The Day of the Jackal…and the Jeckles

August 16, 2006

The next battle has begun. As soon as the firing stopped on Monday, the war of words and recrimination commenced. The airwaves and newspapers are filled to overflowing with commentators analyzing the war and laying blame for its failure to achieve all of Israel’s goals. From the right, from the left and from the center the soldiers of sophistry are on the march!

Do you remember the film “The Day of the Jackal?” A hired assassin stalks General Charles de Gaul at the behest of ex-officers of the aborted Foreign Legion because they blamed him for weakness and capitulation to France’s enemies. How about the old Terrytoons series staring the bickering magpies Heckle and Jeckle? They would just delight sitting back, watching the world and throwing their verbal brickbats at all and sundry—a running commentary on just about everything, offered from the safety of their perch.

These two cinematic images provide an appropriate metaphor for the rumbling and grumbling of the political pundits who have been busy since the beginning of Monday’s cease-fire affixing blame for what is generally assessed to have been a military fiasco. Like the assassin in “The Day of the Jackal” there are those who want to eliminate the Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert as the person most responsible for the less than satisfactory results of our war against Hezbollah. The pack of “get-Olmert” critics (in the press led by Caroline Glick, the resident harpy of the Jerusalem Post) is putting out the call to bring down Olmert’s government and replace it with a right-wing coalition. Still smarting from their loss in the polls, there are those on the right using the perceived failure of the recent military enterprise to further their partisan political goals.

Not to be outdone, there are many Heckles and Jeckles on the left who sling their brickbats by calling for commissions of inquiry, again to find the satisfaction of an address to lay blame—but, in their case, the blame is for entering into the hostilities in the first place. Among the magpies is the former leader of Meretz (the party for which I voted in the last election), Yossi Sarid, who wrote in today’s Ha’Aretz: “Ehud Olmert's artificial reign has ended, as has Amir Peretz' unripe leadership. Not one minister acted properly, not a single general stood out, and there is scarcely an analyst among the biased commentators who did not burn his fingers and toe the line.” Sarid wonders where the left has been since the beginning of the war?

And even those who lay blame are not themselves immune from criticism. In an article in today’s Jerusalem Post economist Jonathan Lipow lays much of the blame for Israel’s botches on the battlefield at the feet of those in charge of Israel’s economy. He assails both Benjamin Netanyahu as the former Minister of the Treasury (who wasted no time following the Security Council call for a cease-fire to raise his voice against Olmert’s running of the war) and Bank of Israel chief Stanley Fischer for cuts made to the IDF budget that led to cut backs in training and readiness. Even those without a political ax to grind are quick to focus blame.

With Jackals on the right and Jeckles on the left there is seemingly no end to the war of words and finger pointing following the war of rockets and tanks. But, it is precisely this raucous chorus of criticism that is part of Israel’s strength. We live in a democracy in which criticism of the ruling powers is considered an inalienable right. In our democracy there will be official inquiries to investigate our shortcomings and assess our tactics and policies. That exercise in democracy is a sign of strength so long as it results in meaningful self-criticism and change. If it results only in assigning blame to individuals and political purges, then it can be a sign of our continuing malaise. Our open democracy is a two-edged sword, indeed.

And yet, it is our free and open democracy that sets us apart from our enemies. If one takes an objective look at the War Between the Straits, the military math clearly indicates that Israel emerged victorious—though only partially. Not all of Israel’s objectives were achieved by military means. Our hostages continue to be held in the hands of the terrorists and it remains to be seen if the Lebanese government has the will or the means to disarm Hezbollah. But our military forces were successful in significantly diminishing Hezbollah’s military capabilities and as much as half of its fighting force was eliminated. So, why is Hezbollah claiming victory?

Hezbollah’s ballyhooing of its military success in defeating the once-invincible IDF is not mere propaganda (though it must be admitted that it is very effective in that regard); Hezbollah’s claim of victory in the face of significant—maybe even debilitating—military losses is systemic to a totalitarian regime. There will be no official inquiries or moralizing about Hezbollah’s actions. Dissenters know what fate awaits them should they raise their voices to express opposition to Nasrallah or to criticize the military adventurism by Hezbollah that wrought such destruction upon the Lebanese. So, the terrorists will lay low for a while and lick their wounds, but will they realize how much they lost in this latest of continuing battles? Not likely, not likely at all.

A tragic result of our enemies’ inability to engage in self-criticism and open debate of their actions is that the Arab masses (and much of the world if truth be told) really believes that Hezbollah was victorious and that the War Between the Straits was the first skirmish in the war of Israel’s annihilation. And who will suffer? Everyone. Israel will not go away. We have the means and the determination to defend ourselves at all costs. Our enemies’ misread this past war when they call us weak. Unlike any war since 1948, the home front was tried and tested and—by all accounts—we did not succumb to the rockets and the katyushas raining down on our cities and towns. Our brave citizenry displayed heroism equal to our soldiers on the front lines. How can such a people be defeated?

The answer is that we can defeat ourselves. Instead of assigning blame to individuals or making of this war a political football to be kicked back-and-forth, this is a time for all Israelis to share collective responsibility—to assess our weaknesses and correct them. Precisely now we need to draw upon the strengths of our democracy to insure that our shortcomings in this war are corrected. As our politicians of all stripes have noted, we are engaged in a war for our very survival. There may be a cease-fire in effect but no truce, no peace accord. Inevitably—so it seems—we will be called to arms again. I pray that those arms are not bound by our own failings and lack of united determination to prevail. We dare not allow narrow self-interest or self-serving political posturing to jeopardize our democracy—this, too, is a battle that must be won.

Shalom from Jerusalem

Of Alarums and Alarm

Motzei Shabbat, August 12, 2006

As I have written before, the atmosphere in Jerusalem is deceptively quiet during this time of war. The only explosions that go off emanate from the colorful fireworks displays put on by the municipality (where do they get the money for such frivolity?) and the only gunshots that we hear come from the Arab weddings down in the Arab villages below us. Yes, Jerusalem appears to be relatively free of the frightening sounds and sights of this horrible war that has been imposed upon us. But, that is not to say that Jerusalem is completely cut off from the realities of the hostilities raging around us both in the north and in the south.

Jerusalemites have opened their hearts and homes to thousands upon thousands of the refugees from the war-torn cities, towns and villages in Israel. Those who have the wherewithal and the ability to do so have fled the bomb shelters and safe rooms in which they have been living since the outbreak of hostilities to enjoy a bit of respite from the daily rain of rockets and missiles. Many of them have sought shelter from the deadly storm here in the relative quiet and peace of Jerusalem. Hotels emptied of the foreign tourists who usually fill them play host to Israeli families. Imagine the incongruous sight of people lounging around hotel swimming pools who days before huddled in mortal fear, meters of concrete away from the sunshine.

Regarding these people there was an interesting little bit of information in this weekend’s newspaper. Life in Jerusalem pulsates to the rhythms of the Jewish calendar. Each week builds in anticipation of the advent of Shabbat when the hustle and bustle of our everyday lives slows perceptibly and we abandon ourselves to the sweet sanctity of the day of rest. To announce the holy day and to allow Jerusalemites time to complete the deeds of the secular world in order to prepare for the needs of the sacred world, a warning blast from a siren is sounded throughout the city. This hearkens back to the days when the Temple stood on Mount Moriah, when the shofar’s blast heralded the beginning of Shabbat. Today, a siren’s wailing and piercing sound informs us that the Shabbat bride is about to descend upon the city. It is that very siren that was the topic of a small article in Friday’s Jerusalem Post.

It seems that several of our guests from the north expressed dismay over the siren. To them, the siren’s shout means that rockets are about to fall, not the approach of Shabbat eve. What to do? Not wanting these war weary people to associate the announcing of Shabbat with the alarums of war and destruction, someone in the municipality came up with the idea of broadcasting Shabbat melodies to prepare us for Shabbat peace and joy. So, instead of sirens we now have songs.

The weekend papers mainly concentrated on the harsher realities of war as well as noting the first anniversary since the Disengagement from Gaza. It is incredible how much has happened since last August when the (then) Likud government of Ariel Sharon began the historic process of removing the settlements and military bases in Gaza that Israel occupied since 1967. In one year we witnessed Sharon’s stroke. Then came the elections in the PA that catapulted the terrorist Hamas party to leadership of the Palestinians. This was followed by the March elections here in Israel and the subsequent change of government with a Kadimah-led coalition propelling Ehud Olmert to the office of Prime Minister. Almost from the moment of the Israeli pullout from Gaza, Palestinian-launched Kassam rockets began falling within the Green Line on Israeli cities as a kind of defiant response to the Disengagement. Finally, we came to realize the consequence of another Israeli pullout, this one from Lebanon in 2000, and Hezbollah’s massive military build up in South Lebanon. So much happened, so very much in just one short year.

The weekend magazine sections in the various Israeli newspapers are filled with reflections, comments and pontifications from politicians and pundits about the wisdom or folly of last year’s Disengagement and the future fate of its corollary—Olmert’s Convergence plan. The general consensus seems to hold that we are in the mess that we are in regarding Gaza and the Palestinians and the rise of Hamas because of, not in spite of the Disengagement. Hamas and the extreme elements in Palestinian society claimed credit for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza as a consequence of their armed resistance to the Israeli presence. This is precisely the same rationale employed by Hezbollah following Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon six years ago and which lead to Hezbollah’s political and military rise in Lebanon. If this was true in Gaza and Lebanon, such thinking goes, how can Israel possibly evacuate the West Bank settlements as Olmert’s Convergence Plan outlines?

In apparent alarm over the possible feeding of anti-Israel extremism amongst Palestinians and others in the Arab world, commentators who opening and even enthusiastically endorsed Sharon’s Disengagement Plan a year ago now admit that they were wrong to do so then and are against any subsequent disengagements (by whatever name) executed by the Olmert-led government. You might want to take a look at Amotz Asa-El’s article in this week’s magazine section of the Jerusalem Post.

Now, on the surface, the ominous perspective above may make perfect sense. It would seem to be tantamount to suicide for Israel to act now and remove forty-year-old settlements from the West Bank. But, before we dismiss the Convergence Plan out of hand let us take a closer look at Israel’s previous withdrawals and disengagements and see if they have something to teach us beyond fear and suspicion.

First, what do both the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and the Disengagement from Gaza in 2005 have in common? I suggest two things:

1) In both cases Israel pulled out unilaterally without negotiating with either Lebanon or the Palestinians. While it could be (and, in fact, was) argued that Israel had no negotiating partner, absent of Israel establishing an interlocutor, these pullouts only succeeded in creating a political and military vacuum subsequently filled by Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

2) Again in both cases, Israel’s military pullout left it without a defensive shield capable of rapid and tactical response to any and all attacks upon the home front. Back in 2000, had there been a negotiated settlement between Israel, Lebanon and the international community in which a “robust” international force had been deployed in South Lebanon to implement Security Council Resolution 1559 (as opposed to the vacuous UNIFIL “observers”), Hezbollah may not have been able to establish itself as effectively as it has. And, had Israel disengaged its civilian population while maintaining a military presence in Gaza until and if a moderate Palestinian negotiating party emerged, the Kassam attacks within Israel might have been significantly modulated if not prevented completely.

The observations above clearly indicate that Israel cannot and must not withdraw from Lebanon absent of negotiations and agreements with the Lebanese government and the international community. After what we have experienced this past month, no Israeli government has the mandate to withdraw from Lebanon while leaving its citizens exposed to enemy attack. Any settlement of the present conflict in Lebanon must assure that Hezbollah’s military threat is eliminated and that no military vacuum be allowed in South Lebanon. I think that this is obvious to everyone here in Israel and to most reasonable people abroad.

What is not as clear (especially in light of this weekend’s commentaries on the anniversary of the Disengagement) is how the war in Lebanon and the conflict with the Palestinians impacts the future of any pullout from the West Bank.

To say that today’s events negate any possible withdrawal plan is both simplistic and problematic. There may not be hope for peace with the Palestinians any time soon if Israel withdraws from the West Bank, but there assuredly never will be a chance for peace if it fails to do so. What, then, is the answer?

If ever there will be a land-for-peace settlement with the Palestinians and the establishment of a Palestinian state, then Israel will, inevitably, have to give up its settlements in the West Bank. The question is how and when.

First, before Israel begins to remove settlements beyond a final border with the Palestinians it must be ready to do so. We owe it to those people who (for whatever reason) sacrificed comfort and security to live in and develop their homes in the West bank over the last 39 years, to make sure that there are homes and livelihoods ready for them within the final borders of Israel. This includes preparing and providing—in advance—all the social and financial support and infrastructure necessary to facilitate their move. If nothing else, this was a hard and vital lesson that we learned (it is hoped that we learned) from the experience disengaging from Gaza.

Secondly, while a withdrawal (even unilaterally) of the civilian Israeli population from the West Bank might be undertaken in the near future no such withdrawal of Israel’s military presence on the West Bank should be executed until and unless there is a negotiated settlement with responsible Palestinian partners who can insure the enforcement of any agreement. This second consideration would allow the IDF to protect Israeli citizens from attack by maintaining a strong military presence in the West Bank prior to a negotiated settlement.

It would be tragic for Israel to withdraw from settlements before it is ready to absorb the settlers. And, the only way for Israel to have negotiating flexibility and effectiveness with the Palestinians is if there are no settlements in the way of a peace process. The time is now to begin implementing the necessary logistic and social preparations for a future pullout of civilians from the West Bank.

Therefore, rather than eliminating the possibility for the realization of Olmert’s Convergence Plan, the present conflicts prove to me the very need for it. And, what we learn from the events of the past can give us important insights into how such a plan needs to be structured to allow for its success rather than to insure its failure (as was the case in Gaza).

During these days of alarums—when sirens warn of rockets instead of heralding Shabbat—we should avoid irrational or reactionary alarm. Let us act out of strength, not fear. So may Shabbat be a foretaste of peace with our neighbors rather than an island of peace in a hostile world.

Shalom from Jerusalem.

Paratroopers and Puppets

August 9, 2006

We’re at war there is no doubt about it no matter how politicians, pundits or pollsters characterize it otherwise. Today a massive reserve force gathers at our northern border ready to begin the third phase of the conflict (following the initial air operations and the subsequent limited ground war). Over one million Israelis have been displaced from their homes with some still huddled in bomb shelters while others have found safe haven with friends, family or generous strangers outside the terror zone. Our tourist industry is in crisis. A friend reports that an associate staying at the luxurious David Citadel Hotel was one of the only guests. What promised to be the best year for tourism since the outbreak of the second Intifada now threatens to be a disaster for the economy. It is predicted that the unemployment rate in the north will exceed 14% this year, with some 10,000 businesses on the brink of collapse. That is what happens in wartime and its effects are felt for a very long time after cease-fires bring an end to the military conflict. And the death, destruction and economic devastation is even greater in Lebanon.

This is war and war is ugly. But in surreal juxtaposition to the harsh and brutal news streaming from the Internet, the radio and the television, today Israel observes Tu B’Av. In stark contrast to the somber and sorrowful message of Tisha B’Av, Tu B’Av (the fifteenth of Av) is a day dedicated to romantic love. The Talmud (Tractate Ta’anit) describes Tu B’Av as a joyous kind of Sadie Hawkins day in which young women went out to the vineyards dressed in white while the unmarried men gathered around as the women would say, "Young man, lift up your eyes and choose wisely. Don't look only at physical beauty - look rather at the family - 'For charm is false, and beauty is vanity. A God-fearing woman is the one to be praised...' (Proverbs 31:30)"

While Tisha B’Av commemorates Jewish tragedies, especially those associated with the Temple in Jerusalem, Tu B’Av celebrates many happy events in Jewish history many associated with the Temple. In a commentary on Tu B’Av I read something very interesting. Rabbi Shlomo Aviner (cited on the www.ou.org website) notes that one theme that runs through the events celebrated on Tu B’Av is unity. Thus Tu B’Av can be viewed as a celebration of Jewish unity as expressed in the love that two people can find in one another. Perhaps my mind turns to this theme of romance and harmony because today Wendy and I celebrate our 31st anniversary.

But I find this yin/yang contrast of Tisha B’Av and Tu B’Av within the same week compelling for another reason. Whether by design or coincidence, these two holy days of commemoration express a profound reality: life is contrasts it is the sadness of Tisha B’Av and the joy of Tu B’Av integrated into a wholeness that is life.

So perhaps it is meaningful that in the midst of this war I look out from my balcony and see the fireworks (the colorful kind) coming from the Sultan’s Pool outside the walls of the Old City in celebration of the annual Arts & Crafts festival. During the festivities there will be displays by international artisans, food booths offering delicacies from around the world and a cacophony (my editorial comment) of Israeli pop concerts. Concurrently there is a festival of puppetry running at the Khan and Train Station theaters featuring puppet performances throughout the day and night for adults as well as children—all this celebration of life in the midst of war. Tisha B’Av locked in intimate embrace with Tu B’Av.

These are trying times in which we live. Israel is being challenged on the diplomatic front no less than on the battlefield. There are those who threaten us with a destruction worse than any tragedy in our past. But, in sweet defiance of their curses arises a vision—a celebration—of life: music, food, and art. Tisha B’Av making us confront our fragility and our mortality; Tu B’Av instilling hope and joy for life.

I am concerned about Israel’s immediate security, I am not afraid for Israel’s future. That sentiment is shared, I believe, by all of us here. The situation demands our “paratrooper” response to those who seek to add another woeful event to the Tisha B’Av chronicle, but our embrace of life inspires our Tu B’Av “puppet” celebration of love’s promise and life’s joyful pleasures.

This week is an excellent metaphor of life here in this sacred land. Living in Israel makes me feel more alive and attuned to the world around me as never before. I am aware of the sanctity of life and its precariousness, its joys and its sorrows, here in this land of paratroopers and puppets.

Shalom from Jerusalem.

Either/Or

August 8, 2006

The news today is filled with happenings at the UN. The Security Council was set to vote today (Tuesday) on a joint US-French resolution calling for a cease-fire and the establishment of a “robust” multi-national force to take over the policing of Southern Lebanon until Lebanon’s own forces can effectively implement Security Council Resolution 1559, calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah. Though opposed bitterly by Hezbollah’s leadership, this resolution has Israel’s support and the broadest international support imaginable (including Russian support that was slow in coming because the Russians were slighted in the drafting of the resolution). But, of course, there is a fly in the ointment.

Following a meeting of the Arab League at which Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora made a tear-filled entreaty to the assembled Arab delegates to intervene with the Security Council on Lebanon’s behalf, the League prevailed upon the Council to allow its representatives to address the body before a final vote. That presentation is scheduled to take place on Tuesday afternoon, making it unlikely that a vote on a resolution will take place any time before Thursday.

What does this mean? Simply, this means that there will be no call for a cease-fire to take place before Thursday. This, of course, assumes that the Security Council will have a resolution prepared to present by then. Thus Israel’s military operations will proceed unhindered by a Security Council brokered cease-fire until then. This has significant implications for Israel’s prosecution of the war during this window of operational opportunity.

This window, however, raises some important military questions. So far, the war has not been going well. This is not the kind of war for which the IDF is best suited. In Lebanon we face a deeply entrenched enemy making the kind of quick, innovative combat at which the IDF excels almost impossible. In order to effectively neutralize Hezbollah’s forces in their bunkers (from which or near which they launch many of their rockets against Israel civilian population) Israel military strategists are faced with an “either/or” option: raise the level of bombing with the consequent lethal effects upon Lebanese civilians; or significantly enhance Israel’s ground operations. The latter option will have the inevitable result of a large number of Israeli military casualties. While the other option will limit the number of Lebanese civilian deaths there is a nagging question about how many of its own military deaths the Israeli public will tolerate. This is as much a political as it is a strategic question. No Israeli decision maker, neither civilian nor military, wants to be responsible for the needless death of even one soldier.

It is not that Israelis are unwilling to make painful sacrifices—we have more than proved that in the past as well as in the present conflict—however, it must be clear that any and all sacrifices are necessary to achieve clear goals. And that, precisely, is the issue here: what are Israel’s specific goals in this war?

Obviously, the primary objective is to restore stability and safety to Northern Israel. At the very least, this means pushing Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon beyond rocket range of Israeli territory. But, assuming that Hezbollah cannot be removed from Lebanon neither militarily nor politically, what would Israel consider a “tolerable” Hezbollah presence in Lebanon? What if the Arab League is successful in amending the Security Council resolution and Israel is compelled to pull out of Lebanon immediately, before a strong international force can be established? And, can Israel tolerate an end to hostilities that will allow Hezbollah to claim a “victory” and raise its ideological capital even higher in the Arab world? To what extent can Israel count on continued American support if it is unsuccessful in advancing America’s own interests in this conflict? And let us not forget Iran and Syria. Can Israel and the international community, de facto, accept an Iranian presence in Lebanon through its Hezbollah surrogate? What can be gained or lost by giving Syria a place at the negotiating table?

These questions and more occupy our Israeli leaders in the window of time before a formal resolution comes before the Security Council.

On the homefront, I will say that the Israeli public remains steadfastly behind the war effort. This is a battle for the homeland it is not about maintaining occupation or territorial issues. That, precisely, is at the crux of the hostilities with the Palestinians it is not germane to the fight against Hezbollah.

Although voices on both the Left and the Right see the fighting in the South and in the North as one and the same, they are not. Connected, to be sure, but not the same. As I have said before, I think that it is important to make that distinction. With the Palestinians there is much to negotiate and negotiation is more desirable than conflict. With Hezbollah there is no compromise and there can be no negotiation. Hezbollah is an illegal extra-national presence in Lebanon acting on behalf of a third nation, Iran, committed to the elimination of Israel. We Israelis may be divided about the military response to Hamas and the Palestinians; there is very little opposition to the war against Hezbollah. It is significant to note that even organizations such as Peace Now and Rabbis for Human Rights support the military actions in Lebanon, leaving only those on the extreme left to oppose the war.

No, these are not easy and tranquil times, though I must admit that Jerusalem seems so quiet and languid during these dog days of summer. But underneath our apparent summer lethargy, we are actively committed to this effort to bring peace to the North and open our hands, hearts and homes to the one million refugees from Hezbollah’s murderous bombardments. In this cause we will need the help of our friends throughout the world, but especially in America. We need your financial support to be sure (for example, it is estimated by the Jewish National Fund that it will cost upwards of $75 million over the next two years to repair and replant our forests destroyed by rocket fire), but we also need you to be in touch with US government leaders to prevail upon them to continue diplomatic support of Israel at this critical time.

There is much that you can do. You need not be a passive observer to this conflict you can help to make a difference. Take a stand and support Israel.

May God watch over us and all those who seek peace—Israeli, Lebanese and Palestinian alike.

Shalom from Jerusalem.

They Are Our Children

August 2, 2006

Tonight begins the fast day of Tisha B’Av. It is one of the oldest of Jewish observances recalling the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E. Since that time Jews have mourned this national loss and more, whether by coincidence, redaction, or divine destiny, the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av has come to be associated with a number of tragedies in Jewish history. The list spans from ancient times (the destruction of both the First and Second Temples, the latter at the hands of the Romans in 70 C.E.), through the Medieval and Renaissance periods (it is said that the Edict of Expulsion from Spain took effect on this date in 1492), and into modern times (the final obliteration of the Warsaw Ghetto during the Shoah was effected on Tisha B’Av). Tisha B’Av has come to be a powerful metaphor in Judaism.

But, please do not misinterpret this occupation with past tragedies. This day is not about our isolation and persecution at the hands of others; Tisha B’Av reminds us of the resiliency of our people and the undying power of our faith. Traditionally, Jews fast for 25 hours on Tisha B’Av and hold special services in which, by candle light and sitting on the floor in the manner of mourners, we read the Book of Lamentations.

I have always had mixed-feelings about Tisha B’Av. Especially since 1967 when all of Jerusalem (including the site of the Temples) was restored to the Jewish people, I have questioned the practice of continued mourning over events so distant in our past. Yet, the events of the past three weeks have reminded me the importance of remembering and of learning from the past. The struggle for our survival continues because there are still those forces in the world that intend our destruction. If we have learned nothing else from our legacy of tragedies, we have learned that we must be strong, unified and resolute in facing those who hate us. At the same time, knowing injustice so well ourselves, we must constantly evaluate our actions as we respond to those who threaten us.

This brings me to an article in today’s Jerusalem Post that I found most meaningful in appeared on page 5 (it was obviously not considered “hot news”) and entitled: “MKs worry about their children at the front.” The article indicated that no less than six members of the Knesset (out of 120) have children fighting in Lebanon. Moreover, a majority of the Knesset has at least one child or grandchild in the reserves. That means that any decision to go to war or to escalate the hostilities is a personal decision for our legislators. The fact that most of the top brass in the military is in the same position, you can be sure that any military actions are considered most carefully and astutely before committing troops in any action. What other country in the world can make a similar claim?

In contrast to Hezbollah which is willing to sacrifice every Lebanese civilian (other than their own families) to further its cause or those who send suicide bombers (never their own children) to wreak death and destruction in Israel, those who send the IDF out to fight know that they are putting their own children at risk. Who would cavalierly put their children in jeopardy, especially those whose faith places such value on all human life?

Let others criticize Israel as they might, are they really so cynical as to believe that we do not care about our children? This war is necessary for our survival. If you need proof, consider the sacrifices made by those whose deliberations impact the military policies consequent to those decisions. We do not take our survival lightly. History has taught us otherwise. That is the real meaning and modern significance of Tisha B’Av.

And so, I will be fasting this Tisha B’Av, though not in the manner of most of my Orthodox coreligionists who will refrain from food and drink for twenty-five hours. Following a custom observed by some Conservative Jews (based on variant traditional opinion), I will fast until midday, lest “it appear as though we are oblivious to all the good that God has bestowed on us,” according to Rabbi Tzvi Graetz of Shevet Ahim Congregation in Jerusalem’s Gilo neighborhood.

At this time I recall how fragile, how tenuous security and freedom are and have been for the Jewish people. So, too, do I give thanks to God for the blessing of our continued survival and vitality. This Shabbat, reading from the prophet Isaiah (“Comfort, comfort My people…”), we begin a period of solace and hope emerging from the sober reminders of Tisha B’Av. May God bless us now with days of hope that the present conflicts (with Hezbollah and with the Palestinians) be resolved and our security and freedom insured. With faith in the future…

Shalom from Jerusalem.

The Difference Between Them and Us

Monday, July 31, 2006

It goes without saying, but it needs to be said, that the deaths of the civilians on Sunday at Kafr Kana is a tragedy. Life, all life, is sacred in Judaism—even the life of your enemy.

I am reminded of the rabbis’ commentary to the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea following the Exodus. The Midrash teaches that the angels on high saw the Egyptian soldiers and their chariots sinking in the sea and joyfully burst out in song in honor of Israel’s “triumph.” In response, God silenced the angels and said: “My children are drowning, how can you sing?” And that is why during the Passover Seder we take ten drops from our wine cups (the symbol of joy) as each of the Ten Plagues is recalled—we cannot have unmitigated joy, even for our liberation, when it comes at the price of human life.

If this is true for those pursuing us seeking our destruction, how much the more so for innocents caught up in the horrors of war? And so, our Israeli leaders immediately expressed regret for the deaths, a 48-hour suspension of bombing Lebanon has been called so that a proper investigation of the tragic incident can be conducted and in the Israeli streets there is a tangible sense of regret that these people had to die. There is no singing and rejoicing here, neither by Israelis nor by any angels on high.

And that, dear friends, is part of the difference between them and us — we do not target civilians, their rockets and missiles specifically do. We mourn the loss of innocent life; they hold “spontaneous” rallies when our women, men and children die. We do everything possible to protect our non-combatants; they intentionally use civilians (even children) as human shields for their operations.

And that is what makes prosecuting this war so difficult.

The media decries Israel’s “disproportionate” military response and questions the legitimacy of continuing the war against Hezbollah. Western diplomats call upon Israel to accept an immediate cease-fire while the rocket-rain of death continues to fall on civilian population centers in Israel. In the capitals of Arab countries where there is no love lost on Hezbollah, rulers and despots shout “War crimes!” Indeed, one might well argue that there is a worldwide “disproportionate” moral response to the jeopardizing of innocents in this war; holding Israel culpable for all deaths while absolving the guilt of Hezbollah (and the government of Lebanon in which Hezbollah continues to play an active role).

Consider the following:

• Israel has publicly declared that this war is against Hezbollah and not against the Lebanese government or Lebanese civilians.
• Hezbollah has proclaimed to the world that its aim is the destruction of Israel and that all Israelis are targeted as “the enemy.”
• Israel consistently goes out of its way to minimize civilian casualties as official military policy and when there is a loss of civilian life a military investigation is usually carried out immediately.
• Hezbollah specifically targets civilian centers, calling them “military” targets (in other words, Hezbollah itself makes no distinction between combatants and non-combatants as legitimate targets).
• Israel’s military does everything possible to keep hostilities away from its civilian population (that is why it is called the Israel Defense Forces).
• Hezbollah uses civilians as human shields as a cover for its operations and to “protect” its weapons caches and strongholds, and then when civilians become casualties, it uses the tragedy to advance its own propaganda agenda.
• When an Israeli soldier dies, the IDF and the Israeli people extend their deepest sympathies and mourn with the family.
• When a Hezbollah fighter is killed (or any other Arab caught up in the fighting), the family is called upon to “rejoice” over the martyrdom.
  

The observations above are not tendentious interpretations intended to whitewash Israeli actions, they are facts. Though there may certainly be exceptions to any of the statements, I challenge anyone to disprove them categorically.
That still does not bring back the dead from Kafr Kana, or those from Haifa either. But, I ask you to consider the following facts about what happened in Kafr Kana when confronting unilateral condemnation of Israel for this tragedy.

• The IDF publicly and in a timely manner warned the civilian population in South Lebanon to remove themselves from the hostilities.
• Hezbollah forces have blocked the free-flow of civilian refugees from South Lebanon, preventing many from escaping to the relative safety of the north.
• There are IDF surveillance videos showing Hezbollah rocket launchers moving into and launched out of Kafr Kana and its immediate vicinity.
• The building in which the innocent civilians took refuge for the night was bombed seven hours before the collapse of the building (these people did not die during an Israeli bombing).
• And again, Hezbollah—as a matter of policy—used these same civilians as a shield to cover their military operations against civilians in Israel.

While it is true that no justification of the IDF’s actions can revive these people or erase the suffering of innocents, shouldn’t the world pause and consider the facts before laying the blame on Israel alone? Why the disproportionate moral response to this tragedy?

So why is it that Israel gets all the blame and Hezbollah gets virtually none? Why is Israel called upon (rightly) to observe all the minutiae of international law while Hezbollah is not? Cynically, we know the answers, don’t we? War is not, after all, about morality it is about politics and the strategies necessary to achieve specific ideological goals. That is realpolitik, isn’t it?

Israel’s goals are to achieve the right to live peacefully in the State of Israel. This has been stated time and time again. Hezbollah’s goals are to destroy Israel and to spread its radical form of Islam from Spain to Iraq (echoed in the words of Ayman al-Zawahri the second-in-command of Al Qaida). That, my friends, is the difference between them and us. We know it and we must do all that we can to make sure that the leaders of the world acknowledge it. It must strengthen our resolve to persevere, not cower us into submission.

Pray for us—by that I mean all of us, Israelis and Lebanese and Palestinian—pray for the success of all those whose goals are peace, real peace.

Shalom from Jerusalem.

Days Between the Straits

Thursday, July 27, 2006

The news wasn’t good today. This has been (by Israel’s standards) are very difficult and protracted war. Hezbollah has proven to be a disciplined, well-equipped and tenacious foe. Losing scores of fighters (who become instant martyrs) doesn’t seem to faze them and merely standing up to Israel’s vastly superior military might is seen throughout the Arab world as a major victory.

This is no conventional war. We are not fighting a regular army on the battlefield. Hezbollah fights a guerilla war and has tactically strikes from within civilian population centers. The result is that any Israeli operation against Hezbollah strongholds results in more civilian than terrorist casualties. This is precisely Hezbollah’s modus operandi…the more fighters they lose, the more civilians die, giving them a propaganda edge. And this tactic works. The world continues to decry Israel’s disproportional response when, in fact, Israel more than any military force in history has gone out of its way to minimize non-combatant casualties. So, who is to blame for the disproportional number of civilian dead and wounded, Israel or Hezbollah?

Unfortunately, logic does not make headlines. Thus Israel continues to be vilified for finally standing up to Hezbollah and unilaterally assuming responsibility for implementing Security Council Resolution 1559. Adding insult to injury the United Nations Secretary General himself spreads the calumny that Israel knowingly targeted UNIFIL troops and, while accepting Prime Minister Olmert’s apology for the deaths and promise to launch a full-scale investigation there has been no reciprocal apology from Kofi Anan for his libelous remarks.

The main headlines in the papers today are about the continued fighting in Bint Jbail. Yesterday’s banner read: “IDF takes Bint Jbail, kills top Hizbollah leader.” Today’s headline gives a very different story: “8 soldiers killed in Battle of Bint Jbail.” The IDF action against Hezbollah’s terrorist stronghold has not provided the symbolic victory that would crush Hezbollah’s spirit as promised. On the contrary, Hezbollah resistance in Bint Jbail is proving to be another propaganda coup for the terrorists and their Iranian sponsors.

No, the news has not been good today but that is the nature of war. This country is on a roller coaster of emotions rising with confidence in victory one moment only to plunge into concern and despair the next as we learn of the deaths of our soldiers, our sons. I say “our sons” because that is what it feels like here; the men and women of the IDF are our children and we cherish them. That is why Israel responds to casualties in ways that are unique to the Israeli ethos.

Just today, reading about the battles in Bint Jbail, I came across an article on the evacuation of the wounded to Israeli base hospitals. Arriving at the hospitals many of the soldiers were met by their mothers who rushed to the side of their wounded sons. I wonder in what other country in the world would you find that happening? And as for our fallen, they are not our martyrs and we do not rejoice in their elevation to Paradise—they are heroes, but they are our sons and our future who have sacrificed themselves for our survival; not our aggrandizement but our survival.

Jerusalem Post journalist Matthew Wagner wrote in today’s edition that the fighting in the North has taken place during the three-week period between the 17th of Tammuz and the 9th of Av. In ancient times this was the period between the time that the Babylonians first breached the walls of the Holy City and the Destruction of Jerusalem’s holy Temple in 586 B.C.E. In Jewish history, the 9th of Av is a vortex of woe commemorating countless tragedies that have befallen the Jewish people throughout history specifically during this time. This period—called by the rabbis Bein Hameitzarim (between the straits)—witnessed the destruction of both the First and Second Temples (the latter at the hands of the Romans in the year 70 C.E.), the Edict of Expulsion from Spain, the elimination of the Warsaw Ghetto and many more events that have tried and tested our people throughout history. As Wagner notes that, “Many Jews cannot help noticing the timing of the warfare in the North, which has fallen smack in the middle of Bein Hameitzarim.” That is true, but next week is Tisha B’Av, the 9th of Av, which ends this period and begins the Seven Weeks of Comfort in which we read portions from the Prophets expressing hope and our closeness to God.

We did not ask for this war. We did not start it. Contrary to the rantings of Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah we did not chose the timing. But, neither do we shrink from the task or cower in the face of our enemy. The news may not be good today, but our resolve is as strong as ever. Our forces demonstrate incredible courage on the battlefield and the home front remains united and resolute.

Though you may hear negativity and harsh criticism of Israel today and tomorrow, please do not lose faith. I firmly believe that what we are doing is right— all the while cognizant of the many innocents on both sides who are victims of this war—but right. We are fighting to bring peace while Hezbollah, by its own admission seeks our destruction. Maybe this period Bein Hameitzarim is auspicious, not because it chronicles our frailty, on the contrary, because it reminds us that time and again we Jews have faced those who have sought to destroy us and we have survived and more, we have thrived. So too, at this moment, we are about survival and a vision of a thriving Middle East nourished by peace and prosperity victorious over forces of death and destruction.

In the celebratory Psalms of the Hallel, we read:

In my straits (Meitzar) I called upon the Eternal One;
God answered me and set me free.
Adonai is with me;
I shall not be afraid.

I repeat those words not out of jingoistic hubris suggesting that God is only on Israel’s side. On the contrary, keeping God in these events brings responsibility to make sure that we prosecute this war as morally as the immorality of war allows. But, I quote the Hallel because I believe that the psalmist brings us this message: with faith we can be set free from the straits of this war and turn the lamentations of the mothers of the fallen soldiers into joyous psalms of thanksgiving for our survival and victory.

Shalom from Jerusalem.

Howya Gonna Keep ‘Em Down on the Farm?

July 26, 2006

Well, Condi has come and gone and the war in the north goes on. What is significant, though not at all surprising, is that the American Secretary of State arrived with no intentions of pressuring Israel into an immediate cease-fire with Hezbollah, nor did she give an American carte blanche to Israel in its prosecution of the war. It was, I believe, a tactical coup for Secretary Rice to arrange a “surprise” visit to Beirut prior to her stop-off in Jerusalem before traveling to Rome for the international conference on the crisis in Lebanon and Israel’s north. I emphasize the latter because most media reports describe the meeting as focusing on Lebanon. While it is true that the crux of the issue to be discussed will be the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559, there will also be much talk about the suffering this war has imposed on Lebanon’s civilian population. I hope that those gathered in Rome will also take into account the suffering imposed upon Israeli civilians—more than a million in the north victimized by the incessant rocket barrages from Hezbollah. Israel will accept no decision to end the present crisis that does not include the neutralizing of Hezbollah’s ability to threaten the lives and welfare of Israeli citizens.

What is striking about the Rome conference is the absence of the key players in the conflict except for Lebanon itself. Israel’s absence, I would aver, is to its benefit. Were Israel to be a party in the face-to-face deliberations it is very likely that a consensus would develop for the immediate cessation of military actions by Israel. This pressure would be much more difficult for Israel to resist in Rome rather than as part of a negotiations package at a later date.

But, also “missing” at the table are both Syria and Iran the key backers of Hezbollah. It is important that neither be given a direct voice as this would give them the recognition and pivotal role that they both seek. Iran wants to establish itself as the clear leader of a pan-Muslim order imposed upon the Middle East by it cadres of jihadist forces. This is true not only as regards Hezbollah, but also vis a vis Hamas, and the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran’s race to develop nuclear weapons is part of its ambitions for Islamic hegemony over the entire Middle East. In this enterprise Syria serves as Iran’s junior partner.

That is precisely why it should not surprise anyone that the Arab governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and even Lebanon itself have not refrained from criticizing Hezbollah as a “state within a state,” that threatens Lebanon’s stability. The unprecedented tacit acceptance of Israel’s actions against Hezbollah heralds a new phase in the turmoils that have plagued the Middle East for generations. The established governments in the Middle East are just as threatened by Iran as is Israel.

Heretofore, Israel’s chief enemies were the confrontation states aligned along its borders. With the exception of Syria, none of the old guard confrontation states pose an immediate threat to Israel. There are peace accords with Egypt and Jordan that have stood the test of time and past crises. Saudi Arabia is in no position to pose a military threat (even in past conflicts, preferring to pay for others to fight rather than expose its own forces), and Lebanon would not present a problem were it not for the presence of Hezbollah (and, to a lesser extent the Palestinians) in its territory. That leaves only Syria—the toothless tiger—as a potential military threat to Israel.

Politically too, there have been major shifts in the Muslim world. Abdel Nasser’s goal of an Egyptian dominated United Arab Republic is gone now. So too, Syria’s ambitions for a greater Syria (including Lebanon, Israel and Iraq) are no more than a pipe dream, although this explains Syria’s involvement in the present crisis. Syria’s goals are national, not religious as Syria’s Baathist regime has secular-nationalistic roots.

What has replaced these previous pan-Arab visions is a new call for an Islamic Caliphate—this one based in Iran and spreading the ayatollah-brand of fundamentalism throughout the Middle East. In this new Islamic order non-Shiite Muslims are just as threatened as non-Muslims. “Iran’s war” is not about territory it is about ideology. That makes Syria’s siding with Iran bizarre, except that this coalition is tactically advantageous for both sides, though potentially strategically disastrous for Syria.

In Iran’s war there can be no “land for peace” compromises. Israel’s very existence as a non-Islamic state runs counter to Iran’s ideology. What President Ahmadinejad has been saying about wiping Israel off the map is not idle talk it is fundamental to Iran’s geo-political goals based on its religious principles. Hezbollah is the military finger of Iran’s hand. There can be no more compromise with Hezbollah than with Iran. Hezbollah doesn’t want more land it wants to eliminate Israel’s very existence.

And yet, the rationalization that Hezbollah uses to justify its own existence following Israel’s withdrawl from Lebanon in 1999 is that Israel did not withdraw from all of Lebanon. Hezbollah claims that Israel retained a ten square mile area bordered by Israel, Lebanon and Syria called the Shaba Farms (the area is called Har Dov in Hebrew). The United Nations, after exhaustive studies of area maps, determined that the area of the Shaba Farms was Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967. Though Lebanon claims the Shaba Farms (giving Hezbollah its excuse that it continues to fight for the liberation of Lebanese territory occupied by Israel), Syria has never relinquished its claims—claims that have been consistently upheld by the United Nations.

Now there are rumblings that Hezbollah might consider a cease-fire if Israel released Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails and relinquished the strategically positioned Shaba Farms to Lebanese sovereignty. Israel is not prepared to meet either demand. However, the fact that Hezbollah is even raising such proposals seems to indicate that its forces have been significantly compromised in this war.

And so, we wait for the deliberations in Rome to see what develops. So far there has been little pressure on Israel to immediately and unilaterally end hostilities and such as there has been has been coming, in the main, from the streets and not the state houses. Meanwhile, one million people in the north of Israel have had their lives disrupted. About 70% are said to have fled to safer areas in the south, the remaining Israelis (those too poor, too ill, too old or whose jobs require them to stay) live each day in bomb shelters or safe rooms and keep their ears ever attuned to the sound of the sirens warning of a new rocket attack.

And still we pray for peace. There may be no negotiating with Hezbollah (and, by extrapolation Iran), but Israel would be making a grave mistake, I believe, if it assumes the same attitude regarding the Palestinians. There may not be a moderate faction in Hamas with whom to open dialogue, but Mahmud Abbas remains open to negotiations. Israel needs to separate the Palestinian issue from the war in the north though the links between Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are quite evident. Unfortunately there are many voices taking the opposite view equating the Palestinian issue and their aspirations for statehood and Hezbollah’s aim of destroying Israel and establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state in its stead. Now is the time to strengthen the hands of Palestinian moderates while the world’s sympathies are against Hamas and Hezbollah. Let’s wait and see what happens…

Shalom from Jerusalem.

Connecting the Dots

July 23, 2006

To date I have tried to keep my reflections on the war in the north confined to the events as they unfold in Lebanon and Israel. In the course of the observations I have noted the obvious connections between Hezbollah’s wanton aggression against Israel and the geopolitical machinations of Iran and Syria. It is patently clear to everyone that Hezbollah is the surrogate of Iran and Syria. But, why would Teheran and Damascus unleash Hezbollah at this particular point in time?

It has been widely speculated that Iran fomented this crisis in order to divert the world’s attention from its continued defiance against calls to curb its nuclear program. It certainly smacks of being more than coincidence when the chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani stopped off in Damascus on his way home from inconclusive talks with the negotiators from the EU. Almost immediately after this meeting Hezbollah abducted the two soldiers (killing eight others it should be remembered), setting off the present crisis. And, sure enough, when the G-8 meeting of world leaders took place the war in Lebanon had replaced the Iran nuclear issue at the top of the agenda.

But there’s more…

We hear so much criticism of Israel’s “disproportionate” response to Hezbollah’s aggression. The media reports from almost every quarter in the world that politicians and diplomats are bemoaning the tragic loss of life and the destruction of vital infrastructures in Lebanon. Yes, the world cries out and criticizes Israel freely and yet there has been no serious attempt by the United States or the EU to pressure Israel into a cease-fire. Why not?

This is where I may be pushing the envelope of reason, but here goes…

Perhaps there is more going on here than meets the eye. Obviously, the negotiations with Iran are going nowhere fast. Iran has no intention of curtailing its nuclear program and is doing everything it can to develop a nuclear bomb. Is there anyone left in the civilized world that doubts this? Also, it is not likely that the EU, the United States, Russia and China will come to an agreement to impose real and effective sanctions against Iran to force it to discontinue its nuclear program. And, without the agreement of those countries there is no way that the Security Council will take any significant action.

So, where does that leave us?

If there is little chance of sanctions being effective against Iran, the only other option that seems to be available is the military option. Someone (in truth either the United States or Israel) will have to strike out militarily against key installations in the Iranian nuclear program in order to stop the clock on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. And what is preventing the United States and/or Israel from doing just that? Hezbollah.

Perched on Israel’s border, Hezbollah has amassed a military capability that we are only just beginning to understand. After days and days of relentless bombing, much of Hezbollah’s might (some say as much as 80-90%) is still in tact. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah continues to boast that Hezbollah still has many “surprises” for Israel. Surprises? What surprises?

It would not surprise me at all that Iran has supplied Hezbollah with even longer range rockets than have been used up to now. Rockets that might even be capable of delivering more deadly payloads. It would be safe to assume that these weapons IF THEY EXIST (after all, this would not be the first time that the Iranians have been bluffing) are in the control of the Iranians themselves. Even they would not trust their minions in Hezbollah with such weapons. This might well be Iran’s ace in the hole as a deterrent to any US or Israeli actions against their nuclear infrastructure.

But maybe Iran miscalculated this time. If Israel succeeds in neutralizing Hezbollah’s military threat then Hezbollah’s effectiveness as a threatening shield against attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be nullified. This could be accomplished either directly as a result of the present conflict or by the international community working to push Hezbollah back from the confrontation lines by bringing the Lebanese army or international troops or a combination of the two into the area above Israel’s northern border, putting Israel beyond the reach of Hezbollah’s rockets.

Could it be that the international community, well aware of these realities, is sitting on the sidelines criticizing Israel but taking little other action to stop Israel from significantly weakening Hezbollah precisely because it wants Israel to prevail? If so, it could well be that sometime this year we might see firmer actions, either economic or military, taken against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This could well be the beginning of the end of Iran’s nuclear threat to the world.

Please realize that this may be no more than idle speculation—something to do while incessantly watching the news on TV. But still, it makes you stop and think, doesn’t it?

Shalom from Jerusalem.

Another Casualty of War

July 21, 2006

Though things in Jerusalem remain relatively quiet, it has been a while since I wrote my last update, not because I have had nothing to report but, rather, because my internet connection has fallen victim to the troubled times through which we are now living. A power surge affected Bezeq’s (Israel’s Ma Bell) telephone lines through which much of our internet traffic moves. This has resulted in a disruption of service for Bezeq’s internet customers of which I am one. That has meant no email and sporadic use of any internet resources. But, we are back up (for now) and I am able to communicate with you once more.

To date, the war in the north is in its ninth day. Here it is called the “War in the North,” not the “Lebanese War.” Despite the impression given by the media, the war is not being waged in Lebanon alone. As the thousands upon thousands of Israelis who live north of Tel Aviv will attest, this war is being fought in Israel as well as in Lebanon.

Israeli jets, helicopter gunships, armed drones and artillery are hammering sites considered strategic military targets used by Hezbollah to harass Israel and to control and extort the Lebanese people. Unfortunately in the course of these operations some 300 Lebanese have been killed and thousands injured. Many of these casualties are the innocent victims of war. It is tragic and should not happen, but it does—in times of war the innocent suffer.

But let us not loose sight of the fact that Hezbollah began this war by abducting two Israeli soldiers and killing eight others. Then it began its barrage of rockets that have reached Israel’s heartland and have taken the lives of over thirty Israelis and injured hundreds more. Nearly a fifth of Israel’s population must stay close to bomb shelters and safe rooms for fear of the next rocket to fall. And this should be clear to all of us, Hezbollah considers every Israeli city, town and village and everyone who lives in them (including thousands of Israeli Arabs, Druse and Circassians) a military target. Innocent Lebanese die as a tragic consequence of war while Israeli civilians are specifically targeted by Hezbollah.

And the world speaks of disproportionate response. What, I ask, is a proportionate response? Does Israel limit its self-defense when there are an equivalent number of casualties on each side—is war a matter of keeping score? What war could ever be prosecuted under such strictures? And so the disproportionate response continues and seems to be bearing some fruit.

While the nations of the international community continue to criticize the magnitude of the Israeli military response they have been uncharacteristically slow in demanding a cessation of hostilities. With the exception of the snake pits of terror, namely Teheran, Damascus and North Korea, the nations of the world—and especially the United Nations—has not demanded of Israel that it halt its military actions before its four conditions are met, namely the unconditional release of the two captive soldiers, the immediate cessation of the rocket attacks by Hezbollah, the deployment of Lebanon’s legitimate army on Israel’s northern border and the dismantling of Hezbollah’s military in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1559.

And more, Hezbollah is definitely losing the propaganda war. In today’s Jerusalem Post it was reported that the Lebanese Prime Minister, Fuad Saniora, and Lebanese Druse leader, Walid Jumblatt, in separate interviews criticized Hezbollah’s “state within a state,” and called for the group to be disarmed and accusing Syria of seeking to destroy Lebanon. It was reported in yesterday’s Post that some of the Hamas leadership of the Palestinians are becoming increasingly worried that they and their cause will be identified with Hezbollah’s war. These Palestinians realize that Hezbollah is receiving a lot of bad press lately and they are concerned that their cause will be sullied bu association. Meanwhile Palestinians march through Gaza and in Nablus in support of Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah and cheering them on to rain down more rockets upon Israel. This is reminiscent of similar marches in support of Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War. For now, the war in the north against Hezbollah has eclipsed the troubles in Gaza.

This last point has a disturbing consequence. Realizing that they need to retake center stage in the struggle against Israel, various Palestinian factions—including the military wings of the ruling Hamas and Mahmud Abbas’ Fatah movement—have been encouraged to attempt ever more aggressive terrorist operations within Israel. Already at least two major suicide bombing attempts have been thwarted by Israeli forces.

In the meantime, Israel’s military forces continue the war against Hezbollah including limited engagements on the ground in Lebanon. There is talk of calling for a truce rather than for a cease-fire, the former being less formal than the latter. And Lebanese officialdom continues to appeal to the world as innocent victims of this war between Israel and Hezbollah. But I have a question for the leaders of Lebanon—if the government of Lebanon is not culpable for and complicit in the actions of Hezbollah, how is it that Hezbollah remains within the Lebanese government? Why have its representatives and ministers not been expelled from the halls of government? Prime Minister Saniora has not (and will not) address this question. But why are not the nations of the world and especially the United Nations pressing the issue?

If the Lebanese government is complicit (actively or passively) in Hezbollah’s actions, then it cannot call itself an innocent victim of this war and must shoulder responsibility for hostile actions against Israel taken by members of Lebanon’s coalition government. The plaints of innocence by Lebanon’s leaders are disproportionate to their responsibility for Hezbollah’s war and its tragic consequence for so many truly innocent Lebanese and Israelis. We should not allow the truth to become another casualty of war.

The war will end, not by military means, but through negotiation and diplomacy. We are, I feel, moving closer to that stage every day. Though troublesome, the news is not all disturbing. I am encouraged by what I read in the back pages more than by the front page news.

We pray that this war may end soon so that the Lebanese can return to their homes and begin the arduous process of rebuilding their country. So, too, may the Israelis now living in bomb shelters and safe rooms be allowed to return to their normal lives free of fear for their safety. Soon may we—on both sides—stop burying our dead and begin to live in peace.

Shalom from Jerusalem.

War in Real Time

Tuesday morning, July 18, 2006

Just about every day since we’ve gotten home I have been up at 5:00 AM and at the computer reading the latest updates on the war in the north from the Jerusalem Post, Ha’Aretz, and Y-Net. This is in addition to the constant drone of the news coming from the TV, ever-present in the background. Even here in Jerusalem (and elsewhere south of Tel Aviv and away from Gaza) where you would hardly know that this crisis is unfolding, the wars now being waged with Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in Gaza are a kind of leit motif to daily life. Everyone is affected because Israel is a small country and there are only about two degrees of separation between people here.

And so we wait, we watch and we listen. I try to get work done between stints in front of the TV switching between the Israeli Hebrew news, CNN, SKY News, BBC News, and Fox News, with an occasional foray to Al Jazeera (to watch the pictures of what they are broadcasting as I cannot understand Arabic—yet). Every source of information is valuable. Despite military censors who justifiably forbid real-time broadcasting of rocket attacks (lest Hezbollah have an on-site source to help them direct their salvos), there has been at least one instance yesterday when a rocket hit in Haifa as the Israeli reporter on-the-scene was broadcasting. We saw the rocket hit at the very moment of impact and saw the smoke billowing from the residential building that was struck. This is really “war in real time.”

The morale in Israel is high, by no means buoyant, but resolute and united. For the general public, whatever we can put our hands to do to help out, we do. As I write these words, Wendy is at the IRAC (Israel Religious Action Center) office volunteering on a project to put together guidelines for Reform congregations (and others) on the frontlines to see to the needs of their congregants during this crisis. With whom to be in touch, what needs must be met, how local congregations can rally in support—all these concerns are being addressed as the whole country galvanizes and mobilizes to meet this challenge.

We are also seeing to the needs of the many tourists—especially youth groups—who find themselves in the country during this difficult time. Very few have cut their visits short to leave the country. Travel plans have changed to keep groups in the safety of the southern part of the country, but the groups are staying. I just spoke to Melinda Weiss, one of our Temple Beth Sholom kids—three of whom are here with the Orange County TIES summer trip—who spoke with enthusiasm about being here, even now. They are precious treasures and are being protected as such, but they are also goodwill ambassadors from abroad whose support and solidarity is enormously appreciated. They are learning first-hand the meaning of the saying, “All Jews are dependent [literally “mixed up” with] each other.” Ours is a shared destiny and when a Jew in Haifa is wounded, a Jew in Orange County, California feels pain.

And so events unfold. So far, there has been no significant commitment of Israeli ground troops in Lebanon. The air strikes and artillery barrages by the IDF appear to have had a significant impact upon Hezbollah’s military capabilities. The rockets and Katyushas are still coming, but there are clear indications that the Israeli military response is taking its toll. Daily sorties over Dahiya, the Beirut suburb controlled by Hezbollah and where Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah (the leader of Hezbollah) is holed up in an underground bunker, are having their effect. The last video communication from Nasrallah, though bellicose and threatening, betrays the increasingly desperate situation of Hezbollah and its leadership.

Signifanctly, the media here reports that Hezbollah (and Hamas) have not succeeded in rallying Arab governments to their cause. On the contrary, voices of criticism are being raised in the Arab world. As cited in today’s Jerusalem Post, Tarek Hamo, a prominent Arab commentator, has mockingly drawn parallels between Nasrallah’s rantings and those of Saddam Hussein prior to the Iraq war. “Nasrallah is now in hiding and his fate won’t be better than that of Saddam, whose hiding was in a deep hole,” he stated. Lebanese Christian Joseph Bishara is quoted as saying, “How can we ask Israel to have mercy on Lebanon while Hizbollah [sic] is betraying Lebanon day and night.” This comment appeared on a Saudi Arabian new site. Only Iran, Syria and the Palestinians have come out clearly and strongly in support of Hezbollah.

And, as for Iran, today’s media report that Iran has raised the possibility of a cease-fire and prisoner exchange to resolve the conflict. This is a departure from Teheran’s usual jingoistic rhetoric. Iran obviously realizes that there has been a tactical blunder at best—or worse, a major strategic setback as a result of the Hezbollah misadventure. It seems possible that Iran is trying to salvage what it can from this military fiasco and its miscalculations regarding Israel’s response to Hezbollah aggression.

This is not to suggest that the conflict is anywhere near a resolution. Hezbollah still maintains considerable military strength including (it is believed) mid-range missiles able to reach Tel Aviv and powerful anti-tank weapons capable of slowing down a major ground offensive. The Hezbollah leadership is still mainly intact and it continues to receive logistical and financial support from Iran and Syria. It may be weakened but by no means eliminated as a threat to Israel and the region.

In the next few days UN representatives will be attempting to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is reported to be planning a trip here by the end of the week. These developments may well portend that the international community will begin to apply pressure upon Israel to diminish or curtail its military response to Hezbollah’s aggression. The window for action may be closing and so the hours and days to come will determine whether or not Hezbollah can be weakened enough to allow for negotiations to be effective and for any kind of real ceasefire to be established, restoring quite and security to Israel.

As Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in his speech to the Knesset yesterday, Israel is entitled to nothing less than “everything that everyone in the enlightened world takes for granted and never imagined that they would have to fight for—the right to a normal life. It is a difficult battle.”

Shalom from Jerusalem