Read His Lips

In remarks to the press the other day, US President George W. Bush unwittingly laid out a convincing reason why an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is not a wise move.

Referring to mounting pressure on the Administration to pull out US forces from Iraq, Bush said:

"I also have heard the voices of those saying, pull out now, and I've thought about their cry, and their sincere desire to reduce the loss of life by pulling our troops out. I just strongly disagree. Pulling the troops out would send a terrible signal to the enemy. Immediate withdrawal would say to the Zarqawis of the world, and the terrorists of the world, and the bombers who take innocent life around the world, you know, the United States is weak; and all we've got to do is intimidate and they'll leave."

All you need to do is replace the word “Zarqawis” with “Abu Mazens”, and “the United States” with “Israel”, in the President’s remarks, and you have a darned good reason why the proposed Israeli retreat is a mistake of strategic and historic proportions.

Instead of punishing Palestinian terrorism, the Gaza withdrawal rewards it in an unprecedented manner.

Too bad that Bush and his pal Sharon refuse to acknowledge this basic truth – but the saddest part of all is that it is the people of Israel who will inevitably pay the price for their folly.

What if Israel Spoke to the IRA?

British hypocrisy was on full display the other day, when it was revealed that America’s stalwart ally in the war on terror has been holding talks with – guess what – a terrorist group.

As the BBC reported:

UK criticised for Hamas meetings

British diplomats have held talks with members of militant Palestinian group Hamas, Jack Straw has confirmed.

Mr Straw said his staff had twice spoken to Hamas members, elected as mayors in the occupied territories.

But have no fear, Mr. Straw was quick to tell us, Britain’s dialogue was limited to low-level figures in Hamas – as though meeting with small-scale murderers, rather than large-scale ones, somehow made it OK.

The cynicism inherent in Britain’s stance is nothing short of sickening. That Tony Blair would court a sworn enemy of the Jewish state, one which has devoted itself to massacring innocent Israelis in record numbers, is both morally obscene and strategically obtuse. He should be ashamed of himself for opening a dialogue with bus bombers and child killers, and for undermining the moral clarity of the global war on terror.

Can you imagine the uproar that would ensue if Israel were to open a dialogue with the Irish Republican Army (IRA)?

Hmmm….. Maybe such a step, as repugnant as it would be, might just help Mr. Blair and Mr. Straw to better understand the duplicity of their ways.

Israel and the "War of the Words"

As the "People of the Book", you'd think that we Jews would be able to do a more effective job explaining ourselves to the rest of the world.

Sadly, that is not the case, and for far too long, Israel has underestimated the importance of the propaganda wars, often conceding many of its battles before they have even begun.

As I wrote in the article below, it is high time for this to change, and for the Jewish state to start thinking ahead and fighting back in the battle for world public opinion.

Words do count, and ideas do matter, so let's roll up our sleeves and get to work.

The Jerusalem Post, May 5, 2005

War of the Words

By Michael Freund

It is a war that Israel has never really fought, despite the inestimable damage which it continues to inflict. And while our foes have been on the offensive for decades, claiming one victory after another, most of us have yet to even acknowledge its significance.

It is the "War of the Words," or of terminology. It is a battle to define and describe Israel's conflict with its neighbors, and it is time that we started thinking ahead and fighting back.

Glance at any major Western newspaper and it quickly becomes clear who is winning the linguistic tussle in the Middle East. The territories are "occupied," Jews living there are "settlers," their supporters are "extremists," while those trying to kill them are mere "activists" or "militants."

On the whole, the language is clearly loaded, helping to shape public opinion against the Jewish state. And thanks to repeated use over the years, these terms have come to be accepted in nearly all public discourse regarding the Middle East.

Needless to say, this is far more than just a struggle over semantics. It is about influencing international opinion and shaping policy. Words, after all, are an instrument of persuasion. As George Orwell noted in his 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language": "If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."

And corrupt it most certainly has. An entire generation has grown up imbibing a slanted version of reality, one that is peddled on a daily basis by the Arabs and their supporters.

Our foes long ago understood that by fixing the definition, you also effectively fix the debate. In the process, they have succeeded in laying the conceptual groundwork that has come to dominate the world's (mis)understanding of the issues at stake in the region.

Now, you might be thinking: so what? What difference does it make?

The answer is a whole lot. Indeed, anyone who doubts the political role and significance of words need only take a look at the energy and effort expended by others to deploy them effectively.

Take, for example, the Bush administration. Say what you will about the conduct of the war in Iraq, but there can be no doubt that the US has managed the war of words in a compelling manner.

Saddam Hussein's government was always referred to by the ominous-sounding term "regime," and the war itself was dubbed "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to underline its main objective.

From the start of hostilities, administration officials were careful to refer to troops stationed in Iraq as "Coalition forces," rather than GIs, in an effort to stress international backing for the war.

Of course, finding the right phrase is not necessarily going to change people's minds or transform their positions, but it can and does have an impact on the way an issue is viewed and understood. And over time, this can have a cumulative and often decisive effect.

Is it any wonder that after being told for so long that the territories are "occupied," many Jews and Israelis have now come to view that as being the case?

By conceding the point, Israel unwittingly set the stage for conceding the territory, too.

And that is why it is so essential that we prepare ourselves for the next phase of the propaganda war, and start thinking more clearly and effectively about how to get our points across.

Consider the term "settlement blocs," which Prime Minister Ariel Sharon himself has used on occasion, including in his April 22 interview with this newspaper. Is that really the best phrase to be using when describing Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria that Israel intends to retain in any final-status agreement?

Over the years, our foes have succeeded in demonizing the word "settlement." By adopting this label, Israel is playing directly into their hands, giving them an unnecessary advantage.

Various other expressions, such as "Israeli population centers" or "suburban Jewish communities" should be used instead. They sound less menacing, and are more in line with our national interests.

At this point, it is perhaps too late to turn back the clock, or to press the rewind button and start fighting the linguistic battles that were lost decades ago. But it is certainly not too late to begin applying a little foresight, and to anticipate the clashes that inevitably lie ahead.

As John F. Kennedy once said regarding Winston Churchill, he "mobilized the English language and sent it into battle." After decades of forsaking this important arena, it is time for Israel at last to do the same.

-----------------------

The writer served as an aide to former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Vive European Hypocrisy!!

They have kidnapped foreigners, fired rockets at civilian population centers and carried out suicide bombings. Their ideology calls for the elimination of Israel, and they unashamedly wave the banner of jihad (holy war) against the West.

The Lebanese group Hizbullah has one of the nastiest track records around – but despite it all, Europe still hesitates to label them a “terrorist organization”.

In what must have been a surrealistic scene, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom met yesterday with French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier to request that the European Union (EU) add Hizbullah to its list of terrorist organizations.

Incredibly, Barnier demurred, saying that such a move “would have political aspects. Hezbollah has a political party and the entire Lebanese context must be viewed” in the matter.

To his credit, Shalom quickly retorted, “Show me another political party with 12,000 rockets,” leading Barnier to agree to examine the issue ahead of next week's EU session in Brussels to discuss the list of terrorist organizations.

But there really isn’t very much to “examine” – after all, as the French Foreign Minister unwittingly made clear, this is little more than a “political” issue as far as Europe is concerned. The fact that Hizbullah targets Israelis and encourages others to do the same – well, the Europeans have more important things (i.e. commercial interests) to worry about than the killing of innocents.

And so, for all their hyperbole about human rights and international law, Europe remains mired in their own stew of hypocrisy and narrow self-interest.

Qu'un scandale!

Al-Qaeda on Israel's Doorstep?

The weekend terror attack in Egyptian-controlled Sinai, which killed at least 88 people and wounded hundreds of others, should be setting off alarm bells in Jerusalem and Washington.

The coordinated series of explosions, which bear all the hallmarks of an Al-Qaeda operation, indicate that Osama Bin Laden’s iniquity has found a comfortable base right alongside Israel’s southern border.

Coming just nine months after last October’s terror attacks in Taba and Ras Shitan in Sinai, the latest bombings underline the dangers of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s proposed withdrawal from nearby Gaza.

Terrorists love a vacuum, and that is what an Israeli pullout from Gaza would create, providing groups such as Al-Qaeda with a foothold at the Jewish state’s doorstep.

Moreover, Egypt’s ongoing failure to clamp down on the terrorists demonstrates that they can not be relied upon to patrol the boundary between Gaza and Sinai – a step that Sharon has reportedly already accepted as part of his pullout plan.

Saturday’s bombings, then, are a timely reminder that however difficult it might appear to be to maintain an Israeli presence in Gaza, the consequences of withdrawal might only prove far more devastating – and lethal.