Purim , תשפ"ד

 

 And Haman told Zeresh his wife and all his friends every thing that had befallen him. Then said his wise men and Zeresh his wife unto him, If Mordecai be of the seed of the Jews, before whom thou hast begun to fall, thou shalt not prevail against him, but shalt surely fall before him.

This Purim, while reading this verse in the Megillah (Esther 6:13) I had a realization. The situation, at least to me, seems strange. “If Mordecai” be the seeds of the Jews”, appears out of place. All through the Megillah Mordecai is described as a Jew. When Haman first encounters Mordecai after being elevated to his high posting, Haman is told almost immediately that Mordecai is a Jew. Haman, his memory be cursed, far from being content to inflict his wrath on Mordecai only, seeks to wipe out all the Jews.

And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king's laws: therefore it is not for the king's profit to suffer them. (Esther 3:8).

So perhaps Ahasuerus could be uncertain who Haman wished to annihilate (although, some say he also knew), but Haman could have little doubt that Mordecai was a Jew. So how can we settle the dissonance here?

My realization is that while Haman knew that Mordecai was a Jew, he was totally clueless about what type of Jew he had gone against. Not the Jew who was trying to assimilate and fit in wherever he was in the Diaspora and not the Jew who refused to keep the King of Kings’ laws and instead abide by the laws of a mortal in the costume of a king. Mordecai was not a Jew of “trembling knees” but a leader and a rock firmly embedded in the heritage of his forefathers. Against a Jew of Mordecai's caliber protected by divine providence, Haman had no chance to succeed.

Throughout history, there have always been those Jews who were willing to “go with the flow”, adapt, and “get along”. And while adaptation, accommodation, and conformity have their place, they can not substitute for immutable values. There can be no surrender to evil and no mediocrity in virtue. For every Charle Schumer willing to compromise Jewish lives and values to find favor with a Joe Biden, there needs to be a Benyamin Netanyahu willing to stand up and oppose, regardless of the personal price, those who would impose conditions that would endanger the State of Israel, or otherwise put our collective future, as Jews, in danger.

I admit that Netanyahu is not perfect. Far from it. Yet just as the weight and the size of the rock does not guarantee that the waves and currents will not move it, but rather whether the rock, even if smaller and lighter, is secured in place in the bedrock to become immovable. A soft rock will become eroded, a large boulder will roll to the sea, or be tossed to the shore. A person embedded in the history of his People and immersed in the welfare of other Jews, just won’t budge.

Let us pray that Netanyahu stands firm and that the L-rd gives him strength to withstand Biden's pressure. This Purim, Netanyahu, like Mordecai from so many Purims before us, should find strength from our faith in G-d, Tzur Yisrael.

Channeling the inner Chucky for Hamas

 

"The US government should demand that Israel conduct itself with a future two-state solution in mind, he said. “We should not be forced into a position of unequivocally supporting the actions of an Israeli government that includes bigots who reject the idea of a Palestinian state.

“I have known Prime Minister Netanyahu for a very long time. While we have vehemently disagreed on many occasions, I will always respect his extraordinary bravery for Israel on the battlefield as a younger man. I believe [that] in his heart, he has as his highest priority the security of Israel,” Schumer said. “However, I also believe Prime Minister Netanyahu has lost his way by allowing his political survival to take precedence over the best interests of Israel.”

A new election is the only way to allow for a healthy and open decision-making process about the future of Israel at a time when so many Israelis have lost their confidence in the vision and direction of their government, the Senate majority leader said."

So  Majority Senate Speaker, Charles Schumer, believes Israel needs new elections. So he says. He says that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is allowing his political survival over the best interests of Israel. So he says.

I say that Schumer is a hypocrite and a sycophant.  A hypocrite, for advancing a position that he should know has no merit and a sycophant for doing so to find favor with President Joe Biden.

Elections in the USA are scheduled for November. Schumer isn't up for re-election till November 2026.  Yet if Schumer falls foul of Biden and Biden wins the elections in November, he is out of a job. And if Biden doesn't win, because Schumer doesn't back the current administration, then, most likely, Schumer also loses his position. So who is "allowing his political survival to take precedence over the best interests of Israel"?. Your guess.

The sad truth is that any calls for advancing a "two-state solution" at this time are equivalent to granting a win to Hamas. Any calls for a cease-fire at this time are equivalent to granting a win to Hamas.  Any calls for disposing of Netanyahu so that a government can be formed that will support a "two-state solution" at this time is equivalent to granting a win to Hamas.  So why is Schumer harnessing his inner Chucky to raise a flag for Hamas? 

Just a theory.  I believe that President Biden thought that Israel would get bogged down in her war with Hamas. Wanting to at least make it appear that it was not because the USA was not supportive, Biden took great strides to resupply Israel with basic equipment. For that, we can genuinely thank him.  Still, US aid came with strings attached, which while problematic, Israel has tried to take into account. It is my opinion that the US believed that when Israel did fail, or at least when totally exhausted, the US would gain needed leverage to force Netanyahu to make concessions in recognizing a Palestinian State.

Despite the negative forecasts, Israel has not become bogged down in Gaza.  The war has been costly in Israeli casualties, but far from the extent forecasted. Hamas units have been eliminated one after the other and, excluding Rafiah, most of the area is under IDF control. With Israel succeeding much better than expected and Hamas on the verge of defeat, the US is afraid of the repercussions of an Israeli victory. An Israeli victory will be viewed as a great defeat by all Islamist forces, worldwide, and may cause a serious backlash against US interests in  Muslim countries. Another reason is that an Israeli victory will also be a victory for Netanyahu and could push back any possibility for the USA of advancing Biden's hope for a Palestinian State by deposing Netanyahu. 

The next parliamentary elections in Israel are scheduled to be held sometime in 2027; elections in the US are scheduled for this November regardless of whether Israel decides to have early elections. The idea of Netanyahu outlasting the current US administration must be anguishing for Biden and his supporters. The idea of Donald Trump and Netanyahu turning the clock back on Biden's plans for a Palestinian State is nothing less than a horror movie. Enough to bring out the Chucky in anyone.

Jiminy Cricket? Holy Moses!

 

 “I told him, Bibi, and don’t repeat this, but you and I are going to have a ‘come to Jesus’ meeting.”

 

A ‘come to Jesus’ meeting?  The Merriam Webster Dictionary describes a ‘come to Jesus’ moment as “a moment of sudden realization, comprehension, or recognition that often precipitates a major change”, so what is a ‘come to Jesus’ meeting?  My assumption is that it is a meeting where the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu is summoned to a meeting with the US President Joe Biden, where Biden in the role of “loving, compassionate Jesus”, kicks Netanyahu to the ground, stomps on him and threatens him with all sorts of consequences until, cowering, Netanyahu accepts Biden’s dictates. Bibi versus the Big Guy.

There is more than a bit of arrogance in thinking that Biden can dictate terms to Netanyahu. It is an arrogance cultivated for years by previous US administrations, both Democratic and Republican since Israel’s creation. In the role of both major benefactor, perhaps the parent that knows better and the ally that has its own needs and emergencies. There have been administrations, like the Eisenhower Administration during the Suez Crisis where the pressure was direct, even brutal, and others, like George Bush II‘s where the pressure took the form of quid pro quid. Relations between Israel and the United States have never been as equals, but some US presidents have been more equal than others.

Still, the arrogance shown towards Netanyahu, and since Israel is a democracy, towards Israel itself, is rarely directed towards countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Egypt.  The phrase ‘come to Jesus’ and calling Netanyahu by his nickname is also not a coincidence. Biden might genuflect in front of Netanyahu, but not for a moment can he forget that Netanyahu is Jewish. And a proud Jew too. Would Biden use the term ‘come to Jesus” with a (dictatorial, for there are no democracies in the Arab World) Muslim leader? Somehow, I have my doubts.

Arrogance and conceit are also the only explanation for Vice President Kamala Harris making the statement:

 

“It’s important for us to distinguish or at least not conflate the Israeli government with the Israeli people. The Israeli people are entitled to security – as are the Palestinians. In equal measure,” she said in the interview with CBS News.

 

Israel is a democracy. Israelis are not required to identify with all their government’s positions on all topics and dissent is entirely acceptable within the limits of the law. Would the present US administration take kindly to an Israeli Prime Minister making a similar statement about the USA? Highly doubtful.  

 

Not for a moment should we convince ourselves that the tension between Biden and Netanyahu is a matter of personalities. Policies, not personalities cause the tensions, and the main point of contention is not Gaza, but rather that Biden is upset that Netanyahu is unwilling to obligate to a “two-state solution” any time soon.

Biden will have to be disappointed. His ‘come to Jesus” moment has yet to arrive, but one day, it will. And it will be painful.  In Shaa Allah.

 

 

On June 22 1982, Joe Biden was a Senator from Delaware and confronted then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin during his Senate Foreign Relations committee testimony, threatening to cut off aid to Israel. Begin forcefully responded,

“Don’t threaten us with cutting off your aid. It will not work. I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history. Nobody came to our aid when we were dying in the gas chambers and ovens. Nobody came to our aid when we were striving to create our country. We paid for it. We fought for it. We died for it. We will stand by our principles. We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid.”

 

 

A Scorpion? Rats!!

 

I was both insulted and disappointed to see Nadav Tamir’s latest featured blog “The Scorpion” in The Times of Israel’s blogs section.

Insulted because while I believe that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not above legitimate criticism, calling Netanyahu a “scorpion” is not only an insult to those who voted for him or support him but also an insult to those who believe that in a democracy there should be a modicum of respect shown towards the symbols of the country. There is no real difference between calling Netanyahu a “traitor” and a “scorpion”. The first one you shoot, and the second one you crush with your boot.

I was not disappointed that Tamir resorted to name-calling. Just as a rat creeping out of the sewage searching for food will leave droppings of muck and malaise in human habitation, so will there always be those who will post their lies and slanders in a blog if given the opportunity. That is the nature of rats and, unfortunately, also of some people. The sages had an expression for that "לאו עכברא גנב אלא חורא גנב ", or to paraphrase, not the rat is responsible for the theft, but rather the hole is to blame. Here the “hole” is the Blogs Section and what I find disappointing was the decision to give Tamir’s blog status as a featured blog.

On any given day there can be tens of blogs posted to the Times of Israel’s blogs section. The more important ones the editors choose to get featured and are thus granted greater circulation. It is an editorial statement of sorts and in this case, I believe that Tamir overstepped the boundaries to incite and was rewarded for it. Would the same editors or editor feature a blog calling the retired Chief Justice of Israel’s High Court a “hedgehog” or the writers of the satire program “Eretz Nehaderet” a “pack of hyenas”?  Somehow, I doubt it. Yet calling the democratically elected leader of Israel a “scorpion” is not only fine.  It is approved.

I have qualms about comparing Tamir to a rat. Although I can cling to the definition that a “rat” is an informer and can be legitimately used in a sentence such as “Since 2016, T'ruah has filed a series of complaints with ratted out to the IRS about the Central Fund of Israel”, or “Breaking the Silence regular rats out on Israeli soldiers to CNN and NPR”, I still find the usage a bit distasteful. I can have legitimate concerns about Israel-based NGOs largely funded by anti-Israel or even anti-Jewish sources used to slander Israel in the USA or Europe. Still, I prefer using facts and reasoned language to voice them. Besides, calling other Jews “rats” has emotional baggage and can be misconstrued to mean something sinister.

In general, calling one’s opponents a virus, cancer, or a type of pest through a zoomorphism (using an animal metaphor) is less than insightful and more about incitement.  So, I will leave the name-calling behind and my sincere apologies to any members of the Rattus family who may have taken offense.

This leaves us with Tamir’s rambling, largely incoherent, and spurious claims, of which I would deal with just two:  The Red Cross and Qatar.

As for the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the ICRC, I suggest referring to UNWATCH and their report on the ICRC.  The IRCR, like any number of international organizations, has a deep-seated bias against Israel and the Jewish People, which is the result of having numerous members that are themselves anti-Israel and anti-Jewish. For decades the ICRC denied recognition to the Israeli Magen David Adom basically on the pretense that Israel was unwilling to use the Red Cross or Red Crescent symbol that other countries use. (The Third Protocol from 2005, allows the use of the “Red Crystal” symbol in conjunction with the Magen David Adom, but does not allow the Magen David Adom symbol by itself to be used outside the “recognized national borders of Israel” .) In short, the ICRC is itself institutionally biased against Israel.

The claim that the Red Cross is “endangering” their personnel to aid Israeli hostages is pure fiction. Officially, the ICRC has not even issued an official statement condemning Hamas for the taking of civilian hostages, the use of hospitals and ambulances for military purposes nor even the organized use of rape against Israelis. Where and how is the ICRC endangering themselves for Israelis? As to being without leverage to criticize Hamas because it would endanger their “humanitarian tasks”, somehow there are no constraints when it comes to criticizing Israel. The ICRC could threaten Hamas that they would leave Gaza if the hostages were not returned, or minimally threaten to withdraw personnel if they were physically harmed by Hamas. The ICRC has all the leverage it needs but lacks the willpower to use it and a moral compass to guide it.

As for Qatar and its support of Hamas with Israeli approval, that is a much more complicated issue that needs some background. Fortunately, there is a fair amount of background on when Qatar started funding Hamas (in 2007, immediately after Hamas deposed the PA rule after the Palestinian elections), and when cash transfers through Israel commenced (in 2014 after Mohamed Morsi was deposed in the coup that brought Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to power in Egypt). The Times of Israel reported on the subject several times [“Qatar gave over $1.1 billion to Gaza Strip from 2012-18, ministers told”  -  on February 11, 2019] or [“Qatar said threatening to end aid to Gaza in bid to press Israel on annexation” – on June 24, 2020]. Not much is said of how the Obama administration was involved in negotiating the agreement nor whether the Obama administration pressured Israel into acquiescing to the transfers. [“Obama to host emir of Qatar for talks on Mideast stability” – on February 15, 2015]. The United States has a major air base in Doha in Qatar and has forged close ties with the oil emirate.

Curiously, Tamir somehow omits any mention of the report “Israel and Qatar: Relations Nurtured by the Palestinian Issue ", Published as part of the publication series: Israel's Relations with Arab Countries: The Unfulfilled Potential Dr. Michal Yaari, Mitvim, The Israeli Institute for Regional Policies, March 2020” which he surely must be familiar with.  The report is relatively positive about Qatar-Israeli relations, especially in the context of Qatar participating in the reconstruction of Gaza after Israel’s last ground incursion into Gaza in 2014.

In summing up, there is a long road ahead to official diplomatic ties between Israel and Qatar, But, this does not negate the change that is taking place in their relations. Within several years, Israel and Qatar have turned from being hostile states on two sides of the divide, to strategic partners in shaping the reality in Gaza. That does not mean Qatar has shed its historic ties with Israel’s enemies, but that its view of the Palestinian issue no longer rests on binary concepts of aggressor and victim; rather on recognition that responsibility for the problems lies with many different parties. As for the Israeli leadership, it will likely continue to harbor suspicions about Qatar in the coming years. Nonetheless, as opposed to the past, it no longer precludes links with Qatar but simply defines their borders.

This could be compared to the much more stark analysis by the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)  ( Dr.  Udi Levi, March 3, 2020) [ the JISS is known as a “rightwing” think tank]

Israel should reconsider the wisdom of its current approach to Qatar and the Gaza Strip. Will Israel, one of the main victims of radical Islamist terrorism, and which proclaims from every possible platform its commitment to the war on terror, be the country to legitimize one of the greatest financers of global terrorism?

Israel also needs to give serious consideration to the following additional question. What are the implications of the payments to Hamas on Israel’s confrontation with Hezbollah in Lebanon?  The pressures on Hezbollah grow every day, from the US government and other actors. What if Hezbollah seeks a similar arrangement of quiet with Israel in exchange for cash? How would Israel respond then? Ask the Qataris to hush Hezbollah with money?

 

Seemingly, those opposing Netanyahu who are referencing the “Qatari suitcases” are being less than straightforward, most likely in the knowledge that few will deeply examine the causes and the history of them.  The same people who may have applauded Yair Lapid’s recent treaty with Lebanon concerning the prospective gas fields on the Lebanon-Israel maritime border, or the increase of worker permits for Gazans working in Israel, or called for increasing the supply of concrete and other goods in Gaza all worked from the same premise: that Israel’s concessions to Hamas and Hezbollah would incentivize quiet and help avoid conflict. The “Qatari suitcases” were symptomatic of a widely held consensus shared by USA officials, the EU, the military, and the civilian leadership under Prime Ministers Netanyahu, Bennet, and Lapid (where Benny Ganz was the Minister of Defense in all three governments) that quiet could be bought.

As for Netanyahu, he has endured unremitting hostility from the Left since the Oslo Accords thirty years ago. He certainly is less than perfect, and in any given week there can be more than a few blogs submitted ridiculing or criticizing his conduct.  Undoubtedly there will also be some blogs that will use disrespectful or inciteful language against Netanyahu and/or his coalition partners. That will leave plenty of room for editorial discretion in deciding what gets published and how. And that can be either a flaw or a feature.