Haaretz embraces the Saudi Plan

Peace deal means getting Jewish state back from the Arab world
By Shaul Arieli, HAARETZ

How serious Benjamin Netanyahu really is about resuming talks with the Palestinians will be reflected in the extent of his effort to reshape Israeli public opinion, where the concept “there is no partner” has been thoroughly assimilated, partly because of the prime minister’s own utterances.

First, Netanyahu will have to cope with the Israeli presumption that the status of the territories is, at best, “disputed,” though they are usually perceived as “liberated” or “promised,” either by the Balfour Declaration or God himself. United Nations resolutions stating that they are “occupied territories” where a Palestinian state is destined to rise have been disregarded. Accordingly, every inch of the West Bank from which Israel withdraws is perceived as a concession, of both historical rights and real estate.

A second problem is that Israelis perceive their country’s control of the West Bank as the starting point for “mutual concessions.” The Palestinian concession in 1988 of 78 percent of “historical Palestine” is considered irrelevant. From the premiership of Ehud Barak to that of Netanyahu, Israel has eschewed territorial exchanges on a one-to-one basis, whose ultimate meaning is carving up the “poor man’s lamb,” to use the biblical metaphor.

Third, Netanyahu will have to confront the public’s impression that Ehud Olmert, like Barak before him, “gave up everything” but was turned down by the Palestinians. In the Israeli consciousness, “everything” refers to the territorial issue and leaves out Jerusalem, the refugees and security. In fact, the Palestinians stretched the interpretation of the UN’s resolutions in order to accede to Israeli demands in at least the four following ways.

Although the international community denies the legality of the settlements, the Palestinians proposed a territorial exchange that allows 75 percent of the settlements to remain under our sovereignty. Although the international community has determined that East Jerusalem’s status is the same as the West Bank’s, the Palestinians agreed to leave the neighborhoods Israel established after 1967 in Israel’s hands. Despite the centrality of the refugee issue, the Palestinians agreed that the practical solution would be financial compensation and to settle the refugees in Palestine. And although every country has a natural right to things like air space, coastal waters and an army, the Palestinians agreed to Israeli demands that take bites out of their sovereignty.

Fourth, Netanyahu will have to face up to the Israeli predilection for creating realities by force of arms rather than seeking international legitimization – as expressed in David Ben-Gurion’s dictum, “It’s not important what the goyim say, it’s important what the Jews do.” The source of this concept lays in Israel’s success in winning the world’s recognition for its conquests in the War of Independence, a war that was fought under different circumstances than exist today. The tripling of the settlements since the Oslo Accords reflects the prevalence of the illusion that we will be able to annex them simply because we built them.

Both Netanyahu and the Israeli public will have to get used to the fact that by reaching an agreement, we won’t be bestowing a state on the Palestinians. We will be getting the Jewish state back from an Arab world ready to accept it, not out of love but because it has no alternative.

Israel has indulged in a great deal of foreplay in these negotiations, mostly with itself. Barak and Olmert got closer than Ariel Sharon and Netanyahu, but not one prime minister has mustered the courage to reach the point where an agreement actually has a chance to be conceived. Until we get to that point of our own free will, the Palestinians will prefer to remain in the cozy embrace of the international resolutions, in the hope that they will be implemented, against Israeli interests.

May 3, 2010 | 25 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

25 Comments / 25 Comments

  1. So why has Rick Perry suddenly gone Behar?

    Maybe he thinks it, maybe he is campaign mode [whites are a minority now in Texas—a fact that must drive liberals crazy sine we are a conservative state which should only be so if we were almost exclusively dumb white red-necks].

    Whatever, I don’t like him not backing up AZ. Perry is a mixed bag, but I’ll take him over a Demoncrat.

  2. I have repeatedly emphasized to you that the most dangerous enemy to Zionism is not Islamism…it is the liberalism that enables Islamism.

    If you can wrap your brain around it, the emergence of Islam as a factor in world stability is a symptom of the disease liberalism.

    The messianic jihads would love to destroy the world, but liberals are beating them to the punch. Whatever part Islam contributes to mass destruction—they do the dirty work—it will only have been made possible by socialist Marxists who are no less dangerous. Leftists think they are going to bring down the U.S. and get rid of Israel, then live happily ever after in a multi-cultural global community with Islam—absolutely nuts!

  3. I in no way identified with the anarchists or hippies of the sixties.

    Comment by Ted Belman — May 5, 2010 @ 5:46 am

    Can someone photoshop in the long hair? Maybe with a bandana? That would be, like, far out, man!

  4. Ayn,

    I have repeatedly emphasized to you that the most dangerous enemy to Zionism is not Islamism…it is the liberalism that enables Islamism.

    You initially recoiled, citing your self-image as being liberal.

    Not so. I have always believed in your first paragraph. But the unholy alliance of Islam and the left, wasn’t so front and centre way back when. The left has alsways been subversive. They stood for anti capitalism, anti colonialism, anti imperialism, anti American military.

    My liberalism was limited to fighting for Jewish rights up until the late fifties. I was never part of the anti crowd.

    We never looked at the anti crowd as being liberals. They were leftists.

    I in no way identified with the anarchists or hippies of the sixties. I was too busy getting an education.

    Then I was introduced to Commentary Mag and was a goner. I kept every issue for thirty years.

  5. Sociologist Uncovers New Israeli Abomination: IDF Soldiers Not Raping Arab Women!

    Could the left possibly get any more psychotic?

  6. Sociologist Uncovers New Israeli Abomination: IDF Soldiers Not Raping Arab Women!

    Finally, some good news for women: Israeli sociologist Tal Nitzan, conducting groundbreaking research, has discovered that, contrary to popular belief, getting raped and not getting raped feel exactly the same. The prize-winning research compared the experiences of women who were gang-raped by Serbian soldiers to the experiences of Palestinian women who weren’t raped at all by Israeli soldiers, reaching the surprising conclusion that the experience of both groups of women is exactly the same, “This is why we have scientific research – to challenge our traditional beliefs and discover the truth, using the best political methods available,” said Nizan, a graduate student in the Hebrew University.

    Nizan says that the most difficult thing in the research was hearing firsthand about the horrifying experiences of the poor Arab woman who did not get raped, “The pain, the suffering and the sheer degradation of this experience is hard to believe,” said Nizan,”For most Arab women, the scars of not being raped will never heal – this is just one more appalling by-product of the occupation.”

    In Israel, many were shocked and dismayed at the result of the research. IDF Chief, Gabi Ashkenazi, issued an apology to all Arab women for not getting raped and promised to conduct a thorough investigation as to the reasons, “Obviously, we are doing the best we can to encourage our soldiers to rape Arab women in order to avoid offending them,” Ashkenazi said, “After all, as Nizan has pointed out, the reality of occupation is difficult enough without having to go through the life-scarring experience of not getting raped as well.”

    MK Galon from Meretz praised Nitzan and thanked her for uncovering this dehumanizing behavior, “This just proves what we’ve been saying all along – the occupation is corrupting Israeli society.”
    Galon went on to suggest

    that Israel establish Non-Rape Crisis Centers in the occupied territories in order to treat the hundreds of thousand of women who have not been raped by Israeli soldiers, “It’s the least we can do,” said Galon.
    However, others seem prepared to go one step further, “These soldiers should be investigated,” said Ahmad Tibbi, “And if they are found guilty of not raping our women – they should be tried and sentenced for their crimes against humanity.
    “We demand equality,” Tibi said, “Our woman are just as rape-worthy as any other woman and besides, when we have the opportunity to rape Jewish women we do it, so why can’t Israeli soldiers show some humanity, some compassion, and rape our women when they get the chance? What is wrong with you guys?” asked Ahmad Tibi.

    Good question: what is wrong with us Jews?

    What is wrong is that we are paying for this filthy piece of propaganda, thinly disguised as research, and that these researchers are currently on strike in order to get more taxpayer money in order to produce more political research, “proving” whatever cockamamie ideas that are currently acceptable by the world-wide moon-bat community.

    In Hebrew they say that shit rises to the top. I guess that this research has, at least, proven that adage quite true. But it still wasn’t worth it.

    Ha’aretz Editor Is Trying to Get Olmert Raped

    Rape is in the air. First we reported the innovative research which proved scientifically, that Israeli soldiers are racist for not raping Arab women, and now we hear that the editor of Ha’aretz, David Landau is trying to arrange for Israel to get raped by the United States. Obviously, the editor’s words were taken out of context – no country can actually rape another one. We take it that Landau was trying to arrange for Israel’s leader, Prime Minister Olmert, to get raped by America’s leader, President Bush upon his approaching visit to Israel.
    As Daniel Pipes points out, such interference in the personal sex life of democratic leaders is unheard of, “Getting raped is an extremely private affair,” said Dr, Pipes, “And it is usually spontaneous – hardly the sort of thing that should be arranged, even if it is done by a true friend of Israel like Landau.”

    Ha’aretz Editor, David Landau, did not deny this request but he did explain that it is only for the good of the country, “Someone has to rape Olmert before it is too late,” explained Landau in his usual rational manner. Landau also added that several other cabinet members should get raped as well, “I asked that Livni, Barak, and Mofaz get raped too, if the President’s schedule permits it,” said Landau, who is still working on the list of individuals, organizations and sectors in Israel that have to be raped by America, “As long as President Bush is here we might as well have as many rapes as possible,” said Landau, who reiterated that it is for the good of the country, “Rape is good for you, everybody knows that,”said Landau, “In fact, I would get raped myself if I wasn’t allergic to it,” said the editor of Ha’aretz.

    Olmert said that he appreciates the efforts made by Israel’s best friends to improve the relationships between Israel and America. Olmert said that such a favor has to be returned, “Allergies notwithstanding, I have invited the editors of the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and Newsweek magazine to join Bush in his visit to Israel in order to gang rape the editor of Ha’aretz, said Olmert, “David Landau is a great friend of Israel and also a personal favorite of mine and I know for a fact that he deserves to get raped,” said Olmert.

    Unfortunately, the long list of eager rape candidates may have to wait. President Bush has said

    that although he sincerely loves Israel and all of its leaders and cabinet ministers, he has a problem with using violence against his loved ones, “If I love someone I would much rather coddle them gently and make they sure they are safe and healthy and well-provided for,” said Bush who was quick to reassure Israel’s friends at Ha’aretz, “Of course that’s just my own idiosyncrasies speaking,” explained Bush, “To each his own is what I say and if some people prefer tough love than surely it is their right to do everything they can to get it for themselves or inflict it upon their loved ones.”

    Personally, I’m not sure that Israel will be able to handle so much tough love. The last time this happened, Clinton raped Rabin and we got saddled with their bastard love child – the Oslo Accords which we are still trying to kick out of our country.
    Maybe we could just go back to writing beautiful love poetry. I mean haven’t these people heard about the Song of Songs?

    The original article from Daniel Pipes Weblog

    Ha’aretz Editor Explains Why Rape is Better Than Democracy

    Following our report about the editor of the Israeli daily Ha’aretz calling for the rape of various individuals and organizations in Israel, we now present our follow up interview with said editor:

    ISL: David, Ha’aretz is well-known for its aggressive stance on human rights so, like the rest of the country, I was quite surprised to hear that you are an advocate of rape. Can you explain that?
    Ha’aretz editor: Gladly. First I want to clarify that I am against rape per se. Rape, as I understand it, is against the law and of course, like all of our readers I am a law abiding citizen, because without the law, we are lost. That said, there are certain circumstances in which rape is not only necessary but even beneficial to the receiver.
    ISL: Such as?
    Ha’aretz editor: Such as when confronted with people who simply refuse to do what is good for them, like the current Israeli government and, in fact, most of the Israeli people.
    ISL: And the only possible solution is to rape everybody who disagrees with you?
    Ha’aretz editor: Well, we did try persuading people at first, but that didn’t work too well. To tell the truth, we failed quite miserably, so I guess the answer to your question is yes, rape, under the circumstances, is inevitable.
    ISL: Although it is a clear violation of human rights- which you support wholeheartedly.
    Ha’aretz editor: Obviously we support human rights and that is always the number one item on our agenda. But frankly, you can hardly call these people human. In fact, as we see it, the people who oppose us, actually oppose everything that is right and just and beautiful in this world, so, in a way, haven’t they forfeited their humanity? Can we really call them human? Or should we be calling them racist, fascist animals, worse than rats and snakes?
    ISL: Should we?
    Ha’aretz editor: Of course we should! After all, rats don’t have free choice, they are what they are, but here we are talking about humans- or rather people who could have been human, who could have been free individuals and subscribe to Ha’aretz, get a degree in the humanities and vote Meretz, and despite that, despite the obvious advantages of such a choice, and the refined elegance and dignity of such a life – have rejected it. In fact, when you think about it – these people have brought it upon themselves – they are in fact raping themselves.
    ISL: Yes. Well, spare me the details…what about democracy? Doesn’t this kind of thinking run contrary to the ideal of a democratic Israel?
    Ha’aretz editor: Democracy is the greatest political idea mankind has ever known. Ha’aretz is firmly committed to democracy and so are all of our staff and readers. There can be no questioning of that. However, democracy is also a flawed system, especially in Israel where democracy is greatly misunderstood.
    ISL: Would you care to explain?
    Ha’aretz editor: Many have been tricked into believing that democracy means rule of the people.
    ISL: Of course it does. Doesn’t it?

    Ha’aretz editor: What people? Surely it doesn’t mean all the people? That would be terrible! What democracy really means is that people who are normal people, people who know what’s right, people like us – meaning, basically, people we can trust – these are people who should rule. In fact, we are the only people who can rule because we are the only ones who know what’s right for this country – because, inherently, we are the people.
    ISL: You and who else?
    Ha’aretz editor: Colleagues, friends. Some family, although, to be sure, my son in law is a jack ass.
    ISL: Well what about the elections? Don’t they mean anything?
    Ha’aretz editor: Who knows? They probably mean something to somebody. Elections are like the carnival in Rio de Janeiro. It’s a country wide happening that envelopes everyone for months and lets the common people forget about their horrid lives and stupid meaningless jobs. Elections are really just a lot of harmless fun.
    ISL: And the results – they too are meaningless?
    Ha’aretz editor: Well, judging by the results in the last thirty years, they certainly should be.
    ISL: You miss the elections of yesteryear?
    Ha’aretz editor: Absolutely. Everything was so much neater then. People were nicer and much more polite and they voted exactly the way we told them. Votes were much cheaper to buy and much easier to arrange. Those were the days.
    ISL: What happened to this democratic ideal?
    Ha’aretz editor: The occupation, what else? People began getting ideas. Pride and self-confidence and dignity came out of nowhere like a plague. People didn’t want to be told what to do. They started talking back to their superiors…It was a terrible time for democracy. And it still is.
    ISL: That’s so sad. But, let’s get back to the future – what can be done now to save Israeli democracy and human rights?
    Ha’aretz editor: Well, like I said rape is the beginning of the solution to all our problems.
    ISL: If rape is just the beginning, I’m not sure I want to know the rest…
    Ha’aretz editor: The worse you are sick, the more painful the cure is going to be. Any doctor will tell you that.
    ISL: And that means…
    Ha’aretz editor: That there are worse things than rape. As the poet once said: “Come grow old with me – the worst is yet to be!”
    ISL: Oy!

    In the photo: Ha’aretz editor explains his democratic vision

    Israeli Satire Laboratory

    A mad Israeli experiments with satire in the volatile Middle East

  7. Laura,

    Have I got a guy for you.

    No need to thank me.

    Matchmaking is my life.

    It’s a gift.

    Comment by ayn reagan — May 4, 2010 @ 12:40 am

    He’s perfect for me.

  8. Here is a relevant blast from the past about Haaretz:

    Israel’s Self-Hating Newspaper By: P. David Hornik
    FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, February 02, 2004

    During the Israeli workweek of Sunday, January 18 to Friday, January 23, I kept track of the opinion pieces published on the English website of Israel’s left-wing daily Haaretz. The paper, which goes back to pre-statehood days, is actually considered to have moved toward the Center during the intensified terror war launched in 2000. But as the quotations below will show, it is at best a minor change.

    Indeed, during the week I surveyed, the picture was not all black. Haaretz’s token right-wing columnist, the insightful Israel Harel, wrote a piece supportive of Israel in the context of the incident at the Stockholm museum, in which Ambassador Zvi Mazel damaged a display of a snow-white suicide bomber floating over a pool of Israeli blood. The thoughtful left-of-center columnist Amnon Rubinstein also came out, more cautiously, in favor of Israel’s official position that the display was an outrage, as did a Swedish Jewish activist in a guest column. And former minister Moshe Arens, an occasional contributor, provided a splendid column on the folly of kowtowing to Syria.

    But with these exceptions, the paper was in typical form. The main theme of the left-wing columnists was, as always, that peace with the Palestinians and the Arabs is there for the taking and it is only Israel’s pig-headedness that keeps the conflict going. Special targets of these pundits’ spleen were the separation fence, Ariel Sharon, and Israeli society itself. One would not guess from their writings what is understood by more and more people of goodwill: that, however foolishly and recklessly, Israel offered the Palestinians a state in 2000 and has kept offering them one ever since, and the Palestinian reaction has been constant terror and incitement.

    Even though being an Israeli means being someone whose children have been targeted for murder by Yasser Arafat and the entity over which he presides, the large majority of whose members favor, if not celebrate, the slaughter of Israeli civilians of all descriptions, this changes nothing for the Haaretz columnists and the leftist fringe of the population that they represent. Their instinct remains to exonerate and perceive virtue and moderation in the Palestinians and the Arabs, and to accuse and vilify Israel.

    Thus Zvi Bar’el (January 18) detects soft breezes of peace blowing in the Arab world: “Last week, the editor of the Lebanese daily Al Nahar . . . proposed to the Israelis and Palestinians, and to the Arabs in general, ‘ . . . Let us look toward a political society like the European Union, in which we will renew our aspirations together before we all drown together.’ . . . Even in Egypt the weekly Al Ahram al Arabi can publish . . . articles about the . . . dictatorship under which the Arab states exist, while in Saudi Arabia the public discourse against Islamic terrorism is being cultivated.”

    But unlike Lebanon, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, those bastions of enlightenment and pacifism, Bar’el finds Israel lacking in the right stuff: “The shockwaves of the conceptual jolt haven’t yet reached Israel, though. No barricade has yet been positioned against the dictatorship of the old conceptions: ‘The only thing the Arabs understand is force,’ ‘There is no partner for negotiations,’ . . . ‘First the cessation of terrorism, and then negotiations.’ . . . The belief in the truth of these conceptions is so fanatic that any challenge to them is tantamount to the desecration of all that’s holy.” Considering the real facts of history—the Camp David Accords with Egypt and the retreat from the entire Sinai, the “Oslo process” with the Palestinians—one can only marvel at these words written by a professional Israeli commentator.

    Aluf Benn (January 22) quotes the U.S. vice-president expressing a reasonable view that takes account of the facts on the ground: “Richard Cheney . . . explained last week: ‘As long as Yasser Arafat is the interlocutor on behalf of the Palestinians . . . we think any serious progress is virtually impossible. The Israelis are never going to sign up, nor should they sign up to a peace, unless . . . they’ve got confidence that there is someone there on the Palestinian side prepared to keep those commitments.’”

    What’s that? A top U.S. leader implying that the conflict isn’t Israel’s fault? Benn isn’t going to take that lying down: “Without intending to do so, Cheney guaranteed that Arafat will remain in his Muqata headquarters. The Likud government will not take a chance on removing him if leaving him in place frees it from negotiations.” The words are somehow twisted to put the onus—not on Arafat, but on Israel. Just for the record, Likud governments, for better or worse, have shown a distinct readiness to negotiate as in the Camp David Accords, the Madrid Conference, the Hebron Agreement, the Wye Agreement, and the present Likud government’s oft-reiterated commitment to the road map. But Benn adds for good measure: “Washington . . . continues to keep close tabs on Sharon, for fear that he will go wild and ignite the region.”

    Gideon Levy (January 18) has his own twist on the theme of Israel’s culpability for the conflict. For him, it all starts at a very specific place: “All of the Israel Defense Forces checkpoints in the occupied territories are immoral and illegitimate. Therefore, they must be removed unconditionally. There is no place to discuss their security value. Even if someone were to succeed in proving that a connection exists between locking residents in their villages and preventing terrorist attacks in Israel—which is highly doubtful—that would make no difference one way or the other. A law-abiding state does not adopt immoral and illegitimate measures, whatever their value. . . . The only question is why checkpoints exist deep in occupied territory? By what right? Only to satisfy the settlers and abuse the Palestinians? . . . the checkpoints are the great hothouse of terrorism. It is there that the hatred and the despair are fomented.”

    Thus, Israel places checkpoints in the territories out of some arbitrary sadism, solely to be able to send its sons to do difficult, dangerous duty there and harass the local population. The “hothouse of terrorism” is not a century of anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic incitement in the Arab world, but the checkpoints—not a single one of which, in actuality, would exist if the Palestinians, after Israel evacuated the urban areas of Judea and Samaria in the mid-1990s, had set about the task of building their future state rather than inculcating a thirst for “martyrdom” and blood in an entire generation.

    Ze’ev Sternhell (January 23) chips in that Israel’s “traditional liberal-conservative right . . . died a long time ago; . . . its place has been taken . . . with respect to the Arab world, by an aggressive and battle-hungry attitude.” Yoel Marcus (January 20) grouses that “Military Intelligence reports about Assad’s seriousness do not dovetail with Sharon’s political interests at the moment. . . . ” That Sharon, despite the godly edict from Military Intelligence, might genuinely doubt Assad’s sincerity and be loath to give up the Golan for solid strategic reasons, is something Marcus would not allow because it might make Israel look better than Syria.

    Soon the separation fence is supposed to go on trial at The Hague. Supporters of Israel understand that it is being built as a defensive measure against the worst sustained campaign of terrorism any country has ever known. Haaretz pundits, though, have a different take. Member of Knesset Yossi Sarid (January 21): “ . . . this fence may begin with protection but ends with a brutal attack on Palestinians who have committed no sin. . . . even in my worst nightmares, I never imagined that Ariel Sharon would go as far as he has in his fencing efforts. . . . Without a doubt, . . . Sharon’s fence is a crime against humanity. . . . ” Good thing Sarid won’t be serving on the International Court of Justice.

    Gideon Samet (January 21): “The separation fence folly is turning into one of the worst scandals in which an Israeli government has become entangled. . . . The fence is designed to serve as a makeshift interim solution that shoves aside diplomatic resolutions that the prime minister has done his utmost to derail. . . . the fence has been his way of showing there is no way to get around the impasse in talks with the Palestinians—an impasse for which he bears most of the responsibility.” Again, Samet not only trashes the fence but sounds the beloved mantra that peace—with the Palestinian Authority, home to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, collaborator with Hizbullah, importer of weapons from Iran, etc.—is shining like an apple on a tree, and it is only Israel that spoils it.

    These leftists’ animus against Sharon himself is prima facie and cultic, and hardly comes up short of Bush-hatred among the American Left. In a different column (January 23), Marcus says: “Since he became prime minister, close to 1,000 Israelis have been killed. No peace, no security, lots of hot air . . . ” Yet if Sharon had at any point ordered the IDF to decisively defeat the terror, there is absolutely no doubt that Marcus would have sung a different tune about him as a brutal warmonger. Doron Rosenblum (January 23) informs us: “ . . . [Sharon] was elected twice by a landslide not because of his . . . successful policies, but because of his trampling, bulldozer-like personality. . . . Only Sharon is capable of grabbing the microphone at a Likud convention and asking, ‘Who is in favor of eliminating terror?’—as if his very personality were synonymous with eliminating terror, and not some ugly, raging, egocentric thing.”

    For Yossi Sarid in the already-quoted column, it’s even worse: “And as I know him, his character and his plans, I presumed that [the] fence would come out crooked. If Sharon is able to take something straight and twist it out of shape, he will unquestionably do so. . . . Sharon is larger than our nightmares . . . a brute without inhibition or tether, one suited to serve as prime minister of South Africa in the blackest days of the apartheid. . . .”

    Presumably, a society that would elect this brute twice in landslides is nothing to brag about itself. The Haaretz sages confirm that inference. Novelist-poet Yitzhak Laor (January 19), in a piece on Ambassador Mazel’s act of protest in the Swedish museum, suggests that Mazel “succeeded in explaining to the Swedes how far we—not ‘the region,’ not ‘the conflict,’ but we—are from notions of the freedom of artistic expression. . . . readers of newspapers on the Internet could learn about what had happened in Stockholm without slanting the incident in the direction of ‘Gewald, they’re murdering us.’ . . . We have learned to live not only in fear, but also in the demonization of the other side [and] the total rejection of any rational debate. . . . ”

    The leering cynicism of that “Gewald, they’re murdering us” is hard to fathom from an Israeli who has been living in Israel these last few years.

    The same derisive caricature of Israel as a boorish society hemmed in by fears of the past is offered by Samet in his column: he calls Israel a state in which “a tyrant [Sharon] is taking root,” in which it is “so easy to appeal to anti-Semitism, national anxieties and all the other old ghosts . . . ” Ari Shavit (January 22) refers to “the moral rot greedily eating away at the state,” and here, again, is Doron Rosenblum: “Sharon has plunged us into a kind of national chaos of identity that he himself symbolizes. More than being the prime minister of a rational, law-abiding country, he operated like a Diaspora leader in a self-imposed ghetto. . . . Nixon, in the democratic United States, defended himself by saying: ‘I am not a crook.’ Sharon, in the Israeli Jewish community, can say: ‘And even if I am—so what?’”

    It’s all there in the words of these columnists—the self-loathing, the softness toward enemies, the demonization of the prime minister, the crude defamation of a society subjected to severe traumas.

    Not a struggling democracy but a brutal, lawless, benighted, peace-obstructing country with a mad-dog leader. Even those with a dovish perspective must ask themselves if the intellectual level represented by these columnists is something to be proud of.

    And Haaretz makes this bilge available to the world on its English website, every day of the week.

    P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Jerusalem whose work has appeared in many Israeli, Jewish, and political publications. Reach him at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.

  9. Haaretz really thinks if Israel gives up everything, the Palestinians will now sign on the dotted line?


    Haaretz really thinks that if Israel gives up everything, the Palestinians will slaughter Jews.

  10. Haaretz embraces the Saudi Plan

    Haaretz embraces Israel’s genocidal enemies.

    How serious Benjamin Netanyahu really is about resuming talks with the Palestinians will be reflected in the extent of his effort to reshape Israeli public opinion, where the concept “there is no partner” has been thoroughly assimilated, partly because of the prime minister’s own utterances.

    Because there actually IS no partner. The arab-muslims known as the “palestinians” want to murder Jews, not live in peaceful coexistence with them.

    First, Netanyahu will have to cope with the Israeli presumption that the status of the territories is, at best, “disputed,” though they are usually perceived as “liberated” or “promised,” either by the Balfour Declaration or God himself.

    Also by the fact that the arab-muslim nation of Jordan illegally occupied the territories in 1948 and threw out the Jews.

    What a horrendous editorial.

  11. HaAretz and Obama:

    HaAretz a year ago got a very exteme leftist editor, who has been unleashing his inner Jew-hater in an ever stronger manner.

    Obama (with H. Clinton) enables all the liberal Jew-haters in the world to let loose and unload. HaAretz (25% owned by christian germans whose parents worked with hitler) went so far as to commit something bordering on treason, as they shelter one of their reporters who possesses stolen classified documents.

    As opposed to being slapped down, HaAretz is not only not punished, but is emboldened to be even more brazen precisely because it was not punished.

    And why were they not punished? Because Israeli society suffers from the fatal liberal sickness. Secular “Jews” in Israel, who control the government (including Netanyahu), just like secular “Jews” in America, have lost all meaningful Jewish values, and replaced them with self-loathing liberalism. They would actually prefer to see Jewish Israel destroyed by the savage muslims, rather than see Jews who still believe in G-d take over.

    And we see similar abominations happening everywhere in the white world: self-loathing white liberals in America, driven by their hatred for white christian conservatives, promote unrestricted and unlimited mexican immigration to America, and “pray” for the day when America becomes majority non-white, so that Obama can be proclaimed presidente for life. And in merry old england, the pseudo-intellectual, elitist head of the Labour Party (which started out as the representative of the common working man) brands a loyal white supporter as a “sort of bigot” for voicing the thought that brits in their own country should be protected and given some preference over uninvited foreign immigrants.

  12. Now if only Israel had been endowed by real Jews the would follow the following Jewish guidelines:

    Sanhedrin 72a-b
    April 25, 2010

    Judaism does not subscribe to the idea that one should “turn the other cheek” when attacked. In fact, one important rule taught by the Talmud is ha-ba le-horgekha, hashkem le-horgo – if someone comes planning to kill you, you should hurry to kill him first.

    This rule is applied by our Gemara to the case of a ba ba-mahteret – someone who comes at night to rob someone. According to the Mishnah, he can be killed al shem sofo – because of what will happen in the end. Rava explains this to mean that people do not willingly allow others to take their money, so the robber knows that the person he is robbing will defend his property. We assume, therefore, that the robber will be prepared to kill him. Recognizing this, Rava teaches that the Torah instructs ha-ba le-horgekha, hashkem le-horgo.

    While Rava presents this rule as being well established in the Torah, he does not offer a source, and it is not clear where, in fact, does the Torah teach this rule?

    The Midrash Tanhuma says that we learn this rule from the commandment (Bamidbar 25:17-18) given to Moshe telling the Jewish People to harass and smite the Midianites; the explanation given for this is that they harass and plan against you. Thus we see that their plans make them liable to be fought and defeated.

    The Ramah raises the issue that this case is not a normal case of rodef – someone who is chasing after another person to kill him, who can be killed by anyone – since the robber is not directly threatening the owner of the property; it is only his response to the owner of the property who is defending himself that creates the threat. The Ramah explains that we nonetheless view the robber as a rodef since he knows that his actions will instigate the threat against his own life. We therefore view him as being the one who is threatening.

    This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim of Rabbi Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.

  13. North Korea… nukes… what???

    Our aging Israeli president told Danish FM that North Korea sells nuclear armaments to Iran. It could be that Peres lost his mind, but perhaps not.

    I have speculated in previous comments about reported sales of enriched uranium by North Korea to Iran and their nuclear cooperation. I have suspected that Iran would attempt to procure ready offthe shelf nuclear bombs from North Korea.

    What exactly does Peres know about North Korean sales of nuclear weapons?

  14. Haaretz really thinks if Israel gives up everything, the Palestinians will now sign on the dotted line? There can be no peace with only half the Palestinians. Yet every serious analysis of the Middle East dismisses or minimizes this reality. Israel offered to give up 97% of Yesha twice before, only to be met the first time with a bloodbath and the second time with no serious counter-offer from the Palestinians.

    What has changed in the last decade? I would say there is no real peace partner on the other side – who it should be pointed out, refuses to even talk directly to Israel let alone be prepared to make painful compromises to make peace happen.

    No – that won’t be realized in our lifetime.

  15. NYT, Haaretz, in fact, most publications—someone needs to do a mental health study on the neurotoxicity of newspaper—there are to many cases of mental illness in the industry for coincidence.

  16. Ted,

    I have repeatedly emphasized to you that the most dangerous enemy to Zionism is not Islamism…it is the liberalism that enables Islamism.

    You initially recoiled, citing your self-image as being liberal.

    Melanie Phillips has written a tour de force book, “The World Turned Upside Down”.

    She lays out the case brilliantly.

    Phillips’ premise is that the Fascist Left has inverted reality, and seeks to destroy anyone who tells the truth.

    She details the ruthless marginalization in Britain of anyone who is bible-believing, pro-American, pro-Zionist…even pro-British.

    She examines the liberal penchant for codifying outrageous myths into official facts on issues ranging from family values to global warming.

    It is a worthwhile read for anyone who wants to understand that the fight against Islamic fascism must begin with vanquishing liberalism.

  17. re: Haaretz.

    The all-time favorite politician of its editors was Yasser Arafat, the most prolific Jew killer since Hitler.

    And Arafat gained Haaretz’ most favored status only because the Fuehrer was dead.

  18. Haaretz is not stupid.

    It is traitorous.

    Like The New York Times, it enthusiastically sides against the country that provides it with freedom. It does so because liberals prize their demented philosophy over liberty.

    There is a difference between stupidity and depravity, although they certainly aren’t mutually exclusive.

    On a positive note, after a one day 4,000 place decline that coincided with yamit’s unexcused absence, Teddy’sLittleShopOfHorrors.com is hitting a new high today:

    Alexa Site Information for israpundit.org
    * Traffic Rank in US: 101,797

    So tantalizingly close…