Good News in Israel; Did The Jews Steal Christmas?

Issue # 206

Following last weekend's attack that killed five Israeli soldiers, veteran Ha'aretz columnist Yoel Marcus offered some advice to the Palestinians. "For God's sake, " he wrote, "don't mess up again. Lift your eyes and you will see a little crack in the firmament that has opened for the two peoples.

"Have a good look at who is standing beside that crack - and take them seriously. These old men [Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres], who have joined forces to set a precedent for Israel's withdrawal from the territories, are among the most experienced politicians this country has to offer.

"They won't be around forever. Take advantage of the fact that Arafat, may Allah have mercy on him, is an obstacle no longer. Take advantage of the fact that Bush has been reelected, and with his army mired in Iraq, he is anxious for a deal to be clinched in these parts. Evacuation won't be easy, but these old fellows can do it. Stop the terror and you'll see: 'If you want, it is no dream'."

Good advice which, to a significant extent, is being heeded.  Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), virtually certain to be elected President of the Palestinian Authority next month, has unequivocally called for an end to terrorism.  He told the Arab Asharq al-Awsat newspaper that Palestinians have the "legitimate right" to resist the occupation but only by "political and social means." The "use of arms has been damaging and should end," he said.

A majority of Palestinians appear to agree. According to a poll taken by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center 52 percent of Palestinians oppose bombings against Israeli targets and consider them harmful to Palestinian interests; 26 percent felt that way in June.

Of course, words are not enough.  Prime Minister Sharon will have a hard, if not impossible, time moving forward on Gaza withdrawal and re-opening negotiations over the West Bank if Hamas and the other terrorists continue their deadly attacks.  The attacks have to end, either at the hand of the PA or through some sort of cease-fire/hudna arrangement.  That is one thing about which Sharon and Abbas agree.

There also seems to be significant Palestinian compliance with Sharon's demand that incitement against Israelis end. In the weeks since Yasir Arafat's death incendiary images and rhetoric have been disappearing from the Palestinian media.  The New York Times on Wednesday quoted Yigal Carmon, who runs the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) which monitors the Arab-language media as saying that Abu Mazen has issued "a clear declaration of intent against incitement." Itamar Marcus, the head of the Palestine Media Watch, also sees a decrease in incitement. Both Carmon and Marcus have long taken a hard line against hate rhetoric; coming from them the report of progress is astonishing.

For his part, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon appears ready to capitalize on the moment.  Speaking at the Herzliyah Conference last night (the venue where he announced his Gaza disengagement plan a year ago), Sharon said that Israel stands "before a unique window of opportunity. Who knows when we will have this opportunity in the future?  We must not miss this opportunity to reach the long awaited agreement with the Palestinians....This is the hour.  This is the time.  This is the national test."

The first step, he said, is for Israel to "take the initiative" and leave Gaza.  But, in contrast to his previous position, Sharon no longer speaks of purely unilateral action.  He said that Israel is "ready to coordinate different aspects of the disengagement plan with the future Palestinian government...." He told the Palestinians that Israel has "no desire to rule over you or to run your affairs."  Although specifically ruling out a return to the '67 borders, he reiterated Israel's support for the roadmap and indicated that his bottom line for the West Bank is retention of the settlement blocks adjacent to Israel, not the whole of what his supporters call "Judea and Samaria."

He said that Israel will do its part to pave the way for free and fair Palestinian elections with the goal of establishing a Palestinian state. The Palestinians, for their part, "could then live in dignity and freedom in an independent state.  And they could enjoy good neighborly relations with Israel, with cooperation for the welfare of both nations... because the one-state alternative, where one nation rules another, would be a terrible disaster for both nations."

There will be those who dismiss Sharon's words as mere rhetoric, a political tactic and nothing more.  But the fact is that if Sharon is playing politics, he is doing it very badly.  In the year since announcing the Gaza disengagement his political fortunes have become infinitely more complicated.  Once the hero of the far right, he is now the target of assassination threats and vitriol from that quarter.  Surviving as Prime Minister requires him to pursue a coalition with the left, the very people he has been fighting since entering politics.

Why would Sharon bring this upon himself if he wasn't serious?

It's not that the old general has now become a dove.  In his ideal world, Israel would retain the territories forever (just as in Abu Mazen's ideal world a Palestinian state would be established in all of "Palestine").  But Sharon knows that in the real world territorial withdrawal is, in his own words, the only way to secure "the future of Israel as a democratic and Jewish state."  Democratic and Jewish.

His critics on the right have no response to that. The more honest among them say that they are prepared to dispense with democracy in order to preserve a Jewish majority. The less honest say that Sharon is simply exaggerating the problem.  But the numbers don't lie.  Preservation of the status quo would be the end of Israel.

That is why Sharon is so determined to move.

Unfortunately, Abu Mazen responded to Sharon's speech by calling his terms for an agreement "nothing new."  That is true, in the sense that people on the left have been saying all this for years.  The difference is that this is Sharon and, with Peres at his side, he can actually deliver.

Abu Mazen should grab at what Sharon is offering with both hands.  Get the process going and see where it leads.  That is what Ben-Gurion did when his people were stateless and powerless.  Look at what it got him.

**Did the Jews Steal Christmas?**

It's hard to believe but there is a movement among elements of the extreme right to attack American Jews for "taking Christ out of Christmas."  These ugly manifestations are filling the talk radio air waves and far-right websites.

But the most alarming attacks are coming from Bill O'Reilly at Fox News, the most widely watched political commentator on cable.  His latest crusade is against the trend toward wishing people "Happy Holidays "rather than "Merry Christmas."  His outrage was spurred by the Macy's department store which is now using the religiously neutral term.

And he's been going on and on about it, with little effort to disguise who he considers guilty. Things came to a head when a Jewish caller said that he was concerned not so much about Christmas but about people at his college trying "to convert me to Christianity."

Here is O'Reilly's response -- heard by his millions of viewers: "All right. Well, what I'm tellin' you,  is I think you're takin' it too seriously. You have a predominantly Christian nation. You have a federal holiday based on the philosopher Jesus. And you don't wanna hear about it? Come on -- if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then. I mean because we live in a country founded on Judeo -- and that's your guys' -- Christian, that's my guys' philosophy. But overwhelmingly, America is Christian. And the holiday is a federal holiday honoring the philosopher Jesus. So, you don't wanna hear about it? Impossible. And that is an affront to the majority. You know, the majority can be insulted, too. And that's what this anti-Christmas thing is all about."

Abraham Foxman of the ADL responded with a letter and press release telling O'Reilly that his remarks play "into one of the oldest anti-Semitic canards about Jews, that they are not full citizens of a country and are not entitled to all of the rights afforded to the majority.  The notion that religious minorities have no place in a Christian America and should leave may be acceptable for extremists, but it is unacceptable coming from a popular and respected media commentator."

That didn't stop O'Reilly. He told his viewers that Foxman is a "nut" and that the ADL is "a militant organization" - which could, if "used" by secularists, cause a "backlash against Jewish Americans" which O'Reilly pledges "to make sure doesn't happen" (thanks, Bill!).  Now Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) has joined Foxman and is circulating a letter to Fox demanding an apology from O'Reilly and is working to get her fellow House members to join her.  No doubt, O'Reilly will have some choice things to say about Lowey who, of course, does not celebrate Christmas either.

And it's not just O'Reilly and Fox. On MSNBC last week William Donahue of the Catholic League insisted, "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? They like to see the public square without nativity scenes."  Other pundits who have addressed the supposed anti-Christmas onslaught include Tony Snow, Morton Kondracke and Fred Barnes.

Perhaps the most cynical reaction to the whole affair comes from Charles Krauthammer who, in today's  Washington Post , ridicules Jews - and other non-Christians who are bothered by the erosion of the separation of church and state -- for displaying "profound ungenerosity toward a majority of fellow citizens who have shown such generosity of spirit toward minority religions."

This from a guy, so sensitive on Jewish matters, that he smears as hostile to Jews anyone who, say, states that Israel would be better off without the West Bank and Gaza or that Palestinians are as entitled to the same basic human rights as the rest of us. But anti-semitism from his ideological allies offends him not at all.

The hypocrisy is mind-numbing, but so is the idea that the O'Reillys and Krauthammers are so blind to just where their idea of American Jews as a tolerated minority could lead.

Foxman and Lowey deserve credit for taking on this issue.  And so does the website MediaMatters which not only reports on what bigots are up to but allows you to watch or listen to the actual clips you were fortunate enough to miss when they first aired.

The bottom line is that this whole issue is a fake.  No serious Christian is bothered by a Macy's clerk who wishes him "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" just as no serious Jew is offended by being wished a "Merry Christmas."  The O'Reillys and others of his ilk are simply using one of the two holiest days on the Christian calendar to drive wedges between Americans.  And that should offend us all.

MJ Rosenberg (email: mj847@aol.com), Director of Policy Analysis for Israel Policy Forum, is a long time Capitol Hill staffer and former editor of AIPAC's Near East Report. If you have colleagues or friends who would appreciate receiving this weekly letter, send an e-mail to ipfdc@ipforumdc.org.

The views expressed in IPF Friday are those of MJ Rosenberg and not necessarily of Israel Policy Forum.