RUTHFULLY YOURS

FROM SEPTEMBER MIDEAST OUTPOSThttp://www.mideastoutpost.com/archives/a-sloppy-hit-on-israel-review-milton-viorst-zionism-the-birth-and-transformation-of-an-ideal-david-isaac.html

Go to a library and toss a coin at the Israel shelf. You’re almost certain to bounce it off a title critical of the Jewish state. The latest contribution to this death by a thousand books is by journalist Milton Viorst. At the heart of this book is the assumption that Israel is wholly to blame for the conflict between Jews and Arabs.

Though himself a Jew, Viorst veers into racist-sounding rhetoric when he asks whether “the Jewish DNA contains an immunity to peace.” Given Israel’s many attempts to achieve peace, the question isn’t whether Jews are immune to peace but whether they are immune to reality. Viorst clearly is. Otherwise he could not declare that Israel adheres to the “Begin doctrine,” a “diplomatic principle” that purportedly maintains that if a small state “offers concessions at a time of pressure, it only invites more pressure upon itself.”

The manifold problems with this theory begin with Menachem Begin himself, who gave up the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1978 in return for a peace treaty, few provisions of which Egypt honored. In 1993, Yitzhak Rabin handed over large swaths of the West Bank to Yasser Arafat, the man known as the “founder of modern terror,” who showed his gratitude by launching a wave of suicide attacks. In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak didn’t even bother getting an agreement before pulling Israeli troops out of southern Lebanon, paving the way for Hezbollah to turn it into a launching pad for rockets into northern Israel. Similarly, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon uprooted over 8,000 Israelis from their homes in the Gaza Strip, declaring “I am convinced in the depths of my soul and with my entire intellect that this disengagement … will win the support and appreciation of countries near and far… and will advance us on the path of peace with the Palestinians and our other neighbors.” It did neither, as “the world community” became ever more hostile and Gaza became another launching pad for rockets.

In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made Israel’s most far-reaching proposal, offering even to forgo sovereignty over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest site. Olmert proposed that Israel keep 6.3 percent of the West Bank (areas close to the pre-1967 armistice borders now densely occupied by Jews) but compensate by giving the Palestinians an equal amount of land that had been within the borders of pre-1967 Israel. Mahmoud Abbas was not interested.

Viorst examines the lives of eight Zionist leaders, from Herzl to Netanyahu, to answer his own question: “How did Zionism, over the course of a century, evolve from the idealism of providing refuge for beleaguered Jews to a rationalization for the army’s occupation of powerless Palestinians?” This question is based on a false premise. Israel’s purpose was and remains what Herzl set forth in The Jewish State: “We shall live at last as free men on our own soil, and die peacefully in our own homes.” Zionism has not a glimmer of oppression in it, which explains the Jews’ many efforts to find a solution to the conflict. Those whom Viorst calls “powerless Palestinians” enjoy the support of all Muslim countries, as well as Europe, the U.N., and the world media. Many of them are determined to annihilate Israel, indoctrinating violence in their young people, who then go out and slaughter children in their sleep, gun down families on the road, and ax rabbis at prayer. Those who commit these crimes are hailed as martyrs, and their families are given stipends. When Palestinians hear of a successful attack against Israelis—or Americans for that matter, as on 9/11—they hand out candy to children. A far better question Viorst might have asked is: How is it that the Jews have managed to keep their humanity in the face of such inhumanity?

Matti Friedman, a journalist and writer who moved from Canada to Israel in his late teens in the late 1990s, has written a powerful little book, Pumpkin Flowers, that takes you deep into Israeli and Middle Eastern reality.

The Pumpkin was a hill in the southern-Lebanon security zone, which Israel set up in 1985 and withdrew from in 2000. “Flowers” was military code for casualties. In those years Hizballah was able to inflict a steady toll of “flowers” at the Pumpkin and other security-zone outposts. It was that—along with the 1997 helicopter disaster (a horrendous accident)—that swayed Israel into finally leaving the zone. As well as a hope—soon shattered—that doing so would lead to peace.

Pumpkin Flowers deals with the Pumpkin in three stages. The middle one is Friedman’s own service there. But first comes his account of Avi Ofner, a young Israeli who served at the Pumpkin before Friedman did. Friedman intensively “researched” Avi and succeeds to evoke him unforgettably.

Unconventional, deep-thinking, authority-mistrusting, and literarily talented, Avi—despite a veneer of disdain—served his full, difficult stint at the Pumpkin with devotion, even passing up possibilities of easier, safer jobs within Israel. As Friedman acutely observes, he and other young soldiers “wouldn’t have said it themselves because of a social code mandating self-deprecation and sarcasm and forbidding any credulous expression of ideals, so it needs to be said on their behalf: they believed they were doing the right thing.” On his last return to the Pumpkin, already planning his impending civilian life, Avi boarded an army helicopter—one of two involved in the midair collision that killed him and 72 others.

By the time Friedman, a raw Canadian-Israeli recruit, found himself at the Pumpkin, it had a legacy of bloody battles, including the 1996 Falcon Incident that killed five soldiers and wounded eight in one night. But as Friedman notes, it was most of all the helicopter disaster—caused by human error, not Hizballah—that fostered a growing, intense, bitter debate in Israel about leaving the security zone altogether. Today Israelis do not miss the security zone, but know that Hizballah’s real target—like its patron Iran’s—was and remains Israel itself.

And it was not only Israel that would be learning about Islamist terror:

Within a few years elements of the security zone war would, in turn, appear elsewhere and become familiar to everyone in the West: Muslim guerrillas operating in a failed and chaotic state; small clashes in which the key actor is not the general but the lieutenant or private; the use of a democracy’s sensitivities, public opinion, and free press as weapons against it.

But in those days, Friedman and his comrades—gazing through thermal sights at the surrounding landscape, including the mainly-Shiite, Hizballah-ruled town of Nabatieh where they could make out a gas station, a hospital, a monastery, and even a woman with dyed blond hair who left her house for work every morning—still talked jokingly, half-jokingly, of being able to visit these places once peace set in. They were—beyond the defensive irony—expressing deep Israeli wishes of the 1990s. CONTINUE AT SITE

One of the largest police force’s in the UK was today mocked after saying it would consider letting Muslim officers wear burkas in an attempt to boost diversity.

West Midlands Police said it will discuss allowing the traditional Islamic dress – which covers the entirety of a woman’s face and body – to become part of Muslim female officers’ uniform.

At a recent meeting, Chief Constable David Thompson, said he would consider employing staff who wear a burka as he looks to increase black and minority ethnic (BME) officers in the region to 30 per cent.

But today, even the Muslim Council of Britain said they would be against female officers wearing full-face burkas or niqabs.

The organisation said they would find it ‘very surprising’ if the force allowed full-face coverings to be used.

A spokesman said: ‘In the media the term burka is used to describe the full face covering but the veil with the slit for the eyes is actually the niqab.

‘The burka is actually the full gown which goes from shoulder to ankle with the face remaining clear.

‘It would be very surprising if West Midlands Police were in favour of full-face coverings.

‘The actual percentage of women wearing a niqab is very, very small and the women who do would probably not want to be in the police.’

And a source at West Midlands Police even criticised the idea of female officers wearing full-face veils, adding it would be ‘mad’.