Israel and the Jews - - Joe Biden doesn't get it

It's sometimes difficult to know what is going through the mind of Vice President Joe Biden when he makes a public comment or responds to a question.

I once had the opportunity to ask him a question at a fundraiser and I think he kept talking after the program was over. OK, I exaggerate a bit, but he was very long-winded that morning.

Now Mr. Biden is touring the Mideast in an attempt to jump start talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. As is necessary on such trips, Mr. Biden visited Yad Vashem, Israel's national museum dedicated to the Shoa.

What caught my eye in today's report by Ethan Bronner in The New York Times was this statement about Mr. Biden-

After signing its [Yad Vashem's] guest book, he said: “The phrase ‘never again’ is used so often it almost has lost its meaning. But then again all you have to do is walk through Yad Vashem to understand how incredible the journey has been for world Jewry and why Israel is such a central part of its existence.”

Yad Vashem is an important reminder of the Shoa, one that all visitors to Israel should visit. However, I am troubled by Mr. Biden's apparent linkage of the Shoa to Israel's existence. In other words, he implies that without the Shoa, there would be no need for an Israel.

Of course, the opposite is true. Jews have yearned for a return to Zion for about 2,000 years following their expulsion from Judea by the Romans. That the establishment of a State of Israel came several years after the conclusion of the world's deadliest war is a coincidence of time. And, while the Shoa may have been a catalyst for international action reestablishing the home of the Jewish people, it's nothing more than another blip on the time line of Jewish history.

The Bronner's report is here.

VP Joe Biden to aid Mideast peace discussions

The Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey and Yahoo! News is reporting on Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to the Mideast an order to “aid” peace discussions.

However, there is a glaring omission in setting forth the reasons for pessimism in the lead up to the beginning of indirect negotiations between. Specifically, the Palestinian side has set forth two pre-conditions to restarting direct talks—first, a return of Israel to the pre-1967 boundary as the boundary for a future Palestinian state, and, second, the absolute right of return of Arab refugees to the Israeli side of that boundary. Both are non-starters from the Israeli point of view.

Even American military advisers recognize that the pre-1967 boundary cannot be defended by in the face of another military attack by its Arab neighbors. Israel’s strategic placement of communities along the old boundary line was designed to give it additional buffer in the event of war. Yet, Israel has announced its willingness to exchange other land with the Palestinians in order to deliver an equal area only to have such a request dismissed out of hand by the Palestinians.

A return of Arab refugees, even if they can be properly identified after 60 plus years, to within the current boundaries of would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state. No other country has ever been asked to commit national suicide by granting such a request.

The Palestinians can have their state but by advancing demands that no sane Israeli or any other political leadership could accept, they have effectively blocked the Israelis from moving forward with negotiations. There should be talks, but without preconditions.

That's what I think.

Read the story here.

Northern Ireland as a blue print for Israelis and Palestinians?

Israel's ambassador to Ireland, Zion Evrony, writes in The New York Times via the International Herald Tribune about "a consideration of the similarities that may exist between the conflict in Northern Ireland and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a search for lessons. "

Undoubtedly, there are huge geopolitical, historical and cultural differences between the two regions and the two conflicts. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict possesses far more intractable elements — above all the different role played by religion. The sheer density of holy sites in Jerusalem, sacred to three different faiths, makes them flashpoints of emotional tension. In addition there are the painful, bitter memories of wars, and the challenge of mutual recognition not yet met by all in the Middle East.

But there are lessons to be learned in the Middle East.

• First and foremost, there is the concept that to resolve a difficult conflict, each side, while retaining its “dream” — its maximum aspiration — must be willing to forego its implementation in practice.

This means that "Israelis would have to give up the dream of a “Greater Israel.” Palestinians would have to give up the dream of “return” for the refugees, accepting their accommodation in a future Palestinian state."

• A key lesson is that the essential interest of each side must be respected and safeguarded.

For Israel, its recognition by Palestinians as the nation-state of the Jewish people, existing with adequate security arrangements alongside a demilitarized Palestinian state. For Palestinians, independence and freedom within their own state.

• The central importance of third-party mediation, as well as outside actors who continuously facilitate the process of resolution, is another moral to be gleaned from Northern Ireland peacemaking.

George Mitchell's work in Ireland is an example of how a mediator is supposed to work.

I think the ambassador's approach is thoughtful. What do you say?

Go here to read the full article.

Rachel Corrie's death now in the courtroom

This story is along the lines of "only in America" except we should now add "only in Israel."
The parents of Rachel Corrie, killed in an accident while she was protesting Israeli demolition of smuggling tunnels in a war zone in 2003, have filed suit in an Israeli court for damages arising out of that incident.

According to JPost.com, the

The hearing of witnesses in the civil tort filed by the family of Rachel Corrie – a member of the pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was crushed to death by an IDF in 2003 – is due to begin next week in the Haifa District Court.

The plaintiffs – Corrie’s father, Craig; her mother, Cynthia; her brother, Christopher; and her sister Sarah Simpson – are suing the state for $324,424 in damages in what they charge was her wrongful death, caused by the use of “deliberate and utterly unreasonable force by the bulldozer driver” who ran over her over.

Controversy surrounds Corrie's death. Painted by her supporters merely as a concerned activist for Palestinian rights, I think she was far from it. I think she was a willing dupe of ISM and Hamas. A widely distributed photograph of Corrie shows her face contorted in rage as she burns an American flag in an attempt to curry favor with her Hamas handlers. But her death made a good story for anti-Israel protesters around the world.

The bottom line is that the government of Israel is allowing her parents to bring a lawsuit in an Israeli court. What other Middle Eastern country would allow that?

Read the full article here.

Assassination in Dubai

I've just returned from two weeks in Israel where one of the lead stories has been the assassination of Hamas's arms buyer and smuggler Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai.

While the world condemns Israel for the assassination, something Israeli officials neither admit nor deny, others are analyzing Israel's or, for that matter, any other country's right to eliminate its enemies in a time of war.

The Financial Times, FT.com, provides one view written by Andrew Roberts in "Israel is no more rogue than America."

Commenting on articles by Henry Siegman and David Gardner condemning the killing, Roberts says,

"Both commentators are completely wrong. All that the Dubai operation will do is remind the world that the security services of states at war – and Israel’s struggle with Hamas, Fatah and Hizbollah certainly constitutes that – occasionally employ targeted assassination as one of the weapons in their armoury, and that this in no way weakens their legitimacy."

Roberts does not believe that the condemnation of Israel is valid. He examines what other countries have done in times of war to reinforce his point.

All in all, Roberts makes a good case for the proposition that countries at war sometimes have to resort to actions that are not pleasant but are necessary nonetheless. Typically, reader comments on the article have run both ways.

Read the full article by going to the link above.