Tag: Gaza

Posted on

Middle East Meltdown

With the Mid-East on the cusp of melt-down, imagine what Isaiah (5:20) would say of proponents of ‘regional integration’: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness…”

Worst Chemical Attack in Years; US blames Assad  – New York  Times, April 4, 2017.

Death toll climbs in clashes at Palestinian camp in Lebanon – Reuters, April 9, 2017.

Deadly blasts hit Coptic churches in Tanta, Alexandria – Al Jazeera, April 10, 2017.

Five Sudanese soldiers killed in Yemen conflict – Reuters, April 12, 2017.

These four recent headlines, spanning barely a week, bear chilling testimony to the grim and grisly realities of the Arab world.

Barbaric business as usual   

After all, had the several score killed in the April 4th chemical attack in Northern Syria been beheaded, or lynched, or burnt alive or slaughtered by any one of the other gruesome methods by which hundreds of thousands of civilians have lost their lives in the Syrian Civil War over the last five years, it is more than likely that their deaths would have gone largely unnoticed and unreported.

Indeed, it would have been nothing more than brutal, barbaric business as usual for the region.

Across virtually the entire Arab world , from the Atlantic Ocean in the West to the Persian Gulf in the East; from the Sahara desert in the South to the upper reaches  of the Euphrates in the North, naked violence engulfs entire countries – Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya.  Others – like Lebanon and Egypt—are perennially on the cusp of its eruption; and in others (like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia), it lurks, simmering just below the surface, constrained only by the iron grip of police-state tyranny.

With painfully few—and dubious—exceptions (such as Iraq, teetering on the brink of failed state status and Tunisia, once the poster-child of the “Arab Spring”, now   increasingly threatened by Jihadi Salafi insurgents—see here and here), the Arab regimes are a noxious brew of theocratic tyrannies, military dictatorships and/or nepotistic monarchies. The violent exchanges that rage throughout the region occur between a wide range of protagonists and across a myriad of schisms: Sunni vs Shia, radicals vs. monarchs, rebel insurgents vs incumbent rulers, Islamist extremists vs traditional regimes.

Death, depravity and despotism

It is against this doleful and daunting backdrop that the fatal follies of the past and of the emerging prescriptions for the future course of what has been perversely dubbed “the peace process”, must be assessed.

For as growing numbers of erstwhile advocates of the two-state paradigm are becoming increasingly skeptical—indeed, even despairing—of its viability within any foreseeable future, rather than admit the enormity of their error, they are now turning to a new false deity, no less preposterous  or perilous than the tarnished chimera of two-statism.

This is the new cult of “regionalism”, which attempts to invert the twisted logic of two- statism—but leaves it just as twisted.

At the core, regionalism is the idea that, rather than strive for an agreement with the Palestinians as a necessary precursor to its acceptance by the states of the region, Israel can, and should, establish a pan-regional alliance with allegedly “moderate” states, driven by a recognition of common threats (the menace of Jihadi cohorts and the specter of nuclear Iran)—thereby paving its way to a resolution of the Palestinian issue.

Central to this new cult is the bizarre belief that Israel’s “integration” into region—which, as we have seen, is little more than a cesspool of death, depravity and despotism –is a goal both necessary and worthy—and one that the nation ought to strive to achieve.

Risible regionalism

Significantly, there are several glaring logical inconsistencies, non sequiturs and factual inaccuracies that plague the regional-integration doctrine.

First of all, as commonly presented, it almost inevitably entails circular reasoning – i.e. Israel should pursue relations with the moderate Arab states as a means of arriving at a resolution of the Palestinian problem; but the only way to arrive at such relations with the Arab world is to reach an agreement with the Palestinians.  So, resolving the Palestinian issue becomes both the objective of the regional-integration and the means to achieve it!

Thus, for instance in an article, Regional integration only way for Israel to achieve security, Atlantic Council senior fellow H.A. Hellyer writes: “…the only realistic way for Israelis to thrive in the long term is for them to be integrated into the wider region, beginning with a comprehensive and just peace settlement…”

This statement is not only of dubious veracity—since Israel seems to be thriving rather well for almost two decades without (thankfully) being “integrated into the wider region—but seems to collide with a later contention by Hellyer, who writes elsewhere: “A sustainable peace for Israelis is predicated on their eventual integration into the wider region.”

So there you have it: “Integration into the wider region” must be preceded by “peace”; but “peace” must be predicated on (i.e. preceded by) “integration into the region”.  Thus, resolving the Palestinian issue (a.k.a. “peace”) is presented both as the cause and effect of integration –having to precede it on the one hand, while being predicated on it, on the other.

Confusing, isn’t it??

Puzzling Pardo

But perhaps one of the most puzzling and perturbing endorsements of the regional-integration paradigm came in a speech delivered by Tamir Pardo the former Head of Israel’s Secret Intelligence Service, Mossad.

In it, Pardo identified the emergence of “a rare confluence of interests between Israel and the moderate Arab states.”

Pointing to the drawbacks of relations that are entirely covert, he remarked: “Secret relations that take place “under the radar” are by their nature transitory.” Accordingly, he advocated Israel’s overt integration into the region: “The key to regional integration is to build economic and social bridges between countries, facilitating trade and tourism…. The deeper, the more open and above board relations are, the better suited they will be to survive the inevitable shocks and disruptions that take place from time to time…. Israel’s regional integration is a key to its very survival.” 

But he warned “None of this will happen without a resolution of the Palestinian problem.”

There are several disturbing defects—both conceptual and empirical–in this portrayal by Pardo, which seem to indicate that his undoubted ability in covert operations is not matched by a commensurate acumen for political analysis.

So, while Pardo may well be correct in his doubts as to the durability of secret relations, his faith in more overt one seems wildly at odds with Israel’s experience in past decades, causing one to puzzle over what could possibly be the basis  for his unfounded contention, and his reasons for making it.

Puzzling (cont)

Indeed, the examples of Iran and Turkey clearly indicate that robust overt “economic and social bridges” as well as “trade and tourism” are of little value if the regime should change. After all, the relations with pre-revolutionary Iran and pre-Islamist Turkey could hardly have been closer or more cordial.

Yet, with the ascent to power of Khomeini in Iran and Erdogan in Turkey these ties proved, indeed, “transitory”.  Of course, the metamorphosis was particularly dramatic and rapid in Iran, where Israel was transformed from being a trusted ally to a hated enemy almost immediately. In Turkey, the process was more gradual and less drastic, but there can be little comparison between the tight strategic ties of yesteryear and the hostile attitude that prevails today.

[the_ad id=”4690″]

This volatility in relations between nations is one of the most profound flaws in the regional-integration proposal—especially when it is predicated on a resolution of the Palestinian issue. For while it is true that countries like Jordan, under the Hashemite dynasty,  Egypt under Sisi, and the incumbent regimes in the Gulf may face common threats, it would be more than a stretch to characterize this as sharing long-term mutual interests with Israel.

Indeed, a yawning gulf separates between the seminal values that define the differing societies – with regard to individual liberties, gender equality, social diversity, religious pluralism—which clearly portends ample room for renewed adversarial relations once the common threat has been eliminated.

Palmerston…on perpetual allies

Israel would do well to heed the words of British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston (1784-1865) on the fickleness of nations and their international ties “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow”.

This caveat is particularly pertinent in the case of the regional-integration paradigm. For in essence the deal to be struck is as follows: Israel is called upon to make perilous permanent concessions (to resolve the Palestinian issue) in exchange for a temporary alliance, based on the (ephemeral) word of rulers, who head not only some of the most decadent and despotic regimes on the planet, but also some of the most threatened.   

Accordingly, there is little guarantee that the Arab entity that makes commitments toward Israel will be the entity called upon to honor them when need be. After all, what would be the value of any understanding on integration entered into in 2010 with say Syria, or Iraq or Libya…

Moreover, Israel was unable to prevent an Islamist takeover of Gaza.  It is, therefore, highly unlikely that it could prevent an Islamist takeover by a resurgent Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or an Islamist coup in Jordan.

Thus, given the fact that the concessions Israel is called upon to make to resolve the Palestinian issue, are largely irrevocable, while the pledges given it are largely retractable, any regime change in Cairo and even more so in Amman would have potentially disastrous ramifications.

With an Islamist state abutting the envisaged Palestinian state from the East, dispatching irredentist insurgents to destabilize any purportedly peaceable Palestinian regime in the territory evacuated by Israel; with a regime in Cairo no longer interested in, or capable of, countering the Jihadi warlords in Sinai, pressing against Israel’s 200 km frontier and the land route to Eilat, Israel is likely to rue any credence it placed in regional integration.

[the_ad id=”4744″] 

The most troubling of questions

But of course the most troubling of questions regarding the regional integration question is this: If the allegedly moderate regimes really desire Israel’s help in confronting formidable common threats (the menace of Jihadi cohorts and the specter of nuclear Iran), why would they predicate that help on precisely the same concessions from Israel that they demanded prior to those threats arising?  And were Israel to refuse those concessions would these “moderates” deny themselves the aid Israel could provide them—for the sake of the Palestinian-Arabs, for whom they have shown consistent disdain and contempt over decades?

Furthermore, if the “moderate” states see Israel’s strength as a determining factor in making it an attractive ally in combatting the common threat of radical Islamism, why would they insist on concessions that weaken it, and expose it to greater perils as a precondition to accepting its aid? Why would they press for concessions that are likely to fall—as they did in Gaza—to the very Jihadi elements that both they, and Israel, see as a common enemy?

Indeed one might ask: Why should Israel have to make any concessions so that the Arab states would deign to accept its aid in their battle against a grave common menace?

As Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland once sighed “It would be so nice if something made sense for a change.”   It sure would!

Regional integration: What Isaiah would say?

Of course one can only puzzle over what merit proponents of regional integration see in its implementation. Do they really want Israel to be absorbed into the morass of cruelty, corruption and cronyism that is the Middle East?  What values that pervade their Arab neighbors, would they urge it to adopt in order to “integrate”?

Misogynistic gender bias? Homophobic persecution of gays? Intolerance of social diversity? Repression of minority religious faiths?  Suppression political dissidence?

For were Israel to resist adopting these and other regional values, how on earth could it integrate into the region?

So, with the Mid-East on the cusp of melt-down, one can only imagine what Isaiah (5:20) would say of the proponents of regional integration:  Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.  

[the_ad id=”4678″]

Posted on

THE LESSONS OF THE HAMAS WAR

Israel’s strategic mistake.

The State Comptroller’s Report on Operation Protective Edge, Israel’s war with Hamas in the summer of 2014, is exceedingly detailed. The problem is that it addresses the wrong details.

Israel’s problem with Hamas wasn’t its tactics for destroying Hamas’s attack tunnels. Israel faced two challenges in its war with Hamas that summer. The first had to do with the regional and global context of the war. The second had to do with its understanding of its enemy on the ground.

War between Hamas and Israel took place as the Sunni Arab world was steeped a two-pronged existential struggle. On the one hand, Sunni regimes fought jihadist groups that emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood movement. On the other, they fought against Iran and its proxies in a bid to block Iran’s moves toward regional hegemony.

On both fronts, the Sunni regimes, led by Egypt under President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Saudi regime and the United Arab Emirates, were shocked to discover that the Obama administration was siding with their enemies against them.

If Israel went into the war against Hamas thinking that the Obama administration would treat it differently than it treated the Sunni regimes, it quickly discovered that it was mistaken. From the outset of the battle between Hamas and Israel, the Obama administration supported Hamas against Israel.

America’s support for Hamas was expressed at the earliest stages of the war when then-secretary of state John Kerry demanded that Israel accept an immediate cease-fire based entirely on Hamas’s terms. This demand, in various forms, remained the administration’s position throughout the 50-day war.

Hamas’s terms were impossible for Israel. They included opening the jihadist regime’s land borders with Israel and Egypt, and providing it with open access to the sea. Hamas demanded to be reconnected to the international banking system in order to enable funds to enter Gaza freely from any spot on the globe. Hamas also demanded that Israel release its terrorists from its prisons.

If Israel had accepted any of Hamas’s cease-fire terms, its agreement would have constituted a strategic defeat for Israel and a historic victory for Hamas.

Open borders for Hamas means the free flow of armaments, recruits, trainers and money to Gaza. Were Hamas to be connected to the international banking system, the jihadist regime would have become the banking center of the global jihad.

The Obama administration’s support for Hamas was not passive.

Obama and Kerry threatened to join the Europeans in condemning Israel at the UN. Administration officials continuously railed against IDF operations in Gaza, insinuating that Israel was committing war crimes by insisting that Israel wasn’t doing enough to avoid civilian casualties.

As the war progressed, the administration’s actions against Israel became more aggressive. Washington placed a partial embargo on weapons shipments to Israel.

Then on July 23, 2014, the administration took the almost inconceivable step of having the Federal Aviation Administration ban flights of US carriers to Ben-Gurion Airport for 36 hours. The flight ban was instituted after a Hamas missile fell a mile from the airport.

The FAA did not ban flights to Pakistan or Afghanistan after jihadists on the ground successfully bombed airplanes out of the sky.

It took Sen. Ted Cruz’s threat to place a hold on all State Department appointments, and Canada’s Conservative Party government’s behind-the-scenes diplomatic revolt to get the flight ban rescinded.

The government and the IDF were shocked by the ferocity of the administration’s hostility. But to his great credit, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu surmounted it.

Netanyahu realized that Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood nexus of jihad and also supported by Iran. As a result the Egyptians, Saudis and UAE rightly view it as a major enemy. Indeed, Egypt was in a state of war with Hamas in 2014. Gaza serves as the logistical base of the Salafist forces warring against the Egyptian military.

Netanyahu asked Sisi for help in blunting the American campaign for Hamas. Sisi was quick to agree and brought the Saudis and the UAE into an all-but-declared operational alliance with Israel against Hamas.

Since the Egyptians were hosting the cease-fire talks, Egypt was well-positioned to blunt Obama’s demand that Israel accept Hamas’s cease-fire terms.

In a bid to undermine Egypt, Obama and Kerry colluded with Hamas’s state sponsors Turkey and Qatar to push Sisi out of the cease-fire discussions. But due to Saudi and UAE support for Sisi and Israel, the administration’s attempts to sideline the Egyptians failed.

The cease-fire terms that were adopted at the end of the war contained none of Hamas’s demands. Israel had won the diplomatic war.

It was a strange victory, however. Netanyahu was never able to let the public know what was happening.

Had he informed the public, the knowledge that the US was backing Hamas would have caused mass demoralization and panic. So Netanyahu had to fight the diplomatic fight of his life secretly.

The war on the ground was greatly influenced by the diplomatic war. But the war on the ground was first and foremost a product of the nature of Hamas and of the nature of Hamas’s relationship with the PLO.

Unfortunately, the Comptroller’s Report indicates that the IDF didn’t understand either. According to the report, in the weeks before the war began, the then-coordinator of government activities in the territories, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Eitan Dangot, told the security cabinet that the humanitarian situation in Gaza was at a crisis point and that hostilities were likely to break out if Israel didn’t allow humanitarian aid into the Strip.

On Wednesday we learned that Dangot’s view continues to prevail in the army. The IDF’s intelligence chief, Maj.-Gen. Herzi Halevi, told the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Israel must send humanitarian aid to Gaza to avert a war.

There is truth to the IDF’s position. Hamas did in fact go to war against Israel in the summer of 2014 because it was short on supplies.

After Sisi overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt the previous summer, he shut Egypt’s border with Gaza because Gaza was the logistical base of the insurgency against his regime. The closed border cut off Hamas’s supply train of everything from antitank missiles to cigarettes and flour.

The problem with the IDF’s view of Hamas is that providing aid to Gaza means supplying Hamas first and foremost. Every shipment into Gaza strengthens Hamas far more than it serves the needs of Gaza’s civilian population. We got a good look at Hamas’s contempt for the suffering of its people during Protective Edge.

After seeing the vast dimensions of Hamas’s tunnel infrastructure, the then-OC Southern Command, Maj.-Gen. Sami Turgeman, told reporters that Hamas had diverted enough concrete to its tunnel project to build 200 kindergartens, two hospitals, 20 clinics and 20 schools.

Moreover, the civilian institutions that are supposed to be assisted by humanitarian aid all serve Hamas. During the war, three soldiers from the IDF’s Maglan unit were killed in southern Gaza when they were buried in rubble of a booby-trapped UNRWA clinic.

The soldiers were in the clinic to seal off the entry shaft of a tunnel that was located in an exam room.

Hamas had booby trapped the walls of the clinic and detonated it when the soldiers walked through the door.

All of the civilian institutions in Gaza, including those run by the UN, as well as thousands of private homes, are used by Hamas as part of its war machine against Israel.

So any discussion of whether or not to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza is not a humanitarian discussion. It is a discussion about whether or not to strengthen Hamas and reinforce its control over the population of Gaza.

This brings us to the goals of the war in Gaza in 2014. At the time, the government debated two possible endgames.

The first was supported by then-justice minister Tzipi Livni. Livni, and the Left more generally, supported using the war with Hamas as a means of unseating Hamas and restoring the PLO-controlled Palestinian Authority to power in the area.

There were four problems with this notion. First, it would require Israel to reconquer Gaza.

Second, the Obama administration would never have agreed to an Israeli conquest of Gaza.

Third, Israel doesn’t have the forces to deploy to Gaza to retake control of the area without rendering its other borders vulnerable.

The final problem with Livni’s idea is that the PLO is no better than Hamas. From the outset of the war, the PLO gave Hamas unqualified support. Fatah militias in Gaza manned the missile launchers side by side with Hamas fighters. PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas represented Hamas at the cease-fire talks in Cairo. He led the political war against Israel in the West. And he financed Hamas’s war effort. Throughout the war Abbas sent a steady stream of funds to Gaza.

If PLO forces were returned to Gaza, they would behave precisely as they behaved from 2000 until Hamas kicked them out in 2007. That is, they would have acted as Hamas’s full partners in their joint war against Israel.

The second possible endgame involved a long-term strategy of defeating Hamas through attrition. This was the goal the government ended up partially adopting. The government ordered the IDF to destroy as much of Hamas’s missile arsenal as possible and to destroy its offensive tunnels into Israel. When the goals had been achieved to the point where the cost of opposing Obama grew greater than the battle gains, Netanyahu agreed to a cease-fire.

For the attrition strategy to have succeeded, the cease-fire would have only been the first stage of a longer war. For the attrition strategy to work, Israel needed to refuse to resupply Hamas. With its missile arsenal depleted and its tunnels destroyed, had Israel maintained the ban on supplies to Gaza, the residents would have revolted and Hamas wouldn’t have had the option of deflecting their anger onto Israel by starting a new war.

The IDF unfortunately never accepted attrition as the goal. From the Comptroller’s Report and Halevi’s statement to the Knesset this week, it appears the General Staff rejected attrition because it refuses to accept either the nature of Hamas or the nature of the PLO. Immediately after the cease-fire went into force, the General Staff recommended rebuilding Gaza and allowing an almost free flow of building supplies, including concrete, into Hamas’s mini-state.

The Comptroller’s Report is notable mainly because it shows that nearly three years after Protective Edge, official Israel still doesn’t understand what happened that summer. The problem with Hamas was never tactical. It was always strategic. Israel won the diplomatic battle because it understood the correlation of its strategic interests with those of the Sunni regimes.

It lost the military battle of attrition because it permitted Hamas to resupply.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post. 

Posted on

Ship of Fools. Flotilla of Idiots.

Zeytoun-Oliva

Originally posted on Roro’s Rantings.

Picture the scene – 13 self-righteous “human rights’ activists set sail for Gaza. Thirteen women from 13 different countries boarded the Zeytoun-Oliva determined to “end the siege on Gaza”. Armed with appalling singing voices and a YouTube account filled with moronic videos, they took to the high seas (okay, the Mediterranean) to liberate the people of Gaza from the frightful maritime blockade that is enforced by Israel. Legal and necessary, this blockade is in place to prevent the smuggling of weapons and material that Hamas and other groups based in the Gaza Strip use to rain terror on Israel’s citizens like fire rockets, dig tunnels, you know, all that war stuff that is a gross violation of the human rights of Israelis to live in peace.

Hardly Boudica and her army but flotillas are cause for concern because apart from their intention of conducting an illegal breach of the blockade, they have been known to have weapons on board and activists whose behavior is anything but peaceful. Mavi Marmara anyone?

The same day as the Zaytoun-Oliva was sailing to “break the siege on Gaza” we saw proof just why it is necessary to enforce such measures as rockets fired by ISIS supporting Salafists were fired into Israel from Gaza. Landing in a residential area, Code Red warnings sent traumatized residents scrambling for shelter. Imagine if this was your city.

I am sure these ISIS supporters would have been thrilled to receive a special delivery of 13 new sex slaves with a boat to spare. Please ladies, save the sanctimonious lectures and song and learn a little bit about the region you are coming to.

You say that you want to highlight the plight of Palestinians, especially the women? I could not agree more. Their plight should be highlighted because they live under siege – they are besieged by a bunch of autocratic lunatics who base their ruling on a genocidal  charter that calls for the total destruction of all Jews and enforces a medieval rule of law. That is not very human rightsie…..

Yes, the plight of Palestinian women does need to be highlighted. They live as second class citizens  and are denied the many rights that their male counterparts enjoy, provided of course that they are Hamas supporting, fully heterosexual, Allah fearing and don’t complain. Some of these women have been subjected to honour killings for crimes such as being a victim of rape. For Olympic atlete, Lee Anne Naidoo  who hailsfrom South Africa, I have a special message for you. Hamas who run the Gaza strip object hugely to same sex relationships. Your concern for the Palestinians is admirable but your sexual orientation will not garner you any  tolerance and  may find you flung off the top of the nearest building. This is not a sarcastic message, it is a fact.

The Zaytoun-Oliva was safely intercepted by female officers (yup, the so called “occupying forces of the IDF” are sensitive like that!)  and the following statement was released:

“The flotilla was stopped without resistance 35 miles from the Israeli coast. There were 13 women aboard and the boat is on its way to Ashdod and will arrive within an hour.”

“In accordance with the decisions of the political leadership and after calls to the Zaytouna flotilla by the navy to stop, which were rejected, sailors from the Navy took control of the boat before it arrived at the Gaza Strip,” the statement read.

“The process of taking control was short and resulted in no injuries. The response was implemented after many call to the sailors aboard the flotilla at various distances in the sea. After the sailors indicated that they had no intention to cooperate and to accept the offer to sail to Ashdod, the decision was taken to take control and to prevent it from breaching the legal naval blockade and to divert it to the Ashdod port,”

So no, they were not “kidnapped” (see moronic video made by the activists) below. The interception was peaceful.

 

Break the BDS

 

I suggest that when they sail back on their merry way to where they came from that they stop in Syria. The women of that country deserve empathy and their plight being highlighted.

While these 13 women strum guitars and sing on their boat I ask where are the songs for the Yazidi women? Where are the flotillas for persecuted and massacred Christian women all over the Middle East? Where are the laments for the hundreds of thousands victims slaughtered by mass killings, gassing and other horrendous means?

Women have always played a role in raising the consciousness of human rights abuse. It is heartbreaking that the voice of the truly oppressed in this region are ignored as political grandstanding is favoured. Dear members of the Zeytoun-Oliva – your silence at the plight of our sisters who really need a voice is appalling.

Bon voyage – when you are serious about women’s rights in the region, we will talk.

[huge_it_share]

Posted on

Do We Spray the Ants or Eradicate the Nest?

(The views in this article are those of the author)

In light of the horrific attack in Tel Aviv where 4 Israeli civilians were murdered by Arab terrorists dressed in suits, we find ourselves in yet another quagmire. The issue is how to respond.

Prime Minister Netanyahu says “we will attack those who attacked us.” Exactly what does that mean Mr. Prime Minister? Is Israel going to launch a targeted strike on Hamas operatives in Gaza or Judea/Samaria?

What will that accomplish? Indeed, it may take out some Arab terrorists, but what will it accomplish in the end? Will it prevent future attacks from taking place? Will it deter leadership from promoting jihad against Israeli Jews? Will it foster a better environment for peace?

Killing Arab terrorists is the equivalent of spraying a trail of ants with pesticide. It only eliminates the ones you see. In order to stop more of them from coming, one must go all the way to the nest and root it out completely.

Other suggestions include halting the influx of Arabs for Ramadan. I find no problem with refusing to allow thousands more Muslims into Israel, which can only increase the chances of more violence.

Still others are suggesting clamping down on goods being shipped into Gaza. This has been an ongoing seesaw issue for years. Every time Israel relents and expands the array of allowable goods, Hamas ends up stealing much of it and using it to manufacture weapons, terror tunnels, or underground bunkers so their leadership remains protected during outbreaks of war with Israel.

What sense does it make to allow shipments of materials that everyone knows will be used for military purposes? Yet world pressure continuously and relentlessly mounts on Israel to “lift the siege of Gaza.”

Pressure also continues against Israel to end the “occupation,” and relax the checkpoints coming in from Judea/Samaria.

Do those who promote said suggestions actually believe such acquiescence would result in peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs? If they do, they are either more naïve then Neville Chamberlain, or they have little or no concern for the safety of Jewish lives. The other possibility is they are just plain anti-Semitic.

In actuality, counter attacks by Israel will not address the problem. Clamping down on Gaza will not address the problem. Even if nothing other than basic items, such as food, water and medicine is allowed in. Tightening checkpoints, temporarily revoking permits or razing homes of terrorists in Judea/Samaria won’t remedy the situation. These are all symptomatic remedies, which do nothing to address the core issues.

Turning the tide should be seen as a comprehensive plan that involves a combined effort across many fronts.

One place to start is the classroom. Arab Palestinian children do not receive an “education,” as normal school children do in most countries. They are taught to hate Jews, and to die as martyrs. Take a look at this recent clip below. This is a typical example of how children are “educated” in UNRWA run schools in Judea/Samaria and Gaza.

What kind of adults do you think these children become having been “educated” like this? UNRWA receives over $1 billion annually. The largest donors are the US – $400 million, followed by the EU, Saudi Arabia and the UK. Together they provide over 50% of UNRWA’s funding.

This is where a change must take place. The donor countries should demand their funds be used for proper education, rather than allowing these ‘schools’ to be nothing more than terror training facilities. Further, independent monitoring should take place on an ongoing basis to ensure appropriate education is being administered.  If the schools refuse to provide normal education and continue their terror training, the funding for them should be cut off, period.

Another systemic issue is religious ‘education.’ Religion plays a huge role in the upbringing and character building of people from all cultures and countries. When it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict Arabs again are being ‘educated’ to hate and kill, rather than coexist with Israel. Take a look at this clip.

The imam is supposed to be a man of God. He is supposed to provide teachings which reflect how we are to treat our fellow man in a way which God honors. What kind of god would bless the words that come out of that imam’s mouth? Yet this another huge component in weaving together the fabric of Arab Palestinian society.

Once again, I believe independent monitors should be at every mosque, and when such messages are delivered said leader should be warned that this type of hate mongering will not be tolerated. If he refuses to comply he should face criminal charges.

Will these suggestions be easy? No. Will they immediately change the atmosphere in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unlikely. However, something must be done, because we know what has been done until now has not produced fruit. What have we to lose?

I have only addressed two particular segments of society with this essay. There are more that need addressing to be sure. However, these two are of huge significance and influence.  If the fundamental institutions of their society are ignored and allowed to maintain the status quo, this is tantamount to declaring the future will continue to be one of symptomatic  remedies.

We can either keep spraying the ant trail and allow it to keep coming back, or we can pursue it to the nest and eradicate it. We have a choice.

 

Posted on

Headlines May 30: 3rd of US is Pro-BDS, Arab Youths Arrested, UNRWA Rumors

Ipsos Survey: One Third of Americans Support Boycotting Israel The good news is that a 62% majority of US respondents believe that the BDS movement is a form of modern anti-Semitism.
[The Jewish Press]

 

Arab youths arrested for brutal attack on elderly Jewish women. Stabbing attack in Jerusalem earlier this month left two women in their 80s seriously injured; terrorists planned second attack.
[Arutz Sheva]

 

1 Wounded in Evening Terror Attack on Jerusalem Bus. The terror wave that is supposed to be fading is not yet over — terrorists are still trying to pick off buses and cars on the roads, trying to kill families and individual men, women and children.
[The Jewish Press]

 

UNRWA facing refugee protests, closings, and rumors. UN body responsible for Arab refugees – but which actually perpetuates them – denies it plans to close Gaza office.
[Arutz Sheva]

 

Dozens of packages containing drone parts and other communications equipment en route to terror cells operating inside the Gaza Strip were intercepted by Israeli security forces in recent weeks.
[Times of Israel]