From Webster’s Dictionary:
noun en·e·my \ˈe-nə-mē\
: someone who hates another : someone who attacks or tries to harm another
: something that harms or threatens someone or something
: a group of people (such as a nation) against whom another group is fighting a war
Full Definition of ENEMY
: one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
: something harmful or deadly <alcohol was his greatest enemy>
a : a military adversary
b : a hostile unit or force
Sometimes, when I talk or chat with friends, they say things like “we need to make peace with the Palestinians”, or “they hate us because we’re mean to them”, or any number of similar sentiments. These friends either say or imply that Israel should simply give in to the demands of the PA to stop building in “settlements”, or withdraw to some arbitrary “borders” (in reality, armistice lines), and then, the Palestinians will be our friends, they’ll leave us alone, the Arab and Muslim world (and their supporters) will stop being anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti-Semitic.
Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.
Look at the definition of “enemy” above. I copied and pasted it from Webster’s dictionary.
What it DOESN’T say in the definition is how does one deal with enemies. History tells us that.
While negotiation and compromise is always an ideal (or at least, idealized) solution, it is frequently insufficient, especially when one “enemy” believes it has leverage over the other, or has the capability to destroy the other.
What we are seeing now in the “Arab-Israeli Conflict” (NOT the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, since it has been going on since long before the 1960’s, when we first heard of Arab Palestinians, and long before 1948, when Israel was founded), is a form of warfare against Israel BY ITS ENEMIES.
History has taught us that when attacked, we only have a few choices. This holds true for schoolkids attacked by bullies, as well as for nations.
2. Try to negotiate a settlement (or “peace”);
3. Appeal to a “higher authority” (e.g. the teacher, or the UN);
4. Fight back.
Generally, numbers 1-3 don’t work out very well, unless of course you surrender to the USA, who then rebuilds your country (e.g. Germany and Japan after WWII).
In the case of Israel vs. the Arabs, who gradually are winning the hearts and minds of much of the world, Israel has fought back in cases of extreme need, such as the 1948 War of Independence, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, and the more recent incursions into Gaza, but generally, has held back from decisively defeating their enemies to the point where their enemies can no longer wage war against them. Tactically, Israel hasn’t had much choice, since the US and the rest of the world have effectively stopped them from doing so.
Strategically, this is probably a grave mistake, as each time, Israel’s political position worsens, while the positions of their enemies is strengthened. Since most of the countries Israel has fought (including Gaza) couldn’t care less about a few Muslim lives lost if it weakens Israel, this process could eventually defeat Israel.
Now, the EU is talking about severe sanctions on Israel if Israel doesn’t surrender to the PA and Hamas. Of course, they phrase it a little differently – they say “Israel needs to ‘do more’ to advance ‘the peace process’ ” as if Israel can unilaterally negotiate both sides of discussions in which the PA steadfastly refuses to participate. It is, of course, a classic “Catch-22″, where, no matter what Israel does, it cannot win.
So, what are Israel’s options?
They can surrender to the demands of the PA’s “preconditions” – stop building in settlements, agree a priori to withdraw to the “1967 Borders” (i.e the 1948 armistice lines), and agree to let the “refugees” “return” to Israel. But, as any rational person understands, doing so means the end of Israel as a Jewish state, which is, of course, the end goal of the Arabs (unless you consider what happens to the Jews in Israel once they’re a minority to be the end goal).
They can continue as they have been, appealing to logic, history, fairness, and the goodness of the hearts of the USA, the UN, the EU, etc., although it is unlikely that the anti-semites driving the anti-Zionism and anti-Israel movements are likely to change. It is more likely that their efforts will intensify, especially as the numbers of Muslims in Europe multiply, European politicians give in to their “electorate”, and the UN becomes even more of an automatic majority against Israel.
They can fight. Fighting, in this case, means politically, in the various world forums, and militarily. Once upon a time, it was well-known that if one Israeli died, the enemy would suffer many multiples in retaliation. In other words, Israel made the price of waging war too high for its enemies. Israel, unfortunately has very little choice when faced with enemies who will never give up UNLESS THEY HAVE A MOTIVATION TO DO SO.
Motivation to give up fighting generally comes about through being utterly defeated and being unable to continue the fight.
In the case of the Palestinians and Hamas (et al), they are encouraged by the reaction of the world. Israel actually pays them, props them up, provides goods and services to their really nasty enemies in Gaza, gives them water, lives up (for the most part) to their obligations under the Oslo agreements, and gets very little in return. They get some security cooperation in the West Bank, but are continually kicked in the teeth at every opportunity. They get intifadas, rocks, riots, and murder whenever someone feels they can do it.
I believe that, in the end, the ultimate decisions will be made militarily. Israel will concede a bit too much, or will be pushed a little too far, and will have no choice but to lash out and thoroughly destroy Hamas, then unilaterally determine borders along the West Bank. The world will fume, and there will be sanctions against Israel, but irrespective of what Israel does or doesn’t do, those same sanctions will eventually be applied. We see it now in the actions of the EU, calling for boycotts, sanctions, and all sorts of actions against Israel, including funding numerous anti-Israel NGO’s working inside Israel.
This scenario is not comforting, and it will certainly raise the ire of my more “liberal” friends, who believe that peace and love will always triumph, since all humans desire peace and harmony.
The problem with that perspective is a little-known secret – not everyone shares the same values.
While in the West, we tend toward Judeo-Christian values – turn the other cheek, the Golden Rule, be good to your neighbors, lend a helping hand, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, democracy, etc., there are any number of places in the world, many of them Israel’s neighbors, who believe in NONE of those things. They believe that might makes right, that Jews are scum, that Christians and Jews should be Dhimmi’s and slaves, and the idea of Jews and Christians having their own countries makes them insane.
Make no mistake. The war being waged against Israel is NOT one of land. It is absolutely, 100% a religious war.
Ask yourself – “If Israel were named Palestine, and it was a majority Muslim country, would there be ANY problem with it, other than tribal conflict, Sunni vs. Shiite vs. Alawite vs. Ahmadiyya vs. Wahabi etc.?” You already know the answer. There wouldn’t be. It would be just another shitty little Arab country with some form of dictatorship, with minorities squelched and suppressed, with emigration of those minorities (who would be plucked of everything they own prior to leaving, if they were allowed to leave).
So, what do YOU think Israel should do?
Please note: This blog post is also available on the Times of Israel Blogs site:
I recently became aware of a course scheduled to be taught at the University of California’s Riverside campus. The title of the course is “Palestine and Israel: Settler-Colonialism and Apartheid”.
Simply hearing the name made the hackles on the back of my neck stand up, but reading the actual course description and syllabus made me seriously furious.
I wrote to the Chancellor (Kim Wilcox) of the university, as well as Janet Napolitano, the UC President, and received a response from James Grant, an Assistant Vice Chancellor of Strategic Communications at UCR.
I have copied my correspondence below in the hopes that this will achieve significant distribution, outrage, and a flood of letters to UC officials and beyond.
I find it incomprehensible that, as Mr. Grant stated, a faculty committee determined that this course meets University of California standards. Simply incredible.
PLEASE take the time to write to Wilcox and Napolitano to express your feelings about this course. Feel free to copy and paste whatever parts of the correspondence below might help you, although your own thoughts and words would be best.
Here is a link to an article about the course:
Here is the link to the course description on the UC RIverside website (there is a link in the course description to download the syllabus):
The entire chain of my correspondence to date is copied below. I will add more as it becomes available – PLEASE add your voices – this course is an abomination and should be cancelled. Help make it clear to UC Riverside that it is totally unacceptable to present propaganda as fact.
I urge all of you to write. It is incredible to me that a course like this could not only be offered on a University campus, but that it has been reviewed by the university and judged “objective”.
PLEASE flood them with letters!!!!!
Here are the Email addresses of Chancellor Wilcox, President Napolitano, and Assistant Vice-Chancellor Grant:
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
From: John Poris
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 12:41 PM
To: ‘James E Grant jr’
Cc: ‘email@example.com'; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org'; ‘email@example.com’
Subject: RE: Thanks for your e-mail to UC Riverside – “UC Riverside – “Palestine and Israel: Settler-Colonialism and Apartheid”
Thank you for your prompt response.
However, I have to take issue with your perception and understanding of the course. The fact that it has been reviewed by a faculty committee in no way lessens the one-sided presentation as laid out in the course description and syllabus.
From the course description (http://rcourses.wix.com/spring2015): “We will be discussing the side of the conflict that you don’t hear on mainstream media. The stories of the Palestinian people and their struggles don’t get mentioned, and this class is made to discuss that.” It also says that “This class was created to hear the stories of the Palestinian people and their struggles that don’t get mentioned”
The learning Objectives state that the participants will “develop an understanding of Palestinian voices” – what about the Israeli voices? Where are they, other than that of Ilan Pappe, Benny Morris, and Neve Gordon, who certainly do not speak for most Israelis – they are pariahs in Israel, yet, in this course, they are presented as rational voices representing Israelis? Why?
It also states that the participants will “develop the skills to communicate their understanding to others”. Wow. My reading of that is “We will turn you into anti-Israel propagandists”.
Were your contention that students will “be exposed to a spectrum of viewpoints on the issues” true, I would expect that the description might mention that perspectives of BOTH Palestinians and Israelis, including those living across the “Green Line” would be discussed.
A cursory reading of the actual syllabus is even worse. I am copying below lists of the topics, readings and films to be presented. I have deliberately separated them into sections to illustrate clearly the incredibly biased intent of the class. I believe it is easier to see in this format.
Note that nowhere in this course syllabus is mentioned ANYTHING about ANY perspective other than that the Palestinians are the victims of colonialism, Apartheid, exile, and complete and utter suppression and oppression.
The course imposes on the students a belief (not based in law or litigation) that everything happening to the Palestinians is a violation of international law, and that Israel is an aggressor, illegal entity.
The list of authors, while it does include a few Israelis, is impressive in its completeness as a list of those who are at the forefront of the BDS movement AND at the forefront of vilifying Israel and indeed, calling for its disappearance. People like Ilan Pappe, while Israeli, are certainly not “objective” nor do they represent more than a tiny fraction of Jewish or Israeli thought. He or any other author in the list is CERTAINLY not an example of a “Prominent Israeli Author”. Nowhere in this one-sided course is the mainstream Israeli perspective presented.
Where are the counterpoints to the arguments presented by SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine) and the BDS movement? They simply do not exist in any way, shape, or form in this syllabus, nor are they possible to be presented by the “instructor” OR the faculty advisor, both of whom are extremely active in the anti-Israel movements. On every level, this course appears to be exactly what it is – absolute propaganda meant to indoctrinate students who are not knowledgeable about this issue, and will walk away with an extremely biased view.
Week 1: Introduction to the Palestine
Week 2: Settler-Colonialism and Apartheid
Week 3: Settler-Colonialism and Apartheid Part 2
Week 4: Refugeehood and Exile
Week 5: Love Under Apartheid and Women’s Resilience
Week 6: Palestinian Youth Movements and Cultural Resilience
Week 7: Palestine and the International Community
Week 8: Oral History Testimonies:
Week 9: Future Possibilities:
Week 10: Review of course material and presentations
Reading: Edward Said, The Question of Palestine, Introduction and Chapter 1
Reading: Uri Ram, “The Colonization Perspective in Israeli Sociology”, in Ilan Pappe, The Israel/Palestine Question, pp. 53-77 [ARES]. Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage, pp. 182-217.
Reading: Saree Makdisi’s Palestine Inside Out and Neve Gordon’s Israel’s Occupation
Readings: Lindholm Schultz, The Palestinian Diaspora, Introduction and Chapter 1 and Steven Salaita, introduction to Israel’s Dead Soul, pp. 1-11.
David Grossman, Writing in the Dark ch.1
Reading: Love Under Apartheid Blogs, Al Qaws and Aswat Statements, Lena Meari, Sumud: A Philosophy of Confronting Interrogation.
Readings: Sunaina Maira, Jil Oslo: Palestinian hip hop, Youth Culture and the Youth Movement Introduction,
Reading: Nora Barrows Friedman: In Our Power: U.S. Students Organize for Justice in Palestine, Introduction and Chapter 1
Reading: Ali Abunimah, One Country, Chapter five and 6.
Reading: Benny Morris, One State, Two States, pp. 161-201
Watch: Occupation 101 [2006, Documentary, 90 mins: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0807956/%5D
Watch Omar [2013, film, 96 minutes: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2852406/%5D
Watch: Sling-Shot Hip Hop [2008, Documentary, 80 mins: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1157718/%5D
Watch: 5 Broken Cameras [2011, Documentary, 94 mins: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125423/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1%5D
Discussion: An introduction to understanding the occupation of Palestine 1948-present; (Land, Water, Displacement)
Discussion: Understanding how settler-colonialism and apartheid function in Palestine, and the particularities of the Palestinian experience. (Occupation, the wall, checkpoints)
Discussion on the novel (Makdisi’s “Palestine Inside Out” and Neve Gordon’s “Israel’s Ocupation”) and what we discussed last week on checkpoints, the wall, and occupation.
Discussion; Guest Speaker to speak about the conditions for Palestinian refugees in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan as well as Palestinian Diaspora transnationally.
Discussion: watch Palestinian hip hop video’s DAM and Shadia Mansour, discuss how artistic expression can become an outlet for cultural resilience, survival and resistance
Discussion: The role of the UN, ICC, International Law and International Civil society in the supporting the occupation and supporting the struggle against the occupation.
Discussion: Guest Community Elder to come and discuss the history of the Palestinian struggle and exile, the importance of archiving our histories and Oral history practice.
Discussion: Outlining possibilities for the future of the struggle and Palestinian people. Considering ways in which the international community can play an ethical, responsible and supportive role in allowing the Palestinian people to achieve full self-determination.
Even the title of the course, which so matter-of-factly damns Israel as “settler-colonialist” and “Apartheid” is disgraceful. Accusing Israel of Apartheid is ridiculous in every possible way, yet, the title of the course says it right up front, and you believe the course is somehow balanced? Incredible.
I strongly urge you and the university to subject the syllabus of this course to an objective body, and either cancel the class, or infuse it with some balance. You are doing a grave disservice to your students by allowing this utterly one-sided, biased and ridiculous content to be presented as objective fact, which it most certainly is not.
From: James E Grant jr [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 7:22 PM
To: James E Grant jr
Subject: Thanks for your e-mail to UC Riverside
Thank you for your message to our Chancellor.
I’m writing on behalf of the university to say that we appreciate your voicing your opinion on the course.
The course in question, “Palestinian Voices,” is a student led course at UC Riverside.
The syllabus for the course was reviewed by a faculty committee which determined that the course meets University of California standards.
The syllabus contains a wide range of materials, including the writings of prominent Israeli authors, both historians and creative writers, and the students will accordingly be exposed to a spectrum of viewpoints on the issues.
As a leading public research university, UC Riverside is committed to the principle of academic freedom and to the open exchange of ideas that is at the heart of academic discovery and scholarship.
James E. Grant, Jr.
Assistant Vice Chancellor
University of California, Riverside
From: John Poris
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:57 PM
To: ‘email@example.com'; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’
Subject: UC Riverside – “Palestine and Israel: Settler-Colonialism and Apartheid”
Dear Chancellor Wilcox,
I am writing to express my deep concern and, yes, outrage, at the subject course, scheduled to be taught at UC Riverside.
Universities are supposed to educate, not indoctrinate. There is a significant difference between the two.
When people such as Tina Matar, a leader of the “Students for Justice in Palestine” (SJP), teach a course which cannot be anything but biased against Israel, this is a clear attempt to indoctrinate rather than educate. It is VERY clear that only one view, that of SJP and the BDS movement, will be presented, and it is just as clear that any in-classroom disagreement with that view will not be tolerated, given the past and ongoing treatment by SJP of students who disagree with them.
The fact that the faculty sponsor for this course, David Lloyd, is a sponsor of SJP, a major leader of the BDS movement, and the founder of the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural boycott of Israel, only makes it more likely that this course will simply attempt to brainwash the students attending the course.
I am not a lawyer, and cannot comment on California or federal anti-discrimination laws, laws about anti-semitism, or the policies of UC (although I did attend UCSB). But, it seems to me that it is the job of a university professor to, as objectively as possible, present BOTH sides of highly contested issues, and work with students to reach reasonable conclusions, based on actual history and analysis.
Clearly, that is not the case here. This course will present a lopsided, malevolent perspective on a highly complicated issue, presenting opinions (e.g. that Israel is “Apartheid”, that settlements in the West Bank are “illegal under international law”, etc.) that have not been adjudicated and are patently false in some cases, as facts. Students attempting to disagree or argue will simply be shouted down or will fail the course. We see this behavior on an ongoing basis whenever anyone tries to present a view divergent from that of SJP or the BDS movement.
This really is unacceptable, and I hope you will cancel this class. I would hope that, in an ideal world, you would mandate some sort of survey class on the Israeli-Arab conflict, taught by a rotation of professors willing and able to present the various perspectives, facts, history, and issues WITHOUT the extreme partisanship which the subject course will certainly incorporate.
As I keep reading all the myriad responses to Netanyahu’s speech, from one side or the other, a few things keep poking me in my mind.
1. I don’t care who invited him, when, or who was notified. I think the whole “I’m offended” thing is ridiculous. Boehner says he notified the White House. I have no idea if he really did or not, but Obama’s reaction blew a tiny molehill into a huge mountain, for no good reason.
2. Whether you think Netanyahu is an asshole, a blowhard, or a visionary, I can’t think of anything he said that is untrue. Iran IS pursuing nuclear weapons, I don’t think anyone disagrees with that statement. Iran IS threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Iran IS the premier supporter of terror activities around the world, both financially, ideologically, and constitutes a serious threat to most of the countries in the Middle East.
3. In support of #2 above, consider that Iran now essentially has control, through it’s proxies, of Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria (Assad), Yemen (Houthis), Gaza (Hamas/Islamic Jihad), and parts of Iraq through various militias. They certainly have strong ties to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and are active in Libya, as well. In short, their expansionist aims are staggeringly ambitious, and they are achieving them.
4. The details of the deal that have emerged, to date, indicate that at most, Iran would be limited to a ten year window before being “allowed” to do whatever they want with nuclear development. Ten years is certainly a long enough period for Obama, since he’ll be out of office in two. But ten years is NOTHING in the greater scheme of Islamic hegemony and Iran’s plans. They are definitely planning “long term”. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons now, a year from now, five years from now, or ten years from now, functionally, there isn’t a whole lot of difference. Of course, Israel might have much better defenses against ICBM’s and other missiles coming from Iran by then, but essentially, Obama is saying “It’s ok if Iran gets nuclear weapons within ten years”. Is that acceptable? I don’t think so.
5. Obama and Pelosi et al have said that Netanyahu didn’t propose any concrete alternatives to the “bad deal” in progress with Iran, but clearly, he did. He suggested that if a “good deal” can’t be reached, with proper supervision, oversight, and guarantees, then “no deal”, meaning strong sanctions, threats of military action, etc. would have to be used as a “stick”.
In any negotiation, you bargain based on your leverage. The only leverage Obama has, really, is economic or military. If he is unable or unwilling to use these as leverage, there really is no reason for Iran to do anything but flout his demands and tell him to fuck off, which is basically what they have been doing for several years now. Obama’s desperation to have a deal, any deal, in order to solidify his partisan claims to have “done something”, shines through clearly, and the Middle East is no place to be bargaining out of desperation. They are VERY good at bargaining. Clearly, Obama isn’t, and they are eating his lunch….
In countless conversations with anti-Zionist, anti-Israel supporters of Palestine and Gaza, I am constantly taken aback at their lack of knowledge of history, and the extent to which they believe the revisionist versions of “history” they glean from a multitude of pro-Palestinian websites and blogs.
Even a cursory glance at historical facts would normally be enough to show that the “facts” in which they believe have sprung into existence in the last several years, yet, they cannot be bothered to examine that history.
During this and each previous armed conflict between Israel and Gaza, Israel has been accused of a non-proportional response to Hamas’ rockets and mortars.
This is usually “proven” by lopsided “body counts” in which Israel suffers minimal casualty numbers, while Hamas and Gaza suffer much larger losses.
To read the rest of this article, click on the link below. There is no charge or subscription required.
I have started blogging on the Times of Israel website. Whenever I publish a new blog post, I will publish the first paragraph of the post, along with a link to the entire post, here. This is the first one. Please feel free to follow my blog both here and on the TOI site.
A Few Pesky Questions
JOHN PORIS August 15, 2014, 8:54 am
Throughout the course of the most recent conflagration between Israel and Hamas (and their “associates”), we have heard any number of times that Israel should do “more” to reduce civilian casualties
Read more: A Few Pesky Questions | John Poris | The Blogs | The Times of Israel http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-few-pesky-questions/#ixzz3ATZyH4cJ
These are the inane, incredible arguments I hear, over and over again. Not just from the “useful idiots” in general, but from people who should know better.
The other night, I watched as Jake Tapper of CNN interviewed Mark Regev, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s spokesman, and essentially badgered him about Israel’s “disproportional” response to what Tapper thought was a minor inconvenience, clearly.
“How”, he asked, “could Israel justify the deaths of so many Palestinians in Gaza, when so few Israelis have been killed by the rockets?”.
This question makes me want to scream and yell. I hear it frequently. It is the new rallying cry of the Israel-bashers.
They somehow believe that, if not “enough” Israelis are killed, Israel should not respond with the force necessary to stop the rockets. That they are only a “nuisance” and not really dangerous, since Israel has the Iron Dome, Bomb Shelters, warning systems, etc., and the rockets are not really that dangerous, not much more than firecrackers.
What infuriates me is that, without any doubt, these same people would be screaming for their governments to do “something” to stop rockets raining on their towns, and in all likelihood, would be peeing their pants in fear every time a rocket flew overhead.
The hypocrisy and vileness of this attitude is beyond galling.
My personal view is that “proportionality” in war is a mistake. The object of war, which should always be a last resort, is to stop the threat against you. When you are attacked, you should respond with the MAXIMUM force available to you in order to stop the threat.
Clearly, that doesn’t mean that if there is a cross border shooting every two years, you invade the country from which the shooting originated. But, if there is shooting every day, a country is certainly entitled to do whatever is necessary to make it stop. THAT is proportionality.
In the case of Israel and Gaza, clearly, Israel’s response has not been “proportional”. What they have done is NOT ENOUGH, as it has not caused a cessation of rocket and mortar fire. Israel would certainly be justified in doing a tremendous amount “more”, but not to protect civilians in Gaza, as the world demands, but “more” to make the rockets stop.
Frankly, the idea that ANY country in the world would sit back and allow a neighbor to fire over 12,000 rockets between 2001 and 2014 (now over 15,000 rockets, including the latest war) without a major response, regardless of how many are killed or injured by those rockets.
And, to be clear. Even ONE Israeli killed or injured by rockets launched deliberately and indiscriminately against Israeli civilians is too many, and is justification for massive retaliation.