GAY RIGHTS PARADE AND ARAB-JEWISH COEXISTENCE

Opposition to the proposed Gay Rights Parade in Jerusalem has put to-gether strange bed-fellows. The Ultra-Orhodox Jewish Community in Jerusalem and its Palestinian Muslim counterpart fiercely oppose the Parade taking place in Jerusalem. Both groups view the parade as an abomination of Jerusalem as a city holy to both Jew and Muslim. What is interesting is this joint co-operation in opposing the parade. It would seem that in the face of a righty or wrongly perceived "external threat" to their way of life Palestinian Muslim and Israeli Jew cannot only co-exist but can actually cooperate - and that in a city which exemplifies more than any other the bitter Israeli-Palestinian divide.

A few years back I vacationed in London during Succot and sat on a bench in Regent's Park. I happened to see two fairly large family groups strolling near each other - one group consisted of Ultra Orhodox Jews and the other of religious Muslims - both enjoying the late autumn air and playing with children and grandchildren. What struck me observing these two groups was how similar they really were - and how an ignorant stranger looking at them would probably lump them together as probably belonging to the same religious group. I would even venture to suggest that the Ultra Orthodox Jews would, at least from a dietary and dress code point of view, have felt more at home with the Muslims than they would have with me a Secular Jew.

And as for me? Well, sitting as a lawyer in a Tel Aviv Court to-day, I looked over at an Israeli Jewish lawyer having a friendly conversation with an Israeli-Arab (Palestinian) lawyer. They chatted amiacably in Hebrew for several minutes. What struck me was how much the Arab lawyer was Israeli and how the two lawyers were part of the same people (at least in the eyes of my ignorant stranger looking in). From a cultural social point of view the two lawyers have more in common with each other than they might have with many co-religionists or fellow nationals from abroad - for example with a non-hebrew speaking Jew from Alaska or with a Magreb Arab or non-Arabic speaking English Muslim respectively.

The bottom line is that it is all a bit confusing - this overly strict division of ethnic groups just does not always stand up to the reality test - and perhaps we would be better off if we sometimes let reality take its course.

ITALIAN FASHION AND ISRAELI REALITY

Last night (4.11.06), Israel's Channel Two screened a fun-type documentary entitled - let's see you instead of me. This apparently light hearted programme takes an Israeli with a specific profession and gets him to change places with a counterpart from abroad.

In last night's showing, an Italian fashion from Milan photographer exchanged places with a news photographer from Tel Aviv. The Israeli photographer went off to the glamorous world of fashion photography in Milan. He was given the envious task of photographing an exquisite young model in the arms of a less exquisite aging ex-basketball star. The photographer was given instructions by an uppity Italian magazine editor who poured scorn on the Israeli's lack of ability (in his opinion) to carry out his given task. After suffering several insults (delivered in a passive-agressive manner) the Israeli photographer decided, in despair, to show the Italian editor some of his work from back home in Israel. He proceeded to show lab top pictures of death Israeli style - grisly photographs from suicide attacks carried out by Palestinian terrorists in Israel. This ever so cultured magazine editor was suddenly confronted with another reality far removed from his beautiful insulated Milanese existence. As the Israeli photographer showed him a picture of a blood drenched corpse of a little Israeli baby , the editor clammed up and decided to break up the meeting - this despite the Israeli's tongue in cheek protest that this was only the beginning of what he had to show!.

The Italian photographer who came to Tel Aviv was a far more sympathetic character than the Editor back in Milan. He too could not come to terms with Israeli reality particularly when he went to photograph the bereaved family and friends of a fallen Israeli soldier. Brought to tears he could not bring himself to photograph the mourners. Unlike the snotty magazine editor who could not even bring himself to say something about what he saw, the Italian photographer was refreshingly honest in his admission of how hard the Israeli reality was to confront.

Last week there was debate in Israel about marketing Israel's image abroad. The term in vogue these days is "nation branding". One view has it that Israeli should focus on an Israel not related to religion or to the conflict with the Palestinians. Others feel that Israel should show the world some hard truths about the reality of life in this country - just as the Israeli photographer did in Milan and just as the Italian photographer experienced in Israel.

What was interesting about the television programme was the reaction of a European audience (albeit a specific audience of two) to a glimpse of Israeli reality. One reaction (the photographer's) was of sympathy, sadness and understanding the other was (the editor's) of distaste and revulsion. One could say that the editor was revolted because reality suddenly confronted him, knocking him down a much needed peg or two or perhaps his reaction was one of refusal to deal with the fact that Israelis (not only Palestinians) suffer and bleed. Did he clam up because his mould of stereo-type thinking regarding Israel suddenly cracked? Or perhaps simply pictures of death and suffering were just too much to deal with for a person involved with the narrow world of photographing fashion nymphs? We will never know what the editor was really feeling on being exposed to Israeli reality - what is important that the pictures caused a reaction - and causing a reaction is a start if Israel is going to put forward its position to the world in a more telling manner.

ISRAELI ARABS - SOME SUGGESTIONS

It is difficult to deny that Israeli Arabs suffer unofficial discrimination in Israel. Such discrimination requires attention and even affirmative action. For example, the number of Israeli Arabs employed in the public sector (languishing at around 6%) should be more or less relative to their proportion of the general population. However the need to counter and amend such discrimination does not diminish the need for Israeli Arabs to take a serious look at themselves in the mirror and decide where their loyalties lie: as Israeli citizens loyal to the State or to its enemies.

It is totally unacceptable when Israeli Arab members of Knesset engage in activities or make political utterances which show a fundamental disloyalty to Israel. Praising the Hizballah in the recent Lebanese Conflict,visiting Syria and expressing support for President Assad,advocating the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Palestinian terrorists andcomparing the Israeli Army and Police to Nazis exemplifies how Arab Knesset members exploit their democratic rights (including the freedom of expression) in order to undermine (and ultimately) topple the Jewish State.

Living in a democratic state implicitly means that a citizen has rights and obligations and not rights alone. A citizen's basic obligation is his loyalty to the state whose citizenship he holds. Imagine how Americans would view Congressmen who dared to side with America's enemies or how Englishmen would view Parliamentarians who advocated the killing of British soldiers. Such people would quite rightly be tried for treason.

Israeli Arabs need to be fully integrated into Israeli Society. I would advocate them even being obliged to do national service. Their footballers would be obliged to sing the Israeli anthem when playing for the national team. In short they should (like all citizens) be obligated to be and to act loyally to Israel and not to its enemies.


Parallel to a firm commitment by Israeli Arabs to fully integrate into Israeli society, Israel as a state should respond by positively dealing with the very real discrimination suffered by Israel's Arab citizens.

DEMOGRAPHICS - ANOTHER OPTION

Israel's demographic predicament vis-a-vis the Palestinians has come to the fore in recent years. Between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea there are approximately nine million people - five million Jews and four million Palestinians. Whilst some dispute the accuracy of the above figures (for example Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post) my premise is that they are more or less accurate. Were Israel to retain all of the above-mentioned territory it would in time cease de-facto to be a Jewish State. The problem would be compounded if the Palestinians were to call Israel's bluff by demanding that Israel annex Judea, Samaria and Gaza to Israel and then insisting on their right to vote for the Knesset. Israel as a democracy would be unable to resist such a demand by the Palestinians for universal suffrage and the way for the demise of Israel as a Jewish State would be paved.

So what then are the alternatives?

1. Extreme right wingers (such as the Moledet Party, Michael Kleiner and lately Effi Eitam) have long advocated some form of expulsion of Palestinians from all of the Land of Israel.Such a solution would obviously be both undemocratic and immoral apart from the fact that Israel would become a pariah state in the world. Therefore expulsion is quite evidently not a feasible solution to the demographic problem.

2. In the last election campaign, Avigdor Lieberman's Israel Beitanu Party advocated a land swap whereby parts of pre 1967 Israel (such as the Wadi Ara area) containing a large number of Israeli Arabs would be given over to the Palestinian Authority in return for large settlement blocks in Judea and Samaria being annexed to Israel.This idea does not entail expelling Palestinians from the land but rather an attempt to repartition the land of Israel according to where large Jewish and Arab population centres are respectively situated (wherever practical). Unfortunately the plan suffers two main faults: (1) If Arabs living on land slated to be given over to the Palestinian Authority decided to move to another part of Israel then the result would be that territory without an Arab population would needlessly be given to the Palestinians and the demographic problem would remain. (2) In light of the recent Lebanon War and the shelling of Israeli towns giving up land would further put Israeli towns under missile threat - this time from land given to the Palestinians.



3. A different solution to the demographic dilemma was proposed by the Kadima Party's election mandate which called for the setting of Israel's permanent borders in a way that would ensure a stable Jewish majority. Failing a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, Kadima proposed a unilateral withdrawal (or realignment) from parts of Judea and Samaria leaving the large settlement blocks in place. Since the Lebanon War the realignment plan has been shelved - thus putting the demographic issue on the back-burner.


4. Another solution to the demographic problem is increased immigration. Whilst many vainly wait for a mass immigration of Jews from the West (particularly from the United States), the fact is that such a mass immigration is unlikely to occur. There is however as yet a large untapped source for immigration to Israel. I am referring to hundreds of thousands of people particularity from the former USSR who have a link (even a distant one) to Judaism and the Jewish people. These are people that are not Jewish by Jewish Law but do have a grandparent or even great grandparent who was Jewish. Their main reason for immigrating to Israel would be for economic self-betterment. Once such people arrived here their children and grand children would gradually be absorbed by the dominant Israeli-Jewish culture paving their way for an ultimate total absorption as Israeli Jews. Jewish Orthodoxy would then face a challenge of either having to provide relatively simple conversion procedures enmasse for such people or to accept the fact that Israel will ultimately have two Jewish populations - one in the strict Jewish Law sense of the word and the other in the National - Cultural secular sense of the word (something akin to what it has to-day). In any event the end result would be the possibility of a huge immigration of people with a link (albeit flimsy but nevertheless still a link) to the Jewish people. I would even propose going as far as to search the elsewhere (such as in Latin America, Spain and Portugal) for thousands of people who may have such a remote link to their Jewish past. If such people could be encouraged to immigrate (in search of a better economic future) to Israel this would change the demographic tables distinctly in favor of Israel's Jewish Population and would go a substantial way to solving the demographic threat to a Jewish majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

HIZABALLAH THREAT TO ISRAEL'S POWER OF DETERRENCE: 27.9.06

1. One of the reasons that Israel launched its military campaign against the Hizballah in July was to restore its power of deterrence in face of Hizballah's bellicose and aggressive actions including the flagrant violation of Israeli sovereign territory and the unprovoked use of violence against its soldiers and civilians. After the ceasefire with the Hizballah it seemed that this power of deterrence had to a degree been restored particularly in light of the fact that Hizballah positions were no longer being manned a few meters from Israel's border and that Hassan Nasrallah was in hiding for fear of his life.

2. Two related events however occurred last week which may be the portent of worse to come and a signal that Israel's restored power of deterrence will be put to the test soon.

In one incident a large group of Hizballah supporters (some of whom were said to be armed) stoned an Israeli military vehicle situated on the Israeli side of the border. The complete lack of an Israeli response - immediate or otherwise- to this taunting of its soldiers is what is worrying.Neither tear gas, water cannon or shots in the air were even fired in order to transmit a message of deterrence to the Hizballah. Whilst restraint is an admirable trait (at least in the West) in this particular case it will be seen by the Hizballah as being an act of weakness - it is almost a given cetainty that soon a similar but more brazen act against Israeli troops will be undertaken because the Hizballah logic will be that if Israel did not react to this provocation it may not act to the next one and so on.

The second portentous event was the giant Hizballah "victory" rally in Beirut where some 800,000 people saw and heard Hassan Nasrallah speak. There had been speculation that Israel may target him for assassination at the rally but even less forceful actions were not undertaken such as for example breaking the sound barrier over Beirut whilst Nasrallah was proclaiming victory. In his speech, Nasrallah mocked the tears of the Lebanese Prime Minister, Siniora during the war. Such derision of sensitivity only demonstrates how what is sometimes perceived as being admirable in the West is viewed as a weakness in the Middle East. Nasrallah's appearance showed his supporters that here he was appearing in public for all to see and not hiding in some bunker.

3. The upshot of the border fence stone throwing incident and of Nasrallah's unhindered public appearance in Beirut are both a blow to Israel's power of deterrence. Had Israel used a measure of force to deal with these two provocations then a clear message - do not try us - would have been sent out to the Hizballah and its followers. Alas, the message that has been transmitted to the Hizballah is to continue to provoke Israel and failing any Israeli action the pre-war status quo will slowly but surely be restored - something which is obviously to Israel's detriment.

ANSWERING THE IRELAND-PALESTINE SOLIDARITY CAMPAIGN

Professor James Bowen of the National University of Ireland and chairman of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign recently wrote an article entitled "Making Israel take responsibility"(published in Haaretz on 15.9.06). Professor Bowen criticizes Israel for using anti-Semitism to "excuse its expulsion of Palestinians in 1948, its discrimination against Palestinians who managed to remain inside the Green Line, and its territorial expansionism after 1967". Anti-Semitism was a major reason behind the burning need to re-establish the Jewish National Home in the Land of Israel, if this homeland had been reestablished prior to the rize of the Nazis, half the then World Jewish population would have been saved from extermination. Anti-Semitism was and is an integral part of the Jewish-Israeli psyche.But it has little to do with Professor Bowen's allegations. Rather, Professor Bowen's criticism of Israel reflects the Palestinian victim narrative which resolutely refuses to accept any blame for the situation of the Palestinian people to-day. Interestingly, Professor Bowenwhilst lauding Irish Jewish relations forgets to mention IRA support for Nazi Germany.

1. If the Palestinians were as Bowen puts it "expelled" (most fled in a cowardly fashion unlike the Jewish Population who stood to fight for their homeland), then this was after they (and not the Jews who accepted the UN Plan) rejected the UN Partition Plan for dividing the land between a large Arab State and a smaller Jewish one. Five Arab armies invaded the newly born Jewish State with the intention of throwing the Jews into the sea. Which ever way one looks at the 1948 War the fact is that the Arab nations declared war on Israel and lost - this fact cannot be disputed by Professor Bowen. The Palestinian flight or expulsion or whatever you term it was a result of the War which was not started by Israel but was won by it (after losing 1% of its population during that War). Bitter a pill as it may be to swallow the Palestinians have only themselves to blame for not accepting the UN Partition Plan and for taking up arms against Israel.

2. In referring tp Israel's "territorial expansion after 1967", Professor Bowen is probably alluding to Israel gaining control of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) in the 1967 Six Day War.This "expansion" was a result of Jordan's decision to attack Israel in 1967 - once again a case of an Arab defeat brought about by a belligerent decision to go to war against Israel.

3. One view I share to a degree with Professor Bowen is in his allegation of discrimination against Palestinians living within Israel's 1967 borders (the Green Line). Although these Palestinians have the right to vote and enjoy full civil rights they do suffer from un-official discrimination which is inexcusable even if their political leaders (Palestinian members of the Israel's Parliament) openly side with Israel's enemies (for example by professing open support for suicide bombers and for the Hezbollah). Such discrimination however pales into insignificance when compared to the apartheid like conditions under which Palestinians in Lebanon live.

Professor Bowen claims that Jews who "migrated to Palestine since 1882" should not have more entitlement to the land than the Palestinians. If Professor Bowen wants to play the historical date justification game I have no objections. In the 1880s Jews started their return to the land of Israel from which they were expelled in 70AD by the Romans some 560 years before the Arab Armies conquered the land at the Battle of Yarmuk in 638 AD. And what of other countries?By Professor Bowen's view Protestants would have less of claim to Northern Ireland than Catholics just because they gained political power there following the Battle of the Boyne in 1688 when the Catholics had been in Ireland since early Gaelic and Celtic days.

What matters is the present. The fact is that because Palestinians have always chosen violence as their best option ( witness Yasser Arafat's decision to prefer launching the second intifada instead of accepting Israel's offer of a Palestinian state in 95% of Judea and Samaria) they have very little to show for themselves.

Professor Bowen advocates sanctions being imposed on Israel something which only reinforces the view that the Palestinians and their supporters seek Israel's destruction as a Jewish State instead of realizing that unlike those Palestinians who ran away in 1948 the Jewish people have no other national home and will not relinquish their hold on their homeland. When the Palestinians realize this fact and demonstrate a genuine recognition of Israel they will surely find themselves in a far better position than they have been for the last hundred years. Professor Bowen and his colleagues in the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign would serve the Palestinians far more by advocating such recognition and moving away from victim mode.

PALESTINIAN RIGHTS IN APARTHEID LEBANON

Amidst the current hostilities in Lebanon, much is said in favour of Hizballah's so-called "stand on behalf of the Palestinians". Seeing the Lebanese Prime Minister's tears of sadness at the fate of his country, one can get the impression that but for Israel's actions, Lebanon would be a wonderful society respecting human rights - indeed a veritable beacon of fairness and liberal-mindedness.

Sorry to spoil the party but its worth reading the 2005 report on the situation of Palestinians in Lebanon which was compiled by the Palestinian Human Rights Organization -PHRO. The PHRO is definitely no friend of Israel and the report's introduction makes much of Israel's "violations" of Palestinian rights - no surprises there.

More interesting is the complete absence of basic rights for Palestinians living under Lebanese control in Lebanon. There are around 435,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. According to the Report, "in the case of Palestinian Refugees, the limitation on their rights is primarily based on the pretext of their lack of citizenship". This despite the fact that many Palestinians arrived in Lebanon in 1948 and others in the late 1960s (following expulsion from Jordan by the Jordanians).

The PHRO report confirms the following: Palestinians are denied legal aid in Lebanon; Palestinians are prohibited from living in border areas in South Lebanon and they alone are subject to identity checks carried out by the Lebanese Army thus restricting their freedom of movement; Palestinians are prevented from attaining Lebanese citizenship so as not to upset the "delicate sectarian balance" in Lebanon; Palestinians are prohibited from acquiring real estate in Lebanon; Palestinians in Lebanon are prevented from becoming members of work syndicates thus closing the doors of many professions such as law and medicine; Palestinians in Lebanon are not entitled to receive social security and are restricted in their freedom of association; Palestinians in Lebanon are deprived of the educational opportunities afforded to Lebanese citizens and are completely denied access to public health care.

The PHRO report concludes that "the Lebanese adopted policies against Palestinian Refugees residing in Lebanon depriving them of their fundamental humanitarian rights". The importance of the report lies in the fact that here is a pro-Palestinian organization showing how much hypocrisy exists in the world with regard to the so-called Palestinian problem - if liberal appeasers in the West are so concerned about Palestinain rights where is their large hue and cry when it comes to Palestinian rights in Lebanon? If apartheid does exist in relation to Palestinians then Lebanon is a prime example of an apartheid country as the PHRO report so aptly illustrates.

ONE MAN'S TERRORIST IS ANOTHER'S FREEDOM FIGHTER

Perhaps the time has come for Israel to stop thinking in terms of "terrorists" and "terror acts" when relating to organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas which seek to destroy it.Simpler to term such organizations as the "enemy".

The terminology of terrorism has lead to a double standard which only has adverse effects on those trying to counter terrorism. The terrorist can attack civilians directly without having to justify his behavior - he is a terrorist and kills civilians in order to pursue his objectives. On the other hand, the country countering terror is not permitted to directly target civilians in order to pursue his objectives. Israel has killed civilians in Lebanon but only indirectly whilst trying to target Hezbollah rocket launchers. The Hezbollah targets Israeli civilians directly.Therefore the Hezbollah has a distinct advantage over Israel. From its point of view if it were only to target the Israeli military it would achieve far less than it has by directly targetting civilians.

Why not even the moral playing field and term both sides as mutual enemies where all is fair in love and war? Were Israel to directly target civilians as did Britain when it destroyed Dresden in World War Two, it might actually succeed in convincing civilians that shelter the Hezbollah that it is very much not in their interests to do so.

Once this become clear to people anywhere that permit such organizations to act from within population centres that their lives are going to be deliberately targeted, then they may finally understand that these organizations actions are self-detrimental in the extreme.

By freeing itself of the need to term someone or some organization as being terrorist, Israel will no longer have to fight with one hand tied behind its back.Finally it would absolve all of us from becoming embroiled in the futile "who is a terrorist debate".Futile, because Israel's primary goal is its survival and that of its people and no amount of moral superiority can prevent the deliberate (as opposed to incidental) deaths of innocent people murdered by Hezbollah rockets.

POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS OF THE HIZBULLAH ATTACK ON ISRAEL

The flagrant breach of Israeli sovereignty by the Hizbullah in kidnapping two Israeli soldiers has led to what is fast turning into a mini-war on Israel's northern border. Whilst the dust is far from settling it is worth pondering three major political implications resulting from the fact that Hizbullah has succeeded in launching over1,500 rocket attacks on Israel's northern heartland.

1.Israel's total withdrawal from Lebanon over five years ago led to the relatively large scale arming of the Hizbullah (by Syria and Iran) to such an extent that it has succeeded in launching serious rocket attacks on Israel - certainly more serious than the thirty nine Scud missiles that Saddam Hussein's Iraq fired at Israel in 1991. Israel's enemies will certainly take note of how a small terrorist organization has succeeded putting Israel's northern home front on alert. The question posed is whether these enemies will be tempted into taking on Israel on a far larger scale than the Hizbulla has done or is able to? Israel has not responded to the Hizballah attacks by way of launching all out war on Lebanese soil but rather with a limited campaign. Were it to be attacked by enemies that are nation sates such as Iran and Syria it would obviously react with all or most of the power at its disposal and this should deter a rational enemy from trying to do what the Hizbullah has done so far - an attack on Israel's heartlands by an enemy state would result in total war causing death and destruction on such a colossal scale that it is doubtful whether such countries would want to try their hand against Israel as the Hizbullah has.

2. The events in Lebanon and Gaza have occurred in territory which Israel has unilaterally withdrawn from. The resulting unprecedented attacks on Israel's home front has cast serious doubts on the wisdom of future withdrawals (either bi-lateral or unilaterally) from land held by Israel in Judea and Samaria. Israel will be hardpressed to give up land when it is now very plausible that the Palestinians will in future launch attacks on central Israel as they have done on the South from Gaza and as has Hizbullah has done in the North from Lebanon. Moreover,the western world is far more liklelier to understand the terrible security dilemma that Israel will face should it withdraw from Judea and Samaria.In a very real sense Hizbullah has by its actions severely damaged the Palestinian cause. Israel may well have to look for another option with regard to solving the Judea and Samaria predicament (and Gaza) such as striving for a settlement with the Jordanians and Egyptians leading them to control land given up by Israel in trust for some sort of completely disarmed Palestinian entity.

3. If the Kadima's government planned redrawing of Israel's borders (even unilaterally) goes awry as a result of the second Lebanese war then the ideological differences betweenKadima and the Likud parties will be reduced paving the way for a unification between Kadima and the Likud. Israel would then revert to a traditional two (as opposed to three) major party system.

A POSSIBLE WAY OUT OF THE SHALIT HOSTAGE SITUATION

Both Israel and the Hamas government are at an impasse over the Gilad Shalit hostage situation. Both sides are in a sense hostages to their own public opinion. Israel refuses to release Palestinian detainees held in its prisons in return for Shalit's release. The release of detainees will in Israeli opinion be perceived as a surrender to terrorist demands. The Hamas for its part cannot because of Palestinian public opinion release the captured soldier without attaining the release of Palestinian detainees. The ideal solution would be a win-win one where neither side is perceived to be giving up on principle but at the same time would achieve the desired result for both parties. This can be achieved by reaching agreement over the firing of Palestinian missiles into southern Israel and Israel's targeted assassinations of Palestinian terrorists. The parties could agree that Gilad Shalit be released and that if within say three months no missiles are fired into Israel (or no other terrorist attacks are carried out) then Israel would release a certain agreed number of detainees. This could then set in motion further releases in "installments" over the coming years until a majority of the 9,000 detainees are released (apart from those with blood on their hands). The releases would only take place if no terrorist attacks took place in given time periods. Israel for its part could undertake to desist from targeted assassinations so long as no terrorist acts were committed by the Palestinians. Should the plan work then both sides could justly claim credit: for Israel the release of Shailt and a halt to terrorist attacks and for the Hamas the release of detainees and a cessation in targeted assassinations.

SEARCHING FOR CORPORAL SHALIT

The kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit by Palestinian terrorists who attacked Israeli sovereign territory on Sunday has left an entire country holding its collective breath regarding the safety of one of its soldiers.

Palestinians argue that there are 9,000 Palestinian security detainees in Israeli detention and that they too seek the release of their loved ones. There is however one fundamental difference between an Israeli hostage and the 9,000 Palestinian detainees. None of the Palestinian detainees nor the families need fear for the lives of the detainees in the way that Gilad Shalit's family now does. They are entitled to legal representation in court and family visits. Young mothers can even rear their children in prison. An Israeli hostage and his family undergo the utmost of anxieties and tribulations regarding the very life of the hostage. This extreme uncertainty exemplifies the difference between Israeli democratic society where the rule of law applies and Palestinian terror based society where a human life can be taken at such a whim.

An outside observer may wonder why Israel makes such a large hue and cry over the well being of one soldier. Knesset Member,Yisrael Hason best summed up the reason why Israel takes its such matters so to heart - our system of counting unlike other nations commences at six million. The collective memory of losing half of its people in the Holocaust makes the Jewish people in general and Israelis in particular treat each casualty or hostage as if he or she were a close relation. Israel will go to almost any lengths to free its people. Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners have been freed in return for scraps of information about Israeli soldiers missing in action.The Palestinian terrorists are fully aware of this apparent Israeli Achilles heel.But in weakness there is strength.Every Israeli soldier knows that he will not be abandoned by his people - no forlorn tapping on a trapped submarine door for Israeli soldiers as was the case of Russian navy personnel several years ago who were left to suffocate to death whilst their government put international public image above the lives of its soldiers. The quiet and dogged manner in which the kidnapped soldier's family have spoken to the press aptly demonstrates the supreme dedication that Israelis have with regard to protecting their homeland - no shrieking, no fanfare just firmness and concern for the well being of their son. Typical of combat soldiers Gilad comes from a line of fighters - his uncle fell in the Yom Kippur War.Israel has waited before for its brave sons to return home and will regretfully probably have to wait again but as long as it has such brave sons as Gilad Shalit and his family there will be an Israel around to wait.

COUNTERING PALESTINIAN ATTACKS ON SOUTHERN ISRAEL

The unfortunate deaths of Palestinian civilians as result of the Israeli Air-Force trying to target Palestinian terrorists is obviously regrettable. The immediate question though is what alternative does Israel currently have in light of the hundred of rockets that Palestinian terrorists have launched on the southern Israeli town of Sderot and its environs? How can Israel protect its citizens without causing non deliberate large numbers of Palestinian civilian casualties. Israel has five options open to it in dealing with these attacks on her sovereign territory.

1.Like the US following September 11th, it could launch a ground operation into Gaza with the aim of destsroying the terrorists' ability to launch rockets. Whilst this option would ultimately succeed it carries the risk of heavy casualties particularly to Palestinian civilians amongst whom Palestinian terrorists hide.

2. On the other hand Israel could do absolutely nothing in the face of physical attacks on its people. Such appeasement whilst it might gain international sympathy for Israel would in the light of past experience only encourage further terrorist rocket attacks.

3. A third option would be to prevent all aid reaching Gaza until the terrorist attacks cease. Israel could make it perfectly clear that humanitarian aid will not be allowed into Gaza so long as southern Israel is attacked. Such a step would cause direct damage to more Palestinians than the airforce strikes which whilst more deadly and immediate cause less widespead damage than would the prevention of humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza. This option whilst it would be internationally unpopular, would lead Palestinian civilians to pressurize their Government to prevent attacks on Israel.

4. The fourth option would be to target political leaders associated with Palestinian terror groups and not just their military wings. This option would cause the political wings of the terror groups, in the very real spirit of self preservation, to pressurize their armed counterparts to cease attacking Israel.

5. The final option is to continue as at present by way of airstrikes aimed at armed targets with the regretable but unavoidable risk that innocent bystanders could become casualties.


An objective interantional observer should ask himself this question - how would he or she expect their government to react to attacks launched on their sovereign territory from territory which they had previously controlled but had since withdrawn from? Israel unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza strip in its entirety and is now being subject to a continuous barrage of rocket attacks from that very territory. Clearly, any country in similar circumsatnces would react in the way Israel is doing even if it resulted in the non intentional loss of civilian life on the other side.

THE UK ACADEMIC BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL

Heinrich Heine once remarked that "philosophical thoughts nurtured in the stillness of a professor's study can destroy civilizations". In light of the Nazi destruction of European Jewish civilization his observation was a portent of things to come. The seeds of the latest recommended academic boycott of Israeli academics by their British counterparts were likewise nurtured in the stillness of an academic's study – and they too are ultimately aimed at destroying Jewish Civilization in Israel.

The sponsor of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education in the United Kingdom is a lecturer in Philosophy by the name of Tom Hickey. One wonders what philosophical thoughts Mr Hickey has been nurturing in the stillness of his study at the University of Brighton where he lectures? It is only logical to ascertain that from Hickey's weltanschauung the academic boycott of Israel would only be the start of greater things to come - a grand pilot scheme which would progress to a wider boycott Israel per se. The ultimate boycott objective does not end with Israel's policies in Judea and Samaria. The end game theory must be to destroy the state of Israel as Jewish State or to put it euphemistically to create one "secular democratic state" between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean. That in a nutshell is the logical ultimate aim of the boycott.

Mr Hickey and his elk lack the real integrity (academic or otherwise) to put their sorry cards on the table and admit it is not only "Israeli policies in the occupied territories" that troubles them so greatly but rather the very existence of the Jewish State and its attendant Jewish Civilization in this part of the world. No other explanation can account for Israel alone being singled out for boycott.

In China common thieves are put to death on regularly for their crimes. Tens of thousands of Chechnians have been murdered by Russia in Chechnia. The Sudanese government supports the ethnic cleansing of black Muslims in Dofar. Yet no mention is made of boycotting any of the above-mentioned countries.

If the boycotters are only concentrating on academic institutions then why not boycott the Palestinian academics responsible for the primitive anti Semitic text books with which Palestinian children are weaned on at school? Needless to say that no interest is shown in Iran or its President's threats to wipe out Israel and his denial of the Holocaust. The biggest irony of the boycott is that it targets a sector of Israel's population (its academics) who have always been (in stark contrast to Arab academics) at the forefront of efforts to seek a peaceful solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Mr Hickey would no doubt scorn at any accusations of anti-Semitism on his part with regard to the boycott resolution. But consider this – if one were to ask the hundred and six delegates who voted in favour of the boycott if they thought that Aipac influenced US foreign policy, how many would answer yes? How many would answer yes if asked whether Aipac had too much influence on US foreign policy? And how many would answer yes if asked whether Aipac caused the US Government to act in a manner contrary to its own best interests. In light of the recent paper by Mearsheimer and Walt regarding the influence of the American Jewish lobby over US foreign policy, one could put a fairly safe bet on the answer to all three of the above questions being in the affirmative. Replace Aipac with the word Jewish Lobby and then drop the word Lobby and you have anti-Semitism shed of its "anti-Zionist" garb.

A final thought for Mr Hickey and his fellow boycotters. The last time that there was an all too effective boycott of Jewish academics as a group was in Germany in the 1930s when Jewish teachers, lectures and professors were hounded out of their positions. One wonders what their non Jewish German counterparts felt at seeing their colleagues being thrown out of their academic positions for no other reason than their Jewish identity. Did they feel embarrassed, or smug or grateful for an opportunity provided by a lack of academic competition? I wonder how Mr Hickey and his hundred and five colleagues will feel when their Israeli academic counterparts are not around.