Israel needs a bigger message By David Suissa

  

I'm repulsed by these anti-Israel groups on college campuses that pretend to care about oppressed people in the Middle East. They don't. What they really care about is undermining Israel. Groups like Students for Justice in Palestine, for example, have no interest in engaging in a constructive debate about Israeli-Palestinian co-existence. What they live for is to single out Israel and crush it.

No wonder UCLA Chancellor Gene Block quickly released a statement last week opposing the vote by anti-Israel students that singled out Israel in a divestment resolution. Maybe he saw how crazy it is to go after the only democracy in the Middle East while tens of millions of poor souls throughout the region are living under brutal dictatorships.

I remember interviewing Arab-Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh a few years ago, after he finished a tour of campuses across the United States. When he asked pro-Palestinian students, "What makes you pro-Palestinian?" they had nothing good to say about Palestinians. All they could say was, "Israel is an apartheid state," "Israel is a violent oppressor," etc.

It's only gotten worse. Anti-Israel groups on U.S. campuses have become so brazen that their actions have started to backfire, as we saw with Chancellor Block's statement.

But what about the pro-Israel movement? What's the best way to respond to the hypocrisy and bad faith of these anti-Israel groups?

Here's a tip-- not by going into the mud with them. Not by simply responding and reacting. Not by letting them frame the debate.

Defending Israel against unfair resolutions is important, but it's not enough. What the pro-Israel movement must do is ambush the enemy with a big, positive idea-- an idea that will galvanize the movement and empower all students on campus, Jewish and non-Jewish, to support Israel.

Here's the biggest idea I can think of: "Israel can save the Middle East."

That's right, Israel can save the Middle East.

There's no bigger, more important message today: The Middle East has cancer, and Israel has the cure. Over many long decades, Israel has managed to build the democratic institutions-- social, economic, civil and legal-- that the chaotic countries of the region desperately need. On every issue, from water to medical care to education to creating jobs, Israel can help transform the region and bring it into the new century.

Yes, of course, it's a pipe dream to expect the Arab world to look to Israel to transform its societies. But that's not the point. The point is to transform the debate about Israel.

Our defensive stance makes us look weak. When all we do is react, we dance to the tune of our enemies. 

It's time for the pro-Israel movement to take over the high ground. We must position Israel as what it truly is: a light unto the Middle East. An imperfect light, to be sure, but that is precisely its strength. Israel is a model of an imperfect country constantly trying to improve itself. 

What other country in the Middle East can say that? What other country in the area can offer the same freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and overall freedom to fight injustice and correct itself, as Israel does?

In short, it's time to stop thinking small and start thinking big. While we should never stop trying to resolve our conflict with the Palestinians, we must expand our horizons and show that Israel has the know-how to help all the oppressed people of the region and transform the Middle East.

Pro-Israel groups can unite and turn this idea into a serious movement. Every sign, every demonstration, every YouTube film, every conference should revolve around this singular, meta message: "Israel can save the Middle East." If the chutzpah behind the message drives the anti-Israel crowd nuts, so much the better. Let them dance to Israel's tune. 

Ultimately, the best way to respond to hypocritical groups like Students for Justice in Palestine is to create a bigger group called "Students for Justice in the Middle East."

On that playing field, Israel can only win. 

Celebrating the murder of Jews By David Suissa

  

What happens when extremism dominates a whole society?

When I saw thousands of Palestinian civilians celebrating the cold-blooded murder of four rabbis praying in a synagogue, I had to ask myself: Could I ever imagine thousands of Jews celebrating the murder of four Muslim sheiks or four Christian priests?

I was sick to my stomach the day that a fellow Jew, Baruch Goldstein, murdered Muslims praying in a mosque. Of course, the vast majority of the Jewish world condemned the murders unequivocally. Jews didn't celebrate and hand out candy on the streets, as crowds of Palestinians did after the synagogue attack.

The public celebration of murder is a medieval moment, a sign that things have gone over the edge. It's not enough for world leaders to condemn the murders-- they must condemn the public celebration of these murders.

Of course, behind these celebrations are decades of Jew-hatred that has marinated Palestinian society. Go on the Palestinian Media watch web site and you'll see what I mean. It is a museum of Jew-hatred and glorification of terror officially sanctioned by the Palestinian Authority.

So-called moderate leaders like Mahmoud Abbas routinely glorify murderers of Jews. So why should we be surprised when so many of his people rejoice at the atrocity of four rabbis being slaughtered while they were praying?

Just like any country, Israel has its share of haters. But in Israel, when racial tensions flare up, you have a president who's not afraid to say things like, "The time has come to admit that Israel is a sick society, with an illness that demands treatment." You can look at that comment two ways-- either as confirmation of Israel's sickness or as a demonstration of Israel's culture of self-criticism. I choose the latter.

I can only imagine if Mahmoud Abbas did something similar, if he were to stand up to his people and say: "These murders are repulsive enough, but these celebrations only add dishonor to our society. They are a sickness. There is no grievance that should ever justify the celebration of murder. We must stop hating Jews and find ways to live with them in peace, security and dignity. That is the only way we will ever reach peace and the creation of our own state."

The great irony, of course, is that it is the ability and courage to call a society "sick" that creates better societies.

One wonders how Israeli President Reuven Rivlin would have reacted to the sight of thousands of Jews celebrating the murder of Muslim shieks. Is there any doubt he would have gone ballistic? Has any Palestinian leader ever even criticized the Palestinian celebration of murder?

Hatred transcends grievances. The minute a society uses its grievances to justify its hatred-- whether this grievance is occupation or terrorism-- is when a society loses. It's the brutal candor of people like Rivlin that keeps Israel from falling off the edge. When the teaching of hatred comes from the top, as it does all too often in Palestinian society, you can only feel sympathy for the children whose hearts are being poisoned. 

After the attack on the synagogue in Har Nof, I received this email from a friend in Jerusalem:

"Together with the rest of Israel I heard the news of the attack in Har Nof this morning with horror, anguish and fury. A few hours later I also learned that among the dead was Moshe Twersky, a distinguished Rosh yeshiva in the Haredi world but also my friend and hevruta from Maimonides days. I just returned from his funeral, where one could see all of his worlds converge. Given the circumstances, it was telling that the thousands who gathered were totally silent, with not one cry for revenge. Thank G-d we have not followed in the footsteps of our enemies. Baruch Dayan Emet."

I reflected on that silent crowd of mourners when I saw images of Palestinians celebrating the murders. The truth is, it doesn't matter whether we say that one society is better than the next. What really matters are the values that are being taught.

And on that front, I can tell you that if you teach Jew-hatred in your schools, media and mosques, you will create an extremist society. That's something every peace lover should cry over.

D.Suissa: Safest place for Arabs is Israel

In a Twitter world of one-second images and three-second sound bites, it’s not surprising that Israel would be seen by most of the world as an enemy of Arabs.

Especially since the start of the Gaza war, the images against Israel have been lethal. Never mind Hamas’s “dead baby strategy” or the fact that Israel wasn’t the aggressor— the overriding image of the war has been of hundreds of Arabs dying at the hands of the Israeli army.

Coupled with the ferocious and reckless violence now being unleashed by Islamic groups across the Middle East, it’s fair to ask: If you’re Arab, Christian or Muslim, is there anywhere in that Middle East jungle you can feel truly safe right now?

Well, yes, you can feel safe in Israel.

You want to take your Muslim family and frolic by the beach at night? Come to Tel Aviv, no one will bother you. I was there. There were plenty of Arab/Muslim kids playing next to my daughter one night—and I was proud of that.

In fact, I saw Arabs and Muslims everywhere I went during my ten days in Israel, and at no time did I ever feel it was weird or unusual.

When they were not hiding in bomb shelters because of Hamas bombs, these Arabs and Muslims were strolling through Israeli streets, malls, stores and cafes, just as Mexicans and Koreans might stroll through the streets and malls of Los Angeles.

Today, there are over 100 different nationalities in Israel. The white European look may have been the dominant face of Israel at the creation of the state, but no longer. Now you have a multiethnic kaleidoscope of colors and faces and cultures that would make any liberal proud.

That’s not to say there are no ethnic tensions, or discrimination. Every country has its extremists. Just as you can find anti-immigrant racism in America and a few kooks in Congress, you’ll find anti-Arab racism in Israel and a few kooks in the Knesset.

You’ll also find, as former Defense Minister and Likudnik Moshe Arens warned, a disturbing, entrenched equality gap between Arab and Jewish citizens.

So yes, there are plenty of problems.

You judge a society, however, not by whether it has vexing problems, but by whether it allows a corrective mechanism to help alleviate these problems.

And this is where, in my view, Israel shines: Despite being a country under siege, the country overflows with thousands of non-profit groups and Tikkun Olam (repairing the world) activists who are dedicated to improving the country.

One of those groups is the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) in Jerusalem, which I visited last week.

After a two-hour chat with Prof. Yedidia Stern, Vice President of Research at IDI, where he heads the Religion and State project and the Human Rights and Judaism project, I came away with this thought: While there are plenty of difficulties with Israel’s democracy, it’s gratifying to see the scholars and activists who are working to improve this democracy.

On the day we met, Stern had just published an important piece on how to improve Arab-Israeli relations in Israel.

Notwithstanding the myriad problems and dark alarmism we always hear about Israel, the fact remains that in the Middle East, there’s no better place for Arabs and Muslims than in Israel.

In a 2008 poll from Keevoon Research, Strategy & Communicationsquoted by Daniel Pipes, 62 percent of Israeli Arabs said they’d rather remain Israeli citizens than join a future Palestinian state. Who can blame them?

A few days ago, in the liberal Web site Slate, an anonymous Israeli Arab writer, while criticizing Israel, had this to say about life in the Jewish state:

“Life is super safe compared to the region. Basic freedoms are mostly upheld by the law and physical attacks due to racism seldom occur. For the more fortunate among us, higher education and hard work are fantastic tools to get ahead into a better life.”

I’ve met many Arabs in Israel who’ve used this “fantastic tool” of hard work to get a better life. One of those, a Bedouin, now runs a major department at the medical school in Ben Gurion University. There are thousands of other examples, just as there are countless examples of Israeli groups fighting for the rights of minorities.

Of course, this kind of context and balance is not very sexy. It’s always sexier to declare that Israel’s democracy is unraveling; it’s sexier to focus on Israel’s dirty laundry rather than on the many Israelis actuallydoing the laundry.

Any good fundraiser will tell you that it’s more dramatic and effective to be an alarmist, as J Street’s Jeremy Ben Ami was this week in a mass email: “The growth and extent of hatred of the other, intolerance and outright racism in our own Jewish community – both in Israel and in the United States – is frightening."

Yes, it’s certainly frightening to exclude context and balance when unleashing criticism at our community and at Israel—the country where life is “super safe” compared to the region, and where “basic freedoms are mostly upheld by the law and physical attacks due to racism seldom occur.”

For the millions of Arabs, Muslims and Christians now being brutalized and terrorized across the Middle East, I can tell you this: They probably wouldn’t mind moving to Israel, the one country that the world abuses more than any other.

Civil Trial Attorney Baruch C. Cohen meets attorney Michael Schwartz & Jewish Journal editor David Suissa at Kollel Banquet

photo courtesy of Joseph Ober -- josephober@gmail.com

Pogroms Interrupted: The Era of Jews Fighting Back By David Suissa

As I've been watching images of Hamas rockets falling on Israel, I've asked myself: If Hamas had the ability to murder thousands of Jews, wouldn't they? And if Israel didn't have a strong army, wouldn't we surely witness another pogrom? 

Since the destruction of the Second Temple some 2,000 years ago, has there been a more physically abused people than the Jews?

How many Crusades and Inquisitions and pogroms have been recorded where Jews were virtually helpless to defend themselves?

Oh sure, we always managed to survive and pull through. We were strong with our values, our Torah, our culture and our wits in adapting to whatever limits were imposed on us.

But physically? We were always at the mercy of our landlords.

My ancestors in Morocco survived only because they knew their place. You never heard of a Moroccan Jew fighting for the same rights as Moroccan Arabs. Jews were the dhimmis, the second class citizens of the state. And still, there were stories of pogroms against Moroccan Jews.

The physical abuse of Jews reached its darkest and most murderous hour with the Holocaust.

In Alcoholics Anonymous, they say you have to reach your own bottom before you can turn things around. Well, the Holocaust was our absolute bottom.

Perhaps not coincidentally, within a few years we were blessed with our own sovereign state. What would happen now? Would our enemies still come after us?

Indeed they did, but this time, something weird happened.

The Jews fought back.

A ragtag band of Jews fought mano a mano against five invading Arab armies and won.

That miraculous victory saved Israel and signaled a new era in the story of the Jews.

The era of Jews Fighting Back.

We've been in that era now for 64 years, and the truth is, we've become pretty good at it.

This has shocked our enemies. After 2,000 years of seeing Jews cower so as not to get slaughtered, they've seen these weak Jews transformed into fighting warriors.

This doesn't seem very "Jewish."

Even among Jews, this success has created a lot of handwringing and intellectual agony: What shall we do with all this power? Are we using it responsibly? Will it corrupt us?

I have to confess, I've had very little agony over this. The Jews' ability to finally fight back has been a source of great satisfaction for me.

Of course, I'd be a lot happier if we were at peace and didn't have to fight in the first place-- if we weren't surrounded by enemies trying to destroy us.

I wouldn't have to shed tears when I'm alone in my car, thinking of Israel at war, or talk to my daughter in Herzliya about bomb shelters.

But if Israel is destined to live, at least in the near term, surrounded by enemies, what are we to make of this dark circumstance?

Is it possible that all this fighting might be serving an additional purpose, beyond the essential one of defending the country?

As I've been reflecting on all this, the thought occurred to me that maybe Israel is more than a country.

Maybe it's also a statement.

An official statement that says to the world: The Jews will never go away.

This statement of strength after 2,000 years of weakness is so astonishing that it needed a singular, dramatic instrument to make the point.

And what better instrument than a strong country?

A country so powerful it has managed to thrive on so many levels despite being virtually under siege for 64 years.

So, that is my Jewish take on all this ugly fighting: Our enemies need to see, once and for all, that the Jews will never go away.

Maybe only then will there be peace.

The other night, at a Technion event at the home of Frank Lunz, our Consul General, David Siegel, said: "Our enemies have tried for thousands of years to destroy us, but they've always failed."

The difference now is that we're surviving on our own terms, not by cowering but by holding our heads high.

I'm sure some people will find this tone of defiance a little unseemly, not very nuanced.

But there's no nuance in hatred. There's no nuance in the desire to murder Jews. There never has been.

The statement that the Jews will never go away is a statement that must be made. We can thank Israel for making that statement in the most compelling way possible, even at the risk of upsetting a world not used to seeing Jews fight back.

At the Technion event, they played a video showing some of Israel's global accomplishments, such as finding renewable energy, curing diseases and helping crippled people walk.

We can thank Israel for that statement, too: A world in which the Jews survive is not just good for the Jews, it's also good for the world. 

Tormenting Israel BY DAVID SUISSA

I’ve never understood why the world goes absolutely bonkers when Jews try to build homes in Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Take the latest brouhaha about the announcement by Israel’s Interior Ministry that it had approved a planning stage — the fourth out of seven required — for the eventual construction of 1,600 units in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo.

Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Authority, is not known for being too accommodating during negotiations. And yet, when negotiating a two-state solution two years ago with Ehud Olmert, Abbas agreed that several neighborhoods in Jerusalem would stay in Israeli hands in any final settlement. And guess which neighborhood was on that list?

That’s right — Ramat Shlomo, a neighborhood made up mostly of religious Jews with big families and a shortage of housing. Abbas was surely aware that, as analyst Evelyn Gordon wrote March 14 in a Commentary blog post, “Its location in no way precludes the division of Jerusalem, which is what both Washington and Europe claim to want: Situated in the corner formed by two other huge neighborhoods to its west and south, it [Ramat Shlomo] does not block a single Arab neighborhood from contiguity with a future Palestinian state.”

Nevertheless, Israel was crucified when its Interior Ministry made the Ramat Shlomo announcement last week during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel — presumably because the timing was highly embarrassing. But really, what timing would have been more appropriate? An announcement two weeks later, when Israel would have been accused of being sneaky and deceitful during Biden’s visit?

After all, Israel had nothing to hide: It was in strict compliance with the 10-month settlement freeze, which specifically excluded East Jerusalem and which the Obama administration fully supported and even characterized as “unprecedented.”

In any case, Vice President Biden made a rare public condemnation of Israel’s announcement, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded with an explanation and a rare public apology that Biden accepted. Normally, that is more than enough contrition to resolve misunderstandings.

But not in this case. The following day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton berated Netanyahu on the phone for close to 45 minutes and followed that with public condemnation and demands for more Israeli concessions. 

Ambassador Michael Oren has reportedly called this the biggest crisis between the United States and Israel since 1975. And why all this madness? Because Israel had this crazy idea to allow a zoning permit for housing units in a Jewish neighborhood of its capital city.

One wonders: What would have happened if Israel had done something really bad while Biden was in Israel? Like, say, announce a zoning permit for construction of a national memorial to a terrorist?

Well, it turns out that while the Obama administration was heaping abuse on Israel, the Palestinians were in fact dedicating a memorial to the mastermind of the worse terrorist attack in Israeli history. Now tell me, which act does more to undermine trust and the atmosphere for peace: a zoning permit for apartments or a memorial to terrorism?

The funny thing is, no administration official ever mentioned the terrorist memorial. As Barry Rubin, professor at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, reminds us: “Even though the Palestinian Authority has refused to negotiate for 14 months; made President Obama look very foolish after destroying his publicly announced September plan to have negotiations in two months; broke its promise not to sponsor the Goldstone report in the U.N.; and rejected direct negotiations after months of pleading by the Obama White House, not a single word of criticism has ever been offered by any administration official regarding the P.A.’s continuous and very public sabotage of peace- process efforts.”

Obama’s single-minded condemnations of Israel have done more than push Israel away; they’ve also emboldened the Palestinians to dig in their heels and pushed them even further away from peace talks of any kind.

My friend Yossi Klein Halevi, an author and political analyst who lives in Jerusalem, has a “strong sense that Obama was looking for a pretext. He’s turned an incident into a crisis.”

He adds: “If Obama thinks he’s going to win friends in the Israeli public by treating Israel more harshly than any other country aside from Iran, he’s going to have an even tougher learning curve than he’s had in this last year of failed Middle East diplomacy.”

According to Noah Pollak of Commentary, Obama’s priority is to stop Israel from attacking Iran: “Obama’s only option for restraining an Israeli attack is the one that we’re seeing unfold before our eyes: a U.S. effort to methodically weaken the relationship; provoke crises; consume the Netanyahu government with managing this deterioration; and most important, create an ambience of unpredictability by making the Israelis fear that an attack on Iran would not just be met with American disapproval but also a veto and perhaps active resistance.”

If Pollak is correct, then, the Ramat Shlomo crisis has clarified the stakes: The issue of Iran trumps everything.

Israelis understand that, compared to the threat of a nuclear Iran, an issue like building permits in Ramat Shlomo is a farce. By tormenting the Jews over such an issue, Obama is not just emboldening Israel’s enemies, he’s setting back the very peace process he so cherishes.

David Suissa is the founder of OLAM magazine and OLAM.org. You can read his daily blog atsuissablog.com
and e-mail him at suissa@olam.org.

Instead of hiding Israel, America should stand proudly next to her. That’s a better way to show friendship and fight terror. David Suissa

There are two ways to look at the Obama administration’s decision to exclude Israel from its global anti-terrorism initiative. If you recall, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Istanbul last month to convene the Global Counterterrorism Forum, the group of invitees included 29 countries and the European Union—but not Israel.
On the surface, this makes no sense: It’d be like having a global conference on social networking and not inviting Facebook. Seriously, is there any country in the world that has more experience fighting terrorism than Israel?
But if you listen to the U.S. State Department, this was all for Israel’s good.
In a calm and reasoned piece in Atlantic magazine, Zvika Krieger, senior vice president of The S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace and a Shalhevet alumni, writes: “The State Department found itself in a bind: Israel, one of the world’s foremost experts in fighting terrorism and a key U.S. ally on that front, would seem to be a natural candidate for participating in the forum. But organizers feared that Israel’s participation in the formative stages might have undermined the whole endeavor.”
He quotes a State Department official as saying: “The goal was to establish an apolitical and technical forum that included both our traditional [counterterrorism] partners and newer ones, a forum that could focus on practical issues of common concern rather than politics. We were concerned that if the central issue from the outset was whether or not Israel should be a member, that it would be difficult to pivot away from the politicized discussions happening at the U.N. and elsewhere.”
According to Krieger, the Obama administration “reasoned that the progress made by the organization would ultimately better serve Israel’s interests (not to mention those of the United States) than would the symbolic benefits of including it in a group that likely wouldn’t accomplish anything. They also concluded that once the organization was up and running, and its agenda was established, they could find ways to include Israel that would not be disruptive.”
In other words, the United States pretty much said to Israel and to its supporters: “Please don’t be offended if we consider Israel’s involvement in this forum disruptive. We have to deal with reality. Trust us: it’s better if you don’t make a big deal about this.”
It seems to be working. Krieger reports that according to his State Department source, “it is no coincidence that pro-Israel groups such as the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have been largely silent in public on the topic.”
But not everyone is keeping quiet. Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, wrote to me in an e-mail: “We did protest Israel’s exclusion from that conference. We met administration officials on it as well and spoke to numerous members of Congress.”
The Zionist Organization of America also released a statement strongly critical of the decision, while, as Krieger noted, U.S. Sens. Joseph Lieberman and Mark Kirk, both staunch defenders of Israel on Capitol Hill, wrote a letter to Clinton expressing their disappointment with Israel’s exclusion.
But I have not met anyone who is as upset about the decision as Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Museum of Tolerance.
“This is an absolute outrage, on so many levels,” he told me. “Just look at the precedent we are setting. Now, any country has permission to exclude Israel from any global forum in the future. All they have to say is: If America can do it, then we can do it.”
Hier and his staff have been on a relentless campaign to “get answers” from the Obama administration. He shared with me his letter of protest to Secretary of State Clinton and a response from a State Department official. “We can’t get a straight answer,” he told me.
Maybe the answer is simply this: The Obama administration is just not willing to stick its neck out as a matter of principle, and say to the world: “Our trusted ally Israel has enormous expertise in fighting terrorism. It’s important that countries put their personal sentiments aside and welcome Israel’s involvement, which will be critical to the success of this global initiative.”
Krieger himself, while expressing support for the U.S. decision, admits that Israel’s exclusion “could send the wrong message and have a ripple effect, with Israeli officials expressing concern that it could give an unintended U.S. imprimatur to the marginalization and de-legitimization that Israel is encountering elsewhere in the international community.”
So, when I read Edgar Bronfman in Haaretz telling us this week that President Barack Obama should be judged by his “real actions” for Israel, not by his words or his “swagger,” my immediate reaction is: “Please, Mr. President, show me some real action for Israel. Put your swagger where your mouth is.”
Israel doesn’t deserve to be treated like an ugly date that helps you with your homework but you wouldn’t dare ask to the prom. The movement to isolate and delegitimize the Jewish state is itself a form of terror. A few words of swagger and support from the most powerful man in the world, not to mention a justified invitation to a prestigious global forum, are not just words—they are real, meaningful action.
Instead of hiding Israel, America should stand proudly next to her. That’s a better way to show friendship and fight terror.

Note to Boycotters: Israel is Not a Thief By David Suissa

There is an obvious way to respond to author Alice Walker's refusal to allow her novel "The Color Purple" to be translated into Hebrew. In case you missed it, Walker accused Israel of being "guilty of apartheid and persecution of the Palestinian people, both inside Israel and also in the Occupied Territories."

The obvious response is to refute her charges, as many writers have done.

As Daniel Gordis wrote in JPost: "Walker writes as though the Palestinians are identical to the blacks of South Africa; they suffer only because of the color of their skin (or their ethnicity, in this case), not because of anything they have done. She writes as though Israel is the only obstacle to their 'freedom,' as though Israel is, as a matter of policy, committed to perpetuating their second-class status without end. But no reasonable reading of the Middle East justifies any such claim."

Gordis adds: "[Walker] even makes a point of saying that Israel is guilty of apartheid inside the Green Line as well. But name a single country in which some minorities do not get the short end of the stick. Is every country on the planet therefore guilty of apartheid? And if so, why boycott only Israel? It can't be because of Israel's social policies, which are far better than those of many other countries that Walker is not boycotting."

I agree with everything Gordis said, but I also think he didn't go far enough.

Here's my theory: As long as the world believes that Israel is an "illegal occupier," nothing we do or say will make much difference. The haters and boycotters of Israel will keep exploiting that perception. The stench of the illegal occupation will continue to undermine the good that Israel does, inside or outside Israel.

In other words, the strongest case Israel can make against boycotters is to show, once and for all, that it is not a thief.

Israel's historic mistake has been to unwittingly reinforce, in its search for peace, the dubious and dangerous narrative that it is returning stolen land.

When Israel made its peace offers, it never said: "We believe that, according to international law, Israel has a legitimate claim to Judea and Samaria. But for the sake of peace, we're willing to give up most of that land."

By focusing on security and failing to make this legal claim, Israel allowed the illegal narrative to take hold - and the haters and boycotters went on to have a field day.

As if that weren't bad enough, Israel's land concessions were perceived as worthless. Since the Palestinians believed that all the land already belonged to them, and no one ever disabused them of that notion, what was there to negotiate?

The sad part is that Israel could have made a strong case that the territories are not, in fact, stolen land. At the very least, they had enough evidence to argue that the land is "disputed" rather than "occupied." For example:

Jeffrey S. Helmreich, author and writer for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: "The settlements are not located in 'occupied territory.' The last binding international legal instrument which divided the territory in the region of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza was the League of Nations Mandate, which explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement in all territory allocated to the Jewish national home in the context of the British Mandate. These rights under the British mandate were preserved by the successor organization to the League of Nations, the United Nations, under Article 80 of the U.N. Charter."

Stephen M. Schwebel, professor of International Law at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (Washington), and President of the International Court of Justice from 1997 to 2000: "Where the prior holder of territory [Jordan] had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense [Israel] has, against that prior holder, better title."

Eugene W. Rostow, former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and Distinguished Fellow at the U.S. Institute for Peace: "The Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is conferred by the same provisions of the Mandate under which Jews settled in Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem before the state of Israel was created. ... The Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan River, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated. ..."

There are plenty of books and essays that elaborate on the above. But the point here is not to defend the wisdom of the occupation; you can believe that the occupation is the dumbest move Israel ever made and still believe there is value in making a legal claim to the land. In fact, maybe the occupation will end only after Israel regains its moral standing by showing it is not occupying stolen land.

A thief is never credible. Israel needs to face the monster head-on and begin an all-out campaign defending its legitimate claims to Judea and Samaria. It's the most powerful way to counter the boycotters.

There will always be haters of Israel, but we don't have to make it easier for them. Before Israel can make peace, it needs to reclaim a piece of the truth.

Rebels with a Cause By David Suissa

"Leon Klinghoffer's blood cries out from the depth of the ocean," the 23-year-old law student told the Israeli Supreme Court in 1995. "We will not withdraw our complaint."

That student was Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, and she had filed a petition on behalf of the victims of the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, during which a wheelchair-bound Klinghoffer was tossed overboard.

She wanted the court to forbid the terrorist act's mastermind, Muhammad (Abu) Abbas, from entering Israel under the Oslo Accords.

The court sided with the government and rejected the petition, and Abu Abbas went on to mastermind more terror attacks. Darshan-Leitner never forgot that defeat. Years later, during the height of the Second Intifada, she founded the non-profit Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Center, to fight for the rights of terror victims.

In the years since its founding, Shurat HaDin has filed hundreds of petitions and lawsuits in courts around the world seeking justice for terror victims.

"So much of this legal field is new," she told me last week in her office in Ramat Gan, near Tel Aviv. "We have to dig out the laws and statutes and apply them as best we can."

So far, few entities have escaped their reach - they have taken on global banks, insurance companies, foreign countries and any person or entity they believe assists terror groups.

They served papers on former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami in the New York federal court on behalf of 17 Persian Jews unlawfully held in Iranian prisons. Charging North Korea with helping Hezbollah, they sued that country in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of 30 U.S. citizens who were hurt during the second Lebanon War.

In a 2003 lawsuit against the Palestinian Authority and PLO, a U.S. District Court in New York awarded $192 million in damages to the family of Aharon Ellis, a victim of the Hadera bat mitzvah attack. When a Spanish court began a criminal investigation in 2008 against Israeli military and political leaders, Shurat HaDin struck back in the same court with a lawsuit against Spanish officials for war crimes, on behalf of the victims of NATO's Kosovo bombing campaign.

Using a 2007 finding by the U.S. Treasury showing the transfer of funds from Iranian banks to Hezbollah to finance terrorist activity, they filed a $1 billion lawsuit against the Central Bank of Iran on behalf of American, Israeli and Canadian victims of Hezbollah terror. Last summer, they crippled the second Gaza-bound flotilla by threatening legal action against the companies insuring the ships, charging they were violating international maritime laws and anti-terror laws.

The group's latest brainchild is to go after the landlord and phone provider (Verizon) of the PLO's office in Washington, D.C., because they believe the offices are in violation of a specific U.S. anti-terror statute. Using the same statute, they are also going after Twitter and Facebook. They have a big case pending against the Bank of China, among many others.

It's a testament to the globally wired world we live in that Shurat HaDin can orchestrate its international legal battle against terror out of a tiny office in Israel, with just a handful of attorneys and volunteers.

While so many of us worry about making the case for Israel in the court of public opinion, Darshan-Leitner and her team worry about making Israel's case in a court of law. They use the facts not to get sympathy from the world, but to get justice from the courts.

During my visit, I met another Jew who is obsessed with the facts, journalist Izzy Lemberg. As a news producer for CNN in Israel, where he just finished a 22-year stint, Lemberg has covered all the major news stories, including more than a hundred terror attacks during the Second Intifada.

"Too many journalists see their work as the pursuit of justice," he told me when I met him late one night in Tel Aviv. "That should be the work of human rights activists. Journalists should pursue the truth."

Lemberg's pursuit of truth is now finding expression in a documentary he is producing called "Blame It on the Jews."

He thinks one of the biggest stories of the past decade has been the growth of global anti-Semitism, often camouflaged behind criticism of Israel. He says his film will focus a calm, journalistic eye on this phenomenon, with in-depth interviews and rare footage to show the extent of the problem.

To help attract financing for the film, he has uploaded a preview of the film on YouTube.

Lemberg is careful not to disparage his former employer, but it's clear from talking to him that he feels the media in general has not adequately covered the anti-Semitic phenomenon his film will address.

"You can't be balanced about anti-Semitism," he told me. "There's no other side to that story."

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner and Izzy Lemberg are two Israeli rebels fighting for a cause; one for justice, the other for truth. The line between the two is not as clear as Lemberg suggests. When the truth is well told, in a documentary or otherwise, it can only lead to justice.

On the Money By David Suissa

What do you do when you run out of money? When you're about to be evicted from your home, or having trouble feeding your kids, or simply can't afford the basic necessities of life? What happens, also, when you can't afford certain things you consider crucial - like sending your children to a Jewish day school?

And what if you don't want to go through the formal hoops of organized charity to fill out a bunch of forms to see if you qualify for help?

Over the past few weeks, I've met some people who have taken on these issues in distinct and refreshing ways.

The first is Shlomo Rechnitz, a 40-year-old Orthodox businessman who lives in the La Brea/Fairfax area. For the past seven years, Rechnitz and his family have followed this simple model for helping those in need: You ask, they give.

No forms to fill out, no matching grants, no performance metrics. Just a check.

The scene unfolds every Saturday night, and you'd think you were in a Polish village in the 18th century. A line of people extends outside the Rechnitz house and leads right to a dining room where Shlomo Rechnitz, dressed in a white shirt, sits at the head of a long table, waiting for people to come.

Each person in need sits next to him for a few minutes of conversation, receives a check, says thank you and then goes home. Some might bring "evidence" of their despondency - like an eviction letter from a landlord - but they hardly need it. Everyone walks out with a check.

He sees about 100 people on an average Saturday night, and they are diverse: religious, secular, old, young, Sephardic, Chassidic, mothers, fathers, businessmen down on their luck, young people out of work, etc.

Rechnitz allowed me to play observer one recent Saturday night, because he wants to encourage other wealthy people to pitch in. He feels there is too much suffering in our community, and too much money out there that is not being used to help those in need.

I know what you're thinking: This is not the best way to give charity. Rechnitz should be helping people "learn how to fish" rather than just handing out the fish; he should be checking their qualifications to make sure they really need the money; and he should be monitoring where his money is going.

Yes, he should be doing all those things, but then he wouldn't be Shlomo Rechnitz. Many of these people have nowhere else to go, and they need immediate relief. That's why he makes it so simple.

Rechnitz gives to many causes, including the school where he serves as president (Toras Emes Academy), but it's the Saturday night ritual that makes him stand out. Obviously, he doesn't expect every wealthy Jew to give this way, but, especially in this rough economy, he'd love to see them give more than they're currently giving.

A week after witnessing the old-school approach of Rechnitz, I met three Jews who are fighting another community problem - the soaring costs of Jewish education - in a whole other way. Instead of offering financial aid, they have started a new school, Yeshiva High School, which reduces tuition costs dramatically through an innovative "blended learning" model of education.

The model combines online learning with traditional learning in a classroom setting, with a teacher/facilitator addressing the individual needs and pace of each student. It is a fully accredited college-prep program with national standards and a daily flow of data to monitor individual progress.

But here's the upshot: Because the model is so cost-effective, instead of paying an annual tuition of $20,000 to $30,000, parents will pay $8,000 a year when the school opens next September.

The founders of the school, Rabbi Gabriel Elias and Rabbi Moises Benzaquen, and its director, longtime local educator Rebecca Coen, speak about the blended model as a "new paradigm" that will give them a sustainable model of Jewish education for years to come. Rabbi Benzaquen will lead the Jewish studies program, which will follow Orthodox tradition with an emphasis on Jewish values and interactive learning.

The new school has already created a buzz. I went to its open house last week - the school will be located at Congregation Mogen David on West Pico Boulevard - and the place was packed.

Will the school succeed? No one can say until we see results, but I can tell you this: There's something very Jewish - and very brave - about trying all kinds of approaches in order to tackle chronic problems.

For those who need immediate relief, there is the refreshing hands-on approach of Rechnitz, who meets people face-to-face in his own dining room, feels their pain and never says no.

And for those desperate for a more affordable Jewish education, there is now an alternative school that uses new technology in a way our grandparents would never have dreamed possible.

Either way, this is what it means to be Jewish. We are restless, we feel others' pain, we try to improve things any way we can, and we all want our kids to become the first Jewish Doctor-Mensch-President of the United States.

Whether we have money or not. 

David Suissa is President of Tribe Media Corp and Jewish Journal. He can be reached at davids@jewishjournal.com.  

Israel is not normal BY DAVID SUISSA

You can say a lot about Israel, but not that it’s a normal country. Any way you look at it — its biblical roots and miraculous revival after 1,900 years; its state of virtual siege surrounded by ruthless enemies; its improbable military victories; its scientific innovations to help humanity; its economic power; its democratic character; its ingathering of immigrants from around the world; its flourishing cultural scene; its heated debates and never-ending political dramas; and, lest we forget, its ridiculous status as the United Nation’s most scrutinized and condemned country — this tiny nation has become, in a short time, one of the most unusual and extraordinary experiments in the history of nations. Let’s look at just three recent events: First, what kind of country would trade 1,027 convicted criminals and terrorists for one kidnapped soldier? Certainly not a normal one.  Let’s face it — the deal for Gilad Shalit makes no sense. As a well-known Israeli writer once wrote: “Prisoner releases only embolden terrorists by giving them the feeling that even if they are caught, their punishment will be brief. Worse, by leading terrorists to think such demands are likely to be met, they encourage precisely the terrorist blackmail they are supposed to defuse.” The writer was Benjamin Netanyahu, in his 1995 book, “Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists.” Of course, now that Bibi is in charge, it’s not so easy for him to ignore the wishes of a nation yearning for the freedom of one soldier, a soldier who has become, in the poignant words of Yossi Klein Halevi, “everyone’s son.” This solidarity is not normal. Here is virtually a whole nation acting as one irrational parent (is there a price tag too high to save one’s son?), and exhibiting a love of life that transcends reason. Many of us worry, justifiably, that the price for Shalit will be paid in more Jewish blood. I don’t pretend to have a good answer for that, but I do think Israel’s message is not just one of weakness. Israel is also saying to its enemies: If we are so crazy about saving one life, imagine how crazy we will get about saving the life of our nation next time you try to mess with us. I can’t think of another country that would make such a crazy gesture. My second example of Israeli abnormality is the tent city protests of last summer and the Trachtenberg Report that followed. To understand how abnormal this is, just imagine President Barack Obama forming a commission next week to address the Occupy Wall Street movement; the leader of that commission meeting nightly with protesters to get their input and ideas, while launching an open-source Web site to solicit ideas from concerned citizens; the commission drafting a comprehensive report to the president with detailed recommendations on everything from cost of living and education to tax reform and affordable housing; and the plan being approved by Congress — all in less than eight weeks! Like I said, not normal, but it’s exactly what happened in Israel. My third example of Israeli abnormality is the world’s hysterical reaction last month to Israel’s desire to build apartments in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem. Specifically, many world leaders went nuts and called it “provocative” and “detrimental to peace” when Israel’s Interior Ministry gave preliminary approval for the building of 1,100 residential units in the Southeast Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo. Never mind, of course, that it is widely accepted that Gilo is one of those Jewish neighborhoods that would stay in Israeli hands in any final peace plan, or that Israel has made generous offers for peace in the past that have been rejected. And never mind that the genocidal Hamas terror regime in Gaza, which yearns for Israel’s destruction, as well as the continued Palestinian promotion of Jew-hatred and glorification of terrorism, make other so-called “obstacles to peace” a farce. Never mind all that. As thousands of protesters were being murdered in Syria, as Christian Copts were being mowed down in Egypt and Kurds were being slaughtered in Turkey, much of the Western world decided to condemn a preliminary building permit for Jewish housing in Jerusalem. This might not surprise you, given the world’s impeccable record of singling out the Jewish state for disproportionate abuse. But, whatever side of the ideological fence you sit on, don’t tell me it’s normal. In many ways, this abnormal hostility has hardened Israel to the outside world, while paradoxically increasing its desire to succeed and be accepted. As a result, Israel has often appeared conflicted and emotionally unpredictable. The one constant has been the nation’s intense love of life. The world will witness an outpouring of this love this week when millions of Israelis welcome home their “son” Gilad Shalit. I wonder what will go through the minds of outsiders when they view this spectacle: “Look at these foolish Israelis, releasing a thousand terrorists just for one human life. Crazy country.” Yes, a crazy and flawed country, but also a courageous and incredibly resourceful country that is madly in love with life — and is definitely not normal.

© Copyright 2011 Tribe Media Corp. All rights reserved. JewishJournal.com is hosted by Nexcess.net. Homepage design by Koret Communications. Widgets by Mijits. Site construction by Hop Studios.

Generation Duh by David Suissa

I’m always amused when I hear American Jews complain that they’re being “shut out,” that they don’t feel comfortable “criticizing” Israel, and that many young Jews are becoming alienated from Israel because they don’t feel free to criticize the Jewish state.

Hmm, I wonder, which country are they talking about? Have you ever seen an American Jew afraid to speak up about anything? Open up any issue of The Jewish Journal and tell me if American Jews are uncomfortable criticizing Israel or their own people.

It’s true that because of the anti-Israel propaganda that pervades much of the world, many Jews feel an obligation to push back and make Israel’s case. I would imagine it is this anti-Israel propaganda, more than anything, that poisons many young Jews on Israel — not the honest efforts to push back and correct the record.

Still, that hasn’t stopped the debate from raging, especially since Peter Beinart’s celebrated article a year ago warning about Israel losing a new generation of liberal Jews. As a result, many members of the Jewish establishment have been asking: Are we being too blindly supportive of Israel? Are we tuning out dissenting voices? Should we be encouraging more criticism of Israel?

If you ask me, instead of obsessing over criticism (“Israel can do no right”) or propaganda (“Israel can do no wrong”), we ought to be promoting context: that is, trying to explain and understand the objective context behind Israel’s actions.

Take the case of Gabriel Mathew Schivone, a Jewish student at the University of Arizona, who wrote in Haaretz last week that he “simply cannot sit idle while my country aids and abets Israel’s siege, occupation and repression of the Palestinians.”

Schivone will be joining the flotilla to Gaza this week, sailing with more than 30 other Americans whose goal, he says, is to “actively and nonviolently resist policies” that he considers “abominable.”

“I am one of a growing number of young American Jews who are determined to shake off an assumed — and largely imposed — association with Israel,” Schivone wrote. “Prominent advocacy organizations, such as the American Jewish Committee, which proudly proclaim their unconditional support of Israel, for several years have been declaring their ‘serious concern’ over the increasing ‘distancing’ of young American Jews from the state.

“But what Israel apologists like the AJC view as a crisis, I see as a positive development for American Jews …”

Well, let’s see. Is Schivone’s criticism of Israel a positive development for American Jewry? Let’s compare what he wrote about the upcoming flotilla with an article on the same subject by “Israel apologist” David Harris, head of AJC.

What is noteworthy about Schivone’s article is that while he makes full use of his right to criticize Israel, he provides no context whatsoever for his criticism.

For example, in explaining his mission to Gaza, he talks about the imperative to help “free the slave from a bondage that you would not wish to suffer,” and the Israeli “crimes” that have led to the “death and suffering of mainly Palestinian noncombatants.” But, incredibly, he never once mentions Hamas — you know, that terrorist organization that is actually ruling over these “slaves” in Gaza?

David Harris’ article in JPost, by comparison, provides the context behind Israel’s blockade:

“Hamas celebrates violence,” Harris wrote. “It joyously speaks of jihad, martyrdom, conflict, and the ultimate destruction of Israel. It has matched its fiery rhetoric with a sustained effort to import weapons, courtesy of Iran, smugglers in the Sinai, and tunnels from the Egyptian side of the border. In recent years, literally thousands of rockets and missiles have been fired from Gaza at Israel. Why?

“Israel has no claims on Gaza. To the contrary, Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Soldiers and settlers alike were pulled out by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, giving local residents the first chance ever in their history to govern themselves.

“Israel has an interest in a stable, peaceful, and prospering Gaza, not a gun-toting, missile-firing, jihad-preaching entity.”

Now, you can look at both messages and say Schivone is being more “courageous,” because he is criticizing his own people. But who is being more accurate? Who is providing context and holding the right people accountable? Is it the establishment guy with the facts or the young Turk with the swagger?

In the current bash-Israel atmosphere we are in — when it’s so popular to beat up on the Jewish state — it just may be the David Harrises of the world who are the true dissenters.

Here’s my point. We can’t be so afraid to lose the new generation that we become afraid to correct them when they’re wrong. We can’t get so obsessed with the “right to criticize” that we forget about the obligation to know the context before you do criticize — not to mention, of course, the obligation to defend Israel when the world makes unfair accusations.

It’s one thing to criticize Israel with balance and context; it’s another thing to criticize it just because it’s cool to stick it to the establishment.

Schivone writes that when he sails toward Gaza this week, in what he calls “the most celebrated — and controversial — sea voyage of the 21st century,” he will proudly be wearing the Star of David.

I wish he would also be carrying a picture of Gilad Shalit and reading the Hamas charter.

Obama’s nightmare by David Suissa

Civil trial attorney Baruch C. Cohen

with David Suissa

Apparently, President Barack Obama believes that whenever the Israelis and the Palestinians sit down for peace talks, the holiest site in Judaism — the Western Wall — will be with the Palestinians. I didn’t realize this either, until I listened to some knowledgeable commentators.

It comes down to a careful reading of Obama’s suggested formulation for restarting peace talks: “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” As Jennifer Rubin writes in The Washington Post, “This formulation is a recipe for undermining the Israeli bargaining position.”

Rubin quotes former deputy national security adviser Elliot Abrams: “1967 lines with agreed swaps means you’re saying to Israel that ‘You think you have the Western Wall [of the ancient Jewish temple in Jerusalem] as part of Israel, but we don’t … [and] you need to come up with some swaps that Palestinians believe acceptable to keep the Western Wall in Israel.’ ”

This is not just semantics. Obama is saying to Israel: The starting position for future peace talks is that you don’t have the Western Wall, at least not until the Palestinians say you do.

Incredible, no?

Of course, Obama and his Jewish supporters in high places are hoping — praying? — that not too many people will catch this. So they have launched a major diplomatic offensive to convince us that everything Obama is doing is actually good for Israel.

This will be an uphill battle. Notwithstanding Obama’s many lofty statements about the “unshakable bond” between Israel and the United States, his record of fairness to Israel in peace talks has been shaky — from demanding draconian construction freezes before negotiations even started to the latest precondition on “1967” borders.

As David Horovitz wrote in The Jerusalem Post, “Obama is urging Israel — several of whose leaders have offered dramatic territorial concessions in the cause of peace, and proven their honest intentions by leaving southern Lebanon, Gaza and major West Bank cities, only to be rewarded with new bouts of violence — to give up its key disputed asset, the biblically resonant territory of Judea and Samaria, as stage one of a ‘peace’ process.

“But he is not [explicitly] demanding that the Palestinians — whose leaders have consistently failed to embrace far-reaching peace offers, most notably Ehud Olmert’s 2008 offer of a withdrawal to adjusted ’67 lines and the dividing of Jerusalem — give up their key disputed asset, the unconscionable demand for a Jewish-state-destroying ‘right of return’ for millions, until some vague subsequent stage. …”

As Horovitz laments: “Only a president who ignores or underestimates Palestinian hostility to Israel could propose a formula for reviving negotiations in which he set out those parameters for high-risk territorial compromise without simultaneously making crystal clear that there will be no ‘right of return’ for Palestinian refugees.”

In my view, that summarizes Obama’s biggest mistake: a vexing pattern of letting Palestinians off the hook and putting serious pressure only on Israel.

Rubin quotes a Capitol Hill Democrat as being “dismayed” by Obama’s lack of evenhandedness: “The perception that Obama’s position on the starting point for Middle East peace talks is the same as Abbas’s is not only hurtful to his support among pro-Israel Democrats, but has not moved us closer to peace.”

What’s crazy is that in his obsession with pressuring Israel, Obama is ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room: Hamas. Remember when Obama stood at the AIPAC convention last month and called the agreement between Hamas and Fatah an “enormous obstacle to peace”? And when he said Israel “cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist”? And when he demanded that Hamas “accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements”?

That made so much sense: If you’re going to have a precondition for peace talks, wouldn’t recognizing you exist be the natural one?

But that was then, and this is now. Away from the klieg lights of AIPAC, our president has decided that the only precondition to peace talks should be Israel agreeing to the Palestinian opening position on borders.

And Obama wonders why so many people don’t trust him on Israel.

If you ask me, Obama’s nightmare is to be forced to veto the Palestinian initiative at the United Nations in September. This would single him out in dramatic fashion as a supporter and defender of the Jewish state, thus undermining his internationalist agenda. So, in a desperate attempt to avert that moment of truth, he’s putting ridiculous pressure on a great American ally and virtually groveling to entice the rejectionist and conniving Palestinians back to the peace table.

How sad. The most powerful man in the world is afraid to utter these simple words: “Our friend and ally Israel has said repeatedly that it is willing to return to the peace table. We call on the Palestinians to do the same; we call on Hamas to agree to the Quartet conditions; and we call on the world community and the United Nations to endorse an immediate return to peace talks between Israel and a Palestinian partner that does not include a terrorist entity.”

That would have been the right thing to do. Instead, Obama has decided to hand over the Western Wall to the Palestinians as a starting point for negotiations.

The only polite Jewish response that I see is, “No, you can’t.”