Sharon Katz - Dissonance in My Mind

Sharon Katz..
Voices-Magazine.com..
29 October '12..

I am praying in my little corner. The wind is swaying my flowers just enough to soothe me, while the teeny birds on the tree branch above call out their friendship to one another in the delicate peeps. If it were a normal day, only my rival - that bee who believes this is HIS garden - would have the ability to bother my total serenity.

But even in this perfect weather in my perfect corner, I am too troubled to find my own inner peace - even for 20 minutes. I am thinking of our brethren in the South who are being bombarded by Gaza, about the deafening booms around them, about the shaking of the ground beneath their feet, about the children who wish they were in their mothers' arms and about the mothers who are pacing the floors waiting for the bus to return them home.

I am thinking of my family far away who have had to evacuate their home in the face of a hurricane. We pray for rain, and in New York today, rain is their enemy.

The breeze is so gentle in my garden today. But there is turbulence in my mind. May Hashem protect our brethren and good people everywhere.

Link: http://voices-magazine.blogspot.com/2012/10/dissonance-in-my-mind.html

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook.
. 

Greenwald - Israel, America, and the Lessons of 9/11

Abe Greenwald
Jewish Ideas Daily
09 September '11

http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2011/9/9/main-feature/1/israel-america-and-the-lessons-of-911

Two heads belonging to the same monster: This is the way a significant portion of the world saw America and Israel on September 11, 2001. On television that day, we watched people jump to their deaths to escape the flames engulfing the World Trade Center. But if you switched channels, you could watch a very different scene: Palestinians of both sexes and all ages dancing in the streets to celebrate al-Qaeda's killing of almost 3,000 human beings. For the celebrants, the attack was first and foremost a blow to Israel's most important ally. And Palestinians were not the only ones celebrating.

Ten years later, the Obama White House has issued "guidelines" setting a tone for the American government's commemoration of September 11 at home and abroad. This tone, administration officials told the New York Times, "should be shaped by a recognition that the outpouring of worldwide support for the United States in the weeks after the attacks turned to anger at some American policies adopted in the name of fighting terror—on detention, on interrogation, and the decision to invade Iraq." To assuage this anger, U.S. officials would emphasize America's kinship with "all victims of terrorism, in every nation of the world, . . . whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, Lahore or London."

But there was no "outpouring of worldwide support for America" in the wake of September 11. A Pew Research Center poll conducted soon after the attack produced data that still shock. Fully 70 percent of non-U.S. citizens said it was "good for the U.S. to feel vulnerable." This sentiment did not come from Arab or Muslim countries alone: it was endorsed by 66 percent of Western Europeans, 71 percent of Latin Americans, and 76 percent of Asians.

Why did these respondents feel good about America's trouble? The most popular reason, given by 88 percent of those polled, was "resentment of U.S. power." The second most popular, given by 70 percent, was "U.S. support of Israel."

In the decade since September 11, poll after poll has shown the combined hatred of America and Israel becoming still more widespread and intense. Barack Obama's 2008 election triggered a modest uptick for America, but it was soon erased. Theories placing direct responsibility for September 11 with America or Israel rather than with al-Qaeda continue to circulate, even among the non-Islamist reformers of the Arab Spring. Writing in the New Republic, Eric Trager notes that in a recent Pew survey asking about al-Qaeda's role in the September 11 attack, the "same revolutionary Arab Street that toppled Mubarak in Egypt also registered the highest level of denial among all the countries surveyed," with "a full 75 percent of respondents recording their disbelief" in al-Qaeda guilt.

Anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism reinforce one another. American intervention in the Arab world is seen as an extension of Zionist aggression. Israel's military operations in Gaza, Lebanon, or Syria are understood in part as imperialist legwork delegated by Big Satan to its smaller regional franchise. In the fantastic universe of such conspiracy theories, there are no contradictions: September 11 was both a righteous blow against Zionist America and the fruit of a U.S.-Zionist plot.

Tobin - Turks Turned Their Backs on America Before Dumping Israel

Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary/Contentions
04 September '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/04/turkey-israel-erdogan-us/#more-766440

In the view of some critics of Israel, Turkey’s decision to downgrade its diplomatic ties with the Jewish state is more than just a setback. It is seen as further evidence of Israel’s intransigence as the Netanyahu government allowed its foolish pride to alienate an important ally and unnecessarily heighten the nation’s diplomatic isolation.

But this false narrative doesn’t just get the dispute between Israel and Turkey wrong. It is based on a misreading of the fundamental shift in Turkey’s foreign policy that predates the Gaza flotilla dustup that served as the spark for the current contretemps. It is important to remember that long before Turkey tried to break the blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, its Islamic government had not only distanced itself from Israel but had begun to turn its back on the United States.


No blame should attach to Netanyahu for Turkey’s decision to expel Israel’s ambassador and to reduce the level of its own representation in the Jewish state. The long negotiations between the two countries over the content of the United Nations report on the Mavi Marmara incident blew up because Turkey had no intention of accepting anything close to a compromise. Netanyahu was ready to express “regret” for the deaths of several Turkish nationals who were killed while resisting an Israeli boarding party. But as even the final UN report noted, Israel’s blockade of the terrorist state in Gaza was legal. The report also said the Israeli soldiers who landed on the ships were attacked by the Turks in an act of organized and violent resistance and had a right to defend themselves. That a UN report would fundamentally vindicate Israel’s position shows how unreasonable Turkey has been.

For Israel to go beyond an expression of regret to a full “apology” for its actions as the Turks demanded would have opened up the door to attempts to hold the Israeli soldiers in question accountable in international courts. It would also have compromised Israel’s right of self-defense against Hamas or any party, such as the Turks in the flotilla, seeking to re-supply the terrorists.

However, the problem here is not just that Israel was in the right, but the cooling off of relations with Turkey predated the argument over the flotilla. The once close ties between Israel and Turkey, and in particular, their militaries, had begun to fray ever since the latter’s government was taken over by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Islamic Justice and Development Party in 2003. Turkey’s tilt toward Hamas and away from Israel is an inevitable consequence of Ankara’s desire to become a leader in the Islamic world in the fashion of the Ottomans rather than to be an integral part of Europe and the West. No apology from Israel or diplomatic concessions made to the Palestinians can restore the former relationship.

The lack of perspective about Turkey’s diplomatic offensive against Israel is all the more egregious because it also ignores Erdoğan’s policy shift away from the United States. In 2003, Turkey’s decision not to allow coalition troops to use their territory in the effort to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq not only was a blow to the U.S.-Turkey alliance but set in motion circumstances that ultimately helped create the insurgency. Since then, Turkey has consistently set itself apart from its NATO allies on a host of security issues. Erdoğan’s desire to strengthen Turkey’s trade ties with Iran has fatally undermined the sanctions the United States has sought to impose on the Islamist regime’s effort to gain nuclear capability.

Those who wish to blame Netanyahu for the loss of Israel’s Turkish alliance have short memories. Long before the Turks provoked and then dumped Israel in their pursuit of greater influence among Muslims, they did the same to the United States. Rather than wondering what Israel can do to abase itself in order to regain Turkey’s good will, the better question to ask is what actions the United States Congress and the Obama administration can now take to show their displeasure with Ankara.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

A prayer for 5771

Caroline Glick
carolineglick.com
08 September '10

"THE AMERICAN creed has been cultivated, preserved and defended for some 350 years. The Jewish creed America's founders turned to for inspiration has been cultivated, preserved and defended for 3,500 years. "

On August 28, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck confounded his colleagues in the media when he brought hundreds of thousands of Americans to the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, DC for a rally he called "Restoring Honor."

While former Alaska governor Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker, the rally was decidedly apolitical. The speakers said nothing controversial. The crowd was enthusiastic but not rowdy. US President Barack Obama was never even mentioned by name. In the event, the massive crowd gathered, prayed, celebrated American military heroes, listened to patriotic speeches and songs. Then the participants picked up their garbage and went home.

So what was it all about? Why do many people see it as a watershed event?

Although Beck called the rally "Restoring Honor," it wasn't really about restoring honor. It was about restoring something even more important. It was about restoring the American creed.

That creed is so ingrained that it has served as the subtext of every major political and civic speech by every American political and civic leader since the eighteenth century.

The American creed has two main components. First, its core belief is that America is an exceptional country and that the American people are an exceptional nation. Second, it asserts that as Abraham Lincoln first said outright, America is the last, best hope for mankind.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Why All Middle Eastern Politics Can't Be Reduced Merely to the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
16 August '10

I simply cannot comprehend why so many in the West refuse to see that Arabs can be revolutionaries. It is remarkable that so many who claim to be experts don’t incorporate the idea that Arabs, like other peoples, might dislike their existing societies or be motivated by ideologies claiming to be the blueprints for utopias.

After all, if Africans, Asians, Europeans, and Latin Americans think and behave this way, why aren’t Arabs going to act the same?

The two paragraphs above are written in response to yet another book, by a very experienced expert on the region, saying that al-Qaida is almost completely motivated by the Palestinian issue as well as a couple of articles claiming that the only reason why the United States or President Barack Obama isn't popular in the Middle East is due to Israel.

In fact, al-Qaida, Hamas, Hizballah, Muslim Brotherhoods, and other Islamist groups, have been overwhelmingly motivated by a desire to revolutionize the entire Muslim-majority world (and even the whole world) in line with its interpretation of Islam. Al-Qaida's original cause was to overthrow the Saudi royal family, followed by an effort to help Iraq against Western pressure. In al-Qaida documents before and after the September 11 attacks, the Palestinian issue was not mentioned more than about ten percent of the time and never highlighted.

In addition, radical Arab nationalists, including many intellectuals and several Arab regimes (Egypt, 1952-1970; Syria, 1949-present; Iraq, 1958-2003; Libya, 1973-present), have sought to unite the Arab world under their leadership, overthrow neighboring governments, and expel Western influence in line with their ambitions and ideology.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The Middle East Vacuum

Emmanuelle Ottolenghi
Contentions/Commentary
13 May '10
Posted before Shabbat

Michael Young has a must-read article in today’s Lebanese newspaper the Daily Star. Young tackles the question of American decline in the Middle East and its consequences. He rather persuasively lays out the twofold argument that this is good for Iran and that the consequence of this decline might push President Obama in the direction “he dreads most” — namely, military action. (Naturally, this act would first require President Obama to recognize his policy’s failure and to realize that an Iranian ascendancy in the Gulf is bad for American interests.)

The article is illuminating as a succinct but comprehensive summary of all that is wrong — and misunderstood — about present U.S. policies in the region: from the marginal relevance of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to the limited role that Gulf States have in countenancing Iran; from past, present, and possibly future policy blunders in Iraq to the Afghan challenge; and where Obama may be getting it all wrong. All this is known — though Young argues it well. A less discussed point deserving of more scrutiny is that the vacuum created by a U.S. retreat will not be filled by powers of a gentler kind:

The notion sounds absurd. America lose the power that it has managed to retain for as long as most of us have been alive? Perhaps it is absurd. But consider this: given President Barack Obama’s lack of a coherent strategy for the region, everywhere we see deepening vulnerabilities, when not a conscious decision by Washington to downgrade its ambitions in the face of more dynamic regional actors. These actors have shortcomings of their own, but they appear to be better prepared to deal with the consequences than the United States.

Just a reminder of what this means in practical terms: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has just signed agreements to build nuclear reactors with both Syria and Turkey.

Those resentful of American power — including the liberal academic environment that shaped President Obama’s worldview during his formative years — should take notice of what a retreat of American power means.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The End for America in the Middle East?

Michael Young
The Daily Star (Beirut)
12 May '10

Overstatement in the service of truth is no vice, some might say. But where is truth, or indeed overstatement, in the observation that we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of America’s 60-year domination of the Middle East, unless the Obama administration reverses its policies? Alarmingly, no one has any answers.

The notion sounds absurd. America lose the power that it has managed to retain for as long as most of us have been alive? Perhaps it is absurd. But consider this: given President Barack Obama’s lack of a coherent strategy for the region, everywhere we see deepening vulnerabilities, when not a conscious decision by Washington to downgrade its ambitions in the face of more dynamic regional actors. These actors have shortcomings of their own, but they appear to be better prepared to deal with the consequences than the United States.

And let’s add one more item to the bleak mix: Washington’s listlessness actually increases the chances that it will enter into a war with Iran, which Obama has been so understandably keen to avoid.

The Arab state system may well be caught up in a phase of terminal deterioration. Most Arab regimes are old and have lost much legitimacy by consolidating their authoritarianism while offering their younger, expanding populations little in the way of consensual social contracts, useful educational opportunities, and better living conditions. Stalemate prevails, and the onetime sway of leading Arab states has devolved to non-Arab states on the region’s periphery: Turkey, Israel and Iran.

This has had negative consequences for the United States, whose political preeminence in the region rested on the old Arab order. Longstanding American allies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are weaker than ever before. At the same time, the Obama administration is in the throes of psychological retrenchment over the Middle East, the result of myriad factors, above all a sense that the US cannot financially afford the vast empire it once controlled.

Looking at American policy, what do we see today? For starters, we see an Iran actively challenging America in the region. This may look like hubris, but the Iranians see little that is worrisome. Take Iraq, which the US fought long and hard over and ultimately stabilized after the spectacular blunders of the immediate postwar years in 2003-2005. Today, Obama’s stubborn priority is to withdraw, effectively denying Washington the primary terrain needed to contain Iran, but also to exercise its power over Syria and to an extent Saudi Arabia.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

"Sanctions with bite," Said Hillary. But There Are No Teeth In The Bite. Just Mushy Old Gums. Go To A Periodontist.

Marty Peretz
The New Republic
25 March '10

Hillary Clinton told the AIPAC conference this past Monday that, after fifteen months of his presidency, President Obama was about to launch, with our allies, "sanctions with bite." I commented on this earlier in the week. But a top front-page dispatch in this morning's Wall Street Journal tells us just how little pain Iran would incur when the political psychodrama finally unfolds at the Security Council. The fact is that the Obami have been courting Russia and China all this time unsuccessfully while, in the meantime, Tehran is make steady advances in the acquisition of nuclear weapons and even steadier advances in destabilizing SP the Middle East.

Now, you have to understand that the president needed to make a choice. He couldn't push Iran too hard while he was relentlessly bludgeoning the State of Israel. And, by the way, he was already bludgeoning the Jewish state even before Jerusalem had foolishly stumbled further into two neighborhoods, one already Jewish and the other on the road to the Hebrew University, Hadassah Hospital, and the Mount of Olives. Why shouldn't Jews live on this road?

(Read full post)
.

The Resistance Bloc Will Not Be Appeased

Michael J. Totten
Contentions/Commentary
21 March '10

Hezbollah’s reaction to Israel’s plan to build 1,600 apartments in a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem might help President Barack Obama understand something that has so far eluded him: the Syrian-Iranian-Hamas-Hezbollah resistance bloc will not allow him to appease it.

“The scheme is yet another part of a Judaization campaign,” Hezbollah said in a statement quoted by the Tehran Times, “that targets the holy city of al-Quds [Jerusalem] and a provocation of Muslim feeling.” If Obama expected a little appreciation from Israel’s enemies for making the same point with more diplomatic finesse, he was mistaken. “The Zionist plan to construct hundreds of homes in al-Quds,” Hezbollah continued, “truly shows American cover to it.”

So not only is Obama denied credit for standing up to Israel’s government, he is accused of doing precisely the opposite.

Anti-Americanism is ideological oxygen for partisans of the resistance bloc. They will no sooner let it go than they will stop breathing. Their entire worldview and political program would turn to ashes without it, much as Fidel Castro’s would without socialism. When the United States doesn’t follow the script, they just lie.

If we extend a hand in friendship, they’ll bite it and try to chew off a finger. If we take their side once in a while to appear evenhanded, they’ll twist the truth until it looks like a sinister plot, then they’ll bite us again.

A couple of years ago Hezbollah stretched a banner across an overpass near Lebanon’s international airport that said, in English, “All our catastrophes come from America.” Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah would have an awfully hard time climbing down from that high a tree even if his Iranian masters would let him — and they won’t. They’ve been calling Israel the “Little Satan” and the U.S. the “Great Satan” since Jimmy Carter, of all people, was president.

(Read full post)
.