Read both interviews below and learn about a real leader who is setting the international gold standard for support of the Jewish state.

You might want to send Minister Baird a note of support at john.baird@parl.gc.ca

Warm support from the chilly North

Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird sits down with the ‘Post’ and explains his government’s tremendous support of Israel.

By HERB KEINON, The Jerusalem Post, Friday February 3, 2012

http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=256285

The Hill Times, a Canadian weekly newspaper that covers that country’s politics, recently came out with its annual edition of the country’s 100 most influential people in government and politics. John Baird, Canada’s Conservative 42-year-old foreign minister, was listed as number three.

“If you weren’t in politics, what would you want to be doing,” Baird was asked in the magazine interview. “Likely working on a kibbutz in Israel,” was his reply.

Anyone who heard Baird either in private conversation or public appearances this week – he was in Israel for diplomatic meetings and to take part in the Herzliya Conference – would not be surprised by his answer.

The man, appointed Canada’s foreign minister in May 2011, likes Israel – a lot.

And Baird is not the only one. Since Stephen Harper became the country’s prime minister in 2006, Canada went from being a middle-of-the-road friend of Israel – somewhere between the US and the European Union – to setting the gold standard for support of the Jewish state. There is not a government on the planet today more supportive of Israel than Harper’s Canada.

And the love runs both ways. According to the personable and informal Baird – he came out of the elevator for this interview at his Tel Aviv hotel without security guards, dressed casually, looking like just another tourist, and was introduced simply as “John” – one of the frustrations of the political life isa lack of appreciation.

“The amount of warmth and love for Canada here in Israel is just unbelievable,” he said. “I was told about this beforehand, but it has been a real pleasure because often you will do things and deliver things for your own constituents and not get a lot of appreciation. But holy moly, that certainly is not the case here.”

What follows are excerpts of the interview with Baird.

You said in your speech this week at the Herzliya Conference that Israel has no better friend in the world than Canada. Where is that coming from? Is it Prime Minister Harper? Is it yourself? Is it the Canadian people? Because it hasn’t always been this way.

First and foremost it is some of the prime minister’s leadership. There is no moral ambiguity; he’s not one who believes in moral relativism. The prime minister’s leadership is very strong on this. There are a number of ministers – I’m one – who feel very passionately about Israel.

I can recall being here once [a number of years ago] and talking to the Canadian ambassador and asking why Canada is so against Israel. “What do you mean,” he said. I said, “all these resolutions at the UN.” When he said they don’t mean anything, my response was, “Well if they don’t mean anything why do we vote for them?” And his reply was, “Oh that just happens every year.”

There are a lot of Canadians who agree with us; some disagree with us. But Mr. Harper has said this, and I have said it many times too, that too often in the past Canada’s [foreign policy] is just “go along to get along.” And it is easier to do that. If someone asked in the past about Canada’s foreign policy, the working assumption would be that it is whatever our historical policy has been and what the international consensus is among our allies. But now we base it on values and principles.

Is this coming from a religious place for the prime minister? Is this religious-based support?

No, I don’t think so. It is very similar to me. After the Holocaust it is tremendously important for there to be a Jewish homeland, a Jewish state that can be a place of refuge. In this region today there is only one liberal democracy, only one place that values and respects democracy, human rights and the rule of law. And that is our ally.

My grandfather went to war in 1942 – the big struggle of his generation was fascism and then communism. The great struggle of my generation, of our generation, is terrorism. Too often Israel is on the front line of that struggle, and it is tremendously important that we take a principled stand and support our friend and ally.

How well does that resonate in Canada?

We certainly don’t do it for electoral advantage. It is not an electoral winner. Foreign policy is not a big issue in Canadian politics.

How about the Jewish vote?

There are 2,800 Jews in my constituency in Ottawa. I have 11,500 Muslims and Arabs. The Arab and Muslim population is much larger. So I don’t think we do it for electoral reasons. We’ve gotten great support from the Jewish community in Canada, which we value, but it is not done with an electoral calculation in mind.

Has it, or could it, hurt you politically?

When you stand up for your values and you do something that is basically right, you are never hurt.

How about around the world? Is Canada’s stature diminished in Europe because of your support for Israel?

If, as the minister of foreign affairs, my job was to wake up in the morning and ask how to be popular, this probably wouldn’t be the way to do it. But at the same time it is not an albatross by any stretch. There are some who don’t share our views, who don’t agree to our intervention in international forums with unbridled enthusiasm.

I was in the [Persian] Gulf for five days in late November and one of the Canadian reporters said, “Baird is going to the Gulf and this [Canada’s support for Israel] will be the elephant in the room for the entire five days.” No one brought it up. No one.

People may disagree with our position, but they respect that we have differences. There are folks who didn’t agree with me. I don’t agree with them on everything. That doesn’t mean I stick my finger in their eye at every meeting, and vice versa.

How about with Europe?

Certainly Prime Minister Harper fought very hard for a balanced statement on the conflict at the G-8 [last may in France, when Canada was instrumental in softening a statement on the Middle East and keeping out any mention of the pre-1967 lines as a basis for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement]. Of course it would just be easier if Canada would just shut up, sit in the corner and not cause any problems. But we got good support from President Obama, for example, on that.

But isn’t it harming your stature in the world? Didn’t you lose a 2010 vote to join the Security Council because of it?

There is no doubt that it was unhelpful in the Security Council. I don’t think you could say there was one particular reason [why Canada lost to Portugal for a temporary seat on theSecurity Council]. But that was certainly one of the reasons.

How about ties with Washington? When there was considerable tension here between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, did Canada have any role to play in smoothing things over or running interference?

I hope there is never a day when the prime minister of Israel needs the intervention of the prime minister of Canada in Washington.

You said that Canada is Israel’s greatest friend in the world. Where is the US in this?

I think the US is a good friend, too. I like to think we are better.

In what sense? A stronger friend

How does that manifest itself?

Take the G-8 communiqué. It made reference to President Obama’s speech. It made reference to certain things he said in the speech. But if you want to talk about 1967 borders with land swaps, let’s talk about Israel as a Jewish state. If you want to talk about this, we can talk about a future Palestinian state being demilitarized. If you want to talk about the speech, we’ll talk about the speech. If you want to be general we can be general. If you want to be specific, we would want some of those more favorable comments toward Israel included in the communiqué.

So you were out in front of the US on that issue?

Yes. President Obama was very supportive in the end.

Regarding the diplomatic process with the Palestinians, are we stuck conceptually? We have been trying the same thing since Oslo and it hasn’t moved. Is there anything you can recommend to do things differently?

I wouldn’t say we haven’t come very far since Oslo. I visited Ramallah, and there is a Palestinian Authority with a president and prime minister. Their capacity on security has improved immeasurably in recent years.

But the whole paradigm that we can negotiate a solution…

I don’t think there is any other alternative. It may be an unattractive one, but it is the best and only. I don’t know how anyone can impose peace; I don’t know how anyone can impose security. At the end of the day you want an agreement and a solution, but you also want to be able to shake hands and live in peace and harmony. Other than negotiations, I don’t know any other way to do it.

Two years ago Canada cut its funding to UNRWA. 

Some at the UN have treated Canada like an ATM – we are the 17th-largest economy, but the seventh-largest contributor [to the UN].

But does the change in your UNRWA policy represent a thinking that we may have reached the time where Palestinian refugees should be settled permanently and not left in refugee camps?

I am not going to step on that landmine. I was just in Davos and had a long chat with one of my predecessors from the other party, John Manley. He made some statements on that [in 2001], and they burnt him in effigy in Ramallah. So I think I will choose my words on that very carefully. [Manley at the time said Canada was prepared to accept Palestinian refugees as part of a peace plan and to contribute to an international fund to assist with their resettlement.]

I had a conversation with a European diplomat recently who said one way to get the Palestinians back to negotiations would be to use financial contributions as leverage. He said European public opinion would never allow it. Should that be considered? 

We have a $300 million development partnership with the Palestinian Authority, and by and large it is going toward increasing their capacity in security, police, justice, forensics – and I think those things are all positive. They are all good things for the Palestinian people and, I think, good things for the Israeli people as well. So let’s not cut off our nose to spite our face. We want to see a vibrant, prosperous, secure [Palestinian] state. They are developing that right now and we are keen in helping them do that. It is in Israel’s advantage as well.

I think the bulk of our investments are accomplishing good things. I think Prime Minister [Salam] Fayyad’s government is a quiet success story. The security situation in the West Bank has improved immeasurably. The economy there has improved by leaps and bounds, and that is in everyone’s interest.

Obviously we have strong differences of opinion in terms of going to the UN; we think it is the wrong way to go. But I don’t think you can threaten either side just encourage them.

But if you don’t threaten the sides, how do you get them back to the table? 

Look at what happened at the end of 2000 [after the end of the Camp David talks]. There was all this external pressure for a deal, and when it collapsed it was not pretty scenario on the ground here afterward [the Second Intifada erupted]. I think we can encourage both parties to go back to the negotiation table. You are more likely to make progress by trying than not trying, and engaging rather than not engaging.

In your speech at Herzliya you quoted Winston Churchill about the dangers of appeasing fascism. Is the west today appeasing terrorism?

I think terrorism is a scourge and it requires leadership to confront it. There is no room for moral ambiguity. It is the great struggle of our generation.

I was down in Sderot earlier today. Terror is not exclusively the death count, or those who are injured. What does a mother say to a child who can’t go to sleep at night because he is so scared? There are teachers teaching games to their students on what to do when they have 15 seconds [to get to a bomb shelter]. There is culture of fear that results from terrorism and the threat of terrorism. It is hard to quantify it. We can say “x number of people were killed in this or that incident” but there is a culture of fear that has gripped far too many people around the world.

Has the West adequately stepped up to the plate to deal with it?

I think Canada has. We have been very clear. We listed Hamas as a terror entity and won’t have any contact with them. I think that is the right thing to do.

You met this week with the Palestinian leadership; what was your message to them?

Look, there are many areas where we have agreements, areas where we have substantive disagreements. I am very impressed by Fayyad’s public administration skills. I think many of us in the West have taken note of his leadership and financial accountability and success in economy and security. He is certainly a good, strong leader who gets results.

With President [Mahmoud] Abbas we agree with him on many things and we disagree with him on others. That is what diplomacy is all about. I found President Abbas to be very honest and up front, and I found that quite refreshing.

What would Canada’s policy be if he formed a government with Hamas?

We don’t support terrorism. That is our policy and it is crystal clear.

Would you cut off contact with the PA?

We just will not work with terrorists.

How about Israel?  What would you like Netanyahu to do now that he is not doing to move the process forward? 

I had a good meeting with the prime minister. We had a good exchange. I think good friends should have conversations and be honest with each other. I was [honest] with him and he was with me, and I’ll leave that private.

What about freezing settlement construction?

I think unilateral action on either side is unhelpful. I will have to go through my newspaper clippings and see if there was great kudos when they did it the last time for 10 months; or great kudos when they withdrew from southern Lebanon; or withdrew from Gaza. I think the key is to return to negations without preconditions and, as Prime Minister Netanyahu said in his UN speech, stop negotiating about negotiations.

Turning to Iran, how little do we know about what is going on there?

What we know is that this is a regime that is enriching uranium and that has a clear nuclear arms program underway. That is undisputable. We know that Iran’s support of international terrorist organizations in the region – whether it is Hamas, Hezbollah or Palestinian Jihad – is an absolute disgrace and causing more problems.

Iran supports a lot of evil and violence in this region particularly. And we know it has a disgraceful human rights record that is frankly deteriorating.

And as a result, what should be done now?

We need to take every single diplomatic measure to put pressure on the regime to take a different course. Obviously our first choice would be to see the Iranian people make change themselves.

Did the West err in 2009 in not more actively supporting the protest movement inside Iran?

I wasn’t the foreign minister at the time, so I didn’t follow it close enough to give you a substantive answer. Change is always better if it comes from within. We learned that from Libya. But Iran is the one thing that is omnipresent in foreign policy today.

What does that mean?

It and Syria are obviously the two subjects discussed at virtually every meeting, every forum, with every counterpart. Obviously it is a huge threat to the world.

We don’t just fear that Iran would like to acquire nuclear weapons and we don’t just fear that this would lead to an arms race by others trying to counterbalance them.

I fear that they would use them. Too often, people share these types of things with their friends, and these people have the worst circle of friends in the world today. They are incredibly dangerous, and of that we have no doubt.

Are you concerned about a backlash against Jews if oil prices rise to $150 a barrel as a result of sanctions against Iran?

I don’t see the correlation. I used to look at Iran through the prism of Israel. But the fear of much of the Arab world on Iran is palpable. It is a threat to Canada. It is a threat to entire international peace and security.

How is it a threat to Canada? 

A nuclear arms race in this region threatens the whole world. If they use nuclear weapons on a friend or an ally, on one of our best friends, that is unimaginable.

I think we have seen a new anti-Semitism emerge around the world – delegitimizing the state of Israel. We see it popping up in Canada: Israeli apartheid week on universities. It is all to delegitimize Israel.

There was a political issue in Toronto where they have quite a large gay pride parade, and they had a “queers against Israeli apartheid” float. Outside of Israel, what is the record of any of Israeli neighbors on those [gay] issues?

This is not to say that everyone who protests Israel is anti-Semitic, but everyone who is anti Semitic certainly protests, or tries to delegitimize the state of Israel, and we can’t be silent about that.

The most horrifying thing at Yad Vashem in many respects is not the end of your tour of the museum, but the beginning. That’s the lesson I took away from it. Anti-Semitism would sort of show its face among non-élites here and there, and then grow to stereotypes in school text books and popular culture, and then escalate into a little bit of vandalism and violence. And then you see, gradually, step by step, the state started to turn its back and eventually lead these efforts. That’s why I think we have to treat these things very seriously.

Yesterday at Yad Vashem the rabbi said it was the 79th anniversary of Adolf Hitler becoming chancellor. He wrote Mein Kampf 12 years before that. None of this was a surprise or a secret. So if you have the president of Iran making these outrageous statements and then trying to acquire nuclear weapons – I mean, what more do you need to inspire fear of the potential consequences?

It would be easier to just shut up and hope for the best, but that’s not the best way to conduct foreign policy.

That’s what a lot of people are doing.

And that is a big mistake, and why we are speaking up in the strongest terms.

I was in the Old City two years ago with a Canadian friend and he ran into a family friend, a young French kid in the IDF doing his service. He may have been 25. He was the victim of a hate crime in France, had the pulp beat out of him, and the rising trend of anti-Semitism caused him and his family to make aliya and come to Israel.

France? In the 21st century this family uproots themselves and moves to a different continent because of that? So I am concerned about the new rise of anti-Semitism taking different forms. And that should be deeply disturbing for any fair-minded human being.

Are we appeasing Iran?

Canada and Israel are not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

‘I believe Iran will use nuclear weapons’

In an exclusive interview with Israel Hayom, Canada’s Foreign Minister John Baird says Iran’s position on Israel is clear, and Tehran wants to build nuclear weapons • “It’s very easy to put one and one together. I believe Iran will use these weapons.”

By Shlomo Cesana

Israel Hayom, weekend section front page, Friday January 3, 2012

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=2965

Read the Hebrew original (a three-page spread) at

http://digital-edition.israelhayom.co.il/Olive/ODE/Israel/Default.aspx?href=ITD%2F2012%2F02%2F03

There are two leading approaches adopted by the diplomatic and political echelon: According to one, Israel is isolated. At the Herzliya Conference held at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) this week, conference chairman Maj.-Gen. (res.) Danny Rothschild said that Israel’s current diplomatic isolation is the worst it’s been in the past four decades – since the Six-Day War. That claim is supported by the opposition party and several senior Foreign Ministry officials.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman blow a fuse when they hear such remarks. The fact that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick, and the Canadian, German, Czech and other foreign ministers are visiting Israel just this week proves there’s no such diplomatic isolation, Netanyahu explained.

The prime minister says certain people, out of political interests, refuse to believe that Israel has convinced world leaders they’re on its side. These leaders’ public statements may differ from what they say behind closed doors, but in one-on-one meetings the reality is clear to them regarding Israel, its neighbors and the Palestinians.

Lieberman, for his part, begins every press briefing with journalists with a rundown of all the leaders and representatives with whom he has met. There are dozens, and that’s only in one week. At such briefings he has no problem inconveniencing his audience, and reading out the entire list.

The world is with us, he explains, and certainly on the main topics: the Iranian issue, understanding the essence of the negotiations with the Palestinians, developments in the Arab world, assessments of the Israeli economy and how best to deal with threats and challenges. Meet with these diplomats, people in the political echelon suggest, and ask them.

One of the visitors to Israel this week is Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, here for the fourth time. The prime minister from his Conservative Party Stephen Harper is considered one of the closest friends Israel has among world leaders.

Netanyahu returned the favor of Harper’s support in a visit to Canada during his current term, but was forced to cut it short following the Israel Navy’s takeover of the [Gaza-bound Turkish ship] Mavi Marmara and the ensuing crisis over the nine Turks killed in clashes that ensued between Israeli commandos and activists on board. The Canadian foreign minister’s policies are in line with those of his colleagues, and he arrived this week with his finance minister, Jim Flaherty.

Eleven more Canadian ministers, two-thirds of its cabinet, have visited Israel over the past two years. Their support is unreserved. An interview with Baird this week in his Tel Aviv hotel shows just to what extent, at least in Canada, Israel is not isolated.

“Assad must step down”

Baird, 42, tries out a few Hebrew words he’s picked up, and asks if I ever saw the movie “Operation Jonathan” dramatizing the Entebbe operation of 1976, in which a hijacked Sabena plane and its passengers were freed in Uganda by an Israeli commando unit led by the prime minister’s brother, Yoni (Jonathan) Netanyahu. He is also amazed by President Shimon Peres.

“He and I talked about a very respected Canadian cabinet member who was in touch with Peres back in the 1940s. Who else in the world can you have such a discussion with? Perhaps Queen Elizabeth. It’s clear Peres is a giant among men in today’s world, and he’s Israel’s president.”

Besides Peres, Baird managed to meet with Netanyahu and the other senior Israeli officials, as well as with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his prime minister, Salaam Fayyad. He visited various sites and attended a gathering convened in his honor by an organization of Canadian Jews in Israel. From here he will continue on to China.

He doesn’t hide the fact that in his talks here and around the world, the Iranian nuclear program comes up first on the agenda. “We are deeply concerned about Iran’s arms development plan. The civil rights situation inside Iran is also disgraceful and deteriorating. Iran’s support of terror, Hamas, Hezbollah, jihad, and the Syrian regime is contemptible and shocking.

“I was at Yad Vashem for the opening of a new Canadian-sponsored educational center. The ceremony took place on the 79th anniversary of Hitler taking over as German chancellor. It was no surprise that he came to power. He wrote ‘Mein Kampf’ 12 years earlier.

“Today we see the consistency in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statements and speeches over many years. Now he wants to obtain nuclear weapons. It’s very easy to put one and one together. I believe Iran will use these weapons, and that’s what we all fear. A few years ago I may have only looked at these matters through the prism of what they would do to Israel. But I’ve traveled sufficiently in the Arab world and I can say that the fear of Iran is palpable in most of those countries. So we’re talking about the peace and security of nations in the region, and naturally of the world at large.”

The Canadian foreign minister expresses what sounds like Israel’s position regarding Iran, and it takes some time to accept that this approach is a universal one. “Of all the subjects out there, this is the one that keeps me up at night. Israel does not have a better friend than Canada,” Baird says.

Asked if Canada, a NATO member, would participate in an attack against Iran, he answers evasively: “We will take every diplomatic step possible that has real impact on the Iranian economy. The regime is beginning to show vulnerability and now we must redouble our diplomatic efforts and hurt it. Most of the Iranian people do not support the regime and we have no dispute with them.”

Baird recalls that the Arab Spring essentially began in Iran, but was suppressed using harsh methods such as hanging demonstrators. “The Iranian situation comes up at every meeting with every foreign minister,” Baird says. “Even on my trip to China it will be the central issue. I heard the Chinese foreign minister on a recent visit to the Persian Gulf, and he hinted at a change in Chinese policy toward Iran. I welcome that.”

Is Canada hurt by the support it demonstrates for Israel?

“When it comes to Iran, the world’s silence during the Holocaust won’t happen again. We refuse to be dragged into anti-Israeli measures at the U.N., or into the automatic votes of condemnation against Israel there. We will continue to support Israel. It’s our ally, a liberal democracy where civil rights and the rule of law exist.

“It’s always easier to go with the flow. It’s always more difficult to take a principled stand. Our prime minister explained our position well when he said we don’t act just to be popular. We act according to Canadian values and interests.

“Israel and Canada share many mutual values, and Israel is the only liberal democracy in the region – where people enjoy freedom and wide-ranging liberty. Human rights are honored here, people respoect those who are in someway different from them, and there’s pluralism. In addition, Israel is the country at the forefront of the war against terror, and it deserves recognition for that.”

The Canadian foreign minister stresses that his country’s actions are dictated by a wholehearted belief in certain values. That’s why Canada so strongly supported the changes in Libya. “We led the changes in Libya via the United Nations and took part in some of the NATO bombing. We were guided by the importance of protecting Libyan civilians from the regime of Moammar Gadhafi.

“In Syria change is taking place more slowly. Assad must step down. We will act to increase the international sanctions and pressure on his regime. A government’s role is to protect its citizens, not fight them. The Canadian stand is very clear here, like that of the U.S., the European Union and the Arab League.”

Baird praises the changes in Jordan and Morocco. He remains diplomatic when discussing the current events in Egypt. “We are being very careful regarding the reforms there. We were criticized on this matter, but we believe Egyptians have to decide for themselves. Clearly we want to see more freedom and human rights there. I hope there will a change for the better. Mubarak had many weaknesses. But we will withhold judgment and see how Egypt manages to select a government for itself. We are in no rush to judge the new government being established. Obviously, the Israeli fears about whether Egypt will honoring the peace treaty are also clear.”

“Two states, one of them Jewish”

When he discusses the Palestinian issue, Baird once again sounds like he could have voted in this week’s Likud primaries. Asked if he favors two states he replies: “One of them has to be a Jewish state, yes.”

The Canadian minister says that he met a sincere government in Ramallah, but didn’t spare its officials any criticism. “I made clear both to Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad that they have to return to the negotiating table. I support Netanyahu’s position that we have to stop negotiating about negotiating.

“Canada was critical of the Palestinian Authority’s efforts to be recognized as a state at the U.N. We think recognition must be the product of peace negotiations and not unilateral actions that go against previous agreements. At our meeting we were clear about our opposition to that attempt.”

Along with the criticism, Baird has good things to say about the progress the PA has made in many areas: “Fayyad’s government has scored many successes in security matters and establishing government, police and legal institutions. They are progressing and we welcome these achievements. The economic growth there also has been quite impressive.

“I got the impression that Abbas is very straightforward and honest, and this is apparent even when one disagrees with him. We had a positive exchange of ideas, despite our disagreements.

“My diplomatic work is always based on relationships and an attempt to understand the person I’m speaking with. Nonetheless, I think we made the Canadian position clear to the Palestinians.”

Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, currently visiting Israel, delivered the most pro-Israel and pro-Jewish speech in recent history, at the Herzliya Conference Monday night. It is breathtaking to read, and a gem to cherish.

Baird and his boss, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, have set a new international gold standard for moral vision and solidarity with Israel.

Read, appreciate, and send Minister Baird a note to congratulate and thank him at john.baird@parl.gc.ca

Key key parts of the speech are excerpted below.

JOHN BAIRD: This is my third visit to Israel, though my first as foreign minister. I was last here as transport minister in 2010. While I didn’t make it during my posting as leader of the government in Canada’s “Knesset,” I have had constructive dealings with Israeli counterparts of each of the Cabinet portfolios I’ve held—and there have been several…

Over the course of our history, Canada has never shied away from standing up for what is right and just.

Indeed, like Israel, Canada has fought mightily against hatred and intolerance.

We have paid a high toll for the principles that guide us.

In two world wars—and in conflicts before and since—we have paid in blood spilled and lives lost.

All in defence of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Most recently, we answered the call as part of the NATO-led, UN-sanctioned mission to protect the people of Libya.

We “punched above our weight” to prevent the slaughter of innocents in Benghazi.

We supported all Libyans in their quest to end four decades of oppressive, one-man rule.

We supported their desire to share in that country’s immense natural wealth.

And we supported their calls for democratic self-determination, in which all Libyans have a role and voice.

We knew this would not be easy. It is proving not to be.

But it was what was right.

The massive wave of change that has swept across Libya and the Arab world in the past 12 months has been truly remarkable.

It is not done yet—witness the courageous struggle of the Syrian people at such great cost to themselves against the appalling violence of the Assad regime.

Nor is the precise outcome of any of these transitions by any means certain.

What is emerging, though, presents both challenge and opportunity.

It is, as our prime minister calls it, “the paradox of freedom: That awesome power, that grave responsibility—to choose between good and evil.”

Israel, of course, is no stranger to this.

And perhaps no other nation has more at stake in the choices the newly free will make in the coming months and years.

I can assure you that Canada will stand with you in the face of challenge.

For the same reasons Canada was one of the first countries in the world to list Hamas as a terrorist entity.

For the same reasons Canada was the first country to sign on to the Ottawa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism.

For the same reasons Canada this year voted against a package of one-sided, imbalanced resolutions at the UN.

The Canadian tradition is to stand for what is principled and just, regardless of whether it is popular, convenient or expedient.

Again, Israel has no greater friend than Canada.

Why is it that we care so much?

Why is it that our prime minister and our government believe so deeply and so passionately in Israel’s right not only to exist, but also to exist as a Jewish state and to live in peace and security?

Why is it that our prime minister has said that “those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are a threat to all of us”?

The state of Israel embodies principles that Canada values and respects.

It is a beacon of light in a region that craves freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

A region where people are rising up against dictators, autocrats and oppressors who defied those basic principles, those values.

It is also, in no small measure, because Canada recognizes the long and unbroken history of anti-Semitism.

And we know the dangerous facts of history and of human nature: that humans can choose to be inhuman.

Indeed, Israel today is a country whose very existence is under attack both literally and figuratively.

Whether it be from rockets raining down on Israeli schools, or the constant barrage of rhetorical demonization, double standards or delegitmization, Israel is under attack.

It is symptomatic of that new ill—the new anti-Semitism.

Harnessing disparate anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-Western ideologies, it targets the Jewish people by targeting the Jewish homeland, Israel, as the source of injustice and conflict in the world, and uses, perversely, the language of human rights to do so.

We must be relentless in exposing this new anti-Semitism for what it is. Of course, like any country, Israel may be subjected to fair criticism. And like any free country, Israel subjects itself to such criticism—healthy, necessary, democratic debate. But when Israel—the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack—is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand.

For a country like Canada, the easy thing to do would be simply to go along with anti-Israeli sentiment, to get along with other countries.

It would be easier to pretend that engaging in anti-Israeli rhetoric is being somehow even-handed, and to excuse it under the false pretence of being an honest broker.

It would be easier to get votes, too, as taking a stand—even in defence of a friend—often risks offending someone.

Yes, it would be much easier for us to simply “go along to get along.”

But Canada will not “go along to get along.”

Canada upholds Israel’s right to exist—as a Jewish state—in peace and security.

On this point, there is no space for moral ambivalence. We are compelled as a country of free citizens to speak clearly.

We have the right, and therefore the obligation, to speak out and to act.

Canada will not accept that, or stay silent while, the Jewish state is attacked for defending its territory or its people.

We uphold Israel’s fundamental right to defend innocent civilians against acts of terrorism.

Just as fascism and communism were the great struggles of previous generations, terrorism is the great struggle of ours.

Far too often, the Jewish state is on the front line of our struggle and its people the victims of terror’s scourge.

The Second World War taught us all the tragic price of going along just to get along.

It was accommodation and appeasement that allowed fascism to gather strength.

As Winston Churchill said: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

And so we defend Israel’s right to exist.

We do so in the strongest of terms and with the full weight of Canada’s “smart power.”

That is not to say that Canada does not support the establishment of a Palestinian state.

To the contrary, our government’s position has been very clear. The status quo is not an option.

We support a two-state solution that is negotiated by the two parties in good faith and without preconditions.

We believe that the statement by the Quartet this past September lays the foundation for a return to negotiations.

We encourage both sides to accept the Quartet’s principles and return to sustained, direct talks.

In that sense, we hold out hope for recent, helpful interventions by Jordan and others.

Let me conclude by looking forward.

First, a quick story: I was at the United Nations when Prime Minister Netanyahu (or Bibi) addressed the General Assembly this past fall.

I was proud to take my seat and listen to what he had to say.

And when you talk about leadership—that, friends, was leadership.

He didn’t go there to win applause; he went to speak the truth.

He spoke out against militant Islam.

He expressed Israel’s continued hope for peace.

He urged Palestinians to make peace, recognize Israel and return to the table.

One line in particular that resonated with me was the call to “stop negotiating about the negotiations.”

Canada could not agree more.

The unifying factor in the uprisings that have crested across the Arab world is a popular despair about a lack of jobs, hope and opportunity.

Such sentiments are natural, yet such uprisings are, by their nature, unpredictable and tough to corral once unleashed.

By returning to negotiations for a lasting peace, by resisting temptations to apply preconditions to talks, and by avoiding measures that would seek to prejudge the outcome of the talks, the Palestinian leadership could immediately take steps toward a more measured, stable transition to statehood.

Hamas, and other leaders who advocate violence, must renounce terrorism and the barbarians that commit it if they are to play a legitimate part in the future for Palestinians.

A negotiated settlement is the best route forward to ensure that Palestinians are “neither the citizens of Israel nor its subjects,” to quote Prime Minister Netanyahu last fall.

Palestinians and Israelis deserve free states of their own.

They deserve to live in peace, security and human dignity.

To that end, both must use the responsibility of their freedom for good.

Canada stands willing to help in any way it can. Our large diaspora communities are certainly watching closely.

More than 60 years ago, Israel appeared as a light in a world emerging from deep darkness.

Against all odds—and despite concerted efforts by some—the light has not been extinguished.

It burns still.

And it burns ever brighter when upheld by the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

There is room for more light in this region—especially as the darkness of swirling regional uncertainty threatens to close in.

There is room for two states respecting the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rules of law.

Working together, we strengthen and affirm these important principles in word and deed.

And we declare our choice to use our freedoms and shared humanity for good, not evil.

Thank you.

The full speech is at http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/speeches-discours/2012/01/30a.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

NOTE: My website and its embedded email server were hacked yesterday by Saudi saboteurs, so my previous article on the Tal Law regarding the draft of Haredim was released as Latin gibberish. You can read it here.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein unearthed the nefarious dealings behind Watergate by following the advice of their mysterious source, nicknamed Deep Throat. “Follow the money”, counseled Deep Throat. And so they did – all the way up to President Richard Nixon in the White House.

So, too, with the Palestinian Authority. The money trail – which pays for stalemate, rejectionism, and diplomatic assault on Israel – leads directly from Mahmoud Abbas to his central banker: the European Union.

Last week, the EU announced that it would to transfer another $70 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA) – the largest single donation ever to UNRWA. EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said that the donation “represents our ongoing commitment to the Palestine refugees.”

It is an old story. Ask yourself: Who has been the primary financier of the Palestinian Authority and all its so-called refugees?

Mostly, it hasn’t been Israel – although in days of Rabin and Peres Israel sinned by propping-up the PA with direct payments into a secret Tel Aviv bank account held by Yasser Arafat himself.

The Sharon government held back on some $1.5 billion in various taxes and customs duties collected by the Israel Finance Ministry on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. Then-finance minister Silvan Shalom used the embargoed funds to cover PA debts owed to Israeli firms and organizations like the Israel Electric Company. Current finance minister Dr. Yuval Steinitz tried to do the same last year after the PA angled for unilateral recognition at the UN, but the cabinet released the funds under international pressure.

Who, then, has bankrolled the PA and UNRWA? The US and Canada cut most of their cut their funding to UNRWA years ago, when its ubiquitous corruption and unhelpful perpetuation of Palestinian victimhood became clear. They have restricted their funding of development programs in the PA to Western-administered projects that advance governmental and security-sector reform.

What about Abbas’ Arab brothers? Naw. They never have substantially put their money where their collective mouth is. Even the biggest talker of all, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, preferred to transfer his “martyr rewards” directly to the families of suicide bombers, not though the PA budget.

The correct answer is – the European Union. The EU has been the PA’s bighearted sugar-daddy; Arafat and Abbas’ bountiful and boundless papa-bear; the deepest honey-pot the Palestinians could ever hope for.

As Shareholder Number One in the PA, the EU has a lot riding on Abbas. So much so that EU leaders are finding it hard to accept that the PA has grossly overshot its credit.

In sum, the EU has poured well over $3 billion into propping-up the PA since Oslo, aside from funds contributed separately by individual EU countries and in addition to support for UNRWA. This includes everything from food and health services through training and equipment for the PA intelligence and police forces, and salaries for more than 50,000 PA bureaucrats.

In the world of development assistance, this is an enormous sum of money; the size of which no other Third World territory or country could ever dream of.

So, where are the fruits of this lofty largesse? Where are the new neighborhoods for Palestinian refugees, the new infrastructure projects, the successful industrial parks, the small business incubators and thriving educational institutions – all carefully monitored for quality and efficiency by EU inspectors?

More importantly, where is the diplomatic moderation and spirit of cooperation with Israel that all this money was supposed to generate? Remember: For more than two decades we have been told that Palestinian radicalism and rejectionism could be tempered by economic development….

Consider: Brussels has bankrolled and mentored PA television since its inception. It even rebuilt PA-TV antenna towers after Israel toppled them during Operation Defensive Shield. This is the same television that broadcasts messages of Jihad against the Jews and praise for Palestinian suicide bombers.

Consider: The PA school system has enjoyed the investment of over $600 million in EU funds since 1994, including funds for the writing and production of the new, official PA textbooks. I don’t need to tell you that these textbooks deny any ancient Jewish claim to Jerusalem and Israel; that murderer-martyrs are praised; and that Israel is not to be found on any maps in these glorious, EU-financed, educational tomes.

Consider: Under UNWRA, which applies the term “refugee” to all descendants of Palestinian refugees (unlike any other refugee in the world), the number of so-called Palestinian “refugees” has swelled from 600,000 in 1948 to 7 million today! And UNRWA’s task is to perpetuate their lives as second-class citizens in camps, not to integrate and settle them in host countries. For this, UNRWA needs another $70 million from the EU, and counting.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, Arab leaders from Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere sought to convince Western leaders to invest billions in the nascent “Islamic democracies.” Invest in us, don’t fear us, they said. The unfortunate experience with the Palestinian Authority should serve as a warning and a caution. Unless Western support is rigorously conditioned on real democracy and human rights reforms, and unless it is closely controlled for hard results – it will be pouring good money down the drain; or worse: it will be bankrolling extremism and obstructionism.

The Tal Law governing the military draft of Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jews in Israel has fallen well short of its objectives and satisfied no-one. Neither those who mistakenly want to ram army service down the throats of the Ultra-Orthodox, nor those who helpfully seek to draw the Haredim out of their ghettos, have been able to embrace the Tal law with any enthusiasm.

Justice Zvi Tal and the national commission who crafted the law got it right on the basics: that it is important that the State of Israel allow the world of Torah study to flourish; that, concurrently, it is morally unacceptable that an entire class of Israeli citizens automatically be released from the burden of defending the country; that army service cannot be forced on the Haredim, and that they are, anyway, of no overwhelming value to the army; and that the remedy lies in a social re-engineering of Haredi society.

The Tal law passed in 2002 allows Haredi men to study Torah and defer army service until age 23. Then, they can leave yeshiva for a year of “adjustment” (supposedly vocational training) without facing immediate draft. If they decide to remain “on the outside” (i.e., outside the closed world of full-time yeshiva study) these men become draftable, serving either six months in the army with annual reserve duty or a year of civilian service.

In 2011, about 2,400 of 8,500 Haredi men who could and should have enlisted in the IDF took the Tal route and completed either abbreviated army or civil national service. This is progress, but it is not good enough, especially since the Haredi demographic is growing.

The main problem with the Tal law isn’t the (unfortunate, but unavoidable) legitimacy it provides to Haredi draft-dodging between 18 and 23 years of age nor the “quickie” minimal service options for older men. Yes, these make me mad, but like Tal, I recognize that equalizing the defense burden is an impossible goal at this time. My problem with the law is that Tal’s social engineering solutions for the Haredi world fall far short of the mark.

The greatest problem we have with the Haredi world, and its greatest predicament within itself, is not draft dodging. It is the Haredi failure to prepare its young men and women for a productive working role in society. As a result, the Ultra-Orthodox world suffers from dreadful poverty (half of the 70,000 children in Ultra Orthodox Bnei Brak live under the poverty line) and other social ills – becoming a drain on the Israeli economy and a strain on the fabric of our society. It is also clear that the cloistering-away of Haredi men in a non-working, never-ending yeshiva environment breeds religious extremism – such as fanatic standards of gender separation that now plague the religious world.

Three things prevent the masses of Haredim from leaving the bloated yeshiva world and going out to work: the draft; the incredible, all-embracing cocoon of government stipends and subsidies currently granted to yeshiva families who don’t work; and the fact that most Haredim do not have the secular education necessary to obtain a decent, salaried job in the modern world.

The solution, then, to these problems is uncomfortable but obvious: release the Haredim from the draft at an even younger age (say at age 20, before Haredi couples have five kids); end government subsidies for yeshiva families beyond this age; and facilitate the establishment of more academic educational frameworks appropriate for Haredim.

Those Haredim with serious Torah careers ahead of them will continue to study Torah in yeshivot of distinction with rigorous acceptance and achievement standards. Religious society will find ways to support them, and I support government funding for such yeshivot too – within reasonable limits.

The rest of Haredi men – the majority – will be drawn out of hiding in unexceptional yeshivot, to their benefit and ours, and into the real working world. Once this begins to happen, Haredi men will realize that they need to get educated in maths, sciences and the humanities; and that service in the army is to their advantage when competing for jobs.

Realistically, this is the only way Haredim will enter the army; only once they start working; only as a result of long-term, deep-rooted change in the societal patterns and mores of Haredi society. Non-HarediIsraelhas a responsibility to help effect this change.

The Tal law recognized this, but failed to apply the tough medicine necessary to bring about the required societal shifts. Instead, it instituted a series of parve, half-way measures – nisht a hin in nisht a heir (neither here nor there).

By the time the Tal law lets Haredim are let out of the yeshivot without fear of the full-fledged draft, most of them have large families and benefit from enormous government subsidies for yeshiva families – in baby benefits, kollel stipends, and massive reductions in municipal taxes, health insurance fees and school fees. (Haredi parents pay 80 percent less than Religious Zionist parents, for example, for the schooling of their kids).

The benefits to non-working Haredi yeshiva families can easily reach NIS 6,000 a month or more according a report presented to the Knesset foreign affairs and defense committee. This is a significant sum, neither easy to give up nor to replace through employment. How many Haredi men entering the work force in their mid to late twenties qualify for jobs that pay well enough to offset the loss of these generous benefits?

Thus the Tal law half-measures beget an extremely problematic brew: a legitimization of the fact that Haredi 18-year-olds don’t get drafted; coupled with a lame social re-ordering that fails to furnish the medicine necessary for a repair of Haredi society and the healing of the Israeli social fabric.

Obama and Erdogan snuggling at the Cannes G-20 summit in 2011.

Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are,” goes the old adage. If that’s the case, Israel, America and the Western world are in big trouble. US President Obama just named the semi-dictator of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as being one of the five world leaders with whom he has a “friendship and bond of trust.” Woe be to us.

Obama told Time Magazine that his diplomatic endeavors have been more effective because he shares “trust and confidence” with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, Erdogan, and British premier David Cameron, in that order. Obama: “I think that if you ask them… they would say, ‘We have a lot of trust and confidence in the President. We believe what he says. We believe that he’ll follow through on his commitments. We think he’s paying attention to our concerns and our interests.’”

Israeli media, of course, played up the fact that Obama didn’t list Benjamin Netanyahu as one of the world leaders with whom he shares a “friendship and bond of trust.” But that, unfortunately, is not surprising, and it misses the point. The point is – the shocker is – that Obama does feel a kinship to Erdogan – one of the most anti-Western, anti-Israel, pro-Islamist and nasty leaders on the globe.

Erdogan has led a major reorientation in Turkish foreign policy away from the West and towards the West’s worst enemies, including Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in Gaza, and Hizballah in Lebanon. Everyone knows that he has crashed Turkish-Israel relations, which within the framework of the new Turkish foreign policy, are a burden. Erdogan hardly lets a week pass without disparaging or criticizing Israel or the Jews. This undoubtedly fits well with the anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic sentiments prevalent in the Muslim world.

But Erdogan is Obama’s friend, with whom Obama shares a “friendship and bond of trust.”

Erdogan has curtailed freedom of the press, the freedoms of academia and the independence of the judiciary in his own country – as he attempts to build a centralized, authoritarian presidential system to suit his ambitions. Human rights within Turkey have gone from bad to worse, according to every international index.

But Erdogan is Obama’s friend.

Turkey has become a very unreliable member of NATO. The AKP led parliament (Erdogan’s political party) denied permission to US troops to use Turkish territory in order to open a northern front against Iraq in 2003. During the Georgian crisis in the summer of 2008, Ankara was slow in responding to American requests to send ships into the Black Sea via the Bosphorus Straits.

An even more flagrant deviation from NATO values has been the nascent military relationship and “strategic partnership” (Erdogan’s words) between Turkey and China, including the unprecedented inclusion of Chinese warplanes in a 2010 Turkish military exercise, called Anatolian Eagle, that had previously included the US and Israel.

An American Enterprise Institute report published this weekend determines that the U.S. military can no longer rely on facilities in Turkey for regional operations.

Nevertheless, Obama somehow shares a “friendship and bond of trust” with the Turkish leader Erdogan.

Erdogan also defied American disfavor of Syria, conducting joint military exercises with Bashar Assad’s regime and sending military personnel to train the Syrian military. Turkey further deviated from the Western consensus by hosting Sudanese Islamist President Omar Hassan al-Bashir twice in 2008. Bashir was charged with war crimes and genocide in Darfur. Since then, Erdogan has hosted Hizballah leader Nasrallah in Ankara and backed the Hamas.

Erdogan has visited Iran numerous times since 2009 and has sided with Iran on the nuclear issue, declaring Turkish support for Tehran’s “peaceful nuclear program” and voting repeatedly against American-initiated sanctions against Iran. In 2010, Erdoğan cooked up an agreement with Brazilian President da Silva whereby Iran would send part of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey for safekeeping in exchange for enough higher-enriched uranium to fuel an Iranian research reactor. The Iran-Turkey-Brazil nuclear fuel swap agreement was a blatant move against the US push for economic sanctions against Iran. It was sticking a thumb in Washington’s eye.

Since then, Erdogan has agreed to establish a $2-billion crude oil refinery in northern Iran in defiance of America, and voted against every attempt to censure Iran for building secret uranium enrichment facilities. Turkish banks openly cooperate with Iranian banks to circumvent Western sanctions.

But Obama doesn’t seem to know this. He shares a “friendship and bond of trust” with Erdogan.

Erdogan is so unhinged when it comes to Israel that in 2009 he preposterously accused Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman of threatening to attack the Gaza Strip with a nuclear weapon. More recently, he has threatened Israel with war over gas fields in the Mediterranean.

Turkey is an important country whose foreign policy reorientation changes the balance of power in the Middle East in favor of the radical Islamist forces. It is negatively affecting the pro-Western orientation of the Central Asian republics. It is considerably weakening the Western strategic alliance, and working assiduously to undermine Israel’s safety and security. Erdogan is directly responsible for this.

But of all the world’s leaders, one of the five Obama feels closest to is Erdogan. Obama says that he shares a “friendship and bond of trust” with Erdogan. Unbelievable.

The Knesset has given first reading and initial approval to an amendment to Israel’s libel law proposed by Yariv Levin (Likud) and Meir Shitreet (Kadima). It will be back on the Knesset agenda this week. The amendment would significantly raise libel penalties and make them easier to achieve, especially if media publishes defamatory material on individuals without offering them the opportunity to respond fully and in real time. As a result, the angry media has labeled this a “silencing” bill and an “attack on democracy.”

Not at all. In fact, the amendment doesn’t go far enough.

The dry technicalities of the amendment involve the setting of new maximum penalties for defamation without proof of concrete damage to the aggrieved party (the maximum fine would increase from NIS 70,000 to NIS 300,000, and to double that if damages are proven). If media refuse to publish a full response of the aggrieved party, the maximum fine could rise to NIS 1.5 million.

Of course, no law can determine in advance what penalties a court of law might actually impose on a libelous violator. Generally, the courts are not quick to rule that media truly libeled anyone, nor do they rush to impose maximum penalties. Consequently, all the hyperbole about “silencing” and the crushing of free speech is exaggerated.

But the proposed amendment does seek to create a chilling effect – chilling the enthusiasm of media to gaily and liberally splash into print every juicy, outlandish and nasty bit of information they can possibly get their hands on, without proper fact-checking or allowing the accused robust possibility to respond. This is not a bad thing.

Did you know that according to Halacha, it is forbidden to speak or publish negative information about people – even if it’s true! (The basic exception to this rule, narrowly applied, allows for dissemination of unflattering true information when its knowledge will have specific and concrete benefit or will prevent damage to others). “Who is the man that desires life, and loves many days, that he may see good? Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking guile” (Psalms 34:13-14).

Yet Israel is one of the loosest journalistic environments in the Western world. Journalist education is weak; the standard of professionalism of journalists is poor; the self-awareness of editors in terms of their responsibilities (both nationally and personally) and their legal obligations (such as avoiding libel) is low; sensationalist stories and gossip journalism get a lot of ink space and air time; tabloid-style “exposés” are highly-sought-after, and competition is fierce.

Journalists back away from solid, stodgy, in-depth reporting, opting instead for cheap, hot (and often loosely-substantiated) reporting. Tantalizing and scintillating stories sell better than balanced and complex stories, unfortunately. So again: The libel law amendment is needed. It could motivate journalists to be a little more careful.

It can be convincingly argued that the type of responsible journalism corrections needed in Israel today might better be achieved by a self-regulated media code of ethics, not by law legislated in the Knesset that smacks of media suppression. I would buy into this argument if I saw any indications of media self-restraint, but I don’t.

Take for example the issue of ethnic labeling. Under the Israel Media Council’s own code of ethics it is forbidden to run headlines such as “Ethiopian Murdered,” “Russian Raped,” “Haredi Stole,” or “Settler Stoned” because these blanket stereotypes amount to group defamation. They constitute classic “Lashon Hara” (evil speech). But you see such headlines all the time, code of ethics notwithstanding.

Fourteen years ago, my late father Prof. Zvi Weinberg (MK, Yisrael BeAliyah) of blessed memory (– we just marked the fifth anniversary of his passing) proposed an amendment to Israeli libel law that would outlaw such ethnic labeling. He was very upset about the derogatory treatment of Russians and Ethiopians by the press. He was sensitive to the pride of these important immigrant populations, and the insults hurled at them infuriated him. But media lobbyists managed to have his amendment buried after its preliminary reading. “We (the media) can police ourselves in this matter,” they argued.

Apparently not.

Perhaps Meir Shitreet, sponsor of the current libel law amendment, might consider adding ‘ethnic labeling’ to the definitions of outlawed speech. Shitreet was one of the people who bowed to media pressure and opposed my father’s amendment more than a decade ago. Now he has a chance to correct his errors and add a layer of much needed protection for minorities in Israel.

At the same time, I think that a number of adjustments are required so that the amendment to the law cannot be too liberally applied. Firstly, the amendment should distinguish between public figures (who deserve less protection from the media in the context of their public activities) and private citizens – who need special protection against the salacious inclinations of the media. Secondly, not every tin-pot prosecutor should be able to slap journalists with a libel indictment. The amendment should restrict this privilege to senior district attorneys.

Pastor Mulinde, who converted to Christianity after spending much of his life as a Moslem, was attacked with acid on Christmas Eve in Kampala. The assailants shouted “Allah Akhbar” (God is great) immediately following the attack.

“I was attacked by a man who called out to me shouting ‘Pastor, Pastor,’ and I turned to see who he was,” said Mulinde. “Then he poured acid which burnt part of my face. As I turned away from the attacker, another man poured liquid on my back and ran away shouting ‘Allah Akhbar’ (God is great).”

Pastor Mulinde after being admitted and bandaged (Jan. 5) at the Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer in Israel by plastic surgeon and burns expert Dr. Joseph Haik.

After being initially hospitalized at International Hospital Kampala, Pastor Mulinde appealed to come to Israel for more advanced medical treatment.  The Pastor reached out to JerusalemOnlineU.com Executive Director Andrea Gottlieb of Philadelphia for help. Gottlieb made contact with Prof. Zeev Rotstein, director of Israel’s renowned Sheba Medical Center. Sheba serves patients from across the Middle East and Europe, and conducts humanitarian medical missions around the world, including ophthalmological care and burns treatment throughout Africa. Prof. Rotstein offered to provide acute and rehabilitative care to Mulinde, free-of-charge.

The Pastor arrived in Israel, via India and then Jordan.  Visas for Mulinde were arranged on short notice by Israel’s Foreign Ministry, thanks to the assistance of JerusalemOnlineU.com board member Ilan Sharon of Minneapolis.

Mulinde arrived at the Israeli hospital on Thursday afternoon (January 5, 2012). Dr. Joseph Haik, chief of the Sheba Medical Center burns unit, and Prof. Joseph Moisseiev, head of the Sheba Eye Institute, examined the Pastor upon arrival, and are directing his treatment. “Pastor Mulinde will require a series of dermatological repair operations over a period of several weeks,” says the plastic surgeon and burns expert Dr. Haik. “Our eye specialists will operate on his right eye, as well, next week.”

“Healing is deeply ingrained in Jewish history and tradition. So it was only natural that we agree to help Pastor Mulinde,” said the hospital director Prof. Rotstein. “Our hospital is very active and experienced in treating patients from around the world, including from Arab countries that have no diplomatic relations with Israel. I trust that we can rehabilitate him and perhaps help him regain his eyesight.”

Pastor Mulinde, son of an Islamic Imam, was trained in Islamic theology before converting to Christianity while attending University. He is an outspoken critic of Islam, and has publicly debated many Moslems across Uganda.  Mulinde’s wife is a prominent gospel singer.

Pastor Mulinde learned about Israel through JerusalemOnlineU.com’s course materials. He has since taught the courses at his Gospel Life Church International and to neighboring ministers, and organized a 5,000-person teach-in about Israel in a local stadium.

Andrea Gottlieb, Executive Director of JerusalemOnlineU.com, the organization that has supported Pastor Mulinde in his preaching about Israel, said, “Pastor Mulinde uses our courses to share his love for Israel with others. He is a devoted and loyal friend of Israel. We quickly responded to the Pastor’s urgent needs, and are grateful that he is now receiving the best medical treatment in the world.”

Photos of Pastor Muline before and after the attack are online at http://eng.sheba.co.il/Sheba_News/310.htm

Published in The Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom, January 3, 2012

Looking into my crystal ball for 2012, here’s what I see:

Binyamin Netanyahu: He will continue to successfully hug the center of Israeli politics and maintain a stable coalition, with no need for new elections or for reckless diplomatic initiatives. His greatest challenge will come from the Ultra Orthodox who feel simultaneously emboldened and threatened, and will ramp up their financial demands when it comes time to negotiate the 2013 budget.

Shelly Yehimovich: The most interesting and unpredictable party leader in Israeli politics. Believe it or not, she is now reaching out with social-economic messaging to religious voters and settlers in order to broaden Labor’s base. She clearly eclipses Tzippy Livni. Can she also overshadow Yair Lapid, and raise real campaign money?

Aryeh Deri: He threatens to steal half of Shas voters from Eli Yishai if he runs for election independently, and will force Yishai to shift ever more to the religious right in order to distinguish himself from Deri. Unfortunately, that means that Shas will back away from supporting marriage reform (the Tzohar law), and any liberalizing changes in conversion procedures.

Avigdor Lieberman: Since the Attorney General decided not to prosecute MK Hanin Zoabi of Balad for her participation in the infamous flotilla – which should have been a slam dunk indictment – I bet that he will decide also not to proceed with an indictment of Lieberman. It’s only fair. This will fuel Israel Beiteinu’s next election campaign, and Netanyahu will look to solidify his alliance with Lieberman.

Mahmoud Abbas: The cardboard leader of the Palestinian “Authority” will continue to hunker down behind UN initiatives aimed at isolating and condemning Israel, while authorizing only marginal, meaningless “peace talks” with Israel. The world will continue to coddle Abbas, despite his intransigence. Hamas-Fatah talks will serve to strengthen Hamas’ standing within Palestinian institutions and society. When the IDF takes action against the Hamas in Gaza, Abbas will be trapped and lose whatever remaining credibility he has with Israelis and Palestinians.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: If we’re lucky, the Iranian leader’s cockiness and bluster will trip him into a shooting war with the US in the Straits of Hormuz or elsewhere in the Gulf. If we’re less lucky, he’ll make steady but quiet progress in nuclear enrichment and weaponization, while bamboozling the EU with endless negotiations. Israel will hold back from a direct military confrontation with Iran, until there are changes in Washington or the Iranians foolishly go for a nuclear breakout.

Mohamed Hussein Tantawi: Field Marshal Tantawi, chairman of the Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces which took power last February after Mubarak was unseated, will maneuver backwards and forwards to keep a lid on the Islamists in parliament and in the streets. Presidential elections will be postponed repeatedly. If Tantawi gets backing from the US and the EU (unlike Mubarak), along with massive foreign aid, he stands half a chance of succeeding. For our sake, I wish him luck.

Bashar Assad: He’ll be lucky to live out his days in a Russian or Chinese retirement dacha – if he is smart enough to get out alive soon. One year from now, Syria could easily be sundered into five independent states: Alawite in the west, Kurdish in the north-east, Druze in the south, Bedouin in the east, with Aleppo a separate city-state. For us, this is preferable to the continuation of the Assad regime – which has partnered with Iran, North Korea and Hezbollah. (Another scenario is that Turkey occupies much of Syria and facilitates the rise to power of an Islamic regime…)

Barack Hussein Obama: He’ll get “only” 68 percent of the Jewish vote in this November’s presidential elections, instead of the 78 percent he won in 2008. Oy, what are we going to do with American Jews…..?

Jerusalem: Who is going to be the first major Western country to move its embassy to western Jerusalem? After all, no-one disputes that western Jerusalem is and will be Israel’s capital in the context of any peace treaty with the Palestinians. Announcement of such a move could be billed as a recognition of reality (as well as friendship to Israel), and could be accompanied by a disclaimer statement that (country: fill in the blank) “does not at this point take any position of the disposition of eastern Jerusalem, whose sovereignty will still be subject to negotiation.” Any takers?

Published in Israel Hayom, January 2, 2012

The Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox Jewish worlds have given themselves very big black eyes (pun intended) over the past weeks with all the reported instances of discrimination against women, violence against school girls, violence against Arabs, and an attack on an army base and a senior officer. The sane (but perhaps too docile) majority of Orthodox Jews are not party to such twisted thinking and abominable behavior. Nevertheless, they are tarred in the public mind by association with the aberrant activists.

The good news is that the sane majority is speaking up and speaking out. Spurred into action by the terrible excesses and abuses of fanatics on the extreme margins of Orthodox society, Religious Zionist (and a few Haredi) rabbis have sought to make their rational and reasonable voices heard, both within their own communities and beyond. It is unfortunate that these levelheaded Orthodox leaders are not receiving better press. (I guess that normalcy is not as press-worthy as extremism).

Just about every hesder yeshiva dean has condemned in crystal clear terms the assault on the IDF commander in Binyamin and his base as well as mosque torching and vandalism aimed at Arab property. Every association of Religious Zionist rabbis, from Tzohar to Young Israel, and the municipal chief rabbis too, have made clear their utter rejection of such behavior. Every weekly Torah pamphlet I read in synagogue these past weeks (and there are dozens of them!) has contained outright denunciation of those who employ violence, and excoriation of the deviant religious thinking behind violence.

Rabbi Moshe Lichtenstein, one of the deans of Yeshivat hesder Har Etzion (and son of the yeshiva’s founder Rabbi Dr. Aharon Lichtenstein, who is the preeminent hesder yeshiva dean in Israel), boldly took on the extremists within Religious Zionism who declared that listening to women’s song at IDF ceremonies was forbidden and even equivalent to blasphemy. Rabbi Lichtenstein conducted a detailed halachic analysis for his students (and encouraged the publication of his remarks) showing that there were well-founded, lenient opinions in halacha which sanction women appearing and singing in public – that could and should be relied upon in the army and other public frameworks, including in-house Religious Zionist gatherings.

“Women should have significant personal and religious self-expression, including non-sexual singing; and for those who want to, it is perfectly legitimate to rely upon the lenient halachic opinions in this regard,” he said. “When the important values of national service and national unity are added into the mix of halachic considerations, it is clear that to provoke unrest and enmity over the commonplace singing of women in army ceremonies, and to disconnect oneself from the public in this way – is a mistake. Fanaticism on this issue sets off alarm bells in every sinew of my body,” said Rabbi Lichtenstein.

Now, a new group of Orthodox rabbis is being formed under the tentative name of “Beit Hillel: Attentive Rabbinic Leadership” for the purpose of expressing forthright views on current affairs from a “Zionist, modern, democratic and tolerant” perspective. (The House of Hillel, or Beit Hillel, was a moderate school of thought in the Talmudic era). “In recent times,” write the founders of this new group, “militant views in Jewish tradition are often the only perspective on current affairs heard in public discourse. We seek to offer perspectives that will express the sophistication, tolerance, complexity and spiritual power of Judaism for the modern age.”

Among the founders of this modern young rabbis association are Amnon Bazak of Yeshivat Har Etzion, Tsachi Hershkovitz of Petah Tikva and Bar-Ilan University, Ronen Lubitch of Nir Etzion and Haifa University, Chaim Navon of Modiin, and Ronen Neuwirth of Raanana. More power to them.

Now it’s time for the Ultra Orthodox world to demonstrate a similar level of clarity regarding its commitment to civility and reasonableness within halacha and in its interface with broader Israeli society.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has spoken out against overdone gender separation and against Ultra Orthodox extremist actions like the wearing of Nazi yellow stars to protest “the evil empire of Zionism.” But fewer senior Ashkenazi Ultra Orthodox leaders (Lithuanian or Hassidic) have made their voice heard clearly against the extremists. My Haredi friends tell me that this is not necessary. “Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of people in Haredi circles,” they say, “know that violence and ugly behavior like spitting is verboten. Nobody seeks to violently enforce gender separation on the secular public, not on buses or elsewhere. Nobody takes the ultra minority Toldot Aharon, Shomrei Emunim, Satmar and Sikrikim circles seriously,” they assert.

But I say: That’s not good enough. Top Haredi leadership has to act vigorously and publicly to delegitimize, isolate and crush the extremists – for the sake of mainstream Haredi society and for ours.

Unfortunately, senior Ashkenazi leadership seems to have other concerns on its mind. Last week, a significant halachic epistle was published, supposedly in the name of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (the senior-most Ashkenazi Ultra Orthodox Lithuanian sage), banning participation in the special tracks for integration of Haredim in the army, national service and academia. This would doom Haredi society to continued isolation and poverty, and widen the gaps between them and the rest of the public to intolerable levels. I hope that Rabbi Eliashiv isn’t really behind the epistle, and that the Haredi public will know better than to slavishly follow this unfortunate ruling.

Published in Israel Hayom, January 1, 2012.

The US is pouring more than $100 billion worth of arms into the Middle East as part of an accelerating military buildup presumably meant to counter Iran. While it’s nice to think that the Obama administration might actually be getting ready to confront Iran, you have to question the wisdom of dumping sophisticated weapons systems into the currently turbulent and rapidly Islamicizing Mideast.

”This (arms) sale will send a strong message to countries in the region that the United States is committed to stability in the gulf and the broader Middle East,” said Andrew Shapiro, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, as he announced the sale of F-15 fighter jets valued at nearly $30 billion to the Saudi Air Force. ”It will enhance Saudi Arabia’s ability to deter and defend against external threats to its sovereignty.”

Yeah, right. As if the Saudis are ever going to be able to defend themselves against Iran!

I’m more worried about the possibility of blowback: that these weapons will end up one day in the hands of radical forces that could use them against Western interests and against Israel.

The arms sales announced by Washington in December alone include 84 F-15s to Riyadh (which is part of 10-year, $60 billion weapons package for Saudi Arabia that Congress approved last year); $1.7 billion to upgrade Saudi Arabia’s Patriot anti-missile missiles; $3.5 billion in advanced anti-missile interception systems to the United Arab Emirates (marking the first foreign sale of the Theater High Altitude Area Defense system designed to destroy short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles); $1 billion in Patriot missiles to Kuwait; $304 million in “bunker buster” bombs and other munitions to the UAE; nearly $11 billion for 36 F-16s, M1A1 Abrams tanks, cannons and armored personnel carriers for Iraq; and most surprisingly, $30 billion in arms for Egypt.

The arms sales to Iraq and Egypt deserve the greatest scrutiny. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki seems to be moving to consolidate authority, create a one-party Shiite-dominated state and abandon the US-backed power-sharing government. Iran has great influence in post-American Iraqi politics. As violence rises in Iraq, many analysts see great risks that US-supplied weapons may be misused to crush dissident minorities. They could even yet fall into Iranian hands.

The emerging Moslem Brotherhood state in Egypt is an even more questionable candidate for new American arms. While the US (and Israel) have a long-standing, amicable working relationship with the Egyptian military, nobody knows how ridden with Islamists the army has become or how long the military will truly be able to hold onto power. The Egyptian parliament will clearly have an Islamic party majority, and there will be constant pressure to reorient Egyptian foreign and defense policy away from alliance with America and Israel.

In the meantime, the military is raiding the offices of pro-democracy and human rights groups. Last week, the military raided the offices of the US-based International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute, which are loosely associated with the US Democratic and Republican political parties and receive US government funding.

So with Egyptian democracy and its military both extremely suspect as partners for the future; and with the central government losing control over significant parts of the country (including Sinai) – is it really smart to be selling Egypt more jets and tanks?

As chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee throughout most of the 1990s, Yuval Steinitz ran a one-man campaign protesting the accelerated and dangerous Egyptian military buildup. One day, Steinitz, warned, both America and Israel will be sorry that the Egyptian military was stocking-up with Washington’s top-level weaponry. It’s not too late to heed Steinitz’s prescient counsel now.