The Two-State To Nowhere: Another Futile Attempt At Appeasement

Dr. Alex Grobman is a Hebrew University trained historian. His is the author of a number of books, including Nations United: How The UN Undermines Israel and The West and a forthcoming book on Israel’s moral and legal right to exist as a Jewish State.

“There is reason to believe that [the president] cherished the illusion that presumably he, and he alone, as head of the United States, could bring about a settlement -if not a reconciliation-between Arabs and Jews. I remember muttering to myself as I left the White House after hearing the President discourse in rambling fashion about Middle Eastern Affairs, ‘I‘ve read of men who thought they might be King of the Jews and other men who thought they might be King of the Arabs, but this is the first time I ‘ve listened to a man who dreamt of being King of both the Jews and Arabs.’”1 Herbert Feis, a State Department economic advisor, did not say this about President Obama’s address in Cairo in June 2009, but after Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Ibn Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, in February 1945. Roosevelt wanted the Arabs to allow thousands of Jews from Europe to immigrate to Palestine to which Ibn Saud responded, “Arabs would choose to die rather than yield their land to Jews.”2

George Antonius, an Arab nationalist, reiterated this point when he said, “no room can be made in Palestine for a second nation except by dislodging or exterminating the nation in possession.”3

Attempts to solve the Arab/Israeli conflict regularly fail because of the refusal to acknowledge that this dispute has never been about borders, territory or settlements, but about the Arabs refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist. “The struggle with the Zionist enemy is not a matter of borders, but touches on the very existence of the Zionist entity,” declared an Arab spokesman.4

Unlike the Nazis who carefully concealed the Final Solution, Hamas and the Palestine Authority openly avow their intentions in their Charter and Covenant and in the Arab media which is available in English on the Internet on MEMRI and the Palestinian Media Watch.

For Hamas liberating all of Palestine to establish an Islamic state requires a holy war against Israel. Anyone daring to sign away even “a grain of sand in Palestine in favor of the enemies of God…who have seized the blessed land” should have their “hand be cut off.”5

Coercing Israel to make concessions and accept a two-state solution will not bring peace to the region. One-sided concessions have convinced the Arabs of the rightness of their policies and the efficacy of using violence to cleanse the country of Jews and Christians.

What compelling reason do Arabs have to stop launching rockets indiscriminately into Israeli cities, refuting the Jewish connection to the land of Israel, destroying artifacts and Jewish holy sites, denying the Holocaust, dehumanizing Jews in their media, textbooks, educational system, political discourse, religious sermons by portraying them as Satan, sons of apes and pigs, a cancer, and using children as homicide bombers, if the West does not hold them accountable?

Instead of demanding that Arabs cease their incitements and attacks, the U.S issues meaningless statements of condemnation, and then grants them foreign aid, arms and military training.

The U.S. pressures Israel to make goodwill gestures in “peace negotiations,” yet Israel has never been the aggressor. Is there any example in history where a victor withdraws from territory when the defeated party does not sue for peace, admits there will never be any reconciliation, declares they will not concede the victor’s right to exist, and labors relentlessly to destroy him? 5

When Israel opens her border check-points as an act of goodwill, the Arabs dispatch homicide bombers to maim and kill Israeli civilians. After Arab terrorists are released from Israeli prisons, they revert to murdering Jews.

Comparing the plight of the Arabs with that of African Americans is a distortion of history and demeans the experiences of the millions of Africans who were brutally abducted from their homes, transported under inhuman conditions aboard slave ships and exposed to torture, murder and rape.

Nothing remotely like this has ever occurred with the Arabs in Israel. Had the Arabs not attacked the Jews before and after Israel was established, they would not be displaced persons today.

If we are to learn from history, we must transmit what actually transpired and not allow those with their own agenda or ignorance to obscure what occurred.

Whether it is naiveté, self-delusion or hubris, a number of U.S. presidents and diplomats have assumed that their powers of persuasion could modify fiercely held beliefs about the sanctity of Arab land. Such reasoning has consistently failed.

Those claiming that Jews have a moral obligation to cede land to the Arabs do not understand Israel’s legal right to exist as a Jewish state. That right was granted by the British in the Balfour Declaration in November 1917 and later recognized under international law at the San Remo Conference on April 24, 1920 by Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan (who defeated the Ottoman Empire and divided up the empire), the Mandate for Palestine and the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920, as the Jewish National Home.

There are no comparable legal documents conferring the same right on the Arabs living in Palestine at that time or since. 6 Which other country would relinquish land that is legally theirs to anyone, let alone to a people engaged in internecine warfare, who cannot even live in peace among themselves?

The West has not learned that Israel represents all that is abhorred about the U.S. and Europe-a free and open democratic society, and an ethical system encouraging individual expression and independence.7 Through appeasement the U.S. and the West have enabled the Arabs to continue what Ben-Gurion called a “permanent war” against the Jewish people.

This latest drive to establish separate Arab and Jewish states will fail because as Yasser Arafat said, “We don’t want peace, we want victory. Peace for us means Israel’s destruction and nothing else. What you call peace is peace for Israel…. For us it is shame and injustice. We shall fight on to victory. Even for decades, for generations, if necessary.”8

1. Herbert Feis, The Birth of Israel: The Tousled Diplomatic Bed (New York: W.W. Norton, Inc. 1969):16-17.
2. Charles E. Bohlen, Witness to History 1929-1969 (New York: W.W. Norton, Inc. 1973):203-204.
3. George Antonius, The Arab Awakening, the Story of the Arab National
Movement (New York: Capricorn Books, 1965): 412.
4. (Kuwait News Agency, May 31, 1986), quoted in Arieh Stav, Peace: The Arabian Caricature: A Study of Anti-Semitic Imagery (New York: Gefen Publishing House, 1999):78.
5. Jacob L.Talmon, Israel Among The Nations (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970), 172.
6. Lloyd George, The Truth About The Peace Treaties vol. II, (London: Gollancz Ltd, 1938),1149-1201; Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation And Borders Of Israel Under International Law (Jerusalem: Mazo Publishers, 2008): 136-147, 493.
7. Ruth Wisse, “The UN’s Jewish Problem,” Weekly Standard (April 8, 2002).
8. Oriana Fallaci, “An Oriana Fallaci Interview: Yasir Arafat,” The New Republic (November 16, 1974), 10

Neda is Not Al Dura

On Saturday,June 20, 2009, an Iranian teenager named Neda was murdered on the streets of Tehran because she was exercising her right to protest. Her murder, agony and death were captured by a camera, and the shocking scene was posted on YouTube.

Neda, which means “voice” in Persian, has become the icon of the anti-Ahmanidejad movement. An Iranian blogger dedicated his post on www.iranian.com to the memory of Neda saying that “she will be the new symbol of Iran” and that “her murder by the regime is the beginning of our movement and we will continue this movement and carry her name everywhere.” A Twitter re-posting compared Neda to Muhammad Al Dura: “Like Mohammed Al Dura, the kid killed by Israeli soldiers in 2000, the image of Neda killed by a Basij [the paramilitary voluntary militia controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, NDLR] in 2009 will remain with me forever.”

I wish well to Iranian protesters and I hope, like them, that Neda will become the symbol of their struggle for freedom. But the comparison with Al Dura is inappropriate. The fact that Al Dura is still a pervasive symbol around the world just goes to show how wrong Israeli officials are when they brush off the affair, claiming it has already been forgotten.

The comparison with Al Dura is inappropriate, because Mohamed Al Dura was not killed by Israeli soldiers and because the scene of his alleged killing was almost certainly staged. This is no conspiracy theory or slander. On May 21, 2008, a French court (the “Court d’Appel de Paris”) ruled that media analyst Philippe Karsenty is entitled to claim that the Al Dura scene is a hoax. The court did not rule whether or not the scene was staged (it wasn’t asked to do so); but by ruling that it is legitimate for Karsenty to claim that the scene was staged, the court implicitly admitted that Karsenty’s claim is not unfounded.

On September 30, 2000, French TV Channel France 2 aired images of a father and son trying to protect themsleves from gun fire at the Netzarim intersection in the Gaza Strip. France 2’s veteran Israel correspondent, Charles Enderlin, commented the images with the following words: “3 pm. Everything has just erupted near the settlement of Netzarim, in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians have shot live bullets, the Israelis are responding. Emergency medical technicians, journalists, passersby are caught in the crossfire. Here, Jamal and his son Mohamed are the target of fire from the Israeli positions. Mohamed is twelve, his father is trying to protect him. He is motioning… Another burst of fire. Mohamed is dead and his father seriously wounded. A Palestinian policeman and an ambulance driver have also lost their lives in the course of this battle.” Enderlin was not present during the shooting, and his comments were based on what his Palestinian cameraman told him.

In its own broadcast of France 2’s images, PA Television inserted a picture of an Israeli soldier in a shooting position. This was a picture of an Israeli soldier in Nazareth, taken two days after the shooting at Netzarim.

On October 1, 2000, Charles Enderlin described Mohamed Al Dura as “a 12-year-old child whose tragic death was filmed by Talal Abu Ramah, France 2’s correspondent in the Gaza Strip,” and reported the release of an Israeli Army statement “regretting the loss of human lives” and claiming that “it is impossible to determine the origin of the fire.”

Talal Abu Rahmah made a sworn statement to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, in which he claimed to have filmed 27 minutes of Israeli shooting, and that the Israelis killed the boy “in cold blood.” However, when France 2 submitted its tapes to a French court in November 2007, it turned out that Talal Abu Ramah had only shot a minute of the Al Durah sequence.

On November 27, 2000, France 2 broadcast a report by Charles Enderlin according to which the military investigation led by General Samia, head of the Southern Command, concluded that it was “more probable that the child had been killed by the Palestinians than by the Israelis.” The next day, France 2 and Charles Enderlin nevertheless commented that “several points of the Israeli theory conflict with the facts collected at site,” as well as with the testimony of the doctor who examined the child’s body.

In March 2002, German TV channel ARD broadcast a documentary by Esther Shapira, entitled “Who Killed Mohamed Al-Dura?” The documentary emphasized the lack of material evidence regarding the source of the shots and the autopsy on the child. In it, Talal Abu Ramah claimed that he had collected the bullets allegedly shot by Israeli soldiers. Then he admited that he actually didn’t. This was after Esther Schapira reminded Talal Abu Ramah of her interview of the Palestinian General in charge of the Al Durah investigation, in which the General said that no bullets had been collected. This caught Talal Abu Ramah in his lie about having collected the bullets. Moreover, the wounds exposed by Jamal Al Dura were not from bullets, but from a Hamas hatchet attack in 1993, for which he was treated in an Israeli hospital by Dr. Yehuda David.

In November 2002, the Franco-Israeli press agency MENA produced a twenty-minute-long documentary entitled “Al-Dura – The Investigation.” Based on comments by Nahum Shahaf, a physicist who participated in General Samia’s investigation, MENA’s documentary questioned the authenticity of the scenes filmed by France 2’s cameraman.

In January 2003, French journalist Gérard Huber published a book infering that the death of Mohamed Al Dura was fictitious.

On October 22, 2004, French journalists Luc Rosenzweig (former chief editor of Le Monde ), Denis Jeambar (L’Express ) and Daniel Leconte (Arte ), were invited by France 2 to view the rushes. To their surprise, of the 27 minutes of Talal Abu Rahma’s rushes, more than 23 minutes of the scenes consisted of young Palestinians faking war scenes, and had nothing to do with the images broadcast by France 2. Luc Rosenzweig testified in court that “the theory that the scene [of the child’s death] was faked was more probable than the version presented by France 2.”

On November 26, 2004, media analyst Philippe Karsenty sent out a press realease claiming that “Charles Enderlin, did, indeed, broadcast a false report on September 30, 2000.”

On January 25, 2005, Daniel Lecomte and Denis Jeambar published an op-ed in Le Figaro corroborating Rosenzweig’s court testimony. Lecomte and Jeambard related that on at least two occasions Charles Enderlin claimed that he “edited out the child’s agony. It was unbearable… It would not have added anything.” After having seen the rushes, Lecomte and Jembar concluded that “this famous ‘agony’ that Enderlin claims to have edited out of the film does not exist.” They also noted that “in the minutes preceding the shooting, the Palestinians seem to have organized a staged ‘play’ war with the Israelis and simulate, in most of the cases, imaginary wounds” and that viewing the entire set of rushes shows that at the moment Charles Enderlin declared the child dead “nothing allows him to suggest that he really is dead and even less so that he was killed by Israeli soldiers.”

Enderlin responded to Lecomte and Jeambard in Le Figaro on January 27, 2005. Enderlin wrote that “the image corresponded to the reality of the situation, not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank.” But Enderlin also admitted that his commentary did not always fit with the images. This is also the opinion submitted by media expert Daniel Dayan (from the prestigious CNRS institute) to the French court.

On November 14, 2007, France 2 submitted to the Court d’Appel de Paris eighteen minutes of the raw footage that Talal Abu Rahmah had shot on September 30, 2000. The footage included the final segment of the alleged shooting of Muhammad Al Durah and of his father Jamal. In fact, France 2 had cut the footage and removed many scenes. There were only 65 seconds showing shooting, despite the fact that Talal Abu Ramah had pledged under oath that he had shot 27 minutes of the “45 minutes ordeal under Israeli fire” and that he had sent 6 minutes of it to Enderlin.

If the Israelis were shooting for 45 minutes in an angle, how come the last picture of the scence only shows a couple of holes in the wall behind the Al Durahs? The shape of these holes clearly indicates that the shooting could not have come from the Israeli position. And how come the bodies of the Al Durahs are intact, with no visible blood stain, after 45 minutes of shooting allegedly directed at them? Talal Abu Ramah has claimed that Mohamed Al Durah was bleeding for 15 or 20 minutes from a stomach wound. However, the images do not show any blood on the ground. How come Talal Abu Ramah did not shoot even a few seconds of the boy bleeding on the ground?

Recently, German journalist Esther Shapira released her second documentary on the Al Dura Affair. In it, Schapira interviews one of the doctors at Shiffa Hospital who claims to have treated Mohamed Al Durah, and who shows pictures of the boy. However, a facial recognition expert claims in the documentary that the boy filmed by Talal Abu Ramah is not the one declared dead under the name “Mohamed Al Dura” at the hospital.

Despite the serious doubts that surround France 2’s images, the Al Durah episode has had devastating consequences. It triggered an unprecedented wave of violence against Israel and Jews around the world. Israeli Arabs began rioting. Violence in Gaza and the West Bank became more widespread and deadly, often accompanied by cries of “revenge for the blood of Mohamed Al Durah!” Al Durah became an icon of the second Intifada. Al-Jazeera ran repeatedly the clip of the boy being shot, and for several days the picture of his death became the network’s emblem. These images had a galvanizing effect in the Arab world. Mohammed Al Dura became an icon for the Arab and Muslim world; the picture of the helpless boy hiding behind his father appears on stamps, on street murals, and even on fashion clothing. Streets were named after Mohamed Al Dura in Iran, Iraq, and Morocco. Egypt re-named the street in front of the Israeli Embassy in Cairo “Muhammad Al Durra Street.” Iraq named a main thoroughfare in Baghdad “Martyr Mohammed Al Dura Street.” The Iranian Ministry of Education set up a website commemorating Al Dura.

When Charles Enderlin claimed that Mohamed Al Durah and his father were the target of fire coming from the Israeli position, he had a major impact on global Jihad. According to the Sharia, Muslims may not kill the women and children of their enemies, unless those enemies kill Muslim civilians. When Osama bin Laden made a recruiting video before 9-11, he had a special section on Muhamed Al Durah, explaining that when “the Israelis” murdered the boy, they killed every Muslim child in the world. Daniel Pearl was beheaded with a picture of Mohamed al Durah behind him and scenes of Al Durah spliced into the slitting of his throat.

So, no, the world has not forgotten about Mohamed Al Durah, and Israel was wrong all the way to try and ignore the issue, hoping it would evaporate. Indeed, Enderlin’s ultimate defense and punching line to that day is that the very fact that Israel did not sue him or investigate his report it the proof that he did nothing wrong.

Good luck to the Iranians in their struggle for freedom against an oppressive regime. Good luck to the Jews in their struggle for survival against global Jihad. And good luck to Charles Enderlin in the world-to-come.

Trauma: the unreported casualty of war

http://therapytoday.net/article/show/449/

In January, during the Israeli military incursion into Gaza which followed continuous shelling of Sderot and the Western Negev from Gaza, a BBC correspondent stood on a lookout point where she could see both Sderot and Gaza, and reported that more than 1,000 people had been killed in Gaza, while 13 people had been killed in Sderot and the Western Negev. ‘The numbers speak for themselves,’ she said.

If this were a sporting event tabulating the number of fatalities on each side, the BBC reporter would have a point. However, while newscasts from southern Israel do report the torrent of missiles from Gaza, these soundbites are often followed by a laconic news announcement of ‘No damage and injuries’, suggesting that there is no news story of any human interest for the public to be concerned about.

Nothing to be concerned about? In a story that has repeated itself hundreds of times, a shaken Sderot woman who had witnessed a missile explode in her yard and miss her home and family by a few metres, stared with disbelief at a reporter who congratulated her that she had suffered ‘No damage and injuries’. Looking at the reporter, with her whole body quivering uncontrollably, she said to her that ‘It’s easier to photograph blood than to photograph the soul’.

Indeed, in a world of fast-moving images on the screen and even on the net, it is nearly impossible to portray this woman’s psychological situation. The sight of blood is easier to report than an entire population living in fear and helplessness, with no ordinary life. Shrapnel injures the body; the body receives treatments and heals. The mental issue is more complicated to relate.

Indeed, the attacks from Gaza on southern Israel are not necessarily waged to inflict fatalities. These attacks, described in military jargon as ‘low intensity conflict’, destabilise the other side, and instil fear into the daily lives of the people. So when a siren goes off to warn of an incoming missile, an entire population knows that it has 15 seconds to scamper for shelter. Israel’s southern region has endured more than 12,000 mortar, Kassam and Grad missile attacks over a period of eight years. That means that on 12,000 occasions, an entire population has run for cover.

Post-traumatic effects

In a recent study conducted by Natal (Israel Trauma Center for Victims of Terror and War), researchers discovered that close to 56 per cent of Sderot residents have suffered in some way from Palestinian rocket attacks. According to a report presented by Natal Community Staff Director, Dr Roni Berger in Beersheva on November 24, nearly half of Sderot’s population has been either physically or emotionally damaged by Palestinian rocket fire. Over 4,000 Sderot residents now suffer from symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), while one third of Sderot teenagers aged 13 to 18, have been diagnosed with trauma-related learning disorders.

As readers of this journal will know, PTSD is a severe and ongoing reaction to a terrifying ordeal that involves physical harm or the threat of physical harm to the person, according to The National Institute for Mental Health. People who develop PTSD may have witnessed a loved one who was harmed in a traumatic event or were victims themselves. Symptoms of PTSD usually begin three months after the ordeal but can also emerge years afterwards. Some people can recover within six months while others have symptoms that last for much longer. For some people, the condition becomes chronic. ‘The initial symptoms of shock include an accelerated heart rate, dry mouth, limbs falling asleep, a sense of fainting, or seeming paralysed or emotionally detached,’ says Professor Gabi Schreiber, Chief of Psychiatry at Ashkelon’s Barzilai hospital.

Dr Adrianna Katz, head of the Sderot Mental Health Center, says that the shock impacts the victim’s ability to function for months after experiencing a Palestinian rocket explosion. ‘Many rocket terror victims suffer from depression, sleepless nights, severe anxiety, and have trouble going back to a regular routine,’ she says. The Natal study showed that almost 50 per cent of Sderot residents know someone who has been killed in a Palestinian rocket attack, while 65 per cent personally know someone wounded in an attack. Over 90 per cent of Sderot residents have experienced a Palestinian Kassam explosion at some point – whether it be in a neighbourhood, home, school, business or other residential setting.

Dr Mina Zemach and the Dahaf Polling Institute conducted the research in order to compare Sderot to other communities who live outside of Palestinian missile range. Sderot residents made up the test group, while residents of Ofakim, a town of similar socio-economic make-up to Sderot but not under rocket attack, served as the control group. The study revealed that three times as many Sderot residents had gone to a spiritual counsellor (such as a rabbi), and a family doctor than did Ofakim residents.

Dr Berger explains that there were several reasons why Sderot residents suffered from higher degrees of trauma than residents of other Israeli communities within rocket range. ‘The fortifications in Sderot are poorer, and the population is weaker as well. The social unity is smaller. It’s a population who felt, and still feels, abandoned,’ he says. In addition, 45 per cent of the shells fired from the Gaza Strip target Sderot according to IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) intelligence.

Although adults in Sderot showed significantly higher levels of trauma and stress in the study than adults living in other Gaza vicinity communities, children of Gaza vicinity communities did not fare so differently from Sderot children. Close to 75 per cent of children aged 12 to 14 living in Gaza vicinity communities, suffer from symptoms of PTSD compared to 86.6 per cent of Sderot children. ‘Only a minority of those suffering from PTSD actually seek help,’ Dr Berger says.

The Impact of Palestinian rocket terror on Israeli children

Periodically schools in Sderot and the Western Negev have been forced to close during periods of intensive rocket attacks. According to research done by Sderot’s Resilience Center, a treatment centre that offers support and counselling to Sderot residents during times of emergency, there is a major problem manifesting itself in young Sderot children.

Clinical psychologists working at the centre discovered that many Sderot children are not developing speaking skills at a rate appropriate to their age. A normal child learns to speak around the age of one. But many children in Sderot have not begun to speak by the age of three or even four. Those who are capable of speaking, stutter and cannot complete words. Dr Dalia Yosef, Director of the Sderot Resilience Center, explains that the constant rocket fire upon Sderot has created a state of stress and panic that has dramatically impacted the development of young Sderot children. Dr Yosef and the clinical psychologists who work with her, counsel Sderot children from the ages of one to 18, offering treatment for a wide variety of issues.

‘It is important to note,’ says Dr Yosef, ‘that these Sderot children have been born into a reality of constant rocket fire. The world, as it appears to them, is unsafe and scary, full of insecurity and chaos. Their sense of security has been shattered by the continuous attacks. These children develop symptoms of PTSD early on, suffering from sleeping disorders, nightmares and anxiety attacks. Many experience regression, going back to wetting their beds.’

Those children whose parents suffer from signs of PTSD have even more complicated issues. According to Dr Yosef, children of parents diagnosed with PTSD sense that their parents cannot protect them. ‘These kids’ problems are even more severe than kids whose parents are more psychologically stable,’ says Dr Yosef, who explains that a young child hears the rapid breathing of his parent, when the Tzeva Adom (the early warning radar system) sounds and understands that his parent is frightened. ‘Once the child understands this, then he perceives that the world is unsafe and that his parent is unable to properly protect him,’ she adds. ‘The parent feels threatened and so does the child. Later on, this feeling of insecurity and stress affects the child in areas like speech, hindering normal speech development.’

Younger children go back to the bottle, to the pacifier, and have extreme difficulty separating from the parents. ‘Kids are scared to go to the bathroom or to the shower by themselves, because of the fear of a rocket strike,’ says Dr Yosef. ‘The situation has created unhealthy relationships within the family unit.’ Children as old as 12 sleep with their parents. ‘Even during ceasefire days where missiles don’t fall on Sderot, the trauma and stress continue because people continue to anticipate rocket attacks. Only a permanent long-term quiet will help these children and their parents recover,’ says Dr Yosef. ‘The moment there is a siren alert and a rocket explosion, all the progress we have made in the treatment is destroyed.’

Livnat Shaubi, a lifelong resident of Sderot and the oldest in a family of 11 children, relates how she spent an entire day with her younger siblings, helping them find ways to cope with the school closures during the heavy shellings on southern Israel. After spending four days at home, exhausting Lego, board games, and playing balls, the Shaubi boys – Hananel, David and Yehuda, ages 5, 7 and 11, respectively – created Kassam rockets from plastic bottles they found lying in the house. ‘Like other Sderot kids, my mom cannot allow my younger siblings to play outside during these periods of rocket attacks,’ Shaubi says. ‘We stay inside in the bomb shelter, but my brothers are desperate for things to do.’ Shaubi says that the first words her five year-old brother Hananel learned to say, along with Daddy and Mommy, were ‘Tzeva Adom’.

Mental Health Centre overwhelmed

Even when the fire from Gaza significantly decreases, Sderot and Western Negev residents still reel from the impact of the war. The Director of the Sderot Mental Health Center, Dr Adrianna Katz, told Sderot Media Center how area residents are streaming into her clinic, seeking therapy for developing ‘post-war’ trauma symptoms.

‘Many new Sderot patients are coming in for help, even though they have lived with the rocket terror for eight years now,’ says Dr Katz. ‘PTSD symptoms among area residents emerge during periods of “quiet” like now. Many seeking therapy had tried unsuccessfully on their own to suppress these symptoms of trauma during the past rocket escalations.’

Many more do not seek help. People with PTSD often avoid stimuli associated with their trauma. In Sderot, it is often impossible for residents to escape the reality that has brought on the trauma symptoms because of the fragile quiet. Dr Katz explains that recovering patients who hear the Tzeva Adom siren just once – the alarm that sends civilians fleeing to shelters – will go back to experiencing PTSD symptoms.

‘During the war, my staff discovered a new type of anxiety that developed among Sderot residents, which we termed “optimistic anxiety”,’ says Dr Katz. ‘Although residents were fearful of the rocket fire, they also experienced for the first time in years a sense of optimism that the operation would completely end the rocket terror. However, Sderot residents do not believe that the operation brought about a complete nor lasting change as it was finished halfway. In fact, because the rocket attacks have spread as far as Netivot, Ashdod, and Be’er Sheba, Sderot residents feel even less secure. Many families left Sderot during the war and travelled to nearby cities which they believed were safe from rocket attacks, only to find out they were not. This fact, which was revealed during the war, has spurred further anxiety among patients.’

Over 5, 500 patient files have been opened in the Sderot Mental Health Center, which has a staff of four counsellors, since Palestinian rocket fire on the city began in 2002. Out of those files, 2,500 are active, with many patients seeking treatment for the long-term, says Dr Katz. She does not have an exact number on how many new patients have come in for treatment since the war.

Dr Katz believes that there are many more PTSD victims in Sderot who are not seeking help. Most residents who do come to Dr Katz are referred by a doctor or medical expert, while a few arrive of their own initiative. She offers a small smile when I ask her if she has any hope for a lasting peace in the region. ‘Not at this moment,’ she says, as she gets ready to greet her next patient.

‘Optimistic anxiety’

During the heaviest fighting of the Gaza war in January, when Israel’s southern region absorbed as many as 50 attacks a day, Dr Katz noted that patients coming for treatment for shock were actually less anxious and traumatised than at other times. ‘For the first time, the residents felt that someone cares about them and provides them with the protection they’ve been expecting for eight years.’ Dr Katz calls this ‘optimistic anxiety’, and explains that when the Israeli army responds to the ongoing missile fire, the residents have hope that they will see a light at the end of the tunnel, and a qualitative change in their life.

As this story went to press, the Sderot Mental Health Center collapsed under the financial strain of not being able to service almost 5,000 outpatients who suffer the effects of sustained shelling of their community. The future of this vital community service remains unclear. Updates on the situation in Sderot are available at www.SderotMedia.com .

To read a critique by Irwin J Mansdorf PhD of the article ‘Palestine: to resist is to exist’ by Martin Kemp and Eliana Pinto (published in the March 2009 issue of Therapy Today), see www.therapytoday.net

* David Bedein MSW is a community organisation mental health practitioner who directs The Center for Near East Policy Research in Jerusalem, Israel. He also advises the Sderot Information Center for The Western Negev in Sderot, Israel. With thanks to Noam Bedein and Anav Silverman from Sderot Media Center for assisting with the research for this article.

The potency of a right:

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1095809.html

One can continue waging the argument with the United States over settlements
by citing mathematical figures, numbers and formulas on natural growth or
natural development, and perhaps doing so is the correct thing, but whoever
believes that settling the territories of Judea and Samaria is the
actualization of a natural right and historical justice cannot be content
with simply stating these figures.

Perhaps one can continue to bombard George Mitchell with numbers; to inform
him that the settlers constitute 17 percent of the residents of Judea and
Samaria (300,000 out of a total population of 1.8 million people); that the
built-up areas in the settlements occupy just 1.7 percent of the land area
of Judea and Samaria; and that if the settlers continue to build solely at
the rate of their natural growth (9,000 births per year), they will only
need a small fraction of the area to do so (0.054 percent of the territory).

Perhaps it’s possible to persuade Mitchell and his boss, President Barack
Obama, that over the next decade the settlers will consume just one-half of
one percent for construction purposes in an area already delineated as
“their municipal boundaries.” But this math is just a minor argument between
merchants. One might expect more national pride and a clearer, more lucid
statement from a government that believes Judea and Samaria are inseparable
parts of the historic homeland, and at the very least sees the “settlement
blocs” as an inseparable part of the State of Israel in any final status
accord. Perhaps a statement in the spirit of Simon Maccabaeus, who said: “We
have neither taken other men’s land, neither do we hold that which is other
men’s: but the inheritance of our fathers, which was for some time unjustly
possessed by our enemies.”

Our friends in the United States, both real and imagined, need to hear from
us that the historic, religious, legal and sentimental links that bind the
people of Israel with Hebron and Beit El are no less legitimate than those
of the Palestinians; that we are not occupiers in our own country and that
there are Jews for whom this land is holy, just as it is holy to
Palestinians – Jews whose connection to these pieces of land are bound by
love, the Bible, tradition, nature and beauty.

Many years ago, a member of the British House of Lords asked Chaim Weizmann
why the Jews insist on settling in the Land of Israel when there are so many
undeveloped countries that could serve as a national home. Weizmann
responded with a question: Why do you drive 200 kilometers every Sunday to
visit your mother when there are so many old ladies living on your street?

This elementary truth in relation to all parts of the Land of Israel has not
changed. From a moral standpoint, there is no difference between settling
the Land of Israel at the beginning of the last century in areas where Arabs
lived and settling the Land of Israel at the beginning of this century in
areas where Arabs reside; no difference between settling the Galilee, the
Negev and Petah Tikva – which Moshe Smilansky described generations ago as
“a small Hebrew community among large Arab villages to the east, north and
south” – and settling Judea and Samaria.

The real argument is about possible borders; it is certainly not about
rights. This right must once again be raised with our friends in Washington,
even if there are those, particularly in Israel, who will chafe at this
claim because it is not within the realm of realpolitik.

This right, it should also be remembered, is not based on security concerns.
Theoretically, a Jewish state could have arisen anywhere in the world, and
perhaps we would have attained security elsewhere. In practice, the Jewish
state was established specifically in the Land of Israel as a national home
and a country of refuge on the strength of this right and the historic,
national collective memory – a state that succeeded in gathering Jews from
exile.

Whoever makes do with number-crunching and the petty settling of scores will
sooner or later find himself in a battle over Jerusalem and a more truncated
Israel, with which the Arabs of Israel and the entire region have yet to
reconcile, to this day, as the state of the Jewish people.

Thus far, the preoccupation with numbers has not yielded benefits, and
perhaps this is a positive development. Obama’s U.S., which is not prepared
to accept the minimum – construction to accommodate natural growth in
settlements – is forcing the government of Israel to look in the mirror and
to remember the strength of the right.

Unanswered Question to JTA: Will JTA portray situation of 550.000 Jews affected by the American gov’t demand to freeze construction?

Following President Obama’s demand that Israel cease construction in any Jewish comunity beryond the 1949 cease fire lines, the JTA has
launched a series of articles on the people affected by this draconian demand
.
JTA began its series by producing tendentious pieces where JTA interviewed a group of “hilltop” people in an isloated area of Northern Samaria.
Included in the pieces were interviews with groups that lobby Israel and the American government to eradicate Jewish communities and to hand their property over to Arab terror groups.
JTA attributes credibility to the groups whid demand that Israel destroy Jewish communities in the name of peace, despite the precedent of Summer 2005, when 25 thriving Jewish comunities were bulldozed and their properties were handed over to terrorist organizations.
As a result, the lands of evicted Gush Katif communities are now used as launching pads and training bases for terrorist groups.
Since the US government now demands that Israel freeze Jewish communities in all of Judea, Samaria, the Old City of Jerusalem and 12 other neighborhoods in Jerusalem, the question remains:
Will JTA will interview a wide range of the 550,000 Jewish residents of Jewsh communities where the USA challenges Israel’s sovereignty?
Or will JTA act as an unwitting tool of current American goverment policy, and demonize Jewish communities beyond the “green line”?

Israel Government Television Channel Two features mother of Palestinian murderer without mentioning crime

Israel Television Channel Two’s evening news broadcast an item by their
correspondent Suleiman al-Shafi reporting on a Palestinian mother who baked
a cake in Gaza in the hope that her son, who is serving multiple life
sentences, might be released soon. She also baked a cake for the photo op
for Gilad Shalit with the message that both sides have “sons” in captivity.

Following the consistent reporting approach of Suleiman al-Shafi and Israel
Television Channel Two, the report declined to mention what the Palestinian’s
“son” did to land him in an Israeli prison serving multiple life sentences.

It should be noted that Israel does not sentence Palestinians to multiple
life sentences for:

Jay walking.

Rock throwing.

Or even trying to murder many Israelis (under the “if you don’t succeed the
first time try, try, again, approach, the sentences for attempted murder are
only a few years in length).

But apparently the folks at Israel Television Channel Two apparently feel
that news items that feature the relatives of Palestinian terrorist
murderers would not have the desired impact if details of their crimes were
mentioned in the reports.

American Jews fund anti-Israel organizations

A U.S. organization has been receiving money from perhaps unsuspecting Jewish donors to support blatantly anti-Israel groups.

American Jews wishing to donate money to Israeli causes routinely utilize local city Jewish federations as a middleman. Hundreds of millions of dollars per year are sent to Jewish federations across the country with the expectation contributions will be used to aid worthy causes in Israel.

Many U.S. Jewish federations as well as individual Jewish donors give to the New Israel Fund, or NIF, a Washington, D.C.-based foundation dedicated to fostering social change and progressive causes in Israel.

The NIF budget comes from a combination of donors. These include the Ford Foundation, grant organizations such as the Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Foundation and the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies, as well as various Jewish communal federations such as the Jewish Federation in New York, the Durham-Chapel Hill Federation and the Jewish Federation of Grand Rapids.

However, while many of the programs run by the NIF are considered laudable in the pro-Israel community, such as work the group does with economically disadvantaged Ethiopian immigrants, the flagship grantees of the NIF are Israeli-Arab nongovernmental organizations that openly and unabashedly dedicate themselves to removing the Jewish character of the state of Israel.

The NIF disperses hundreds of thousands of dollars for the core budgets of such groups as Adalah: The Legal Center for Minority Arab Rights in Israel, Mossawa: The advocacy center for Arab citizens in Israel and I’lam media center for Arab Palestinians in Israel.

Supporting Iran’s nukes

I’lam was founded in the wake of the Palestinian intifada, or terrorist war, initiated in September 2000 after then-PLO Leader Yasser Arafat turned down an Israeli offer of a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern Jerusalem.

The first director of I’lam was Hanin Zoabi, recently elected as a member of the Israeli Arab Balad Party in the Knesset. Zoabi’s party spawned Azmi Bishara, the Israeli Arab Knesset member who fled Israel after he was threatened with prosecution for allegedly aiding the Hezbollah terrorist organization. Balad officials routinely condemn Israel and at times openly present themselves as representing the state of “Palestine.”

In April, in Zoabi’s maiden interview to the Jerusalem Post as a Knesset member, she declared her open support for Iranian nuclear weapons as a counterbalance to Israel.

Zoabi, in her capacity as the director of I’lam, helped draft and sign the Haifa Declaration, which called for the negation of Israel’s Jewish identity and for a “comprehensive change in Israeli policy, whereby Israel abandons its destructive role towards the peoples of the region….”

In March, I’lam’s so-called empowerment coordinator, Zaher Boulos, issued a “cry of solidarity with the Palestinian people who hold strong to the establishment of a Palestinian state that is independent with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of the refugees to their homes” at the annual conference of the Forum of Journalists, an I’lam affiliate of which he is also coordinator.

The conference expressed “support for the Palestinian people in their struggle for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of refugees.”

Also in March, I’lam issued a press release stating Israel cannot “liquidate the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Arab culture and will be the future capital of a Palestinian state, and tomorrow will be the focal point of the Arab and Islamic world and the progressive forces in the world.”

The terminology in I’lam’s media publications resounds with terms such as “massacre” and “ethnic cleansing,” as well as accusations of war crimes and the targeted murder of journalists.

Last year, the NIF-funded organization held a conference in Ramallah with journalists from the Palestinian Authority which “aimed to develop and facilitate working relationships between Palestinians journalists in Israel and in the West Bank, and to discuss the role of the Palestinian media on both sides of the Green Line” as well as “exploring strategies for Palestinian media practitioners in addressing Israeli, European and U.S.-American media.”

I’lam’s official statements are representative of the rhetoric employed by some of the NIF’s grantees.

I’lam posted on its website a statement declaring, “The (Israeli) soldiers are the grandchildren of the Nazis’ victims, the Nazis’ survivors. They have come here to consume food quickly and consume life quickly. This is the true image of Israel.”

The statement was made in the context of accusing Israeli soldiers of a “massacre” against Palestinian civilians.

The connection of I’lam to the PA is reflected by its current staff.

Sanaa Hammoud, the current director of I’lam, was a senior official of the PA’s Negotiations Support Unit in Ramallah and served in Jerusalem as a senior communications adviser for the Palestinian leadership.

Wadea Awawdy, who served on the founding board of directors of I’lam, worked as a correspondent for the official PA publication Al-Ayyam, which routinely prints anti-Israel propaganda.

I’lam’s international relations coordinator, Nasser Victor Rego, has issued numerous statements of support for Hamas, terming the Islamist group “The Palestinian resistance,” while providing a link on his blog to the website of Hamas’ armed wing, the Essedeen Al-Qassam Brigades.

Nasser also has called on the international community to boycott Israel.

Rego would not return calls to comment on the issue.

In addition to receiving funds from the NIF, I’lam is also a grantee of Al-Quds: Capital of Arab Culture, which works under the auspices of both the PA and the Arab League.

Among other charges laid against Israel in materials distributed by I’lam are allegations that the Hebrew media contains, “Encouragement for killing and destruction.”

Other anti-Israel groups

Also supported by the NIF is Adalah, which defines itself as a non-partisan human rights organization. However, its agenda differs significantly from its self-definition.

Jerusalem-based researcher Arlene Kushner, in her study of Adalah published by the Center for Near East Policy Research entitled “Inside Adalah,” finds that “in various venues – including the Durban U.N. conference on racism – Adalah has charged or participating in charging Israel with grave breeches of international humanitarian law, war crimes, willful killing, racism, apartheid [and] ethnic cleansing.”

Adalah takes the position that the Israeli government is a “junta which proves each day that it is the most fascist and racist in history.”

In 2007, Adalah proposed a constitution for Israel in which immigration of Jews would be banned except for “humanitarian reasons.” With its demand for the right of return for so-called Palestinian refugees, Adalah sees Israel’s future as one with an Arab majority, which would create another predominantly Arab-Muslim state.

Another group funded by the NIF is Mossawa. Last month, Mossawa and fellow NIF grantee Coalition of Women for Peace wrote to the Norwegian government and asked “the Norwegian people to join us in our efforts and to stop investing in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.”

Naomi Paiss, director of communications for the NIF, declined to comment for this report.

Obama’s Odd Response to Iran

Once, a generation ago, we citizens of the “free world” as we were known then, thought ourselves as conducting our lives under an umbrella. The umbrella had a name that inspired awe and respect, actually less respect and more awe: “the White House.”

And in this context, a personal memory comes up: when it was learned that president Nixon was about to resign over the Watergate affair, I was wandering the White House lawn. I immediately felt chills: who will protect us, the citizens of the free world, with the Soviet Union waiting for a crack to appear, for any sign of weakness, from its only rival, the United States?

Luckily for the citizens of the free world, the US constitution ensured that the vacuum created as a result of this unusual step, the president’s resignation, be filled. And no nuclear missiles were launched. However, then as now, all eyes are turned to Washington in light of the revelation of the deep undercurrents in Iranian society, and we can already ask: where are you President Obama?

The free world waited for the president’s words, and he, even in the more assertive statements he made on Sunday about events in Iran, is still projecting silence. A lengthy silence. And the world is watching: an enormous public of Iranian citizens rebels against the supreme ruler, Khamenei, and despite warnings of clashes with the guards of the regime, the public launched an insurrection. And the United States? It is missing the historic moment. True, Obama warned the Iranian government and asked to put an end to the acts of violence and the illegal steps taken against the citizens. But his statement was only made after pressure on him from home mounted, from the political arena.

This silence, incidentally, was explained by his not wanting to meddle in Iran’s domestic affairs. Excuse me? Since when does the US, the superpower, refrain from meddling in the domestic affairs of foreign countries? In the past it meddled in Iran a great deal. And there is no lack of other examples of blatant meddling, not just rhetorical, by American administrations. Ask, for example, historians of South America. Peek, if you can, into the archives of the CIA. But in the affair of the uprising in Iran, Obama suddenly forgot his art of rhetoric that won him applause after the “Cairo speech.”

Where is Obama’s “Iran speech” on the uprising? Obama spoke out only after both houses of Congress adopted sharp statements condemning the Iranian regime’s actions.

His limp statements are only the natural continuation of a policy that he wishes to pursue and which he declared back during his race for the presidency: the policy of dialogue with the regime of President Ahmadinejad. But this policy is collapsing even before it began to be implemented and before any quid pro quo was received from Iran regarding its nuclear program. It is unlikely to be revived. After all, even if Ahmadinejad survives, how will Obama be able to justify dialogue with a regime that in the eyes of many Iranians, and not just them, has completely lost its legitimacy? A number of the president’s predecessors in the White House were able to rise to the occasion at similar moments to the one we are experiencing at this time and hurled the truth at the regimes of evil.

To the explanation that blatant presidential meddling, even rhetoric, will “play into the hands” of the regime in Iran, it can be replied that the person who called the US the “great Satan” should not resent an ideological response. This is how presidents Truman, Reagan and others acted.

We can only hope that when the mighty storm in Iran dies down, the lesson will have been learned in Washington: one does not act with obsequiousness and flattery toward a regime of evil.

Conciliation, we have learned, has a shameful past.

Iran: Too close for Comfort for Southern Israel

While the world follows Iran developments from the grandstands of YouTube, the people of southern Israel have had front row seats for some time now.

When Iran’s protege, Hamas, staged a coup in Gaza that placed 1.4 million Palestinians under ‘Hamastan’ military rule, no one thought of how southern Israelis would be affected.

Located less than one mile away from Sderot, Gaza’s dramatic developments would come to affect everyone in the region. Before Israel disengaged the Jewish communities from Gaza in August 2005, the Palestinian Authority had promised vast properties of some of th ese communities to Hamas.

Four months later, in January 2006, Hamas won a stunning victory in the Palestinian Authority legislative elections, which resulted in the Mecca Accord of March 2007, which obligated the PA to share all foreign assistance with the Hamas organization. All this placed Hamas in a strategic position from where it could launch attacks on Israel, even before the Hamas military coup. Iranian Hamas terror tactics have dominated the lives of the people of Sderot.

A town battered by sustained attacks for eight years, Sderot has become the only city to remain under continuous siege in the 21st century. In 2008 alone, the Hamas-control led Gaza regime fired over 3,300 rockets, mortars and Grads towards the Western Negev and southern Israel, 50 percent more than the previous year.

Five months after Operation Cast Lead, Hamas has fired over 215 rockets during the Hamas-Israel ‘ceasefire.’ Is anyone even keeping track of the number of failed ceasefires that Israel has held with Hamas in the past two years? For Sderot residents, the knowledge that this has been Israel’s third failed ceasefire with Hamas is not surprising.

In a June 17 appearance at the Knesset, Israel Security Agency director Yuval Diskin warned that “Hamas is continuing to increase its strength, manufacture longer-range rockets and smuggle rockets of a far sup erior quality,”. In that light,every citizen of southern Israel knows that a massive escalation is around the corner, which will force more than one million Israelis in southern Israel into the seeming safety of protected rooms and bomb shelters.

Shoshana Swissa, a kindergarten teacher in Sderot recently told Sderot Media Center that ”Even today, in these relatively quiet days in Sderot, every single morning we exercise a drill for the 3-year-old children in our kindergarten. The staff teaches them how to run in 15 seconds towards the safe room when the Color Red alert siren sounds. ”

Turning the Gaza Strip into an Iranian military buffer zone

During Israel’s second ‘ceasefire’ with Hamas, between June 2008- December 2008, Hamas did not waste any time building up its military capabilities. Israeli intelligence sources confirm that Hamas dug between 400 and 600 smuggling tunnels that connected Sinai and Gaza in order to “import” guns, missiles, explosives, money,and terrorists, along with oil, fuel, metal, cloths, electronics and even a lion for Gazan’s zoo – earning the Hamas regime between 30-50 million dollars a month from the digging of the tunnels and the goods smuggled through. The Iranian influence and involvement with the Gaza Strip peaked during the summer of 2008, when hundreds of Iranian missiles were smuggled in, to be fired massively only a few months later at southern Israelduring Israel’s last military operation in Gaza. Meanwhile, the Hamas regime trained tens of thousands of children and woman in=2 0Gaza during summer 2008, in anticipation of an Israeli counterattack to the Hamas reign of missiles. Humanizing

Hamas, Inviting Iran

Hamas today has become more respected and even acceptable as a resistance organization among political sectors worldwide, with the most recent acceptance overture made by the former US president Jimmy Carter, who visited Gaza in June. Carter even asked the European Union to take Hamas off the charts as a terrorist organization. It should come as no surprise that a terrorist organization like Hamas, which has killed and wounded thousands of Israeli by suicide bombings and rocket fire, is now accepted as a legitmate governing body. After all, if Iranian President, Ahmedinejad is invited to open a UN Conference on Human Righ ts and is then invited to meet with the Swiss President, anything is possible. In the meantime, Sderot and southern Israel can only gear up for another round of Iranian sponsored rocket terror- from a Gaza launching pad, sometime in the near future.

WHERE ARE THE VOICES OF CONSCIENCE FOR IRAN?

Where is everyone? Where did all the people who demonstrated against Israel’s brutality in Operation Cast Lead, in the Second Lebanon War, in Operation Defensive Shield, or even in The Hague, when we were dragged there unwillingly after daring to build a separation barrier between us and the suicide bombers, disappear to? We see demonstrations here and there, but these are mainly Iranian exiles. Europe, in principle, is peaceful and calm. So is the United States. Here and there a few dozens, here and there a few hundreds. Have they evaporated because it is Tehran and not here?

All the peace-loving and justice-loving Europeans, British professors in search of freedom and equality, the friends filling the newspapers, magazines and various academic journals with various demands for boycotting Israel, defaming Zionism and blaming us and it for all the ills and woes of the world-could it be that they have taken a long summer vacation? Now of all times, when the Basij hooligans have begun to slaughter innocent civilians in the city squares of Tehran? Aren’t they connected to the Internet? Don’t they have YouTube? Has a terrible virus struck down their computer? Have their justice glands been removed in a complicated surgical procedure (to be re-implanted successfully for the next confrontation in Gaza)? How can it be that when a Jew kills a Muslim, the entire world boils, and when extremist Islam slaughters its citizens, whose sole sin is the aspiration to freedom, the world is silent?

Imagine that this were not happening now in Tehran, but rather here. Let’s say in Nablus. Spontaneous demonstrations of Palestinians turning into an ongoing bloodbath. Border Policemen armed with knives, on motorcycles, butchering demonstrators. A young woman downed by a sniper in midday, dying before the cameras. Actually, why imagine? We can just recall what happened with the child Mohammed a-Dura. How the affair (which was very harsh, admittedly) swept the world from one end to another. The fact that a later independent investigative report raised tough questions as to the identity of the weapon from which a-Dura was shot, did not make a difference to anyone. The Zionists were to blame, and that was that.

And where are the world’s leaders? Where is the wondrous rhetorical ability of Barack Obama? Where has his sublime vocabulary gone? Where is the desire, that is supposed to be built into all American presidents, to defend and act on behalf of freedom seekers around the globe? What is this stammering?

A source who is connected to the Iranian and security situation, said yesterday that if Obama had shown on the Iranian matter a quarter of the determination with which he assaulted the settlements in the territories, everything would have looked different. “The demonstrators in Iran are desperate for help,” said the man, who served in very senior positions for many years, “they need to know that they have backing, that there is an entire world that supports them, but instead they see indifference. And this is happening at such a critical stage of this battle for the soul of Iran and the freedom of the Iranian people. It’s sad.”

Or the European Union, for example. The organization that speaks of justice and peace all year round. Why should its leaders not declare clearly that the world wants to see a democratic and free Iran, and support it unreservedly? Could it be that the tongue of too many Europeans is still connected to dark places? The pathetic excuse that such support would give Khamenei and Ahmadinejad an excuse to call the demonstrators “Western agents,” does not hold water. They call them “Western agents” in any case, so what difference does it make?

To think that just six months ago, when Europe was flooded with demonstrations against Israel, leftists and Islamists raised pictures of Nasrallah, the protégé of the ayatollah regime. The fact that this was a benighted regime did not trouble them. This is madness, but it is sinking in and influencing the weary West. If there is a truly free world here, let it appear immediately! And impose sanctions, for example, on those who slaughter the members of their own people. Just as it imposed them on North Korea, or on the military regime in Burma.

It is only a question of will, not of ability.

Apparently, something happens to the global adherence to justice and equality, when it comes to Iran. The oppression is overt and known. The Internet era broadcasts everything live, and it is all for the better. Hooligans acting on behalf of the regime shoot and stab masses of demonstrators, who cry out for freedom.

Is anything more needed? Apparently it is. Because it is to no avail. The West remains indifferent. Obama is polite. Why shouldn’t he be, after all, he aspires to a dialogue with the ayatollahs. And that is very fine and good, the problem is that at this stage there is no dialogue, but there is death and murder on the streets. At this stage, one must forget the rules of etiquette for a moment. The voices being heard from Obama elicit concern that we are actually dealing with a new version of Chamberlain. Being conciliatory is a positive trait, particularly when it follows the clumsy bellicosity of George Bush, but when conciliation becomes blindness, we have a problem.

The courageous voice of Angela Merkel, who issued yesterday a firm statement of support for the Iranian people and its right to freedom, is in the meantime a lone voice in the Western wilderness. It is only a shame that she has not announced an economic boycott, in light of the fact that this is the European country that is most invested in building infrastructure in Iran. She was joined by British Foreign Secretary Miliband. It is little, it is late, it is not enough. Millions of freedom seekers have taken to the streets in Iran, and the West is straddling the fence, one leg here, the other leg there. There is a different Islam. This is already clear today. Even in Iran. There are millions of Muslims who support freedom, human rights, equality for women. These millions loathe Khamenei, Chavez and Nasrallah too. But part of the global left wing prefers the ayatollah regime over them. The main thing is for them to raise flags against
Israel and America.

The question is why the democrats, the liberals, and Obama, Blair and Sarkozy, are continuing to sit on the fence. This is not a fence of separation, it is a fence of shame.

[TRANSLATION COURTESY OF ISRAEL NEWS TODAY]