January 2002
January 1, 2002 An Open Letter to the Heads of the National Camp
January 1, 2002 Is Arafat Using Christianity As A Tool Against the Jews?
January 3, 2002 Real Intentions
January 8, 2002 No to a PEREStinian State!
January 8, 2002 Aliya
January 8, 2002 What Are the Ramifications of Arafat's Latest Ploy?
January 9, 2002 Letter to U.S. Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer
January 10, 2002 Rabbis for Jewish Life
January 14, 2002 Is U.S. Ambassador Dan Kurtzer a Friend of Israel?
January 20, 2002 Tu B'Shvat in Kever Rachel
January 26, 2002 The Oslo-ites Ride Again
January 29, 2001 Was Egypt Involved in the Karine-A Affair?
January 31, 2002 Blame the Victim
January 31, 2002 Kurtzer Acts like an Israeli
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, January 1, 2002
An Open Letter to the Heads of the National Camp -- Rabbis and Public Figures
Don't Let Abu-Omri Give a State to Abu Amar!(the title is a pun in Hebrew.
Abu
means father in Arabic, i.e. Abu Omri is Ariel Sharon. Abu Amar is one
of the many aliases of Arafat)
We turn to you with great concern over the diplomatic developments that
are taking place behind our backs and over the non-response by the national
camp.
As you recall, when they only spoke of the possible handing over of the
Golan Heights, the entire national camp mobilized as a single body,
religious and nonreligious, and initiated the tremendous "The People
with the Golan" campaign.
At every major intersection in Israel we saw activists distributing
informational material and stickers on behalf of the Golan.
Many rabbis permitted their pupils to interrupt their Torah study in
order to demonstrate and act on behalf of rescuing the Golan Heights. Other
rabbis encouraged their pupils to do this in the break between yeshivah
studies. Men, women, and children were mobilized for the struggle. The
atmosphere that was created in Israel thanks to this tremendous campaign
convinced the political leadership that the people would never let them
hand over the Golan. The massive mobilization and the determination of
the activists fashioned public opinion.
At present, it is common knowledge that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon gave
his consent for the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria,
and Gaza. It is also clear to all that he has given a green light to Shimon
Peres to conduct negotiations for the establishment of such a state. The
governmental media mobilized in its entirety for a free publicity campaign
on behalf of the establishment of such a state in the very heart of Israel,
and they are slowly, slowly attempting to persuade the Israeli citizen that
there is no alternative to the separation plan and the establishment
of an additional terrorist Arab state in Eretz Israel (that obviously also
includes the evacuation of many settlements in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza).
It would be a waste of our time to explain, once again, that such a
state would threaten the existence of the State of Israel much more than the
handing over of the Golan. Anyone with eyes in his head understands that such
a state is only an intermediary stage for the elimination of the State of
Israel, Heaven forbid. Unquestionably, a majority of the Jewish people
opposes the establishment of a state like this. The public, however, is
exposed to brainwashing by the media and the left. The public also "hears"
the thundering silence of the leaders of the national camp. This silence is
incomprehensible! When the public in the street does not see massive
mobilization by the national camp - as there was with the Golan - then the
public will very quickly reconcile itself with the idea of a PLO state in
the heart of Eretz Israel. And after the catastrophe, we will be able to
blame only ourselves.
At present, the only ones who seek to arouse the street and who are
active in the field against the establishment of a Palestinian Arab
state in the heart of Eretz Israel are the members of our movement, the Women
in Green, together with the members of the "Gamla Shall Not Fall Again"
movement and the "Matot Arim." We stand at intersections, gather
people's signatures on petitions, and distribute stickers and signs. Most
people identify with our message, and they are strengthened by our presence
in the field. Close to 50,000 people have already signed the Women in Green
petition against the creation of a PLO state in Eretz Yisrael. But this
is not enough! We have the power to intensify the struggle, to tremendous
dimensions. For this, all the organizations must urgently mobilize.
Where is the Council of Jewish Settlements in Judea, Samaria, and
Gaza? Where are the Rabbis? Where are the activists of the NRP? Where are
the activists of the National Union-Yisrael Beitenu? Where is the Likud
Youth and its activists? Where are the yeshivah students and the ulpanah
(girls' seminary) students? Where is the national mobilization that we saw
for the rescue of the Golan?
Is the message that we broadcast to the public: the Golan is more
important than Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza District?
Will we continue to be silent? Will we let things develop in such a manner
that the history books will write that "an additional Palestinian Arab state
was established by Jews in the very heart of Eretz Israel - and the people
were as silent as lambs"?
It is still not too late. Let us arise together and act for the rescue
of the people of Israel in its land. Let us demonstrate national loyalty!
First, all the Jewish-Zionist cabinet ministers and Members of Knesset must
leave this leftist government, a government that is run by Omri Sharon
and Shimon Peres. Second, all the Jewish-Zionist organizations must
immediately join the campaign throughout Israel against the
establishment of a terrorist Arab state in the very heart of Israel.
And when, as usual, the left will ask us: What is your alternative? We shall
proudly reply: The land of Israel belongs to the People of Israel, in
accordance with the Torah of Israel - to build and be built in it!
Ruth and Nadia Matar
Top of Page |
End of Page |
What We Say Index Page |
To Home Page
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, January 1, 2002
Is Arafat Using Christianity As A Tool Against the Jews?
Ruth Matar interviews:
Moshe Aumann, Former Head of Liason to Christian Churches
Israeli Embassy, Washington, D.C.
David Parsons, Editor
International Christian Embassy News Service.
Wednesday, January 2, 2002
Between 9 and 10 P.M. (Israel Time)
98.7 FM and 1539 AM
and live on Internet (www.israelnationalnews.com)
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, January 3, 2002
Real Intentions
Concrete proof of what the intentions of Arafat and
his Palestinian
Authority are with regard to working for a true and
meaningful "peace" with
Israel, was furnished with the daring capture of the
Palestinian vessel
Karine-A. Sailing from Iran and packed with 50 tons
of rockets and other
sophisticated weaponry and explosives, the 4,000 ton
ship was intercepted by
the Israel Defense Forces in the Red Sea. The
connection between the ship's
crew and the PA was definitive, clear and
incontrovertible.
The capture of this vessel highlights the clear
violations by the PA of
each and every previously signed agreement with
Israel. It indicates the
utter uselessness of entering into any further
Agreements with Arafat or
the Palestinian Authority. If this kind of action
by the PA is done BEFORE
the creation of another Arab State within the
Promised Land of Israel, what
can be expected AFTER such a state is created?
Women In Green are intensifying their heretofore
successful campaign to
obtain
signatures on the Petition "NO To Another
Palestinian State." In addition to
being able to sign the Petition on our website:
(www.womeningreen.org),
petitions can be mailed or faxed to you by
contacting our office by
telephone 02-624-9885 or by fax 02-624-5380.
Ruth and Nadia Matar
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, January 8, 2002
No to a PEREStinian State!
Women in Green is having a new sticker printed,
this time in Hebrew and in English on the same sticker.
The sticker reads:
NO TO A PERESTINIAN STATE !
All letters are in black and the name PERES is in red.
It is an addition to our mass campaign against the creation of
another Palestinian state in the Land of Israel.
An enemy state that Shimon Peres is still trying to create.
We need your help to spread the sticker.
E-mail us your name and address and tell us how many you need.
In addition, urge all your friends, relatives,
e-mail lists to go to our website and add your name to our petition
against a Palestinian state.
Ruth and Nadia Matar
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, January 8, 2002
Aliya
To our dear Jewish brothers and sisters who live in the US,
Many of you are asking:
"What can I do to help the Jewish People? what can I do to help
Israel? What can I do to safeguard the future Jewish generations?"
The answer is simple: the time has come to make aliya.
The time has come to come home to the Land of Israel.
One can live a wonderful private Jewish life in the Diaspora.
One can even live a wonderful Jewish community life in the Diaspora.
But if you want to be part of Jewish history;
If you want to "make" Jewish history....
If you want to make sure that Israel will be a "Jewish" state,
then your place is in Israel.
We know it is not easy to make aliya.
Therefore we were happy to hear that a group of Jews got together
and started a new organization that will help American Jews to
make aliya.
They call themselves Nefesh B"Nefesh.
Check out their website at http://www.nefeshbnefesh.org
Ask for their applications,
and come home - to Israel!
Nadia Matar
Top of Page |
End of Page |
What We Say Index Page |
To Home Page
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, January 8, 2002
What Are the Ramifications of Arafat's Latest Ploy
of Smuggling Arms to Gaza on His "Ship of Death"?
Ruth Matar interviews:
Dr. Aaron Lerner, noted Political Analyst
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
Between 9-10 P.M. (Israel Time)
98.7 FM and 1539 AM
Live on Internet: http://www.israelnationalnews.com
*******************************************************
January 9, 2002
Letter to U.S. Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer
Dear U.S. Ambassador Kurtzer:
As an American Citizen I protest against your recent statement criticizing
Israel for spending monies on developing the Jewish areas of Gaza, and
Judea and Samaria, rather than giving these monies to protesting disabled
citizens. Not only is this blatant interference in the internal domestic
affairs of Israel, but such an expressed view is at odds with the religious
beliefs of many of Israel's citizens.
It is puzzling to us how you as a religious Jew can be defiant of the God
of Israel!
If this indeed is the Promised Land, how can Judea, Samaria and Gaza,
which is part and parcel of what the Lord promised to the Jewish People,
not be settled by Jews! And how can a Jewish State not lend its support
to the growth and development of any part of their Promised Land ?
Have you ever read what former Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow wrote
on this subject? He is a former professor of mine at the Yale Law School,
who helped formulate the language of UN Security Council Resolution 242!
He said, as did former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, that the Jews have a
legal right to live in all parts of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, which is part
and parcel of their ancient historical homeland.
At a time when the Jewish People are being attacked both verbally and
physically
by Arabs, it is inappropriate of you to speak out against the Israel
Government's
financial support of Jews living in Judah, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, meager
as it is. You will not be loved more by the Arabs for having said it, nor
will
they ever trust you under any circumstances. Arafat is investing millions
that
he gets from America in the purchase of lethal armament meant to attack and
destroy
our country. Yet you completely ignore that happening, and instead only
voice criticism
of Israel. It was a cheap shot, and not in the interest of America, whom
you are
supposed to represent.
Sincerely,
Michael Levi Matar
Administrator
Top of Page |
End of Page |
What We Say Index Page |
To Home Page
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, January 10, 2002
Rabbis for Jewish Life
Rabbis for Human Rights have a pending libel action against our organization
and Nadia Matar, for a statement made by us, following the Arab murder of
Dov Dribben on his Maon farm, which claimed that Arik Ascherman and Rabbis
For Human Rights incited the Arabs to the murder of Dov Dribben. A recent
ruling by a Shalom Court Judge claimed that there was no issue of fact and
granted the plaintiffs summary judgment, despite the fact that Chief
Justice Barak had previously stated there were issues of fact and that there
should be a full trial. (There is a pending leave to appeal from the
decision of the Shalom Court Judge.) In this context the following article
is extremely pertinent to understand the nature of the Rabbis for Human
Rights and their leader Arik Ascherman.
Rabbis for Jewish Life
Avraham Feder
("Jerusalem Post" - op. ed.)
Thursday, January 10, 2002
At first look, who would deny the importance of an organization which
advertises itself as a traditional Jewish voice for "social justice,
equality, and humanity." David Forman's recent tribute (December 28) to the
activities of such an organization with the ambitious if somewhat
pretentious name of "Rabbis for Human Rights," gives the impression that we
are now truly blessed with a new prophetic illumination for our difficult
times.
We all need to take a second look, however, at what Forman and his RHR are
selling.
Initially and fundamentally, Forman and the Rabbis for Human Rights have
not acknowledged that we are at war. They might then note that the US
Constitution, Article III Section 3:1 states: "Treason against the US shall
consist in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies,
giving them aid and comfort..."
Members of the RHR attempt to break down barriers put up by the Israel
Defense Forces to defend against terrorists; they give money to replant
olive trees cut down by the IDF, which are again defending Israeli citizens
against terrorists. RHR's spokesman, participating in the anti-Semitic
"lynching" of Jews and Judaism at Durban, characterized Israel publicly as
an apartheid state.
These are acts which give aid and comfort to our enemies - clear and
simple! Among our group of protesters against the activities of the RHR are
those who have served in the army and/or who have sons and daughters and
other close relatives who serve and have served. Forman's charge on this
score - that "virtually all of them have never been in the army here" -
therefore, is not only cheap but incorrect. Besides, serving in a nation's
army doesn't immunize one to moral and political error; nor does it
legitimate religious arrogance. For Forman to characterize alternative
portrayals of Judaism as "chauvinistic... in which a national ego is
projected onto God" is prejudicial, demagogic, and utterly wrong-headed.
There are Israeli Jews out there who consider themselves religious and at
the same time are not ashamed of being patriotic, which, in a time of war,
especially means focussing principally if not exclusively on the welfare
and well-being of Jews.
There is indeed a Jewish tradition which speaks of a "prophetic vision of
social justice." Moreover, the classical prophets were hyper-critical of
their own people when they had to be. But there is never any doubt as to
their Zionist passion and love for the Jewish people. There may be
universalistic dimensions to their message, but their immediate concern is
emphatically particularistic. They may dream of mending the world, but
their abiding concern is for the security and welfare of the Children of
Israel.
We know that we must never surrender the task of seeking and applying
standards of justice in the world. But we also know that we are living in a
world inhabited by wolves where the justice we seek to apply must always be
justice conditioned by circumstances. And the circumstances in which we
Jews and Israelis find ourselves is still a life-or-death post-Holocaust
struggle against enemies who, in their words to their people and in their
daily acts of terror, underscore their relentless pursuit of our destruction.
Rabbis for Human Rights has a manifesto which lists its "principles of
faith" based appropriately on quotations from biblical and rabbinic
literature. What is clear from the priorities given in their activities,
however, is that their cardinal principle of faith is an abstract Kantian
definition of ethics divorced from the real world. Implicit in their
definition of "human rights" is a blind commitment to certain abstract
articulations of the rights of man which may have inspired a variety of
liberal revolutions in the Western world. They may have even helped in the
emancipation of Jews-as-individuals in the Western world. Indeed,
theoretically, Jews as individuals were to be given rights like other
people; but practically speaking, Jews as members of the Jewish nation were
to be given no rights.
It is clear that members of RHR have not yet awakened to the reality
brought home in apocalyptic terms by the Holocaust: that any system of
human rights is morally flawed and politically bankrupt if it does not
allow for the Jewish people to exercise its national human rights to be a
sovereign nation in its own land and to build a society in that land which
is recognized and secure.
The claim that RHR has "never taken a stance on the political situation in
the territories" is coy and misleading. Forman's phrase "marauding
settlers" is a picturesque summary of an ideology which is plainly hostile
to Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria.
Finally, in Israel and all over the Jewish world there are a host of
organizations which, in their programs of education, social service, and
political activism implicitly and explicitly teach and actualize the Jewish
tradition of human rights. The RHR would do well to change its name along
with some of its agenda. Let it be a more modest name and a more
unequivocally Jewish agenda.
(The writer is rabbi of Moreshet Yisrael, Jerusalem.)
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, January 14, 2002
Is U.S. Ambassador Dan Kurtzer a Friend of Israel?
Listen to Ruth Matar on Wednesday, January 16
Between 9 and 10 PM, Israel time
The Women in Green hour
On Arutz 7, 98.7 FM or 1539 AM
Also live on Internet: http://www.israelnationalnews.com
Nadia and Ruth
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, January 20, 2002
Tu B'Shvat in Kever Rachel
On Monday, Tu B'Shvat (28/1/02) there will be a Tu B'Shvat party in Kever
Rachel at 17:30.
The program will include music and a lecture in Hebrew by Rabbi Moshe
Levinger of Hebron.
Bus at 17:00 from the Central Bus Station in Jerusalem. The bus will also
stop at the Beit Lechem-Gilo intersection to pick up people waiting there
at approximately 17:15.
As always, your presence is important and makes a difference!
Reminder: Buses to Kever Rachel daily at 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. from the
Central Bus Station, and a shuttle every half hour from the Beit Lechem-
Gilo intersection between the hours of 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
For more information:
Shelli Karzen
Committee for Rachel Imeinu
02-996-1756
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, January 26, 2002
The Oslo-ites Ride Again
[The following is an excerpt from last Wednesday's Women In Green Hour on
Arutz 7]
The continual bloody Arab terrorist attacks on innocent civilians are meant
to weaken and destroy Israel's resolve to defend its homeland. The goal,
of course, is the annihilation of Israel.
But the Oslo architects, and the rest of the Oslo-ites, who have brought us
to this disastrous state of affairs, will never admit that they made a
tragic mistake, and that Oslo is long since dead. Instead they organize a
veritable love feast at Tel Aviv University in order to grant former U.S.
President Clinton an honorary degree for his "inspired personal efforts to
achieve peace in different parts of the world, and "particularly" in the
Middle East.
It is interesting to note who was invited to this love feast and who was
not. All the Oslo architects were there, and all the leading Oslo-ites,
including even small fry like Ron Pundak, the professor who hobnobbed with
the PLO when it was against Israeli law to do so. Who was not invited?
Former Prime Ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Binyamin Netanyahu. The
spokesperson for Tel Aviv University, Orly Fromer, explained that there was
limited seating. Ms. Fromer also emphasized that Tel Aviv University did
not pay Mr. Clinton $100,000 for his appearance. Very interesting!
The day after, Mr. Clinton spoke at Ness Information Technology and
delivered exactly the same speech. The Ness Public Relations people went
to great pains later to say that Ness had not paid for Clinton's services,
and the Tel Aviv University Public Relations people were equally adamant
that the university had not paid him.
Who indeed bankrolled the Clinton ceremony? Might it have been Haim Saban
from Los Angeles, donor of the Saban Institute at Tel Aviv University? You
surely remember Haim Saban, who organized those illegal campaign
contributions for Ehud Barak?
Let me not get sidetracked. What I really want to do is to explain why the
rest of us, the non-Oslo-ites, are unhappy about this honorary degree given
to Mr. Clinton.
The "Jerusalem Post," in an editorial on January 22, 2002, expresses our
feelings exactly:
"In a profound sense, Clinton's presidency was a dangerous one for Israel,
and his approach toward peacemaking fundamentally flawed."
"Clinton bears a heavy degree of responsibility for failing to switch gears
when the current Palestinian offensive was launched against Israel in late
September 2000. Logically speaking, the Palestinian decision to compound
intransigence with violence and terrorism should have brought greater U.S.
pressure. Instead, the Clinton administration did the exact opposite: it
maintained a strict moral equivalence between the Israeli desire to
negotiate and the Palestinian resort to violence."
"For all his friendship for Israel, Clinton's speech this week maintained a
familiar pattern of symmetry between the parties. While clearly calling on
Arafat to end terrorism and violence, he also beseeched Israelis to 'never
give up the dream of peace.' In a classic neutral formulation, Clinton
proclaimed, 'Leaders have to prepare people for peace by saying that
compromise is honorable, not shameful, and is a sign of strength, not
weakness.' Even now, Clinton has to pretend that obstacles to peace are
more less equally distributed between the parties: Both sides need to be
urged to compromise and make peace. This is, frankly, insulting, and
Clinton of all people should know better. If anything, the main problem is
that Israel's intense desire for peace has raised expectations to
astronomical levels on the Palestinian side, including the hope that Israel
will commit suicide for peace. Israeli willingness to compromise would
only fuel the flames."
I was shocked to hear Clinton say that the intifada violence had not
changed the fundamental reality....we had the outlines of a reasonable
settlement, but Yassir Arafat missed a golden opportunity. A reasonable
settlement? This murderer Arafat and his thugocracy getting big chunks of
the Holy Land -- Judea, Samaria, Gaza, half of Jerusalem and control of our
Temple Mount -- that's a reasonable settlement?
In addition, Clinton asked President George W. Bush not to abandon Arafat.
With friends like Bill Clinton, you surely don't need any enemies!
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, January 29, 2001
Was Egypt Involved in the Karine-A Affair?
And, in general, is Egypt a reliable regional partner for the U.S.?
Ruth Matar interviews:
JIM COLBERT,
Director of Communications of JINSA --
A prominent U.S. think tank
Wednesday, January 30, 2002
Between 9-10 P.M. (Israel Time)
Arutz 7 -- 98.7 FM and 1539 AM
Live on Internet:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, January 31, 2002
Blame the Victim
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Wall Street Journal Europe, Jan.28/02
A close look at Israel's "cycle of violence."
First, there are the words that describe acts of horror. The "cycle of
violence" is one commonplace; a CNN coinage, "attack and counterattack,"
is fast becoming another.
Then, there are the acts themselves, in their awful, but now-familiar
regularity: the suicide bomb blast, the rush of police and ambulances,
the official announcement of the death toll.
For the last 16 months, this has been Israel's reality. In Sunday's
attack on Jaffa Street in Jerusalem, the Palestinian suicide bomber, a
woman this time, placed herself near a busy intersection at noon on a
shopping day, when the street was full of innocents. The explosion, as
she detonated the charges strapped to her body, was massive. Scores were
wounded, at least one killed.
So it was also on Friday. A terrorist blew himself up in Tel Aviv,
wounding two dozen noncombatants attempting to go quietly about their
daily lives. Within hours, Israel responded, hitting military targets in
Gaza and the West Bank, killing a Palestinian security officer. The Los
Angeles Times chose this description of the Israeli response: "The F-16
airstrikes marked the latest escalation in an intensifying cycle of
killing and revenge."
U.S. President George W. Bush seems to have begun to see it differently.
In the wake of last week's attacks, Mr. Bush went so far as to say he
was "extremely disappointed" in Palestinian strongman Yasser Arafat.
Vice President Dick Cheney reinforced the sentiment, allowing that
Arafat might not be "100% committed" to peace. Talk about
understatement.
Even as the Bush administration seems to be getting some clarity on the
true state of play in the Middle East, however, the EU is showing every
sign of moving deeper into the fever swamps. Yesterday it reiterated its
full support for Arafat and came close to demanding, perversely, that
Israel reimburse the EU for the damage it's done to buildings and
structures built with EU funds. Given this divergence, a look behind the
standard tropes of "peace process" and "cycle of violence" may offer
some clarity.
The "cycle" in practice works like this: Palestinian terrorists conduct
random, murderous attacks targeting high-density civilian populations --
public buses, pedestrian malls, shopping districts. The Israeli military
pursues strikes against military or terrorist targets in response,
attempting to disable terrorist networks that Arafat can't or won't
interfere with.
In the one case, terrorists set out with malice aforethought to murder
civilians. In the other, military operations are targeted against those
known to be facilitating or sponsoring the terror. And, as President
Bush said on Friday, any doubt that remained that the Palestinian
Authority is facilitating terror at the highest levels was removed by
he recent interception of the boatload of weapons and explosives bound
for the Gaza Strip.
The attempt to draw a moral equivalence between the Palestinians'
deliberate attempts to kill innocents and inspire terror and Israel's
military responses to these attacks is not far different from describing
the U.S. airstrikes on Afghanistan as "perpetuating the cycle of
violence between al Qaeda and the United States." That cycle, of course,
was started by the murder of 3,000 at the World Trade Center on
September 11. But as we pointed out then, there is no equivalence
between terrorist attacks designed to maximize the deaths of innocents
and military strikes designed to limit the ability of terrorists to
carry out future strikes. In these matters of life and death, the EU
worries about damage to infrastructure.
The poverty of such comparisons was made painfully clear last week by a
statement from Ahmed Abdel Rahman, secretary of the Palestinian cabinet,
who blamed a recent Israeli raid on a Palestinian bomb factory in Nablus
for the current spate of attacks. If one side is making the bombs
(presumably destined to be strapped to suicidal terrorists) and the
other side conducting raids to prevent their manufacture, there is
little room to question who is in the right.
President Bush's recent statements are, if anything, too mild. Even
former Israeli Premier Ehud Barak, long a harsh critic of Mr. Sharon,
now calls Arafat a terrorist. If Israel and the Palestinian Authority
are truly to be held to the same standard, then the talk of a "cycle of
violence" and other phrases meant to equate Israeli self-defense with
murderous terrorism have to be set aside. In that regard, Mr. Bush's
statement, in showing that the U.S. is getting serious in applying its
zero-tolerance for terrorism policy to the Israeli situation, can only
be considered progress. So much the worse, then, that the EU has tacked
in the opposite direction.
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, January 31, 2002
Kurtzer Acts like an Israeli
Evelyn Gordon
("Jerusalem Post" - January, 29 2002)
It is somewhat reassuring to discover that Israel is not the only country
in the world where government officials run around conducting independent
foreign policies in defiance of the official government line.
Yet it is sad to realize that even countries that generally constitute
models of proper governmental culture are not immune to this disease -
which is why it was so distressing to watch US Ambassador to Israel Daniel
Kurtzer blithely contradicting the Bush government's official policy line last
week.
This was a week in which the Bush administration expressed unprecedented
support for Israel's policies. It insisted that the Palestinian Authority
do more to fight terrorism; it demanded explanations of the Karine A arms
ship affair; it decided to conduct a strategic review of America's relations
with the PA; it reportedly decided to add a group affiliated with Palestinian
Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's own Fatah faction - the Aksa Martyrs
Brigade - to its list of terrorist organizations, while warning that if
the PA did not shape up, it would do the same with Arafat's presidential
guard, Force 17; it even took the astonishing step of saying that it
understands
Israel's decision to keep Arafat under virtual house arrest in Ramallah.
And what was Kurtzer doing while all this was going on? Publicly urging
Israelis to take to the streets to demand that their government alter its
policies!
Speaking at the Givat Haviva Technological College and Jewish-Arab Center
for Peace last Wednesday, Kurtzer was asked why the US is not doing more
to pressure Israel. He responded that this is the job of the Israeli people -
and urged them to start organizing demonstrations, rallies and
letter-writing campaigns against the Sharon government's policies. Both
Israelis and Palestinians, he said, should tell their respective
governments "that the people have had it." He added that he chose to
address students
at Givat Haviva because he was confident that they would be willing to act on
his advice.
Kurtzer even reminded the students that "my generation used to take over
the offices of college deans" in order to force change. Apparently realizing
that inciting riots was going too far even for his privileged status as
ambassador, he hastily added: "I don't recommend that" - but then, lest
anyone take his non-recommendation at face value, he continued: "But it
was a kind of political action that let the power structure know that we
wanted to change and we wanted to see a different way of conducting the
affairs
of the university, the affairs of the state. We wanted to see political
change. It worked over a period of time."
This is not the first time Kurtzer has been guilty of grossly undiplomatic
behavior. A few weeks ago, for instance, he publicly declared that Israel
should spend less money on protecting residents of the settlements and
more on transfering payments to the disabled - a perfectly legitimate opinion
for a private citizen, but not the type of budgetary decision one expects a
foreign ambassador to become involved in.
What made last week's comments stand out, however, is that they were so
blatantly at odds with the stated policy of the government he claims to
represent.
Kurtzer can get away with this behavior for the same reason Israeli
politicians can: Political circumstances have conspired to grant him
immunity. Precisely because Israel is now enjoying unprecedented support
from the Bush administration, it is hardly going to muddy the atmosphere
by lodging a formal complaint against the US ambassador.
And President George W. Bush, even if he is aware of what use Kurtzer is
making of his government-derived authority, is unlikely to waste political
capital on replacing him at a time when he does not actually require
Kurtzer's services to maintain a good relationship with Israel's
government, and has many more urgent priorities on his Congressional plate.
America's political culture is sufficiently strong that Kurtzer's lack of
professionalism seems likely to prove an aberration rather than a new
model of ambassadorial behavior. But it is unfortunate that he chose to engage
in such behavior here in Israel, which for years has been fighting a losing
battle against a prevailing culture in which every official conducts his
own foreign policy.
Precisely because the US is in many respects a role model for Israel, the
sight of an official American representative engaging in such unprofessional
practices makes it even harder to press home the point that Foreign
Minister Shimon Peres or Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg are acting
inappropriately
when they do the same.
The Israeli-American relationship will weather Kurtzer's activities
without difficulty. But it is sad to see a man who describes himself as both a
loyal American and a committed Zionist doing his best to undermine the
norms of
good government in both of the countries he claims to love.
Top of Page | What We Say Index
Page | To Home Page