JERUSALEM—The Secretary General of the United Nations has condemned Palestinians for directing their rockets against Israeli civilians, and Israel for a disproportionate response.

Both condemnations are appropriate. Israel's response is disproportionately light. Seven years ago the IDF should have begun sending one artillery shell into a neighborhood of Gaza with for every missile that landed in an Israeli settlement.

Better late than never.

The operation began with the killing of a student as Sapir College, alongside Sderot, and the use of more accurate and powerful missiles that began landing in the city of Ashkelon. Those missiles came to Gaza from the international market, through the Sinai and nominal Egyptian control of Gaza's southern borders.

Ashkelon is somewhat further from Gaza than Sderot. It is a city of more than 100,000, compared to Sderot's 20,000. It also has a major hospital and power plant, as well as numerous industries.

If we did not have tickets for one of today's flights to Italy, I would be glued to the radio for as long as this lasts. My obsession for details had me listening to all hourly bulletins yesterday, and two hours of reports and commentary in the evening.

During the Sabbath we heard about five Israeli soldiers injured. Typically, the news about two combat deaths came only after the end of the Sabbath. This morning there were details about the young men and their families, as well as the times and locations of funerals.

News about more than 60 Palestinian deaths and many more injuries do not make as much of an impression. We have seen pictures of the children killed that are purveyed to international media. We heard official Palestinian reports that 4 young boys were killed while playing football. Other Palestinians reported that the men who fired rockets sent the boys to retrieve the launching tubes so they could be used again, and that the boys died when an IDF helicopter fired against the people seen working at the launching site. The adults who did the work saved themselves by having neighborhood kids do what was exciting for them, and produced a claim for the international community about four innocent boys killed by the Israelis.

Also this morning there is news from a French court about a forensic expert who testified about the iconic picture from 2000 showing a Palestinian father sheltering his son while being targeted, presumably by the IDF. The scene ended with the death of the boy. The expert testified that the film was fabricated; and if it was real, the direction of the shots were likely to have come from Palestinians rather than Israelis.

Mahmoud Abbas has called the Israeli operation worse than the Holocaust. We remember that his doctoral dissertation at Moscow's Oriental College in 1982 claimed that Jewish victims of the Germans were less than one million.  Abbas is making the conventional Palestinian demand of world powers to pressure Israel to desist what he calls disproportionate responses to sporadic missiles. He has also declared a suspension of the peace talks. In this he is saving Edud Olmert's the need to disappoint President Bush by informing him that the peace talks show little chance of accomplishing anything.

It is too early to know how this will develop. Speculation is that it will become the general invasion of Gaza that numerous commentators have been saying is inevitable. If so, it is likely to involve the call-up of reserves and control over the southern borders of Gaza through which armaments have been flowing from Egypt, and a general search for weapons caches and workshops. Already the IDF has destroyed the offices of the Palestinian prime minister and the interior ministry. Palestinian ministers themselves are said to be on the target list, but are reported to be somewhere deep in their bunkers.

Hopefully Sicily will be quieter, and that we will not spend too much time with our short-wave radio, the Herald Tribune, or trying to decipher headlines in the Italian press.

Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University

THE VIEW FROM JINSA


The Angelina Jolie report on Iraq progress


By Shoshana Bryen

WASHINGTON, D.C.—[Editors Note: Angelina Jolie is not among the security experts to whom we generally turn for an assessment of the situation in Iraq. But as a UNHCR goodwill ambassador, Ms. Jolie has visited Iraq twice in the past year and here we print excerpts of her thoughts (as seen on Washington Post.com, February 28, 2008) the changes she has seen.]

We have finally reached a point where humanitarian assistance, from us and others, can have an impact... During the last week, the United States, UNHCR and the Iraqi government have begun to work together in new and important ways.

One thing is certain: It will be quite a while before Iraq is ready to absorb more than 4 million refugees and displaced people. But it is not too early to start working on solutions. And last week, there were signs of progress.

In Baghdad, I spoke with Army Gen. David Petraeus about UNHCR's need for security information and protection for its staff as they re-enter Iraq, and I am pleased that he has offered that support. General Petraeus also told me he would support new efforts to address the humanitarian crisis "to the maximum extent possible" - which leaves me hopeful that more progress can be made.

UNHCR is certainly committed to that. Last week while in Iraq, High Commissioner Antonio Guterres pledged to increase UNHCR's presence there and to work closely with the Iraqi government, both in assessing the conditions required for return and in providing humanitarian relief.

During my trip I also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has announced the creation of a new committee to oversee issues related to internally displaced people, and a pledge of $40 million to support the effort.

My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis.

Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq - and the potential consequences for our national security - are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?

What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons. That is not a small amount of money - but it is less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq. I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy.

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.

Bryen is special projects director for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)

PETE'S PLACE

No protests over gas cutoff to Ukraine?

By Peter Garas


CANBERRA, Australia— The BBC reports that Gazprom is to reduce supplies to the Ukraine by 25% after talks between the government of that country and Gazprom (Russia's fully government owned supplier of gas) failed, again!

Yes it's spring in the Ukraine, but it's still not warm by any stretch of the imagination. Gas is needed to power the generators for electricity to heat homes and cook food. People are likely to die or at least to suffer considerably.

Why is this cut in supply an embargo on the supply of fuel happening? Is it about terrorism? No! Is it about rockets being fired from the Ukraine into Russia aimed at civilian populations? No!

It's about money! Allegations that the Ukrainians have not paid their bills!

Is there an outcry in the press? No! The poor consumers in the Ukraine have paid their bills - why are they suffering and being put at risk? No one it seems cares or wants to make a comment.

Now if this was happening in Gaza - the press would be all over the Israeli government about denying supplies to the poor Palestinian refugees, but in this instance, after having received assurances that supplies to the rest of Europe would not be affected, the press remain silent about the plight of those who are really affected.

Why the double standard? Why ignore the fact that a wholly owned Russian government entity is quietly depriving people of their means of heating, cooking and generating electricity?

I guess the western press are so used to being fed Palestinian propaganda that they will publish virtually anything that make the Palestinians appear to be victims, being bullied by those nasty Israelis..

Meanwhile the poor innocent civilians of the Ukraine who have paid their bills and should be able to expect a supply of gas, people who do not have leaders that fire missiles across the border of neighbouring Russia and who do not send suicide bombers across the border, people who while not refugees in their own land, get not a word of support.

Is this journalism or just hack reporting by the media who will beat up a story that appears to appeal to their readers or perhaps to their own prejudices?

Your guess is as good as mine!

Garas is a freelance writer and commentator in Australia's capital









REFLECTIONS

Mitzvah equation: difficult equals better?

By Sheila Orysiek

SAN DIEGO—Recently I read an article in which a Rabbi discussed the qualities of a mitzvah - an article in which he equated the quotient of difficulty in performing that mitzvah with its degree of merit.  The Rabbi said a mitzvah that a person performs with enjoyment and ease is of less merit than one that is not as easy or enjoyable.  In other words the amount of discomfort and/or inconvenience that is in involved in performing the mitzvah increases the worth of the mitzvah.  Is someone “up there” keeping score?  Or is it really someone down here?

Far be it from me to presume to question a Rabbi - nevertheless, it is possible for me to have an opinion.  I think the worth of the mitzvah is intrinsic to the worth perceived by the recipient - not the difficulty to the donor (caveat below).  To a person needing help crossing the street the important factor is getting across safely.  So, I can’t agree that the degree of discomfort or inconvenience to the donor affects the quality or merit of the act.

The phrase “perception of the recipient” does need a caveat - the recipient might not agree.  Not allowing someone to drive when that person is incompetent, or a keeping a young person from committing a foolish act, might not be initially appreciated.  So, the “perception of the recipient” may be questionable in this type of circumstance.

I volunteer doing something I feel is important but that I also thoroughly enjoy.  Is that less a mitzvah because I enjoy it?  Perhaps instead of doing it sitting down, if I did it standing up which would make it more uncomfortable, would it therefore be more meritorious?   Maybe if I wore a hair shirt while doing it - that would increase the merit even more.  Or if I walked the four miles to get there instead of driving, the merit value would go waaaaaay up.

Actually, when I started volunteering I didn’t think of it as a mitzvah - it was something that needed doing, something I could do, and yes, something I enjoyed doing.  I don’t think that decreases its value.  In fact, I know this isn’t true - the recipient (not any one particular person - but an institution) values it highly.  By the way, this is not a “brag,” but a statement of another parameter of “giving.” 

If one went to a nursing home and spent the afternoon talking to, entertaining and helping the residents and really enjoyed doing it, is that less meritorious than if one hated doing it?  Would it be more meritorious if one washed the floors of the nursing home rather than entertained the residents?

Many years ago when I was still performing I used to go once a month to dance in various nursing homes and senior centers.  My initial intent was not entirely altruistic - I wanted the performing experience but I learned a powerful lesson. It was wonderful watching their smiles and appreciation, but I was awestruck how gratifying their happiness made me feel in return - I hadn’t expected that. 

Does that lessen the happiness I brought to them? Does the fact that originally my intent was not entirely altruistic lessen the merit of the mitzvah, but then as I realized how much pleasure it gave increase the merit - only to lessen it again as I, too, took pleasure from it? This score keeping is complicated!

It seems to me the Rabbi’s conclusion puts mitzvah on a scale of difficulty - a point system.  Maybe it would go something like this: helping someone cross the street is worth five points - but if my shoes hurt while I’m helping that person - give me ten points more.  If the street is particularly wide - five more points.  If the street is wide and dangerous - five more points.  If I’m in a car, and have to park the car, and then walk the person across the street - five more points.  And if parking is difficult - well, another five points for that.  How about if the ice cream I was bringing home begins to melt - that’s ten more points (ten for that because I really like ice cream).  So, I could turn a five pointer into a 45 pointer!

Is giving a kidney a higher mitzvah than helping someone cross the street?  If the person crossing the street was saved from the possibility of being hit by a vehicle - that’s every bit as important as donating a kidney. Most of us will never have the opportunity to donate a kidney - but may have lots of opportunities to help someone cross the street.

This is also true of monetary gifts.  A five dollar donation to a synagogue capital building fund from someone who is struggling financially is as meritorious as a million dollar donation from a millionaire, but that doesn’t diminish the merit of the millionaire’s gift.  Trying to qualify and quantify mitzvot is a slippery slope.

I think that “how” a mitzvah is performed is an important aspect; the kindness and the attitude of the donor.  Another parameter that I think affects the quality of a mitzvah is not only how it is given but also if the donor then brags about it - or even unnecessarily mentions it.  A mitzvah, in my opinion, should be performed as quietly and kindly as possible.

A mitzvah is not about accruing points for the donor - it’s about an act of intrinsic worth to the recipient.  It is quietly done, unannounced, uncelebrated by the donor - done for its own sake, with no recompense of points.

A mitzvah is a mitzvah is a mitzvah - any perception of worth is in the eyes of the recipient (if not immediately perhaps eventually).  If someone “up there” is not keeping score - why should we?

Orysiek is a freelance writer based in San Diego