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.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Thursday, June 22, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)