Israel Picks Up the Phone to Avoid Deaths

I found an interesting piece on ABC news, on its November 19th evening telecast and also found online.

Israel has subscribed to the practice of destroying the houses of known terrorists and the families of sucide bombers as a deterrent for future terrorist actions or punishment for already completed bombings. In this latest particular instance, Israel sought to destroy the home of the "militia leader" (read: terorist) Mohammed Baroud. (Baroud is a member of the Popular Resistance Committee, a terrorist militia which participated in the abduction of Israel Cpl. Gilad Shalit and frequently fires Qassam missiles into southern Israel.) In doing so, Israel called Baroud, informed him of its plan and gave him a half hour to evacuate and allow the surrounding area to be cleared so as to avoid an civilian casualties.

What did Baroud do? In a brazen, cunning manuever, he called, via cell phone and by way of screaming from the roof of his house, on his fellow Palestinians to serve as human shields and deter the Israelis from firing on his house. He essentially told the Israelis thanks for the warning to evacuate so no innocents will be killed, but I'm actually going to do the opposite and invite all my friends over and put them in harm's way as a means to put pressure on you.

The Israeli military was forced to postpone the bombing. As an army sokesman said "This is definitely a problem. The reason why we warn ahead is to avoid innocent injuries. Instead, they are using the warning to do what they did yesterday. We'll see how we can deal with it."

I bring this story up not debate the merits of Israel's practice of destroying the homes of terrorists. Nor do I wish to discuss whether this can be viewed as a Palestinian victory. Rather, I choose to focus on one important, but possibly overlooked fact: Israel called Baroud before it intended to destroy his house, in order to prevent him and others from being killed. Israel is at war with the likes of Baroud, but in the rough and tumble Middle East, Israel still finds the time (or is forced due to one-sided international pressure) to warn its sworn enemies of its military actions. It did the same in Lebanon, showering the inhabitants of Southern Lebanon with leaflets warning of impending strikes. Does Hamas make a phone call to Egged when it plans a suicide bombing? Did Hezbollah warn the residents of Kiryat Shemona of its missle strikes? Does the Popular Resistance Committee call into Sderot when it fires its (wildly inaccurate and deadly) Qassam rockets?

I do not mean to draw a moral equivalency between the Palestinian attacks and the Israel military actions. Not at all. My point is much more simple: Israel calls its enemy before its pinpoint airstrikes so as to avoid civilian deaths; Palestinian terrorists give no such warning so as to kill and maim as many Israelis as possible. In the ongoing warping and overlooking of facts in the Middle East struggle, this must not go unnoticed.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Interview With David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee

I want to share with you the text from a very interesting interview that I feel provides some insight into the current political and diplomatic situations Israel faces. This is the English-language version of an interview with David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, published in yesterday's l'Unita, one of Italy's most prominent daily newspapers (and identified politically with the left-of-center).

"It's not true that we Jews do not support those who seek peace"

by Umberto De Giovannangeli

November 14, 2006

David Harris is the director of the American Jewish Committee, the prestigious American Jewish organization that this year celebrates its centennial anniversary. Harris addresses the questions raised by Minister of Foreign Affairs Massimo D'Alema in his interview with l'Unita.

In a recent interview published by l'Unità, the Italian Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema complained that the moderate voices coming from Israel, such as that of David Grossman, have received little support from world Jewry. Do you agree with this statement?

I have great respect for David Grossman's writings and humanism. A number of left-of-center Jewish groups have endorsed his political views. While I fully share his desire for peace, I understand the Israeli mainstream, whose views are more complicated. In poll after poll, they support peace and the compromises necessary to achieve a settlement. But, at the same time, they are fearful of Iranian and Arab intentions, believing that their ultimate goal is Israel's destruction. In particular, Israelis yearn for a credible Palestinian partner, but don't see one today. Israel has sought peace with its neighbors from its establishment in 1948. The record speaks for itself. After all, Israel was founded to create the tranquility and security for the Jewish people that was too often missing in Diaspora communities, whether in Europe or the Islamic world. But wanting peace and attaining peace are not the same…

In your view, what should be done to give a renewed sense of hope and possibility for peace?

Attaining peace means have a negotiating partner who grasps the essential nature of mutual recognition and mutual compromise. Tragically, that's been missing on the Palestinian side. In the meantime, Israel has no choice in our view but to exercise its right of self-defense. To be sure, it is a situation made more difficult by the cynical use of civilians as human shields on the Palestinian side. Tragically, at times, there will be human errors in conflicts, but Israel's policy is to avoid deliberately targeting civilians - exactly the opposite of the strategy employed by both Hamas and Hezbollah.

Contrary to Foreign Minister D'Alema's assertion, Israel does not see force as a substitute for diplomacy. But in the absence of any serious diplomatic possibilities, and in the face of daily rocket attacks and threats of violence from the Gaza Strip - an area Israel withdrew from in 2005 and thereby gave local residents their first chance in history for self-government-what choice does Israel have today? What would other countries, including Italy, do if faced with an average of three rockets per day launched by Islamic terrorist groups at population centers, as Israel currently experiences from Gaza?

The observations made by the Foreign Minister touch a sensitive issue -- relations between Israel and the Jewish Diaspora. My question to you is: Is the role of world Jewry limited to defending -- always and in all cases -- the actions of Israel or is there room for criticism?

Of course there is room for criticism. Being in the Jewish world, I hear and see it every day. In Israel, the vibrant press and often raucous Knesset debates reflect the wide diversity of views. That diversity can also be found in other Jewish communities. As we often joke, "if there are two Jews, there are three opinions."

That said, I also see a great deal of unfounded criticism of Israel in the larger world, whether at the UN, in the media or intellectual circles. That criticism is often reflexive, devoid of reality and context, and often driven by double standards. Whereas Israel is attacked for every alleged misdeed, other truly egregious human rights situations around the world are ignored or rationalized. That is why the American Jewish Committee (AJC) devotes so much effort to fostering greater understanding of Israel's difficult security environment, its small and therefore vulnerable size (only one-fourteenth the size of Italy), its quest for peace, and its robust democratic culture.

Do you believe that the Palestinians have a right to live in an independent state side by side with Israel? And if yes, how should this pathway to peace be actualized?

Absolutely. We have long supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians are going away. The political answer is obvious and very much along the lines of the Clinton-Barak plan of 2000. But there has been one key element missing. In the past seven years alone, three successive Israeli prime ministers -- Barak, Sharon and now Olmert -- have publicly expressed support for a two-state solution, but have not found a partner on the other side.

Arafat never really believed in a political solution and an end to the conflict, but rather in getting what he could from the Israelis and then extending the conflict. He never prepared his people for peace and the reality of compromise. He spoke out of both sides of his mouth, which at least the current Hamas leadership doesn't do. They make clear that Israel should be destroyed and replaced by an Islamic state.

When the Palestinian people wake up to the realization that they have been ill served by their leaders, who have led them down a blind alley, then peace will become a distinct possibility. I for one refuse to abandon hope. How many people, for example, foresaw a peace treaty between Israel and its most implacable foe, Egypt, yet it has been a reality for nearly three decades? Yes, miracles are possible, but it takes Arab leaders with the courage and vision of an Anwar Sadat or King Hussein to make them happen, together with their Israeli counterparts.

I would now like to turn to the American scene, starting from the midterm elections. Can the success of the Democrats bring about a change in U.S. politics and in the attitude of the White House towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

I foresee change on some key issues when the new Congress begins in January. Policy on Iraq will be reviewed, the agenda of political conservatives on such issues as abortion, church-state relations, stem-cell research and gun control are likely to be stalled, and energy innovation and conservation will receive greater attention. But both major parties share a deep commitment to the US-Israel relationship, reflecting strong American public opinion in this regard. And both parties understand that at a time when Iran is flexing its muscles, Hezbollah is rearming despite the good intentions of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, and Hamas is receiving a flow of weapons across the Egyptian border, this is precisely the time to reaffirm the US-Israel link.

At the same time, as both countries have a profound stake in exploring opportunities for better conflict management, if not conflict resolution, in the region, they will be looking carefully for new openings. One such opening could be the growing realization in parts of the Arab world that the real threat to the region comes not from Israel but from Iran and its proxies. That could lead to some changed strategic calculations and benefit peace prospects. Only time will tell if the political vision and courage are there among Arab leaders. I very much hope they are. And not only for Israel's sake.

Bolton Has A Fan In Me

John Bolton, the United States ambassador to the UN, has been called many things, such as “rude”, “undiplomatic” or “blunt” and also been accused of spinning intelligence to support his political views. After the recent Democratic victories in the mid term elections, President Bush has pushed once again for Bolton’s appointment to the UN in the hopes of pushing it through the lame duck Congress. Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, a long time critic of Bolton who was recently defeated in his re-election bid, has stated he will not support Bolton's confirmation in the upcoming lame duck session. It looks like his appointment is all but dead at this point.

Call him what you will, but there is one area in which I must applaud Mr. Bolton and that is his defense of Israel in the UN, an international body not known for its positive treatment of the Jewish State. On Saturday, the United States vetoed (yet another) Security Council resolution on Saturday that condemned Israel for its military actions in Gaza and called for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the area. The original draft of the resolution, introduced by Qatar, made no mention of Palestinian rocket strikes into Israel and accused Israel of conducting a “massacre” of civilians in its attack at Beit Hanun on Wednesday that killed 18 civilians. Four countries abstained form the vote — Britain, Denmark, Japan and Slovakia — while ten were in favor — Argentina, China, Congo, France, Ghana, Greece, Peru, Russia, Qatar and Tanzania.

In other words, it was another one sided UN resolution against Israel.

Bolton vetoed the resolution, saying it “does not display an even-handed characterization of the recent events in Gaza, nor does it advance the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace.” Even after there were attempts at amendments, Bolton said the resolution remained “in many places biased against Israel and politically motivated.”

It’s nice to see in a world full of hate for Israel, one person and one nation stand up for the little guy. What ever you think of their politics (and I have much to criticize, but we’ll save that for another time), I do have to say many, many thanks to Bolton and Bush for their continued support of Israel in the face of such hypocritical, duplicitous and venomous hate.

With Hamas, Actions Still Speak Louder Than Words

In the Nov 1 New York Times Op-Ed pages, Ahmed Yousef, a senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister and Hamas political leader, Ismail Haniya, writes what at first glance would seem to be a welcome overture to peace.

He states that “Hamas proposes a long-term truce during which the Israeli and Palestinian peoples can try to negotiate a lasting peace”, a “hudna” to “bring about an immediate end to the occupation and to initiate a period of peaceful coexistence during which both sides would refrain from any form of military aggression or provocation.” He calls for “a 10-year hudna during which, inshallah (God willing), we will learn again to dream of peace”.

I read his piece closely, set the paper down, and then read it again, even more carefully. Being the moderate, peace seeking individual I am, I asked myself whether this proposal would begin to shake the trees of stagnation in the Middle East, if the peace process which is going nowhere might be given a kick start by Yousef’s article. Might this be the beginning of some sort of cessation of violence between Hamas and Israel?

But then I remembered the age old saying that actions speak louder than words. If Yousef is right that “this offer of hudna is no ruse, as some assert, to strengthen our military machine, to buy time to organize better or to consolidate our hold on the Palestinian Authority” then why is Israel at this very moment forced to destroy tunnels used by Hamas to smuggle weapons into Gaza from Egypt? Why are Israeli residents of Sderot and the Western Negev still bombarded by Kassam rocket from Gaza?

Yousef writes “when Hamas gives its word to an international agreement, it does so in the name of God and will therefore keep its word”. The only words Hamas has provided to any international agreements are “Not” and “Never”, as in Hamas will not recognize Israel, Hamas will never end their attacks on the Jewish state and Hamas will not accept past agreements with Israel.

Herb Keinon, the Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Correspondent, last night gave a talk in San Francisco, and when asked about Yousef’s Op-Ed, he smiled, thought about his response for a moment and then remarked that it was nice to see such words in print, but what really matters is how Hamas acts. When they stop trying to kill us, Keinon said, then their words may mean something.