From Israel National News
A recent poll shows a majority of voters believe Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is acting contrary to the platform upon which he was elected.
The poll, carried out by "Brain Base" ["Ma'agar Mohot"] via telephone conversations with a representative sample of 568 adult Israelis (including Israeli Arabs), was broadcast on Israel Radio's "Another Matter" program Tuesday. Asked whether the Labor Party ministers who claim that Ariel Sharon is implementing the election platform of Labor Party are correct, 55% answered yes. Whereas only 44% of Likud voters answered in the affirmative, 92% of Labor voters agreed.Sharon ran against Labor candidate Amram Mitzna last election. Mitzna’s central campaign issue was a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, whereas, while Sharon spoke about “painful concessions for peace,” he spoke out strongly against Mitzna’s ideas. The Likud platform reads: “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”With regard to the creation of a PA state it says: “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.”
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Europe decides that Bush may be right after all
From the Wall Street Journal, Friday, February 25, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
Visits by U.S. Presidents to Europe tend to have a template-making quality: Wilson, the peace maker, in Paris, 1919; Truman, the victor, at Potsdam, 1945; Kennedy, the stalwart, in Berlin, 1963; Reagan, the visionary, in Berlin, 1987. If President Bush's trip this week has some kind of new theme, the word for it is probably conciliation. But our sense is that Mr. Bush is really following in Reagan's footsteps.
Admittedly, this thought is not original: Der Spiegel beat us to it. Still, it says something that the leftish German newsweekly, which two years ago devoted an entire cover story to advancing the "Blood for Oil" thesis about U.S. ambitions in the Middle East, has gingerly raised the question, "Could Bush Be Right?"
"The Germany Reagan was traveling in, much like today's Germany, was very skeptical of the American president and his foreign policy," Der Spiegel writes. "When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate--and the Berlin Wall--and demanded that Gorbachev 'tear down this Wall,' he was lampooned the next day on the editorial pages. He is a dreamer, wrote commentators. . . . But history has shown that it wasn't Reagan who was the dreamer as he voiced his demand. Rather, it was German politicans who were lacking in imagination--a group who in 1987 couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany."
It is doubtful that Der Spiegel would have made these observations had Mr. Bush's visit taken place just before Iraq's election rather than just after. And we suspect most of the magazine's editors would dearly have preferred to see a President Kerry.
But events have a way of imposing both discipline and clarity. For much of Europe, the idea that President Bush is the real and legitimate face of America came a few years late. But it has come, as has the realization that a hopeful era is dawning in the Middle East thanks to U.S. "unilateralism" and force of arms. In this sense, the purpose of Mr. Bush's trip isn't to present himself anew to Europe. It is to allow European leaders--France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder and Russia's Vladimir Putin--to present themselves anew to Mr. Bush.
Partly this reflects political facts: Contrary to expectation a year ago (and with the qualified exception of Spain), the leaders who supported the war in Iraq have all been returned to office, while Messrs. Chirac, Putin and Schroeder languish in polls.
Partly, too, it reflects the realities of power. Europe, collectively and in its several parts, requires a functioning relationship with the U.S. to secure its vital interests. The same cannot be said of America's requirements of Europe. President Bush was gracious when he acknowledged the willingness of Germany and France to contribute to the training of Iraqi policemen. But the one (yes, one) French officer now detailed to the task will probably not turn the tide of war.
Probably the most important component is that President Bush's vision of spreading democracy--of getting to the "tipping point" where tyrannies start to crumble--seems not only to be working but also winning some unexpected converts. Just ask the Lebanese who are suddenly restive under Syrian occupation. As a result, European politicians are in a poorer position to lecture this President about the true ways of the world.
This isn't to say that Mr. Bush can or should be indifferent to the attitudes of his European counterparts. They have agreed to put differences about Iraq behind them, which is good. The U.S., France and Germany also seem to be reasonably united in their concern about Russia's imperial pretensions and attenuated civil liberties. But potentially larger differences loom before them, above all over the nuclearization of Iran and the lifting of the post-Tiananmen arms embargo to China.
In each case, fundamental U.S. strategic interests--the security of Taiwan and Israel; the sovereignty of Iraq; naval supremacy in the Persian Gulf--stand at odds either with European commercial interests or ideological hobbyhorses (the French infatuation with "multipolarity"). If smoother diplomacy, both public and private, can avert another Iraq-style eruption without compromising U.S. interests, so much the better.
Then again, if Europe continues to demand a high price for its political favors, the Bush Administration would do well to shop for partners and ad hoc coalitions elsewhere. America's cultural links to Europe may be precious, but there is no law of nature or history that requires both sides of the Atlantic to act in concert. To the extent that Europeans continue to value the relationship, it is up to them to demonstrate it, chiefly by not acting as freelancers or spoilers in areas of vital U.S. concern.
Still, there are reasons to be sanguine about the future of trans-Atlantic relations. We are in no doubt that most European hearts thrilled to the sight of Iraqi voters going to the polls last month, suggesting that, whatever Europe and America's political or ideological differences, we remain alike in our innermost values and aspirations. Nor do we believe our world views are so divided that persuasion and compromise are impossible. Pundits may differ as to whether Mr. Bush and his European counterparts planted the seeds for a better relationship. What's sure is that they were planting on fertile soil.
Visits by U.S. Presidents to Europe tend to have a template-making quality: Wilson, the peace maker, in Paris, 1919; Truman, the victor, at Potsdam, 1945; Kennedy, the stalwart, in Berlin, 1963; Reagan, the visionary, in Berlin, 1987. If President Bush's trip this week has some kind of new theme, the word for it is probably conciliation. But our sense is that Mr. Bush is really following in Reagan's footsteps.
Admittedly, this thought is not original: Der Spiegel beat us to it. Still, it says something that the leftish German newsweekly, which two years ago devoted an entire cover story to advancing the "Blood for Oil" thesis about U.S. ambitions in the Middle East, has gingerly raised the question, "Could Bush Be Right?"
"The Germany Reagan was traveling in, much like today's Germany, was very skeptical of the American president and his foreign policy," Der Spiegel writes. "When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate--and the Berlin Wall--and demanded that Gorbachev 'tear down this Wall,' he was lampooned the next day on the editorial pages. He is a dreamer, wrote commentators. . . . But history has shown that it wasn't Reagan who was the dreamer as he voiced his demand. Rather, it was German politicans who were lacking in imagination--a group who in 1987 couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany."
It is doubtful that Der Spiegel would have made these observations had Mr. Bush's visit taken place just before Iraq's election rather than just after. And we suspect most of the magazine's editors would dearly have preferred to see a President Kerry.
But events have a way of imposing both discipline and clarity. For much of Europe, the idea that President Bush is the real and legitimate face of America came a few years late. But it has come, as has the realization that a hopeful era is dawning in the Middle East thanks to U.S. "unilateralism" and force of arms. In this sense, the purpose of Mr. Bush's trip isn't to present himself anew to Europe. It is to allow European leaders--France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder and Russia's Vladimir Putin--to present themselves anew to Mr. Bush.
Partly this reflects political facts: Contrary to expectation a year ago (and with the qualified exception of Spain), the leaders who supported the war in Iraq have all been returned to office, while Messrs. Chirac, Putin and Schroeder languish in polls.
Partly, too, it reflects the realities of power. Europe, collectively and in its several parts, requires a functioning relationship with the U.S. to secure its vital interests. The same cannot be said of America's requirements of Europe. President Bush was gracious when he acknowledged the willingness of Germany and France to contribute to the training of Iraqi policemen. But the one (yes, one) French officer now detailed to the task will probably not turn the tide of war.
Probably the most important component is that President Bush's vision of spreading democracy--of getting to the "tipping point" where tyrannies start to crumble--seems not only to be working but also winning some unexpected converts. Just ask the Lebanese who are suddenly restive under Syrian occupation. As a result, European politicians are in a poorer position to lecture this President about the true ways of the world.
This isn't to say that Mr. Bush can or should be indifferent to the attitudes of his European counterparts. They have agreed to put differences about Iraq behind them, which is good. The U.S., France and Germany also seem to be reasonably united in their concern about Russia's imperial pretensions and attenuated civil liberties. But potentially larger differences loom before them, above all over the nuclearization of Iran and the lifting of the post-Tiananmen arms embargo to China.
In each case, fundamental U.S. strategic interests--the security of Taiwan and Israel; the sovereignty of Iraq; naval supremacy in the Persian Gulf--stand at odds either with European commercial interests or ideological hobbyhorses (the French infatuation with "multipolarity"). If smoother diplomacy, both public and private, can avert another Iraq-style eruption without compromising U.S. interests, so much the better.
Then again, if Europe continues to demand a high price for its political favors, the Bush Administration would do well to shop for partners and ad hoc coalitions elsewhere. America's cultural links to Europe may be precious, but there is no law of nature or history that requires both sides of the Atlantic to act in concert. To the extent that Europeans continue to value the relationship, it is up to them to demonstrate it, chiefly by not acting as freelancers or spoilers in areas of vital U.S. concern.
Still, there are reasons to be sanguine about the future of trans-Atlantic relations. We are in no doubt that most European hearts thrilled to the sight of Iraqi voters going to the polls last month, suggesting that, whatever Europe and America's political or ideological differences, we remain alike in our innermost values and aspirations. Nor do we believe our world views are so divided that persuasion and compromise are impossible. Pundits may differ as to whether Mr. Bush and his European counterparts planted the seeds for a better relationship. What's sure is that they were planting on fertile soil.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Since 'Cease Fire' - A Bomb Every Day
As Israel finalizes plans to give away Gaza to Palestinian Authority control in light of the non-declared ceasefire, attempted terror attacks against Israeli targets are on the upswing.
"In the past three weeks," IDF sources reported, "we have discovered an explosive device on the average of one a day. This indicates a potentially dangerous method that terrorists have employed since the beginning of the ceasefire: They are simply filling the land with explosives.""At least some of the [bombs] have been planted under the noses of PA policemen," the sources said. Palestinian terrorists fired a Kassam rocket yesterday at the Gush Katif town of N'vei Dekalim, opened fire on soldiers in at least two instances, and fired a mortar shell towards Gadid. No one was injured and no damage was reported.Israeli soldiers discovered four bombs planted near Jewish towns in northern and southern Gaza yesterday. The bombs weighed a total of over 200 kilograms (440 pounds). Two of the bombs were found near the town of Rafiah, which straddles the Egyptian border. One of the devices was of the type used by Hizbullah terrorists in southern Lebanon. Two other bombs were discovered near Kibbutz Alumim, a religious kibbutz within Israel's pre-1967 borders.Military sources explained the dangers of the hidden explosive devices, which often look like rocks and are usually detonated through hidden wires: "Each explosive device is equal to several explosive belts, and it's clear that if an army vehicle trips a device, there will be injuries. But since we are talking about a roadside bomb attack, it is considered a 'passive act' without anyone even taking responsibility. This is considered legitimate by terrorist organizations."This morning (Sunday), IDF forces saw a terrorist cell trying to smuggle weapons across the Israeli-Egyptian border. The soldiers opened fire, killing two terrorists and wounding a third, who was apprehended by the Israelis. IDF officials were scratching their heads last week, asking themselves if there is something the PA knows that the Israelis don't. PA forces discovered no fewer than 12 arms-smuggling tunnels in the first four days of last week. By contrast, Israel discovered eight arms-smuggling tunnels in the past eight months. Yesterday, over 20 Gazan Arabs arrived at the gate of an IDF outpost near the N'vei Dekalim industrial zone. The soldiers did not respond, however, in keeping with new orders not to shoot without prior permission from the highest military echelons. Local residents who saw the incident reported that when security forces arrived on the scene, the Arabs left – but not before taking several boxes from the outpost entrance.On the other hand, in the framework of the goodwill gestures Israel is making to Abu Mazen, 16 terrorists who were transferred to Gaza during the past four years of warfare were allowed to return to their homes today. The Supreme Court, responding today to a petition against the intended release of 500 Palestinian terrorist, refused to intervene in the case.
"In the past three weeks," IDF sources reported, "we have discovered an explosive device on the average of one a day. This indicates a potentially dangerous method that terrorists have employed since the beginning of the ceasefire: They are simply filling the land with explosives.""At least some of the [bombs] have been planted under the noses of PA policemen," the sources said. Palestinian terrorists fired a Kassam rocket yesterday at the Gush Katif town of N'vei Dekalim, opened fire on soldiers in at least two instances, and fired a mortar shell towards Gadid. No one was injured and no damage was reported.Israeli soldiers discovered four bombs planted near Jewish towns in northern and southern Gaza yesterday. The bombs weighed a total of over 200 kilograms (440 pounds). Two of the bombs were found near the town of Rafiah, which straddles the Egyptian border. One of the devices was of the type used by Hizbullah terrorists in southern Lebanon. Two other bombs were discovered near Kibbutz Alumim, a religious kibbutz within Israel's pre-1967 borders.Military sources explained the dangers of the hidden explosive devices, which often look like rocks and are usually detonated through hidden wires: "Each explosive device is equal to several explosive belts, and it's clear that if an army vehicle trips a device, there will be injuries. But since we are talking about a roadside bomb attack, it is considered a 'passive act' without anyone even taking responsibility. This is considered legitimate by terrorist organizations."This morning (Sunday), IDF forces saw a terrorist cell trying to smuggle weapons across the Israeli-Egyptian border. The soldiers opened fire, killing two terrorists and wounding a third, who was apprehended by the Israelis. IDF officials were scratching their heads last week, asking themselves if there is something the PA knows that the Israelis don't. PA forces discovered no fewer than 12 arms-smuggling tunnels in the first four days of last week. By contrast, Israel discovered eight arms-smuggling tunnels in the past eight months. Yesterday, over 20 Gazan Arabs arrived at the gate of an IDF outpost near the N'vei Dekalim industrial zone. The soldiers did not respond, however, in keeping with new orders not to shoot without prior permission from the highest military echelons. Local residents who saw the incident reported that when security forces arrived on the scene, the Arabs left – but not before taking several boxes from the outpost entrance.On the other hand, in the framework of the goodwill gestures Israel is making to Abu Mazen, 16 terrorists who were transferred to Gaza during the past four years of warfare were allowed to return to their homes today. The Supreme Court, responding today to a petition against the intended release of 500 Palestinian terrorist, refused to intervene in the case.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Time Out for Terror?
Ehud Ya'ari's article in the Jerusalem Report today credits Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen) for putting a stop to the bloodletting of the last 52 months...
"The question now is what will be the nature of this truce, if it in fact stabilizes? What will be its political structure? Are we witnessing a hudna that reflects genuine recognition that the terror campaign boomeranged into failure? Or will it emerge as a mere opportunity for the armed factions to use the truce to make gains, something that Hamas and its ilk are stubbornly pressing for?"
"These are the three most important assets that these factions hope to acquire during the hudna:
* A time-out ...during which they can recover and regroup
* Participation in the PA's decision-making process
* Immunity against Israeli attacks, and the legitimisation of ...(terror)"
"The question now is what will be the nature of this truce, if it in fact stabilizes? What will be its political structure? Are we witnessing a hudna that reflects genuine recognition that the terror campaign boomeranged into failure? Or will it emerge as a mere opportunity for the armed factions to use the truce to make gains, something that Hamas and its ilk are stubbornly pressing for?"
"These are the three most important assets that these factions hope to acquire during the hudna:
* A time-out ...during which they can recover and regroup
* Participation in the PA's decision-making process
* Immunity against Israeli attacks, and the legitimisation of ...(terror)"
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Time Out for Terror?
Will Hamas use the cease-fire to become another Hizballah?
From Ehud Ya'ari, The Jerusalem Report
Whether it's called a hudna or by any other name, as of the end of January the cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was worthy of applause. Putting a stop to the bloodletting of the last 52 months is no mean achievement, and Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen) deserves credit for having the strength to part ways with the strategy of his predecessor, just as he had promised to do during his election campaign.
After a little teetering during his first days as ra'is of the PA, he demonstrated determination and perseverance, and all of a sudden it became clear - to those who had never realized it before - that it had indeed been none other than Yasser Arafat who stood in the way of ending the violence. Palestinian security forces, as if brought to life by the wave of a wand, deployed along the lines of engagement, and brought about a dramatic reduction in the volume of terrorism of all kinds.
The question now is what will be the nature of this truce, if it in fact stabilizes? What will be its political structure? Are we witnessing a hudna that reflects genuine recognition that the terror campaign boomeranged into failure? Or will it emerge as a mere opportunity for the armed factions to use the truce to make gains, something that Hamas and its ilk are stubbornly pressing for?
These are the three most important assets that these factions hope to acquire during the hudna:
* A time-out for an unspecified period, during which they can recover and regroup, after the blows they have sustained at the hands of the Israeli army and the Shin Bet. Their main aim will be to upgrade their rockets so that they can threaten Ashkelon.
* Participation in the PA's decision-making process, in a manner that could tie Abu Mazen's hands to a certain extent. This would happen first within a leadership framework in which Hamas and its cohorts would sit with Abu Mazen's people and oversee negotiations with Israel, and second, through the elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council, on July 17, which, after an anticipated change in the election law, should see these factions gaining substantial parliamentary representation. Hamas's landslide victory in Gaza's latest round of municipal elections demonstrates the scope of the threat.
* Immunity against Israeli attacks, and the legitimation of a "resistance" movement within the PA, by means of guarantees from Sharon to discontinue the attacks, and assurances from Abu Mazen that he'll refrain from disarming Hamas.
There is a risk that along with the instant short-term advantages expected to accrue as a result of the cease-fire, in the long term, a "cohabitation" arrangement will emerge between the PA and the unholy alliance of terrorist gangs. Under such an arrangement the cease-fire would entail - even implicitly - Israeli reconciliation to the existence of armed groups outside of the PA's legitimate security apparatus. These forces would have an agenda differing from that of Abu Mazen and the capability of conducting an independent military policy.
This would amount to a copy of the Lebanese model, where Hizballah exists alongside the legitimate government as an armed movement, equipped with thousands of long-range rockets. Hizballah, just as in the scenario envisaged for itself by Hamas, is represented in the parliament in Beirut and takes part in all the elections, but maintains an independent policy along the border with Israel, and initiates incidents without recourse to the approval of the central government.
Becoming a Palestinian version of Hizballah is exactly what Khaled Mashal, the head of the Hamas political bureau is aiming for. Like the Lebanese movement's Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, he too would try to avoid confrontations with the authorities and to adapt his activities to the sensitivities of the government. But, whenever he deemed it necessary, when changing circumstances required it, he would open fire and launch attacks. Hamas, like Hizballah, wants to reserve the right to decide when this or that Israeli action calls for a violent response.
Israel at the moment has no choice but to show understanding for Abu Mazen's reluctance to enter a confrontation with the armed organizations, but this does not mean that Prime Minister Sharon can accept a system that preserves the terrorist power of Hamas and allows it a role in the decision-making process. In order to avert the dangers that such a system would represent, it is vital to enlist international support for the position that the hudna is only a stage in the removal of the terrorist threat, and not a means of strengthening it. For if this is not made clear, Hamas and its satellites will have it in their power to decide if and when the time has come for intifada No. 3.
From Ehud Ya'ari, The Jerusalem Report
Whether it's called a hudna or by any other name, as of the end of January the cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was worthy of applause. Putting a stop to the bloodletting of the last 52 months is no mean achievement, and Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen) deserves credit for having the strength to part ways with the strategy of his predecessor, just as he had promised to do during his election campaign.
After a little teetering during his first days as ra'is of the PA, he demonstrated determination and perseverance, and all of a sudden it became clear - to those who had never realized it before - that it had indeed been none other than Yasser Arafat who stood in the way of ending the violence. Palestinian security forces, as if brought to life by the wave of a wand, deployed along the lines of engagement, and brought about a dramatic reduction in the volume of terrorism of all kinds.
The question now is what will be the nature of this truce, if it in fact stabilizes? What will be its political structure? Are we witnessing a hudna that reflects genuine recognition that the terror campaign boomeranged into failure? Or will it emerge as a mere opportunity for the armed factions to use the truce to make gains, something that Hamas and its ilk are stubbornly pressing for?
These are the three most important assets that these factions hope to acquire during the hudna:
* A time-out for an unspecified period, during which they can recover and regroup, after the blows they have sustained at the hands of the Israeli army and the Shin Bet. Their main aim will be to upgrade their rockets so that they can threaten Ashkelon.
* Participation in the PA's decision-making process, in a manner that could tie Abu Mazen's hands to a certain extent. This would happen first within a leadership framework in which Hamas and its cohorts would sit with Abu Mazen's people and oversee negotiations with Israel, and second, through the elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council, on July 17, which, after an anticipated change in the election law, should see these factions gaining substantial parliamentary representation. Hamas's landslide victory in Gaza's latest round of municipal elections demonstrates the scope of the threat.
* Immunity against Israeli attacks, and the legitimation of a "resistance" movement within the PA, by means of guarantees from Sharon to discontinue the attacks, and assurances from Abu Mazen that he'll refrain from disarming Hamas.
There is a risk that along with the instant short-term advantages expected to accrue as a result of the cease-fire, in the long term, a "cohabitation" arrangement will emerge between the PA and the unholy alliance of terrorist gangs. Under such an arrangement the cease-fire would entail - even implicitly - Israeli reconciliation to the existence of armed groups outside of the PA's legitimate security apparatus. These forces would have an agenda differing from that of Abu Mazen and the capability of conducting an independent military policy.
This would amount to a copy of the Lebanese model, where Hizballah exists alongside the legitimate government as an armed movement, equipped with thousands of long-range rockets. Hizballah, just as in the scenario envisaged for itself by Hamas, is represented in the parliament in Beirut and takes part in all the elections, but maintains an independent policy along the border with Israel, and initiates incidents without recourse to the approval of the central government.
Becoming a Palestinian version of Hizballah is exactly what Khaled Mashal, the head of the Hamas political bureau is aiming for. Like the Lebanese movement's Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, he too would try to avoid confrontations with the authorities and to adapt his activities to the sensitivities of the government. But, whenever he deemed it necessary, when changing circumstances required it, he would open fire and launch attacks. Hamas, like Hizballah, wants to reserve the right to decide when this or that Israeli action calls for a violent response.
Israel at the moment has no choice but to show understanding for Abu Mazen's reluctance to enter a confrontation with the armed organizations, but this does not mean that Prime Minister Sharon can accept a system that preserves the terrorist power of Hamas and allows it a role in the decision-making process. In order to avert the dangers that such a system would represent, it is vital to enlist international support for the position that the hudna is only a stage in the removal of the terrorist threat, and not a means of strengthening it. For if this is not made clear, Hamas and its satellites will have it in their power to decide if and when the time has come for intifada No. 3.
Monday, January 17, 2005
What Israel did to help in the tsunami
israelinsider: diplomacy:
By Israeli Foreign Ministry January 17, 2005
Follow this link for an official summary of assistance to tsunami disaster victims given by Israel, Israeli groups, and individuals giving in Israel's name to tsunami disaster victims in Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia.
By Israeli Foreign Ministry January 17, 2005
Follow this link for an official summary of assistance to tsunami disaster victims given by Israel, Israeli groups, and individuals giving in Israel's name to tsunami disaster victims in Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia.
Monday, January 03, 2005
Israeli Teams at Tsunami sites
From Arutz Sheva 2/1/05, about Israeli reaction to tsunami....
"Finding and identifying four bodies out of thousands of bodies lying here is something no one else was able to do." So says Yehuda Meshi-Zahav, head of the Zaka rescue-and-recovery organization.
"The Israeli delegation [in southeast Asia] has become famous," Meshi-Zahav told Yediot Acharonot. "All the other countries are looking for us, a small country with our relatively small delegation, to get advice."
The Israeli delegation, headed by Police Identification Department Head Shalom Tzarum, together with the Zaka volunteers, managed to do what no other country came close to doing. "We're the only national delegation here among the bodies," Meshi-Zahav said. "No other country has shown such concern for its citizens."
While Israel's Foreign Ministry offices were manned 24 hours a day last week fielding phone calls and trying to locate 1,700 Israelis vacationing in Thailand and the vicinity, one of the first things Swedish Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds did upon learning of the tsunami was to go to the opera. She did not show up for work until 31 hours after the earthquake. The Swedish government estimates that more than 20,000 of its citizens were in Thailand when the tidal wave struck. In addition to the 60 confirmed dead, 3,559 Swedes were still missing as of last night.
Four Israelis have been confirmed dead in the tsunami disaster. In addition to the previously identified victims Hemda Cohen and Sharon Haliel, two more have been added to the list of confirmed dead: Zohar Aloni, 24, from Rehovot, and Esther Levy, 58, from Raanana. Three of the four will be buried in Israel today. Of the five Israelis who remained missing as of last night, two were located safe and sound this morning.
Many volunteer organizations in Israel are banding together to collect donations of goods, funds and other aid for the tsunami-stricken areas. The National Council for Volunteerism, with the cooperation of other organizations including Magen David Adom, the Kibbutz Movement and Latet (To Give), will send a shipment of tons of humanitarian aid and food in the coming days. Donations can be made (in Israel) by calling 057-740-0030.
The government of Sri Lanka, the island country south of India whose death toll is nearing 30,000, sent a letter of thanks to Israel for its help. The Sri Lankan ambassador in the United Nations, sent a letter to his Israeli counterpart Danny Gillerman denying that his country had refused Israeli help for political reasons. "The Sri Lankan government and people," he wrote, "greatly appreciate the help that Israel granted us in this time of distress, in the form of food, medical equipment and rescue forces." He explained that the reason his government asked Israel to "temporarily delay the arrival of the 150-man team" was because the tsunami had destroyed the country's ability to host foreigners, including hotels, and had closed off the vicinity of the airport. "The Sri Lankan authorities are interested in leaving the door open for the arrival of additional Israeli experts when necessary," the ambassador wrote.
"Finding and identifying four bodies out of thousands of bodies lying here is something no one else was able to do." So says Yehuda Meshi-Zahav, head of the Zaka rescue-and-recovery organization.
"The Israeli delegation [in southeast Asia] has become famous," Meshi-Zahav told Yediot Acharonot. "All the other countries are looking for us, a small country with our relatively small delegation, to get advice."
The Israeli delegation, headed by Police Identification Department Head Shalom Tzarum, together with the Zaka volunteers, managed to do what no other country came close to doing. "We're the only national delegation here among the bodies," Meshi-Zahav said. "No other country has shown such concern for its citizens."
While Israel's Foreign Ministry offices were manned 24 hours a day last week fielding phone calls and trying to locate 1,700 Israelis vacationing in Thailand and the vicinity, one of the first things Swedish Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds did upon learning of the tsunami was to go to the opera. She did not show up for work until 31 hours after the earthquake. The Swedish government estimates that more than 20,000 of its citizens were in Thailand when the tidal wave struck. In addition to the 60 confirmed dead, 3,559 Swedes were still missing as of last night.
Four Israelis have been confirmed dead in the tsunami disaster. In addition to the previously identified victims Hemda Cohen and Sharon Haliel, two more have been added to the list of confirmed dead: Zohar Aloni, 24, from Rehovot, and Esther Levy, 58, from Raanana. Three of the four will be buried in Israel today. Of the five Israelis who remained missing as of last night, two were located safe and sound this morning.
Many volunteer organizations in Israel are banding together to collect donations of goods, funds and other aid for the tsunami-stricken areas. The National Council for Volunteerism, with the cooperation of other organizations including Magen David Adom, the Kibbutz Movement and Latet (To Give), will send a shipment of tons of humanitarian aid and food in the coming days. Donations can be made (in Israel) by calling 057-740-0030.
The government of Sri Lanka, the island country south of India whose death toll is nearing 30,000, sent a letter of thanks to Israel for its help. The Sri Lankan ambassador in the United Nations, sent a letter to his Israeli counterpart Danny Gillerman denying that his country had refused Israeli help for political reasons. "The Sri Lankan government and people," he wrote, "greatly appreciate the help that Israel granted us in this time of distress, in the form of food, medical equipment and rescue forces." He explained that the reason his government asked Israel to "temporarily delay the arrival of the 150-man team" was because the tsunami had destroyed the country's ability to host foreigners, including hotels, and had closed off the vicinity of the airport. "The Sri Lankan authorities are interested in leaving the door open for the arrival of additional Israeli experts when necessary," the ambassador wrote.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Israel Sends Doctors, Supplies To Aid Tsunami Victims
From the UJA web site...
Israel Sends Doctors, Supplies To Aid Tsunami Victims:
By Leora Eren Frucht
December 29, 2004
Israeli doctors were among the first foreign medical personnel to reach Sri Lanka in the aftermath of Sunday's devastating tsunami that left thousands dead in that country alone.
'We got a phone call that we were needed, and three hours later we were at the airport,' said Prof. Avi Rivkind, head of both the Department of Surgery and Trauma Unit at Hadassah University Hospital, Ein Karem in Jerusalem. Rivkind flew to the battered country on Sunday night, along with three other Hadassah physicians, who specialize in rescue operations, trauma and pediatrics.
Israel had also mobilized some 150 army doctors and rescue and relief teams who were planning to set up a field hospital in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan government, however, declined that offer of help, leading Israel to reduce the scope of its planned humanitarian mission.
Instead the government sent a small number of Israel Defense Forces personnel to accompany an 82-ton planeload of relief supplies, including medicine, water, food, blankets, tents, nylon sheeting and electric generators. A plane that left overnight Tuesday to Sri Lanka contained 10,000 blankets, 3,680 liters of mineral water, 12 tons of food, 17.5 tons of baby food and over nine tons of medicine."
Follow the link for more detail.
Israel Sends Doctors, Supplies To Aid Tsunami Victims:
By Leora Eren Frucht
December 29, 2004
Israeli doctors were among the first foreign medical personnel to reach Sri Lanka in the aftermath of Sunday's devastating tsunami that left thousands dead in that country alone.
'We got a phone call that we were needed, and three hours later we were at the airport,' said Prof. Avi Rivkind, head of both the Department of Surgery and Trauma Unit at Hadassah University Hospital, Ein Karem in Jerusalem. Rivkind flew to the battered country on Sunday night, along with three other Hadassah physicians, who specialize in rescue operations, trauma and pediatrics.
Israel had also mobilized some 150 army doctors and rescue and relief teams who were planning to set up a field hospital in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan government, however, declined that offer of help, leading Israel to reduce the scope of its planned humanitarian mission.
Instead the government sent a small number of Israel Defense Forces personnel to accompany an 82-ton planeload of relief supplies, including medicine, water, food, blankets, tents, nylon sheeting and electric generators. A plane that left overnight Tuesday to Sri Lanka contained 10,000 blankets, 3,680 liters of mineral water, 12 tons of food, 17.5 tons of baby food and over nine tons of medicine."
Follow the link for more detail.
Israeli Aid in Tsunami
Israeli Aid, Unreported: "Israeli Aid, Unreported
All major media outlets ignore Israel's massive humanitarian aid to South Asia - an indication of a national ethos of caring.
When disaster strikes anywhere in the world, Israelis can be counted on to help. So it's no surprise that within hours of the devastating tsunami in the Indian Ocean, the following humanitarian missions all departed from the tiny Jewish state:
- The Israeli organization Latet ('To Give') filled a jumbo jet with 18 tons of supplies.
- A medical team headed by four doctors from Jerusalem's Hadassah Hospital arrived in Sri Lanka on Monday night (Dec. 27), carrying medicine and baby food. The doctors specialize in rescue operations, trauma and pediatrics.
- An IDF rescue team is now on its way to Sri Lanka with 80 tons of aid material, including 10,000 blankets, tents, nylon sheeting and water containers, all contributed by the IDF.
- A ZAKA rescue-and-recovery team arrived in the disaster areas Monday night, armed with its specialized equipment for identifying bodies.
- A Health Ministry contingent left for Thailand on Monday night to aid in rescue efforts. The group includes doctors, nurses and four members of the IDF.
- Israel has also offered its assistance to India ? a search-and-rescue team from the Home Front Command, as well as consignments of food and medicine.
Yet, with the exception of UPI (as of this writing - Tues. 4pm EST), none of the major news outlets have dedicated an article to this remarkable Israeli humanitarian effort. This, despite the fact that the IDF sent all Israel-based journalists a press release Monday evening (Dec. 27), inviting them to the airport to cover the departure of one IDF group.
This is all the more surprising given the fact that the major news agencies have entire teams of reporters in Israel, who submit at least one 'Israel-article' each day.
So what did the Associated Press send out today to its 15,000 subscribing news agencies? A dreary story about the construction of a new IDF base near Jenin. AP sarcastically remarked in this 'news' story that the base's 'elaborate color scheme and landscaping shows that the army is not planning to pull its forces out of the area anytime soon.'
The lack of media interest in this Israeli humanitarian effort means that Israeli benevolence toward other peoples is not fairly conveyed to the western world. Perhaps if it were conveyed, observers would come to understand something else ― that Israel's response to Palestinian violence is also motivated by the highest ethical concern for all human life, and is not (as the media so often portray it) driven by an oppressive, mean-spirited national ethos.
UPDATE 1/1/05: Two days after this communique was published, Associated Press released an article on the Israeli aid to tsunami victims, and followed up with another article the next day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)