Taking Carter to Court

A class action suit on behalf of  buyers of  former President Jimmy Carter's  book  Palestine:Peace, Not Apartheid   (hereinafter "The Book")  claims that Carter and his publisher, Simon and Schuster,  deliberately  defrauded the buyers by  including numerous false statements in the book. (1)  The plaintiffs, who  seek  both compensatory and punitive damages,  are represented by the Israel Law Center of Tel Aviv and  Atty.  David Schoen of Montgomery, Alabama.

Since I read The Book at the Chicago Public Library, and would not have paid a nickel for it, I am not eligible to  join the class of  cheated buyers.   I have not been able to get  list of  alleged lies in the book, but  there may be plenty.  Most of the controversial statements in the Book are opinions and conclusions by the author, who contends that Israel wants to "colonize" the West Bank and has not been negotiating in good faith.  However, there may also be provable  false claims  in The Book  as well.   But even so, can the plaintiffs  win this case?  Should they?

First.  does the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees "freedom of the press"  preclude this type of suit?   The publisher has the unquestioned right to print anything  the firm sees fit to publish, and  this suit does not infringe on that right.  If  The Book were given away free, as  propaganda pamphlets often are,  there would be no basis for the suit at all.  But when a book is offered for sale,  it becomes a  product, like a TV or  box of cereal, and is subject  to consumer protection laws, such as  New York General Business Law 349,  which prohibits deceptive  acts in marketing products. This may be the first time such a law has been invoked against a book or any other form of expression.

For example,  when the publisher of a book about Howard Hughes by Clifford Irving learned that the book falsely claimed to be based on personal  interviews with the subject,  the book was withdrawn and all printed copies were trashed.   Had that book been sold, the publisher could have been sued for false advertising and forced to refund all proceeds of sale received.  (Even in this outrageous case of false advertising, I doubt that punitive damages were warranted, let alone in the Carter case.)

But is Carter's book in the same category?  Unless the plaintiffs' attorneys can convince a jury that Carter and the publisher set out to deceive the buyers, a very steep hill to climb, I  do not believe that  any damages will  be awarded.   First,  the buyers could have easily learned that Jimmy Carter was not an objective scholar on Middle East matters, but an advocate of the Palestinian cause for decades.  Any book by him on this question  would likely be  strongly biased in favor of the Arab side.  Moreover, the   incendiary   word "apartheid" in  the title, which recalls the  "Zionism is Racism" UN resolution of  1975, was a clear signal that the book  would castigate Israel.   I say that the buyers were not cheated;  they got exactly what they paid for.

A verdict in favor of the plaintiffs would have a  "chilling effect"  on the  freedom of the press in this country.   Major corporate publishers would  hesitate to publish any controversial  non-fiction for fear of a lawsuit.   Courts would be placed in the untenable position of determining the truth of   controversial claims about all kinds of  issues such as evolution,  global warming, abortion and so on.   Accordingly, I  contend that even if  the plaintiffs win  in the US District Court,  the verdict will be overturned on appeal.

I was in the position of the plaintiffs myself recently, but reacted differently.  I paid $ .25  for a copy of Betrayal by Robert Morrow at the Menomonee Falls Library used book sale last year.  The cover claimed the book  presented new facts about the JFK  assassination, but when I read it, I  concluded  the book was mainly fiction.  So did I return Betrayal to  the Falls Library and demand my quarter back,  or threaten to sue for  fraud?  No way!  I brought the book to the January 31 book swap at Marquette University and  eschanged it  for a collection  of  old columns by Chicago journalist Mike Royko.   "Let freedom reign!"

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

(1) Unterberg et al vs Jimmy Carter et al., (11 ev  0720), filed in the Southern District of New York.

Palestine Pales

"The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
Abba Eban

"We hold him (Netanyahu) fully responsible for the collapse of these negotiations."
Saeb Erekat of the Palestine Authority (PA), Nov. 8, 2010 (1)

The prospects for setting up a Palestinian state were never better than in the early months of 2009. The new American President Barack Hussein Obama, the first such ever raised as a Muslim (2), had been elected with 53% of the popular vote and had both houses of Congress controlled by his party. He went to Cairo and promised the creation of a state of Palestine, and was determined to put "some daylight" between the US and Israel to achieve it. Obama even obtained a ten-month freeze on settlement construction from the Netanyahu government to create the atmosphere for successful negotiations.

President Abbas of the PA should have exclaimed, " Yes! Let's begin serious talks at once and keep negotiating till we get our state!" Instead , his attitude seemed to be "Hang tough and we will get everything we want!"

At first he was not ready for any talks with the Israelis, then only agreed to "proximity" (indirect) talks with them, then finally met face-to-face . When the ten month freeze expired, he asked for its extension. Now that construction is resuming, the PA is threatening to walk away from the talks altogether. (1) Like a winning football team that "eats up the clock" in the final minutes of the game, the Palestinians have dithered and stalled for the first two years of the Obama presidency. But all they have to show for it is a well-chewed clock.

Meanwhile, changes in the American political dynamic have undermined President Obama's ability to pressure Israel into making the kind of concessions necessary to garner Arab agreement (if that were possible at all):

1. The 2010 Congressional elections
The Democrats lost the House, and have about a 6-vote majority in the Senate. According to AIPAC, the present Congress is pro-Israel, and the next one will be even more so. But more important is the fact that a Democratic-led House would never repudiate the efforts of a Democratic president, but a Republican-led one just might! Obama will have to be very friendly to Israel in 2011 and 2012 to avoid such a humiliation.

2. It's almost 2012.
So far the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination is Obama's for the asking. But if he does something outrageous enough, such as souring our relationship with Israel, an ambitious Democrat could challenge him for the nomination. The first primaries and caucuses are just over a year away, and candidates will be gearing-up their campaigns by mid-2011. Although a challenging an incumbent president for the nomination of his party is usually unsuccessful, a serious challenge could split the party so deeply that the nominee loses the general election. (3)
All the serious potential Republican candidates (Gingrich, Palin, Romney, etc.) are pro-Israel. So even if Obama is the unanimous choice for the Democratic nomination, anything he does that can be characterized as even remotely anti-Israel can and will be used against him by the Republicans in the 2012 campaign.
However, if Barack Obama declines to seek re-election, he can mess with Israel all he wants during his remaining months in office, and Congress may not be able to stop him. But since he will then be a "lame duck", no one will listen much.


So the Palestinians blew their big chance. But in early 2013 the President will revive the "peace-process" and the game will be on again.

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

(1) Associated Press, quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, page 4A.

(2) His Indonesian stepfather Loto Soetero was a Muslim, and presumably raised Barack as one. He converted to Christianity in Chicago around 1992.

(3) In 1952 and 1968 the incumbent Democratic president lost the New Hampshire primary and withdrew from the race. Both times the Republicans took the presidency.
In 1884 the Republican Party denied the incumbent (Chester Alan Arthur) the nomination, and the Democrats took the presidency for the first time since 1856.

The Prisoners of Palestine

"Palestinian security forces in the West Bank have stopped torturing Hamas prisoners..."
Associated Press, Jan. 4, 2010

According to reports from both sides, Hamas prisoners held by the Palestine Authority during the past two years have been subjected to barbaric treatment, including beating with clubs and being suspended from ceilings in painful positions. Fatah prisoners held in Gaza have also been tortured and otherwise abused; in fact, 15 men have died in Gaza prisons compared to only 8 in West Bank correctional facilities.
Considering the worldwide outrage that followed revelations of abuse of Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib Prison a few years ago, one would expect huge protests over the mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners, especially among those most distraught by the "plight of the Palestinian people." What did Jimmy Carter know about this, and when did he know it? (1) Until the referenced article about the end of such abuses in the West Bank, I cannot recall seeing even one news account about them. Why?

The Abu Ghraib story was sparked by the photos of abused Arabs, and no such photos are available from the West Bank or Gaza prisons. Also, the humiliation inflicted on Iraqi prisoners by women and the use of dogs at Abu Ghraib has no apparently parallel in the Palestinian prisons. But I think that the contrast between expectation and reality in reports of American and Israeli abuse of inmates is what really distinguishes such stories from those of abuse of Arabs by other Arabs. The Palestine prison case is essentially a "dog-bites-dog" story, which elicits little interest.

Reporters know that prisons in the Muslim World are hell-holes where sadistic treatment of inmates is routine, but western democracies like the United States, European countries and Israel are held to a much higher standard. In fact, pressure from the Obama Administration is one of the factors that led the Palestine Authority (PA) to halt abuses and punish 43 officers for committing them.

I contend that this story is important, and should have been given much more coverage for two reasons:

1. Egyptian mediators are trying to broker a settlement between Hamas and Fatah that could lead to a coalition government for the Palestine Authority. The abuses on both sides show how deep the enmity is between the parties, which may be a greater obstacle to the establishment of a united Palestinian State than all the Israeli West Bank settlements combined.

2. Although the PA has demanded that all Jewish settlers leave the land that they want for the proposed Palestinian state, some of the settlers say they are determined to stay in their homes, no matter what. The recent revelations about how barbaric PA officers have been to their fellow Arabs provides a hint at how they would treat Jews under their control. If any settlers someday wind-up in a Palestinian prison, they should know what to expect. (2)

Hamas militants are ruthless killers, and I have no sympathy for any of them. Yet the way they have been treated by the PA under the moderate leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas speaks volumes about the true nature of the group that is widely considered a suitable "partner for peace."

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

(1) Carter maintains contact with several Hamas leaders, so he could have easily learned about the abuse of Hamas prisoners by Fatah.

(2) The Government of Israel, which has also been accused of abusing Arab prisoners, has had no incentive to publicize this matter, especially when it has been supporting the Abbas regime.

Bargaining for Barghouti

"I am not a terrorist, but neither am I a pacificist...."
"I strongly oppose attacks and targeting of civilians inside Israel, our future neighbor, but ...I reserve the right to resist the Israeli occupation of my country."
Marwan Barghouti (1)

Despite these denials, Barghouti is serving five life sentences for participation in a terror operation in Tel Aviv that killed five Israelis. The Government of Israel is now negotiating a possible trade of Barghouti and perhaps hundreds of Palestinian prisoners (most, if not all, convicted terrorists) for Sgt. Gilat Schalit, who was captured by Gazan terrorists in 2006.

Marwan Barghouti was born near Ramallah in was then Jordan in 1959. As a teenager he joined a youth wing of Fatah and fought against Israeli forces in the First Intifada in 1987. He was caught and deported to Jordan, but was permitted to return to the West Bank in 1994 as a result of the Oslo Accords. Two years later, Barghouti was elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council. He then became Secretary General of Fatah in the West Bank and commander of Tanzim, the movement's armed branch. In this role, he publicly criticized Yasser Arafat's security forces for human rights violations.


Barghouti was arrested again in 2002, this time for terrorist actions.He was convicted of murder for the Tel Aviv attack in May, 2004. Although incarcerated, he announced his candidacy for President of the Palestine Authority in late 2004, but withdrew from the contest at the request of Fatah leaders committed to Mahmoud Abbas. He remains a leader of Fatah, and is widely considered its most popular figure. Shimon Peres promised to pardon Barghouti if elected President of Israel; Peres won the election, but has not yet kept that promise.

Abbas has declined to seek another term as Palestinian President, and if freed, Marwan Barghouti is a favorite to succeed him. He would be a hard-line leader, but one strong enough to make a deal stick.

I am aware of the Jewish precept of "pidyon shvuim" (redeeming captives), and sympathize with the family and friends of Sgt Schalit, who want desperately to have him home. Moreover, securing his safe return would send a strong signal all Israeli soldiers that even if captured by terrorists, their government will never forget them.

But government leaders must put the interests of the nation above sentiment. Freeing Barghouti sends two messages to potential terrorists: Israeli hostages are extremely valuable, so capture as many as possible! And don't worry about being caught-----you will be traded for another Israeli hostage before long!

Unfortunately, the dire consequences of freeing convicted murderers like Barghouti and some of his fellow prisoners overwhelm the benefit of returning Sgt Schalit to his family and his country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wikipedia Biography.

Palestine Ploy

"The Palestinians asked the European Union (EU) ...to back their plan to have the UN Security Council recognize an independent Palestinian state without Israeli consent.."
Associated Press, Nov. 17, 2009

If Israel won't give them the state they want, why not just declare independence? Just run the flag of Palestine up the flagpole, and see who salutes it?

The Arab League has already saluted it, and sympathy for the "plight of the Palestinians" is rampant in Europe as well as in all Muslim countries. Even the United States has supported the concept of a State of Palestine under three presidents (1), and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has declared such an entity absolutely necessary.

Actually there are several major downsides for the Palestinians in making a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). Such a move would render the Oslo Accords, formalized in the presence of President Bill Clinton at the White House in 1993, a dead letter. Under this agreement, the Palestine Authority (PA) continues to receive substantial aid from Israel, including transfer of importation taxes. Without those funds, the PA would have to beg for help from other Arab states. Israel could also seal its border with the new state, thus depriving Palestinians of consumer goods and electricity. Palestine could continue to trade with Jordan, but that may prove insufficient.

Even if the EU supports UN recognition for a unilaterally-declared State of Palestine, the Associated Press article quoted above predicts that the United States would veto it. Since UDI would effectively kill the hope for a negotiated settlement that the US has championed for years, the US cannot be expected to allow the Security Council to recognize the new state. Moreover, the domestic political pressure for a veto would be overwhelming.

The UDI would not affect Gaza at all, since it is already independent in all but name. Even if Mahmoud Abbas were recognized as President of Palestine by the Arab League, the EU and the UN, he will still be President of Nothing in Gaza.

The hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers on the West Bank may welcome a UDI of Palestine, since that would effectively eliminate the prospect of Israeli soldiers dragging them out of their homes in accordance with some future peace-deal with the PA. But if they defy orders by the President of Palestine to vacate their settlements, attacks by the jihadist militias aligned with Fatah (2) would be virtually certain. The settlers are well-armed, and most are veterans of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF); I would expect them to defend their settlements just as Israelis did in the 1948 war. If Palestinian security forces and the IDF were drawn into settlement battles, the entire West Bank could be engulfed in a long and bloody war. Those Arabs staring down the barrel of an IDF tank may be comforted by the thought that Mary Robinson (3) and many other Europeans are concerned about their plight, and wish them well.

When the smoke clears, the settlements will still be there, the IDF will patrol the entire West Bank, and the State of Palestine will be reduced to smoldering ruins. Then Judge Goldstone will condemn Israel for more war crimes.

And Barack Obama will send George Mitchell to the Middle East to jump-start a new round of peace talks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Bill Clinton (who offered Yasser Arafat a state). George W Bush (who convened the Annapolis Conference), and Barack Obama (who promised the Palestinians a state in his Cairo address).

(2) Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Hamas militias, though not allied with Fatah, might seize the opportunity to attack settlements in hopes of provoking clashes between the IDF and PA forces.

(3) UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997-2002), known for her sympathy for the Palestinians.

Netanyahu's Palestine

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has given conditional endorsement to the concept of a Palestinian state, advocated by three US Presidents, his own predecessors, and the Quartet (1). But, as always, "the devil is in the details" and the details of Bibi's conditions are deal-killers.

According to Netanyahu, the proposed state must be unarmed and recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The second point is mere rhetoric, since the Palestinians would be recognizing nothing more than the truth that Israel has a Jewish majority and reflects Jewish culture. However, to say so openly would be admitting that Israeli Arabs are living in someone else's country, a very distasteful admission.

But the idea that Palestine would have no army is both essential for Israel and intolerable for the Palestinians. A truly sovereign and independent country would be able to defend itself with its own military, and could even provide military bases for other countries. If Palestine had this right, the new state could arm itself with tanks, fighter jets and rockets. Moreover, it could allow foreign countries, such as Iran, to establish bases on its territory. Of course, Israel cannot tolerate this type of threat, and it is inconceivable that any American government would even try to pressure Israel into accepting such a risk.

But why not have a de-militarized Palestine? Costa Rica gets by without an army, and seems to do OK; why not Palestine? The West Bank borders only on Israel and Jordan, neither of which are likely to attack it. Gaza borders on Egypt, but there is no way that Egypt would invade that parcel (2).

Actually, Palestine Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas might be tempted to accept a de-militarized state, which would still be a vast improvement over his present situation. Such a state would have all the trappings of sovereignty: a flag, a seat in the UN General Assembly, embassies all over the world and the right to issue its own currency and government bonds. The internal checkpoints would be gone. But, as noted in our June 5 posting, Abbas is too weak to accept a settlement without the blessing of Hamas, and Hamas will never give up its rockets. Even if Gaza were severed from Palestine, the power of Hamas and allied hardliners (e.g. Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) in the West Bank alone would be too strong to permit Abbas to take Netanyahu's deal.

Netanyahu also insisted on keeping Jerusalem, and made no pledge to remove the settlements and their residents, so for the Palestinians there is not much to like about the proposed new state. Obama envoy George Mitchell will find himself in the position of a real estate broker whose buyer's maximum offer is still way below the seller's minimum acceptable price. But, unlike a real estate broker, Mitchell cannot admit the parties are too far apart and walk away. That would be admitting that Obama's effort to establish a Palestinian state had failed, and his promise to do so was empty. Failure is not an option!

And so, the game of shuttle diplomacy, endless negotiations, public pressures, recriminations and frustrations goes on with no end in sight.

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

(1) The US, UN, Russia and the European Union.

(2) Egypt was offered Gaza along with the Sinai, and refused to accept the territory.

Build, Bibi, Build!

"PM Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday (May 24) that Israel will continue to build homes in existing West Bank settlements, defying US calls to halt settlement growth."
Yahoo News, May 24, 2009

As predicted in our May 8 posting (1), Netanyahu has rebuffed US President Barack Obama's personal plea to stop expanding Israeli settlements, which Palestinian leaders consider obstacles to peace. That is because the Palestinians want their future homeland to be "Judenrein" (free of Jews). Unlike the Serbs, who undertook the onerous work of ethnic cleansing the Bosnian Muslims themselves, the Palestinians insist that the Israelis evict the settlers for them, and hand-over a pristine land. The Israelis, then under the leadership of PM Ariel Sharon, actually did just that in Gaza in 2005, but the Palestinians have not shown much appreciation for that effort.

In opposing the settlements, Obama is carrying forward the policy of the US government for more than the past thirty years, through both Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact, the most adamant opponent of the settlements was none other than Republican President George H W Bush (1989-1993), who often lambasted specific settlements by name. Of course, none of these administrations ever exacted a serious price from the Israelis for building and expanding the settlements, and I doubt that Obama will.

As noted in previous postings on the Glazerbeam, there is nothing illegal about the settlements, nor are they really obstacles to peace. The international community, represented by the League of Nations, called for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" (2) on July 24, 1922. (The term "Palestine" at that time included not only the West Bank, but also the East Bank of the Jordan River, now known as the Kingdom of Jordan.) Jews were not restricted to any particular part of Palestine, although most settled in Jerusalem and along the Mediterranean shore.

Moreover, the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan did not ban Jewish settlement in the territory assigned to the future Arab state (which was annexed by Jordan in 1948) or Arab settlement in Israel. Indeed, about a million Arabs now live in Israel, and no one considers their villages to be obstacles to peace (even though large numbers of them are not loyal to Israel). Jordan expelled all Jews living in East Jerusalem and the West Bank after taking that territory in the 1948 war, but there is no reason for Israel or the US to support restoring this Jordanian policy. If the Palestinians want a state, let them accept all those who reside there now as full citizens.

It is time for Congress to weigh-in on the settlement issue. I suggest adoption of a "Sense of Congress Resolution" containing language like the following:
"The United States shall not recommend or support the creation of any new state, or transfer of land from one state to another, that infringes upon the rights of people to remain in their homes, or discriminates in any way against any group of people on the basis of race, religion or national origin."

I hope that AIPAC will prevail upon Israel's many friends in Congress to take this stand. Those who are most supportive of human rights should now defend the human rights of Jews who have chosen to live in the West Bank, even if their land comes under Arab rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) "Biden Dreams of Peace".

(2) League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, Paragraph 3.

Biden Dreams of Peace

"Israel must work for a two-state solution...."
Vice President Joe Biden at the 2009 AIPAC National Conference

"You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one,
Maybe someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one!"
"Imagine" by John Lennon (1971)

If Biden believes that a Palestinian state will live in peace alongside Israel, he is as much of a dreamer as the late John Lennon ever was. Even the United States Government, for which the Vice President speaks, is not powerful enough to make this particular dream a reality.

The main obstacle to peace is Hamas, which has held a iron-grip on Gaza since 2006. Hamas is adamantly opposed to any peace agreement with Israel, and has fired thousands of rockets over the border in the past few years to prove it. Iran supports this position, not only with words, but also with money and armaments. Given this backing, Hamas is about as likely to submit to rule by a Fatah government in Ramallah as Bangladesh is to rejoin Pakistan. (1) Therefore, there will be no peaceful border between Gaza and Israel in the foreseeable future, no matter what Israel or the US does. Of course, the Israelis know this, but American policymakers either do not know it, or pretend not to know it.

But why not establish a mini-Palestine in the West Bank alone?

To do so would require settling at least three intractable disputes: over settlements, Arab refugees, and borders (especially in the Jerusalem area). But even if these disputes could be resolved, the new state would be vulnerable to a takeover by Hamas, possibly in alliance with Islamic Jihad and the El-Aqsa Matyrs Brigade (2). If that happened, the West Bank could then be used to fire rockets into Israel, just as Gaza is now. This would mean war, in which case Israel would face rocket attacks from Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank all at once. Unfortunately, this nightmare scenario is more likely to occur than Biden's dream of a Palestinian state living in peace with Israel.

The summit meeting scheduled for May 18 between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is certain to be contentious. Obama will demand that Israel move ahead with the Palestinian state, and Netanyahu will seek covert US support for an attack on Iran. Those who think of Israel as a client-state of the United States will be surprised to learn that Netanyahu will insist on his country's freedom of action with respect to both the Palestinians and Iran. (3)

Of course the "Hate Obama" crowd (including its many Jewish members) will castigate the Obama Administration for pushing Israel into supporting the "two-state solution". But the fact is that the US Government has been advocating exactly that under both Presidents Bill Clinton (at Camp David in 2000) and George W Bush (at Annapolis in 2008). The United Nations devised the two-state plan in 1947, but did nothing to advance it during the period of Arab rule over Gaza and the West Bank (1948-67). The Government of Israel, under both Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, has agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Although Netanyahu has not publicly repudiated this position, I do not believe he has any intention of creating such an entity.

The US has no leverage at all over Gaza or Iran, but has some over the Palestine Authority, if only because of American aid. The US and Israel are strategic partners and co-operate in intelligence and development of defense systems, but their interests do not always coincide. The question that remains is how much political capital is President Obama willing to commit to pressure Israel into making concessions to the Palestinians. I do not believe that he is willing to face a full-scale confrontation with the Israel Lobby over these issues; more likely, he will say that the US did all it could to achieve an agreement, bu the two sides were just too far apart.

The Glazerbeam endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket in 2008, but if the Administration pushes Israel too hard to make unwise concessions, it will face an uphill battle for another term in 2012.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Bangladesh was East Pakistan until 1971, when it seceded with the help of India. The idea of a country in two parts, separated by a hostile nation, was poorly conceived for that subcontinent, and makes no more sense for Palestine now.

(2) See the Dec. 21, 2008, Glazerbeam entitled "Martyrs."

(3) Recall that in May, 1967, President Lyndon Johnson urged Israel to let the US and its allies deal with the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran. Johnson did not get his way. Nasser blamed the US anyway.

An Open Letter to Jimmy Carter

Dear Mr (Former) President:

As this is written, you are en route to visit Khaled Mashaal, leader of Hamas, in Damascus. The United States and the European Union have refused to deal with Hamas until the group accepts the existence of Israel and renounces terrorism, but you are not letting these minor problems obstruct your relationship with Mr Mashaal.

Your confidence in the goodwill of Islamic fanatics is legendary. When you were President, mobs marched through the streets of Tehran chanting "Margh bar Carter!" (Death to Carter). Despite the obvious threats to your embassy there (1), you kept the diplomatic staff at their posts until they were taken hostage by Iranian terrorists. The Iran Hostage Crisis was a major factor in your loss of the presidency the next year .

History will consider your brokerage of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty in 1979 the high point of your presidency. For that, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt lost his life in 1981; even so, his successor has kept the peace for over 25 years.

Making peace between Israel and Hamas will be much more difficult, however, since the Islamic Resistance group does not want peace. Not only do they call for the destruction of Israel in words, but they launch rockets at Sderot and other locations near Gaza every day.

I earnestly hope that you are able to persuade Mr Mashaal to change the attitude of his organization. But if your kind words are not effective, there is a step you can take that will reduce violence in the Middle East at once: Move to Sderot!

There is plenty of vacant housing in Sderot, as thousands of residents have left in the past year. You could move from house to house on a random basis, so that the rocket launchers would not dare to fire at the city for fear of hitting you! For all you have done for the Palestinian cause, the least Hamas could do for you is to desist from putting you in harm's way. There would then be no need for Israeli military operations in Gaza, so Palestinian lives will also be saved. Perhaps a long-term truce could lead to peace!

I am sure that Israeli President Shimon Peres, who shares your confidence in the Arab yearning for peace, could arrange office space for the Carter Center in Sderot, equipped with state-of-the-art telecommunications, so you could continue your worldwide activities from there. Just think of the dusty town as "Plains, Israel."

But what if the rockets keep coming anyway, and one (G-d forbid) "takes you out"? You weren't going to live forever anyway, and this way you will have given your life for the cause of peace in the Middle East. What a legacy!

Sincerely yours.
/s/
Gerald S Glazer

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

(1) Israel closed and evacuated its embassy in Tehran when the Shah abdicated in early 1979. Both the American and British embassies were raided by mobs months before the takeover of the US Embassy in November.

Back to Gaza

"Long range rockets, anti-aircraft, and anti-tank missiles were brought into Gaza."
Yuval Diskin, head of Israeli Security Service (Shin Bet)
As quoted in the Associated Press, Feb. 4, 2008

Hamas, and the terrorist-groups allied with the movement (Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc.) have a consistent record of using whatever weapons they have against Israel. The measures Israel has used so far in trying to stop rocket attacks from Gaza ( brief military incursions and closing the border ) have not been successful. If the Government of Israel is adamant about preventing these new, more powerful weapons, from being launched into Israel, the only remaining option is for the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) to re-occupy the part of Gaza from which the attacks have been launched.

When Prime Minister Ariel Sharon abandoned Gaza to the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 2005, there was an opportunity for the PA to show that it could maintain a peaceful border with Israel. Unfortunately, the PA did nothing to stop rocket attacks into Israel during the period that it governed Gaza; since Hamas took over the attacks have intensified. Each rocket is a lethal weapon, and launching them is an act of war, which no sovereign nation would tolerate .

The current crisis, created by the destruction of the Gaza-Egypt border by Hamas in late January, has come in the midst of President Bush's efforts to restart peace talks between Israel and the PA leadership in Ramallah. The negotiations are expected to deal with the fate of Gaza, even though the PA no longer controls the Strip.

The time has come to end the "legal fiction" of a single Palestinian state consisting of Gaza and the West Bank . Although both territories were parts of larger domains (the Ottoman Empire and the Palestine Mandate), and both were governed by Israel from 1967 through 2005 (1), they have never formed a nation.

The concept of a nation whose territory lies on opposite sides of another country was tried before: remember East Pakistan and West Pakistan? In 1971 East Pakistan broke away to form Bangladesh, and India prevented Pakistani armed forces from reclaiming the region. For the same reason, Fatah was unable to prevent the Hamas takeover in Gaza last year.

Israel should now refuse to negotiate with PA on the future of Gaza. Instead, the Olmert government should issue an ultimatum to Hamas: stop the rockets or we will come in and stop them. If the rockets keep coming (as they probably will), IDF should re-occupy the part of Gaza closest to Israeli cities and set-up a new security fence there. If that does not stop the rocket-fire, unleash IDF to crush the Hamas regime completely and impose martial law in the entire Strip. The Gazans had their chance to enjoy the blessings of independence and democracy, and they blew it by attacking Israel. Now let them experience the consequences of their choices.

Of course, the United States will object to this tactic. Israel should remind President Bush of his declaration (2) that "Those who harbor terrorists will share their fate." If the Taliban regime deserved destruction in 2001, the Hamas regime deserves it now.

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

(1) The Palestine Authority, established in 1993, also exercised limited power in both Gaza and the West Bank, but until August, 2005, the IDF maintained a military presence in Gaza.

(2) Address to Congress September, 2001.

Arafat's Heirs

Hamas gunmen in Gaza marked Yasser Arafat's Nov. 11 "yahrtzeit" by shooting over 90 members of the Fatah movement, killing at least 7. Fatah-backers had rallied in Gaza City flaunting mounted portraits of the late Palestine Authority Chairman as if to say
" We are Arafat's true heirs."
Hamas shot them as if to say "We are in power here now."

Often the death of a charismatic and unifying leader is followed by a power-struggle between two of his disciples.(1) But which of these two Palestinian groups is more fit to carry Arafat's mantle?

Arafat's Legacy

The United Nations proposed creation of a Palestinian state in 1947, but the land assigned to it was gobbled-up by Jordan (2) and Egypt. In 1959 Yasser Arafat and a few friends founded Fatah, dedicated to establishing such a state in the entire Palestine Mandate territory. Five years later, Arafat formed and led an "umbrella organization" composed of all Palestinian groups entitled the "Palestine Liberation Organization" or PLO. Since Israel had no "occupied territories" at that time, the land to be "liberated" was Israel itself.
At first the program of PLO was supported only by the Arab League, but after Israel took Gaza and the West Bank in the 1967 Six Day War, the concept of a Palestinian state gained increasing support throughout the world. It was the work of PLO, which included bombings and plane hi-jackings, that made the Palestinians major players in the Middle-East conflict in the eyes of the world.
After Hamas (a subsidiary of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) ignited an uprising in Gaza and the West Bank, Arafat and PLO ostensibly made peace with Israel in 1993. In exchange, PLO was granted limited authority to govern the two Palestinian areas. Today the concept of a sovereign Palestinian state is accepted by the whole world, including the Government of Israel.
Yasser Arafat never groomed a successor. When pressured by the United States to appoint a prime minister, he choose Mahmoud Abbas, an academic with no charisma or following. After Arafat died on Nov. 11, 2004, Abbas (aka "Abu Mazen") became President of the Palestine Authority (PA).

Hamas = Fatah ?

No, for two reasons:

Islam: Arafat considered Christian Arabs (about 10% of the West Bank) an important part of PLO. Although a devout Muslim, Arafat attended church services at Christmas in Bethlehem as a sign of solidarity with the Christian population. Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, has no use for Christians or other infidels. If Hamas ever takes full power in the West Bank, Muslim law (Sharia) will be imposed, and Christians will be reduced to the status of "dhimmi", powerless residents.

The Peacemeal Process: By appearing to accept the existence of Israel, Arafat won control of most of the Palestinian population. In 2000 he was offered a State of Palestine on nearly all the land Israel seized in 1967, but refused the deal.
President Bush has arranged a Peace Conference in Annapolis, Maryland, for later this month to create a Palestinian state. Hamas will not be attending this conference, as the movement steadfastly refuses to accept Jewish sovereignty in any part of "Palestine". The continuous rocket-fire from Gaza is evidence that Hamas still wants to liberate all of Palestine by armed struggle.

West Bank: The Next Gaza?

The leaders of Hamas took control of Gaza from Fatah in June, 2007, by force . They could not have seized this power while Israel still held the territory, but took over easily after it was quit-claimed to the Palestine Authority. Had Hamas controlled the PA in 2005, Israel would not have withdrawn. Thus, Fatah-rule was an unavoidable transition phase between Israeli occupation and Hamas rule.

Perhaps Hamas sees the same opportunity presenting itself in the West Bank, following the same scenario. First, Hamas maintains its ideological purity by refusing to negotiate with Israel. Meanwhile, Israel cedes territory to the "moderate" Fatah government of the PA in the face of heavy US arm-twisting. Then, with the Israelis safely out of the way, Hamas could use its considerable political and military power to seize the West Bank.

But would Yasser Arafat approve such a coup?

I think he would love it!

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

(1) Examples:
A. Russia, where Stalin and Trotsky claimed the mantle of Lenin.
B. China, where Mao ZeDong and Chiang Kai-Shek were both followers of President Sun Yat- Sen.
C. US, where two of Franklin Roosevelt's Vice Presidents (Henry Wallace and Harry Truman) ran against each other and others in 1948.

(2) Created by the British in 1922 as Transjordan, the name was changed to Jordan after the West Bank take-over. The name has stuck, even though the present boundaries are the same as they were before 1948.

Hamas: Zeal for Death

By time you read this, Hamas will have seized power in Gaza. The collapse of the Palestinian Authority (PA) predicted in the Feb. 4, 2007, Glazerbeam ("State of Chaos") is happening right now. It is possible that Hamas will sever Gaza from the West Bank, where Fatah and President Mahmoud Abbas still hold sway. Entities that are not geographically contiguous often split in this way. (1)

Hamas, which means "zeal" in Arabic, is the Arabic acronym of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Over the past 20 years the group has become well known for its tactic of suicide bombings, designed to maximize civilian casualties among Israelis. In January, 2006, Hamas won control of the Palestinian parliament, and subsequently formed a coalition government with President Abbas. The coalition fractured over control of the numerous security forces of the PA, and it now appears that Hamas militias are winning in Gaza.

But how did Hamas become so enamoured of martyrdom and killing? The story begins in Egypt back in 1928 when the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Cairo by teacher Hassan al-Banna. (2) At that time Egypt was ruled officially by King Ahmed Fuad, but in reality the country was occupied and dominated by Great Britain. Al-Banna sought to fuse Islam with Arab nationalism in a movement that would eliminate foreign influence l and establish a true Arab Muslim nation. The Brotherhood, certain of the righteousness of its cause, engaged in assassination as well as political agitation to attain its goal. The Muslim Brotherhood established militant Islam as a serious political force In Egypt; from there the ideology spread to the Palestine Mandate as well as to Syria, Iran and India (which then included what is now Pakistan).

Al-Banna stressed the importance of death as a goal of jihad (holy war). He said, "The Quran has commanded people to love death more than life...Victory can only come with the mastery of the art of death (fann al-mawt)." (3)

The government of King Farouk (who succeeded his father King Fuad in 1936) tried to suppress the Brotherhood; in 1949 Hassan Al-Banna was murdered by the King's agents.

The suppression was not successful, and shortly after the death of Al-Banna a Muslim poet and intellectual named Sayyid Qutb joined the revolutionary movement. Qutb was influenced by Western Romantic poetry, which also glorified death. (Many 19th Century American Romantic poets, such as Edgar Allan Poe, were also obsessed with death, tombs, and the like.) Qutb soon became the ideological guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, and his writings inspired Arabs and other Muslims to be willing to die as well as kill for the victory of Islam in this world.

In 1952 the Egyptian Free Officers Movement, led by Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser, overthrew the Farouk monarchy. Although Nasser was a militant Arab nationalist himself, he regarded the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat to his regime and also attempted to suppress the movement. Leaders of the Brotherhood, including Sayyid Qutb, were thrown into prison and charged with plotting revolution. In 1966 Qutb attained martyrdom at the end of a rope in a Cairo prison.

Meanwhile the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood was establishing a network of mosques, schools, and social service agencies. The group was particularly active in Gaza, which was under Egyptian administration from 1948 until the Israeli conquest in June, 1967. While Yasser Arafat was busy hijacking planes and plotting the destruction of Israel from Jordan, Lebanon and Tunis, the Gaza affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, now known as Hamas, was winning over the allegiance of the Palestinian population, first in Gaza, then also in the West Bank. Unlike Arafat, who adopted a facade of benevolence before Western leaders, Hamas did not court them. While Arafat welcomed Christian Arabs into the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Hamas stood for nothing but Islam. While Arafat partied at the White House, Hamas recruited bombers.

While Arafat lived, Hamas accepted him as the iconic Palestinian leader. But after his death in 2004, the group challenged his successor Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen), who had never been a terrorist himself. Hamas won with ballots in 2006, and now it looks like the group may also win with bullets.

On one hand, a Hamas take-over of the PA may mean that Israel will face continuous rocket attacks and terrorism for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, US (and other) international pressure for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and make other concessions as part of a "peace process" will probably fade away in the face of Hamas' intractable hostility.Do not look for any Hamas leaders shaking hands with Ehud Olmert on the White House lawn any time soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) For example, East Pakistan rebelled in 1971 and became Bangla Desh. Efforts to merge Egypt and Syria into a United Arab Republic also failed because Israel was between them.

(2)"Who's Afraid of Tariq Ramadan?" by Paul Berman in the June 4, 2007, New Republic.

(3"The Society of the Muslim Brotherhood" by Richard P Mitchell. The quotation is a paraphrase of several statements by Al-Banna.