Kevin Kamberg http://www.jta.org/user/profile/65903 en-us zsilberman@washingtonjewishweek.com Copyright 2012 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 It's instructive to note how Siegman's critics have lined up here to attack/dismiss him while glibly ignoring the substance of his argument. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 This post is a bit misleading. First, the assertion that the original "story is about Israeli doctors taking organs from people who died on their own" understates the admitted facts since most would reasonably interprete "died on their own" as some sort of reference to either a natural death or an unaided death. Whereas the admitted facts include victims of violence. Indeed, for Abu Kabir to have ended up with some of these bodies the victims had to have died of decidedly unnatural causes involving some sort of martial cause. Secondly, the quoted assertion that this story is unconnected to the earlier Aftonbladet piece is belied by the fact that the professor who released the info about Abu Kabir directly cited the Aftonbladet issue as a primary reason for releasing it. Thus the admonition of the media to not connect the two issues is itself bordering demagoguery. Thirdly, in the immediate aftermath of the Aftonbladet furor multiple sources urged Israel to investigate it rather than dismiss it out-of-hand. Had that been done then this current story about Abu Kabir would have been exposed to the cleansing light of the truth rather than having to be outted by a non-Israeli. http://www.counterpunch.org/weir08282009.html http://mondoweiss.net/2009/12/i-challenged-haaretz-writers-on-the-organ-harvesting-story-last-summer.html Lastly, previous denials not withstanding, I see no logical reason to assume that these two stories aren't connected on some level. Why was the nonconsentual harvesting of organs done in the first place? Such practices were universally considered grossly unethical prior to the 90s and yet the harvested happened anyway, year after year after year. And what do we really have beyond bald-faced assertions that the practice ended at the end of the 90s? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Cohen should have addressed what the Palestinians should do as well. I agree up to that point. However, the larger onus is on Israel by virtue of the fact that she is the controlling or occupying power over all Palestianian lands. Thus the Palestinians could do all sorts of changing and it would be for naught - within the context of permanently resolving the conflict - unless Israel changes, because the Palestinians don't control their own terroritory and will never be in a position to militarily dislodge Israeli control without explicit Israeli acquiescence. That doesn't excuse the Palestians or give them license to never change. It simply aknowledges objective reality for what it is. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I agree with what Goldstone says here. All of it. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Echo David Szonyi's criticism of Uriel Hellman's blatent misrepresentation of what Cohen called for. I fail utterly to see how the interests of Jews anywhere on the planet are furthered by such glib intellectual dishonesty. I expect more from JTA. A lot more! Take away the intellectually honest reporting and these daily JTA digests are just more unwanted spam cluttering my inbox. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Cheryl, perhaps you missed the following Freilich quote in the article: "Those Jewish Americans, who share a deep concern for Israel's trials and travails, have the right, even the duty, to express their criticism within the Jewish community, the public at large, pretty much anywhere -- except before the administration and Congress." Freilich's own words clearly show that he is presuming to tell American Jews how to conduct our business in America. He is in effect saying that our first allegiance as American citizens is to "present one voice" to our own elected leaders viz Israel. That is both presumptuous and exceptionally arrogant given his criticism of American Jews voicing criticism of HIS elected government. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 If, as Freilich asserts, it is presumptuous of American Jews "to believe that they 'know better' what is right for Israel" then by that very same logic it is presumptuous of Freilich and Israeli Jews to believe they 'know better' how American citizens ought to handle our civic responsibilities as American citizens. Yet there is Freilich presuming to tell American Jews what our duty is as American citizens. We don't exist to rubberstamp AIPAC or whatever government happens to be in control of Israel at any given point in time. We are Jews, but we are also citizens of the United States and most of us take our citizenship very, very seriously. We do not owe our first allegiance to the government of Israel and it is the height of presumptuous arrogance for Freilich to suggest otherwise. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 The university unequivocally characterises itself as being of, by and for Israeli citizens. There is no mention of accessibility for Palestinians, although it does explicitly mention accessibility for Jewish emigres from the former Soviet Union and from Ethiopia. From the english language version of the university website: "As a demonstratively Zionist institution, the University Center has two key requirements: every student must study one course per semester on some aspect of Judaism, Jewish heritage or Land of Israel studies, and the Israeli flag must be displayed in every classroom, laboratory and auditorium on campus." Academic suppression sucks. But it sucks no less for the Palestinians unable to attend than it does for the univeristy students barred from this competition. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Mr. Sideman's attempted rebuttal is simply an exercise in shooting the messenger. He doesn't even attempt to rebutt a single substantive charge in Goldstone's report. Worse, Sideman trots out a StrawMan logical fallacy by implying that Goldman asserted a perfectly 50/50 equivilency between the actions of Hamas and of Israel, which of course the report doesn't do. It's highly ironic that in challenging the objectivity of the UN commission Mr. Sideman demonstrates that his own objectivity is questionable. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I see lots of weeping and gnashing of teeth in comments here, but not a single rebuttal of any of the report's findings. Not one. Just as Ari has observed. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Melvyn, you continue to make the point opposite that of your conclussion. The court made this ruling, not the IDF. And it did so on the basis of the legality of the construction, not on that of military necessity. You may not like or agree with what DRE has said in the past. But the fact remains that he parsed Art. 53 cogently and you have failed to rebutt the enlarged context (of art. 53) which you yourself insisted on injecting into the thread. This court ruling fails to meet the criterial required by international law. If this JTA piece were about an IDF decision regarding the buildings then you might have a legal leg to stand on. But it's not and you don't. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 And "blackie" steps up to continue the intellectually vacuous and morally repugnant tactic of character assasination in lieu of an on-topic argument. I believe it was Sophoclese who observed that "when the argument is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 It's called negotiating in bad faith. When Palestinians or other Muslims negotiate in bad faith we're supposed to cry out in righteous indignation. But when Israel does it we're supposed to turn a blind eye or rationalize it away as something other than what it self-evidently is. And that is called hypocracy. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Melvyn, your own characterization of Art. 53 demonstrates that this order is illegal under international law. As David Evans pointed out, the operative phrase is "rendered absolutely necessary by military operations." The Israeli high court's order alludes to building code/permit violations, not "military necessity." Thus the order is illegal under international law. It's worth noting that whereas DRE rebutted your claim with calm logic (viz Art. 53), your response is to shoot the messenger while glibly ignoring the message. Whether you wish it to or not, that says a great deal about your own prejudices. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 This move offers a provocative contrast with the IDF. Particularly in light of the fact that both countries have official state religions and because both place great emphasis on their respective status as "democracies." While this news piece may seem to be about the first Jewish chaplain in the British forces, it is in fact about the first "civilian" Jewish chaplain in the British forces. There have been full and part time Jewish chaplains in the British military for well over 100 years. In stark contrast Israel simply does not tolerate non-Jewish chaplains. Some interesting reading: http://www.operationsupportjewsinthemilitary.com/jews-military/uk-colonel-newman http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1134309633349&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Echo David Ehrens. It's easy to criticize Hamas for it's biased educational meddling. But the reality is that what Hamas did here is not fundamentally any different than Israeli bans on Nakba education. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 If you can't beat 'em, join 'em... eh? I find the logic in Heilman's rant as questionable as the logic in Glover's rant. Do the political opinions of a neurosurgeon have anything at all to do with her/his professional area of expertise? Do the political opinions of an astronaut impede or impair his/her professional competence? Why would the political opinions of a professional actor be held to a different standard? Personally, I loath Mel Gibson's political, religious and ethnic opinions. But I've enjoyed every "Lethal Weapon" movie because none of them are about his political, religious or ethnic opinions. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 "We think people can live wherever they want to, but they cannot put up a housing project that basically says, 'Arabs cannot live here,' because that is outright discrimination," said Gil Gan-Mor, the ACRI lawyer overseeing the case. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There's no question but that it in fact is outright discrimination. Defend that as you see fit but at least be honest enough to own your prejudices. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I concur with Heilman's argument here. That said... as I watched the controvery over the Swedish paper's claims develop, it seemed pretty obvious that many of the reactions were every bit as knee-jerk as the claims allegedly were. A calmer, more rational, more objective criticism would have called on the newspaper to more fully investigate the IDF's claim that the scars were the result of an autopsy. Which, frankly, makes sense. The IDF had every incentive in the world to do autopsies and document as precisely as possible the actual cause of death... precisely because everything about said deaths is going to be controversial. It would be a foolish mistake of epic proportions for the IDF not to want to go above and beyond in documenting how Palestinians died at the hands of IDF members. And I say this as a frequent critic of the policy decisions by those in control of the IDF. It just makes more sense that the scar was the result of an autopsy than that it was the result of harvested organs. And the zealotry of conservative Zionists is their rage against the Swedish paper missed a golden opportunity to demonstrate their lack of bigotry. Instead they proved themselves bigots of the same magnitude as those they were raging against. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 If Mizrahi truly means what she says about the right to live in different countries and not be descriminated against on ethnic grounds... then she must also support the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees to their properties in Israel. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I am a proud member of J Street. That a former AIPAC official dislikes it just confirms for me why I joined in the first place. Not to mention that trying to dismiss an organization based on the *alleged* choices of a handful of it's backers is a classic example of trying to destroy the message by shooting the messenger. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Mussa, Rational and Moral people condemn all suggestions of genocide. All you and Cheryl are accomplishing is to demonstrate your kinship with those you claim to hate - genocidal Muslims. By stooping to their level you make common cause with them whether you realize it or not. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 So let me see if I've got this right.... If a politician were to claim to have placed a similar prayer note asking G-d to help Obama get elected.... then that would mean that Obama has the divine stamp of approval? I think it highly resonable to be DEEPLY skeptical of claims of piety by any politician who has a glaringly obvious self-serving motive. A pious person would be content to have the prayer answered. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 phili is right, nobody has ever died from talking. Refusing to take the zero-risk step of talking is just plain stupid. Nobody benefits from it other than bloodthirsty warmongers. Israel and the United States both should take a page from President Roosevelt's playbook and "walk softly but carry a big stick." That is a rational way to deal with the outside world. Talk freely because doing so is both free and poses zero security risk. And if things can be resolved via talking then everybody wins. But also carry a whopping big stick at the same time. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I'll echo what Ari said. I fully agree with Leland's comment! 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 That's a great story! And one that I can relate to. I was well into adulthood before my mother told me that my maternal great-grandmother was Jewish. The big difference between my situation and that of Barnes is that my mother had only found out hours before she told me. And like Barnes I was raised Protestant. However, the sect I was raised in is sabbatarian and also places a heavy emphasis on the Mosaic law on clean/unclean meats. So finding out that I'm Jewish was likely very much less of a spiritual shock than it must have been for Barnes who was probably raised episcopalian or some other similar old-line Protestant sect which only marginally diverges from Catholicism. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 That's the thing, blackie. These evangelicals only appear to be standing up for Israel. Their theological reasons for doing it are no better than Hamas' theological reasons for supporting suicide bombers. Either way the theological point of the exercise is to end up with virtually all Jews either dead (Hamas) or suffering horrific pain for all of eternity (Evangelicals). If the typical evangelical theology doesn't amount to "anti-Semitism" then neither does Hamas' theology. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 A hearty ditto to what David Ehrens said! Michael Swerdflow makes a very strong point as well. The simple fact is that from their own theological point of view folks like Huckabee and his fellow evangelicals do NOT have Jew's best interests in mind when they "support" Israel. It's all about their apocalyptic eschatological beliefs coming to fruition - as if God needs their help... A central reality in their theology is that all practicing Jews will be sent to Hell - either to experience unremitting pain and suffering for all eternity or to be burned to death, depending on the particular evangelical sect's theology. I know because I was raised in a sabbatarian evangelical sect prior to my maternal grandmother finally giving up her family secret that her mother was a Jew. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Ditto what Marty Arnold said! 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Zionists reveal their bigotry by getting their backs up when the president meets with Arab Americans but not when he meets with Jewish Americans. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Ari - it may have been driven by immigrants in that particular poll, but clearly it is a sentiment which resonates within the wider society... as witnessed by the arrests of Israeli Arabs for demonstrating against the IDF venture in Gaza. They were arrested for undermining national moral. Were Soviet immigrants on control of the Israeli government then? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Israel has plenty of supporters from the left side of the political spectrum. It's right-wing Zionist hate-mongers and their ideological brothers-in-arms (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc) who don't have many supporters from that side. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I strongly concur with Cohen on this one. Particularly the last three sentences! 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 AIPAC does not speak for me! And even on those rare occasions where they are advocating something that I agree with, there are other entities advocating the same and with whom I would much rather be associated. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Israel is a model of forward-thinking society where the overwhelming majority of citizens support equal rights for all.? Wasn't it just a couple days ago that a new survey revealed that more than half of Israeli Jews support encouraging Israeli Arabs to go join some other country? 38% of Israeli Jews said that Jews should have more civil rights than non-Jews. http://www.jta.org/news/article/2009/08/03/1006978/survey-israels-jewish-public-supports-arab-emigration The problem here is that many conservative Jews have dehumanized non-Jews in their own minds to the point that they cease to consider "equal rights" as being legitimately applicable to non-Jews... thus this formal statement by these two conservative groups. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 It's instructive to observe how one side is offering up a steady diet of glib personal attacks and labeling those with whom they disagree with the only frame of reference that they understand: hate. It's a textbook example of projection. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 This issue goes to the very heart of the dirty little secret nobody wants to aknowledge: That water is at the core of much of Israel's conflicts with her Arab neighbors, and most particularly with respect to the Occupied West Bank. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Echo what VanRoth and Chamblin said. Conservative Zionists would have us believe that not reflexively dittoing everything they stand for = anti-Semitism. I would counter that their own knee-jerk rigidity and, often, outright racism has produced as much anti-Semitism as anything that their enemies have accomplished. More and more American Jews are getting to the point where we find the opposition of the rabid right-wing Zionists is a sort of confirmation that whatever they're opposing must have something worthwhile at it's core or they wouldn't be opposing it. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Thanks, blackie, for demonstrating Socrates dictum: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I wonder to what extent Thomas Paine, as Shuster claims, "would have been proud of the maintenance of civil liberties in Israel (even of its Arab citizenry)" as that alleged maintenance was exhibited by the arresting of Israeli Arab who protested the Gaza War for "undermining national morale"? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/11/gaza-israel-political-attitudes 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 "(False) patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" - Samuel Johnson, 1775 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Responding to kindness with kindness requires zero courage or moral fiber. Similarly, making broad sweeping generalizations about ethnic groups requires zero intellectual or moral acuity. Indeed it requires the exact opposite - vacuity. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 On a strictly pragmatic level this ruling makes total sense. If survivors of the Hebron massacre were given such status then it would open the door to Palestinian survivors of other massacres where it was Jews rather than Arabs doing the killing. That's a Pandora's Box for which the current Israeli government has zero ideological incentive to want to open. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Abraham Lincoln suspended one very specific civil right (habeus corpus), not all "civil rights" as you insinuate. Furthermore, President Lincoln did so, in part, on behalf of a disenfranchised ethnic minority - hardly analogous to the situation in Israel today. Indeed it could be argued that Lincoln would have supported the "unpopular voices" in Israel since they are invariably pitted against conservatives and the American Confederacy was inherently by, for and about conservatives. Lastly, although I had not yet given a dime to the New Israel Fund, you've convinced me of the error of my ways. So I'm off to find out how I can donate to it, in the spirit of fighting injustice as Abraham Lincoln so bravely did those many years ago. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 The Grandfather of this particular Islamic monarch famously refused to comply with Vichy/Nazi demands that he turn over Moroccan Jews, defiantly declaring kinship with Moroccan Jews instead. I never cease to be amazed at the inability or unwillingness of bigoted conservatives to think their way out of a wet paper bag. All they understand is knee-jerk hatred of any and all who they perceive as "others." I look forward to once again voting for Obama in 2012. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 As an American I value highly our history with democracy and notions of civil rights. "An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 7 July 1795 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 "An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 7 July 1795 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Schneider: "More money for social welfare services that for some survivors will mean the difference between a hot meal and no meal, between seeing a doctor and not seeing a doctor." If that truly is the situation then Schneider's later assertion defending the 80-20 split as, "the board feels that there’s an obligation to remember" takes on a whole new light. Essentially what Schneider is saying, on behalf of the board, is that funding the memory of those who died is more important than whether living survivors get to eat or see a doctor. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Well stated, David R. Evans. I concur as an American Jew. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I strongly concur with your first comment, Ari. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 That Finkelstein only sees inappropriate art in this sculpture says more about him and his moral compass than it does about the sculpture of African Jews fleeing for their very lives. The citizens of the world need MORE not less of this kind of "art" which pricks the conscience. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Rosenbaum and his cohorts need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But more importantly, Jews need to condemn every single Jew involved in these alleged crimes. What they are alleged to have done absolutely plays to the very worst negative stereotypes of Jews as greedy and inhumane. You can bet that Anti-Semites the world over will be using this as a recruitment tool. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Thanks but no thanks. It's J Street for me! 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Notice how David Sternlight places all responsibility on the victim rather than on the perpetrators. That tells me all I need to know about his moral compass or lack thereof. The digusting behavior of these Haredim would have been no less immoral, no less vile, no less a disturbing mirror of the self-righteous violence preferred by the Wahhabist sect of Islam had it been an Israeli Jew they were spitting on and committing violence against. The difference between these Haredi and Wahhabists is one of degrees rather than of substance. Oh sure, they each rationalize their disgusting and violently anti-social behavior via different dogmatic creeds but the end result and the apparent reasoning process which preceeds it is identical. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 So, Palestinian homes built in occupied territories without Israeli authorization get torn down and Jewish homes built in occupied territories without Israeli authorization get retroactive approval. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Change the word "Arabs" in Lawrence Rodgers' comment to "Jews" and it could easily be mistaken for the callous rantings of a Nazi. Sadly, I wasn't the least bit shocked to read such a comment from one who claims to support Jews. Unthinking, uncaring and stunningly self-righteous racism is the root problem with both sides in the Palestinian/Israeli conflicts. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 The statement by Peres is among the bluntest demagoguery I've ever seen. Nobody suggested that Israel ought to tell settlers not to have kids or get married. Let them have as many kids as they wish or get married whenever they wish... just don't build any more buildings. I don't see Peres throwing up his hands in defeat over illegally built housing when it's Palestinians doing the building. He calmly observes the bulldozers demolishing the homes and goes back to his life of comfort and ease. If Peres were honest then he'd just come out and state that Israel has no intention of either limiting expansion of settlements OR stopping the razing of homes built by Palestinians. But doing so would be to openly admit to the blatently racist policies of his government. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Bravo, Senator Specter!! I saw that same handwriting on the wall and left the Republican Party a number of years ago, but my reasoning was essentially the same. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I'm saddened that not even on the one day set aside each year to remember the Holocaust are Zionists like Mr. Edwards willing to set aside their own bigotry towards others. Those millions of Jews died in vain if the only lesson we draw from this day is that freedom from bigotry is the sole domain of Jews alone. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Interesting that Ross Kaplan just equated the IDF killing of Dr. Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish's daughters with a Palestinian terrorist attack. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 The comparisons offered by Yisrael Medad and Morton Klein are nothing more than a logical red herring. An apt comparison would be American tax-exempt monies going to Israeli Arabs seeking to have their homes and villages incorporated into a larger Palestine and explicitly not under the control or authority of Israel. Which, of course, there are none. But that would at least be analagous to tax-exempt monies going to the settlements. Similarly, an apt comparison would be between tax-exempt monies going to Palestinian Arabs to be used in Palestine and tax-exempt monies going to Israeli Jews to be used in Israel. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 The "grassy knoll" quip is priceless! The perfect reference at the perfect spot. I tip my hat to you, sir. Or at least I would if I wore a hat... 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I concur with Randall Mecham. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Newmark raises a legit concern. From the description here (I haven't read it for myself) it does indeed appear that the Dutch author(s) didn't distinguish between Settlement and non-Settlement Israeli commerce. As such it can legitimately be argued that the report veers off into anti-semitism. However, opposition to settlers enriching themselves on stolen land - as opposed to commerce originating inside the internationally recognized borders of Israel proper - is legit concern too. As is so often the case, knee-jerk anti-semitism provokes knee-jerk semitism which is every bit as premised on racism. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 We Jews are above justice? Since when does Judaism teach that two wrongs cancel each other out and make everything kosher??? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Mr. Mirvis's use of a logically fallacious false dichotomy is disturbing and casts doubt as to the objectivity of the rest of his argument. The international media seeming to not echo Israel's narrative in no way logically implies that they therefore "buy" Hamas' narrative. In fact, Hamas made all sorts of outlandish claims about how they were setting traps to destroy the IDF and the like which I didn't see any of the international media reporting as believable. Noting that Hamas had issued a wild claim does not imply support or intellectual purchase of the claim. Indeed, what I was reading from the international media made it pretty obvious that the Hamas claims were not believable. Claiming that anyone who doesn't offer knee-jerk acceptance and obedience to one's own preferred narrative is therefore somehow "buying" into a narrative on the opposte extreme end of the spectrum only damages the credibility of the person making such a grossly unhinged claim. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Morton Klein was quoted five days ago in New York's "The Jewish Week" saying that Mitchell "blamed Israel more than the Palestinians...". Is Klein now backing away from that earlier assertion with this new assertion that Mitchell "believes both sides are equally at fault"? Interestingly, in the same "The Jewish Week" article quoted the Anti-Defamation League's national director Abraham Foxman as being "concerned" about the Mitchell appointment because while “Sen. Mitchell is fair. He’s been meticulously even-handed,” Foxman said, “I’m not sure the situation requires that kind of approach in the Middle East.” 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Firstly, I agree with both this Op-Ed and with Peter Wedlund's comment above. Secondly, I'm struck by the irony of a previous Israeli government having nurtured Islamic fundamentalists for short-term gains only to have later Israeli governments have to deal with the consequences. In this respect Israel mirrored the American experience of having nurtured the Mujahadeen in Afghanistant when the Soviet's had invaded in the 80s only to have later Americans reap the consequences on 9/11. And what about Fatah, the entity which provided the impetus for having nurtured Islamic fundamentalists 22 years ago? That error is doubly obvious with today's 20/20 hindsight - no? To their credit, the Egyptian government appears to have understood the threat posed by fundamentalists long before Israeli government did. The point being that it is really, really, really easy to gloss over possible future consequences in favor of pursuing desired short-term goals. It behooves Israelis and Palestinians, orthodox/fundamentalists and secularists alike to go the extra mile in resisting the desire to chase short-term presumed benefits to the exclusion of all else and instead consider how we might be endangering the world our children have no choice but to inherit from us. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00