Women in Israel's Military

From the IDF, a follow-up from yesterday:

VIDEO: Israel's Female Combat Hummer Operators

From the IDF:

Family of Rachel Corrie Accuses Israel of Withholding Video Evidence During Civil Lawsuit

At Biased BBC, "Myths and Facts Part 1":

The initial lurid sensationalism is the part of a story that will always stick, never mind what emerges thereafter. Cindy Corrie’s piece in the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ (H/T Too True) reminded me how unfortunate that can be, especially if the story appears to confirm any of the commonly-held negative preconceptions about Israel.
Just as people still repeat the Al Dura lies unchallenged on the BBC, the myth of Rachel Corrie’s noble martyrdom remains untarnished despite the facts that have come to light following the regrettable incident in 2003.

The notorious legend of Rachel Corrie’s adventures in Gaza concerns her passage from youthful but misguided idealist, through useful idiocy, to her final, inevitable destination - being bulldozed to death.

Posthumously exalted, deified and immortalised by Israel-hating dramatists and propagandists, and further elevated by having the good ship Rachel Corrie named in her honour, (and seized by the Israelis during last year’s propaganda-stunt-flotilla) her media-fuelled journey from zero to hero bears out the adage that a little knowledge is truly a dangerous thing.

It is understandable that Corrie’s family should take up her cause and exploit the unassailable position their bereavement affords them. To face the stark truth about her death would be to accept the futility of it and to rub salt into a painful wound.

More at the link.

The Cindie Corrie article is here: "US collusion in the Gaza blockade is an affront to human rights: My daughter's death shows the cruelty of an America that won't protect its own and is complicit in harming Palestinian civilians." And at the Guardian, "Rachel Corrie's family claim Israeli military withheld vital video evidence" (via Memeorandum).

John Cook, Dude Trying to Out CIA Agent Who [Helped Kill] Bin Laden, Married to Anti-Zionist Allison Benedikt*

Gateway Pundit has the story on John Cook, "Disgusting. Far Left Gawker Posts Photo of Suspected CIA Agent Who Helped Kill Bin Laden." And following the links takes us to The New Ledger, "Gawker’s John Cook Attempts to Out CIA Agent Who Helped Kill Bin Laden." Be sure to read the whole thing. It's juicy. But what's especially interesting is this snarky aside:

If Cook is correct or not, this individual is now a high value target for a group of terrorists who enjoy killing people and their families who have done them wrong. It’s pretty much all they do, in case Cook hadn’t noticed amidst ranting at his family members about how much he hates Israel.

That "ranting at his family members" line links to Jeffrey Goldberg, "Giving Up on the Zionist Dream," which is of course Goldberg's response to Allison Benedikt's now infamous essay, "Life After Zionist Summer Camp." Folks might remember when I blogged this, but one of the most interesting things at Benedikt's piece is the account of her husband berating her family about the "evils" of Israel. I never bothered to search for the guy, and she didn't reveal the name, but The New Ledger has the goods, and a quick search shows that the same family that Cook slammed took the time to post marriage announcements with the major New York newspapers and magazines, like the New York Times and New York Observer:

That's quite a revealing puzzle in the end. John Cook, and his wife too, apparently, might was well move to Yemen to start their training with Al Qaeda. Never mind that Osama Bin Laden wasn't motivated to attack the U.S. because of Israel (think Saudi Arabia instead), for members of the anti-American, anti-Israel contingents, what matters is to be on the side of America's enemies. And with this latest news on Cook's efforts to out the CIA operative, I'd say these folks are getting into John Walker Lindh territory.

It's pretty bad. And given Benedikt's laudable upbringing in the Zionist youth movement, it's fundamentally sad that she met such a guy, who by her own account pulled her over the edge into pro-terror ideological affiliations.

*Fixed the title.

Jewish Conservatives and the New Media

From Benyamin Korn, at Jewish Telegraphic Agency, "Jews becoming commonplace in conservative ‘new media’."

The piece mentions just about everyone. Andrew Breitbart is Jewish, and so is Tammy Bruce, which I didn't know.

Interesting.

Hat Tip: Israel Matzav.

Anti-Israel Dyke March in Toronto

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Jew Haters Crash Dyke Parade."

Also, "Video: Suicide Pride - Pride allows QuAIA to march in Dyke Parade."

Not the kind of coverage available at Toronto Sun, "Dyke March takes a stand."

RELATED: At Vlad Tepes, "Toronto’s fourth Journey of Faith Conference. Where you too can find tolerance through Islam’s Revelations and Prophetic Traditions!"

Greece Arrests Captain of Gaza-Bound 'Audacity of Hope'

At New York Times, "Greece Jails U.S. Captain in Gaza Flotilla."

At the video, Communist Party member Angela Davis and Professor Rashid Khalidi, former PLO advisor to Yasser Arafat. Oh, and anti-Israel propgandist Noam Chomsky, the intellectual rock star of today's Jew-murdering left. And so many more:

Israel is the only country in the world held out for this kind of visceral hatred. It's anti-Semitic. Prominent people, shilling for terrorism. It's perverted.

A Soldier's Mother — Letter to Hedy Epstein

I regret I haven't been reading her blog like I used to, but this is linked at Memeorandum, and it's worth sharing big time: "Hedy Epstein - A Personal Message":

Your participation, in the flotilla brings shame to you and worse is a betrayal of your family, those that died in Auschwitz. It is hard to comprehend how distorted your view of life, of Judaism, and of Israel must be to bring you to the point that you sail against your own people. Yes, you’ll say you sail for human rights, for humanity and some such nonsense but last year’s flotilla – and very likely this one, displayed the worst of humanity.

There is no humanitarian crisis – so says the Red Cross just two months ago. What arrogance you have to think you know better. You, who make your life in America, dare to tell us how we should live in this land, in this area.

Had there been an Israel when your family was taken to Auschwitz, Israel would have saved them – as we have saved Jews all over the world. No, we are not going to be victims ever again, nor are we interested in making the Palestinians victims.

Now go read it all.

And at communist Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!

IDF Delivers Goods to Gaza

Great video, via Theo Spark:

IDF Spokeswoman Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich on Securing Defensible Borders

A great clip from the IDF news desk:

Melanie Phillips on the Gaza Flotilla

She's making a nice transition to blogging at her home page. See, "The Flotilla and the Third Intifada" (via Blazing Cat Fur).

The Billions Behind 'Cultures of Resistance' Filmmaker

An excellent essay from Dave Swindle, at FrontPage Magazine, "The Flotilla Jihadists’ Artsy Propagandist and Her Billionaire Husband." And propaganda it is. A sample:

And she's affiliated with this premiere group of communists and anti-Semites:

Israel's Settlements Are Not the Problem

An awesome essay at the July/August Foreign Affairs, by Elliott Abrams, "The Settlement Obsession: Both Israel and the United States Miss the Obstacles to Peace." It's a review essay, in fact. Abrams covers Occupation of the Territories: Israeli Soldiers' Testimonies 2000-2010, a collection of interviews from Breaking the Silence, available online. And also Gadi Taub's, The Settlers: And the Struggle over the Meaning of Zionism, at Amazon.com.

I read Abrams' review in hard copy on the road out to Pechanga, and I'd envisioned writing some big analysis with lots of block quotes, etc. But I'm not in the mood now. Mostly, it's a piece of scholarship and it requires shifting back into a more neutral, analytical frame of mind while reading. It's tempting to look at any analysis of the Middle East through current events, such as the Gaza flotilla. But Abrams avoids that, which is impressive, since Occupation of the Territories is about Jew-bashing propaganda more than close empirical and historical analysis. Indeed, Abrams notes:

Some of the testimonies are deeply affecting, and there is no doubt that occupation duty brings out the worst in some soldiers: violence, bullying, vandalism, and theft. Official accounts of the U.S. occupation of Germany after World War II, for example, make clear that there is no such thing as an immaculate occupation. But in this book, Breaking the Silence appears less interested in the current impact of the settlements and the backdrop to the IDF's actions in the West Bank than in advancing particular ideological and political points. For one thing, why produce a volume in 2010 that has so many testimonies about Gaza, from which all Israeli forces withdrew in the summer of 2005? Why include so many interviews from 2000-2002, the years when the second intifada was at its height, rather than interviews from more recent years? In the section on the methods the IDF uses to prevent terrorism, for example, there are 67 interviews, but only five are from 2008 or later; similarly, a section on how the IDF carries out a "policy of control, dispossession, and annexation of territory" contains 44 interviews, of which just six are from 2007 or later.

A logical inference from this data would be that the IDF's conduct is improving, but Breaking the Silence does not discuss this possibility. Nor does it discuss what the IDF was attempting between 2000 and 2002, namely, trying to stop terrorist acts that were maiming and killing thousands of Israelis. There is just one sentence about terrorism in this entire volume, acknowledging that "it is true that the Israeli security apparatus has had to deal with concrete threats in the past decade, including terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens."

That sounds like blogging rather than research, but Abrams gives the work a fair shake.

As for The Settlers, Abrams' review of that book forms the bulk of the essay, and there's a key thesis that emerges: The future of Israel will play out over the issues of religion and secularism. The Jewish state as originally established was based on sovereign territory as a secure safe haven for any Jew anywhere in the world. Israel was to be a secular democracy with a Jewish majority. It wasn't until 1967, and the beginning of the occupation, whereby the most dramatic assertions of religious Zionism emerged. This might sound strange for those most informed by the blogosphere, but the Taub book sounds like a magisterial accomplishment. I learned a lot just from Abrams' overview. The entire work is no doubt a keeper. In any case, some of Abrams' conclusions indicate that religious Zionism --- which is only a small part of settler activity in the West Bank --- is unsustainable over the long term. Here's an interesting quote, which again, goes against what partisans normally argue:

The conflict between secular Zionism and the settler movement did not appear overnight following Israel's conquests in the 1967 war, for there was an argument that bridged the gap: security. The Israeli right viewed the settlements as critical for Israel's future. The old borders were not defensible, Israel could be attacked again from the east, and settlements on the ridges of Judea and Samaria were part of the state's new system of defense. So the religious settlers and Israeli hawks made common cause, and year after year, settlers by the tens of thousands moved to the West Bank.

For the religious settlers, this was an exciting period, filled with spiritual and also political and psychological satisfaction. Whereas the Orthodox had largely sat out the hard work of building Zionist institutions and founding the state, Taub says, "the act of settlement was a chance to reenact the days of pioneering glory, which religious Zionists felt they had half missed."

The alliance between the religious settlers and secular Israeli hawks held for some years, but before long, the underlying contradiction began to emerge. In 1974, Gush Emunim, or "Bloc of the Faithful," was founded as the main settler organization, and its manifesto spoke of its "obligation toward the Land of Israel." To the actually existing State of Israel, there was apparently no such obligation. Three years later, in 1977, leaders of the Israeli right were forced to confront this uncomfortable fact when Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat came to Jerusalem offering peace in exchange for the Sinai. Menachem Begin, founder of the Herut Party (a predecessor of the right-wing Likud coalition), handed the Sinai back to Egypt in 1982 and in the process evacuated 2,500 Israelis from Yamit, a settlement there. It was apparent, Taub explains, that "in Begin's view the realization of the right of Jews to settle anywhere in the Land of Israel was always subordinate to a higher value: political independence, the sovereignty of the state."

A far more significant moment came in 2005, when Sharon evacuated all Israeli settlers from Gaza and also removed four tiny settlements in the West Bank. The settlers, Taub recounts, found that their adoption of the security argument as a means of reaching out to secular Israelis had backfired badly. For in the end, Sharon and his fellow hawks had come to the conclusion that keeping all the territories was a huge mistake and a danger to the Jewish state itself. As Taub writes:

Even staunch secular hawks in Likud understood that extending Israel's sovereignty to the territories, as opposed to maintaining the temporary status of these regions, would spell an end to Zionism; it would force the state into a double-bind where it would have to choose between a non-Jewish democracy and a Jewish apartheid. . . . Likud under Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ariel Sharon, despite repeated declarations that Judea, Samaria, and Gaza would remain forever a part of Israel, never considered such a possibility seriously, and so never moved to annex these territories.

For both the Israeli center and the Israeli right, the failure of the Camp David talks in 2000 and the ensuing intifada taught a lesson: a negotiated settlement was unlikely. Combined with the continuing Palestinian insistence on the right of return of millions of Palestinians to Israel, an outcome that would doom Israel as a Jewish state, the seeming impossibility of a negotiated deal led Sharon to favor unilateral withdrawal. That approach, Taub says, "gradually acquired legitimacy. . . . Leaving the territories no longer looked to many like a concession to the Palestinians. It began to look like an urgent Israeli interest." The alliance between the settlers and the hawks against the Israeli left, or "the peace camp," was now at an end; the right joined the left in believing that separation from the West Bank was desirable.

Anyway, I promised I wouldn't go overboard on this blog post. Read the whole thing. You'll need to, in order to understand Abrams' conclusion:

In the face of this cessation of Israeli-Palestinian cooperation and peace negotiations, the issue of settlement activity will rise again in importance in many capitals, especially in Washington. In an odd way, current U.S. officials have now adopted the mirror image of the religious settlers' obsession. The more extreme settlers believe that settling the land is more important than protecting the interests of the State of Israel. At the same time, according to current U.S. policy, getting them off that land -- indeed, stopping them from placing one more brick on it -- is worth badly damaging Washington's relationship with a longtime ally and putting Israel's security and reputation in jeopardy. The settlements, and the end of the settlements, are a great problem for Zionism, but they are not the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. The sooner the United States realizes that, the sounder and more constructive its Middle East policy will become.

What You Should Know About the Second Gaza Flotilla

Read the whole thing, at Yid With Lid.

(Added: Just found this at Blazing Cat Fur, "The Truth behind the Freedom Fauxtilla.")

And at Britain's far-left Guardian, "Alice Walker: Why I'm joining the Freedom Flotilla to Gaza."

And see the responses at CAMERA, "Color Purple Author Smears Israel with False Colors," and CiF Watch, "Alice Walker and the audacity of useful idiocy."

Melanie Phillips Quits Britain's Spectator Magazine

She has two announcements, "Why I left the Spectator," and "My blog's new home."

There's very little written regarding an explanation why, although Phillips writes: "Those interested to learn more can do so in the update on this CiF Watch post, the original quote from which led to this apology." The apology issued was to Alastair Crooke, Director of Conflicts Forum, "an international movement which engages with Islamist movements broadly ..."

Given Mr. Crooke's background, folks probably have an inkling as to what happened: Melanie blogged about Crooke, he got mad, launched legal action, harming the Spectator financially, and Melanie Phillips felt it necessary to resign.

That just the line of logic, but let's see if I can piece some of this together. For one thing, reports indicate that Alastair Crooke, a former member of Britain's MI6 intelligence agency, had direct and ongoing contacts with Hamas as part of his official business at the British consulate in East Jerusalem. A 2007 blog post by Israeli Eliyahu m'Tsiyon has the details, including a quotation from Melanie Phillips which is no longer available elsewhere. And London's far-left Guardian reported on this, "UK recalls MI6 link to Palestinian militants." These are some really sinister dealings, and Phillips wrote about them. See Jihad Watch, "Melanie Phillips on Alistair Crooke." And following the links takes us to FrontPage Magazine, "Alistair Crooke's Meeting with Sheikh Yassin." I don't see the exact date of Crooke's departure from MI6, but even left-wing sources report on his deep ties to global terrorism. See Mother Jones, "The Spy Who Loved Hamas. And Hezbollah. And Iran."

Now note that the Spectator published an apology to Alastair Crooke, cited by Roy Greenslade at the Guardian:

A blog by Melanie Phillips posted on Jan 28 2011 reported an allegation that Alastair Crooke, director of Conflicts Forum, had been expelled from Israel and dismissed for misconduct from Government service or the EU after threatening a journalist whose email he had unlawfully intercepted. We accept that this allegation is completely false and we apologise to Mr Crooke.

Again, I'm piecing things together, but it looks like Spectator issued the apology as part of a legal settlement, which has the New Statesman's Mehdi Hasan jumping for joy:

... was this a voluntary or enforced departure? The blogger Guido Staines beat me to it, but I can't help but notice how the Spectator has had to apologise to Alastair Crooke, director of Conflicts Forum, on its website this week, after a blogpost by Phillips made "false" allegations about Crooke's past. Phillips's decision to move on might just be a coincidence but a well-connected source tells me that the payout to Crooke cost the Spectator "tens of thousands of pounds" and left Fraser Nelson and Andrew Neil "furious" with her.

So we're now back to Melanie Phillips' blog entry, where she writes, "For legal reasons, I cannot go into the details."

The legal reasons appear to be (further) threats of legal action, but Melanie Phillips has rejected the premise of the apology. And CiF Watch says Phillips made "no such" allegation regarding threats from Alastair Crooke.

Well, we know that Alastair Crooke's collaborating with terrorist organizations, and as Melanie Phillips was writing about it, my sense is that someone made threats, and since this controversy involves people at the highest levels of British power, clearly some pro-jihadists had strong incentive to destroy Melanie Phillips. And what's more fascinating is that so called right-wing outlets are simply crippling under threats and apparent litigation. Indeed, Mehdi Hasan can't contain his glee:

Blinded by their monomaniacal obsession with Islamists under every British bed, members of the UK media's neoconservative faction have been the subject of other (successful) legal complaints and libel actions in recent years.

These legal complaints look sketchy, "successful" or not, given all that we know about Alastair Crooke. Clearly, if Melanie Phillips was speaking truth to power her own health and livelihood became increasingly at risk. And this is something I've been writing about quite a bit, since Scott Eric Kaufman and Carl Salonen launched campaigns of workplace intimidation against me, including libelously false allegations of sexual harassment, with potentially very damaging personal consequences, simply for speaking truth to their evil deeds. And while I'm not an author of such prominence as Melanie Phillips, some allegations against me have gone all the way to California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat. So the similarity is to the lengths at which progressives will go to literally destroy those who speak the truth. Remember, for radical leftists and jihad enablers, "truth is the new hate speech." And I want to remind people of my report on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who announced on Canadian television:

The thing is, you don't care about freedom of speech until you've lost it. But I'm here to tell you that I will never, ever give up the fight for freedom of speech.

Neither will I.

Joshua Treviño on Twitter!

You gotta follow this guy.

He tweets with the frequency of a man on a mission, and boy has he pissed off some of the pro-terror progressives on Twitter. Remember M. Jay Rosenberg from Media Matters, the guy who tweeted that Benjamin Netanyahu is a terrorist? Well, he's all up in a ruffle over Treviño. See, "Former Bush Speechwriter: Shooting People On Gaza Flotilla 'OK' Because Participants Are Like Nazis." And you can see why at the post. I scrolled through Treviño's feed to find some of his other tweets, but there were so many it was taking too long (a sample is here, though). And I'll tell you, if Americans are on board the flotilla ships, I won't weep if they're killed during an engagement. They're deliberately sailing into harm's way. We'll know more, of course, especially if there is a clash at sea. But last year the "human rights activists" on the Mavi Marmara beat Israeli soldiers and turned their own weapons against them. The IDF killed nine and injured dozens in self-defense. That's not the story one hears from the Israel-hating global media, but the truth doesn't matter to progressives and anti-Semites. Lies are their coin.

Israeli Actor Impersonated Activist in Video Attacking Gaza Flotilla

At New York Times, "Israeli Video Blog Exposed as a Hoax."

The funny thing about this is that for progressives to denounce what's apparently a hoax, they also have to reject the message at the video, and the Israel-hating left is all too ready to do that. Indeed, Max Blumenthal, that conspiracy-driven self-hating Jew extraordinaire, was the first to point out the discrepancies. Check the link, in any case. Progressives are eating this up, so you know they're jonesin' for some PR victories.

Aliyah

A timely follow-up to yesterday's Allison Benedikt blogging.

At Jeruslalem Post, "Talking seriously about aliya."

Let’s be honest: English-speaking Jews will not make aliya because you showed them a brochure extolling the financial benefits of immigration.

That’s not because they are waiting for more money, but because it’s not about money.

Young Diaspora Jews in the West are not seeking comfort, but challenge. They don’t want to blindly follow in the footsteps of their parents, but are nevertheless willing to explore Jewish life and tradition as a source of authentic identity. More than anything else, they want to feel that their lives are a product of their own initiative.

(I should know. In 1999, at the age of 18, I left a beloved community in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and a red 9- seater Chevrolet Suburban, bought for me by my parents when I learned to drive at 16, in order to join the IDF.)

The real challenge of aliya, therefore, is not bureaucratic. It’s not about reducing the paperwork or improving the benefits package. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine anything that could change the mind of an American Jew, especially a young one, on the question of whether or not to remain American. Hard, but not impossible.

Faced with these facts, we must ask ourselves if we actually know how to bring American Jews on aliya. For the first time, we find ourselves competing for their attention in a completely open marketplace, without the pressure of parents or tradition. Are we up to that challenge?

Go read the rest at that link.

I guess there's a crisis in Israel over the issue of aliyah. Check the article above, but the reference is to the essay by Isi Leibler of Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "The collapse of Zionist leadership."

Gilad Shalit Five Year Anniversary

At Haaretz, "Shalit family members chain themselves together outside Netanyahu's residence in Jerusalem."

Also, Noah Pollak at Commmentary, "“Human Rights Community” Agrees: Gilad Shalit Should Remain in Captivity."

We Should Ban Muslims From All Airlines Flying into Western Countries

From Jason Bradley, at The Western Experience, "In the Spirit of Civility and Brotherhood, Let’s Ban Muslims."