It's Almost Supernatural

Warrior

Here are some interesting quotes from Sharon's autobiography Warrior. (It’s no secret that I am a big fan of Ariel Sharon and I’m not providing much context here so make of these what you will.)

During the beginning phases of the historic peace accord with Egypt Sharon was tasked with establishing bridge building agricultural projects between Egypt and Israel. Sadat leveraged this agricultural cooperation to show the Egyptians how peace with Israel could benefit them.

On a trip to Mit Elkom one Egyptian minister remarked that once the Egyptians have this Israeli agricultural know-how they can then forget about the Israelis and do it themselves. To this Sadat responded "We have the land. We have the water, and now we have Arik. He will help us do it."

Here’s Sharon on what true peace means to him. He and his wife Lily were visiting Egypt during the historic peace negotiations with Egypt and they were being treated to a tour of various agricultural spots which caught Sharon's interest.

The following day Lily and I were driven to a nearby air force base along with a small group of staff people I had brought with me. There Sadat's jet was waiting, a sleek Russian made Antonov. Two young fliers took their seats, and in talking to them I found that they were both jet pilots who had fought in the Yom Kippur war [against us]. Both had been active against the canal crossing operation and one of them had taken pat in the major Egyptian effort to destroy the bridges. As we talked, I was sitting between the two pilots and a little behind them with the map across my knees. When we arrived at the coordinates near the Western Desert I asked them to circle around and fly low over the sand. As we flew I understood – I think for the first time – the meaning of peace between our two nations. I was struck by the idea that I, an ex-Israeli general who had battled the Egyptians for 25 years, was in the cockpit with two Egyptian pilots who had fought against me in the last war. Here I was with the earphones and microphone on talking to them, telling them to turn this way and that, to fly lower or higher. And where were we going? We were searching for land for food production, to help solve one of Egypt's major problems, producing enough to eat for its growing population. I thought that if I were to look for a real expression of what peace meant, this would be it. An Egyptian airplane, two Egyptian pilots, an Israeli general – looking for arable land. In my eyes that was peace indeed. That afternoon we landed in Luxor. Looking at the Nile there is a remarkable experience. Everthing is quiet and still. It is as of time had stopped. The local inhabitants sit there motionless, squatting torpidly in the heat – a slightly different type of people, not only Arab, but something else too. They looked at us silently as we gazed in the direction of the Valley of Kings and Queens, where we planned to visit the next day. That evening we saw the famous Temple of Karnak with its looming pillars and its inscriptions telling of the Egyptian punitive expedition the Pharaoh Shishak had sent against Judah and Israel in the time of Solomon's son Rehoboam. The hieroglyphs told the same story the Bible did, even naming the Israeli town the Egyptians took. This had happened almost 3000 years ago, and here we were still, Egyptians and Israelis. Suddenly the history of these two people seemed to run together.

Chomsky: Not Even Sacred to the M&G

Pigs may make very unlikely birds but this attack on Chomsky and his hard left followers at the M&G is evidence that they do fly. (And for the first time ever on IAS, kudos to the M&G for bringing this sardonic incident to our attention.)

A while back The Guardian newspaper ran an interview with Noam Chomsky which angered Chomsky and his inveterate followers. Complaints riddled the Guardian. Typically, the Guardian eventually backed down and removed the interview from their website.

Drew Forrest at the South African Mail & Guardian wrote a biting editorial about this issue: Chomsky Not Sacred. (Unfortunately subscribers only.)

What is one to make of the extraordinary fuss over Guardian writer Emma Brockes’s interview with Noam Chomsky? (Chomsky As flaky as the next man, November 4.) Why should readers so desperately defend the honour of a famous man who lives thousands of miles away, has no immediate relevance to South Africa, and has the wit, means and standing to defend himself? The complaints started coming into the M&G even before Chomsky’s demand for a retraction to the British newspaper and peaked with The Guardian’s decision to pull the interview from its website. Common to many complaints is the hard left’s characteristic tone of outraged moral whipcracking. Noting The Guardian’s retraction of Brockes’s “consciously fabricated and defamatory interview”, reader Antonio Fortin demanded that we remove the article from the website; publish corrections and an unequivocal apology; redirect all website requests for the interview to the corrections or The Guardian's article “Guardian pulls Chomsky interview”; and build in a “permanent redirect” to deflect future requests for Brockes’s article. This he said may help to salvage the reputation of the M&G.

Chomsky was criticised by the vanguard of the Left – The Guardian - for trying to minimise the atrocity of the Srebrenica massacre. He was quoted as believing that the atrocity was “probably overstated.” He attributed the overstatement to a “hysterical fanaticism about Bosnia in Western Culture.” He does not deny that a massacre happened – but he insensitively minimises it.

Forrest draws parallels with Chomsky’s attempts to minimise the historical persecution of the Jews. That Chomsky is a Jew, says Forrest, does not make his belittling any less insensitive.

Chomsky’s praise for John Pilger is also criticised

Chomsky s Suggestion that journalists invented the term pilgerise because they were infuriated by Pilger’s incisive and courageous reporting is also off mark. Guardian writer George Monbiot has a substantially similar take on world politics but does not arouse the same antagonism. What infuriates even those sympathetic to Pilger’s perspective is his pious and self aggrandising tone.

It’s a pity that the Guardian confirmed the view that many have of them. Brave journalism that goes against their ideological stance is not acceptable. Their decision to withdraw the article from their website confirms this.

Prof Chomsky has also objected to the juxtaposition of a letter from him, published two days after the interview appeared, with a letter from a survivor of Omarska. While he has every sympathy with the writer, Prof Chomsky believes that publication was designed to undermine his position, and addressed a part of the interview which was false. Both letters were published under the heading Falling out over Srebrenica. At the time these letters were published, following two in support of Prof Chomsky published the previous day, no formal complaint had been received from him. The letters were published by the letters editor in good faith to reflect readers' views. With hindsight it is acknowledged that the juxtaposition has exacerbated Prof Chomsky's complaint and that is regretted. The Guardian has now withdrawn the interview from the website.

Chomsky's bitter complaints have only served to confirm Brocke’s depiction of him as an "arrogant and cantankerous old man".

Here's a letter sent by Chomsky.info to the Guardian. (Another letter was sent by Chomsky himself in his own name.)

Simba for King of the Gaza Jungle

It was reported today on Palestinian radio that mask Palestinian gunmen raided the Gaza zoo 2 weeks ago, kidnapping a lion (Simba) and 2 Arabic speaking parrots.

According to a report on Haaretz

four gunmen armed with Kalashnikov semi-automatic rifles broke into the zoo and overpowered the guard. They nabbed the two white parrots and then threw a blanket over the head of the lion. Their attempt to capture a second lion failed after the animal reportedly proved too fierce for them.

This daring and apparently well-planned attack took place within only 30 minutes. Zoo manager Saud al-Shawwa has offered a reward of 1,000 U.S. dollars for the return of the lion and the 2 parrots.

This absurd event clearly demonstrates the degree of chaos in post-disengagement Gaza. It would seem that not even the animals are immune to the violence and crime that Palestinian terrorist organisations have wrought. Although many human rights organisation during these 4 years of Intifada have allowed their disdain for Zionists/Jews to cloud their moral judgment and have not unambiguously denounced Palestinian violence, I am sure the abuse of innocent animals must stir some condemnation. (Animal rights even sometimes more than human rights is an obsession of many on the left.) The international community needs to make it clear to Chairman Abbas that this is not the type of Palestinian state we envisage. Strong action is needed now to reinstall the rule of law.

On a lighter note, I have been racking my brain to try and understand what the purpose of this Zoo heist could possibly have been. So I have decided to open it up to the readers. A competition of sorts. Our best entries will be forwarded to Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and we will of course CC the Palestinian security services, which have been searching desperately but to no avail for the last 2 weeks for a lion and 2 parrots in tiny Gaza. Any lead no matter how ridiculous will surely be appreciated.

I will start the ball rolling. I reckon that the Palestinian terror groups kidnapped the lion and parrots for the upcoming election. They are going to nominate Simba as one of their candidates for the January election. He has all the right credentials. He is a blood-thirsty murderer, has spent many years behind bar and will certainly show the Israelis that the Palestinian’s bite is as bad if not worse than their bark. The 2 parrots with their smattering of Arabic are certain to be his official spokespersons.

I look forward to your ideas.

The Wild West in the Near East

Palestinians: Settlers cut down 200 olive trees near Nablus

Palestinians on Sunday said that settlers cut down more than 200 olive trees in the West Bank village of Salem, near Nablus. The Palestinians told the police that the settlers arrived during the night and cut down the trees using chainsaws. Police were trying to track the settlers responsible for the act. The destruction of the trees came a day after after volunteers from the Kibbutz Movement's assignment division, headed by Yoel Marshak, helped the residents of Salem restore olive groves that were destroyed by Elon Moreh settlers a month ago.

Acts of violence targeting civilians motivated by political and/or religious ideologies. Sounds like terrorism to me. This unacceptable scourge will only end when Israel decides to treat these offences with the severity they deserve.

Palestinian gang stabs Yeshiva student in East Jerusalem

An ultra-Orthodox teen was on Friday evening moderately wounded when stabbed in an East Jerusalem, apparently by Palestinian assailants. The 16-year-old yeshiva student was at the Shimon Hatzadik grave on Sheikh Jarah Road at the time of the stabbing.

Reflections of a S. African Muslim in Israel/Palestine

Here’s a must-read op-ed in the Jerusalem Post by South African Muslim Hussein Solomon: Reflections of a S. African Muslim in Israel/Palestine.

Prof Hussein Solomon is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Sciences, the Director of the Centre for International Political Studies, and Head of the Unit for African Studies, Centre for International Political Studies at the University of Pretoria. Prof Solomon is an expert in religious fundamentalism and conflict resolution in Africa.

Solomon first impressed me when I heard him speak in a South African debate on the Middle East.

Solomon recently visited Israel and the Palestinian territories on a fact-finding mission to explore the conflict. His conclusion? Most South African Muslims do not understand the conflict and at best have a simplistic understanding of it.

Solomon’s conclusion is hard hitting and he will no doubt face a backlash from the South African Muslim community – watch this space for the MRN reply.

It is undeniable that if we do not understand the conflict then we cannot constructively engage in its successful resolution. In the first instance, we [South African Muslims] have a very simplistic view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and do not seem to understand the complexity of tensions emanating from various factions inside Israeli and Palestinian society.

Solomon’s voice is one of reason and pragmatism. It’s also a brave voice. As Solomon notes, the SA Muslim community openly supports the most radical Palestinian terror gangs. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are “seen as either ineffective in securing concessions from Israel, or worse, seen as collaborators”. Given this hot climate I can assure you it’s not easy to stand up and say what really needs to be said. But Solomon’s suggestion is one that SA Muslims would do well to consider

Using these questions, I am trying to point to the complexity of Israeli politics and the fact that we, as South African Muslims, do not understand this. If we could understand this, then, perhaps we could make use of those divisions in Israeli politics to advance the Palestinian cause. Instead, our simplistic understandings lead us to applaud when Iranian President Ahmadinejad says that Israel should be wiped off the map. The fact that this was tried in 1948, 1967 and 1973 and failed seems to have been ignored. Moreover, not only did these three attempts fail, but the state of Israel also grew stronger as it expanded its territory. There is no evidence to conclude that the Israeli security apparatus is weaker in 2005 than it was in 1973. If people speak of the Intifada and its supposed success, I could find not a single Palestinian in support of it. The mortality and casualty figures bear out the sentiment - far more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed. In my view there are better ways to support the legitimate political demands of Palestinians than violence. During my stay, there was a pro-peace rally in Tel Aviv with 200,000 Israelis honoring the 10th anniversary of the death of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. As South African Muslims, should we not reach out to this strong pro-peace lobby within Israeli society as opposed to threaten all Israelis with extinction which brings back memories of Auschwitz and Dachau? Do we honestly believe that this destructive approach is the way we can help Palestinians? This leads me to my second point, that of the complexity of Palestinian politics. In South African Muslim circles, Hamas often gets a lot of positive press whereas Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are seen as either ineffective in securing concessions from Israel, or worse, seen as collaborators. However, the destructive and counter-productive nature of violence as a strategy to secure territorial concessions is increasingly recognized by Palestinian society.

There is plenty more. Go ye now and read it all.

The Palestinian Election List: the whose who of crime and violence

While the big news this week from the Middle East is certainly Prime Minister Sharon’s decision to form a new centrist political party, there is also a significant change taking place in the political landscape of the Palestinian Authority. With the Palestinian election only 2 months away, the list of official candidates, who intent to stand for the legislature, is becoming more disturbing by the day. It seems that while Israel is moving to the centre, the Palestinian Authority will become a gang of terrorists and criminals.

The Islamic organisations responsible for horrific acts of terrorism such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad have announced that they will be taking part for the first time in this election. In addition many of the corrupt Fatah old guard that surrounding Abu Ala will also once again be standing. If that is not bad enough, just yesterday it was announced that the Palestinian (Ahmed Sa'adat) responsible for the assassination of Israeli cabinet minister Rehavam Ze’evi in 2001 will also be running. He is currently incarcerated in a Palestinian jail in Jericho under an internationally brokered deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

I know that here in South Africa, politicians convicted of crimes are barred under our new constitution from holding public office. In Israel too, certain organisations and people may not run for the Knesset. Unfortunately no such law seems to exist in the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been trying desperately to convince chairman Abbas and the international community of the dangers of allowing terrorists and criminals to stand in the Palestinian election but to no avail. They are all going to be allowed to run.

While for those of us who support a negotiated settlement to the conflict, this Palestinian political development is certainly worrying, it does present a real opportunity to gauge the true opinion of the Palestinian people. They now have a clear choice: more corruption, more terrorism and more bloodshed or security, independence and economic development.

As the Palestinian spokespeople have so elegantly put it Israel and the international community does not have the right to determine who their leaders should be. But Israel and the international community do have the right to decide who they wish to negotiate with. We should make it extremely clear to the Palestinian people that if the terrorist and criminals are elected to power, the road map and a negotiate settlement is dead. This will leave Israel with no other choice than to extend its policy of unilateral disengagement to the West Bank as well. Final status issues such a borders, Jerusalem and refugees will be decided by Israel alone in its best interest. And the Palestinians, they will be left on the other side of the fence in a half state half madhouse, internationally isolated and economically decimated.

I hope for their sake as much as Israel’s that sanity prevails and the moderates and reformers win out over the terrorists and criminals.

Not Just Almost Supernatural

The first ever really supernatural post on IAS...I present to you...

ADL demands apology from Michael Jackson

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Anti-Defamation League on Wednesday demanded that Michael Jackson apologize for allegedly calling Jews "leeches" in a private telephone message that was recorded two years ago and has now surfaced in connection with a lawsuit against the pop star. Jackson infuriated Jewish groups in 1995 when his song They Don't Care About Us included the lyrics "Jew me, sue me, everybody do me, kick me, kike me."

Jackson allegedly said that the Jews suck him like leaches. "They start out the most popular person in the world, make a lot of money, big house, cars and everything and end up penniless. It's a conspiracy. The Jews do it on purpose."

I'm sure all the people around Jackson sucked all they could out of him -Jewish people included. It's what happens to celebrities. But Wacko - I think that given your past, "sucking like leaches" is a most unfortunate simile to have used.

Update
Israellycool! makes an interesting point. Jackson's statements were recorded 2 years ago, which coincides with his time with the Nation of Islam. He points out the similarity between Jacko's words and those of Louis Farrakhan.

"You say I hate Jews. I don't hate the Jewish people, I never have. But there [are] some things I don't like. 'What is it you don't like, Farrakhan?' I don't like the way you leech on us. See a leech is somebody that sucks your blood, takes from you and don't give you a damn thing. See, I don't like that kind of arrangement. You become our manager, you become our agent. Every one of us that got talent, we can't make it because you opened the door, and when you opened the door you get and we end up dead with nothing, owing the IRS."

Towards an End of Conflict

Here's an interesting analysis by Uzi Arad (formerly the Mossad's director of intelligence and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyhu's foreign policy adviser) of some potential land-swapping deals that could form part of an end of conflict deal: Trading Land for Peace.

Land swaps will definitely need to be part of any potential deal because Israel cannot relinquish the major settlement blocs.

Geographically, these blocs are situated in such a way that they could be attached either to Israel or to a Palestinian state. The various land swap plans proposing a tradeoff of territories aim to increase ethnic homogeneity and to preserve each side's basic territorial reach. In this context, land swaps allow an exchange of sovereignty over contiguous population blocs--Jewish population blocs in the West Bank proximate to the armistice line and Arab population blocs west and north of the armistice line. For example, the Gush Etzion and Ariel blocs and towns in the Jerusalem district could be exchanged for the towns and surroundings of Umm El Fahm, Arara, Bartaa, Qalansuwa, Taybe, Tira, and Kfar Kassem.

Bill Clinton was thinking along these lines in September 2000 when he proposed the "Clinton parameters". Barak got the Knesset to accept the Clinton proposals which would have ended the conflict and created a Palestinian state - but Arafat rejected.

He said that the Palestinian state should include somewhere between 94 and 96 percent of the West Bank, with a land swap of 1 to 3 percent and other territorial arrangements to compensate for the land Israel would annex for its settlement blocs. Clinton also said that any deal should allow Israel to annex 80 percent of Jewish West Bank settlers in blocs, preserve territorial contiguity for both sides, and minimize the number of affected Palestinians.

A final deal will also involve population transfers without land exchanges. I can't foresee the Palestinians allowing the settlers deep inside the West Bank that are not part of the major settlement blocs to remain. Like the Jewish residents of Gaza, these Jews will need to be transferred into Israel proper. The question then remains...in return can Israel also ask for some Arabs living in the Galilee and Negev to be resettled in Palestine?

Although the PA has been willing to consider the land swap proposals there is a moral problem which may thwart the idea. Two thirds of the Arab Israelis do not support the idea. They do not want to trade their Israeli citizenship for a Palestinian one. Ultimately they appreciate the democratic virtues that Israel offers. However a condition upon the creation of a Palestinian state would be that it must be democratic. Israel could also create certain incentives

Any land swap would likely allow Israeli Arabs assuming Palestinian sovereignty to keep whatever social welfare benefits they had as Israeli citizens, and compensation would probably be offered to offset the costs of the transition. Thus, there might actually be an economic disadvantage to staying in Israel. At present, Israeli Arabs are exempted from military or national service--a substantial economic benefit. Following a final status agreement, however, Israel is much more likely to insist that all its citizens genuinely enjoy and fulfill the state's rights and obligations, including military service.

The article concludes with an idea that is totally new to me. It talks of a multilateral land swaps - involving Egypt. This initiative suggests that

Israel transfer to Egypt some 200 to 500 square kilometers in the Negev contiguous to the Sinai Peninsula, along with a corridor across the Negev, creating a land bridge between Egypt and Jordan. In return, Egypt would transfer to the Palestinians an area twice the size of the northern Sinai, contiguous to the Gaza strip, significantly increasing the territory of one of the most densely populated areas in the world. In turn, the Palestinians would agree to Israeli sovereignty over areas in the West Bank of commensurate magnitude. The latter would include not only the contiguous Jerusalem neighborhoods and settlement blocs, but also additional territory with no Palestinian inhabitants along the Jordan River, on nature reserves in the Judean desert, and on the Dead Sea shore.

Interesting idea - not something I would support but interesting nonetheless. (Arab states can change over night. The idea of relinquishing part of Israel proper to Egypt and creating a corridor between this land and Jordan carries an unacceptable risk.)

Israel maintains maximalist positions on territory - they want to keep as many West Bank settlements as possible. Land swap deals allow Israel to compromise and step back from their maximalist demands. Ultimately none of this matters so long as the Palestinians stick to their maximalist demands on the "right of return". (Although, technically Israel could allow a subtle form of the "right or return" by allowing refugees to settle in the areas that they trade to the PA).

Israel Tops Index of Middle East Freedom

The Economist Intelligence Unit has ranked 20 Middle East countries on 15 indicators of political and civil liberty and of course Israel came out tops: Index ranks Middle East freedom.

Surprisingly the analysts found very little evidence of democratisation in some countries. The bottom of the list is almost a who's who of the UN Human Rights committee executive lists.

INDEX OF POLITICAL FREEDOM Israel: 8.20 Lebanon: 6.55 Morocco: 5.20 Iraq: 5.05 Palestine: 5.05 Kuwait: 4.90 Tunisia: 4.60 Jordan: 4.45 Qatar: 4.45 Egypt: 4.30 Sudan: 4.30 Yemen: 4.30 Algeria: 4.15 Oman: 4.00 Bahrain: 3.85 Iran: 3.85 UAE: 3.70 Saudi Arabia: 2.80 Syria: 2.80 Libya: 2.05

Palestinian Stringer on SABC News

I could only laugh last night as I watched Lerato from SABC3 News (at 22:00) lead an interview analysing Sharon’s tectonic decision to leave the Likud.

The political analyst being interviewed was quite balanced, accurate and reasonable. He was also embarrassed. Embarrassed that he was being interviewed by a classic amateur.

Lerato (the hostess conducting the interview) was most upset that the political analyst described Sharon’s new party as “centrist” and looking to pursue the “peace process” with Abu Mazen.

In a vain attempt to grill the analyst she challenged that Sharon refuses to support the idea of an independent Palestinian state. She said “Okay autonomy yes, but he won’t allow a real Palestinian state.”

Only the most naïve and ignorant news commentators would suggest that Sharon is against the idea of an independent Palestinian state.

SABC news would do well to show Lerato the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Sharon is a signatory to the roadmap which calls for

A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.

Sure there are points of departure between Sharon and Abu Mazen such as Jerusalem, refugees, borders and security. But these are within the parameters of an independent Palestinian state.

I'm sure she has mentioned this roadmap once or twice whilst reading the evening news. Surely she knows that Sharon is a signatory to it. So was Lerato really ignorant and out-of-date regarding Sharon’s position…or was she intentionally trying to mislead her viewers?