Hezbollah = terrorism

By JPOST EDITORIAL

11/11/2012 22:13

Its about time Europe takes seriously the threat that Hezbollah represents.

Could it be that the European Union is finally on its way to recognizing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization? That appeared to be the message coming from an Austrian diplomat who spoke with The Jerusalem Post’s European correspondent Benjamin Weinthal over the weekend.

Amazingly, the Europeans have yet to do so. All we can say is, “Better late than never.”

Already in 1995, well before 9/11 attacks revealed the murderous potential of radical Islamist groups, the US classified Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. That decision followed shortly after the July 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that left 85 dead and more than 300 wounded. Hezbollah is suspected of working in coordination with Iran to carry out that attack.

This past July, Hezbollah marked the 18th anniversary of the AMIA massacre by carrying out a suicide bombing in Burgas, Bulgaria. The explosion killed five Israelis as well as their Bulgarian bus driver and wounded 32 Israelis.

In the time between the AMIA and Burgas attacks, Hezbollah has been involved in numerous acts of terrorism both at home in Lebanon – the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri comes to mind – and abroad.

In August of this year, the US sanctioned Hezbollah for supporting Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime. David Cohen, the United States Department of Treasury’s under secretary for Terrorism and financial intelligence, told Al- Arabiya television that the latest action was “designed principally to expose the activity of Hezbollah in providing operational, logistical, and other sorts of support to the Syrian government in its repression of the Syrian people.”

A more thorough account of Hezbollah’s terrorist activities since its foundation in 1982 can be found in a 42-page paper titled “Timeline of Terror: A Concise History of Hezbollah Atrocities” produced by the British Henry Jackson Society, one of several pro-democracy think tanks and organizations lobbying the EU to ban Hezbollah.

Yet besides the Netherlands, which recognized Hezbollah as a terrorist organization a few years ago, and Britain, which since 2001 makes a distinction between Hezbollah’s political wing – which the UK does not consider a terrorist organization – and its military wing – which the UK does consider terrorist – no other European country has followed the US’s – and Canada’s – lead.

As a result, Hezbollah is free to operate in Europe raising money, recruiting supporters and plotting terrorist attacks.

Of all places, it is Germany that has become a center for Hezbollah’s rabidly anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist activities, with 950 members and supporters last year, up from 900 in 2010, according to an annual report put out by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency.

In August 2009, for instance, Alexander Ritzmann, a senior fellow at the Brussels-based European Foundation for Democracy, found that a German charity for Lebanese orphans was really a front organization raising money for Hezbollah suicide bombers. Dozens of other similar “charities” continue to operate freely on European soil.

And in many cases donations to these charities are tax deductible, which means Germany and other European states are subsidizing a terrorist organization.

Ritzmann and others also suspect that the Hezbollah maintains trained military operatives throughout Europe who act as “sleeper cells” that can become active when called upon.

A European blacklist would undoubtedly have an adverse effect on Hezbollah. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, admitted that such a ban “would dry up the sources of finance” and “end moral, political and material support” for the terrorist organization.

In contrast, refraining from issuing such a ban would allow the Hezbollah to continue to operate freely on European soil. Just last month, White House counter-terrorism chief John O. Brennan said that European failure to join the US in designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization is undermining international counter-terrorism efforts. “Let me be clear,” Brennan said in a speech in Dublin, European resistance “makes it harder to defend our countries and protect our citizens.”

Its about time Europe takes seriously the threat that Hezbollah represents.

Obama and Israel

By JPOST EDITORIAL

11/08/2012 22:46

There might still be a strained relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, but this should not get in the way of relations between the countries.

The 2012 US presidential elections were particularly combative. One of the most divisive issues was President Barack Obama’s Middle East policies. Obama was assailed for purportedly being too weak on Iran; he was criticized for pushing Israel too hard vis-à-vis the Palestinians; he was taken to task for failing to confront the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and radical Islam elsewhere.

His Republican opponents highlighted Obama’s tense relationship with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Obama was accused of snubbing Netanyahu during visits to the White House; in a “hot mic” moment, he seemed to concur with then-French president Nicolas Sarkozy about his distaste for Netanyahu; in September, Obama failed to find the time to meet with Netanyahu during the prime minister’s trip to the US to address the UN General Assembly.

Relations between the two men were seen in Israel to be so bad that in the aftermath of Obama’s victory some even expect the US president – no longer concerned about getting reelected – to take revenge.

Just a day after the US election, Army Radio quoted sources in the Likud claiming that Obama could work against Netanyahu in the upcoming Israeli elections as payback for Netanyahu’s apparent preference for Mitt Romney in the US presidential race.

The tensions between the countries and their leaders were reflected in surveys of Israeli attitudes. A Smith Research poll sponsored by The Jerusalem Post in mid- October, for example, found that 28 percent of Jewish Israelis believed that the Obama administration was more pro-Palestinian, 18% found it to be more pro-Israel and 40% called it neutral, with 14% declining to participate.

Still, while Obama and Romney might have voiced very different approaches on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, four more years of Obama’s leadership will, we hope, not be a source of concern for those who care about Israel.

Regarding Iran, Obama might ultimately be more disposed than Romney to use military means if necessary.

Romney, who would likely be perceived by the American Left as continuing George W. Bush’s “regime change” policies in the Middle East, might face a massive anti-war campaign if he launched a military attack on Iran.

In contrast, Obama could be more successful at building a broad consensus – both at home and abroad – for using force to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Unlike Romney, who would take precious time putting together his own foreign policy team as Iran continues its stubborn march toward nuclear weapon capability, Obama has already articulated his stance on Iran – including going on record numerous times as saying that it is an American interest to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapon capability. And he has made a point of not ruling out military action.

With regard to Palestinians and settlements, Obama seems to have learned from his mistake of forcing a construction freeze on Israel. Though his intention might have been to set in motion negotiations leading to a viable two-state solution, the move only succeeded in hardening a hopelessly intransigent Palestinian leadership.

As former US president Bill Clinton discovered in his second term and as Obama has undoubtedly already realized, so long as the Palestinians refuse to reconcile themselves to Jewish nationhood, it will be impossible to achieve long-lasting peace.

With Syria engulfed in a bloody civil war, Egypt entering an era of radical Islamization and Iran threatening to attain nuclear weapons, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not hold the same urgency as it once did, particularly since the relatively peaceful status quo that exists between Israel and the Palestinian Authority seems sustainable – at least in the short-term.

On numerous occasions, Obama has presented himself as a friend of Israel. Whether from the podium of the UN General Assembly, via the strengthening of military cooperation between the US and Israel or in his unequivocal stand on Iran, Obama has defended cardinal Israeli interests that dovetail with American interests.

There might still be a strained relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, but this should not get in the way of the strong relations between the countries. It is our fervent hope that the next four years will see these ties boosted even further, together with a reduction in the tension between our respective leaders.

A winner either way

By JPOST EDITORIAL

11/06/2012 21:15

Regardless of who wins the 2012 US presidential election, the ties between America and the Jewish state will remain strong.

Perhaps more than any previous election in the United States, the 2012 presidential race has seen attempts to turn Israel into a partisan issue.

Democrats have accused Republicans of being “bad for Israel” because they would refrain from pushing for a two-state solution with the Palestinians. The resulting diplomatic stalemate would perpetuate the status quo, endangering both the Jewish majority and Israel’s democracy in the process, they say.

Republicans, meanwhile, have attacked Democrats for not supporting Israel’s interests in Jerusalem, on Iran and in negotiations with the Palestinians. Democrats have countered that repeated attacks on President Barack Obama’s policies vis-à-vis Israel threaten to turn the Jewish state into a wedge issue.



The Shalom Hartman Institute’s Yossi Klein Halevi and The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg have voiced concerns that if Mitt Romney is elected, there is a real chance that the anti-war movement would be re-energized. Romney, if he were to decide to use military power to stop Iran’s march toward a nuclear bomb, would be accused of continuing the policies of George Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This could, in Halevi’s words “dangerously erode the already-shaky nature of bipartisan support for Israel.”

According to Goldberg, if this happens, American liberals will be tempted to put supporters of Israel “in the same category they reserve for climate-change-denying, anti-choice Obamacare haters.” It is absolutely essential that support for Israel continue to remain a bipartisan issue regardless of who is elected the next president.

After all, the close ties that exist between the US and Israel are hardly new. Their roots extend back further even than Israel’s establishment 64 years ago. Over two centuries ago, America’s founding fathers were inspired by the Bible, and many considered themselves to be the creators of a “New Israel.”

Likewise, Israel’s founders cherished the same values enshrined in the US Constitution – free speech and assembly, respect for individual rights, an independent judiciary.

Unlike the vast majority of countries throughout the world, where national identity is inexorably tied to blood and land, Israel and America are two of the few countries – New Zealand and Australia also come to mind – where covenant preceded nationhood.

A group of people united by shared ideals and vision arrived in a land in which they were not born to create a nation and realize a dream. In the case of Israel, it was a “coming home” after nearly two millennia of exile. In the case of America, it was the creation of a “New Israel.”

To this day, America and Israel share common interests and goals. Israel is the only Middle Eastern state to consistently stand alongside the US on strategic issues. In the ongoing regional upheaval, Israel is the only stable state on which the US can completely rely. And the two countries cooperate in a broad range of nonmilitary fields – humanitarian, commercial and scientific. The levels of freedom enjoyed in Israel are unparalleled in the Middle East, and America remains a beacon of liberty for the entire world. The vast majority of Americans understand this.

Testimony to this bipartisan affinity was the Congress’s repeated standing ovations – 29 in all, according to ABC News – for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu when he addressed a packed House chamber of both Republicans and Democrats in May 2011.

Both Romney and Obama are products of American society. That’s why both intimately understand and appreciate American’s special relationship with Israel.

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon was right on Tuesday when he stressed that Israel would continue to enjoy American backing irrespective of who won election.

Interviewed on Israel Radio, Ayalon said: “We will continue to enjoy bipartisan support in the US, so the result of the election almost doesn’t matter.”

For Israel, he added, “the best American president is the president who will be best for America. The one whom the Americans elect.”

Regardless of who wins the 2012 US presidential election, the ties between America and the Jewish state will remain strong. The two countries have too much in common and too much to gain from their special relationship to allow petty partisan differences to drive a wedge between them.

Kosher competition

By JPOST EDITORIAL

11/05/2012 23:10

Greed, profiteering and fraud are no strangers to the kosher supervision business.

In the memorable phrasing of a 1972 Hebrew national hot dog TV ad campaign in the US, kosher food “answers to a higher authority.” But, unfortunately, the reality is sometimes more mundane.

Greed, profiteering and fraud are no strangers to the kosher supervision business. While keeping kosher might be a mitzva, setting up the apparatus to provide consumers and restaurant-goers with food that meets Orthodox standards is generally driven by a desire to make money. As in any business, there are straight and crooked characters.

In what appears to be a sincere effort to improve the way the supervision is performed, a group of Jerusalemites – restaurateurs, rabbis and activists – have banded together to break the Chief Rabbinate’s monopoly over it. Restaurants that serve a religious clientele – but are not certified by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel – are independently keeping kosher.

Last Friday afternoon, Carousela, a cafe in the capital’s Rehavia neighborhood, hosted an event supporting restaurants that serve kosher food but refuse to receive official kosher certification from the Chief Rabbinate.

The event was organized by HaTenua HaYerushalmit – The Jerusalemite Movement social action organization.

In some cases, the break with the Chief Rabbinate came as the result of dissatisfaction with the services it provides. The rabbinate’s kashrut supervisors, who receive hundreds – sometimes thousands – of shekels a month – rarely came to make inspections, restaurant owners said. When they did arrive the examination was cursory.

In other cases, restaurateurs complained that the supervisors’ knowledge of the laws was lacking or that they behaved inappropriately when on the premises.

In an investigative report that appeared recently in Makor Rishon, it was found that in several cases the Chief Rabbinate declined to take away a restaurant’s kashrut certificate even after non-kosher food was found on the premises.

All these allegations seem to point to a rabbinate riddled with inefficiencies, substandard personnel and, perhaps, corruption.

Complicating the situation is the fact that the Chief Rabbinate has no incentive to change. That is because it has a monopoly over kosher supervision that is enshrined in law. The 1983 Kosher Fraud Law makes it a crime to advertise a food item or a restaurant as “kosher” unless the Chief Rabbinate provides certification to that effect. A restaurant that is unhappy with the services provided by the Chief Rabbinate cannot simply abandon it and turn to another kashrut supervision operation. Its only option is to pay more to supplement the supervision provided by the Chief Rabbinate with an additional supervision apparatus such as Badatz or Beit Yosef. The capitalist forces of free competition that exist, say, in the US kosher supervision market, are nonexistent in Israel.

The best solution to this situation is to break the Chief Rabbinate’s monopoly over kashrut supervision and adopt the sort of model that exists in the US.

Instead of entrusting the Chief Rabbinate with both providing kashrut supervision and enforcing kashrut fraud laws – which creates inherent conflicts of interest – a state-run, secular consumer protection agency should be responsible for enforcing kashrut fraud laws.

It is generally accepted among consumers that “kosher” refers to undisputed Orthodox Jewish standards regarding food preparation. Any restaurateur or food producer who tries to sell food as kosher without meeting consumers’ expectations would be in violation of the law and subject to fines. Adopting such a model would open up the supervision market to competition. Restaurant owners and food producers dissatisfied with one supervisor would have the option of switching to another. Kashrut supervisors interested in maintaining clientele would be forced to provide high-quality services at competitive prices.

Kashrut supervisors may or may not answer to a higher authority. But the introduction of competition will provide them with the much needed incentive to strive for excellence. We hope the resulting improvement in kashrut supervision will give the organized Jewish religion a better name.

Peace divide

By JPOST EDITORIAL

11/04/2012 20:55

The capacity to make peace depends on changing perceptions – including the national narratives we tell ourselves and our peoples. The fallout from Abbas’s Channel 2 interview is yet another dismal indicator that the Palestinian people have yet to be prepared by their leadership for such a change.

PHOTO: SCREENSHOT

In an interview last week with Channel 2’s Udi Segal, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas presented a surprisingly moderate stance vis-à-vis Palestinians’ “right of return.”

Though he clarified that the issue would have to be settled in negotiations, Abbas admitted that he personally had no “right” to return permanently to his birthplace in Safed.

“Palestine now for me is the [June 4], 1967, borders, with east Jerusalem as its capital,” he said. “This is now and forever.... This is Palestine for me. I am [a] refugee, but I am living in Ramallah.”

Abbas even went on to reject references in official Palestinian television to places such as Acre, Ramle and Jaffa – all cities well within sovereign Israel – as “Palestine,” and added, “I believe that [the] the West Bank and Gaza is Palestine and the other parts [are] Israel.”

Abbas’s comments for Channel 2 were reminiscent of statements the PA president purportedly made during negotiations in 2008 with then-prime minister Ehud Olmert and then-foreign minister Tzipi Livni.

According to the “PaliLeaks” documents apparently leaked by the Palestinian Negotiation Support Unit to Al Jazeera andThe Guardian and made public in January 2011, Abbas admitted that “on numbers of refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or even 1 million – that would mean the end of Israel.”

Both the Channel 2 interview and the PaliLeaks documents seemed to reveal a refreshing pragmatism and willingness to compromise among the Palestinian leadership.

One of the major obstacles to peace – the issue of the Palestinian insistence on the “right of return” for millions of “refugees” – appeared to be eminently soluble.

Unfortunately, as in the aftermath of the PaliLeaks revelations, high-ranking Palestinian officials rushed to “clarify” Abbas’s comments, revealing once again the yawning divide that continues to separate our two peoples.

Rather than using Abbas’s comments on the “right of return” as an opportunity to show the world that Palestinians are willing to show flexibility on a maximalist demand that would mean the end of Israel as a state with a Jewish majority, the official PA reaction was the complete opposite.

Nabil Abu Rudaineh, a spokesman for Abbas, responding to sharp criticism of the PA president on the Palestinian street, reiterated Palestinian intransigence on the refugee issue.

“The position of the Palestinian leadership remains fixed,” Abu Rudaineh said. “The refugees and the right of return are among the final-status issues that will be negotiated with the Israelis.” He went on to say that Abbas’s interview was nothing more than a tactical move aimed at “affecting Israeli public opinion.”

Even if we are to take Abbas’s comments at face value and believe that he and others in the PA are responsible leaders sincerely interested in working toward a sovereign Palestinian state living in peace alongside the Jewish state of Israel, this is not enough. Abbas is paying for his own and his leadership’s insistence on saying one thing in public and something else altogether behind closed doors or in an interview aimed at the Israel public.

When speaking to the Palestinians, the Abbas-led PA has consistently marginalized or outright denied the Jewish people’s historic, religious and cultural ties to the Land of Israel. It has glorified terrorists who have massacred Israelis, while depicting the Jews of Israel as evil and rapacious.

Given the narrative they are fed by their leaders, why would the Palestinian people agree to compromise with an ostensibly illegitimate Zionist entity on the refugee issue? Why would they be willing to give up a “right of return” that has become an integral part of Palestinian identity? Abbas and other Palestinian leaders could and should have worked to prepare their people for peace with Israel.

They could and should have adjusted the public messages to the Palestinian people to reflect the types of sane and realistic statements made to Channel 2 or behind closed doors in negotiations with Israel.

The capacity to make peace depends on changing perceptions – including the national narratives we tell ourselves and our peoples. The fallout from Abbas’s Channel 2 interview is yet another dismal indicator that the Palestinian people have yet to be prepared by their leadership for such a change.