Friday, June 24, 2011

A Wall Street Journal writer asks, "What if there never was an Israel?"

From The Wall Street Journal / Opinion / June 20, 2011

What If Jews Had Followed the Palestinian Path?

Postwar Jewish refugees left everything they had in Europe—no 'right of return' requested

It is doubtful that there has ever been a more miserable human refuse than Jewish survivors after World War II. Starving, emaciated, stateless—they were not welcomed back by countries where they had lived for generations as assimilated and educated citizens. Germany was no place to return to and in Kielce, Poland, 40 Jews who survived the Holocaust were killed in a pogrom one year after the war ended. The European Jew, circa 1945, quickly went from victim to international refugee disaster.

Yet within a very brief time, this epic calamity disappeared, so much so that few people today even remember the period. How did this happen in an era when Palestinian refugees have continued to be stateless for generations?

In 1945, there were hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors living in DP Camps (displaced persons) across Europe. They were fed and clothed by Jewish and international relief organizations. Had the world's Jewish population played this situation as the Arabs and Palestinians have, everything would look very different today.
To begin with, the Jews would all still be living in these DP camps, only now the camps would have become squalid ghettos throughout Europe. The refugees would continue to be fed and clothed by a committee similar to UNRWA—the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (paid for mostly by the United States since 1948). Blessed with one of the world's highest birth rates, they would now number in the many millions. And 66 years later, new generations, fed on a mixture of hate and lies against the Europeans, would now seethe with anger.

Sometime in the early 1960s, the Jewish leadership of these refugee camps, having been trained in Moscow to wreak havoc on the West (as Yasser Arafat was) would have started to employ terrorism to shake down governments. Airplane hijackings in the 1970s would have been followed by passenger killings. There would have been attacks on high-profile targets as well—say, the German or Polish Olympic teams.

By the 1990s, the real mayhem would have begun. Raised on victimhood and used as cannon fodder by corrupt leaders, a generation of younger Jews would be blowing up buses, restaurants and themselves. The billions of dollars extorted from various governments would not have gone to the inhabitants of the camps. The money would be in the Swiss bank accounts of the refugees' famous and flamboyant leaders and their lackies.
So now it's the present, generations past the end of World War II, and the festering Jewish refugee problem throughout Europe has absolutely no end in sight. The worst part of this story would be the wasted lives of millions of human beings in the camps—inventions not invented, illnesses not cured, high-tech startups not started up, symphonies and books not written—a real cultural and spiritual desert.

None of this happened, of course. Instead, the Jewish refugees returned to their ancestral homeland. They left everything they had in Europe and turned their backs on the Continent—no "right of return" requested. They were welcomed by the 650,000 Jewish residents of Israel.

An additional 700,000 Jewish refugees flooded into the new state from Arab lands after they were summarily kicked out. Again losing everything after generations in one place; again welcomed in their new home.
In Israel, they did it all the hard way. They built a new country from scratch with roads, housing and schools. They created agricultural collectives to feed their people. They created a successful economy without domestic oil, and they built one of the world's most vibrant democracies in a region sadly devoid of free thought.

Yes, the Israelis did all this with the financial assistance of Jews around the world and others who helped get them on their feet so they could take care of themselves. These outsiders did not ignore them, or demean them, or use them as pawns in their own political schemes—as the Arab nations have done with the Palestinians.

I imagine the argument will be made that while the Jews may have achieved all this, they did not have their land stolen from them. This is, of course, a canard, another convenient lie. They did lose property all over Europe and the Mideast. And there was never an independent Palestine run by Palestinian Arabs. Ever. Jews and Arabs lived in this area controlled first by the Turks and then by the British. The U.N. offered the two-state solution that we hear so much about in 1947. The problem then, and now, is that it was accepted by only one party, Israel. No doubt, the situation of Arab residents of the Middle East back then may have been difficult, but it is incomprehensible that their lot was worse than that of the Jews at the end of World War II.

We don't hear about any of this because giving human beings hope and purpose doesn't make great copy. Squalor, victimhood and terror are always more exciting. Perhaps in the end, the greatest crime of the Jews was that they quietly created something from nothing. And in the process, they transformed themselves.
Golda Meir is credited with having said that if the Jews had not fought back against the Arab armies and had been destroyed in 1948, they would have received the most beautiful eulogies throughout the world. Instead, they chose to stand their ground and defend themselves. And in winning, they received the world's condemnation. Meir said she would take the condemnation over the eulogies.

Mr. Kozak is the author of "LeMay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis LeMay" (Regnery, 2009).

Friday, June 3, 2011

My comment to Dave Maas' article in the San Diego City Beat

TO:  Dave Maas, San Diego City Beat
Save yourself the trouble, Dave. Don't bother entering this piece in next year's Pulitzer Prize judging. Geez. What a fricking waste of time. This country is at war on three fronts, your own state's economy is in the sewer, your ex-governor turns out to a liar and a slut... and the best you can do is a story on how a bunch of journalists and retired journalists and working behind the scenes to preserve and protect the Constitution.
And you managed to do it all through a brave and valiant search (I hope the sarcasm is noted) of public records. Why on earth did you go to all that trouble? I certainly would have been happy to share. We all are professional journalists, Dave. We are in the business of putting out the story -- not hiding it. I'd like to see a list (if one exists) of the journalists involved here whom you contacted and who refused to share our emails and other correspondence with you.
I know you never asked me. If you had, I'd have told you that going back to January 2011 wasn't good enough. Some of our best writing about the Helen Thomas matter was done in December 2010. You're a news reporter. How did you miss that?
Your newspaper's slogan is "Real Alternative News." In this case, I think your story smacks of UNreal Alternative JOURNALISM. You ought to be ashamed.
Lloyd H Weston
Member, SPJ
Retired Reporter & Editor
Chicago, Illinois
westonlloyd1@gmail.com

David Brooks: The Depravity Factor


Op-Ed Columnist

The Depravity Factor

By now you have probably heard about Hamza Ali al-Khateeb. He was the 13-year-old Syrian boy who tagged along at an antigovernment protest in the town of Saida on April 29. He was arrested that day, and the police returned his mutilated body to his family a month later. While in custody, he had apparently been burned, beaten, lacerated and given electroshocks. His jaw and kneecaps were shattered. He was shot in both arms. When his father saw the state of Hamza’s body, he passed out.
The family bravely put video evidence of the torture on the Internet, and Hamza’s martyrdom has rallied the opponents of President Bashar al-Assad’s Baathist regime. But, of course, his torture didn’t come out of nowhere. The regime’s defining act of brutality was the Hama massacre in 1982 when then-President Hafez al-Assad had more than 10,000 Syrians murdered. The U.S. government has designated Syria a state sponsor of terror for 30 consecutive years. The State Department’s Human Rights Report has described the regime’s habitual torture techniques, including pulling out fingernails, burning genitals, hyperextending the spine, bending the body around the frame of a wheel while whipping the victim and so on.
Over the past several weeks, Bashar al-Assad’s regime has killed more than 1,000 protesters and jailed at least 10,000 more, according to Syrian human rights groups. Human Rights Watch has described crimes against humanity in the town of Dara’a, where boys have been mutilated and men massacred.
All governments do bad things, and Middle East dictatorships do more than most. But the Syrian government is one of the world’s genuinely depraved regimes. Yet for all these years, Israel has been asked to negotiate with this regime, compromise with this regime and trust that this regime will someday occupy the heights over it in peace.
For 30 years, the Middle East peace process has been predicated on moral obtuseness, an unwillingness to face the true nature of certain governments. World leaders have tried sweet-talking Syria, calling Bashar al-Assad a friend (Nancy Pelosi) or a reformer (Hillary Clinton). In 2008, Nicolas Sarkozy invited Assad to be the guest of honor at France’s Bastille Day ceremonies — a ruthless jailer celebrating the storming of a jail.
For 30 years, diplomats and technocrats have flown to Damascus in the hopes of “flipping” Syria — turning it into a pro-Western, civilized power. It would be interesting to know what they were thinking. Perhaps some of them were so besotted with their messianic abilities that they thought they had the power to turn a depraved regime into a normal regime. Perhaps some of them were so wedded to the materialistic mind-set that they thought a regime’s essential nature could be altered with a magical mix of incentives and disincentives.
Perhaps some of them were simply morally blind. They were such pedantic technocrats, so consumed by the legalisms of the peace process, that they no longer possessed the capacity to recognize the moral nature of the regime they were dealing with, or to understand the implications of its nature.
In any case, their efforts were doomed. In fact, the current peace process is doomed because of the inability to make a categorical distinction. There are some countries in the region that are not nice, but they are normal — Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. But there are other governments that are fundamentally depraved. Either as a matter of thuggishness (Syria) or ideology (Hamas), they reject the full humanity of other human beings. They believe it is proper and right to kill innocents. They can never be part of a successful negotiation because they undermine the universal principles of morality.
It doesn’t matter how great a law professor or diplomat you are. It doesn’t matter how masterly you sequence the negotiations or what magical lines you draw on a map. There won’t be peace so long as depraved regimes are part of the picture. That’s why it’s crazy to get worked into a lather about who said what about the 1967 border. As long as Hamas and the Assad regime are in place, the peace process is going nowhere, just as it’s gone nowhere for lo these many years.
That’s why it’s necessary, especially at this moment in history, to focus on the nature of regimes, not only the boundaries between them. To have a peaceful Middle East, it was necessary to get rid of Saddam’s depraved regime in Iraq. It will be necessary to try to get rid of Qaddafi’s depraved regime in Libya. It’s necessary, as everybody but the Obama administration publicly acknowledges, to see Assad toppled.  It will be necessary to marginalize Hamas. It was necessary to abandon the engagement strategy that Barack Obama campaigned on and embrace the cautious regime-change strategy that is his current doctrine.
The machinations of the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are immaterial. The Arab reform process is the peace process.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Lloyd H Weston, CJA board member, to be panelist at annual convention of American Arab Journalists Association

For Additional Information, Please Contact:
rayhanania@comcast.net
or
Lloyd H Weston @ 1-866-266-2002  or westonlloyd1@gmail.com                       

Lloyd H Weston Head Shot Attached Below.


CHICAGO / DETROIT – Retired Chicago-area journalist and newspaper editor Lloyd H Weston will join a panel discussion April 30 at the sixth annual convention of the National American Arab Journalists Association. A member of the Board of Directors of the Chicago Journalists Association (f/k/a Chicago Press Veterans), Weston, a fervent First Amendment advocate, will discuss the controversies that erupted following the firings of news reporters Helen Thomas and Octavia Nasr -- both of Arab descent -- and the anti-Arab backlash that followed in the mainstream media.

Weston will be joined on the Saturday afternoon panel by Christine Tatum, a past-president of both the Chicago Headline Club and the national Society of Professional Journalists.

Originally from Detroit and now living in the Chicago area, Weston is a graduate of Wayne State University's School of Journalism. He was an early critic of his alma mater's decision last year to rename the Helen Thomas Spirit of Diversity in Media Award. He has been equally outspoken in condemning the Society of Professional Journalists' shelving of a Lifetime Achievement Award named for Thomas.

An award-winning journalist and editor for more than 40 years, his work has been published in the Chicago Sun-Times, Pioneer Press Newspapers,The Forward Newspaper, Chicago Jewish News, Paddock Publications, Booth Newspapers and many others.

"The panelists will invite the convention to join them for a freewheeling discussion about free speech, journalism ethics, media bias -- and how those things, and so many other dynamics -- figured into the controversies that erupted after respected journalists Thomas and Nasr spoke their minds," said Ray Hanania, NAAJA National Coordinator. 

Another convention panel discussion will feature U.S. State Department official Phil Frayne, Director of the Office of Press and Public Diplomacy for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. He will join professional American Arab journalists George Hishmeh and Ali Younes in an examination of the challenges facing American Arabs in the decade since the terrorism attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“We’re very excited to have distinguished professionals like Mr. Weston and Mr. Frayne join the line up of panels that will be presented in two separate conference rooms all day April 30 during our convention,” Hanania said.

A complete listing of panels is available on the official conference web site at: 
http://www.naaja-us.com/NAAJAConference/program.htm

“American Arab journalists are under siege,” Hanania says. “From Helen Thomas to Octavia Nasr, we are being targeted because of what we represent. And, what we represent is a determination to insure that the mainstream news media is fair, accurate and includes the voices of American Arabs and Muslims in their daily reporting. That doesn’t always happen.”

The convention goals are to strengthen the growing network of American Arab Journalists, NAAJA and help launch more chapter networks in other cities. Currently, NAAJA has more than 300 members – there is no fee to join – and has five chapters including in Chicago; Dearborn, Mich.; Washington D.C.; Austin, Texas, and Oregon.

At the convention NAAJA will also recognize three students with college scholarships. NAAJA is dedicated to supporting young American Arabs to help them pursue careers in journalism.

The three-day conference is being held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Dearborn. It will run from Friday evening, April 29, through Sunday, May 1.

Registration information is available at:
http://www.naaja-us.com/NAAJAConference/register.htm

###