November 29-- Today in History

Received an email from Jack Cohen that I believe is worthy of sharing with all.

Today, 29th November ("caf-tet november"), is an important date in Jewish history, it is the date when the UN GA voted in 1947 for the partition of Palestine and the establishment for the first time in modern times of a sovereign Jewish State. The Jews of Palestine accepted and celebrated wildly, while the Arabs rejected the partition plan and in a fury attacked the fledgling Jewish entity. The following day six Arab armies invaded Palestine - Egypt, Syria, (Trans)Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia - as well as the Palestinian armed gangs. The vastly outnumbered Jews defeated them all and established the credibility of the Jewish State to everyone's astonishment. Let's not forget that all stood by and waited for the Arabs to massacre the Palestinian Jews, just as they had done a few years before during WWII when the Germans and most Europeans had massacred European Jews. Fortunately, this time the Jews were able to survive and defeat the invading enemies. But, they have not given up and continue trying to this day to destroy Israel, 63 years later!

Coincidentally, on the same day, Wikileaks released the first batch of 250,000 confidential cables from US ambassadors around the world over the last 10 years. It has not proved a disaster for Israel as most expected. On the contrary, it shows Israel as a moderate and peace-seeking country, and shows Iran as a major threat to the stability of the Middle East. The main revelation, although not unsurprising, is that the Saudi King and many other moderate Sunni leaders have been pressuring the US over the past few years more insistently than Israel to take military action agsinst Iran and "cut off the head of the snake." The Arabs feel at least as threatened as Israel by Iran's current regime, for two reasons, first Persia and the Arabs have always been rivals fighting for hegemony of the Persian Gulf region, and second the Sunni States fear the influence of the Shia extremists based in Iran. They specifically fear the influence of Iran on Hamas in Gaza and Hizbollah in Lebanon. It is clear in the WIkileaks documents that no Arab country was prepared to come to the aid of Hamas in Gaza when Israel attacked in Operation Cast Lead in 2006. They were in fact hoping that Israel would totally destroy Hamas, and the Egyptians were not prepared to come forward and help Israel by offering to occupy Gaza. Even the PA Palestinians on the West Bank declined, preferring not to be seen as cooperating with Israel, even though it would have been massively in their interest. They will live to regret that particular piece of stupidity.

But, there is one incredible thing in these leaks that is conspicouous by its absence, at no time do the Sunni Arab States ask the US to help them against the threat from Israel. In effect they don't fear Israel, they don't refer to Israel in anything like the same way that they refer to Iran. Although on the surface Israel is their enemy and they use their Muslim majority in the UN to constantly delegitimize Israel, in truth when they are desperate for military protection it is not against Israel but Iran. For a long time I have argued that it should not be "Palestine first" but rather "Iran first." Many, apparently including Barack Obama, regard the solution of the so-called Palestine problem as the kingpin to settle all other conflicts in the region, when in reality it is the other way around, the Palestine problem can only be settled once Iran is taken care of, once Iran no longer threatens the stability of the whole region with its extremist philosophy, its Holcaust denial, its anti-Semitism and its nuclear weapons program. If anything is revealed in these leaks it is that Iran is the kingpin to resolving peace in the Middle East.

The Other Peace Partner

Much attention has been focused on barriers Israel brings to the peace process; notably whether or not Jewish settlements should continue in East Jerusalem. Not a day goes by without an article discussing US pressure on Israel to resume the peace process.

However, an article that appeared on UPI.com today reported that the Fatah Revolutionary Council concluded its fifth convention in Ramallah over the weekend by declaring its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Strangely this news article did not make the large media outlets.

How is Israel supposed to sit down to discuss peace if it is not recognized? And, how is Israel supposed to discuss peace when media bias is so rampant?

Israel Needs to Correct Dismal Public Relations

The Epoch Times ran a good article by Alon Ben-Meier on November 11, 2010 about the need to improve PR for Israel.

Israel’s public image today is dismal. As Elie Wiesel once joked, “Jews excel in just about every profession except public relations, but this should not surprise us: when God wanted to free the Jews from Egypt he sent Moses, who stuttered.”

However, today Israel’s problem is not that its leaders are stuttering, rather that they are stalling to show leadership toward ending the Arab-Israeli conflict. In doing so, they are sending a message to the international community that Israel does not care what the world thinks, and that it does not want peace after all.

Israel’s public relations problem is not due to a lack of attention.

The entire world is watching Israel closely, but they do not like what they see. In recent weeks the world community has witnessed near daily vandalism by settlers against Palestinian property in the West Bank, the passage of a “loyalty oath” aimed at marginalizing Israel’s minorities, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s obnoxious speech at the United Nations, and the government’s continued refusal to halt settlement construction in order to improve the environment for peace negotiations, despite unprecedented offers from the United States to encourage it do so.

This is not to mention a range of public blunders by the Israeli government in the past year, from Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon’s insult to the Turkish ambassador, to Israel’s harsh blockade of the Gaza Strip—since eased—viewed by the international community as collective punishment of the people of Gaza.

All of this has served to undercut public relations campaigns regarding the very real threats to Israel’s security, its genuine contributions in computer sciences and health care technologies, and its leadership in humanitarian relief efforts in times of crisis, such as in Haiti. As a result, Israel is becoming more and more isolated each day, and is increasingly appearing to be the obstinate party keeping the Middle East peace process from moving forward.

Israelis Resigned

Faced with increasing criticism and delegitimization campaigns, Israelis are becoming resigned to the belief that nothing they do will improve their public image. A recent poll conducted and published in August by Tel Aviv University and the Israel Democracy Institute indicated that 56 percent of Israelis believe that “the whole world is against us.”

Even more Israelis—77 percent of those polled—believe that no matter what Israel may do to try to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians; the world will continue to be critical.

These are disconcerting statistics with significant implications for Israel’s public relations, and more importantly, for its policies. The perception that Israel’s policies and public relations simply do not matter to the world leads Israel to ignore policies, which should be advanced, and to neglect communicating its message when and where it matters most.

But Israel cannot simply complain about the discriminatory treatment it receives and make hardly any effort to explain itself.

The decline of Israel/Turkey relations offers a prime example. In the period between 2005 and 2009, Israel’s efforts to explain to the Turkish public the onslaught of Hamas rocket attacks appeared to be few and far between. As the Turkish public became increasingly critical, Israel dismissed the trend as a sign of the influence of the new Islamic-rooted AK Party in its rise to power, not the result of poor public relations (or policies).

As a result, rather than seeking to mend relations, adapting policies, and improving communications, Israel ignored its longstanding ally, and even worse, insulted it. Instead of using quiet diplomacy to address Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s verbal attacks while focusing on a well-orchestrated public relations campaign to change Turkish public perception, Israel’s deputy Foreign minister summoned the Turkish ambassador to have him seated on a lower chair in front of the press.

Following the flotilla affair, Israel’s failure to explain itself and continue to drag its feet in providing information to the commission appointed by the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, yet again, further damaged its image.

Disunity

Much of the blunders of Israel’s public relations today are derived from the disunity of Israel’s governing coalition. Let’s face it: Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, charged with serving as Israel’s messenger to the world, is a man who 60 percent of Israelis according to a recent Yediot Aharonot (Israel’s late addition newspaper) poll believe is the politician “most responsible for the increased extreme nationalist and racist tendencies” in Israel today.

His speech at the United Nations, which was subsequently rebuked by Prime Minister Netanyahu, exemplified the mixed messages Israel has been sending to the international community, and the division within Israel’s current coalition.

In fact, disunity in the coalition is significantly damaging Israel’s public relations in two important arenas: in New York, where outreach and communications with the American Jewish community is critical, and at the United Nations, where Israel faces an onslaught of criticism and delegitimization on a daily basis.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Lieberman were unable even to agree upon who should serve as consul general in New York or ambassador to the United Nations. Only recently the Israeli Ambassador to Colombia Meron Reuben, who was filling the position of interim ambassador of Israel to the U.N., was finally instated as the permanent U.N. representative.

If Netanyahu and Lieberman could not even agree in a timely manner on the messenger, how can they ever agree on a cohesive, positive message, not to speak of a constructive policy? And without that clear message, Israel’s image is suffering precipitously.

Bad PR at Home

The combination of the Israeli public’s disillusionment that peace efforts will ever improve its global image and the disunity within the government further exacerbates Israel’s historic public relations woes across the globe.

But Israel is also inept at public relations at home. A recent poll showed that Israelis continue to oppose the Arab Peace Initiative. While 56 percent of Israelis polled reject the plan, 57 percent of Palestinians polled support it.

That the majority of Israelis do not recognize the opportunity posed by the Arab Peace Initiative as a historic repudiation of the Arab League’s “three no’s” at the 1967 Khartoum Conference, in which they declared “no to negotiations, no to recognition, no to peace,” is an indictment of the Israeli government.

Instead of marketing the plan as a genuine vehicle for negotiating an end to the conflict, the Israeli government has largely ignored the Arab League’s peace effort, and the public has followed suit. As a result, the global community gets a clear message: the Palestinians-and Arab states-are pursuing peace, while Israel is not.

This failure is more than just one of public relations, but of the Israeli government’s responsibility to pursue and advance all possible efforts to end the conflict and provide Israel with the security it requires.

Changing the Dynamics

Some may argue that Israel’s public relations have in fact, never been better.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is viewed by many Israelis as a master of PR. Israel’s ambassador to the United States, one of the most important positions for presenting Israel’s perspective to its most critical ally, is led by a respected academic and historian, Michael Oren.

But Netanyahu and Oren’s mastery of the English language cannot overcome the black eye to Israel’s image that Foreign Minister Lieberman provides.

And without a government that has a positive message, one that embraces efforts to secure peace and aggressively communicate with its allies in times of agreement and differences, Israel’s image will continue to suffer.

Contrary to the Israeli public’s indifference to global opinion, at a time when Israel is facing a strengthening delegitimization campaign across the globe, Israel’s dismal public relations are dangerous for the prospects of peace and for Israel’s security. In fact, to effectively counter the impact of these campaigns, Israel should send the global community the kind of concerted, positive message, which it is sorely lacking today.

Many across the globe believe that Prime Minster Netanyahu can change the dynamics of the peace process-and Israel’s image-at any moment if he wished.

The world knows that should Netanyahu genuinely wish to achieve a peace agreement, he has Kadima waiting in the wings, ready to enter into a coalition to support him. The fact that he has not done so in itself sends the world a negative message: he does not really want peace. The world sees this and rightly concludes that Netanyahu would rather stick with Lieberman and stall the peace process, than bring Tzipi Livni into the coalition and seek to conclude it with a lasting peace agreement.

Should Netanyahu finally decide to bring Livni in, and make a genuine effort to end the conflict, he could dramatically improve Israel’s image and live up to his reputation as a master of public relations rather than a demagogue.

Alon Ben-Meir (alon@alonben-meir.com; Web: www.alonben-meir.com ) is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

Promotion of Israeli Films is Good for Israel

We need to take action
11/13/10

When organizers decided to focus last year's Toronto International Film Festival on Israeli filmmakers, more than 1,000 prominent actors and filmmakers signed a statement threatening to boycott the event.

The UJA Federation of Greater Toronto and the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles came up with a counter statement supporting the festival. Among its signers: Jerry Seinfeld, Natalie Portman, Sacha Baron Cohen, Lisa Kudrow, Jason Alexander and Lenny Kravitz.

"It was a great lesson and set a template on how to respond because clearly, the other side is running a linked campaign with international funding and global strategy but local implementation," Ted Sokolsky, president of the Toronto federation, recently told JTA.

The Jewish Federations of North America and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs want local communities to be able to spring into action in defense of Israel on a regular basis. That's why they are gearing up to launch a multimillion-dollar joint initiative to combat anti-Israel campaigns.

Locally, the Jewish Community Relations Council also is planning to step up its efforts through an Israel Action Center.

These actions come not a moment too soon. The BDS (boycott, divest and sanction) movement is a sinister campaign designed to erode the very basis of Israel's legitimacy. With the exception of the seemingly unrelenting Iranian effort to build nuclear weapons, this push to undermine the idea that Israel has the right to exist as the Jewish state in the Middle East is its greatest existential threat.

Israel's supporters must quickly do what they can to stem the damage. Not simply by talking about all of Israel's terrific accomplishments or by bashing its enemies, but by confronting boycotters head on, as did the Toronto film festival's supporters.

And, as did the JCRC when it learned in July that a boycott was planned outside the Ulta store in Silver Spring, urging customers not to buy Ahava products, charging they "were illegally produced by settlers ... on stolen land." The JCRC sent out an e-mail alert late on a Friday afternoon, notifying those on its mailing list of the boycott and urging them to buy Ahava. By Monday morning, Ulta's Ahava shelves were bare.

Such efforts can't simply be ad hoc. JCRC, for example, urged its "buycott" just once, despite continued efforts to boycott Ahava. Fighting BDS must be part of a continuing effort to educate the public, both Jews and non-Jews -- particularly civic leaders -- about Israel's legitimacy and proper place in the world.

Whatever the source of action, the message should be clear: Though we may not always agree with all of Israel's policies, we all stand with our brothers and sisters in Israel in defense of the Jewish homeland and its right to exist.

http://washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=29&ArticleID=13739&TM=35516.28

Point - Counter Point in Brattleboro

Letter Box

Posted: 11/12/2010

Don’t vandalize the messenger

Editor of the Reformer:

This is an open letter to the person who scratched the "Free Palestine" bumper sticker off my car with a key:

Dear Vandal, I will attempt to make this simple, as I can tell you are a simple person. I put this bumper sticker on my car as a quick way to remind Americans that their taxes support the abuse, displacement and death of millions of Palestinians, most of whom want to do nothing more than live their lives, educate their children, work at their jobs, worship at their chuches and mosques, tend to their crops, shop in their stores and visit their friends and family. Unfortunately, the billions of U.S. tax dollars that we send to Israel every year deprive the Palestinians of the ability to do these things freely. This makes the Palestinians sad and sometimes angry. If a Palestinian was caught vandalizing an Israeli automobile, as you did mine, most likely he or she would be brought to jail and held, possibly on far more serious charges or no charges at all, and most likely would serve considerable jail time. S/he might even be tortured, as this often happens to Palestinian men, women and children in Israeli jails. Just imagine if you had to go to jail and even endure torture for your silly act!

By removing the simple "Free Palestine" message from my bumper you did not erase the reality of Israel’s occupation. What you did do is help Americans to forget these ugly facts -- as they often do -- thereby making the situation worse. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to explain this to you and others. While it will be easy for me to replace my $1 bumper sticker, in the long run it will be much more difficult for Americans to reconcile their billions of dollars in support of Israel’s heinous (this means very bad) human rights abuses of the Palestinian people.

Kathryn Casa

New York, Nov. 2

A visitor to Brattleboro

P.S. It’s a good thing you left the other bumper sticker, "AIPAC owns your congressman," since that’s a much more complicated story.

http://www.reformer.com/letters/ci_16591256

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Letter Box

Posted: 11/13/2010

A little clarification

Editor of the Reformer:

I agree that Kathryn Casa’s bumper sticker should not have been vandalized. However, her letter discussing U.S. support of Israel left out some relevant information.

Just this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the U.S. has transferred $150 million in new aid to the Palestinian Authority to help close its budget gap. Ms. Clinton said, "This new funding will help the Palestinian Authority pay down its debt, continue to deliver services and security to its people, and keep the progress going. It will support our work together to expand Palestinians’ access to schools, clinics and clean drinking water in both the West Bank and Gaza [Strip]."

These funds bring U.S. direct budget assistance to the Palestinian Authority to $225 million this year. Overall support and investment to the Palestinians is nearly $600 million for the year.

Martin Cohn,

Brattleboro, Nov. 12

http://www.reformer.com/letters/ci_16600930

Would we go to Israel?

JERUSALEM POST

By NABIL SHARAF ELDIN
11/10/2010 23:12

It’s hard for an Arab to find a safe place to visit in the region... except for the state our demagogues continue to call ‘the alleged entity.’

I have been haunted since early boyhood by an infatuation with Bilad al-Sham, or Greater Syria – the territories of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine.

For me, this fascination started with recognizing the voices of singers like Syrian Sabah Fakhry (born 1933) belonging to the al-Sham region.

I conjured up these images and feelings as I was boarding a plane heading for the “land of beauty,” dreaming of soirées in Aleppo, touring Damascus’s old marketplaces and hanging around its cafés.

Such daydreams were flashing through my imagination until the “blessed” plane landed in Syria, when all dreams faded away within half an hour at Damascus Airport.

I was quickly singled out by a security officer, who checked my passport. He reviewed a list, and asked me to stand aside until he had dealt with a “routine problem” that would not take time. Ten minutes later, a grim-faced officer in plainclothes came and told me to follow him. When I asked if I should bring my luggage, he pointed to an office and said it was already there. It was a government office affiliated with a security department whose name was not disclosed to me.

Two or more hours now passed, with me sitting on a very bad seat inside a vault not much bigger than a jail cell. A third officer then presented himself. He hammered me with questions, starting with my “dubious” profession (journalism) and including my favorite brand of cigarettes, Marlboro Red.

I answered with composure and calmness, trying in vain to alleviate the sharp tone he was using. “Your case is under examination,” the officer said disgustedly, adding that he would let me know the result “shortly.”

An hour later, a fourth officer arrived, no less grimfaced than his predecessors. Addressing the would-be “ambassador of the devil,” he told me I was not welcome in Syria. It was “a sovereign decision,” according to him, and he said he was not obliged to give any explanation.

So I had to carry my luggage (which had clearly been subject to a stormy search) back through the airport.

Now, on board a plane heading to Cairo, I recalled all the opinion pieces and TV interviews in which I had been critical of the policies and remarks of some senior Syrian officials. That was the reason for what had happened! My expulsion from Syria took place almost 18 months ago. I preferred at the time to turn a blind eye, as I believed it wasn’t worth making an issue out of it, particularly with a regime ruled by a man who had inherited his power. Yet I cannot help smiling in bitterness whenever I listen to Syrian officials parroting the Ba’ath Party’s famous slogan: “One Arab nation with a timeless message.” I have now become totally aware of what that one nation and timeless message stand for!

I THOUGHT about visiting Beirut and attending a concert by Lebanon’s iconic diva Fayrouz that was scheduled at the Al-Bayal hotel, and actually began to prepare for this once-in-a-lifetime event.

I phoned a Lebanese friend and fellow journalist.

He was terrified by my daring thought, and taken by surprise by my naivete – merely thinking about visiting Lebanon with my record of dire assaults on Hizbullah (I had once dubbed the powerful Shi’ite group a “war contractor” and a proxy for Iran’s regional aspirations).

I was even oblivious to the fact that Hizbullah men are in de facto control of Beirut Airport – another source of amazement for my colleague, who feared for my safety.

Although it was once a part of Egypt, I don’t even feel safe visiting Sudan, due to my verbal attacks on the regime of Omar Bashir, who insists on presiding over a collapsing state.

I am sure that Muammar Gaddafi’s Revolutionary Command Council will not deny me access to Libya.

Yet I am almost as certain I would never come out again, just like many others.

RCC “knights” would not be any more merciful to me than they were to my late Libyan colleague, London- based journalist Daif al-Ghazal, whose body was found off the coast of Benghazi on June 2, 2005, more than two weeks after his disappearance. He had been tortured almost beyond recognition, according to Reporters without Borders.

No one assumes to know what kind of suffering the 32-year was subject to when he was taking his last breaths, the words he uttered when the electric saw was cutting through his fingers or his screams upon being burnt with mineral acids. Nobody knows.

Rather, nobody cared to know about his suffering, and Arab newspapers didn’t highlight Ghazal’s case; the story was covered only by Western papers, rights groups and some websites.

I remember that I published many reports and opinion pieces on the incident, recalling notorious precedents by the Libyan regime. This is not all; I also commented more than once on Gaddafi’s weird, comic remarks, particularly during Arab summit conferences. That’s why I couldn’t risk going even to Salloum, the Egyptian city bordering Libya.

Being one of those in the Middle East who refuses my assigned role as a regime loyalist, I sometimes face charges of seeking normalization with Israel, apostasy from Islam or designation as an American agent.

FAILING TO find a glimpse of hope across the greater Arab world, we must concede that Israel has become the only “safe haven” where one can be sure of his life and dignity. Yes, Israel, the state our demagogues continue to call “the alleged entity.”

Just like the Palestinian Helles family who fled Hamas “jihadists” in Gaza to Israel, I foresee a time when millions of Arabs might stand humbly in front of IDF soldiers, begging for protection.

So, I urge you, dear fellow Arab, to visit Israel.

The writer is an Egyptian journalist and political analyst.

Listen to American Jews' stand on Israel

HAARETZ - October 31, 2010

Examining the views of American Jews toward Israel is crucial in light of both the U.S. midterm elections and the Jewish Agency reform program initiated by Natan Sharansky.

By Gabi Sheffer

Where do American Jews stand on Israel and how are these positions linked to their attitude toward the American administration? Examining this issue is crucial in light of both the U.S. midterm elections and the reform program for the Jewish Agency initiated by Chairman Natan Sharansky.

First, it must be recognized that American Jewry is not a homogenous community. There is a core, which includes those who emphatically identify as members of the Jewish faith and nation, but the number of Jews who have completely integrated into American society and who stand on the fringes of the Jewish nation is growing. Half of American Jews define themselves as ethnic Jews, and not Jews by faith. These two facts have great meaning for the positions of Jews in general, and specifically regarding Israel.

Many Jews in the core group feel an emotional tie to the Land of Israel, but not necessarily to present-day Israel. Most of these Jews are convinced that Israel is not the center of the Jewish people and that it has no right to interfere in their affairs, including on issues related to Jewish education. They believe there are at least two centers of Judaism: Israel and American Jewry.

According to polls not cited in Israel, most Jews who have completely integrated into American society display total apathy for events that unfold in Israel. Only 30 percent of American Jews care deeply about what happens here.

Most Jews who do care clearly support a solution involving two states for two peoples. What's more, an increasing number of Jews back the division of Jerusalem and turning half of it into the capital of Palestine (not only Jews in the United States, but also in Canada, France, Britain and even Australia, which was considered the Diaspora group most closely tied to Israel ).

Not only are more and more individual Jews coming to hold such views, but the number of organizations pushing these positions is also growing. J Street, which has come under harsh criticism from the Israeli political establishment, is not the only group with such a stance. Many people in the Reform Jewish community support its views, and similar organizations are being established, and not only in the United States.

It can be cautiously stated that many Diaspora Jews do not support the policy of the Israeli government. Put more bluntly, they oppose most aspects of Israeli government policy, not only in the political-military sphere, but in many other areas, including policy connected to defining the national Jewish-Israeli identity. Undoubtedly, more than half of American Jews who identify as such will not support a religious definition of the Jewish nation and the State of Israel.

In terms of American Jews' attitude toward the Obama administration, it is vital to understand that few of them will stop supporting their president solely because of his positions on the Middle East peace process. The positions of a great many American Jews are and will be determined by the social, political and economic situation in the United States, since American Jews feel they are an integral part of the country in which they live.

In light of all this, it is very important to examine carefully what is being said and written by members of Jewish organizations in the United States whose positions and interests are similar to those of Israeli governments, as well as the words of professional politicians and bureaucrats in Israel whose work and livelihood are linked to relations between Israel and the Diaspora.

The author teaches political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.