treppenwitz

Home Free

When journalists come to the Middle East to cover anything going on the region, they might visit Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Gaza, etc., but they generally set up their base camp here in Israel because, you know, it's dangerous in all those other places. So while filing reports wearing flack jackets and helmets is good for ratings... you gotta be able to take off the protective gear and relax once in awhile.

And when a journalist or a couple of dozen UN peacekeepers are taken hostage by terrorists in Syria and are subsequently released, they aren't considered to be safe until they cross over into Israeli territory... again, because we actually control the territory over which we claim control, and our government takes seriously its primary responsibility of ensuring the safety and security of its residents.

In short, once you're in Israel, you're home free.

So I'm confused as to why all these media and UN types still insist on telling the world that we're the root of all the problems in the region, and that all those other places where they're getting kidnapped, shot at and beheaded, are okey dokey!

Can someone explain that to me using small words so I'll be sure to understand?

Why do I bother reading this crap?

With all of the verifiable, newsworthy things going on the world today (including the hundreds of rockets that have been fired at Israeli civilian population centers by Hamas in just the past 24 hours), the front page of today's online New York Times featured the following article, top, front and center:

 

 Pay special attention to the passage from the article that I've highlighted below:

This is a 17 year old (i.e. old enough to actually be a Hamas or Islamic Jihad combatant), who is the son of a Hamas government official, making completely uncorroborated claims of Israeli misdeeds.

And the reason the Times felt that this story was not only newsworthy, but important enough to place in the top-center spot of their home page is that if his asserions could be corroborated, this would constitute an Israeli Military violation of both International and Israeli law.

Forget the fact that EVERY SINGLE ROCKET FIRED FROM WITHIN CIVILIAN AREAS OF GAZA AT ISRAELI CIVILIANS IS A DOUBLE WAR CRIME!  And the source and destination of those rocket launches can actually be verified!!!

The Times could just as easily have reported that if the IDF had stolen one of the kid's kidneys and sold it on the black market (or used it to bake matzoh for Passover!), it would have also been a violation of  International and Israeli law.  Because without corroboration, or some compelling reason to believe it could be true, this is nothing more than a blood libel dressed up as a news lead... an irrelevant fairy tale, not news!

Unless, of course, you are the New York Times: the self-proclaimed arbiter of what news is fit to print.

American media seems to sing a different tune...

... when the sh*t hits the fan at home.

A buddy of mine pointed me towards a brilliant bit of satire today. It is a piece illustrating how the US media machine would be covering the current crisis in Ferguson, Missouri if the events were taking place on foreign soil.

Here' s taste:

"FERGUSON — Chinese and Russian officials are warning of a potential humanitarian crisis in the restive American province of Missouri, where ancient communal tensions have boiled over into full-blown violence.

"We must use all means at our disposal to end the violence and restore calm to the region," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in comments to an emergency United Nations Security Council session on the America crisis.

The crisis began a week ago in Ferguson, a remote Missouri village that has been a hotbed of sectarian tension. State security forces shot and killed an unarmed man, which regional analysts say has angered the local population by surfacing deep-seated sectarian grievances. Regime security forces cracked down brutally on largely peaceful protests, worsening the crisis."

Seriously, go read the whole thing.

Makes me care just a little bit less about all those self-righteous media douchebags prancing around Gaza in their flack jackets and helmets reading from crib sheets about a place they couldn't find on a map two months ago, much less have a prayer of following the money to the perps in Hamastan who are trying to cash in on their renewed relevance after their latest unprovoked attacks against the US's only ally in the region.

Charity Begins at Home

An Honest Examination of Responsibility and Allocation of Resources by an Israeli Parent

[A guest post by Zahava]

I’ll be honest. It’s been a rough few months. So rough, I’ve had to force myself to limit my forays onto news sites and social media.

It isn’t that I am less passionate about the various issues which relate to what we Israelis refer to as ‘hamatzav', (literally 'the situation'), than 11 years ago when we made Aliyah at the tail end of the second intifada, or 9 years ago during the painful disengagement from Gaza. It’s simply that I have different responsibilities and priorities today than I had during those periods.

I now run a business in which I have to balance responsibility to both clients and colleagues. I also now have an exceptionally sensitive and bright ten-year-old whose individual needs require me to better manage my resources — to make sure that no matter what HIS needs are, that I am in the best possible position to meet them. This means that I can’t afford to be distracted by anything which might sap my energy or focus, and which might render me less able to be at my best for him.

In fact, it is my role as this particular child’s mother that has prompted me to reluctantly stick my 2 cents back into the blogosphere today.

In recent weeks, one of the most depressing and disheartening aspects of those limited ‘strolls’ through cyberspace, has been exposure to the harsh and often self-righteous condemnation that we Israelis are receiving for allegedly not speaking out and doing enough to protect the children of Gaza.

To which, I must emphatically ask, “Excuse, me?!”

Don’t get me wrong. My heart breaks for the children on the Gazan side of this conflict — along with innocent Gazan civilians of all ages — these people are truly victims. When I consider their conditions, I am filled with nothing but sorrow and concern for their welfare and for their futures. Anyone with the slightest shred of humanity would be upset and worried. And I like to think that my capacity for compassion and empathy place me squarely on the deep end of the humanity pool….

The thing is, not unlike the innocent civilians of Gaza, Israeli parents are consumed with our own urgent pressures and responsibilities in dealing with this conflict. The difference is that thanks to a government and a society which value life — whose core ethic is to compare each individual life to an entire and complete universe — the typical Israeli's proximity to physical danger may be less than our Gazan counterparts, but we are not exactly living a carefree existence over here.

My friend Romi Sussman wrote a stark and honest piece which accurately depicts our struggles to get our families through this conflict intact; physically and spiritually.

The lack of ordinary Israeli citizens stampeding to bemoan the tragic situation which has befallen the children of those devoted to our annihilation doesn’t reflect a lack of compassion or concern on our part. Rather, it indicates that we have our hands full with our own suffering, and with the suffering of those closest to us. Israeli parents are not without concern and worry for the children of our enemies. We are simply fulfilling our more immediate responsibilities to our own children.

In the same way that when traveling by air it is accepted protocol that in the event that oxygen masks are deployed, parents are expected to don their own masks before assisting their children — Israelis’ first obligation is to caring for our own children before caring for someone else's.

Once our safety is secured, we can move onto securing the safety of others.

To take the example one step further, no one would expect a traveling parent of an infant to defer placing their own child’s mask in order to assist another family in getting their children’s masks in place! Obviously, once one's own kids’ safety is secure, a reasonable person would look around to see who else needs help. But until I know my kid is safe — no way, no how am I doing anything else but to focus on my child.

Think about the various natural and man-made disasters that have occurred over the past few decades. There have been quite a few — floods, earthquakes, storms, nuclear reactor failures and medical epidemics to name a few — from Haiti to Africa, from the South Seas and the Indian Ocean to Japan. Which tiny country, boasting only 8 million citizens, routinely steps to the forefront with generous contributions of manpower, financial aid, food and medical supplies? The answer is Israel.

So spare us your righteous indignation. We are in agreement that the ‘rights of the child‘ are undergoing horrific violation in Gaza (as they are in many other places around the world). However we part company on two integral points:

1) The responsibility for Gazan children being placed in harm’s way lies squarely on the shoulders of the folks launching rockets from residential areas, schools and hospitals.
2) While my children and family are under fire, my primary responsibility is to them.

If a parent is able to assist another person’s child without denying their own child adequate protection, this is a wonderful and admirable thing to do. But to expect — or even to insist — that a parent place their own child’s needs after the needs of another’s children… that is as unreasonable as it is intellectually dishonest.

Wanna know the secret to making Israelis more vocal about their concern for Gazan kids and civilians? It’s simple. Remove the threat of terror. Stop the rockets, stop the kidnappings and stop the terror attacks. Then we'll have the headspace to be concerned with the welfare of others.

Trust me, if we can routinely scold each other on the street over 'questionable' choices of dress and food for each other's children, we can certainly spare a few thoughts as to what is best for the children of Gaza.

But so long as we are forced to raise our own children under the threat of multi-layered assault with the stated purpose of destroying Israel and everyone in it? Then don't hold your breath waiting for Israelis to share their indignation over the condition of our enemies’ kids.

We’ve got our hands full with our own children — at the moment, our own children are our most urgent priority.  After all... charity begins at home.

The best idea I've heard so far...

I have to admit that there don't seem to be many palatable options open to Israel in this classic asymmetric conflict in which we've been engaged (against our will).

We're like a big kid on the playground who has been attacked by a much smaller kid.  We only have two options open to us:

Option 1:  Beat the sh*t out of the little kid who has taken a swing at us (and be condemned for beating up a little kid).

Option 2: Turn the other cheek and let the kid bloody our nose, blacken our eyes and pretty much do whatever he wants (and be ridiculed for getting beaten up by a little kid).

So far we've been trying to walk a path somewhere between those two options; by trying to block as many punches and kicks as possible, while hitting back with enough force to try to injure the little kid just enough to get him to lose interest in continuing to hit and kick us for awhile.  

But this approach has sort of blown up in our faces, and has gotten us a double dose of condemnation:  On the one hand we are ridiculed for being a full fledged country at the mercy of a rogue terror organization AND on the other hand, we're berated for picking on a defenseless proto-state.

Enter Professor Yisroel Aumann, who received the Nobel prize for economics in 2005 for his work on conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis.  Professor Aumann has come up with a novel approach to dealing with what seems like an un-winnable conflict: Instead of hitting the opponent... step back and allow the opponent to hit himself.

His suggestion is as simple as it is brilliant:

In a recent lecture he suggested Israel design and build a fully automatic system that would fire a rocket back at Gaza immediately, whenever Gaza terrorists fired a missile at Israel.  Presumably, these missiles would be randomly or automatically aimed in a way that would inflict civilian casualties on the Arab side, just as Hamas seeks to cause civilian casualties on the Israeli side.

He stated that "The goal is truly that the system will be without any human involvement, no human control.  This is very important, because if there is control, they will tell us that we are criminals and murderers and cruel... However,  if there is no control of the system on the Israeli side, the responsibility for civilian deaths caused on the Arab side falls on the people who fired the missiles that set off the Israeli system".  [source]

Technically, this should not be a difficult system to design and implement.  In fact, all of the radar, command & control, computer and missile components already exist.  Someone just needs to give the order to combine them into a self-contained closed system that can be set up to operate autonomously like a house alarm that is armed when the home owner goes out.  

Obviously, it would have to be an order of magnitude more reliable than a house alarm so that it can't be accidentally triggered by anything except an incoming rocket or mortar from Gaza.

In my humble opinion, this is the best and only solution for dealing with asymmetrical threats such as Israel is currently facing from Gaza.  At least, until such time as the world decides to remove the financial incentive for these terror organizations to continue their belligerency.

And so it begins (again)...

... not that it ever really stopped, mind you.

I'm talking about anti-semitism masquerading as anti-Israel activism.  There are long periods where such sentiments and activism are driven underground because of political considerations (or at least considerations of political correctness).

But whenever Israel's security situation becomes so intolerable that we are forced to retaliate and/or launch any sort of military operation to protect our citizens, the gloves (and masks) come off the anti-semites around the world.

And, of course, leading the charge of those giving full-throated condemnation of Israel is former US President Jimmy Carter, who has accused Israel of "deliberate attacks on civilians" in Gaza, and who recommends that the US and EU "formally recognize Hamas as a legitimate political actor":

"There is no humane or legal justification for the way the Israeli Defense Forces are conducting this war. Israeli bombs, missiles, and artillery have pulverized large parts of Gaza, including thousands of homes, schools, and hospitals. More than 250,000 people have been displaced from their homes in Gaza. Hundreds of Palestinian noncombatants have been killed. Much of Gaza has lost access to water and electricity completely. This is a humanitarian catastrophe.... " .  [source]

It just goes to show, once again, that Jimmy Carter never met a despot or terrorist organization that he didn't like.  And if the despot or terror organization stands against Israel... [~ swoon ~].

It isn't bad enough that we are now engaged in delicate cease-fire negotiations with an unreasonable, intransigent opponent.  Jimmy obviously feels that this is the ideal time to fire the opening shot in this year's Joo Season.

So sit back and watch the boycotts, divestment and sanctions start to pile up at our doorstep.

To paraphrase the excellent essay by Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch:

'If you couldn't be bothered to raise your voice in condemnation when thousands of civilian protesters were killed and injured by the governments of Turkey, Egypt and Libya, when a record number of people were hanged by the government of Iran, when civilians were bombed in Afghanistan, when whole communities were massacred in South Sudan, when 150,000 Syrians were starved and murdered by Assad's forces (among them more Palestinians than perished in the recent Gaza operation), when hundreds in Pakistani civilians were killed by jihadist attacks, when 10,000 Iraqi civilians were killed by terrorists, when scores of villagers were slaughtered in Nigeria... yet you somehow found the time to raise your voice to cry out for Gaza, then you aren't pro-human rights, you are anti-Israel.' [source]

Update:  Britain's Student Union has just voted to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israeli.  [source]

Making the Case for Demilitarizing Gaza

Ironically, it was Hamas, not Israel, that presented the most compelling case for completely demilitarizing Gaza.

Over the past few days, the international media and community have been wringing their hands over the devastation in Gaza, and have been chastising Israel for going further than needed in our attempt to stop the incessant rocket fire on Israeli civilian population centers.

The clear message behind these scoldings was that Hamas' military capabilities had already been devastated and that the continued pounding of Gaza was spiteful and punitive; serving no military purpose... while Israeli leaders insisted that we had not nearly gone far enough.

As Israel struggled to provide an adequate response to these accusations, just minutes before the 72 hour cease fire was to take effect at 8:00 AM this morning, Gaza terror groups under the command of Hamas fired dozens of missiles at communities throughout Israel in a precisely coordinated and premeditated barrage.

This cowardly attack displayed far more than just bad faith.  It demonstrated beyond all doubt that Hamas' Command & Control system remains fully functional, and that despite the destruction of the terror tunnels leading into Israel, their ability to continue striking Israel with impunity remains largely intact.

Therefore, the cornerstone of any long-term ceasefire agreement MUST be the complete demilitarization/disarmament of Hamas and its many subordinate terror groups in Gaza.  

And since the US, EU and UN all feel that Israel has been too brutal in its dealings with Gaza, and that we have been unreasonable in our monitoring of what is allowed to enter Gaza, it must be an international force that will take responsibility for carrying out the disarmament process and subsequent monitoring of all Gaza crossings to ensure no weapons or military equipment are smuggled in.

And most importantly, UNRWA, having been proven to be at best a hapless dupe, and at worst a willing partner, to Palestinian terror, must be disbanded and replaced by UNHCR which is the UN body responsible for all other refugees in the world, and can act as a reliable trustee for the millions of dollars that will soon be pouring into Gaza from around the world.  This is the only way to ensure that the aid money gets spent on improving the lives of innocent Gazans instead of being reinvested in weapons and terror infrastructure for the next, inevitable war.

The resolve of the international community will be tested over the next 72 hours.  If it is found wanting, Israel will have to go it alone and take whatever steps are necessary to provide safety and security to its citizens.

The frustration of arguing with history deniers

I've recently had several on and off-line discussions about the history of our region with people I'd always considered to be intelligent and well-educated.

Those discussions have led me to the inescapable conclusion that, not only do many people lack even the most rudimentary curiosity about history, but they actually actively avoid any aspect of its study which might contradict / threaten their currently held political views and opinions.

If I only had to contend with the frustration of not having a common pool of knowledge upon which to draw while discussing current events with these people, I would gladly prepare, carry and distribute copies of a short 'Cliff Notes'-style cheat sheet of verifiable (or at least widely accepted) historical events that shaped the near east over the past three millennium (with emphasis placed on the legal ramifications of the events of the last 200 years); No editorializing or interpretation, mind you... 'just the facts' (as Sgt. Joe Friday used to say).

Unfortunately, most people would slam the door on such a historical 'cheat sheet' as automatically as they would a tract or pamphlet being offered door-to-door by religious missionaries.

I'm not sure if it is a lack of confidence in the accuracy of the historical record, or if they simply believe that sheer force of will and modern mores should trump legal precedent and historical fact.

But whatever the reason, anyone who attempts to place current events in any sort of historical context should prepare themselves for blank stares and rather one-sided conversations.

When all isn't fair in... war

Throughout the current conflict in Gaza, the world has been scolding Israel over the lack of proportionality in the way we have been responding to the unprovoked attacks against us.

European leaders and UN shills have been stressing two main talking point in all their public statements:

1. The 'primitive' nature of the weapons that are being used against us as compared to the sophisticated offensive and defensive tools in our arsenal;

and

2. The disproportionate number of casualties on each side.

Heck, the New York Times even offers a handy box score in every article related to the conflict... y'kmow, so fans tuning in can quickly get a sense of how the game stands.

[Screenshot from today's Times]

The clear message being conveyed is that since their weapons are so crude and inaccurate, and our technological advantage so great... that we should somehow be able to handicap the conflict in such a way as to level the playing field.

In other words, with such a lopsided death toll, something just doesn't seem cricket in the way Israel is playing the game.

What they fail to appreciate (or more likely, willfully ignore), is that, despite having rules... war is not a game. The rules are meant to preserve humanity and protect non-combatants... not ensure a close and exciting match for the spectators.

There is nothing in the Geneva Comventions that requires a better equipped military force to give a head start or handicap to a belligerent adversary with lesser means.

There are, however clear rules regarding the deliberate use of civilians as human shields, and intentionally exploiting schools, hospitals, ambulances, residential dwellings and houses of worship as weapons depots and launch pads.

There are rules that require combatants to wear clearly identifiable uniforms and insignia to distinguish them from non-combatants.

There are rules that prohibit the use of false flags (e.g. enemy uniforms) during attacks, and there are rules that prohibit carrying out attacks under a flag of truce (i.e. during a cease fire that has been offered and accepted by all sides.).

And most cogent to the events of today, there are rules governing the status and treatment of combatants captured, taken prisoner and / or who surrender during hostilities. Such persons are considered Prisoners of War, not kidnap victims.

Yet, throughout this (and all previous conflicts), Israel has been expected to not only offer a handicap, but to play by a different set of rules altogether!

The terrorists in Gaza fire thousands of missiles at our civilian population and the world borrows from the Palestinian lexicon to label it 'resistance' and 'militancy' instead of unprovoked belligerency and terrorism.

They use their own people and civilian infrastructure as shields for military installations, but the world only takes notice when those installations are targeted in our retaliatory strikes.

They dress their combatants in civilian clothing, and the world only notices the blurring of that distinction when tallying up the daily body count (with anyone dressed in street clothes counted as a civilian death).

They ask for, and receive, humanitarian ceasefires... and the world sees nothing wrong with the fact that they use those ceasefires to launch unopposed sneak attacks.

Their captured combatants are treated as Prisoners of War with the Red Cross given full access to assess their conditions and treatment. When one of our soldiers falls into their hands (captured during a cease fire!), the world shrugs and calls him a kidnapping victim, with no rights or expectations of humane treatment, instead of calling him a POW.

I'm not suggesting that Israel abandon it's humanity or disregard our moral / ethical responsibility to try to safeguard non-combatants who are, through no fault of their own, caught in the crossfire.

But there comes a point in warfare where one side declares through word and deed that no quarter will be offered to combatants... and both sides have to assume that none will be given.

That time has, IMHO, arrived.

Israel must continue to hold itself to the highest standards of conduct. But if our enemies are not expected to adhere to modern norms of warfare, I say we have to wage war on their terms... at least in terms of how we treat their combatants.

Without going into specifics, I think we should be guided by a few bits of wisdom passed down to us by a man who knew a thing or two about warfare... and how trying to make it neat, honorable or fair would do nothing but prolong the agony for all involved:

“Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster”

“War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want."

~William Tecumseh Sherman~

General Sherman understood then, as we must make the world understand now, that war isn't fair. War is hell.