FROM THE GET-GO, please allow me to make a statement – a sort of disclaimer, if you will. I believe in freedom of speech. I believe being an activist on behalf of the Palestinians is a good thing (unless taken to the extreme). I do believe that eventually the two peoples will live in peace (even though it would probably take a horrifying war for both to reach that conclusion). What I do not believe in, however, is hypocrisy.

Now, that is not to say I believe Israel is blameless. No doubt, Israeli politicians and generals could do far a better job – at both protecting their own people and the ones on the other side. Constructive criticism should be upheld at any opportunity – without it, we cannot move forward as establishing ourselves as a good society. That is, of course, when the criticism is constructive, based on facts and address the issues in context.

Perfect example would the IDF operation Cast Lead, during last December and January (2008-2009). The operation took significant toll on Palestinian civilian population. Demolished houses, killed civilians and destroyed infrastructure in no way makes lives of Palestinians better – and I believe it is mostly fair for pro-Palestine activists to address those issues. Their tactics are usually flawed however, as they misguide their readers and fellow activists by missing on the context. For example, it is true that Israel attacked Gaza on December 27, 2008. It is also true, that the attack did not come out of nothing.

On its website, Amnesty International publishes a report named: “Operation "Cast Lead": 22 days of death and destruction”. The short introduction to the document manages to falsely state Israel did not warn Hamas of the attack (while in fact, Israel issued warnings several times prior to the offensive), falsely make the impression that all of stated 1,400 Gazan victims were civilians, and demands “a thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the conduct of all parties in the conflict”.

One would doubt Amnesty’s impartiality as it – as well as most Palestinian Rights Groups – looks at the micro, while ignoring the macro (later, Richard Goldstone and the UNHRC team followed suit). While the operation certainly should be investigated, why not launch an investigation into the entire process that led to the attacks? After all, the “stated aim was to end rocket attacks into Israel by armed groups affiliated with Hamas and other Palestinian factions”, so why shouldn’t an investigation take the “stated aim” into account? Since when Jewish children suffering years of sleepless nights thanks are cast aside? Further doubt would be cast on Amnesty’s impartiality if one reads the actual report: while the document goes into great detail to investigate IDF’s actions (titles include: “Air strikes targeting people”, “Close-range Shootings”, “Attacking and obstructing medical workers”, “Ineffective warnings”, “Public buildings destroyed without justification”, et cetera), Amnesty went to no lengths to similarly investigate actions by Gazans (“Widening circle of fear”, “Armed groups’ rationale for rocket attacks”, “Israeli allegations about use of “human shields””).

One can certainly notice separate approaches taken by Amnesty – and other Palestinian Rights Groups – to the investigation. Such groups certainly do not represent the issue fairly – in the aforementioned report, for example, Gazans are given a full two pages (including an image) to explain their “rationale” for attacking Israelis. Sadly, Amnesty is far from being a single example of hypocritical attitude towards the conflict.

So I have a question to Palestinian Rights Groups, Palestinian Rights Activists, pro-Palestine activists, Human Rights Activists and the liberal crows: Where were you almost nine years ago, when first Qassam rockets started landing without Israel? Oh, right: you used the excuse that Israel was occupying Gaza, so it was okay. After all, Qassam rockets are “crude” and “seldom do much damage”, so it is okay to fire them at Israelis.

Then Israel left Gaza. Some argue that Israel did not fully withdraw, and I will agree. Israel left Gaza’s land, while keeping control of the skies and seas. The plan was to see if Hamas actually stops its genocidal rhetoric and starts building a prosperous society, instead of pledging to murder some more Jews. Well, we all know how that ended. Now imagine if Israel would completely leave Gaza, allowing steady flow of high-tech weapons from Iran and Syria. Would any of you, dear Peace Activists care if rockets would rain on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv? What would your actions be then? Which excuse would you come up then to justify the murderous intent of Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh? You do not keep all your doors unlocked in a bad neighborhood.

And then comes the blockade excuse. “Israel blockades Gaza”, so it is fair to fight Israel. This statement – constantly used by Hamas advocates – is for simple-minded people. Lest forget the primary reason for the blockade wasn’t even Hamas’ terror activity – it was the fact that Haniyeh’s henchmen started forcing opposition out of Gaza. Firefights between Hamas and Fatah took place daily for over a month. Mashaal’s minions rounded up Fatah men, executing them on the street, injuring women and children in the process. The situation actually got so bad, some Gazans started complaining they had better times under Israeli rule. Well, now that Hamas is in control, they won’t have their say anyway.

And then there is a matter of Egypt. While we could unquestionably understand Israel’s reason for blockading Gaza (they are just evil, children-murdering Jews), what is Egypt’s reasoning? Why is Egypt – an Arab, Muslim country – leaving their brothers behind, rarely opening crossing, letting in less humanitarian aid than Israel does? Is there anything Egyptians know that Amnesty doesn’t? Of course there is. The Egyptians know that Hamas is a terrorist organization, fueled by fundamentalist principles. Hamas uses great force to reach it’s goal (as we demonstrated in previous paragraph), no matter the cost.

So let us ask, now: where were you, Amnesty International, when thousands of rockets poured on Israeli towns and cities? Certainly, the rarity of fatalities in Israel is no thanks to you, but instead thanks to Israel building fortified bunkers every 100 yards (something Hamas builds only for its own fighters). Where are you, Human Rights Watch, when Hamas official pledges in its charter to murder Jews? Where were you, Twitter activists, when Palestinians shot their own people, fighting for power (fight that took lives of 98 civilians)? Where are you, human rights activists and liberals, when Hamas teaches its people murder, and incites them to “slaughter” Jews?

You, my dear activists, might want to disregard all of the above statements. In fact, you probably will. Certainly, you will lose sleep at night. But not over Jewish victims. Those are okay.

Criticizing Israel is not a negative thing (even though, unlike Palestinians, Israel has quite a few Palestinians’ Rights Groups of its own). But if you want the truth – you have to examine the both sides. There is no black and white in the Middle East.

Just as with aforesaid organizations, many watchdogs simply throw numbers at their readers, no context provided. Case in point: Reporters Without Borders (a.k.a. Reporters Sans Frontières) “Press Freedom Index” for the year 2006 (the year of conflict between Israel and Lebanon) ranks Lebanon in 107th place, citing the following as reason of downfall:

Missing from RWB report: additional reasons for freedom of speech infringement in Lebanon (like terror groups controlling the news coverage). It is quite probable, that RWB considers constant Jew-hating propaganda on Hezbollah’s Al-Manar as freedom of speech as well. It’s not the terrorists that are to blame for restrictions of journalism, it’s not the inept Siniora government – blame it better on the Jews.

In 2009, RWB criticizes Israel for mistreating, injuring and killing journalists during operation Cast Lead:

In the meanwhile, you might remember, that during the Gaza offensive, international journalists demanded “unfettered” access to Gaza Strip. Now, imagine what would happen, if in fact Israel did. Obviously, more reporters would die during firefights and air raids, with RWB and others this time accusing Israel of waging a war on journalists and free speech.

See the no-win-win situation? If Israel tries to save itself the trouble of having a numerous hotheads going in and getting their heads blown off – it is accused of freedom of speech infringement. If it would actually allow journalists in (as it did in West Bank), those would be killed in firefights (with some being shot by Israeli forces), spurring organizations such as aforementioned Reporters Sans Frontières to cry wolf.

What’s even worse, is that such groups never, ever, present context, evidence to the reader; neither do they investigate cases. For example, look at this case: Fadel Shana, 23, cameraman for Reuters in Gaza, allegedly killed by IDF Merkava tank shell from a distance. The video clip is quickly runs us through the basics of the incident; quickly enough, in fact, to get the viewer worked up at the evil Israelis, without giving him or her a chance to study the situation. But please allow me to do so, still.

First and foremost, Reuters claims Shana was killed soon after he started filming. While far from certain, it is unclear if tank crew had the optics to discern the object, mounted by Shana. Remember – quite a few guided anti-tank rockets are mounted on a tripod, thus it is unclear if tank crew could see that the object was actually a camera, rather than an RPG.

The report also states that Shana was traveling in a car clearly marked “TV”, which we could see in a video. What we also could see in the video, is that Shana obviously films from a high location, while the car is parked between two mounds. It is still unclear if the tank crew could the the parked vehicle at all.

Then come the victims. Let’s turn to another Reuters statement:

Hm… Now maybe I’m a skeptic (I am), but after three years Combat Engineering service, I’ve seen my share of explosions and aftermaths of such. For example, I could tell you that after an explosion, fragile equipment, such pictured (neatly folded) tripod (right) would not survive. I also know, that after an explosion, you would surely see burns on bodies of victims. Yeah, those we can’t see either.

Another amazing thing, by the way, that in otherwise empty surroundings (you can see a lonely house in the video), so many people found themselves around the cameraman, including children. Pictured (right) is another image from the report, showing a child carried by paramedic, put on a hospital bed and rolled into ER. What did a child do together with the cameraman covering war?

Quite obviously, Reporters Without Borders become Reporters Without Balance. On many occasions I maintained: if you want to criticize Israel, it is fine. However, for anyone to listen to you, be fair and investigate your reports, don’t just throw them to public unsubstantiated. For example, phrases such as “completely illegal [arrests]” make your report look foolish and childish. If you want to be heard by anyone else but the radicals – you also have to back up your statements with some facts.

Hippie protesters

JUST RECENTLY, THE press gave stage to another group of loons – this time aged below twenty. 80 high school students signed a letter – addressed to the Prime Minister, Minister of Defense and several notable public figures – saying they are “future draft refusers [sic]” of IDF draft order, stating they would not be “soldiers of occupation”, declaring: “hereby announce that we object to Israel’s oppressive policy in the occupied territories and within the state of Israel, and therefore we will refuse to take part in these activities, which are carried out in our name by the Israel Defense Army”.

I believe I could go long and loud about how retarded the logic of the teens is. While it is obvious the teens are being exploited, in part, by radical Left-wing elements and in part by extremist “Palestinian Rights Groups” and various “peace movements”, it is less obvious why the mainstream media decided to grant such a stage to small liberal assembly on nutcases.

The reasons are twofold: a) many Israeli journalists, reporters and pundits are – as in the United States – centrists to radical liberals. Promoting diehard liberal agenda, promoted by teenagers – as role models to future generations – is a sacred mission for some of them; b) liberal ideology of most current news sources demands “equal exposure” to readers of all agenda. You should read it as: Liberal agenda gets right of way, while conservative and/or Right-wing rhetoric gets swept under the enormous rug.

Thankfully, some news portals (not all of them, and Ynet should be commended for being one of fair and balanced crowd), published another story, of a letter signed by over 500 teen students (most of them from the National-Religious camp), stating they promote joining the IDF as means of protecting their country. The students retorted to the ‘refusniks’ by writing: “we can’t let the voice of one minority change the entire national mood to one big down”. Moreover, the students added that if the “refusers” believe IDF needs to be changed, the way to do just that is to join the Army and promote your vision from within, instead of hiding away from potential dangers. The ‘promoters’ also added that the “refusers” could have joined the National Service – civilian service instead of military one.

The teenage radicals failed the country, forgetting that in order to build a good, moral society – every one needs to chip in his or her own way. If you only care about yourself – you will grow up to be a resentful, bitter old man/woman, holding angry signs at empty streets. If you want change – you actually have to do something. Chickening out is not the way to go.

“A half-truth is a whole lie” – Yiddish Proverb.

Mr. Khouri is quite good at playing the numbers card, quoting World Bank and International Monetary Fund figures. For example:

Khouri understands that the economic growth is not God-sent and could be reversed, by saying that “7 percent growth is no sure thing”. He, however, knows exactly whom to blame:

You guessed it right – it’s the Israelis fault. If there is one thing missing from Khouri’s piece it’s Palestinian “activism” in form of murder of over a thousand Israelis, wounding or injuring another several thousands. Khouri would not direct blame on his fellow Palestinians in Islamic Jihad or Tanzim or HAMAS for opening armed battles with Israeli forces, sending dozens suicide bombers into Jewish neighborhoods and cities. It is okay to murder these babies – they are Jewish.

Khouri’s piece provides excellent insight into the propaganda machine run by some Palestinian individuals (both from the private sector and the political echelon), and supported or relayed by major press sources – both currently focus on Israeli settlement expansion as the reason for Peace Process being stuck where it currently is. No commentators mention Mahmoud Abbas’ refusal to recognize Israel and a state for the Jews; no columnists remind readers of religious sermons encouraging Palestinians to murder Jews. Yet, it is horrible when IAF hurts civilians when targeting a terrorist, but fully fine when a Palestinian hacks a 13-years-old boy with an axe.

Khouri claims Israeli actions “threaten the very possibility of a two-state solution”, yet fails to tell his reader that in Palestinian eyes there should be Palestine – the state for Palestinian Arabs – and Israel, a democratic (for a while, at least) state with Arab majority. Yes, that is correct – as Palestinians demand return of 4 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants into the borders of 1967 Israel, the Jewish state would soon become just another Arab state.

SINCE THE PUBLICATION of the notorious blood-libel by Swedish Aftonbladet, Israeli officials and activists responded en-masse, discovering the weak spots within Donald Bolstrom’s reporting; demanding the Swedish government to condemn the publication. After all, it does seem ridiculous – Bolstrom says he simply relays the stories, but does not know if the allegations are correct.

Bolstrom points to the major point of defeat for the western media on subject of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a major point of victory for Palestinian armed factions. The international press always treated eyewitness testimony with respect, however, it is in the Middle East that many – if not most – stories are actually based on such testimonies. Aftonbladet’s story is excellent in reflecting on that subject: the article bases its allegations and conclusions on people’s accounts, rather than facts (as anyone practicing law will tell you, eyewitness testimony is the least reliable one). Yes, Bolstrom says he saw the bullet-riddled body. However, that is all he saw and it is unclear if he attempted to dig deeper. Just as it is possible that the man was shot by IDF troops (which, still, does not warrant the conclusion that his organs were stolen), it is also possible that this man what killed in a firefight between two armed Palestinian factions – those events are no rarity. Furthermore, during operation Cast Lead in Gaza earlier this year, some IDF troops on the ground alleged some HAMAS fighters wore standard IDF uniforms, thus impersonating Israeli forces. Just another option Bolstrom should have considered writing his – currently baseless – article.

To be precise, the article – which can be found here – goes far beyond simple blood libel, accusing Israeli soldiers of stealing organs from bodies of Palestinian youths. The article goes to to allege IDF soldiers murdered people on purpose, in order to harvest the organs. Bolstrom alleges the troops murdered a young, 19-years-old teenager, for hurling rocks at them – by staging an ambush and gunning him down in cold blood. To spice the mix up, the author goes on to imply high-ranking Israeli officials were responsible for the murder of 19-years-old Bilal Ghanan.

Viewing the article impartially, some things are easily discernable. It is clear Bolstrom’s article is one of tabloid, not serious reporting. Author brings to light claims and allegations from as far back as 1992, now impossible to investigate. All ‘facts’ in the article are based on hearsay and on unsubstantiated sources. Some information Bolstrom received from Palestinian Authority, however, knowing the hostile standing of the Palestinian leadership towards Israel, it is unclear how trustworthy those facts are (they could be, in fact, as trustworthy as Palestinian claim of over 500 civilian deaths in Jenin refugee camp in 2003; final number – 65, five of them militants). While Aftonbladet editor Jan Helin claimed article he approved is "investigative journalism", there is really nothing investigative about the piece; what Bolstrom did is known in professional journalism as ‘interview’.

Article’s claims received another blow when Jerusalem Post journalist Khaled Abu Toameh actually investigated the case and found the victim’s family. When asked, the relatives replied they never told any journalist their son’s organs were "plundered", but they did remember a Swedish photographer at Bilal’s funeral:

Bolstrom’s version of events was also countered by some medical experts. For example, in an interview discovered by Backspin blog, Andrea Meyerhoff MD, an Associate Professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine says the intent could not have been organ harvest, as troops’ actions clearly put those under grave danger:

While Aftonbladet claims the goal of the story is to raise questions and call for an investigation, it is clear that publishing baseless accusations is not the way to promote comprehensive inquiry. Some, however, join Bolstrom’s tune, such as Iranian journalist Kusar Aslam, who claims not only to witness similar events, but to possess mind-reading ability, as he was able to discern IDF troops’ intent to harvest organs:

According to Aslam, some of the Palestinians were still alive when they were "kidnapped" by IDF soldiers.

"I personally witnessed Israeli soldiers and army vehicles snatching Palestinian bodies from emergency rooms," the Iranian reporter said. "In other instances I saw soldiers follow Palestinians to cemeteries with the intent of stealing bodies before they were buried.

And so, irresponsible Swedish reporting is taken as fact by propagandists and dishonest individuals.

JUST AS BAD, however (well, almost just as bad), were futile efforts by Israeli officials and interviewees to counter Bolstrom’s points. In a YouTube video posted above, Donald Bolstron and Dr. Mordechai Kedar (whom I deeply respect) fight it out over the allegations. While I certainly commend Dr. Kedar’s passion (he is one of the view Arabic-speaking Jews often invited to speak on Arabic TV channels, and is never afraid to present his pro-Israel points), it is true that in this case his case is ineffective. Getting agitated, Dr. Kedar’s English stumbles, and average viewer would be tempted to take Bolstrom’s seemingly calm and calculated side against a fanatic crying out loud "Lies, lies!".

Government’s reaction was just as bad, mostly. While the step of delaying Aftonbladet’s press credentials renewal was a correct one, the blame game was not. Benjamin Netanyahu’s and Avigdor Lieberman’s furious reaction was understandable – but ineffective and, basically – useless. Releasing press statements with demands for Swedish government to condemn the publication would do no good.

What could be effective, is a more calm, but firm approach. Netanyahu should have immediately ordered Swedish ambassador to his office and reminded her, that Swedish government offered official apologies to Yemenite government, following publication of Muhammad cartoons on a Swedish website (as well as taking the website down). Netanyahu could also threaten deterioration in relations with Sweden and recall Israeli ambassador from Stockholm to Jerusalem for "consultation" – a reasonable step taken by any government, to let the other side understand – we are talking serious business.

Aftonbladet’s press credentials should have been cancelled, with Israeli government announcing that the newspaper could either produce certain evidence of the allegations, or apologize for Bolstrom’s debacle. Free speech is sacred – but, as HonestReporting notices, it also bears a spoon of responsibility. The tabloid could publish everything to its liking – but it must also be ready to accept the consequences.

It is time for activists, academics and politicians to comprehend simple truth – the only way Israel can win the PR war, is by using specific facts at its disposal. The press will always be inclined to trust pro-Palestinian sources first, for variety of reasons. It is up to Israelis to use the evidence on the ground to prove the accusers wrong.

Ka’bia, a Bedouin and a former Lieutenant-Colonel in Israeli Defense Forces, stated to the press that Lieberman’s decision was right one, asserting such act would only ban those not willing to contribute to their communities:

Ka’bia then went on to say that while he is not calling for Arab population to join the Army, he believes Arab youths should join the National Service – an Israel-wide project, incorporating dozens of thousands of youths, service for a year or two, contributing to the community by means of working with the sick and the elderly, children and the disabled, etc.

He then expressed his full support for Lieberman’s stand:

Next - call to the government for some Norwegian "contribution"?

WHILE SWEDISH GOVERNMENT promotes baseless anti-Semitic charges, it seems the Swedes have a war of their own, fought against Norway. The goal is different, though – economy and exports. Following Ynet expose blows the story wide open:

OSLO – Gravad lax – or pickled salmon – is one of the most popular Scandinavian dishes. Its preparation process is simple and quick, and its ingredients are seemingly identical everywhere: Salmon fillet, salt, sugar, oil, and herbs.

However, despite this, those in the know and lox connoisseurs have been claiming that the Swedish gravad lax tastes differently than the Norwegian, Finnish, and Danish variety. “The Swedish variety contains some sort of slight sourness, “ says Danish Chef Richard Muller Holstrum. “I was never able to detect its source.”

Horror at the village

Arnolf Lillehammer, a resident of the Norwegian village of Idiben, located near the Swedish border, will never forget the last time he saw his father alive. “It happened just before the last summer,” Arnolf recounted. “The lake was about to freeze, and dad went out to fish in the afternoon. He asked me to help him clean the fish when he returns. After three hours we started to worry. The next day, after we found his boat, we realized something terrible had happened.”

Three weeks later, Arnolf’s fears were replaced by pure horror, after finding his father’s corpse buried in the snow, with both his feet cut off.

This was not the only disappearance in the area. In fact, dozens of cases of fishermen failing to return home at the end of the day were recorded in eastern Norway in recent years. The locals attributed the many disappearances to the harsh winter conditions; fierce snowstorms did not leave any hope for finding the bodies. However, the horrible fate of Arnolf Lillehammer’s father, Videkon, made it clear this was a much more sinister affair than previously thought.

The bizarre death was extensively covered by local media and police officials devoted great efforts to solving the mystery, but answers were not forthcoming. However, the Lillehammer family finally received some unexpected help: One clear summer day, a man by the name of Bjorn B. (the full name is being withheld) appeared at the family’s door and presented himself as a Swedish army defector.

The salmon war

Bjorn told the stunned relatives that in the framework of his role as an intelligence officer, he was exposed to the activity of a top secret unit in the Swedish army. The discovery prompted severe pangs of conscience. The moment he read about the Lillehammer family’s tragedy, he knew he would not be able to live with himself if he doesn’t confess to them.

In the 1950s, Bjorn revealed, Sweden faced a sharp decline in pickled salmon exports, mostly because of the growing competition against Norwegian salmon. Secret experiments and taste tests performed by Swedish scientists finally identified the secret ingredient that would give Swedish salmon the edge: One gram of fungus taken from human feet for every 100 grams of gravad lax.

Residents of east Norway villages, known for not changing socks for long months, were therefore an obvious target. And so, Sweden established the Strumpor Stinkande elite unit, responsible for fresh supply of stinky human feet for the Swedish salmon industry.

Senior Swedish military officials are of course rejecting out of hand reports on the existence of the above unit, yet Bjorn B.’s testimonial was further reinforced last week in the Norwegian village of Durknhart. A boy walking by the river found a piece of metal resembling a pin of a military unit sporting an unequivocal symbol – a sock flanked by two wings.

Now all that is left is to see whether the International Court of Justice at The Hague will take up the challenge and probe what appears to be a brutal crime committed by Sweden against the Norwegian people.

Swedish Foreign Ministry’s response

We are stunned by this baseless anti-Swedish report and expect the Israeli government to harshly condemn it. The absence of any condemnation is reminiscent of the Ben Gurion government’s feeble response to Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte’s assassination in Jerusalem in 1948.

Then, an amazing thing happened. Well, the amazing thing, actually, is that almost nothing happened. Yes, some Right-wing activists and even few media columnists noted that Professor Zeev Sternal went over the line, but one thing was missing – massive, media-driven outrage at words calling for murder of Israeli citizens (albeit, in a disputed territory), as well as forceful destruction of their homes. Everything was normal. This is not the kind of speech modern Israeli press considers incitement.

A few years passed and another – not less amazing – thing happened. Former Army Chief, Moshe Ya’alon, called for the re-establishment of ravaged settlements and labeled radical Left-wing peace activist group Peace Now a "virus".

All hell broke loose and righteous outrage ensued. Yariv Oppenheimer, Peace Now’s Secretary General said former IDF Chief of Staff was "demolishing democracy". Kadima sent out a press release stating something to the effect of: "Ah-ha, see? We told you they were extremists!" Sima Kadmon, a journalist and a columnist, diagnosed Ya’alon as being mentally challenged, addressing him by his nickname "Bogi".

One cannot help but wonder why calling for armed assault on men, women, and children would be considered peace activism, while insulting a radical organization is "demolishing democracy". Views on Peace Now’s activism certainly vary, and calling them names is likely to be counter-productive; however, shouldn’t we all take a deep breath, look at this situation clearly and set this discussion straight? We consider ourselves a civilized society – shouldn’t we act like one?

It would be nice for some columnists to be less condescending. It is "Moshe Ya’alon" for you, Madam Kadmon, unless you are his close friend or relative (and it is not "Bibi" either). It would be great if Kadima would drop the spin and stop characterizing Likud as extremist, based on declarations by a small minority within it. It would be fabulous if Israeli peace activists would attempt to understand feelings of people, for benefit of whom Peace Now did not protest on Kings of Israel square, while they were slaughtered by Hamas and Fatah mercenaries – instead of constantly repeating mantras, including terms such as "violent language" and "delegitimizing the peace camp". After all, shouldn’t peace include reconciliation within us?

If pundits, columnists, activists, and talking heads wish to criticize Right-wing activists and political figures for their extremist stance – it’s okay. They should remember, though, that by failing to criticize radicalism on both sides, they contribute to democratic regime’s disintegration. After all, if you call your opponent "stupid", you are not better than he is.

FOR MORE YEARS than your fingers pro-Israeli groups alleged international journalists understood little about the moods, intentions and politics in the Middle East. The notion seems fair – after all, most of them visit the region occasionally, staying for half a year at most – with some exceptions. The exception, in this case, is New York Times‘ columnist and book author Thomas L. Friedman. One of his most known works is “From Beirut to Jerusalem”, previously mentioned on these pages. Not to bore you with details, I will shortly remind you that the book tells of heroic Lebanese, living their lives under corrupt government, terror and Israeli attacks, proceeding to talk about corrupt, noisy and uncivilized Israelis, entangled in their Holocaust victimhood.

In Saturday’s column, Friedman cheerfully tells us of rising economy, thanks to a certain chain of events:

He is, of course, correct. As most pro-Israeli activists would tell you, the major reason for poverty within Gaza and the West Bank is terror. As soon as Palestinian politicians took matters in their own hands, establishing an armed force capable of restraining the terrorists – situation got better. At least, in the West Bank. Gazans, still under violent reign of HAMAS, suffer the blockade and hardship.

Let me take a brief step away from Friedman’s case. It sure took Palestinian leaders time to understand it might be better to keep suicide bombers at bay, rather than allow them into Israel. It took a while – but they got it. Looking back, however, it is important to note that steps taken by Israeli leadership – namely, removal of many checkpoints – could have, and should have, been taken earlier in time. I know, the atmosphere wasn’t same: there was no American pressure to ease restrictions on Palestinians, and Israeli leaders were preoccupied with the war with HAMAS. Netanyahu still could allow civilian traffic to flow more easily, presenting it as good will, not bowing to Obama’s pressure. It is important to understand, however, that Israelis tested the PA. After huge waves of outrage following Israel’s Gaza campaign – including several terror attacks – Israelis needed to see that PA can hold the masses back, keeping calm in the West Bank.

Back to our subject now: with him correct on the issue of policing the Palestinian lands, Friedman goes on to show us his understanding of Israeli-Palestinian relations is lacking:

“Largely hidden from Israelis by a wall”? Mr. Friedman surely forgets that Israelis have one major hobby: watching the news, reading newspapers and obsessively reading updates on Israeli news portals, such as Ynet and Walla. Israeli news agencies’ contacts in West Bank and Gaza are plenty, with many Jewish journalists speaking Arabic.

Take Ehud Yaari, for example. He is probably the most famous Arab world analyst in Israel, appearing daily on Israel Channel 2 news, with video clips and sound bites from Arab world press. Or Suleiman a-Shaffi, also on Channel 2, visiting nearly every West Bank town and city, as well as Gaza. Or Zvi Yechezkely, Channel 10 news. Or – Oded Granoth, Channel 1 news. Each Israeli news channel – and major newspaper, for that matter – has its own team, visiting Palestinian cities, monitoring Palestinian press. Palestinian daily life, politics, inner struggles, are all but “hidden” from Israeli view. Any Israeli possesses more knowledge about Palestine than average Times reader.

Friedman then writes that Palestinians wish for their state to be established “tomorrow”, adding “that is not going to happen” – omitting the fact that the major bulwark on the way of peace is refusal to recognize Israel as state for the Jews by major Palestinian players, particularly Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas.

Telling the tale of improving economy, the author finishes his article with this passage:

Sadly, Friedman again reflects on his inability to bear in mind history. After all, after signing the 1993 Oslo accords, that is precisely what Israel attempted to do – set up an organized Palestinian police force, which could police Palestinian Autonomy. Those proved themselves particularly helpful since October 2000 – they openly participated at violent riots, shooting their US and Russia-made firearms at IDF troops. Quite a few Palestinian security forces members participated in terror attacks against Israel, killing soldiers and civilians. All in the name of peace, of course.

And this fact is the most saddening, I must admit. Together with Friedman, current US administration dwells on today – letting go of the yesterday. It does not take a rocket scientist to comprehend those well-trained Palestinian security forces could turn their arms against Israel. Remember – incitement against Jews got another push in the back from FATAH, with it opening new TV propaganda channel, to battle one of HAMAS. Sources familiar with the content say the anti-Israel and anti-Jew rhetoric transmitted to every day Palestinians is as vicious as ever.

It is true, the United States should support Palestinian Autonomy. But should it be taking same mistaken steps it took a decade and a half ago? Should US taxpayer pay for training of Palestinian terrorists? Is there anyone doing background checks on people undergoing training? How come Obama’s administrations puts forward no demands for PA? What would happen if those trained security forces attack Israelis? Would PA be required to return the funds to the US? Would it be required to take any further steps?

All those question would go unanswered. Friedman joins NYT’s Roger Cohen: both dwelled in their own land of Oz. However, Cohen admitted he made wrongful judgment – about Iran. Would Friedman do same if his simplistic plan fails?

WITH ALL THE calamity over the riots in Iran, after seemingly falsified election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran’s president, the commentators – some of whom promised us as much as a regime change – are quiet now. For weeks, the talking heads promoted the idea that the protestors would bring Ahmadinejad down. Yet, as time passed, he again took the throne. The US administration – mostly silent on the matter – “acknowledged” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran’s President, symbolically refusing to congratulate him on the victory. The country that let Iran down decades ago, does it again. No doubt, however, US’ interests are in play, and Barack Obama vigorously protects those. We should hand it to him – he seems to do a good job protecting American interests overseas, at least in the short run.

Here Israel comes into play. Now firmly seated in his chair, surrounded by people ordering soldiers to shoot people on the streets, Ahmadinejad can resume his support for radical organizations vowing to destroy the Jewish state. According to recent data, Hizb Allah, whom Israeli army nearly crushed during the 2006 Second Lebanon War, has stockpiled nearly 40,000 rockets under UNIFIL’s nose, some of them able to reach Israel’s Gush Dan area in general and Tel Aviv in particular. Reports say Nasrallah trains his men (and, probably, some women) to use longer-range missiles to attack Israel’s economic capital.

Tel Aviv bears particular significance for the ‘freedom fighters’. As the Arab (and parts of the Western) world does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, they view Tel Aviv as one instead. Thus, if Nasrallah’s weapons would reach this city, it would be, no doubt, proclaimed as an enormous victory for his terrorist group. Such an act could seriously damage morale of Israeli civilians, bring great gains to Arab morale and would be viewed as a victory for Hizb Allah, no matter the outcome.

During the 2006 war, Nasrallah’s men attempted to fire several long-range rockets, but they were detected by Israeli spy drones and destroyed on the ground. Several missiles, however, did manage to land somewhat deep within Israeli territory. Lebanese sheikh makes it his goal to strike deeper – much deeper.

Now, once again, he has the support. With financial and military support from Iran assured for at least another several years, Lebanese terrorists would have no lack of resources. In my opinion, within several years we would see another attack be Hizb Allah. You do not store dozens of thousands of non-guided, imprecise rockets for matters of defense. No doubt, Hizb Allah learned its lesson – it managed to keep nearly a million Israelis in bomb shelters for weeks. This time around, they would have few more cards up their AK-47 bearing sleeve.

It gets even worse for Israel. With US silent, one of the few weapons against tyrannical regimes the Western world has is sanctions and economic restrictions. Yet, it seems even those crumble under constant pressure from the liberals around the world to forget the horrors of the past (and the present) and concentrate on peace. It is probably his urge that made UK officials to support signing of a Syria-EU deal which would boost Syria’s economy. Supporting terror is no big deal for the Europeans, it seems. Somebody, bring them some weed and let’s sing Kumbaya together.

ALL THESE POINT lead to one conclusion – Israel has no choice but to look for new friends, outside of Europe and North America. The mission would be tough, but strengthening ties with India could help with that. It seems that Israel should turn its gaze towards Asia, and the sooner – the better.

A possible player could be China. The communist country is being looked up to by many struggling nations as a source of economic prosperity. Moreover, the Chinese usually keep themselves out of politics, focusing on economy (and sometimes, military) instead. Israel has one significant product to offer, one it has in excess – technology. Few others can present China with such an opportunity. Surely, Israel is not the only possible supplier of hi-tech brains and hardware, but it is one of the few capable of such a high level. Of course, there is Taiwan. In recent months, ties between the two strengthened immensely, with trade and passenger routes now officially open directly between the two countries. Taiwan can offer much in domestic technology, such as electronic and green power production units. It lacks, however, something Chinese crave almost as much as seeing the island back under China flag – advanced military expertise. Which is something Israel could offer – and plenty of it.

Those deliberations are currently theoretical at best. Israel would not be able to establish direct communications and trade routes with China without disassociating itself from the USA first. The groundwork should be laid, however. The Jewish state has no time to spare, with the villains on its very doorstep. It is up to Benjamin Netanyahu and his government to decided when such bold steps should be taken, and to understand, that although US has much leverage against Israel, latter has much leverage on the former as well. It would be Obama’s worst nightmare if one day Israel officially announces it would no longer accept US aid and would act without considering US intentions first.

Sadly, modern politicians have no gut to make bold moves. In order to make those, they would have to put the people first. Most of them, though, have their careers and comfortable chairs take precedence.

WHILE IT IS rare to read sane points of view in modern media, some clearly stand out. One of such people is Yarden Gazit, the article of Ynet op-ed, calling for Israel to re-examine its close ties with the United States. Gazit presents a rather unpopular point, turning the debate on US-Israel relations on its head.

While many within the US criticize "Israel lobby" and administrations’ support for Israel as the root for Muslim hatred towards the US, Gazit counters by arguing Israel might be the one hurt aligning itself so closely with the States:

Gazit maintains Israel-US relations are important for the former – but relying on it so strongly, Israel might be hurting its stand, and – says Gazit – it might be time to look for more friends in the world. Moreover – the author claims Israel might have hard time seeking new relationships, while being viewed as a proxy to US interests in the Middle East. With loose ties, Israel could form new relationships, which could benefit it politically and economically.

Read the whole thing.

JUST RECENTLY, A colleague of mine, stopped by my office room and saw a small poster I printed out and hanged on my wall. Well, not a poster, really, just a picture, promoting a certain computer game. "How fascist," she exclaimed. During a small argument that ensued, she attempted to back her statement up, saying something to the effect of "fascism" is using arms to reach a certain goal. She knows, because she read it in books (which I certainly believe).

I may be wrong on this, but for me "fascism" is uniformed soldiers marching under swastikas. For many of my peers, I believe, the association is same. While fascism is an ideology, and is not confined to Nazi Germany, for many people this association is imminent.

In my opinion, the colleague, admittedly belonging to far-Left, illustrates brilliantly the ultimate issue with the Israeli radical Left. Remember: these people are usually highly educated, most of them hold at least one university degree. They read much and have understanding of history and economics. Those are smart people.

In my view, education is important, but it cannot substitute fairness in a person. For example, for all their education, radical Left activists and supporters hate the settlers (sometimes spilling over unto the entire religious population), while fully taking pro-Palestinian stand. I wouldn’t mind them willing to protect Palestinians – many of them do need a voice. A person as educated as ones on radical Left should understand, I believe, that you have to look objectively at both sides, fight your emotions and attempt to better yourself. What kind of an educated person are you, if after reading all the proven or false theories you still cannot comprehend you might be wrong on a certain issue? If history told us one single thing it is that many people throughout it were absolutely sure they were right – in truth, being totally wrong.

If you ever needed a better example of people shooting themselves in the foot for the sake of ideology, go no further. There is a reason why former Knesset Member Zehava Gal’on, pictured above, lost her seat when only her MERETZ party won only three seats in the Parliament, dropping for 6 in 2003 elections (the electorate granted MERETZ with 10 seats in 1999 elections). MERETZ – once a major Zionist radical-Left party, became a tiny minority, now ignored by just about everyone. While certainly other factors were in play, it is hard to miss what regular people say: MERETZ, and their voters, are so entangled in their righteous defeatism and snobbery, most would prefer to avoid them.

Loss of Gal’on is a bad thing, although I know many on Israeli Right would disagree. Yes, she was totally furious and hateful towards the Right (and the ultra-orthodox), calling them "fascists" on many occasions. You could see it in her eyes – if you do not support her opinion, you’re not just dead wrong: you should be either forced to change your opinion or drop dead. Besides this, however, comes Gal’on’s women-rights activism. She fiercely fought against oppression of women, and should be commended for that work. Here lies the great tragedy of the Israeli left – they could do so much good for the people, yet do so little, due to lack of popular support.

And they are unlikely to get any, if they keep to their ways. No one says they should alter their opinions – but getting free of snobbery would be the first step out. After all, most people – the regular folks – never read Freud or have a doctorate in history. They are regular folks – the ones MERETZ lost touch with years ago, unable to rebuild lost ties. Unless this party is able to release itself from the hatred within, they will become irrelevant.

Far-Left supporters, such as my colleague, should finally get it: any extremism is bad. Settlers, going on violent riots against Palestinians due to removal of an outpost are wrong. But so are the people who brand all IDF troops as evil murderers. You cannot walk with your nose above the skies, and still expect people to accept your ideals for face value. You have to show them, that your ideals are something worth fighting for, and for that you would have to get down to earth.

This is not something we should expect from the radicals any time soon.

JUST WHEN I reach conclusion regarding certain people, they do something like this: Amos Harel, the arch-hero of ‘Hearsaygate‘ is back at it again. But if before I believed the man is dishonest, now I think he is just clueless. Well, and a little dishonest. One thing I am still sure about: Amos Harel is not a professional journalist. Double-checking the facts presented is way out of his league, as well as basing his own opinions on facts and reasonable doubts. Amos Harel is an ideologist, and when you read his reports and opinion articles he should be treated as such.

Finally, case in point: Amos Harel, of Israeli daily Haaretz, released his recent op-ed, regarding Break the Silence’s report, which we discussed here on Wednesday. To remind my readers: BtS is a left-wing Israeli organization, consisted mostly of IDF veterans, whose official goal it is to "expose moral corruption" within the IDF. BtS’ way of doing so is going through hundreds of testimonies in the past six months, and handpicking ones that suit their goals.

Harel sets his mission to defend the organization in his column. He believes it is ridiculous to question reliability of the witnesses (he notes some went as far as allege the witnesses are actors, reading from a script); it is ludicrous to demand the soldiers to reveal their identities. "It was enough," he says, "for these soldiers to hear from graduates of a pre-army prep course about the onslaught they faced after previous Cast Lead testimonies … to understand that their fears are not unfounded". Concluding: "It will be interesting to hear the full version of events once these soldiers are discharged" (Some of the interviewees were soldiers serving their 3-years-long regular duty).

Harel relieves the reader of trouble of remembering his own fiasco during the ‘Hearsaygate’ scandal, where he alleged most IDF soldiers during operation Cast Lead in Gaza vandalized property and murdered civilians in cold blood. When the whole thing was discovered to be a scam – two soldiers telling stories they never witnessed and never had the chance to, as they were never near Gaza at the time – Harel never apologized. To this day, he stands for his beliefs that IDF soldiers committed serious war crimes in Gaza, and does everything in his power – including omission of facts and distortions – to present his viewpoint.

With such goal in mind, Harel scolds at people demanding to see the faces of the testifying soldiers, or at least know where they served during the operation. The soldiers are afraid of "retribution" he says. And some of them should be! With regular troops it is understandable – they are not allowed to talk to press and could be punished for that. But what about reserve troops? After all, if they tell the truth, what is there to be afraid of? Unless, of course, there are some things they didn’t say, like them being in Sderot at the time of described events, with their testimony consisting of – once again – hearsay. After ‘Hearsaygate’ debacle several months ago, the public is much more demanding towards organizations releasing anonymous statements – and the public should act this way. Abomination, in which Harel participated, caused irreparable damage to Israel, and Israelis do not want to see that happen again.

The major point Harel makes is that IDF should listen to such testimonies, process and implement lessons learned from such events. What Harel fails to ask is why should IDF listen to a group, whose report makes investigating allegations impossible (you can’t investigate anonymous personnel), seeking attention from international press and donors. Immediately after report’s release, IDF officials expressed their dismay with the group publishing those accounts with the media first, instead of turning to IDF, asking for an investigation of the events. Harel could shill for the radicals all he wants – but people in position of power would not listen to him nor to people he promotes if they use tactics of hiding behind masks of anonymity. If the group wants the cases investigated, they should to transfer all evidence and testimonies to the Army prior to the release of the report, and wait for the results of investigations. They don’t have to wait forever – they could set an ultimatum of allowing, say, two months for investigations. But that is the correct way to go if you want to justice. Going to Haaretz first is the right way to go – if you seek to please your financiers and radical elements supporting you. In which case, the rest would never listen.

Cases of dubious or illegal behavior by the troops in Gaza should be investigated. But unless such testimonies are presented in fair and balanced way, Israeli public will stay oblivious of it. The belief in the IDF on the side of Israelis is strong – but it is not blind. Remember, most Israeli Jews served in the Israeli Defense Forces, many of them fought wars, and they actually know how IDF conducts itself. If Breaking the Silence – together with left-wing journalists – wants to break this belief and make people think – there is no better way to do so other than use of objective sources and presentation. With Harel, though, whose ideology hat covers his eyes, objectivity is not an option.

Update: Here are two great links for follow-up: «Breaking the Silence group cheating on global media», Unanswered Questions.

IT IS SAD to see certain people and organizations so entangled in own self-righteousness, they entirely miss on what they should actually be doing. Take Breaking the Silence (Shovrim Shtika, שוברים שתיקה) group for example. The organization says on its website that its goal is to make Israeli society take a deeper look at IDF’s deteriorating morals in the disputed territories. Their written goal is noble – but ceases being such after you examine group’s actions.

Reading materials on group’s website, it is discernable that the group is a far-left organization, whose actions meant to vilify IDF soldiers, rather than help them, and the society, understand the ills of their deeds. As with the recent expose by the organization, of testimonies by IDF soldiers operating during Cast Lead (sadly, the English version is shorter than the Hebrew one), Breaking the Silence walks the path of our ol’ pal Amos Harel from Haaretz, who did his best to bash IDF soldiers and accuse all of them in vandalism and cold-blooded murder. BtS basically attempts to do the same, presenting mostly anonymous testimonies from soldiers allegedly operating in every corner of Gaza, during the winter operation.

The soldiers tell stories of destruction, needless shooting (including tanks), lax rules of engagement, white phosphorous use and use of civilians to ‘cleanse’ suspected enemy structures. No doubt, from the description of it, the situation was grim.

And in quite a few cases, it probably was. What BtS fails to address, is the full picture – both sides of the story, that is. While some soldiers accused IDF of using excessive force – all well documented by Palestinian Rights Groups – other accounts were mostly left out of attention. Take a look:

These testimonies – and many others – were never mentioned by Breaking the Silence or other Palestinian Rights Groups. The message behind PRGs’ word is clear – IDF is evil.

Also, I couldn’t help but wonder why it took BtS so many months to publish their reports. No, I am not saying it’s false – I am however wondering how many testimonies they heard. Probable hundreds. Among those hundreds, they chose 30. What stories did other soldiers tell? Where are their testimonies?

BtS, however, shoots itself in the foot, if it is sincere in its attempts to make Israelis re-think their attitude towards IDF’s morality. Reflecting only on the bad will likely alienate the majority, who served the IDF themselves – just like me – who remember the orders and the training we were given. No doubt, bad things are out there, and they should – no, must – be investigated. However, we – soldiers who also served in the IDF, like the activists of Breaking the Silence – did our best to treat Palestinians with respect.

During my military service, among other things, I did checkpost duty, at a Ramot entry point to Jerusalem. Located near Beit Iqsa village, the post sees arrivals from nearby Jewish towns of Giv’at Zeev, Giv’on and the city of Modi’in. Quite a few Israeli Arabs pass that post as well, particularly ones working in Atarot industrial sector. Not once did I disrespect a man. It was my duty to check IDs and sometimes the vehicles of Arab (and sometimes Jewish) motorists and you would always hear the word ‘Please’ coming from me and my teammates. Sadly, these testimonies never make it to BtS. They are not interested in those.

Another account I received during my visit to Hebron this Passover. I met an IDF soldier from Paratroopers brigade, doing guard duty in a Jewish neighborhood. His account strongly resembles one of destruction by soldiers BtS interviewed. Unlike those testimonies, this one had a reason behind it:

There is no doubt, that an educated person would take Silence’s gathered testimonies with a grain of salt. Previous testimonies of two IDF soldiers saying troops went as far as using deadly force against innocent civilians were discovered to be hearsay, with two GI’s not even close to the alleged scenes of crime. Breaking the Silence goes by the path of Danny Zamir – the person who recorded testimonies of the two soldiers and published them in print – that is, notify the press of the allegations and blame IDF for all ills. IDF officials were disappointed at the release of the allegations, without any involvement of the body:

And they should be. Breaking the Silence, group that advocates the rule of law, forgets one basic principle: you do not accuse a person of crime without giving him the power to defend himself. In any court of law, defendant has an attorney. BtS, however, chose to go the Iran way, concluding the IDF is guilty. That is certainly good for the financiers of this operation – Israeli Palestinian Rights Groups, governments of Britain, Spain, Netherlands, and the European Union. Nothing could make Israel look worse nowadays than allegations of war crimes in Gaza. And if testimonies turn out to be wrong or hearsay or misrepresented – well, that won’t make it into the press anyway. The allegations will stick.

And so, next time you see a "comprehensive" report from Breaking the Silence, take it with a pinch of salt. No – take a whole spoon with it. And do your own research. Those people, heavily influenced by foreign sources, cannot be trusted to present fair and balanced information. And that’s a shame. Because bad things do happen, they must be investigated.

IT IS SAD to see the downfall of certain public figures. It is true, EU’s Solana never was particularly strong or fair person, but he did earn certain degree of respect for his work. Going through several high-ranking positions (including that of Secretary General for NATO), he is one of the best-known officials in Europe. His name constantly pops up in newspapers and in websites; his face is familiar to many.

Yet, some would say he is a desperate man – desperate for attention, that is. To some extend, they might be correct. Latest stunt pulled by the High Representative for EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy panel would hardly earn him respect in understanding circles. Solana proposed the UN to set a deadline, after which it would officially recognize the Palestinian state, even if no agreement is reached between the newly-established entity and Israel. Solana suggested that the United Nations  would "proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution". He also said that such ‘proclamation’ would include decisions on borders, status of Jerusalem, security and Palestinian refugees. Palestine would be accepted as full-fledged member of the UN, placing additional leverage on Palestinians, as well as the Israelis.

Recognition of Palestine would serve several purposes: first and foremost, Israel would be left out of deciding on nature of Palestine. You might remember Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu calling for a demilitarized Palestinian state. However, if recognized by the international community, it would be up to it – not Netanyahu and Abbas – to decide on nature of such state. The UN is not likely to see Israel’s security needs as first priority, and would be more likely to impose – at least in writing – establishment of Palestine, with the power to sign defense treaties with Syria and Iran. Moreover, the UN – not Israelis and Palestinians at the negotiation table – would decide on Israel’s borders – again, Israel’s needs would likely be sacrificed to the new entity. Let’s not forget, that UN is now populated mostly by anti-Western states, who could be expected to side with the Palestinians. With all honesty, we could say that only two states would take Israel’s side – the United States (who, in spite of differences, would not risk destruction of the Jewish state) and Micronesia. 190 other states will either abstain or proclaim such step a "victory for democracy". Swell.

Secondly, Solana’s solution would inflict certain pressure on Palestinians. "You are now part of the modern world. You have to play by the rules". But then, again, with the UN’s largely pro-Palestinian agenda, such pressure would be all but considerable.

The there’s the issue of internal Palestinian struggles. No one yet speaks of it, but it might as well be said out loud – currently, there is a clear possibility of two Palestines – Palestine One and Palestine Two. That is, one in West Bank, controlled by Mahmoud Abbas’ FATAH party – mostly secular, somewhat West-inclined – and one in Gaza, run by HAMAS, fanatical, dangerous and a terror-breeding ground in Israel’s and Egypt’s back yard. Hopefully, he realized it the instant he said it: at this moment, Solana’s solution is as irrelevant as last years’ snow. Without certain unity within Palestinians themselves, enforcing establishment of Palestine would just as likely lead to massacres and infighting – comparable (but probably much worse) to armed struggle between HAMAS and FATAH in Gaza, which left hundreds of dead and wounded on the streets. HAMAS has little incentive to fight FATAH now outside Gaza; establishment of the state and rule of it would introduce motivation for Ismail Haniyeh’s terrorists. Don’t forget – the new state, backed by dozens of nations worldwide, will likely bring vast injection of cash straight into Palestine’s bloodstream.

Lastly, let us paint the scenario: on October 22, 2015, United Nations proclaims establishment of Palestinian state. According to the accepted scenario (with softening touches by US, France and Britain), Palestine’s borders mostly adjoin the 1967 armistice line. Jerusalem, the UN states, should be under international control – no one would risk the efforts to remove the Muslim Waqf’s control of the Temple Mount, though. FATAH being in control of the West Bank, its leader – still, likely, Mahmoud Abbas – declares himself the President, officially welcoming hundreds of thousands of new citizens – Jewish settlers that is (in Arabic, however, his aides would call on struggle against the "occupants" and "pigs").

Immediately, HAMAS’ activists in West Bank organize riots, protesting FATAH’s move, with former renewing armed campaign to eradicate and expel and FATAH members from Gaza. No doubt, Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashaal would immediately welcome interviews with international media, decrying UN’s favoritism of FATAH.

See where I’m going here? Those are likely to be the first days after Solana’s plan goes from paper to reality. Bloody war would follow.

Maybe the critics are correct. Responsible consideration of facts might not be Solana’s strongest point.

Before 1967 there was a two-state-solution, but no peace with Israel. Why? Because at that time Gaza was a part of Egypt, and the so-called West bank was under military control of the kingdom of Jordan.

Why did Egypt not give Gaza to the «Palestinians?» Why did Jordan refuse to give the so-called West bank to the PLO?

If Gaza is returned to Egypt, and Judea and Samaria is «given back» to Jordan, than the «Palestinian problem» will be solved?

At least the Arab World will no longer be able to blame the misery of the claimed to be Palestinians on the Jewish state.

Going back to the time before 1967, the pain and agony of the Arab Palestinians will surely be brought back to their Muslim brothers, who created the mess in the region by trying to destroy Israel in 1948 and 1967. But there will still be no peace. Because there can be no peace in an Islamic heart, before the whole of Israel is destroyed. So the spirit of Allah can be satisfied.

Lets read what Tilman Tarach, a lawyer in Germany has to say about this matter:

Jordan’s territory is more than four times Israel’s, and its population density is only one sixth of Israel’s. The majority of the Palestinian refugees who fled during the wars of 1948 and 1967 live in Jordan, and about 60 percent of all Jordanians call themselves Palestinians.

Until 1967, the West Bank was occupied by Jordan: it was actually formally annexed, and the Palestinian Arabs living there were considered Jordanians (and, even today, they often hold a Jordanian passport). But, tellingly, none of them called for an intifada against Jordan to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank, and none of the Palestinian Arabs ever fought against the Egyptians in Gaza, who had occupied the Gaza Strip since 1948. The fighting has always and exclusively been directed against Israel’s existence.

When the PLO was founded in 1964, it did not call for the liberation of the territories occupied by Jordan and Egypt, but for the destruction of Israel; nobody within the PLO talked about a Palestinian state at that time, not even Ahmed Shukeiri, until 1967 chairman of the PLO.

1965: PLO boasted of killing 35 Jews

In Article 24 of its 1964 Charter, the PLO still explicitly renounced any sovereignty claims to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The strategy did not change until after 1967, when these territories were no longer occupied by Jordan or Egypt but by Israel. As early as in 1965, the PLO boasted of having killed 35 Jews, and the number increased as the years went on.

This shows the dishonesty of the lamentation, repeated like a mantra, that the assaults on Jews are only a reaction to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, which took place only in the course of the Six Day War.

As is well known, that very same year Israel offered to negotiate the return of all the occupied territories in exchange for genuine peace, but at the Khartoum Conference the Arab states answered with the famous triple «no»: «no» to peace with Israel, «no» to recognition of Israel, «no» to negotiations with Israel. Tunisian president Habib Bourguiba was the only Arab leader who, as early as 1965, supported an agreement with Israel.

The Khartoum Conference restated the old position of the notorious mufti of Jerusalem: Not an inch of sacred Muslim soil would be allowed to make up a sovereign Jewish state. In this context, it should be recalled that Jimmy Carter was the first to propose a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; not until then did the PLO seize this suggestion.

In reality, the only viable option, which not even the Palestinians can raise reasonable objections against, is the following: The West Bank (or large parts of it) is united with Jordan, and Gaza with Egypt. (When, in February 2008, the Palestinians overran the Egyptian border fortifications into Sinai, their rallying cry, addressed to the Egyptians, was: “We are one people.”)

According to surveys, 30 per cent of Palestinians living in the West Bank are in favor of such a solution. But it meets with resistance from the Hashemite dynasty of Jordan, which fears for the loss of the throne; it therefore renounced any territorial claims to the West Bank back in 1988. As reported by the Jordanian newspaper Al-Ghad, King Abdullah considered a confederation between Jordan and the West Bank a «conspiracy against his kingdom and against the Palestinians».

All the well-known Palestinian groups demonize such a plan: The creation of a second Palestinian state next to Jordan has always been just a pretense for them to conceal their anti-Israel policies, and the recognition of Jordan enlarged by the West Bank as the state of the Palestinians would deprive them of this pretense.

Their real objective has always been the destruction of Israel and, with their phony anger at the «Zionist arrogance», they would still pursue this goal even if the Jews of Israel retreated all the way to Masada or Tel Aviv.

Source: Letter to the editor of Jerusalem Post.

Tilman Tarach is a lawyer in Germany and recently published The Eternal Scapegoat: Holy War, «The Protocols of the Elders of Zion», and the Dishonesty of the So-Called Left in the Middle East Conflict. This article was recently printed in German in the monthly konkret. (Translation: Dr. Margret Szymanski-Schikora)

(Contributed by News that matters)

AT TIMES, SMART people offer solution different from all others. At times, though, smart people offer solutions based on wrongful facts and forgotten history. Now meet Mickey Bergman, the special advisor to Middle East Strategy Group of Aspen Institute. Bergman is also the director of US-Palestinian Public-Private Partnership program. Bergman wants Netanyahu to force settlers out.

Bergman believes Israel should adopt a ‘Compensation Law’, a bill that would allow people taking their belongings and resettling on the eastern side of the Green Line to receive monetary compensation from the State. The offer would be limited, and those who would refuse it, would not get any funds when the government decides to forcefully resettle them. Taking aforementioned step, Bergman believes, would allow Obama to pressure Palestinians into concessions, with Israel having the right to tell the world: Here, we are moving towards peace.

As sad as it is, Bergman oversees countless facts in recent Israeli history, substituting reality with his vision. Spiraling down into the mist, Bergman oversees several major issues with his plan, addressing his vision for happy future instead.

First and foremost, it is unclear how removal of settlements would affect Palestinians’ determination for concessions, and while Israel is being asked to make any further concessions at all. After all, while not much, since Oslo agreements in 1993 Israel did cede over 13 per cent to Palestinian Autonomy, assisted in creation of its armed police force, supplied Palestinian rulers with water, gas and money. Moreover, Palestinian Autonomy, under the rule of Yasser Arafat, accepted over $4.5 billion from world’s nations. Still, none of those steps made Arafat and Palestinian people make peace with Israel their major goal. Until this day, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas calls for total Israeli withdrawal to 1967 (not accepting land exchanges) and return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants (counting between four and five million souls) into the 1967-bordered Israel. Since Arafat and Rabin shook hands, terror rose to huge proportions, years before the second Intifada. All facts counted, Palestinian people and their leaders took no one step to promote peace.

Why would then Palestinians agree to compromise on certain issues, despite the steps already taken by Israel? After all, in 1994 Israeli settlements weren’t as much of a problem as they are now – less than half of current population resided then in West Bank settlements. Surely back then it was easier to reach a peace deal than now?

Bergman also omits some major milestones in Israel’s quest for peace, after the second Intifada started. For example, several months after the Palestinian uprising and IDF’s military action against Palestinian terrorists, Arafat personally requested IDF pull its tanks back and allow Palestinian security personnel take control over PA-governed areas. Each time such attempts failed and more attacks followed, with IDF eventually locking Arafat inside his compound, yet allowing endless supply of foods inside. We are not, by the way, talking poor man’s feast.

In 2005, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon evacuated Jewish settlements from Gaza, with PA taking control over the entire Strip. While many make the point that Gaza wasn’t really liberated – Israel still controlled most of its borders, including sea and air space. Yet, is this excuse enough to unleash a new wave of attacks against Israel? If Palestinians indeed longed for peace, wouldn’t Israel’s pullback reflect on its will to leave Gaza alone? Sharon’s defiant move allowed Gazans to take control over their territory; if PA and HAMAS would begin creating a flourishing society (by opening new markets, building new playgrounds for children, establishing open trade, establishing security control and disarming terrorists), no doubt Israel would within few years allow Gazans full sovereignty over their soil. We all know how that played out.

Bergman also omits the fact that before Israelis realized allowing Palestinians self-control leads to disaster, they elected new Prime Minister – Ehud Olmert – whose key pledge was full evacuation of Jewish settlements from within the West Bank, excluding several large outposts, for which Palestinians would be compensated with other lands. Olmert, according to sources familiar with the matter, was ready to cede control over the Temple Mount and East Jerusalem. Despite such promises, Palestinians refused to cooperate.

Israel took several great, painful steps towards peace. They might not have been great – but those were steps. There is no – absolutely none – indication Palestinians would make a step, even a tiny one, towards real peace. For example, only recently, a new FATAH TV channel was launched, with people familiar with its content saying its shows regularly carry same Jew-hating themes as HAMAS’ TV in Gaza.

Last, but not least, is Bergman’s failure to address the issue of the majority of the settlers. He says even if 10 per cent of residents of the West Bank would leave their homes and find new ones inside 1967 Israel, Palestinians would view this as major stride towards peace. The rest should be left uncompensated he says. When the soldiers come to evacuate them – they will be on their own.

From his bio, Mickey Bergman sure seems like a smart man. How can a smart person come up with such ideas? What about the consequences? What would the state do with 450,000 homeless, jobless persons, many of them children? How would the state accommodate the needs of tens of thousands of families, even without reimbursing them? Now, four years later, meager thousands of Gush Katif evacuees still have no permanent jobs or housing – how would Netanyahu and his team (or whoever comes next) solve same problem for hundreds of thousands such citizens?

As it is proven once and again in modern world, university degree or position says nothing about your intellectual skills; says nothing about your honesty and will to objectively view the situation. While it is true that Israel should prepare contingency plan in case Palestinians elect a leader capable of compromise. Yet, even though they resent it so much, the ball is in Palestinians’ court now – it has been for the past 15 years.

UN COMMIITTEE, INVESTIGATING Israel’s operation Cast Lead in Gaza, heard testimonials from several Israelis, including victims, father of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit and mayor of city of Ashkelon. As with previous such hearing in Gaza, Goldstone’s mission listened to Israeli victims of Gazans’ terror, including several low-level officials. Israel’s government previously refused to cooperate with the panel, citing its previous experience with UN’s investigations (most notably, Terje Roed-Larsen’s fact-finding mission into Jenin battle of 2002).

One of most significant speakers was Dr. Mirella Sidrer, whose clinic was hit by a Qassam rocket, with her and her patient sustaining serious wound:

Another speaker at the forum was the father of captive Israeli soldier – Noam Shalit. Shalit told investigators release of his son would likely lead to lift of the blockade and spoke to Gazan citizens:

“Don’t do this for any kind of profit, do it because it is the right thing to do, do it for the welfare of your people… Do not ignore the circumstances of my son’s military service," continued Shalit. "He wasn’t attacking your land – he wasn’t even on your land. He was in Israel’s sovereign territory, defending what was supposed to be a peaceful borderline.”

It seemed that the members of the panel sympathized with Shalit, with Pakistani Hina Jilani saying:

"I speak for all of us when I say we are sympathetic to your pain and to the hard times you and your family have been through." … "Anyone using human suffering as a tool to push an agenda is wrong. I was very impressed by your distinguished testimony."

GOLDSTONE’S TEAM APPEARS to reflect objectivity – listening to both sides, fair and straight. Israeli officials, however, are correct – Israel has much experience in UN’s fact-finding missions. During aforementioned investigative mission to Jenin, Terje Roed-Larsen was terrified by the destruction of the refugee camp, telling the tales of much destruction, saying it was "horrific beyond belief", fully disregarding attacks by Jenin terrorists against Israeli civilians. Goldstone’s mission is likely to suffer another Palestinian disease – constant watchful eye of guards, keeping track of what civilians tell UN’s emissaries. As in Jenin 2002, several reports indicate Goldstone’s meeting with Gazan civilians were almost always attended by HAMAS officials and/or armed men. Obviously portrayed as protection for the peacekeepers, HAMAS activists looked straight in the eye to each Gaza man or woman speaking to UN’s representatives.

It is still to be seen if the mission would be able to look beyond people’s biases. Gazans, trained since childhood to hate Jews, and trained by HAMAS to exaggerate stories, might inadvertently twist facts in order to gain sympathy with the team. Israeli civilians, feeling deep resentment for the UN might not arrive at all, and those who would, would probably affected by biases of their own. UN investigators would also have to look at the infrastructure: relatively lack of Israeli civilian casualties is the direct result of Israeli government constructing fortified bunkers, where civilians could hide in case of an attack. HAMAS and FATAH lead governments never spent any resources on such construction besides, maybe, themselves. Also, it is unlikely tales of HAMAS operatives using civil infrastructure would be heard by the team from Gazans themselves.

It is logical to conclude that it is unlikely Goldstone’s team would reach unbiased conclusions – although it might be one of the very first UN teams to blast both Israel and HAMAS for use of violence. The investigators are unlikely to go back into history, researching how Israel’s 2005 disengagement lead to violent HAMAS takeover and subsequent attacks by Gazan – not necessarily HAMAS – terrorists on Israel. They would probably stay in recent past and the present – HAMAS was bad for firing rockets, Israel was very bad for killing so many people. HAMAS should stop violence. Israel should lift the blockade, stop attacks, allow trade with Gaza through Israel, pay damages and supply everything Gazans need.

Last, but not least, is UN’s pledge of impartiality. While blame would be put on both sides (Israel would get the most, though), Goldstone would still attempt to stay off judgment – at least Gaza-wise. The conclusions will not reach far beyond general assumptions and calls for normalization. There would be no comprehensive plan or idea to end the violence  – after all, they are here to recover the past, not build a future. Thus, it is safe to assume Israel would be correct in not cooperating with UN’s investigators, at the very least because the mission would end up nowhere.

It does not mean, though, that Israel should ignore the findings. Some bad things happened in Gaza, and IDF soldiers – on deliberately or not – were responsible to some of them. It would be difficult to discern real testimonies from HAMAS propaganda, it should be done by Israeli analysts. IDF’s mission should be constantly improving itself, causing as few casualties as possible in any upcoming large-scale operation. Goldstone’s mission might be a good ground to start.

Yet, due to the failure of responsible parties to formulate their stance on the issue – and because of Israeli-HAMAS talks on Shalit being on a sensitive stage – the government decided, for the meantime, to delay the hearings, as to not disrupt possible deal closure.

Sounds ridiculous? It sure is. Not only it apparently takes screeching apparatus months to reach a somewhat comprehensible conclusion on the matter (I understand the need to council, but months? ), the individuals behind the proposal evidently see no reason to rush for Shalit’s release, taking their time. I understand, this is just human nature – they’d be running around in circles all day if their kid would be kidnapped – but don’t they have a sense of compassion? How ridiculously slow can this thing be?

But maybe there is something they know, that we don’t. As many alleged in the past, it is quite possible – probable, even – that Corporal Shalit is not among the living. Even if he survived the devastating attack on IDF troops, it is unlikely HAMAS would keep him alive for long – seeing experience of their brothers to the north (Hizb Allah) – Gaza’s Ismail Haniyeh appreciates the ease with which Hassan Nasrallah forced Israelis to release hundreds of live prisoners for bodies of five dead IDF troops (in two separate exchanges). Thus, HAMAS likely sees no justification for keeping the prisoner alive, with all possible fuss he can bring along (such as escape attempts).

No doubt, Israel’s previous trade with the terrorists cost another young man his life.

Sadly, he is not last.

ON MAY 24, 2005, 15-years-old Palestinian boy (pictured right) arrived at the Hawara IDF checkpoint, near the city of Nablus. The boy aroused suspicion of the troops, who cleared the area and ordered the youth to take off his clothes, exposing suicide belt. IDF’s Engineering Corps. officers took the vest off the boy, using remote-controlled robots. Several months after that, another boy was arrested under similar circumstances.

The Hawara checkpoint is known for its dangers. Guarding the post, IDF soldiers faced acid attacks, stabbings and explosives. Due to its hazardous nature, the post is mostly guarded by IDF’s paratrooper battalions – some of the most trained among Israeli troops.

This morning it was revealed that IDF would significantly reduce the wait time for Palestinians on foot, by ceasing individual checks of each person passing the post. This decision follows another one taken by IDF commanders, allowing Palestinian road traffic to flow by reducing checks.

First and foremost it is important to declare that the goal is noble. The Palestinians have the right to work and move freely around their future state. However, upcoming dangers should also be taken into consideration. After all, it is no secret that the deciding factor for near cessation of deadly terror from West Bank into Israel was the enormous pressure the IDF put on Palestinians, following which it was nearly impossible to smuggle firearms and explosives.

Easing restrictions would also release a demon – Palestinian terrorists, with all their pro-brotherhood proclamations – never cared for their people, otherwise they would think twice before attacking cafe’s and disco’s, thus causing a tight closure on the entire West Bank. Thus, we can conclude, flow of Palestinian traffic would bring more terror with it. While IDF soldiers are certainly adequately trained and equipped to counter such threats, lives could be lost.

Hopefully, Palestinians would understand that roaming their land freely is much better than hatred, enclosed among four walls.

ONE OF MOST controversial issues of the year reappears again, as trial begins for twelve members of a lynch mob, that killed deserting IDF soldier Eden Natan Zada. Zada, however, is a terrorist, who entered the Israeli Palestinian town of Shfaram, opened fire on a bus, murdering four civilians and wounding ten others. Immediately following the attack, large crows gathered, lynching Zada.

Today, close to one hundred protesters gathered in front of Haifa District Court, calling for immediately cessation of legal proceedings. Among protesters – hard-line VIPs, such as Islamic Movement’s Sheikh Raed Salah (previously featured on these pages), HADASH’s MK Mohammed Barakeh and BALAD’s Jamal Zahalka.

Points the crowd started with were good: Arabs, just as Jews, should be equally protected by the law. If Palestinian terrorists goes shooting on a busy street of Jerusalem (or using a bulldozer) – the Jewish residents shoot him, no questions asked. As it should be – another moment for this man/woman alive could bring dozens of dead. Thus, just as the Jews would kill a terrorist, even one not doing any harm at that particular moment, so the Arabs should be able to defend themselves.

Then, however, the elected representatives dragged their protest into windstorm of accusations, ranging from apartheid to fascism. While those certainly could be feelings of the demonstrators, shouldn’t elected officials act smarter? Shouldn’t they fight for reconciliation and justice, instead of spreading hatred? After all, the Israeli citizens present – who demand equality in work and social benefits – surely understand that labeling the trial as “embodiment of the fascist regime in Israel” would not open the doors of equality for them?

That is not to say they should not protest. What happens today is injustice. On July 2, 2008 (almost a year ago, come to think of it) 30-years-old Hussam Taysir Duwai used his construction bulldozer to attack Jewish civilians on a major Jerusalem road. After killing three and wounding over 40, the man was killed by an off-duty IDF soldier and a police officer. The police stated it was necessary to use deadly force against the perpetrator, stopping him from reaching the crowded Machane Yehuda market, under a mile away.

As in the case of Jerusalem attack, it is easily imaginable that residents of the Israeli Palestinian town feared for their lives, hence the attack on the terrorist. While investigation certainly should follow such an act, it seems that legal proceedings are out of order in this case.

Special busses would carry youngsters to and from bars and pubs (Courtesy: Walla.Co.IL)

FIRST TESTED IN Jerusalem last year, Israeli Ministry of Transportation enacts the use of public transportation in order to avert traffic accidents caused by drinking young men and women. Jerusalemite test was lauded as successful by many, and will be enacted within major Israeli cities this summer.

The busses – such as one pictured – would drive most of the night, collecting passengers to and from major night life destinations, such as discos, bars and pubs. During the rest of the year, such lines would work on weekends. This step – MoT officials hope – would substantially reduce volume of deadly traffic accidents, taking hundreds of lives annualy.

Talya Goren, an official organizing the work of such bus lines, told Hebrew Walla! news website this is the first time ever all four major bus companies currently operating in Israel cooperate on the issue. Goren also said, that MoT first discovered such operation in London, where such bus lines are long-testes practice. According to estimates, 400,000 youngester would ride such bus lines this summer.

ISRAELI NAVY FORCES stopped the activist boat on its way to Gaza. Free Gaza movement – the organizer of the sail – was on its way to Gaza with three tons of medical supplies and a symbolic bag of cement (according to the organization).

IDF Spokesman’s office released a statement saying

The organizers are furious, going as far as calling IDF’s action a war crime. Some activists went farther, comparing Israeli actions to those of Somali pirates (unlike the Somalis, Israel did not murder anyone on boat and did not ask for millions in ransom for the activists, instead transferring the activists to local immigration authorities).

While the sentiment is comprehensible to me, it definitely helps no one. In my opinion, the Free Gaza organization seeks publicity rather than actual help. Bringing attention to suffering of people in Gaza is a good deed, but wouldn’t it be better to actually help them with provisions and medical supplies? After all, several months ago British MP George Galloway made it into Gaza, there surely must be a way for Free Gaza guys to do same? Real help would also serve the group better, reflecting their will to help instead of gaining cheap publicity at Israel’s expense, promoting hatred.