H/T Yisrael Medad. 

After New York Times‘ Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren incorrectly reported that building in E-1 would make a “contiguous” Palestinian state impossible, the Times issued this lengthy correction to her article this past Sunday:

An article on Dec. 2 about Israel’s decision to move forward with planning and zoning for settlements in an area east of Jerusalem known as E1 described imprecisely the effect of such development on access to the cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem from Jerusalem, and on the West Bank. Development of E1 would limit access to Ramallah and Bethlehem, leaving narrow corridors far from the Old City and downtown Jerusalem; it would not completely cut off those cities from Jerusalem. It would also create a large block of Israeli settlements in the center of the West Bank; it would not divide the West Bank in two. And because of an editing error, the article referred incompletely to the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state. Critics see E1 as a threat to the meaningful contiguity of such a state because it would leave some Palestinian areas connected by roads with few exits or by circuitous routes; the proposed development would not technically make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible. [Emphasis added].

Following the correction, former Bush adviser and fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations Elliot Abrams accused Rudoren of being completely bias when it comes to Israel, saying there was no other explanation for her failure to know or consult a map:

Here’s my theory: that just about everyone she knows –all her friends– believe these things, indeed know that they are true. Settlements are bad, the right-wing Israeli government is bad, new construction makes peace impossible and cuts the West Bank in half and destroys contiguity and means a Palestinian state is impossible. They just know it, it’s obvious, so why would you have to refer to a map, or talk to people who would tell you it’s all wrong? This was precisely what was feared when Ms. Rudoren was named the Times’s bureau chief: that she would move solely in a certain political and social milieu, the rough Israeli equivalent of the Upper West Side of Manhattan. This embarrassing episode–one story, many errors and corrections–may lead her to be more careful. One has to hope so, and to hope that both she and her editors reflect again on the thinking and the pattern of associations that lead a correspondent to misunderstand the issues so badly.

Yesterday, Politico posted part of an e-mail sent by Rudoren defending herself. She argued that she is not bias (of course) and blamed “imprecise language” on the pressures of making a deadline late at night. But that was not all. She went further, arguing that in essence she was and is correct about E-1 cutting Judea and Samaria in two, saying that’s “precisely why this area was chosen at this time” by the Israeli government. While as a writer and an attorney I can sympathize with the burdens of watching every single word while adhering to multiple deadlines for various pieces of work, her non-apology apology gives her bias away.

For years, Israel’s “friendly” critics have argued that Israel could establish a Palestinian state through various technical agreements and security arrangements, such as using bypass roads, which would theoretically enable Israelis to travel safely through certain areas of Judea and Samaria without worrying about road attacks. Even after the correction, Roduren assumes that such an arrangement would be impossible and goes even further by acting as if the territory in between Ma’aleh Adumim and the Dead Sea which would connect the top and bottom portions of Judea and Samaria does not exist.

My hope as a Jew and an Israeli citizen is that the government did choose to build in E-1 both to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state as well as to send a message that one could not be created about our consent. As I have written elsewhere, the timing indicates that this may be the case. But it could also be about other things: building in an area which all Israeli governments have viewed as being part of Israel in any future agreement with the Palestinians; sending a message to the Palestinians and/or the international community that Israel will take unilateral action in response to action taken by the Palestinians to change the status of the territory without Israel’s agreement (violating the Oslo Accords), or just building in a controversial area at what was thought to be strategically opportune time.

Last week the EU Council of Foreign Affairs issued a statement about recent developments in what it called the “Middle East Peace Process.” The EU stated that all parties must avoid acts which undermine confidence and the viability of a two state solution. The statement showed just how detached the European Union has become from the reality in Israel.

There has been no peace process at all since the Palestinian leadership decided to walk away from bilateral negotiations with Israel in 2009, a move that was the result of a calculated change in strategy in PA politics regarding Israel.

Furthermoreת most EU countries undermined the chances of a negotiated deal on the two-state solution by voting in favor, or by abstaining from voting against, the unilateral UN statehood bid by the Palestinian Authority in November. The EU thereby became an accomplice in abrogating the Oslo accords.

The accords state, at Article 31: “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations.”

The Palestinian Authority, however, bypassed permanent status negotiations in order to obtain world recognition of a Palestinian state. It was an attempt to change the status of the Judea and Samaria.

This unilateral act clearly undermined confidence. It also endangered relative quiet and the fragile status quo in the Judea and Samaria. This has been made clear by a series of violent incidents over the last two weeks. Palestinians in Hebron even announced on Saturday that the Third Intifada had begun.

Palestinian propaganda

But there is more.  Reading the ECFA statement carefully brings to light that the EU obviously bases its policy on information from Palestinian sources or from NGOs affiliated with the Palestinians.

For example, when speaking about the ceasefire lines that existed before the Six Day War in 1967 the EU uses the word ‘borders.’ These  ‘borders’ were in fact armistice lines that came into being after Arab aggression against Israel in 1948. The Palestinians speak about borders because their existence would enhance their claim to the Judea and Samaria.

When expressing “deep dismay” and “strong opposition” to Israeli plans to develop the so called E-1 area between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim,  the EU stated that this plan would “jeopardize the possibility of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state.” The EU even claimed that the plan “could entail the forced transfer of civilian population.”

These claims about E-1 are also based on propaganda used by the Palestinian Authority. The facts about E-1 show that the plan in no way  threatens the contiguity of a viable Palestinian state.

E-1 is a 11,7 sq.km area atop the barren hills adjacent to the eastern fringes of Jerusalem, joining it to Ma’aleh Adumim which is a  suburb of 40.000 residents 4,5 kilometers east of Jerusalem.

The town is within the Israeli consensus. Every Israeli government, including the Rabin government, has stated that Ma’aleh Adumim would be part of Israel in any permanent agreement with the Palestinians and that development of the E-1 area was necessary to avoid Jerusalem becoming an outlying frontier city once again. This had been the case before and after 1948 until 1967 when Jerusalem was divided and under constant attack.

The E-1 area, which is part of Ma’aleh Adumim and within Area C, has been the scene of relentless illegal Palestinian building and  land grabs by Bedouin tribes.  In Area C, according to the Oslo II accord, Israel retained the powers of zoning and planning.

Building in E-1 will not threaten the contiguity of a Palestinian state because east of Ma’aleh Adumim at least 15 kilometers of land remains to connect the north West Bank to the south. Furthermore Israel has developed a plan for a bypass road east of Ma’aleh Adumim that would connect Bethlehem to Ramallah. The new road would actually reduce travelling time for Palestinian travellers.

The map of Israel below shows clearly that the development of the E-1 area would not jeopardize a contiguous Palestinian state and that the corridor which would connect the northern portion of Judea and Samaria to the south is of the same size as the corridor that existed in Israel prior to the Six Day War.

It’s an interesting question my mother asked me.

I’ve seen media twist words before – I’m not naive. I know the way the game is played. I’ve seen instances where reporters leave out parts of a statement to make it seem so different than what was intended. Should I open myself up to having my words distorted, to allowing them to take the beauty of where I live and turn it into something wrong, ugly, even stolen?

Years ago, I took a reporter around Maale Adumim and then to the Jewish communities in Gaza. She had once worked for this very media organization now asking to interview me. I took her to the home of a woman who has two children who were injured in terror attacks. The reporter didn’t ask about how her children were coping with their injuries and their trauma…she asked how it felt to live in a house that was stolen?

No, this woman didn’t live in a house that was stolen, not even on land that was occupied. She moved here more than 20 years ago and bought an apartment. She made it a home and raised her children here. There was so much she could have spoken about, but that first question was so telling. It was phrased with cruelty and ignorance, with the reporter’s agenda clear to all.

Before we left the city, I was already regretting my decision to take her to Gaza. I wanted to show her the amazing things Israel does. In Maale Adumim, I took her to a beautiful new children’s park nearby – built in sections so that children of varying ages can play, so many safety issues addressed – soft ground under climbing equipment, things that could withstand the sun, railings and fences and benches for the parents to sit and watch. Surrounded by gardens and paths where it is pleasant to walk, it’s a gathering place all week long for so many.

She didn’t compliment the park’s planning  - she asked why Palestinians can’t come there. She asked why the Palestinians don’t have similar parks in THEIR neighborhoods in a tone that made it clear she blamed us, that it was OUR responsibility to build for them the things they didn’t bother building for themselves. I told her she should ask them. The money we pay in taxes goes to building parks here – where does the money go in Palestinian areas, and what happens to the parks and schools we do build in their areas?

In Gaza, I took her to several families – to a man who lost an arm in one war and then several fingers on his remaining hand when he was attacked years later by a terrorist. He told her of the body of a young mother that he found in a car on the side of the road – and how the terrorists had sat in waiting. The dead woman was bait for whatever target came next. They relied on the goodness and caring of the next person to stop and see if she needed help. He was badly wounded, saved more by a malfunctioning grenade than the soldiers who followed and eliminated the terrorist.

I took her to the greenhouses to show her the incredible farms and produce and to meet other people and see other places. And finally, I took her to the home of a family who had lost a son in war and was about to not only lose their home but would be faced with digging up their son’s grave and having it moved rather than leaving it to be desecrated in Gaza. It was the one time I begged her not to ask anything about politics, “please, don’t do that to them – don’t ask them about stolen land and how it feels to lose their home…” She was very good, actually, and I appreciated that she simply asked them to tell her about their son.

To discuss a hill where no one lives…

I just can’t get over this. I’m trying to understand the urgency. Britain’s Foreign Minister says there is an “urgent need to restart the peace process.”

I’m all for peace but honestly, what is so urgent today, this week versus last month. One hundred rockets rained down on Israel in a single day – and I heard nothing from the European Union about urgently seeking peace. A mother was attacked in her home, stabbed as she defended her children – silence. Two years ago, an infant was murdered beside her mother, her father and two of her brothers…silence, no urgent need.

Why? What is it about that mountain that brings such urgency? Have they ever actually seen it – it is, to be honest, incredibly humble as far as mountains go and rather an embarrassment on the scale of causes of a world crisis.

And then, I thought – it isn’t actually that mountain – it really isn’t, and it never was. If you drive down the highway from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea – it’ll take you 25 minutes. About three minutes out, on the left side for all of 4 seconds, you’ll pass E1. Actually, I’m not sure it would even take 4 seconds to pass it and it might be less than 3 minutes from Jerusalem. Most likely, your eyes will be drawn to the right where up on the top of the mountains is Maale Adumim.

E1 (the area in the background), as seen from Maale Adumim

You probably wouldn’t even think to look to the right – there’s nothing there…except for a narrow 2 lane road and one big building with a lot of windows.

So, if it isn’t the mountain, why are 27 world leaders meeting? They’ll never tell you the truth – but it really is about Israel itself. You see, to be honest, the Palestinians and more specifically, the Arabs, don’t want us here. They never did; they never will. Hamas will tell you honestly – their goal is to replace ALL of Israel with yet another deeply Islamic country.

The more moderate Arabs will tell you they only want to talk about an interim issue. First, they say, let’s get Israel out of any land it conquered from the 1967 war. No, no, they aren’t accepting the pre-1967 borders, they are simply rejecting the post-1967 borders.

So, they say – let’s go back to 1967 (then we’ll talk about 1949 and then, if they’re successful, they’ll go back to 1945, or perhaps 1942 – when there was no Israel and Jews were dying in Europe.Whatever it takes.

As a footnote, it was mentioned that the 27 leaders would discuss Syria as well. I am astounded that each day as many as 100-200 people are dying in Syria…there is talk of chemical weapons being used – and the European Union, which was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace today…thinks the most pressing issue facing them is a stupid little mountain that would not impact on the Arab population – even if 6,000 apartments were built there.

View of E1 in the Background…Nothing There…Nothing…

It really is so very simple. There is a direct highway that runs from Abu Dis and Azariya to our west – directly east all the way to the Dead Sea. Just passed Maale Adumim, there is a left turn that links that road to all the major Arab areas to the north of Jerusalem and further down that road – without a single check point between Abu Dis and the Dead Sea, there is Jericho. Just after Jericho, there is another left turn, giving the Arabs full access to the Jordan Valley and beyond.

In short, whether Israel builds 3,000 houses on E1 or not, the bottom line is unfettered movement for the Palestinians. The roads are major highways that will not be shut down – how can they be? They are the same roads Israelis use to get where they need to go everyday.

With no understanding of facts on the ground, the European Union has caved into the hysterics of the Palestinians…again.

And this time, if you look carefully, you’ll see Syria’s Assad, Egypt’s Morsi, Nasrallah in the north, and a million or so Palestinians laughing hysterically because as blood flows freely in Damascus…the European Union continues to focus on a hill that goes nowhere.

Visit A Soldier’s Mother.

A senior Israeli cabinet minister on Tuesday night admitted to Channel 10 News that behind the move to revive the construction process in the E1 zone near Ma’ale Adumim, just outside East Jerusalem, was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s concern about the growing power of Naftali Bennett, chairman of “Jewish Home,” the modern heir of the National Religious Party, whose Knesset list continues to “bite off” eats from Likud-Beiteinu in the polls.

The Senior minister told Channel 10 that the date of the decision was not coincidental, and that “Netanyahu thinks about the elections and has decided to build because of his fear of Naftali Bennett.”

“Netanyahu’s goal was to create noise and fight Naftali Bennett, to prevent leakage of votes to the right,” the minister, whose name remains undisclosed, continued.

Allaying the fears of the left over the same move, the minister explained: “Planning such a neighborhood takes five years, not a few minutes. When a new government is sworn in, and new American pressure is applied, this plan will be shelved as happened in the past. This government not build anything.”

The “Jewish Home” has been growing stronger in recent polls, which this week are predicting from 10 to 13 seats going its way. On Monday, journalist Amit Segal wrote on his Twitter account that internal polls are showing the “Jewish home” getting as much as 15 seats, thus becoming the third largest party, ahead of the Sephardi-Haredi Shas.

Police foiled a possible terror attack in Ma’aleh Adumim on Thursday evening after noticing a suspicious vehicle trying to drive into the city of Ma’aleh Adumim, just outside of Jerusalem.

The police stopped the car which had no plates, and arrested the Arab driver (40), a resident of the Shomron, who said he had planned to commit a terror attack in Maaleh Adumim as part of an agreement to end a feud with another Arab from the town of Azariyah, which is near Ma’aleh Adumim.

No explosives or weapons were found in the vehicle.

On Sunday, a firebomb was thrown at an Israeli car on route 443.

A massive amount of stones were thrown at a bus near Maaleh Adumim.

No one was injured in the attacks.

I recently interviewed Mrs. Tziporah Lifshitz of Maaleh Adumim, Israel about the posthumous publication of the book A Day Is A Thousand Years, Human Destiny and the Jewish People, authored by her late father, Dr. Zvi Faier, and edited by Tziporah and her mother, Chaya.

I knew Tziporah as a young child when our families lived around the corner from each other in Far Rockaway. I had not seen her for many years and I was looking forward to this interview.  I also remembered her father, whom we called Herschel, all those years ago.  He was a “scholar and a gentleman,” brilliant, but warm and approachable.  I was saddened when I learned of his death and thankful that with the publication of this book, his thoughts would remain for posterity.

Tziporah, please tell me a little about your father.

My father was born in pre-war Poland. His family fled Nazi occupied Poland and lived in Southern Russia. In 1948 through the help of an aunt they immigrated to Montreal, Canada where he attended yeshiva and received a Bachelor of Science degree. He then moved to Chicago where he received a PhD from Northwestern University, in theoretical physics. In Chicago he met and married my mother, Chaya and also met his mentor, Rabbi Chaim Zimmerman, who was the head Rabbinic scholar at the Hebrew Theological College.

In 1973 our family made aliyah. My father maintained his Talmudic studies with Rabbi Zimmerman at the Harry Fishel Institute, where he received Smicha in 1976.

Recently, when I asked a relative how he would best describe my father, he said, “ He was always striving towards deeper understanding and truth.” My father was above all, a man of Torah, but he was also a man of science.

What was your part in this book?

I was very close to my father. He wrote and then we discussed many pieces together, especially during the last three years of his life. Upon his death, I assumed the editing of the manuscript, together with my mother. But he completed the manuscript. On the one hand the book is very personal and yet it is a book of lofty ideas.

What is the theme of the book?

I think I would say, what being “the Chosen People” means and what it implies for non-Jews. My father believed in the goodness of mankind. He wanted this book to be read by Jews as well as non-Jews, because what is at stake is nothing less than the future of mankind. He relates his own life experiences, the Holocaust, because this tackles the question of the relationships of Jews and gentiles. He also discusses Christianity and anti-Semitism. A key word in his world is striving. Man at full stature, is a being that strives higher and higher. Not only mundane everyday survival and managing life, but striving to reach deeper truths and new horizons. This was how he viewed mankind and history and this is how he lived his own life.

Tell me a little about yourself.

I’m a mother of 8 children, all born in Israel. I live in Maaleh Adumim, which is about 15 minutes outside of Jerusalem. I teach Jewish philosophy at Ulpana Tzvia, the local girls high school and I am studying for my doctorate in the Talmud department of Bar Ilan University.

You mentioned Rabbi Chaim Zimmerman as your father’s mentor. How does this relate to the book?

Rabbi Zimmerman was a part of the Brisk dynasty, and was considered a giant in Torah. My father was his student for many years and he had a profound influence on his life. Some of the concepts explored in this book are things that my father discussed with Rabbi Zimmerman and he is mentioned often in the footnotes.

Tell me a little more about the book.

My father quotes Chazal, offering his own analysis and illuminating a new dimension, especially to those who are not so familiar with the words of Chazal. He brings new insights suitable to a broad educated audience, Jew as well as non-Jews.

This book is not a coffee table book, nor is it a quick read. It can be picked up often to read a few pages and then put down, but come back to again and again.