war until it is over. We have no choice: The post-war clarification must begin already during the course of the war. We must change things and change ourselves during the course of fighting. Because if the war continues to be conducted as it has been conducted until now, it will end badly.
A war of spin is a war that is divorced from reality, without an accurate reading of the map and without the necessary determination; a war without a goal and without a vision. Such a war cannot lead to victory.
Therefore, what is needed now is not the replacement of one officer with another. What is needed is a dramatic military step, accompanied by a sharp change in values. What is needed is a decisive counterattack, which will require a new spirit.
Yesterday's cabinet decision was a correct one, if unfocused. If the present government is capable of changing its ways from one day to the next - great. However, if it finds it difficult to do so, public pressure must be applied, which will require it to form an emergency cabinet immediately. The name of the game now is national will. Only a full enlistment of national will and all national resources will lead to a crucial national victory on the battlefield. This national will cannot be enlisted on the basis of spin, but only on the basis of truth. It can be enlisted only when the war is once again defined as a just war, which is trying to achieve just goals, and is being conducted by a truthful leadership.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Kibbutz mourners call for diplomacy
Kibbutz mourners call for diplomacy
Ha'aretz, August 7, 2003
By Eli Ashkenazi
Kibbutz Sa'ar community director Yair Baumel challenged the government to find a diplomatic solution to the war with Hezbollah yesterday as he eulogized Dave Lalchuk, an American citizen who moved to the kibbutz to become a farmer and was killed by rocket fire Wednesday.
Lalchuk was born and raised in the United States. Leaving behind his parents and siblings, Lalchuk moved to Israel and married Esti, with whom he had two daughters: Yael and Michal.
"Dave's death compels us to ask, with the family's knowledge, several penetrating questions to our leaders and our past and present government ministers," Baumel said at the funeral. "Are you convinced that in the years that have passed, you have done everything possible to prevent an additional eruption of war and additional victims, including Dave - a son and brother with a loving family?"
"Based on the conclusion that the military operations of the past 31 years have not brought quiet to the north, but only more and more bereaved families and graves, what will you do, from today, to stop the chain of wars and victims within the borders of the state where our kibbutz lies?" Baumel asked. "Will you find the diplomatic path, which exists and which we all know what it is, or will you continue to stick, with blind faith, to the gods of killing and bereavement? If your answer is the continued use of the concepts of 'breaking,' 'liquidating,' 'destroying,' 'security strip' and other cliches that have proven to be as strong as cobwebs, then it is better you don't respond at all."
Lalchuk "was a dedicated father, a devoted farmer, who loved people and animals," said another eulogizer. "Dave loved nature, the orchards, the open air. You could say Dave fulfilled the Zionist dream in the heroic, optimal and worst possible way. You could also say Dave was another victim demanded by the Zionist enterprise of its children. But the question is always asked: Are all these victims, including Dave, a necessity? Could the one responsible have created a reality in which Dave did not fall victim?"
Lalchuk decided to stay on the kibbutz when the fighting began so he could continue to care for his orchard and livestock. He was riding his bicycle to the orchard Wednesday when the air-raid siren sounded. He turned around in an effort to reach his reinforced room, and was killed by a rocket at the entrance to his house.
Ha'aretz, August 7, 2003
By Eli Ashkenazi
Kibbutz Sa'ar community director Yair Baumel challenged the government to find a diplomatic solution to the war with Hezbollah yesterday as he eulogized Dave Lalchuk, an American citizen who moved to the kibbutz to become a farmer and was killed by rocket fire Wednesday.
Lalchuk was born and raised in the United States. Leaving behind his parents and siblings, Lalchuk moved to Israel and married Esti, with whom he had two daughters: Yael and Michal.
"Dave's death compels us to ask, with the family's knowledge, several penetrating questions to our leaders and our past and present government ministers," Baumel said at the funeral. "Are you convinced that in the years that have passed, you have done everything possible to prevent an additional eruption of war and additional victims, including Dave - a son and brother with a loving family?"
"Based on the conclusion that the military operations of the past 31 years have not brought quiet to the north, but only more and more bereaved families and graves, what will you do, from today, to stop the chain of wars and victims within the borders of the state where our kibbutz lies?" Baumel asked. "Will you find the diplomatic path, which exists and which we all know what it is, or will you continue to stick, with blind faith, to the gods of killing and bereavement? If your answer is the continued use of the concepts of 'breaking,' 'liquidating,' 'destroying,' 'security strip' and other cliches that have proven to be as strong as cobwebs, then it is better you don't respond at all."
Lalchuk "was a dedicated father, a devoted farmer, who loved people and animals," said another eulogizer. "Dave loved nature, the orchards, the open air. You could say Dave fulfilled the Zionist dream in the heroic, optimal and worst possible way. You could also say Dave was another victim demanded by the Zionist enterprise of its children. But the question is always asked: Are all these victims, including Dave, a necessity? Could the one responsible have created a reality in which Dave did not fall victim?"
Lalchuk decided to stay on the kibbutz when the fighting began so he could continue to care for his orchard and livestock. He was riding his bicycle to the orchard Wednesday when the air-raid siren sounded. He turned around in an effort to reach his reinforced room, and was killed by a rocket at the entrance to his house.
Houla - corrected figures by Lebanese PM
BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN)
August 7, 2006
Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said Monday that one person was killed in an Israeli airstrike on the southern village of Houla, not 40 as he had earlier reported.
"The massacre in Houla, it turned out that there was one person killed," Reuters quoted Siniora as saying. "They thought that the whole building smashed on the heads of about 40 people ... thank God they have been saved."
Siniora had earlier told Arab foreign ministers in Beirut that the attack "was a horrific massacre ... in which more than 40 martyrs were victims of deliberate bombing."
Saniora said he had based the initial tally on unspecified information that he had received, The Associated Press reported. He offered no other explanation for the error.
Lebanese media are reporting 65 survivors were pulled from the rubble, more than half of them children.
Six homes were destroyed, and fires engulfed the area, a Lebanese law enforcement source said.
The Israel Defense Forces said it is checking the reports on Houla, noting that it has warned residents for the past two weeks to leave.
August 7, 2006
Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said Monday that one person was killed in an Israeli airstrike on the southern village of Houla, not 40 as he had earlier reported.
"The massacre in Houla, it turned out that there was one person killed," Reuters quoted Siniora as saying. "They thought that the whole building smashed on the heads of about 40 people ... thank God they have been saved."
Siniora had earlier told Arab foreign ministers in Beirut that the attack "was a horrific massacre ... in which more than 40 martyrs were victims of deliberate bombing."
Saniora said he had based the initial tally on unspecified information that he had received, The Associated Press reported. He offered no other explanation for the error.
Lebanese media are reporting 65 survivors were pulled from the rubble, more than half of them children.
Six homes were destroyed, and fires engulfed the area, a Lebanese law enforcement source said.
The Israel Defense Forces said it is checking the reports on Houla, noting that it has warned residents for the past two weeks to leave.
Reuters admits to more image manipulation
Reuters admits to more image manipulation
Ynet (Ma'ariv), August 7, 2006
Yaakov Lappin
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3287774,00.html
Reuters has withdrawn a second photograph and admitted that the image was doctored, following the emergence of new suspicions against images provided by the news organization. On Sunday, Reuters admitted that one of its photographers, Adnan Hajj, used software to distort an image of smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut in order to create the effect of more smoke and damage.
The latest image to face doubts is a photograph of an Israeli F-16 fighter jet over the skies of Lebanon, seen in the image firing off "missiles during an air strike on Nabatiyeh," according to the image's accompanying text provided by Reuters.
Rusty Shackleford, owner of the My Pet Jawa web log , noted that the warplane in the picture is actually firing defensive flares aimed at dealing with anti-aircraft missiles.
In addition, Shackelford says the flares have been replicated by Reuters, giving the impression that the jet was firing many "missiles," thereby distorting the image.
"The F-16 in the photo is not firing missiles, but is rather dropping chaffe or flares designed to be a decoy for surface to air missiles. However, a close up (of) what Hajj calls "missiles" reveals that only one flare has been dropped. The other two "flares" are simply copies of the original," Shackleford wrote. "But what about the 'bombs' in the photo? Here is a close up of them. Notice anything? That's right. The top and bottom "bomb" are the same."
In addition, Shackelford says the flares have been replicated by Reuters, giving the impression that the jet was firing many "missiles," thereby distorting the image.
The news outlet said that it discovered "in the last 24 hours that he (Hajj) altered two photographs since the beginning of the conflict between Israel and the Lebanese group Hizbullah," Reuters added.
“There is no graver breach of Reuters standards for our photographers than the deliberate manipulation of an image", Reuters' statement quoted Tom Szlukovenyi, Reuters Global Picture Editor, as saying.
'Tighter editing needed'
Reuters also said it would apply "tighter editing procedure for images of the Middle East conflict to ensure that no photograph from the region would be transmitted to subscribers without review by the most senior editor on the Reuters Global Pictures Desk."
Reuters terminated its relationship with Hajj on Sunday... An immediate enquiry began into Hajj’s other work," the statement said.
Hajj had provided Reuters with several images from the Lebanese village of Qana, many of which have also been suspected of being staged .
Other Reuters images have been called into question by blogs in the United States.
A reader of the Power Line blog , Robert Opalecky, wrote: "I don't know if this has been brought to anyone's attention yet, but in a quick search of the authenticated Reuters photographs attributed to Adnan Hajj, I found the following two."
(See above)
A film released on the YouTube video sharing website compares the two images, and appears to show striking similarities between the photograph used by Reuters on both July 24 and August 5.
Not 40 but 1 death in Israeli air strike...
Village Death Toll Revised
Sky
Updated: 16:25, Monday August 07, 2006
The Lebanese Prime Minister has said that one person died in an Israeli air strike on a village, not 40 as he had previously claimed.
Local residents have said that 50 people have been found alive under rubble in the southern border village of Houla.
Fouad Siniora said: "The massacre in Houla, it turned out that there was one person killed. They thought that the whole building smashed on the heads of about 40 people."
...
Arab League foreign ministers are meeting to try and resolve the crisis while the UN continues to debate how to end the bloodshed.
A UN resolution for a ceasefire envisions a second resolution in a week or two that would authorise an international military force and the creation of a buffer zone in south Lebanon.
It also says two Israeli soldiers held by Hizbollah should be released unconditionally.
The soldiers' capture on July 12 triggered the war and the massive Israeli retaliation.
But Hizbollah has said it will not cease fire until all Israeli soldiers have left Lebanon.
Sky
Updated: 16:25, Monday August 07, 2006
The Lebanese Prime Minister has said that one person died in an Israeli air strike on a village, not 40 as he had previously claimed.
Local residents have said that 50 people have been found alive under rubble in the southern border village of Houla.
Fouad Siniora said: "The massacre in Houla, it turned out that there was one person killed. They thought that the whole building smashed on the heads of about 40 people."
...
Arab League foreign ministers are meeting to try and resolve the crisis while the UN continues to debate how to end the bloodshed.
A UN resolution for a ceasefire envisions a second resolution in a week or two that would authorise an international military force and the creation of a buffer zone in south Lebanon.
It also says two Israeli soldiers held by Hizbollah should be released unconditionally.
The soldiers' capture on July 12 triggered the war and the massive Israeli retaliation.
But Hizbollah has said it will not cease fire until all Israeli soldiers have left Lebanon.
Implement the draft resolution
Implement the draft resolution
Ha'aretz Editorial, August 7, 2006
As the international community has moved forward in recent days with a UN Security Council draft resolution to end the fighting, it has once again become clear just how complex and conflict-ridden this war is. Two principal blocs have clashed during the discussions: that of the United States and Britain, which recognize Israel's right to alter the status quo along the northern border, and that of France and other countries, which have called for an immediate cease-fire and negotiations that would involve Iran and Syria.
Israel has not won an unequivocal victory in this war. But it must insist that the resolution prevent, insofar as is possible, any return to the perilous status quo ante. The American-French draft includes articles in this spirit. For instance, it states that the UN will call for the creation of a weapons-free security zone in southern Lebanon, and the deployment of an international force that will assist Beirut in asserting its sovereignty over the region and in disarming Hezbollah. The agreement does not demand that Israel immediately withdraw its soldiers from south Lebanon, and it allows Israel to respond militarily to attacks by Hezbollah. The resolution also states that in the coming weeks, a second resolution will be submitted, which will determine the composition and mandate of the multinational force.
Skeptical pundits will cast doubt on the possibility of implementing the proposed resolution in full. However, this is not the moment for skeptical prophecies. Following widespread fighting, it ought to be in the international community's interest to make a special effort to implement the agreement this time.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair epitomized this determination by repulsing several attempts to call for an immediate cease-fire over the past few weeks. He thereby endangered his own political standing, which is shaky in any case. Nevertheless, as one British newspaper wrote, he has insisted on the necessity of laying the groundwork for a new situation for the simple reason that "he believes in it."
And indeed, the fighting in the north, which yesterday exacted an additional, heavy toll of casualties, must not end without international diplomacy making a demand - as Blair and his fellows have done - for the introduction of a mechanism that will make it very hard to resume hostilities.
Something of the influence that such international pressure can exert was evident in the change in the Lebanese government's position over the last two days - from rejecting the draft to showing a willingness to discuss it, with certain changes. Russia and China are also willing to go along with its main points, as long as Lebanon and Hezbollah accept it. Hezbollah's stance does not bode well. However, it is the duty of the governments that are leading the diplomatic effort to make it clear that they will not accept a situation in south Lebanon that enables Hezbollah to threaten Israel again.
Anyone who claims that Israel, given its limited achievements in this war, has not fully earned the right to such guarantees is being unfair to the international community. The war's diplomatic end should not be a reflection of the military situation on the ground at the moment the resolution is drafted. On the contrary: For the sake of regional security, it should complete what the fighting that was forced on Israel has not succeeded in doing - namely, the reining in of Hezbollah, its backers and its suppliers. Any other result would be a recipe for a new round of Israeli resistance to unbridled aggression from the north.
Ha'aretz Editorial, August 7, 2006
As the international community has moved forward in recent days with a UN Security Council draft resolution to end the fighting, it has once again become clear just how complex and conflict-ridden this war is. Two principal blocs have clashed during the discussions: that of the United States and Britain, which recognize Israel's right to alter the status quo along the northern border, and that of France and other countries, which have called for an immediate cease-fire and negotiations that would involve Iran and Syria.
Israel has not won an unequivocal victory in this war. But it must insist that the resolution prevent, insofar as is possible, any return to the perilous status quo ante. The American-French draft includes articles in this spirit. For instance, it states that the UN will call for the creation of a weapons-free security zone in southern Lebanon, and the deployment of an international force that will assist Beirut in asserting its sovereignty over the region and in disarming Hezbollah. The agreement does not demand that Israel immediately withdraw its soldiers from south Lebanon, and it allows Israel to respond militarily to attacks by Hezbollah. The resolution also states that in the coming weeks, a second resolution will be submitted, which will determine the composition and mandate of the multinational force.
Skeptical pundits will cast doubt on the possibility of implementing the proposed resolution in full. However, this is not the moment for skeptical prophecies. Following widespread fighting, it ought to be in the international community's interest to make a special effort to implement the agreement this time.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair epitomized this determination by repulsing several attempts to call for an immediate cease-fire over the past few weeks. He thereby endangered his own political standing, which is shaky in any case. Nevertheless, as one British newspaper wrote, he has insisted on the necessity of laying the groundwork for a new situation for the simple reason that "he believes in it."
And indeed, the fighting in the north, which yesterday exacted an additional, heavy toll of casualties, must not end without international diplomacy making a demand - as Blair and his fellows have done - for the introduction of a mechanism that will make it very hard to resume hostilities.
Something of the influence that such international pressure can exert was evident in the change in the Lebanese government's position over the last two days - from rejecting the draft to showing a willingness to discuss it, with certain changes. Russia and China are also willing to go along with its main points, as long as Lebanon and Hezbollah accept it. Hezbollah's stance does not bode well. However, it is the duty of the governments that are leading the diplomatic effort to make it clear that they will not accept a situation in south Lebanon that enables Hezbollah to threaten Israel again.
Anyone who claims that Israel, given its limited achievements in this war, has not fully earned the right to such guarantees is being unfair to the international community. The war's diplomatic end should not be a reflection of the military situation on the ground at the moment the resolution is drafted. On the contrary: For the sake of regional security, it should complete what the fighting that was forced on Israel has not succeeded in doing - namely, the reining in of Hezbollah, its backers and its suppliers. Any other result would be a recipe for a new round of Israeli resistance to unbridled aggression from the north.
Thinking in terms of the other side
Thinking in terms of the other side
By Yitzhak Laor
Ha'aretz, August 7, 2006
The Israel Defense Forces is not only the biggest local player in the economy and the economy of images, but it also has learned over the years how to become the Israeli "ego ideal." Thus, the army is not only "just like us," like the neighbor across the way, whose intentions are good and who takes his dog out once a day; it is also our best, what we would like to be if we were really good. Not only is it ready to sacrifice its life; it thinks rationally, intellectually, logically, efficiently, and most of all, it has the rare ability to predict the future.
In fact, if not for the army, we wouldn't be what we are. It cannot be that it is waging war for no reason and bombing villages in which people and babies are hiding in basements, and destroying the economy of the north and perhaps the whole economy, just because its honor has been tarnished. After all, it is our very self, flesh of our flesh. And we would not endanger our lives for the sake of extraneous interests.
When this image goes awry, we move on, as if there is no difference, to the "ordinary soldier." He too is part of the "ego ideal." Injured, sweating, rescuing his comrade from the battlefield, the eternal David fighting the Shiite Goliath. Thus the army takes upon itself - with the assistance of the media (the behavior of most of whom raises the suspicion that they could also serve a totalitarian regime) - the roles of both hero and victim. Anyone listening closely to the broadcasts can discern the grammar immediately: only "we, "us" and "ours." The enemy has no faces or names, except of course for Nasrallah.
Thus, we are the victims and we are the heroes. That is the meaning of unilateralism, Israel's battlefield password for many years. Never mind what's happening around us, we have the power: we will fence; we will close; we will block; we will bomb. Otherwise we have no chance. During wartime this national egotism, beyond its moral implications, becomes part of the process of the spectacular suicide of the State of Israel.
That is the great trap of military thinking, the Israelis' only way of thought regarding the conflict: not only belief in the need to be superior, right or wrong, able or not able, but especially the inability to think in terms of the other side, not as an object translated and interpreted by the Intelligence Corps, but as human beings. In the army the other side is understood in terms of "war games" (in the day-to-day racist jargon, it sounds like this: "This is the Middle East, here they understand only force").
But what, in the end, does the military logic say? We are an army, they are the enemy. They want to kill us; meaning, we must kill them. An army cannot think otherwise. It exists to think of the enemy as to be killed. Therefore, given the chance, it will fulfill its own prophecy. Casualties on the home front or the battlefield only "affirm the expectations," the intelligence predictions. The rain of Katyushas on the north following the bombing of Lebanon, after the kidnapping? We told you so, the military thinking says. They are dangerous. Good thing we went to this war; better late than never.
From this perspective, military thinking is Israel's real trap. Everything moves within it in a circle. There is no way out, except in a fantasy of total destruction and killing all around. "After all, they want to annihilate us."
The tragedy of Israeli society is that it has no other organized way of thinking. The impotence comes to the fore in the lack of ability to answer the question posed to opponents of the war: "So what do you propose?" That question implies another: "What do you propose now that the war has started?" There is of course only one answer: Stop immediately. Any other answer allows the army to continue using its blank check. Any other answer means "right now there is an enemy and a response must be dictated to him from a position of superiority. Later on, we'll see." Later on never comes, because when everything is all right, everything is, after all, all right.
While our lives - and not only the lives of the Lebanese - are being destroyed, we must not speak because there are funerals, or bombings, and worst of all, heaven forbid, Nasrallah will have a propaganda achievement. And that would really be suicide. And as for power of deterrence: What kind of deterrent power will Israel have left after this war, even if it wipes Lebanon out?
As long as the army is not suspected of being an interested party, one of many in the region and the country, as long as it is not suspected of preferring the military option because that is its purpose, as long as the peace movement is ad hoc and not an opposition to the Israeli way of life and thinking, we have no chance of extricating ourselves from the vicious cycle of bloodshed into which we bring forth our children.
By Yitzhak Laor
Ha'aretz, August 7, 2006
The Israel Defense Forces is not only the biggest local player in the economy and the economy of images, but it also has learned over the years how to become the Israeli "ego ideal." Thus, the army is not only "just like us," like the neighbor across the way, whose intentions are good and who takes his dog out once a day; it is also our best, what we would like to be if we were really good. Not only is it ready to sacrifice its life; it thinks rationally, intellectually, logically, efficiently, and most of all, it has the rare ability to predict the future.
In fact, if not for the army, we wouldn't be what we are. It cannot be that it is waging war for no reason and bombing villages in which people and babies are hiding in basements, and destroying the economy of the north and perhaps the whole economy, just because its honor has been tarnished. After all, it is our very self, flesh of our flesh. And we would not endanger our lives for the sake of extraneous interests.
When this image goes awry, we move on, as if there is no difference, to the "ordinary soldier." He too is part of the "ego ideal." Injured, sweating, rescuing his comrade from the battlefield, the eternal David fighting the Shiite Goliath. Thus the army takes upon itself - with the assistance of the media (the behavior of most of whom raises the suspicion that they could also serve a totalitarian regime) - the roles of both hero and victim. Anyone listening closely to the broadcasts can discern the grammar immediately: only "we, "us" and "ours." The enemy has no faces or names, except of course for Nasrallah.
Thus, we are the victims and we are the heroes. That is the meaning of unilateralism, Israel's battlefield password for many years. Never mind what's happening around us, we have the power: we will fence; we will close; we will block; we will bomb. Otherwise we have no chance. During wartime this national egotism, beyond its moral implications, becomes part of the process of the spectacular suicide of the State of Israel.
That is the great trap of military thinking, the Israelis' only way of thought regarding the conflict: not only belief in the need to be superior, right or wrong, able or not able, but especially the inability to think in terms of the other side, not as an object translated and interpreted by the Intelligence Corps, but as human beings. In the army the other side is understood in terms of "war games" (in the day-to-day racist jargon, it sounds like this: "This is the Middle East, here they understand only force").
But what, in the end, does the military logic say? We are an army, they are the enemy. They want to kill us; meaning, we must kill them. An army cannot think otherwise. It exists to think of the enemy as to be killed. Therefore, given the chance, it will fulfill its own prophecy. Casualties on the home front or the battlefield only "affirm the expectations," the intelligence predictions. The rain of Katyushas on the north following the bombing of Lebanon, after the kidnapping? We told you so, the military thinking says. They are dangerous. Good thing we went to this war; better late than never.
From this perspective, military thinking is Israel's real trap. Everything moves within it in a circle. There is no way out, except in a fantasy of total destruction and killing all around. "After all, they want to annihilate us."
The tragedy of Israeli society is that it has no other organized way of thinking. The impotence comes to the fore in the lack of ability to answer the question posed to opponents of the war: "So what do you propose?" That question implies another: "What do you propose now that the war has started?" There is of course only one answer: Stop immediately. Any other answer allows the army to continue using its blank check. Any other answer means "right now there is an enemy and a response must be dictated to him from a position of superiority. Later on, we'll see." Later on never comes, because when everything is all right, everything is, after all, all right.
While our lives - and not only the lives of the Lebanese - are being destroyed, we must not speak because there are funerals, or bombings, and worst of all, heaven forbid, Nasrallah will have a propaganda achievement. And that would really be suicide. And as for power of deterrence: What kind of deterrent power will Israel have left after this war, even if it wipes Lebanon out?
As long as the army is not suspected of being an interested party, one of many in the region and the country, as long as it is not suspected of preferring the military option because that is its purpose, as long as the peace movement is ad hoc and not an opposition to the Israeli way of life and thinking, we have no chance of extricating ourselves from the vicious cycle of bloodshed into which we bring forth our children.
Reuters admits image of Beirut after IAF strike was doctored
By Assaf Uni, Haaretz Correspondent , and ReutersThe Reuters news agency admitted Sunday that it had published a doctored photograph of Beirut after an Israel Air Force strike on Saturday morning.
In the original image, thin smoke can be seen rising over the Lebanese capital, but in the second photograph, thick, black smoke can be seen billowing over the buildings.
Reuters said that it has dropped Adnan Hajj, the Lebanese photographer who submitted the image. The organization also said that it is investigating the incident.
Reuters said it has strict standards of accuracy that bar the manipulation of images in ways that mislead the viewer.
"The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under," said Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters.
"This represents a serious breach of Reuters' standards and we shall not be accepting or using pictures taken by him," Whittle said in a statement issued in London.
Hajj worked for Reuters as a non-staff freelance, or contributing photographer, from 1993 until 2003 and again since April 2005.
He was among several photographers from the main international news agencies whose images of a dead child being held up by a rescuer in the village of Qana, south Lebanon, after an Israeli air strike on July 30, have been challenged by blogs critical of the mainstream media's coverage of the Middle East conflict.
Claims that the photograph had been doctored were published on a number of blogs, which rushed to prove that the image had been retouched in using the Photoshop program.
All photographs taken for Reuters around the world are sent to Singapore, where they undergo certain editorial processes before being distributed to the agency's many clients. On Sunday, Reuters removed the retouched picture from its catalogue and replaced it with the original.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Unforgivable to leave an animal stranded and helpless
From Eve Beili, Tsar Ba'alei Haim, Jerusalem:
I am amazed every day how a country of seemingly educated, "modern" citizens can behave this way. I will not accept any excuse. It is unforgivable to leave an animal stranded and helpless. Happily I have gotten a number of calls from people who came with their pets, looking for help. But I have heard so many horror stories, I just don't get it - how do you get in your car with your kids and leave the dog standing on the sidewalk???????
I am amazed every day how a country of seemingly educated, "modern" citizens can behave this way. I will not accept any excuse. It is unforgivable to leave an animal stranded and helpless. Happily I have gotten a number of calls from people who came with their pets, looking for help. But I have heard so many horror stories, I just don't get it - how do you get in your car with your kids and leave the dog standing on the sidewalk???????
Blair - More of a pit bull than a poodle
More of a pit bull than a poodle
Ha'aretz, August 6, 2006
By Assaf Uni
LONDON - During the three weeks of fighting in Lebanon, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has resolutely stood with the president of the United States and behind the State of Israel in its struggle with Hezbollah.
Despite the tremendous public pressure for the prime minister to call for an immediate cease-fire; despite petitions and rallies in which British residents have decried the fact that he has no desire to stop the killing in Lebanon, as they put it; and despite the decision by Jack Straw, his former foreign secretary, to break ranks and refer to Israeli policy as exaggerated - Blair has remained strong, more or less, in taking a stance that supports the war against Hezbollah as well as Israel's right to self-defense.
After the British stopped making fun of his obsequiousness to U.S. President George W. Bush at the G-8 summit, they were left with a question that really scares them: Could Blair actually believe in what he's saying?
Since the conflict broke out, Blair has consistently refrained from calling for an immediate cease-fire. He joined the United States and Israel in pointing an accusing finger at Syria and Iran, holding them responsible for the current conflict. This week Britain, with the assistance of Germany and the Czech Republic, prevented the European Union's foreign ministers from issuing a condemnation and demanding an immediate cease-fire. In addition, London is working behind the scenes to try to develop a multinational force to disarm Hezbollah. But while most media outlets describe such activities as the behavior of Bush's "poodle," Blair's conduct over the past year and his persistent stance against public pressure is more reminiscent of a pit bull.
A speech Blair gave Tuesday at a conference in Los Angeles - whose central thesis, he said, was unchanged by the latest events in Lebanon, although he had prepared it a few weeks earlier - shows that his ideological worldview overlaps with that of Bush's neoconservative administration. The war on terror, including Israel's war with Hezbollah, plays an important role in that worldview. Blair said the war on terror has become a worldwide struggle between the principles of reactionary Islam and those of moderate, mainstream Islam - a war between liberty and oppression, freedom of thought and religious tyranny, at the center of which stand the liberal values of the West.
"We are fighting a war, but not just against terrorism, but about how the world should govern itself in the early 21st century, about global values," said Blair. There is, he added, an "arc of extremism" stretching from Chechnya to Kashmir, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority, and he sees the latest conflict in Lebanon as part of the war on this extremism. British newspapers compared this speech to those Blair gave after the September 11, 2001, attacks and the July 2005 attack on London.
When reactionary Islam seized its opportunity in Gaza and Lebanon, Blair said in his speech, "they knew what would happen. Their terrorism would provoke massive retaliation by Israel. Within days, the world would forget the original provocation and be shocked by the retaliation." He declared that Israel is defending democracy and freedom in the Middle East, while Hezbollah is trying to sow destruction in the region through terrorism.
In contrast to some of his European colleagues, Blair has not refrained from accusing Syria and Iran of involvement in the events transpiring in Lebanon.
"Iran and, to a lesser extent, Syria are a constant source of destabilization and reaction," he said. "We need to make clear to Syria and Iran that there is a choice: Come in to the international community and play by the same rules as the rest of us, or be confronted. Their support of terrorism, their deliberate export of instability, their desire to see wrecked the democratic prospect in Iraq, is utterly unjustifiable, dangerous and wrong. If they keep raising the stakes, they will find they have miscalculated."
But alongside the list of justifications for the war on terror, Blair also criticized the way it is being conducted. "We will not win the battle against this global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as force, unless we show we are even-handed, fair and just in our application of those values to the world." In order to do this, he explained, Western policy must change completely: The West must be bolder, more consistent and more thorough in fighting for its values. All in all, an "alliance of moderation" is required to defeat the arc of extremism.
This was not the speech the British were expecting.
"Like a man who sets fire to his house and then discusses the flames, Tony Blair has a habit of drawing attention to his policy failures by analyzing them," The Guardian wrote in an editorial yesterday. "He did it in Los Angeles on Tuesday night in a significant speech on the Middle East that described a region ablaze with conflict without recognizing his own role as one of the arsonists."
Other newspapers also criticized the polarized worldview depicted by the prime minister and the oversimplification with which they said he described the war on terror.
The criticism comes as the pressure is mounting on Blair to announce his support for an immediate cease-fire. A poll conducted this week showed Blair's popularity has sunk to an unprecedented low - 67 percent of the British are not satisfied with him. In addition, 69 percent of Britons want Britain to have a more independent policy, and 16 percent think Israel has overreacted in its bombing of Lebanon.
Saving the dogs and cats of war
Saving the dogs and cats of war
Volunteers bring food, water to Israel's scared, homeless pets
CNN, Thursday, August 3, 2006
MAALOT, Israel (AP) -- Taking advantage of the night, when Hezbollah usually stops firing rockets at northern Israel, a dozen youngsters venture into deserted streets carrying water containers and small bags of dog food.
Some of the animals left behind by the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who have fled Hezbollah rocket barrages over the past 21 days are dying, but Israeli rescuers are taking action.
"We see ourselves as part of the humanitarian effort in this war," said Yadin Elam, director of the animal welfare organization Hakol Chai. "Animals are unable to move to a hotel in the center of the country. Our job is to help them, because they are the ones who cannot help themselves."
When the fighting between Israel and the Hezbollah guerrillas erupted almost three weeks ago, at least 300,000 of the 1 million Israelis living in the north fled the region, sometimes leaving their pets behind. Many thought they would return in a day or two, said Julia Meiler, a volunteer with Hakol Chai as she put a water container on a street corner in the northern Israeli town of Maalot.
As Meiler stepped back a few cats cautiously approached the water, soon joined by many more. After a few minutes the street corner turned into a mewing gathering of a dozen cats. Many animals let Meiler pat them. She said it was a hint that they were not strays, but that they had been abandoned or fled their homes following a rocket attack.
A few blocks away, a small dog with with long, gray hair hid behind a bench. It took the volunteers a lot of patting and soft-talking to get him out of his retreat. Only after a while did he start to eat cautiously the pet food they brought him.
While many of the animals have been abandoned, others fled their homes when hundreds of rockets rained down on northern Israel, putting them into a type of shock, said Zafrir Volansky. He runs a veterinary clinic in the northern town of Nahariya.
"When they find themselves near rocket hits, dogs can get hysterical because of the noise and run aimlessly for kilometers," he said. "Some animals are shaking, others stop eating and drinking. Cats tend to find a shelter in a dark and closed place and stay there, sometimes for days."
The government doesn't yet have accurate estimates of the numbers of disoriented or abandoned animals, said Youval Hadani, from the Agriculture Ministry's veterinary department for Israel's northern region. However, he added that "several hundred and maybe a few thousand" animals need to be fed or rescued.
"Some people asked us for help because they couldn't go to a hotel in Eilat or Tel Aviv with their cats and dogs," he said. "But others just left, sometimes leaving their pets without food and water, and even in some cases tied inside their homes."
The flight also has left strays desperate for food.
"Stray animals are dependent on food found in trash containers and water dripping from air conditioning," explained Noam Vardi, a volunteer with Hakol Chai. "In situations where more than half of the residents are gone, like in Maalot, stray animals slowly die."
While some volunteers patrol the streets to help feed the animals, it is not enough. Animal welfare organizations have put posters in public places asking the remaining residents of Israel's northern towns to put water containers on the streets and to contact them when they see animals in distress.
Volunteers bring food, water to Israel's scared, homeless pets
CNN, Thursday, August 3, 2006
MAALOT, Israel (AP) -- Taking advantage of the night, when Hezbollah usually stops firing rockets at northern Israel, a dozen youngsters venture into deserted streets carrying water containers and small bags of dog food.
Some of the animals left behind by the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who have fled Hezbollah rocket barrages over the past 21 days are dying, but Israeli rescuers are taking action.
"We see ourselves as part of the humanitarian effort in this war," said Yadin Elam, director of the animal welfare organization Hakol Chai. "Animals are unable to move to a hotel in the center of the country. Our job is to help them, because they are the ones who cannot help themselves."
When the fighting between Israel and the Hezbollah guerrillas erupted almost three weeks ago, at least 300,000 of the 1 million Israelis living in the north fled the region, sometimes leaving their pets behind. Many thought they would return in a day or two, said Julia Meiler, a volunteer with Hakol Chai as she put a water container on a street corner in the northern Israeli town of Maalot.
As Meiler stepped back a few cats cautiously approached the water, soon joined by many more. After a few minutes the street corner turned into a mewing gathering of a dozen cats. Many animals let Meiler pat them. She said it was a hint that they were not strays, but that they had been abandoned or fled their homes following a rocket attack.
A few blocks away, a small dog with with long, gray hair hid behind a bench. It took the volunteers a lot of patting and soft-talking to get him out of his retreat. Only after a while did he start to eat cautiously the pet food they brought him.
While many of the animals have been abandoned, others fled their homes when hundreds of rockets rained down on northern Israel, putting them into a type of shock, said Zafrir Volansky. He runs a veterinary clinic in the northern town of Nahariya.
"When they find themselves near rocket hits, dogs can get hysterical because of the noise and run aimlessly for kilometers," he said. "Some animals are shaking, others stop eating and drinking. Cats tend to find a shelter in a dark and closed place and stay there, sometimes for days."
The government doesn't yet have accurate estimates of the numbers of disoriented or abandoned animals, said Youval Hadani, from the Agriculture Ministry's veterinary department for Israel's northern region. However, he added that "several hundred and maybe a few thousand" animals need to be fed or rescued.
"Some people asked us for help because they couldn't go to a hotel in Eilat or Tel Aviv with their cats and dogs," he said. "But others just left, sometimes leaving their pets without food and water, and even in some cases tied inside their homes."
The flight also has left strays desperate for food.
"Stray animals are dependent on food found in trash containers and water dripping from air conditioning," explained Noam Vardi, a volunteer with Hakol Chai. "In situations where more than half of the residents are gone, like in Maalot, stray animals slowly die."
While some volunteers patrol the streets to help feed the animals, it is not enough. Animal welfare organizations have put posters in public places asking the remaining residents of Israel's northern towns to put water containers on the streets and to contact them when they see animals in distress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)