The Little Victories....

By John

Are often right in front of our noses.

For example...

JERUSALEM - When Jacky Ben Sheetrit opened a gourmet Belgian chocolate shop in downtown Jerusalem, he gave little thought to the suicide bombings down the block a few years earlier that had threatened to turn the area into a ghost town.

Instead, he took his cue from the five new cafes across the street, the crowds of pedestrians and a multimillion dollar city plan to turn the rundown neighborhood into a vibrant center of commerce and culture.

"What was in the past, was in the past," Ben Sheetrit said. "I know that this area has a lot of potential."

Other business owners have also bet on a Jerusalem renaissance. In recent months a flood of new stores — clothing chains, shops selling art and pottery, designer glasses and handbags — have opened along Jaffa Street and the adjacent Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall.

While moneychangers, T-shirt stores and dollar shops still line the streets, city officials say new businesses such as Ben Sheetrit's are restoring the area's prestige and speeding the transformation of the center of Israel's largest city into a leafy, peaceful, European-style downtown.

AP couldn't bear to call it "Israel's capital," I guess.

This is truly heartwarming news....though when I visited in 2003, when the fires from the Second Intafada were still cooling, downtown Jerusalem appeared exactly as it is described in the article. Malls were full (though you had to cross through a security checkpoint to enter), traffic bustling along, while Israelis sipped coffee at outdoor cafes.

All that commerce, mind you, existed despite the fact that Yasser Arafat had declared Jerusalem to be his killing ground of choice during the Intafada. The Israelis, those brave people, simply decided that they would not dignify with Arafat's bullying with a response outside of firm military action.

And one big honking security barrier. Which also happens to be the point where this article takes a nosedive:

But Jerusalem has more than one heart. Forty years ago next month, Israel captured the Arab sector in the June 1967 war. Today, in contrast to Jaffa Street and surroundings in Jewish west Jerusalem, the Arabs of east Jerusalem complain that things are getting worse.

They say many of their neighborhoods still lack paved roads or sewage, and that the separation barrier Israel built to shield the city from suicide bombers has cut off east Jerusalem from the West Bank and forced many Palestinian cultural, commercial and social institutions to move 10 miles north to the West Bank city of Ramallah.

"Jerusalem is dying. Ramallah became the center of the West Bank," said Rami Nasrallah, head of the International Peace and Cooperation Center in Jerusalem.

Somehow, someway, it's always the Jews fault.

Let me tell you about walking into Arab East Jerusalem, through the fabled Lion's Gate. Transversing from the Jewish quarter to the Arab quarter is like stepping off of a Paris street and into downtown Mogadishu. The Israelis keep their Jerusalem neighborhoods spotless, simply immaculate. Not a spot of trash anywhere, not even the occasional stray cigarette butt. They treat the entire city with the same reverence as we Catholics treat our Churches. They treat it like a place of God.

The Arabs, despite all their rage, despite all of the innocent blood that they spill in the name of that holy swath of territory, treat the city like an old, filthy brothel. Apparently Jerusalem is worth to them the price of Israeli blood, but not worth the cost of basic waste management. Trash piled up on either side of the worn road leading in through the Lion's Gate. Palestinians stood around, doing nothing, some panhandling, the others idely watching our group -and their lives- pass by. And it smelled.

This was before the Wall was built, mind you. So forgive me if I point and call bullsh*t on any riduculous claim that the Palestinians' inability to maintain even the most basic of sanitation and public works is the fault of the Jews and their evil security barrier.

Oh, and final thought. That wonderful new terror-free environment in downtown Jerusalem? It was the direct result of Ariel Sharon's security barrier. To report on a flourishing Jerusalem while excluding that simple, incontrovertible fact is criminal.

**Update** Our friend Robert Averch points out that when the Israelis do provide basic services to the Palestinians, they are rewarded with rocket attacks.

Seraphic Secret has already pointed out that Gaza gets its electricity from Israel. In other words, Israel is supplying the terrorists with the power they need to continue their murderous attacks on Israel.

To the charge that shutting off the power to Gaza is collective punishment, we see no reason why the so-called Palestinian people should not be subject to retaliation for the actions of the government they have elected. That is what war is all about: punishing a people for the governments they have chosen. And no people deserve more punishment than the so-called Palestinians who have enthusiastically chosen one genocidal regime after another.

Indeed. No good deed goes unpunished. Especially if you happen to be Israeli.

May 22, 2007 12:32 PM The Long War

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/988

Comments

*Bravo*, John! Brilliant comparison between the states in which the city is kept. The Jews are most fortunate to have Christian allies like you.

Jerusalem is our holiest and more treasured city. A city founded by Jews and a city that was taken from us by more powerful Empires. We captured it only after Jordan launched an offensive against us during the Six Days war.

You cannot reward a people who initiated and lost a war with the very territory they lost. Under any law of war, Jerusalem belongs to the Jews.

Gil Roy · May 22, 2007 01:39 PM

Jerusalem is great history. And West Jerualem is a very neat city. East Jerusalem, not so much........

My Israeli friend NEVER missed the opportunity to point that out to me when I was there in 1992.

However for a good time....go to Tel Aviv.

Skippy-san · May 24, 2007 02:53 AM

Interesting:

A city founded by Jews and a city . . . -- wrong--Jerusalem was inhabited long before there were Jews in that part of the world, probably before Abraham was "a jew"--maybe as far back as 5000 BC from what I've read.

We captured it only after Jordan launched an offensive against us during the Six Days war--also not true. Strictly speaking, Israel fired the first shot in 1967, on the belief that Jordan and other Arab countries were about to attack, but before they actually did.

Small points, perhaps, but details matter in this area. Does nobody know that the Israeli military occupation authorities still control a lot of what MAY be done by the Palestinian authority in their nominally autonomous areas? Do you know that their water is severly rationed by Israel, for example, at about 1/6 what is allowed per capita for an Israeli?

John--a good Catholic I suppose? Do you know who all the Catholics are in Palestine? Hint--they're not Israeli Jews, they're Arab. Do you now what the Holy Father's feeling is on the situation in the Holy Land, and for the preservation of the Church there? Or does a Catholic Arab really not deserve your support or sympathy because he's an Arab, and an Arab is by definition a terrorist? So maybe this isn't about a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian for you, but instead it's about race?

the Colonel · May 29, 2007 09:00 AM

While the Israelis "may" have fired the first round, the Arabs had truly provoked the conflict. First, Egypt closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Second, Syria began massing troops near the Golan. Third, Egypt moved the bulk of its forces into Sinai, after Nasser coerced the UN to move its troops out. Jordan, stuck between a rock (Arab unity) and a hard place (West Bank Palestinians) opted to move troops into the West Bank at the prodding of the recently arrived Egyptian liaison commander. The Arabs got exactly what they wanted, Israel to fire the first shot.

Currently, Hamas is attempting to goad the Israelis into firing the first shot at Gaza. Somehow, the press and international community seems to think daily Qassam barrages into Sderot do not count. Thankfully, some rational heads in Israel have prevailed. More importantly, if the Palestinians ever accepted the independent and federated state agreement, they could truly begin tackling the problems that face them.

Instead, the Palestinians continue to be responsible for their own fate. Instead of working for their own collective good, they fight each other for power. Instead of recognizing Israel's right to exist, they lash out at a state that has given them opportunity after opportunity to co-exist.

This is not about race. This is about recognizing a group for what they are - people who have refused to assimilate, who have turned their back on rational discourse, and who have been rejected by their own race(?). Woe might be them, but it isn't Israel's fault.

VFRMarine · May 30, 2007 10:30 AM

I find we agree on the facts in paragraph 1, which is excellent.

I think the fact that the rocket attacks from Gaza appear "not to count" is reflective of the broader view, outside the US and Israel, that the Israelis occupy the land outside their 1948 borders "illegally". Now, we could argue for years about what is illegal or not, or the value of the UN, and on the relative efficacy of the attacks, which is nil, but that's not the point. The point is what people think and what that thinking makes them do.

I think it would be fair to agree that the PA and the rest of the Arab World have agreed on a 2 state solution based on UN 242 and and more specifically, on a 2 state solution with the border at the Green Line. Or do you discount the Saudi initiative's sincerity? If so, why?

Many opportunities to co-exist--Being a US Marine, I would hope that if somebody offered you a similar "opportunity" to that offered in the last round of offers, Sharm Al Sheik in about 1999 I believe, you would still be fighting to prevent that opportunity's being imposed on our country.

The assimilation piece is interesting, too. Is it your view that the Palestinians who currently live in the West Bank and Gaza would be in better shape if Israel were to annex all the territory, grant full citizenship to all those non-Jewish Arabs, and that they would then live in blissful, democratic equality in the still Jewish State of Israel?

If someone offered you, a Catholic US Marine, the opportunity to live in the Jewish State of (pick a name), would you jump at that opportunity? How would that be different from living in, say, Saudi Arabia, a Muslim country, or Jordan, ditto, but one tolerant of Catholics? (all of Jordan lies within the Archdiocese of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem).

the Colonel · May 30, 2007 02:24 PM

the Colonel - many interesting points. I'm encouraged by the opportunity for debate. One thing at the outset, I'm not Catholic, or otherwise Christian.

The question of what people think is precisely what has been driving Israeli politics since 1967. Both major political parties, Labor and Likud have centered their positions on what to do with the land "acquired" in 1967. When Ariel Sharon formed Kadima, he did it with the express intent to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza, which was accomplished, and the West Bank, on hold - at best. Withdrawal, which gave the Palestinians exactly what they wanted, has caused a whole new set of problems.

With the Israelis out of Gaza, the PA and Hamas are now forced to actually govern. The entity to whom they continually pointed the finger of blame is no longer present. Hamas must make good on its political promises. However, its inability to recognize Israel has hamstrung its ability to govern. So, it opens the Qassam barrages in an effort to re-unite the Palestinians. For now, Israel isn't biting.

The Saudi peace initiative is probably part of a broader plan for the region. Specifically, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are leery of the Shia "uprising" sponsored by Iran, through its Hezbollah, and other similar groups, proxy. Thus, these "moderate" Arab states can legitimize Israel in the Arab world and benefit from Israeli support against the Shia. Simply, the Shia pose too great a threat to each of the aforesaid country's governments to be ignored. To that extent, because there is something to be gained, the Saudi plan is genuine.

On the assimilation/annexation point, Israel should not make the first move. From one point of view, joining a federated state of Israel makes sense for the Palestinians. They could achieve their goal of returning, if they join the political process. Israel is currently having a discussion about what kind of state it actually is - a democratic state which is predominantly Jewish?; a Jewish state that is democratic?; or perhaps just a Jewish state? As current birth rates progress, Jews will be outnumbered by Arabs in the near future.

Considering Israel's scientific, economic, technological, and sociological contributions to society against those of the Arab countries you listed, I'd jump at the chance to live there. Throughout history, predominantly Catholic countries (Italy, Spain, Portugal) have not been too considerate of other religions. In contrast, the Ottomans were fairly tolerant, moreso at the beginning of their dynasty than the end. But, current Muslim states are not the paragon of tolerance either. Frankly, I'm surprised at how quiet the Vatican has been over the years...

VFRMarine · May 31, 2007 05:40 AM

VFRMarine,

Sorry, I thought you were the same "John" who made the original post, and he seemed to say he was Catholic.

Well, it is a certain thing that it is easier to be in oppostion than to actually govern, which our own Democratic party has recently re-discovered to their everlasting confusion. Hamas has opportunities, I suspect they understand them, but they like most of the factions in the region are somewhat captive to their own ideological roots. All of them, including Likud and Labor in Israel, find it difficult now to publicly think and act contrary to the ideologies that have defined them for over 50 years.

I think one has to be careful of statements like "gave the Palestinians exactly what they wanted". I don't think any Palestinian I have ever heard of has ever said "what we want is withdrawal from Gaza only". The fact is that Gaza is an isolated enclave which, while bordering Egypt, does not control that border or any other. It's been a few months since I paid close attention, but at that time there were plenty of stories of individual businessmen, lots of them farmers, who could neither receive commercial merchandise for their shops or ship their perishable produce outbound because of Israeli control of the only (or two possibly) crossings. They cannot have an airport, they cannot ship by sea without Israeli permission. In short, the withdrawal did nothing for the Palestinians except remove the settlers--they are still prisoners in their own land. And so they fight . . .if you lived there, what would you do?

Sovereignty is a messy business for amateurs, I think, and Hamas is nothing if not amateur: so is Fatah. It will take time for them to learn. Don't get me wrong, either: I frankly think the Palestinians are their own worst enemy most of the time, but I think much of the time the Israelis are also their own worst enemies. What bothers me is that the United States is so tangled up with the Israelis, but that this relationship does not serve US interests in any way (how's that for provocative?).

That latter draws me back to the point I was originally trying to make with my somewhat rhetorical queries. Way, way too many Americans "believe" things about the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and about Israel, without knowing any facts at all. They presume for example that all democracies are like American democracy, which or course is utterly wrong. In the case of Israel, this assumption is even more incorrect, leads to all sorts of visions of purity and goodness that are also utterly wrong, but nonetheless splashes a patina of righteousness over the entire behavior of the Israelis, their ambitions, and the quality of their governance.

In turn, Americans see good guys and bad guys, Israelis and Arabs (for that word, substitute "terrorist", "muslim", or Palestinian, they are all the same to most Americans) and the good guys are always Israel. Yet Americans believe in law, fairness, equality, and yet none of these things is anything like real in Israeli action. As an occupying power they are by any objective standard not much better than the Soviets were, if not in some cases worse. They are in violation of the Geneva Conventions relative to the settlements and forced deportatons, which are a fact of US policy if not of US action on that score.

And yet, to most Americans, the Israelis can do no wrong.

My original point was that guys like you, who are both in command of most if not all of the facts AND have the benefit of extensive experience in the region (albeit perhaps none of it in a place that was not a combat zone?), AND possibly even speak Arabic, ought to do a better job of telling the story, rather than spewing the same hooah pablum that most people like to read because it reinforces what they already believe. It teaches them nothing.

Guys like you and me and John and whoever else posts here, we are quite possibly the people in this country with the best understanding of who is out there, who is the enemy of the United States, and who is not. There are plenty of talking heads on TV that can pander to what people already believe, but who at their roots are simple entertainers who know nothing and think nothing. We have a responsibility here, I think, to do better. Duty if you like. . .

steps off soap box. . .

the Colonel · June 2, 2007 06:51 AM