The Thin End Of The Wedge

On my first trip to Israel, almost 50 years ago, both I and the country were young and naive. But even the youthful exuberance, wonder and awe, could not keep me from noticing the inordinate bureaucracy, and the almost dictatorial socialist behaviour of the police and government functionaries, the pakidim.

As a Zionist-Revisionist, a Betari, and devotee of Jabotinsky and Begin, the incident of the Altalena, when Ben Gurion ordered Jews to open fire on Jews, and the order was carried out by Yitzchak Rabin, was fresh in my mind. But as I walked the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Haifa and Eilat, all could be overlooked. To be in a Jewish homeland was what mattered, all the rest were minor irritants and could be ignored. Boy, was I wrong.

Then, over the years, as the light began to penetrate, I was still loath to publicly find fault with the State. In a sense, I still am to this very day.

However, the use being made today of the police and security services to ram a policy down the throats of the people is going just a little too far. There was the Avishai Raviv affair where the lunatic conduct of a Shabak agent led, directly or indirectly, to the assassination of a Prime Minister.

Now, once again an agent provocateur is being used to discredit the right of the political spectrum. And if that is not enough, you have people who disagree with government policy being thrown into jail in "administrative detention". No right to a trial, no crime specified, just thrown in jail because the Shabak, or the police or the Prime Minister, or some nameless functionary doesn't like what they are saying. And all this in the name of democracy.

The law governing "administrative detention" is a left-over from the British Mandate period. After the declaration of statehood in 1948, Israel just never got around to getting rid of it. In 57 years they could never get around to rescinding the law. In any event, surely in a democracy one may speak out against that with which one disagrees. One may even go so far as to urge the defeat of a government and the formation of a new government. If not, where is the democracy?

Martin Luther King was never placed in "administrative detention" because the US, unlike the hypocritical British, never had such a quaint concept. Yet Israel chooses to maintain this iniquitous tool, and to use it with increasing frequency. If someone is speaking sedition or committing treason, charge him accordingly, and present your evidence in a court of law. Otherwise, to speak out is his democratic right. To attend demonstrations and rallies is equally his right. Those in power may disagree with what he urges, but they must always accord him the right to urge it publicly and freely.

Lately I am reading about incidents where the police are alleged to have beaten youngsters for no reason other than they were attending or participating in demonstrations against government policy. Some of these youngsters are at an age where they are about to be inducted into the military. What a novel way of instilling patriotism! Here is the coverage from Arutz-7 - Israel National News.

Arutz-7 – Israel National News,
2/27/2005

Two families told Arutz-7 the same thing today: "We've filed a complaint with the
Police Department against the policemen in question, and are planning to file a civil lawsuit as well, via Honenu."
Both families, the Alberts and the Halfons, underwent the same trauma at the hands of violent policemen, just a day apart. A member of each family was arrested by police for no apparent reason, and was beaten up repeatedly by policemen on the way to - and in one case, inside - the police station.

The story of Hanoch Albert, 25, of Givat Ahiyah near Shilo, was told to Arutz-7 in detail by his brother and wife. On Feb. 15, police came to arrest Hanoch's friend for having planted a tree a month earlier at the site where he was wounded and a friend was killed in a terror attack in May 2003.
Hanoch attempted to dissuade the police from arresting him, explaining that his friend was a terror victim, etc. There was no violence, but finally the police decided to take Hanoch as well. On the way to the police station, they threatened him – "We know your family; you'll end up in the hospital in pieces" – and at one point, took him out of the car and began beating him frightfully and powerfully. He protected his face and head as best he could, but received strong blows on his head and neck – and still suffers from pain and nausea today. The police brought him to the Shaar Binyamin police station just north of Jerusalem, where they interrogated him and continued to strike him.

"He called me for a second," his brother Elchanan said, "and just managed to say that I should come to Shaar Binyamin, and when I got there, I heard from behind the door how the policemen were laughing about how they had hit him, and complaining that he would probably be released soon.

"Ariel Halfon, a 17.5-year-old resident of Shilo, has a similar story: "On Feb. 16, I was walking away from the [anti-disengagement] protest in Tel Aviv with my friend when a police car drove by. We paid no attention. Suddenly, policemen jumped out and arrested us. I asked one of them for some identification, and I received a strong slap. The other policeman also didn't show identification... they really beat me up. They then threw me into the car and put me in the back. A policeman sitting next to me [his name is being withheld in the meanwhile at Ariel's request – ed.] struck me throughout the whole ride, with the other policemen encouraging him.

"When we got to the station, a policeman asked me for identification. I hesitated for a moment, and when he saw that, he took the very heavy log book and gave me a terrifically strong blow on my head, and then struck me in the legs." They interrogated him for several hours, and then took him to Ichilov Hospital to have his eye - which was hurt during the course of the beatings - looked at. No x-rays of his limbs or other organs were taken, and the family was unable to receive a copy of the
medical records for several days.

Both families say they wish to publicize their stories in order that the guilty be punished and to deter other policemen from acting the same way. They are in contact with Honenu, an organization that has set as its goal the provision of legal aid for those who find themselves in legal trouble as a direct or indirect result of the military/political situation in Israel.

Shmuel Medad of Kiryat Arba, who heads the organization, told Arutz-7 today, "The film clip on our site shows just four examples – but we have a lot to update it with, ever since they started this unprecedented and terribly ugly wave of arrests of protestors against the disengagement. Just today I was informed of a boy in the Old City who was kept overnight in the Old City police station last night for an incident of spitting that occurred a month ago, and of two Chabadniks arrested for taking part in a protest, and of someone from Maon who was beaten mercilessly... We are collapsing under the burden, but we can't give up."

Now the Attorney General takes it one step further. He is urging legislators to change the law so that citizens may be arrested for what the Shabak, or the police, or the Lord alone knows who else, thinks they may be thinking. According to Menachem Mazuz, the old law requires evidence. Usually there isn't any. So let's do away with that silly requirement and simply throw them into jail. To quote Dr. Aaron Lerner of Imra:

Israel TV: AG Mazuz proposes outlawing expression as "inciting" even if doesn't lead to violence

Aaron Lerner Date: 27 February 2005

Israel Television Channel One news correspondent Avi Fierst reported on Mabat tonight that Attorney General Mazuz explained to the cabinet today that the incitement law now requires that political expression can only be prosecuted as illegal if it "has a real possibility of leading to violence" and thus cases don't hold up in court as a conviction essentially requires that someone armed who is exposed to the expressions actually acts on the words."If you want us to act," Mazuz told the cabinet, "then change the law."

Fierst's report on Mabat also featured, within (sic) considerable fanfare and graphics, the contents of a pamphlet that was "revealed" by Shabak (ISS) head Avi Dichter to the cabinet: "Instructions to the protestor against disengagement from the Legal Center of the Headquarters for the Struggle Against Disengagement

"Recommended to bring a camera - if arrested - pass to a friend."

"Equip yourself with a cellular telephone with the number of the legal assistance center in the memory."

"During the course of the interrogation say: "this is a political interrogation and thus I have nothing more to say."

"Record the names of the police for the purposes of filing a proper complaint."

"They always have complaints that they were hit and beaten etc. etc.", Fierst explained.

The advice is what any competent first-year law student would give. As to Fierst's closing comment, he fails to take into account that the complaints may well be true. But all of that aside, the attitude of the authorities smacks of George Orwell's 1984. All the more so when the putative guardian of the rights of the people, the Attorney General, is the one suggesting abrogating, if not eliminating, those rights.

If one emulates the worst conduct of one's enemy to protect oneself from that enemy, is one any better than that enemy? The end does not always justify the means. Indeed, it rarely does. To abridge democratic rights is to fly entirely against that which the world needs most. We must not let the thin end of the wedge under the door.

Of Buttons and Prisoners

Jake was a ne'er-do-well who used to hang out with the gamblers and race track characters. Rube had a poultry business, and a rather ugly daughter. On bumping into Jake one day, Rube proposed that Jake marry his daughter, and Rube would buy him a truck and hire him to deliver the poultry. And so the deal was done.

However, the daughter kept coming to Rube to complain that thus far Jake had not so much as touched her. Finally, after some weeks, Rube went to see Jake to try and find out what was going on.

Now, in those days, zippers on trouser flies had not yet replaced buttons. As Rube upbraided Jake for not fulfilling his marital responsibilities, the answer he got was: "Not one button moves until I get my truck"

So, too, the United States is a country that likes to propose a marriage between Israel and the Palestinians. In 1998, Bill Clinton promised to release Jonathan Pollard if Israel signed the Wye Agreement. Bibi Netanyahu, accompanied by Arik Sharon, signed; but no Jonathan Pollard. Under Ehud Barak, Israel was urged to release terrorist prisoners. Many were released, still no Jonathan Pollard. To free one bent former colonel who became a less than honest businessman, and retrieve some dead bodies, Arik Sharon gave away the store; still no Jonathan Pollard.

And now, to satisfy a preening holocaust denier, Sharon is urged to free a fresh batch of killers and terrorists. Once again he is going to give away the store, when he should be saying: "not one button moves until I get my truck". Not one prisoner should be released until Jonathan Pollard is freed.

If you agree, e-mail Prime Minister Sharon at pm@pmo.gov.il, I'm sure he'll be glad to hear from you. While you are at it, why not send a copy to Justice For Jonathan Pollard: pollard@jonathanpollard.org.

A Foreign Affair

Throughout his tenure I often contended that Bill Graham was probably the worst Foreign Minister Canada ever had. However, given the performance of the present incumbent in that office, Pierre Pettigrew, I almost find myself wishing for the return of Graham. I said almost.

I guess that given the amount of time he has spent in his pied-a-terre in Paris, Pettigrew has picked up the French way of conducting foreign affairs. And given the Liberal bias against the US, Israel, the war in Iraq, and the war on Terror, his incomprehensible judgment calls seem to perfectly fit the French mould.

Recently he went off to the Middle East. The purpose of the trip wholly escapes me, but there he was laying a wreath at the grave of the Great Terrorist, Yasser Arafat. As I wrote in a letter to the National Post:

National Post
Monday, February 14, 2005
Re: Pettigrew Assailed For Arafat Tribute, Feb. 12.
I suppose it may not surprise other readers that Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew would honour one of the world's leading terrorist murderers. But I think that act was shameful in the extreme.
And then to read that two members of the Canada Israel committee, who were traveling with the Minister, condoned the action is also highly disturbing.
Everyone seems to agree that Mr. Arafat was the main obstacle to peace, and so to heap honour on him on behalf of Canada sends the wrong message at this time.
I can understand Mazen Chouaib pointing out on behalf of the National Council of Canada-Arab Relations that, "Arafat, whether we like it or not, was democratically elected by the majority of the Palestinian people." I would simply point out that Adolf Hitler, too, was democratically elected. I might even go so far as to point out that the similarity does not end there.
© National Post 2005

I doubt even Bill Graham would have been so insensitive or so foolish. But Graham can take pride in the fact that his successor borrows from him as well as the French. We all recall how Graham dithered and stalled to avoid declaring Hezbollah a terrorist organization. The excuses were legion. He claimed Hezbollah did good work in education, but neglected to mention that it was educating the members in making bombs and killing innocent women and children. He also claimed that Hezbollah was a political party as well as a collection of thugs and killers, and we should overlook the latter to preserve the former.

And now Graham can look with pride on Pettigrew who yesterday refused to declare the Tamil Tigers a Terrorist entity. His reason was that to do so would interfere with negotiations presently under way in Sri Lanka. But he takes it one step further and says that the US has asked him not to declare the Tamil Tigers to be terrorists, although the US has long ago done so.

My simple question is, are they or are they not terrorists? As quoted by CP, the Minister states they are. Isn't that an end to the matter? And since when do good Liberals take instructions from the US? Isn't he afraid that Carolyn Parrish may attack him as being born of an unwed mother?

Bob and weave, do the dipsy-doodle, avoid decisions, blame everyone who is not a Liberal; that is Canada's foreign policy for the last twelve years. Mike Pearson must be turning in his grave, given what is happening to the Department which he led for years. One did not always agree with him, but he articulated and implemented policies. This present bunch, integrity and policy are concepts totally foreign to them. That is why Pierre Pettigrew is Minister of foreign Affairs.

Intelligence Analyst Without Intelligence

Michael Scheuer is a former CIA analyst who was in charge of the Bin Laden unit in the late 1990s. It seems the one thing he did not bring to his job was God-given intelligence. Fortunately he left the CIA in 2004; unfortunately, not soon enough.

Yesterday James Taranto had a piece in the Wall Street Journal which highlights once again how 'off the wall' Scheuer really is. He now has Israel and the Jews conspiring to lead the US in the direction they wish them to go. According to him this is a clandestine operation by the Israelis to Hijack the Congress, to say nothing of the Executive branch of the US government.

Is he bonkers, or is he just another anti-Semite looking to blame Israel and the Jews for all the errors he made while with the CIA? Sad that the US relied on the rantings of this fellow to combat Bin Laden. The level of success that was achieved is clearly indicative of his abilities and reliability.

Again It's Thanks to Bush

Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli, senior analyst with MEMRI, gave testimony before the US House of Representatives Committee on International Relations with respect to the Paul Volcker UN Oil-For-Food report. Dr. Raphaeli's written submissions make for very interesting reading.

From the outset it is clear that but for "Operation Iraqi Freedom", the likelihood is that none of this would have come to light. Indeed, it seems to me that the fear of this coming to light was the major reason that the French, Germans and the other nay-sayers of the 'International Community', to say nothing of Kofi Annan and his cohorts, dithered and dawdled. Look, they had a good thing going. They make a little (in relative terms), Saddam and his fellow butchers make a lot. As they say in the movies: 'nothing personal, it's just business'.

And what a business. Billions of dollars flowing, all in the wrong direction. As for the Iraqi people, well they are no worse off than they were before, are they? Why worry?

After being persuaded that the proper route was to seek UN approval to attack Iraq, President Bush finally woke up to the folly and futility of this course. Attack he did, and he succeeded in bringing freedom to a long suffering people. Part of that freedom included a press that could write about things that would have cost them their lives under Saddam. In January 2004, the Iraqi daily al-Mada broke the story with the publication of a list of those who had received vouchers for oil at below market cost.

MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) immediately picked up on the report, translated it from the Arabic, and gave it wide dissemination around the world. One is left to wonder where all the high-priced, blow-dried, foreign correspondents were. I forgot, they don't read Arabic.

As might be expected, the 'usual suspects' stalled and stonewalled, twisted and turned, but to no avail. Gradually it all began to unravel. The media finally began to exert pressure, as did the US Congress. Meantime further scandals are coming to light. The credibility of the defenders is beginning to shrink. Old Europe continues to pretend to virtue where virtue does not exist. The UN is clearly seen as a dysfunctional entity about to expire. Is there anything there worth saving? I doubt it.

And all of this is once again thanks to George W. Bush, whose steadfastness trumps all challenges. To paraphrase the song: "he does it his way".

Same Old, Same Old

King Solomon, (the fellow who built the First Temple, which the Palestinians insist never existed) taught us "there is nothing new under the sun". Clearly he was exceedingly prophetic. Even though Palestinians were unknown at that time, and would not exist until the name was created for Arab political purposes in the second half of the 20th Century, the King was able to divine that nothing new would arise in dealing with them.

In the 'new' Abbas regime the Mosques are still providing the same old rhetoric of anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel vitriol. And today I read that the Palestinians are outraged at the Israeli intention to release only 900 Palestinian prisoners: 500 immediately, and 400 after three months. They deem this foolish, but magnanimous gesture an insult. Same old, same old.

They want them all, all 7,600 prisoners in Israeli custody, including the over 700 who predate the Oslo Accords. Bombers, snipers, killers of women and children, they want them all. We should not be surprised. They want all of Israel as well, and this is just part of the means by which they hope to achieve their goal.

This is part of what is referred to as 'confidence building measures'. Now what exactly does that mean? Whose confidence? And why?

Such a massive influx of terrorists and killers to the talent pool of Palestinian terrorism is clearly not designed to build Israeli confidence. So that leaves the Palestinians. Precisely what confidence of theirs has to be built up, and how will this achieve it?

The answer is quite simple. We must build their confidence in their ability to continue to terrorize Israel. Thus they can call a hudna, and lay low as they replenish their arms, tactics and strategy. When they deem the moment propitious, as Mohammed did to the Qureish, they will trigger an excuse and revert to their terrorist cabal.

Surely it makes much more sense for the Palestinians to offer concessions by way of 'confidence building measures'. They might start by turning over the killers and terrorists that they continue to harbour so they could face prosecution. That might be followed up by disarming the terrorist bands such as Hamas and Al Aqsa Brigades. I understand they do not want a civil war. However, it is the responsibility of government to maintain order. Talk of taking these killers into the Palestinian Security Services, is simply to beg the question.

This is just a new gloss on the Arafat revolving-door policy. The old master terrorist used to arrest them at the front door and immediately release them by the one at the rear. It would appear that Abbas's plan is to take their illegal arms in a photo op at the front door, then induct them into the Security Services. Immediately they will be issued a legal weapon, a fancy new uniform, and now they can parade in the open. But it is still the same killer.

It is not a question of avoiding civil war but rather a question of being able to maintain law and order. If Abbas can't to that, why are we even talking to him?

Shame on Labour and Blair

William Rees-Mogg, in an article in the Times, highlights the disgraceful conduct of the British Labour Party, and by extension their leader, Prime Minister Tony Blair. At issue is their portrayal of Michael Howard, Conservative Party leader, as Fagin. This is no less than blatant anti-Semitism, and goes a long way in explaining recent polls that show an abysmal British attitude to Jews, to Israel, and to things Jewish.

Paying lip service to stamping out anti-Semitism, and mouthing platitudes in commemoration of the freeing of Auschwitz, is totally meaningless in the face of such conduct. I know politics is a dirty business. But this wasn't dirty, it was putrid. What does Michael Howard's Jewishness have to do with the upcoming election? If the Opposition Leader were a Muslim would Labour run ads superimposing his head on a pig?

This sort of blatant, anti-Semitic, characterization of an opponent differs not one whit from the Palestinian portrayals of Ariel Sharon as a butcher with blood dripping from a knife. If there be any difference at all it is that some might consider the British to be civilized, although I am beginning to question even that.

Britain, of course, is part of the Quartet, the all-knowing oracles involved in the Road Map to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This really confirms my confidence in the even-handedness of the entire process. But there is still President Bush, and he may just prove to be the equalizer.