Author: Jonathan Boyko

My name’s Jonathan Boyko. I am 25 y/o PC tech guy, working in Jerusalem, Israel. Prior to my current work, I server for three years in the Israeli Defense Force, Combat Engineering Corps, which taught me a lot. My views are usually conservative, although I am far from being far Right. In my view, I hold sane views. For example: I believe radical Islam should be battled against, hard – but that does not label all Muslims as terrorists. I believe the Israeli electoral system should be changed immediately – but presidential rule really would not work here. I believe the ultra-orthodox in Israel shouldn’t be forced to serve in the military – but should be forced to do at least a year’s service for the country (within civilian infrastructure). That is me. Some like calling me radical. Some like blaming me for not going far enough. But that is what sane is all about. I look at both sides fairly, use the facts and do my best not to allow my judgment to be clouded by emotions. I also believe I should share my view on current US President, Barack Obama. First and foremost, I do not add the Hussein in his name, as many due, some attempting to point out to his non-existent Muslim background. Knowing he is part Kenyan, it is easily comprehendible his father added the Arab middle name and there is nothing pejorative about that. Man’s name is just a name. I do, however, disagree with most of his views. I do not believe more overall spending would solve the problem, and I believe US government should have taken a more creative approach to get out of the current recession, instead of bombing corporations with money. While it might be inevitable in some cases, in others the situation could be solved with minimal influx of dough. I also disagree with President’s stand on Israel: tying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with Iranian issue is wrong – those have nothing to do with each other. The fact that both Israel and Iran are Middle Eastern countries does not make the issues interconnected.

The Failure of the Left

Despite mass efforts to promote the rally – with slogan ‘Zionists do not settle’ – the protests on Jerusalem’s Zion square saw as few as 1,000 participants. This number is a mere freckle on the picture of Right’s protests, which usually garner between fifty and two hundred thousand protesters. True, both demonstrations took place in enemy’s den – the Leftists protested in Jerusalem, while most radical Left resides in central Israel, thus somewhat explaining the low attendance. Yet, settlers’ protests usually take place in Tel-Aviv – the spiritual home of the anti-settler movement – and still manage to reach dozens of thousands.

The rally perfectly illustrated the issues Israeli Left copes with on a daily basis. The support among Israeli population dwindles – the radical MERETZ party received only three votes in recent elections, over half her seats from a decade and a half ago. As support for Israeli Palestinian factions keeps steady – they received 11 in recent elections – the overall radical Left-wing representation stands at a bit over 10 per cent of total seats. With current Prime Minister having support of twice as many seats from his own party, the Left has very little choice but to remain in stringent opposition – position it holds for several past election cycles.

The most interesting case here is the MERETZ party. While it is inhabited with radicals, they do indeed call themselves Zionists, hence the slogans in recent protest. Yet, as with any extremists rhetoric – they fail to persuade Israeli voter their cause is just. MERETZ failed to explain to Israeli electorate why allowing Arab terrorists gain better access to most – if not all – Israeli territory is a good idea. Instead, the party – infested by self-proclaimed elite, educated and brainwashes in Israeli universities and colleges – looks down to the everyday Israeli, considering them daft, unable to comprehend the greatness of their plans.

Moreover, in recent months, the Left decided to shift gears, to become more violent and more disrespectful of Israeli public’s opinion. The radicals participate in weekly riots in Palestinian towns of Bil’in and Naalin, which already caused millions of dollars in damage to the security fence constructed there. Protests in East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood leave police officers injured every week. The Leftists tour Judea and Samaria daily, documenting illegal construction in Jewish settlements, yet uphold Palestinians’ right to construct illegally within Israel. In a recent, particularly disgusting case, radical Left-wing activists attempted to interrupt a memorial for slain paratroopers of 71st Battalion, held in Sheikh Jarrah.

The violence further underscores Left’s hypocrisy, when it comes to Israelis and Palestinians. When radical Left-wing groups claim they stand for human rights – they lie. They stand for Palestinians’ rights. That is precisely why B’Tselem, Peace Now, Breaking the Silence, Machsom Watch and a slew of others are Palestinians’ rights groups, not human rights. These people, who consider themselves to be liberal, who stand for modern respect of a person’s right to live, never took to the streets when a ten-months-old Shalhevet Pass was show by Palestinian sniper. They never clashed with Palestinians following murder of 21 people – thirteen of them under the age of 18. They never called for IDF to rush Ramallah with tanks when 30 people were murdered during religious ceremony, on Passover 2002. There people only care for one group of humans, but not the other.

The Left’s achievements on Israeli arena – such as the fight for woman’s rights – pale in contrast with its outrageous fight against Israel and in direct favor of Palestinians. Receiving most of its fiscal support from overseas – various European governments and pro-Palestinian NGOs – the Left works outright against Israeli public. As with any radicals – including the Right-wing – they are a small group of disturbed individuals, most of them angry – at everyone else but themselves. Fighting them is not worth it, but understanding their actions is important. Many of them – without realizing so – are direct agents of international governments and self-interested, rich groups, attempting to influence Israeli politics – and indeed future – through the meager group of individuals looking at everyone down their nose.

Antiquities authorities decry desecration of Jewish holiest

While hundreds of reports fed by Palestinian sources claim Israel destroys holy Muslim sites, no one seems to care for constant desecration of holiest site for the Jews – the Temple Mount:

“It is the most important site in the world for the Jewish people,” Barkai told Benny Tucker of Arutz Sheva’s Hebrew newsmagazine in a Jerusalem Day interview, “as well as the most important archaeological site in Israel, and despite all this, Israel has abandoned it. Over the past ten years, the Waqf has taken control, making major changes in the status quo: It has conducted illegal digs, built mosques and the like, and the situation has changed from one extreme to the other.”

“Some years ago,” he said, “they took 400 truckloads of dirt from the Temple Mount and dumped it into the Kidron Valley – totally illegally. This is dirt that is filled with Jewish history from many periods: the Canaanites, the First Temple, the period of the return to Zion [from Babylonia], the Second Temple, including the Hashmonaim period and King Herod, and up to now. Over the past several years, we have been sifting through the dirt. This is of course not the optimum way to perform archaeology, because you need context, layers and the like, but this is the best we can do in light of these barbaric digs, and we are trying to get the most out of it. Jerusalem is filled with archaeological digs, but the most important site has never been done; this dirt is the only source we have.”

(Channel 7 News)

SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER the beginning of the second intifada, Israeli news channels displayed video after video of large trucks leaving the Temple Mount compound full of rubble. Afterwards, Israeli archaeologists visited the site, and caught on tape many artifacts amid the rubble. So where is the outcry? Where is the United Nations? Where is Barack Obama? They are all MIA when Jewish heritage is being destroyed.

The action itself is not surprising, as Muslims usually care little for own historical sites. For example, throughout the history, the Mosque of Omar – located on top of the Temple Mount – was destroyed in the past by Muslims, due to rivalry between the Fatimid dynasty and their Meccan rivals.

For Muslims, Haram al-Sharif is the third holiest site (fifth for Shiites). It’s the first holiest for Jews. See any hypocrisy?

Leftists want to go Chamberlain road

In what amounts to be the worst math lesson ever, Haaretz’s Zvi Bar’el tells us a beautiful story of peaceful utopia Israel would have with Syria, if only the former would return the Golan Heights to the latter:

Peace with Syria might neutralize the military threat from that country, stop Hezbollah from arming and put Iran in a confusing situation, even if it doesn’t break off its relations with Syria. Peace with Syria and the Palestinians would also change Turkey’s position and neutralize the hostility between Israel and the other Arab countries.

In short, the military threat would lose a great deal of its punch. A rational country, even one not seeking peace – and Israel, after all, is not one – would have done the arithmetic long ago and understood that by continuing to hold on to the Golan Heights, the chances of a confrontation would simply grow. It would have understood that the threat does not lie in the circles that mark the missile range but in those territories it continues to occupy.

(Haaretz)

WHILE BAR’EL HOLDS a Ph.D in history of the Middle East, he missed the Modern History classes, as Israel was through it all before:

The “legitimate” claims on Israeli land are made by same people who viciously attacked Israel on several occasions, killing thousands of its civilians and soldiers. Same people who constantly shot at Israeli farmers and bombed northern Israeli settlements without merit for years, causing disastrous damages. A country that started a war against another country cannot expect to have “legitimate” claims on territory it lost during the offensive.

Imagining that Syria would give up its military struggle against Israel is nothing but a dream, and Bar’el should indeed wake up. Take Lebanon as an example: in 2000, Israel pulled back to internationally-recognized borders, yet Hassan Nasrallah found pretext to attack again, saying Israel still holds Lebanese territory. What would prevent Syrians from manufacturing another pretext? After all, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad told reporters on several occasions that no negotiations could be made with Syria unless Israel agrees to leave the Golan Heights. Read that again: Bashar al-Assad will begin negotiations after Israel declares it would withdraw from the Golan. If all Syria is after is the Golan Heights, what else could it negotiate about? Or is there something bigger Assad plans?

The utopia of having peace with both Syrians and the Palestinians does not address the simple question Israel ran into several times: what happens if they lie? What if the Palestinians sign a piece of paper, and then attack Jerusalem with mortars and Gush Dan area with Qassams? Have we not learned lesson of Yasser Arafat, who did precisely that – signed Oslo agreements and renew suicide attacks inside Israel? And what if Syrians do come up with some other pretext – say, demand Israel absorbs all Palestinian refugees from its territory – and after receiving a negative reply, starts using its own paramilitary groups from the Heights? After all, reports from two years ago say Syria prepares its own Hezbollah-style group, whose purpose would be to fight for the heights. Is there no chance at all Syria would use such groups? And who would control the border? If Syrian army is as competent as that of Lebanon, wouldn’t it be one of the worst deals ever?

Last, but certainly not least, this wet dream does not address the issue of Palestinian incitement and propaganda. After being taught for generations – since age two and three – to kill the Jews, would the Arab people change their mindset within a few months or a year? Would they one day wake up, forget TV shows preaching genocide and decide it’s time to live in peace? Decades ago, Arabs turned the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a religious conflict, claiming the Jews weren’t just enemies of Palestinians or occupiers of a land – they are enemies of Islam, we are being told, who should be killed. That is what Palestinians and Syrian children see daily on their TV sets.

There is only one upside to Zvi Bar’el’s article – few people would take him seriously. He proposes few solutions, just shares his dreams. Sadly, that is what the Left camp does time after time – sleeping in a sweet land of huge mushrooms and growing seven-leafers, where everyone holds hands and sings to the tunes of Kumbaya. Thankfully for us, we live in a real world.

May 10, 2010 0

Likud MK says wants Jewish state… with the Palestinians

In a highly unusual statement today, Likud’s MK (and Speaker of Knesset) Reuben Rivlin said he prefers Israel as one unified nation to two-state solution – even if it means giving citizenship to all Palestinians:

Referring to the possibility that such an agreement could be reached, Rivlin said: “I would rather Palestinians as citizens of this country over dividing the land up.”

Late last year, Rivlin said in a Jerusalem address that Israel’s Arab population was “an inseparable part of this country. It is a group with a highly defined shared national identity, and which will forever be, as a collective, an important and integral part of Israeli society.”

(Haaretz)

THE SURPRISING PART of the statement is that it somewhat correlates to wishes of Palestinians themselves. While Mahmoud Abbas and the Hamas would be willing to establish a Palestinian state within 1967 borders, the preferred option would be one of state for all people – that is, a non-Jewish state. Not only wouldn’t such a state solve a problem of Jewish-Arab conflict – it would likely worsen it by much.

First comes the issue of the Jewish state. Additional population of almost 3 million Palestinians would bring several dozens of new, pro-Palestinian representatives into Israeli Knesset. Hatred-filled and brainwashed, the new citizen of Israel would fight Jews’ claims of heritage in Israeli, similar to how now Palestinians deny findings of Jewish presence on the Temple Mount. It is likely that Palestinian “holidays” such as the Naqba – the day when the Jewish state was established – would be proclaimed as a national day of mourning – just as it is now in the Palestinian Autonomy.

Then come the population clashes. The Palestinians, while hard working, would contribute little to economic stability of Israel. They are willing to work – and work hard – but with Palestinian economy years behind that of Israel, the State’s economy would suffer an immediate blow, receiving little extra taxes but having the need to accommodate millions of new citizens. This would likely spark tensions between the Arabs and the Jews – particularly the Arabs, who would see themselves entitled to everything the Jews have.

Also, it is not likely the Muslims would agree to Jewish rule on them. With Islam willing to accommodate foreigners, but only as dhimmis, harsh clashes would ensue with the Arabs unwilling to be part of a State based on Jewish religion.

Such an offer also does not solve the issue of Palestinian terrorism: organizations such as Hamas and few others, do not accept the idea of a Jewish state. Thus, even if Israel manages to accept 3 millions of Palestinians under it rules, war would still be waged against the Israelis – but this time, from within Israel, making combating extremists that much harder.

Last, but not least, is the issue of Palestinian refugees. In case of establishment of the Palestinian state, that state could accept over 4 million people scattered around the Middle East and now considered refugees (with most being descendants of the original refugees). If Israel would control the entire geographical area from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river, demands would be made to accept the refugees. With much higher Palestinian representation in the Knesset, such option would be a viable one. As soon as the refugees would start arriving, it is possible a revolt would take place, with Arabs actively fighting the Jews for control of the State.

May 2, 2010 1