Feeds:
Posts
Comments

thumbs_down Here are the results from OpenCongress.org of yesterday’s disappointing Congressional vote to slam the Goldstone report, an AIPAC-written bill sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

H. Res. 867 – Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the "Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" in multilateral fora.

Please make sure you write your congressman and thank or spank them appropriately. Then write Clinton and Obama and ask them to stand aside and let the UN do its work of referring human rights abuses to appropriate organizations.

First, a hat off to the brave souls who bucked AIPAC.

VOTING AGAINST H.RES.867:

Democrats Voting ‘Nay’
Rep. Brian Baird [D, WA-3]
Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D, WI-2]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D, OR-3]
Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23]
Rep. André Carson [D, IN-7]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D, NY-11]
Rep. William Clay [D, MO-1]
Rep. John Dingell [D, MI-15]
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D, TX-25]
Rep. Donna Edwards [D, MD-4]
Rep. Keith Ellison [D, MN-5]
Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7]
Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D, NY-22]
Rep. Eddie Johnson [D, TX-30]
Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick [D, MI-13]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D, CA-9]
Rep. Stephen Lynch [D, MA-9]
Rep. Betty McCollum [D, MN-4]
Rep. James McDermott [D, WA-7]
Rep. James McGovern [D, MA-3]
Rep. George Miller [D, CA-7]
Rep. James Moran [D, VA-8]
Rep. John Olver [D, MA-1]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D, AZ-4]
Rep. David Price [D, NC-4]
Rep. Nick Rahall [D, WV-3]
Rep. Victor Snyder [D, AR-2]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D, CA-13]
Rep. Maxine Waters [D, CA-35]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D, NC-12]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D, CA-6]

Republicans Voting ‘Nay’
Rep. Charles Boustany [R, LA-7]
Rep. Geoff Davis [R, KY-4]
Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14]

Now for the spineless or ethically-challenged:

ABSTAINING:

Democrats Voting ‘Abstain’
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D, HI-1]
Rep. Gary Ackerman [D, NY-5]
Rep. Frederick Boucher [D, VA-9]
Rep. Robert Brady [D, PA-1]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D, MA-8]
Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14]
Rep. Artur Davis [D, AL-7]
Rep. Lincoln Davis [D, TN-4]
Rep. Barton Gordon [D, TN-6]
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez [D, IL-4]
Rep. John Hall [D, NY-19]
Rep. Rush Holt [D, NJ-12]
Rep. Gregory Meeks [D, NY-6]
Rep. Patrick Murphy [D, PA-8]
Rep. Frank Pallone [D, NJ-6]
Rep. William Pascrell [D, NJ-8]
Rep. Donald Payne [D, NJ-10]
Rep. Chellie Pingree [D, ME-1]
Rep. Linda Sánchez [D, CA-39]
Rep. Albio Sires [D, NJ-13]
Rep. Bart Stupak [D, MI-1]
Rep. Edolphus Towns [D, NY-10]
Rep. Nydia Velázquez [D, NY-12]

Republicans Voting ‘Abstain’
Rep. Michele Bachmann [R, MN-6]
Rep. James Barrett [R, SC-3]
Rep. Nathan Deal [R, GA-9]
Rep. Devin Nunes [R, CA-21]
Rep. Tom Price [R, GA-6]
Rep. Mark Souder [R, IN-3]
Rep. Zach Wamp [R, TN-3]

VOTING WITH AIPAC:

Democrats Voting ‘Aye’
Rep. John Adler [D, NJ-3]
Rep. Jason Altmire [D, PA-4]
Rep. Robert Andrews [D, NJ-1]
Rep. Michael Arcuri [D, NY-24]
Rep. Joe Baca [D, CA-43]
Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12]
Rep. Melissa Bean [D, IL-8]
Rep. Shelley Berkley [D, NV-1]
Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28]
Rep. Robert Berry [D, AR-1]
Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1]
Rep. Sanford Bishop [D, GA-2]
Rep. John Boccieri [D, OH-16]
Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2]
Rep. Leonard Boswell [D, IA-3]
Rep. Allen Boyd [D, FL-2]
Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1]
Rep. Bobby Bright [D, AL-2]
Rep. Corrine Brown [D, FL-3]
Rep. George Butterfield [D, NC-1]
Rep. Dennis Cardoza [D, CA-18]
Rep. Russ Carnahan [D, MO-3]
Rep. Christopher Carney [D, PA-10]
Rep. Kathy Castor [D, FL-11]
Rep. Ben Chandler [D, KY-6]
Rep. Travis Childers [D, MS-1]
Rep. Judy Chu [D, CA-32]
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver [D, MO-5]
Rep. James Clyburn [D, SC-6]
Rep. Steve Cohen [D, TN-9]
Rep. Gerald Connolly [D, VA-11]
Rep. Jim Costa [D, CA-20]
Rep. Jerry Costello [D, IL-12]
Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2]
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D, NY-7]
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D, TX-28]
Rep. Elijah Cummings [D, MD-7]
Rep. Danny Davis [D, IL-7]
Rep. Susan Davis [D, CA-53]
Rep. Diana DeGette [D, CO-1]
Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D, CT-3]
Rep. Norman Dicks [D, WA-6]
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2]
Rep. Michael Doyle [D, PA-14]
Rep. Steve Driehaus [D, OH-1]
Rep. Thomas Edwards [D, TX-17]
Rep. Brad Ellsworth [D, IN-8]
Rep. Eliot Engel [D, NY-17]
Rep. Bob Etheridge [D, NC-2]
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D, PA-2]
Rep. Bill Foster [D, IL-14]
Rep. Barney Frank [D, MA-4]
Rep. Marcia Fudge [D, OH-11]
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D, AZ-8]
Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D, TX-20]
Rep. Alan Grayson [D, FL-8]
Rep. Al Green [D, TX-9]
Rep. Raymond Green [D, TX-29]
Rep. Parker Griffith [D, AL-5]
Rep. Deborah Halvorson [D, IL-11]
Rep. Phil Hare [D, IL-17]
Rep. Jane Harman [D, CA-36]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D, FL-23]
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin [D, SD-0]
Rep. Brian Higgins [D, NY-27]
Rep. Baron Hill [D, IN-9]
Rep. James Himes [D, CT-4]
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa [D, TX-15]
Rep. Paul Hodes [D, NH-2]
Rep. Tim Holden [D, PA-17]
Rep. Steny Hoyer [D, MD-5]
Rep. Jay Inslee [D, WA-1]
Rep. Steve Israel [D, NY-2]
Rep. Jesse Jackson [D, IL-2]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D, TX-18]
Rep. Steve Kagen [D, WI-8]
Rep. Paul Kanjorski [D, PA-11]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D, RI-1]
Rep. Dale Kildee [D, MI-5]
Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy [D, OH-15]
Rep. Ronald Kind [D, WI-3]
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick [D, AZ-1]
Rep. Larry Kissell [D, NC-8]
Rep. Ron Klein [D, FL-22]
Rep. Suzanne Kosmas [D, FL-24]
Rep. Frank Kratovil [D, MD-1]
Rep. James Langevin [D, RI-2]
Rep. Rick Larsen [D, WA-2]
Rep. John Larson [D, CT-1]
Rep. Sander Levin [D, MI-12]
Rep. John Lewis [D, GA-5]
Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D, IL-3]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D, NY-18]
Rep. Daniel Maffei [D, NY-25]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D, NY-14]
Rep. Betsy Markey [D, CO-4]
Rep. Edward Markey [D, MA-7]
Rep. James Marshall [D, GA-8]
Rep. Eric Massa [D, NY-29]
Rep. Jim Matheson [D, UT-2]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D, CA-5]
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D, NY-4]
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7]
Rep. Michael McMahon [D, NY-13]
Rep. Jerry McNerney [D, CA-11]
Rep. Kendrick Meek [D, FL-17]
Rep. Charles Melancon [D, LA-3]
Rep. Michael Michaud [D, ME-2]
Rep. R. Miller [D, NC-13]
Rep. Walter Minnick [D, ID-1]
Rep. Harry Mitchell [D, AZ-5]
Rep. Alan Mollohan [D, WV-1]
Rep. Dennis Moore [D, KS-3]
Rep. Gwen Moore [D, WI-4]
Rep. Scott Murphy [D, NY-20]
Rep. Christopher Murphy [D, CT-5]
Rep. John Murtha [D, PA-12]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D, NY-8]
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D, CA-38]
Rep. Richard Neal [D, MA-2]
Rep. Glenn Nye [D, VA-2]
Rep. James Oberstar [D, MN-8]
Rep. Solomon Ortiz [D, TX-27]
Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D, CO-7]
Rep. Thomas Perriello [D, VA-5]
Rep. Gary Peters [D, MI-9]
Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7]
Rep. Jared Polis [D, CO-2]
Rep. Earl Pomeroy [D, ND-0]
Rep. Mike Quigley [D, IL-5]
Rep. Charles Rangel [D, NY-15]
Rep. Silvestre Reyes [D, TX-16]
Rep. Laura Richardson [D, CA-37]
Rep. Ciro Rodriguez [D, TX-23]
Rep. Mike Ross [D, AR-4]
Rep. Steven Rothman [D, NJ-9]
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D, CA-34]
Rep. C.A. Ruppersberger [D, MD-2]
Rep. Bobby Rush [D, IL-1]
Rep. Timothy Ryan [D, OH-17]
Rep. John Salazar [D, CO-3]
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D, CA-47]
Rep. John Sarbanes [D, MD-3]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D, IL-9]
Rep. Mark Schauer [D, MI-7]
Rep. Adam Schiff [D, CA-29]
Rep. Kurt Schrader [D, OR-5]
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D, PA-13]
Rep. David Scott [D, GA-13]
Rep. Robert Scott [D, VA-3]
Rep. José Serrano [D, NY-16]
Rep. Joe Sestak [D, PA-7]
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter [D, NH-1]
Rep. Brad Sherman [D, CA-27]
Rep. Heath Shuler [D, NC-11]
Rep. Ike Skelton [D, MO-4]
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D, NY-28]
Rep. Adam Smith [D, WA-9]
Rep. Zachary Space [D, OH-18]
Rep. John Spratt [D, SC-5]
Rep. Betty Sutton [D, OH-13]
Rep. John Tanner [D, TN-8]
Rep. Gene Taylor [D, MS-4]
Rep. Harry Teague [D, NM-2]
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D, MS-2]
Rep. C. Thompson [D, CA-1]
Rep. Dina Titus [D, NV-3]
Rep. Paul Tonko [D, NY-21]
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D, MA-5]
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D, MD-8]
Rep. Peter Visclosky [D, IN-1]
Rep. Timothy Walz [D, MN-1]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D, FL-20]
Rep. Diane Watson [D, CA-33]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D, CA-30]
Rep. Anthony Weiner [D, NY-9]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D, FL-19]
Rep. Charles Wilson [D, OH-6]
Rep. John Yarmuth [D, KY-3]

Republicans Voting ‘Aye’
Rep. Robert Aderholt [R, AL-4]
Rep. W. Akin [R, MO-2]
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R, LA-5]
Rep. Steve Austria [R, OH-7]
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R, AL-6]
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6]
Rep. Joe Barton [R, TX-6]
Rep. Judy Biggert [R, IL-13]
Rep. Brian Bilbray [R, CA-50]
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9]
Rep. Rob Bishop [R, UT-1]
Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R, TN-7]
Rep. Roy Blunt [R, MO-7]
Rep. John Boehner [R, OH-8]
Rep. Jo Bonner [R, AL-1]
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45]
Rep. John Boozman [R, AR-3]
Rep. Kevin Brady [R, TX-8]
Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10]
Rep. Henry Brown [R, SC-1]
Rep. Virginia Brown-Waite [R, FL-5]
Rep. Vern Buchanan [R, FL-13]
Rep. Michael Burgess [R, TX-26]
Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5]
Rep. Stephen Buyer [R, IN-4]
Rep. Ken Calvert [R, CA-44]
Rep. David Camp [R, MI-4]
Rep. John Campbell [R, CA-48]
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7]
Rep. Anh Cao [R, LA-2]
Rep. Shelley Capito [R, WV-2]
Rep. John Carter [R, TX-31]
Rep. Bill Cassidy [R, LA-6]
Rep. Michael Castle [R, DE-0]
Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R, UT-3]
Rep. Howard Coble [R, NC-6]
Rep. Mike Coffman [R, CO-6]
Rep. Tom Cole [R, OK-4]
Rep. K. Conaway [R, TX-11]
Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R, FL-4]
Rep. John Culberson [R, TX-7]
Rep. Charles Dent [R, PA-15]
Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart [R, FL-21]
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart [R, FL-25]
Rep. David Dreier [R, CA-26]
Rep. Vernon Ehlers [R, MI-3]
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R, MO-8]
Rep. Mary Fallin [R, OK-5]
Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6]
Rep. John Fleming [R, LA-4]
Rep. James Forbes [R, VA-4]
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R, NE-1]
Rep. Virginia Foxx [R, NC-5]
Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2]
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R, NJ-11]
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R, CA-24]
Rep. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5]
Rep. Jim Gerlach [R, PA-6]
Rep. John Gingrey [R, GA-11]
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R, TX-1]
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R, VA-6]
Rep. Kay Granger [R, TX-12]
Rep. Samuel Graves [R, MO-6]
Rep. Brett Guthrie [R, KY-2]
Rep. Ralph Hall [R, TX-4]
Rep. Gregg Harper [R, MS-3]
Rep. Doc Hastings [R, WA-4]
Rep. Dean Heller [R, NV-2]
Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R, TX-5]
Rep. Walter Herger [R, CA-2]
Rep. Peter Hoekstra [R, MI-2]
Rep. Duncan Hunter [R, CA-52]
Rep. Bob Inglis [R, SC-4]
Rep. Darrell Issa [R, CA-49]
Rep. Lynn Jenkins [R, KS-2]
Rep. Samuel Johnson [R, TX-3]
Rep. Timothy Johnson [R, IL-15]
Rep. Jim Jordan [R, OH-4]
Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3]
Rep. Steve King [R, IA-5]
Rep. Jack Kingston [R, GA-1]
Rep. Mark Kirk [R, IL-10]
Rep. John Kline [R, MN-2]
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5]
Rep. Leonard Lance [R, NJ-7]
Rep. Thomas Latham [R, IA-4]
Rep. Steven LaTourette [R, OH-14]
Rep. Robert Latta [R, OH-5]
Rep. Christopher Lee [R, NY-26]
Rep. Jerry Lewis [R, CA-41]
Rep. John Linder [R, GA-7]
Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R, NJ-2]
Rep. Frank Lucas [R, OK-3]
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer [R, MO-9]
Rep. Cynthia Lummis [R, WY-0]
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R, CA-3]
Rep. Connie Mack [R, FL-14]
Rep. Donald Manzullo [R, IL-16]
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R, TX-24]
Rep. Kevin McCarthy [R, CA-22]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R, TX-10]
Rep. Tom McClintock [R, CA-4]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R, MI-11]
Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R, NC-10]
Rep. Howard McKeon [R, CA-25]
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R, WA-5]
Rep. John Mica [R, FL-7]
Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10]
Rep. Gary Miller [R, CA-42]
Rep. Jeff Miller [R, FL-1]
Rep. Jerry Moran [R, KS-1]
Rep. Tim Murphy [R, PA-18]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R, NC-9]
Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R, TX-19]
Rep. Pete Olson [R, TX-22]
Rep. Erik Paulsen [R, MN-3]
Rep. Mike Pence [R, IN-6]
Rep. Thomas Petri [R, WI-6]
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R, PA-16]
Rep. Todd Platts [R, PA-19]
Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2]
Rep. Bill Posey [R, FL-15]
Rep. Adam Putnam [R, FL-12]
Rep. George Radanovich [R, CA-19]
Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R, MT-0]
Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8]
Rep. Phil Roe [R, TN-1]
Rep. Harold Rogers [R, KY-5]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, AL-3]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, MI-8]
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R, CA-46]
Rep. Thomas Rooney [R, FL-16]
Rep. Peter Roskam [R, IL-6]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18]
Rep. Edward Royce [R, CA-40]
Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1]
Rep. Steve Scalise [R, LA-1]
Rep. Jean Schmidt [R, OH-2]
Rep. Aaron Schock [R, IL-18]
Rep. F. Sensenbrenner [R, WI-5]
Rep. Peter Sessions [R, TX-32]
Rep. John Shadegg [R, AZ-3]
Rep. John Shimkus [R, IL-19]
Rep. William Shuster [R, PA-9]
Rep. Michael Simpson [R, ID-2]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R, TX-21]
Rep. Adrian Smith [R, NE-3]
Rep. Christopher Smith [R, NJ-4]
Rep. Clifford Stearns [R, FL-6]
Rep. John Sullivan [R, OK-1]
Rep. Lee Terry [R, NE-2]
Rep. Glenn Thompson [R, PA-5]
Rep. William Thornberry [R, TX-13]
Rep. Todd Tiahrt [R, KS-4]
Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R, OH-12]
Rep. Michael Turner [R, OH-3]
Rep. Frederick Upton [R, MI-6]
Rep. Greg Walden [R, OR-2]
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R, GA-3]
Rep. Edward Whitfield [R, KY-1]
Rep. Addison Wilson [R, SC-2]
Rep. Rob Wittman [R, VA-1]
Rep. Frank Wolf [R, VA-10]
Rep. C. W. Young [R, FL-10]
Rep. Donald Young [R, AK-0]

Was President Obama’s Cairo speech all oratory and no substance? You be the judge.

I agree with the t-shirt I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That’s why we’re partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America’s commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq’s democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel’s legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah’s Interfaith dialogue and Turkey’s leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God’s children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn’t worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn’t new; that isn’t black or white or brown; that isn’t Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It’s a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It’s a faith in other people, and it’s what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Reflections on J Street

On October 26th the first J Street Conference took place in Washington DC. I was there with Brit Tzedek, which announced the day before that it was merging its grassroots organization with J Street.

Only time will demonstrate how effective a lobbying organization J Street will be. There are also issues of how welcoming J Street will ultimately be for those of us who, while we support Israel’s right to exist as a legally constituted state, are not Zionists.

jstreet_conf1On the plus side, the highlight of the conference for me was standing in line to pick up my badge and seeing 1500 other progressive Jews doing the same. While I may not share J Street’s centrism, I think they’ve thought through a strategy of speaking from within the community, not outside it, as some of us have previously had to do. Aside from where we may be on the political spectrum, J Street gives many of us a way to critique Israel Jewishly. Until now it has been a source of some pain that I have been on the margins of my local Jewish community for my political views. With Brit Tzedek (and now J Street) it’s nice to be able to feel I am still part of it and doing my best to care about it on my own terms.

On the flip side, J Street does not support the Goldstone report, is opposed to BDS, has been unfriendly to various groups of progressive Jews, appears to rule out negotiations involving the political wing of Hamas, and has taken a tough posture on Iran. Many of its positions are so nuanced that it’s tough to figure out (as in the case of their position on House Resolution 867) what they really support. I am especially concerned that an organization dedicated to an issue of justice is prepared to abandon principled positions in favor of tactical ones. However, I am going to give J Street some time to demonstrate whether its strategy can work and I intend to work with it. If it is successful in broadening a national discourse, it may make it possible for less centrist views to be heard as well. If not, those of us with our perfect political analyses can continue talking to ourselves.

While it’s too early to see if J Street’s strategy will be successful, one thing they’ve already accomplished is demonstrating that AIPAC, AJC, UCJ, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and the rest of the Zionist lobby do not speak for many American Jews. There is much more support for moderate views than "mainstream Jewish leaders" want to admit. The fact that only one representative from a Jewish Federation in the United States appeared at the conference demonstrates how out-of-touch many Jewish organizations are with their members.

President Obama lent his support for this new moderate Jewish stance in sending his National Security Adviser to the conference, and numerous Israeli political and diplomatic figures were present as well. And for an 18 month-old organization to have a quarter of Congress at its coming out party was also rather astounding.

It is unfortunate that the Israel-Palestine issue, which here in America should be a foreign policy debate everyone can weigh in on, has been hijacked by Christian Zionists, the Israeli lobby, self-appointed "Jewish leaders," and congressmen angling for campaign donations. However, the reality is that the Jewish community has a privileged voice, and this confers on us an additional responsibility. The J Street strategy is to amplify this Jewish voice with a focused and disciplined message, calculated to be heard within the Jewish community. While some of us may find J Street too centrist, it is difficult to argue with the reality of the political landscape. Giving J Street a year to demonstrate whether its approach is viable may be the best thing we can do, rather than sniping and griping about it.

But if there is a danger in this strategy, it is of creating an AIPAC-Lite organization that serves mainly to co-opt progressive voices. I hope J Street will not fall into this trap and instead will find its own voice – principled and distinct – based on Jewish values that unite its membership.

Stay tuned.

Nobel Peace Prize While I was working this morning, a friend sent me an email with an article from the Associated Press on President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. At first I thought it was a hoax, and then re-read it carefully:

“President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.”

The announcement from Oslo was neither a hoax nor a prize. It turned out to be either wishful thinking or a misguided incentive.

Right-wing commentators are going to have a field day with the prize, and maybe they should. President Obama doesn’t deserve it. At a time when the United States has yet to shut down Guantanamo Bay, will still be in Iraq well beyond 2010, is contemplating the expansion of war in Afghanistan, is accelerating the delivery of Boeing’s bunker busters for use in Iran, and has been no more an honest broker for peace in Israel-Palestine than his predecessors – the president’s peace accomplishments are few and dismal.

So while Conservative pundits froth over his prize, Liberals too may wish to hold off on congratulating the president – until he has actually earned this award.

The world is still ours

Fairly extremeThe mainstream media and right-wing blogosphere is filled with strange theories about Iranian plans to destroy Jews in some variant of a nuclear “Final Solution.” What’s frightening is that the same people who spread this nonsense are the ones that got us into Iraq. And the ones who believe this garbage are the same idiots, like my barber, who believed that the Iraqis were responsible for 9/11. And when we listen to a Khadafy or an Ahmadinejad at the UN, their words make no sense to Western diplomats — if they stay to listen to these speeches at all.

Lost amid the religious verbiage, hate of Israel’s Apartheid form of government, posturing for the rest of the Muslim world, and their downright quirkiness, both Khadafy and Ahmadinijad have nevertheless been delivering a consistent, coherent message to Western nations of the Security Council: Your time is up and we’re tired of playing by your rules. For its part, the West has also been delivering a message: Nothing has changed. The world is still ours. This was certainly the case in New York and Pittsburgh this week.

In his rambling, extemporaneous speech at the UN, Moammar Khadafy slammed the notion of privileged Western nations leading the Security Council:

[The Security Council] is political feudalism for those who have a permanent seat. […] It should not be called the Security Council, it should be called the terror council. […] Permanent is something for God only. We are not fools to give the power of veto to great powers so they can use us and treat us as second-class citizens.

An even more reviled speaker in Western eyes, Mahmoud Ahmadinijad, made the same points more lucidly in his speech:

It is not acceptable that the United Nations and the Security Council, whose decisions must represent all nations and governments by the application of the most democratic methods in their decision making processes, be dominated by a few governments and serve their interests. In a world where cultures, thoughts and public opinions should be the determining factors, the continuation of the present situation is impossible, and fundamental changes seem to be unavoidable.

[…] Marxism is gone. It is now history. The expansionist Capitalism will certainly have the same fate. […] We must all remain vigilant to prevent the pursuit of colonialist, discriminatory and inhuman goals under the cover of the slogans for change and in new formats. The world needs to undergo fundamental changes and all must engage collectively to make them happen in the right direction, and through such efforts no one and no government would consider itself an exception to change or superior to others and try to impose its will on others by proclaiming world leadership.

Ahmadinejad took aim at Israel, likening the slaughter of civilians in Gaza to “genocide”:

How can the crimes of the occupiers against defenseless women and children and destruction of their homes, farms, hospitals and schools be supported unconditionally by certain governments, and at the same time, the oppressed men and women be subject to genocide and heaviest economic blockade being denied of their basic needs, food, water and medicine.

This was apparently too much for France and the United States to bear. "It is disappointing that Mr. Ahmadinejad has once again chosen to espouse hateful, offensive and anti-Semitic rhetoric," Mark Kornblau, a spokesman to the US mission to the UN, said in a statement. Right on queue, 13 Western nations then walked out of a speech that covered much more ground than Israel.

New, improved Foreign Policy! Between New York and Pittsburgh, backroom meetings at the Waldorf-Astoria involving the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Israel, the Obama administration has been busy. Busy swatting down the Goldstone report, abandoning serious demands on settlements, and engaging in war frenzy to either impose more sanctions on Iran, or support bombing it, on behalf of Israel. When Obama came to the podium, he enumerated four main themes in a “new” American relationship to the rest of the world:

First, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them. […] Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation’s demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.

That brings me to the second pillar for our future: the pursuit of peace. […] That effort must begin with an unshakeable determination that the murder of innocent men, women and children will never be tolerated.

Third, we must recognize that in the 21st century, there will be no peace unless we take responsibility for the preservation of our planet. […] We will press ahead with deep cuts in emissions to reach the goals that we set for 2020, and eventually 2050.

And this leads me to the final pillar that must fortify our future: a global economy that advances opportunity for all people. […] In Pittsburgh, we will work with the world’s largest economies to chart a course for growth that is balanced and sustained.

Yet when we parse the Obamaspeak and compare it to the President’s actual actions this week and this month, all the flowery speech rings hollow. Nothing has changed. The world order will remain the same.

"Do as we say, not as we do" Rather than global or even regional non-proliferation he spoke of, Obama’s actual non-proliferation consists of: No nukes for Iran. North Korea, a much more terrifying nuclear power ruled by an unhinged despot who has actually killed millions of his own citizens and whose nation has already tested nuclear weapons, merits a mere “tsk tsk” from the President. While Israel and the United States have staged simulated war exercises against Iran, Iran has not threatened Israel and no Iranian weapons testing has been detected. But Israel and/or the US are on the verge of attacking Iran militarily solely because Israel, our proxy in the region, may lose its nuclear monopoly.

American school in Gaza The pursuit of peace, particularly the claim that the murder of innocent civilians will never be tolerated, becomes another one of the President’s hollow high school valedictory speeches when measured against his own administration’s promise to torpedo the UN’s Goldstone report and prevent Israeli war crime charges from ever reaching the Hague. Of course, the United States could someday find itself in the same position as Israel, given Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, illegal renditions, assassinations,  waterboarding, drone bombings, and the use of mercenaries in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. So perhaps avoiding the Hague is just American pragmatism. But for a country winding up one war in Iraq, escalating another in Afghanistan, and rattling drums for a third in Iran, the “pursuit of peace” is Orwellian Newspeak.

The last two themes, global warming and globalism, don’t inspire confidence either. Neither the President nor I will be around in 2050 when emission levels are low enough to do any good, and I wonder how much of the planet will be. As for global prosperity, Obama seems to offer a view that opportunity in the developing countries will be linked to sustained, balanced growth in the traditional industrialized nations. Did no one else hear anything new? Globalism and Capitalism have failed. Oratory won’t change the facts.

Even though we might not share the Libyan president’s taste in clothing or the Iranian president’s mock Holocaust denial, you’ve got to admit: the UN Security Council is an anachronistic body. It’s 1948 in a time warp. It still consists of the colonial powers who made such a mess of the Middle East right after WW2, and they’re still trying to set the rules, still reminding everyone that the Security Council is theirs, and that they control memberships in the nuclear club. And, with the exception of China, an old White Boy’s club at that.

But out with the old and in with the new. Two of the permanent members, France and Britain (each scarcely over 60 million) have insignificant populations compared to Indonesia or Pakistan (both Muslim states), India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Japan, Mexico, or Brazil — all of which have populations over 100 million and two of which are also nuclear states. At least two of these would be better candidates for permanent memberships on the Security Council.

So Khadafy and Ahmadinejad’s arguments really shouldn’t come as a surprise in a world that has changed greatly since 1948. These two leaders may not be the most accessible to Westerners, but they have been echoing the sentiments of many of the 187 other nations of the UN whose views are routinely ignored or vetoed by present members of the Security Council.

The Goldstone report is a case in point.

The report, commissioned by the UN, condemns Israeli and Hamas crimes against civilians during Operation Cast Lead last winter. Aside from various ad hominem attacks on Judge Goldstone, himself a Zionist Jew, no one has seriously attacked its actual findings. The only issue that the US, France, and Britain have with the report is that the investigation was not initiated with their blessings. Hence, in UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s words: no mandate. Apparently the rest of the world did not agree. Yet the US will very likely veto the transmission of the findings to the Hague.

Iran’s nuclear program also illustrates the same point.

Nuclear power is so safe even a dictator can use it! In the Sixties a handful of Western nations were instrumental in providing Israel with nuclear weapons: the US, France, and Norway all played various parts. The United States has played a game for decades of pretending Israel has no nuclear weapons, and the other members of the Security Council have played along. When the Shah of Iran was in power, the United States and Germany actually helped Iran develop nuclear power. But now with an Iranian government that no longer takes orders from the West, the rules were simply changed.

When the world is yours, you can do what you want.

Race War, Israeli Style

KKK members before making aliyah Petah Tikva, with the dubious distinction of currently being Israel’s only city with native neo-Nazi gangs, has just launched a municipal program to prevent Jewish women from dating Arab men. This is one of several programs throughout the country to prevent interracial dating and marriage.

Pisgat Zeev, a large Jewish settlement in the middle of Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, has formed citizen patrols to prevent Arab men from “race-mixing” with Jewish girls, according to an article by Jonathan Cook. The patrol, consisting of a vigilante brigade of roughly 35 men, is known as "Fire for Judaism."

Cook reports that “polls on the subject, in 2007, found that more than half of Israeli Jews believed intermarriage should be equated with ‘national treason’."

A 2008 Ha’aretz report discussed a similar program launched in Kiryat Gat schools intended to prevent Jewish girls from becoming involved with Israeli Bedouin:

The program enjoys the support of the municipality and the police, and is headed by Kiryat Gat’s welfare representative, who goes to schools to warn girls of the “exploitative Arabs.”

The program uses a video entitled “Sleeping with the Enemy,” which features a local police officer and a woman from the Anti-Assimilation Department, a wing of the religious organization Yad L’ahim, which works to prevent Jewish girls from dating Muslim men.

Blutsüende und Rassenschande sind die Erbsüende dieser Welt und das Ende einer sich ihnen ergebenden Menschheit - blood sin and miscegenation are the original sin of this world and the end of humanity arising from it. In 2004 in Safed posters warning Jewish women that dating Arab men would lead to "beatings, hard drugs, prostitution and crime" appeared. Safed’s chief rabbi, Shmuel Eliyahu, was quoted in a local paper that "seducing" of Jewish girls was "another form of war" by Arab men.

Cook adds, “both Kiryat Gat and Safed’s campaigns were supported by a religious organization called Yad L’achim, which runs an anti-assimilation team publicly dedicated to ‘saving’ Jewish women.”

"The Jewish soul is a precious, all-too-rare resource, and we are not prepared to give up on even a single one," says the organization’s website.

See you in court

cchr_obama Last Wednesday, according to Ha’aretz, Israel asked the United States for help in “curbing the international fallout from the Goldstone Commission report released this week, which accuses Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.” Apparently taking a page from her predecessor, John Bolton, Susan Rice’s first big job at the UN will be to thumb her nose at the institution. Or perhaps it’s not her thumb she’s showing the UN.

Ron Kampeas at JTA quotes unnamed sources that the U.S. will torpedo any attempt to refer the Goldstone report’s recommendations to the International Criminal Court:

A top White House official told Jewish organizational leaders in an off-the-record phone call Wednesday that the U.S. strategy was to "quickly" bring the report — commissioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council and carried out by former South African Judge Richard Goldstone — to its "natural conclusion" within the Human Rights Council and not to allow it to go further, Jewish participants in the call told JTA.

The report said the U.N. fact-finding mission investigating Israel’s conduct during the January 2009 war found evidence of Israeli war crimes. Israel has denied the allegations and said the report’s mandate was biased — an opinion echoed by U.S. officials.

The Obama administration is ready to use the U.S. veto at the U.N. Security Council to deal with any other "difficulties" arising out of the report, the White House official said Wednesday. The administration also has made clear to the Palestinian Authority that Washington is not pleased with a P.A. petition to bring the report’s allegations against Israel to the International Criminal Court.

The official said the Obama administration’s view was that the report was flawed from its conception because the mandate presumed a priori that Israel had violated war crimes and that the mandate ignored Hamas’ role in prompting the war through its rocket fire into Israel.

No mandate. Biased. Difficulties. Flawed. But no dispute with the Goldstone report’s basic findings.

This circling of the wagons will have several effects. One is that it seals the verdict of Obama’s Cairo speech as meaningless verbiage or, worse, the proof that a promise by the United States to start being an honest broker in the Middle East was a lie. The use of an American veto in the Security Council will also be rightfully seen as a confederacy of criminals refusing to be held accountable for their crimes.

But even a U.S. veto cannot completely inoculate Israel against legal actions.

Before the announcement, Ian Williams at Foreign Policy in Focus suggested that Israeli human rights abusers can still be prosecuted outside the ICC:

A U.S. veto might indeed protect Israel from the ICC, but a report with the credibility of a revered and honored jurist like Goldstone will certainly help mount prosecutions across the globe in other countries, particularly Europe. Indeed, his report already contains that fallback position (once again for Hamas too), invoking the universal jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions as well as referrals to the UN General Assembly and other avenues. Many Israeli military and civilian officials already have to check with government lawyers before setting off on international trips. There will be many more, whatever happens in the Security Council.

Attorney Michael Sefarad, a specialist in international human rights law quoted in Israel News, believes civil cases are also likely to follow an American veto.

The Goldstone report is highly unusual, since it states Israel’s inquests into the operation were unworthy. The bottom line is that this report brings us one step closer to seeing foreign courts hear war crimes cases involving Israeli officials.

Such actions will then raise the precedent for Americans to be prosecuted for  illegal renditions, torture, and reckless murder of civilians by drones and air strikes.

See you in court.

Pray 'n prey Israel News is reporting a scheme by a Shas Member of the Knesset, Rabbi Chaim Amsalem, which would confer Jewish status on non-Jewish “descendants of Jews” (meaning Russians) in exchange for serving in the military.

There are currently between a quarter and a half million Russians in Israel who are not Jewish. Because of a 1970 relaxation in the Law of Return, grandchildren of a Jewish person may now make aliyah to Israel. These non-Jews have rights which even Israelis of Palestinian heritage do not, but they have become difficult to integrate into Israeli society and their non-Jewishness has become a problem for the Jewish state.

Amsalem’s plan was sent to a thousand Orthodox rabbis in Israel. His efforts were ridiculed by the haredi newspaper, Yated Neeman last week, which answered him with the Aramaic phrase afra lefumey, meaning essentially “shut the f— up". Concerns that these new converts would not really be observant Jews have apparently undermined Amsalem’s effort.

On JStreet’s Iran Policy

Dear JStreet,

I read your Iran policy this morning. I was momentarily buoyed by your measured remarks "that the immediate imposition of harsher sanctions on Iran would be counterproductive." This appears to be the same position that APN has, and one I completely agree with. But further down in your statement you ominously add "the full range of options should always be available when considering possible US responses to any future Iranian threats or provocations."

The "full range of options" can only mean only one thing: support for war.

The only "Iranian threats or provocations" so far have been Holocaust denial and the insistence on the right to pursue its own nuclear program (like Israel, India, or Pakistan). We may not like Holocaust denial, but is it a provocation?

It seems to me that the only provocation thus far has been Israel’s. Israel was the party that conducted a simulated attack on Iran last year. Israel was the one to send its navy up and down the Suez canal earlier this year. Israel is the nation which keeps making remarks about "when" to bomb Iran, not "if."

Just as Iraq was "unfinished business" for many neoconservative, Iran is as well. How many wars are we going to permit neoconservatives to get us into?

I would like to see JStreet come out strongly against any kind of attempt by Israel or its American neoconservative friends to draw the United States into an Iran war. This, unfortunately, is the direction we are already heading. Already, most significant American Jewish organizations have been enlisted to support this coming war and JStreet should be a voice of sanity resisting efforts that serve only one purpose: to preserve Israel’s nuclear hegemony, not to protect it from some supposed "existential threat" — a threat that Ehud Barak has denied.

Please sharpen your message of opposition to any American support or participation in a war against Iran. We don’t need to be embroiled in any more wars.

Regards, –

JStreet’s Iran statement:

Iran
http://jstreet.org/page/iran

J Street believes that an Iran with nuclear weapons, especially one that continues to support terrorist groups, would present a major threat to Israel, American interests, and a challenge to peace and stability in the Middle East.

The Unites States and Israel have a clear interest in preventing Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. The international community equally shares an interest and responsibility in ensuring that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapons capability.

We believe that an effective policy on Iran demands a comprehensive and multilateral approach. The United States needs to reach out to its international partners. J Street applauds the efforts of President Obama to engage the European Union, Russia and China, and other members of the international community in developing a common strategy on the question of Iran¹s nuclear program.

J Street believes that US policies should be designed with the aim of influencing Iran’s decision-makers to arrive at an outcome that is in line with the above goals.

We strongly support President Obama¹s efforts to engage in a diplomatic dialogue with Iran as the most effective means to achieving that outcome. That policy of dialogue needs to be combined with diplomatic pressure and the possibility of further economic sanctions. Diplomatic engagement should not be open-ended. But a policy of strategic patience and caution is required. Political "posturing" and the setting of artificial deadlines in our view hinders diplomacy.

J Street believes that the immediate imposition of harsher sanctions on Iran would be counterproductive. The hardliners in Iran have a long and successful track-record in manipulating the threat of sanctions to bolster their own position. At a time when the hardliners are in some disarray, the imposition of tougher sanctions by the United States may allow them to consolidate their hold on power, and only serve to alienate large sectors of the Iranian population.

We do not rule out the option of deeper and more targeted sanctions in the future. But to be most effective, any policy of sanctions requires broad international support and needs to be seen as supporting, and not replacing, diplomatic efforts. Endangering the unity of the international coalition by pursuing unilateral American or narrow "coalition of the willing" enhanced sanctions is likely to prove counterproductive and allow Iran to more effectively play off different actors in the international community against one other.

J Street, like most Americans, was inspired by the Iranian people’s struggle for democracy. We were outraged by the violent crackdown of the Iranian regime on the peaceful demonstrations by the Iranian people for the upholding of their democratic rights. The US Government should play a behind-the-scenes role in supporting outreach to open channels of communication with Iranian civil society.

J Street believes that the full range of options should always be available when considering possible US responses to any future Iranian threats or provocations.

But at this time we urge Congress and the President to exercise strategic patience. We ask Congress not to move forward at this time with further sanctions and we are strongly opposed to any consideration at this time of the use of military force by Israel or the United States to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Mere Discipline Problems?

The Goldstone report raises concerns about discipline within the IDF and accountability by commanding officers. It is noteworthy that an editorial in today’s Ha’aretz discusses these issues within the context of a "Tailhook"-type hazing scandal in the Armored Corps’ 74th Battalion. Ha’aretz points out that the problem is not in just this one unit, suggesting the buck stops with Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi.

A none-too-subtle inference of the editorial is: see how easily discipline could have affected the operations in Gaza. But the high number of civilian deaths and the almost total devastation of infrastructure in Gaza was so great that the war crimes of Operation Cast Lead cannot be laid at the feet of a few mid-level commanders. The Government must be prepared to charge not only senior military commanders but members of the government. 

 

Discipline problems
Haaretz Editorial
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1116364.html

It was only to be expected that the soldier abuse case in the Armored Corps’ 74th battalion would end in a plea bargain. The army had no interest in a trial, in which senior officers would be brought to court to testify about their participation in hazing rituals during their service as commanders in that company.

But the IDF’s hazing problem is not limited to a handful of junior Armored Corps officers. This is a major problem prevalent in several units and branches.

The Military Advocate General has admitted in its statement to the court that the company had a long-standing hazing tradition and it was therefore impossible to place the entire responsibility on the present defendants.

The senior command recognizes the problem. In recent months Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and his generals have visited units and discussed the problem, placing it prominently on the military agenda. In two cases, in the Golani Brigade and the Air Force air traffic control unit, commanders were demoted and officers were sent to jail for taking part in such rituals. But this is not enough.

IDF regulations forbid abusive conduct toward soldiers. But as the recently exposed incidents show, the predominant practice in the army tends to flout the rules. In addition, the soldiers and officers maintain what the military prosecutor called "a conspiracy of silence."

Young soldiers who fall victim to abuse and humiliation keep silent, knowing that complaining would be contrary to the unit’s spirit and the day will come when it will be their turn to exact similar punishment on new recruits.

The practice of ignoring the rules in the IDF is not restricted to hazing. It was displayed a few months ago in senior officers’ custom of letting family members drive their IDF-owned cars. Reports following Operation Cast Lead in Gaza showed that a laxity toward regulations was also maintained on the battlefield.

Legal measures should be taken to deal with extreme cases, but the IDF must not wait for embarrassing affairs to be exposed in public. This is primarily a command problem. As the army managed to limit operative accidents in the last decade, so it must enforce the rules in other areas.

The IDF has increased its training drills since the Second Lebanon War in a bid to strengthen fighting capability. Now it must deal with strengthening discipline. That, too, is an important part of readiness for war, and Ashkenazi is responsible for it.

l’Shana Tovah, Ahmadinejad!

Once again, Iran’s favorite loose cannon, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has disputed the Holocaust during his International Quds Day remarks, recorded on the Iranian Press TV website:

"If the Holocaust, as you claim, is true, why don’t you allow a probe into the issue?"

If? Well, being the Jewish New Year and, eager to help him see through the fog of misunderstanding and avoid another embarrassing walkout at the UN, I posted a suggestion for His Excellency on his blog (yes, Ahmadinejad has a blog):

Dear President Ahmadinejad, I read once again that you have denied the reality of the Holocaust. I will not try to convince you of its historical accuracy. Perhaps you should check with the Germans. They have some excellent documentation. It’s sad but your displays of Holocaust denial simply make you sound like the fool doubting whether men actually landed on the moon or circumnavigated the globe. You are either poorly informed, using the issue for mysterious political purposes, expressing yourself poorly, or you have a bad translator. If you want people to stick around for your next speech at the UN, it’s time to try something new. Shana Tovah!

Can you imagine? The shmuck didn’t post my suggestion on his blog.

A story likely to be overlooked in the wake of the Goldstone report and Israel’s campaign to drum up support for an attack on Iran, the Adalah report details how “the only democracy in the Middle East” suspended civil liberties during Operation Cast Lead.

By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1116114.html

A new report from Adalah shows how the courts and police attempted to stamp out opposition to Operation Cast Lead. "This is a time of war, and every incident harms the people’s morale."

This was not a sentence in a right-wing journal, but rather a statement by an Israel Police representative during Operation Cast Lead seeking to persuade the Tel Aviv District Court to block anti-war protesters from the city.

Around the same time, in a Haifa Magistrate’s Court hearing on extending the remand of minors, Judge Moshe Gilad stated: "Anyone who enables remarks denouncing the state and backing its enemies, even as they rain missiles upon its citizens, must obey its laws, and certainly is prohibited from attacking police who come to impose order. It is similar to a person spitting in the well from which he drinks."

Here are some of the pearls in Adalah’s new report: "Prohibited protest – how the law enforcement authorities limit the freedom of expression of opponents of the Gaza military attack." The document, being published for the first time here, was written by attorneys Abeer Baker and Rana Asali. They reviewed and analyzed hundreds of rulings and detention requests, interviewed dozens of human rights activists who were arrested and threatened during the Gaza attack, and documented the behavior of Israeli academia during the moments of truth last winter.

The Adalah report was completed a few days before the Goldstone report was released. It harshly criticizes the damage to freedom of expression and the lack of tolerance for protests, primarily by Arab Israelis, against the attack on Gaza’s civilian population. The report shows that enforcements officials did not learn from the October 2000 riots, and did not internalize the Or Commission recommendations.

The authors wrote that while they worked on their report, President Shimon Peres accepted the recommendation by former justice minister Daniel Friedmann to pardon 59 citizens who committed criminal offenses during protests against the disengagement in August 2005. The president stated that the pardons were being granted out of an understanding for the young people’s protests, and awareness that this was an unusual, historic event.

The Arabs (and a handful of Jews) protesting against the bloody incidents that took hundreds of lives did not receive a fraction of that understanding.

"In all court decisions we reviewed, the authorities did not mention the reason for the anger of war opponents," they stated. "The hundreds of dead, the injured, the destruction, the tragedy and the damage the Israeli army brought upon Gaza’s residents are not mentioned anywhere in any remand decision. The detainees were presented as lawbreakers and criminals who should be treated harshly due to ‘the situation,’ unconnected from the political climate of their protest."

The war mobilization went up to the Supreme Court. Of seven appeals submitted regarding the detainment of suspects until the completion of proceedings, the court sided with the state in every case. Supreme Court Judge Asher Gronis stated in ruling in favor of the detention of a minor until the end of the proceedings: "Of course, when times change, the matter of detentions will be reconsidered." He added, "When I say ‘change in times,’ this refers to the end of the military operation in the Gaza Strip and fewer violations in the Northern District."

The researchers note that the "change in times" clause disconnects the detention from the circumstances of the suspect, and makes this a matter of a community’s behavior. They note that the detention law was intended to provide uniform tools regarding the revocation of freedom and does not differentiate between war time and peace.

Detentions as a goal

The Adalah researchers found that detentions during fighting became a goal in and of themselves. The police and the State Prosecutor’s office vehemently refused to consider releasing even minors from detention or restrictive conditions.

The state’s representatives in effect confirmed the detentions were designed "to send a deterrent message to the public as a whole and to the rioters in particular." During another remand extension hearing, they acknowledged this effort was aimed at ‘deterring the protesters with force and detaining them until the end of the proceedings in order to convey a message to the public that such behavior is unforgiveable."

These comments were made in a detention motion that the court found was not supported by any factual, evidentiary basis. Somewhat ironically, the police again defined the protests against the war as "a disruption of the peace."

The prevailing trend around the world, including in Israel, is to try minors under proceedings that take into account their needs, welfare and well-being. Despite this, during the operation, hundreds of minors spent weeks behind bars awaiting trial. A review of several decisions regarding "daily detention" indicates how the police inflated the suspicions against the detainees, in order to lengthen their detention.

For example, on December 29, 2008 the Hadera Magistrate’s Court received a police motion to hold for another seven days two people suspected of rioting and interfering with a policeman carrying out his duties. The police representative argued that the suspects burned tires, threw stones at policemen and called for Jews to be killed. The court ordered them freed, stating, "The request to extend the detention is baseless and inflated, and it would have been better if some of the remarks in the motion had never been written."

Under its obligation to uphold freedom of speech, specifically in times of conflict, the police used force to try to silence protest. Adalah found numerous testimonies indicating a widespread phenomenon of people being arrested merely because they were present at an incident. Average individuals were accused of serious violations, spent a night in detention and were brought to court handcuffed. At many protest vigils, large numbers of police showed up and dispersed the gathering with force, under the pretense that the gathering was illegal. The testimonies clearly indicate that not all the protests required a police permit.

In some cases, the police conditioned the release of protesters on their not taking part in more protests. Police used harsher threats to disperse legal anti-war protest vigils when there were also right-wing protesters there voicing support for the operation. In these cases, the police officials claimed that as few as three people is enough to justify crowd dispersal, declare the protest illegal and deem all the participants rioters. Protests were dispersed violently, and protesters sometimes suffered serious bruises. Buses en route to protests were commandeered and forced to turn around.

The Shin Bet General Security Service also took part in silencing protest; the police summoned activists, but when they arrived at the police station, they were questioned by Shin Bet investigators. Some activists said their interrogators asked political questions and threatened to persecute them and make them responsible for every violation that occurred during the demonstrations. The attorney general supported the Shin Bet’s questioning and threatening methods, saying that it was meant to calm the atmosphere.

The report accuses intellectuals and academics of standing by during the violence in Gaza and overlooking the collective arrests of peace activists. Only a few lecturers mustered the courage to publicly protest the military operation. Academics who protested the collective arrest of settler teens did not speak out against the suspected IDF war crimes and the collective detainment of protesting minors. Academic institutions hung banners and took out newspaper ads voicing support for the war. They stood by while the Shin Bet and the police charged at Jewish and Arab students protesting the operation.

For instance, at the height of the operation, the University of Haifa released the following announcement despite its many Arab students: "As a show of solidarity with IDF soldiers fighting in Gaza and residents of the south, the University of Haifa has made its central tower into a national flag … the university is not an ivory tower and is inseparably connected to the community. With this symbolic act, it expresses its great appreciation for the residents of the south and its support for the IDF’s soldiers."

The ministry responds

The Ministry of Justice spokesman responded: "During Operation Cast Lead there were serious nationalistically motivated gatherings and rioting, occasionally accompanied by real disturbances including stone throwing and road blockades, and in some cases there was risk to human life and public welfare, similar to the events of October 2000 (albeit not on the same scale and not at the same intensity).

"Alongside police efforts to enforce the law and restore order, the prosecution needed to increase steps to enforce the law and prevent the spread of the phenomenon. This was done via increased enforcement, insisting on detention until the conclusion of proceedings, based on the reasons for the detention (primarily endangerment) and carrying out the law to the fullest regarding criminals, subject to the specific circumstances of each case.

"Court rulings, through the October 2000 events, called for detaining rioters – including minors – who were involved in nationalistically motivated disturbances that posed a threat to passersby and security forces, based on the specific danger posed by each detainee. The Supreme Court on more than one occasion determined that a person who throws stones at government agents seeking to restore order or at innocent bystanders may continue to endanger public safety and even human life.

"That the actions stem from ideological fervor, and take place in large and heated gatherings, make them more dangerous. This is a phenomenon that builds on itself. Once it became part of the agenda of those rioters, the court ruled that the threat to human life cannot be ignored.

"In cases involving the detention of minors, the prosecutors were instructed to ask courts to begin proceedings as soon as possible and to handle the cases quickly."

Ahmadinejad at Natanz How does this sound? The Iran War.

Zionist organizations in America are on the warpath. A war with Iran over nuclear exclusivity. The American Jewish Committee released a video on Youtube today entitled “This is the button,” inexplicably accompanied by lounge music, showing a toy truck followed by a terrorist explosion in Argentina attributed to Iran. Then the image of a child’s toy truck is followed by video footage of Iranian thugs on motorbikes terrorizing demonstrators in Teheran. Then videos of hangings of adulterers, and finally the words “This is the button” followed by another image “You don’t want to see what Iran does with the button.”

Clearly any nation that would murder civilians, suppress dissent, or make a mockery of its legal system cannot be trusted to have nuclear weapons. I certainly agree, but unfortunately these characteristics describe every nation that already possesses nukes, especially Israel.

The AJC goes on to inform us in its online petition to Congress:

“With enough low-enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon, and more centrifuges spinning each day, Iran is dangerously close to crossing the nuclear threshold. A nuclear Iran would particularly threaten Israel and our moderate Arab allies, and would destabilize the Middle East and threaten the security of the entire globe.”

oren

“The security of the entire globe.” Why is hasbara so melodramatic? A nuclear Iran would indeed spell the last days of Israel’s nuclear hegemony but, according to Ehud Barak last week, "Israel is strong, I don’t see anyone who could pose an existential threat." The Iran War will be all about Israel’s ability to remain the only nuclear power in the immediate region.

The nation’s synagogues have also apparently been enlisted in the Iran War by former American Michael Oren, now the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. Oren sent a letter to most American congregations, including mine, to be read during services at Rosh Hashanah. The instructions read:

“We are facing a critical juncture in our history. The Jewish community must confront this unprecedented threat before it is too late. I urge you as leaders of the Jewish community to impress this situation on your congregations. It is imperative to act now, at the start of a new year, and to join our voices in doing what [is] absolutely necessary to stop the Iranian nuclear threat.”

Netanyahu at Dimona Meanwhile, hardly a peep from the mainstream media on Israel’s nuclear weapons program, which now has an estimated 150 to 400 nuclear weapons. The AJC letter sounds like we’d all be doing the Saudis and Egyptians a favor by defending Israeli nuclear hegemony. But those familiar with Israel’s history of violence are buying none of it. Egypt, for one, has categorically rejected this notion:

"The Middle East does not need any nuclear powers, be they Iran or Israel – what we need is peace, security, stability and development."

The Saudis are equally unenthusiastic about Israeli nuclear capabilities and regard them as the most pressing security threat in the region:

"The existing Israeli nuclear capability is the most dangerous strategic threat to Gulf security in the short and medium term," Saudi Prince Muqrin told the International Institute of Strategic Studies.

What Israel is doing now in Congress and within the Jewish community is reckless: drumming up support for bombing Iran and laying the groundwork for American military and economic support for this needless piece of aggression. One thing the United States does not need right now, and cannot afford, is a third war in the Middle East. If Israel wants to initiate the Iran War, it should be prepared to accept all costs and all consequences itself.

If nuclear non-proliferation is truly an American goal, then a nuclear-free Middle East should be the objective. And that includes Israel. Selectively choosing countries for the nuclear club, particularly those with a history of violence in the region, is a bad idea. And going to war to defend a foreign nation’s exclusive nuclear capabilities is not only a bad idea, it’s a dangerous game that risks pulling us into a third war.

The Iran War.

gaza-attack-011409-2 On September 15th a United Nations Human Rights Council commission led by Richard Goldstone, a South African Jew, released a 545-page report on last winter’s offensive in Gaza, Israel’s Operation Cast Lead. The report accuses both Israel and Hamas of war crimes and potential crimes against humanity. The commission will forward its recommendations to the International Criminal Court in the Hague if independent examinations by Israel and Hamas do not occur within 6 months.

The report follows two others by Human Rights Watch, one issued on the 13th on the killing of unarmed civilians, another on the 6th concerning Qassam rocket attacks on Israelis. Both the UN and HRW findings are similar.

B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, carefully documented cases of IDF killings of unarmed civilians, the bombing of ambulances, of the IDF preventing medical personnel from helping the wounded, the use of white phosphorus on civilians, and called on Israel to permit the UN to investigate the allegations. Israel consistently refused, choosing to impede investigations.

Israeli Defense Forces soldiers who participated in the Gaza operation recounted the use of the "Johnny procedure" (using Palestinians as human shields) and the shooting of unarmed civilians, 70 cases of which were documented by B’Tselem. Similar findings were released by a group of soldiers called "Breaking the Silence," whom the government attempted to intimidate in the months after Cast Lead. On September 9th B’Tselem released its report analyzing the number of civilian casualties which again were consistent with the UN results.

A joint report by Israel Physicians for Human Rights and the Palestinian Medical Relief Society documented cases of shooting unarmed civilians and widespread attacks on hospitals and ambulances by the IDF. Employees of the World Health Organization, the World Food Program, and the UN numbered among IDF victims.

By UN and B’Tselem counts, almost 1400 people were killed in Israeli operations, while only 330 of them were militants. These figures agree with statistics from another human rights group, Amnesty International.

The day after the Goldstone report was issued, Israel immediately went on the offensive. It flew Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon to New York to kick off a number of meetings with Jewish and pro-Israel organizations. Ayalon reportedly told the American Jewish Congress they had to commit to "removing … and torpedoing" the report. The AJC dutifully condemned the findings as "grotesquely distorted" and attacked Human Rights Watch as well. Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League labeled the investigation an "initiative born of bigotry." NGO Monitor, CAMERA, UN Watch, and other pro-Zionist “watch” groups all ratcheted up their attacks on the United Nations and most of the established human rights organizations.

But not all Jewish organizations were ready to vilify the Goldstone report. JStreet, the "pro-Israel, pro-peace" PAC, had condemned Israel’s disproportionate force in Gaza in the early days of the military campaign but has cautiously refrained from publicly commenting on the report. The progressive Jewish magazine Tikkun wrote this evening of "the disgrace of Israel now trying to deny what everyone knows to be true."

All this comes at an inconvenient time for Israel. It is simultaneously trying to swat down a damning UN report and trying to drum up support for bombing Iran. All this while defying the White House on the issue of settlements and imposing new travel restrictions on American citizens which use ethnic profiling.

In the coming days we are certain to hear a lot of rhetoric on the right of a sovereign nation to defend itself while the entire world is arrayed against it, and so on. This argument has kept its charge for a surprisingly long time, but the battery died after Gaza. Many of Israel’s problems are linked to increasingly ugly displays of nationalism, blindness of its own excesses, insensitivity to the people it has displaced, and to no longer caring whether it is accepted as a "nation among nations," as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu titled one of his books.

The tragedy of the UN report is not that it was ever written, but that Israel is so determined to repudiate what others can so clearly see.

Standard-Times, September 21, 2009

5770: Tshuvah or salve?

Dear friends and colleagues working for peace,

I will not be in shul today trying to get in a contemplative groove while listening to a special political program cooked up by the Conservative movement’s rabbinical assembly, defending the invasion of Gaza, demonizing the Goldstone report, and calling for an escalation with Iran.

The cardboard villains and victims, the unrecognizable portrayal of reality, the false piety and the contrived martyrdom would all just make my blood boil. Besides, defiling the sanctity of a practice that for centuries has called on us to look inward and change our behavior — by instead rejecting that call of conscience, rejecting repentance, rejecting justice, being exhorted to actually harden our hearts — all this is diametrically opposed to the spirit of the High Holidays. Maybe I’ll join the rest of my community for taschlich on Sunday.

Many American congregations like ours have chosen this year to make Rosh Hashanah one big Israel defense rally. But Gaza must remain one of our central moral concerns this year because it represents the most horrific aspect of an already horrific occupation by a nation in the Middle East that we so uncritically support and identify with. And by "we" I mean both Jews and Americans.

This imperfect, temporal nation like any other, governed by mortals, defended by fallible soldiers, and guided by the usual mix of both decent and immoral men, heroes and ideologues alike, has been elevated in the Jewish and Western imagination during the last century to being the actual Land of Moses, the land that G-d (and not the United Nations) gave to the Jews. With this gilded baggage, how could Moses’ land ever be corrupt or guilty of wrongdoing?

Discarding inconvenient Jewish history and the admonitions of prophets easily found in any Tanakh, the new Israel remains equally unblemished in sermons during Jewish High Holiday services — perhaps the one place one would expect the Neviim to actually be read. And who but a self-hating Jew like Richard Goldstone would dare to enumerate this nation’s crimes?

This is a tough year for the Jewish conscience. Tshuvah or salve? That’s the stark choice. Organized religion as usual peddles the latter.

So this year I thought I’d recall that very first “self-hating” Jew, the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah is actually believed to be not a single person but several in a tradition of conscience and self-correction within Judaism itself. He had much to say on injustice, violence, bloodshed, outright evil, and the spinning of a web of lies to deny it all. This prophetic tradition continues today with men and women of less greatness, but Isaiah was there first. If the Goldstone report hit a nerve today, imagine the impact that Isaiah 59 did “back in the day”:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Isaiah59.html

L’Shana Tovah!

David

A friend of ours from a kibbutz near Ashkelon forwarded this reflection on just war, young soldiers, old politicians, and the Goldstone report.

by Arieh Zimmerman

Destruction without restraint My kibbutz lies less than 2 miles from the border with Gaza. We did indeed receive many hundreds of Qassam rockets in our area over the preceding eight years and eight landed within the kibbutz living area; but there is not one of us who doubts the truth of Mr. Goldstone’s report, any of it.

From the highest point in the Kibbutz we watched immense clouds of black smoke drift eastward during the bombings of Gaza. Mr. Goldstone was given a brief by the United Nations to study what happened during the short and bitter Cast Lead fighting; Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government refused to cooperate with the Goldstone Committee and, until now, has refused to set up an independent Israeli committee to investigate the reputed war crimes committed by the IDF. Mr. Goldstone was able to hear only testimony from the viewpoint of the Palestinian side.

Anyone who has ever served in the Israel Defense Forces has heard orders given by the high command and local commanders, which if interpreted by young men in stressful military situations, could easily lead to actions which the IDF would seek to later deny. Those who seek to deny it are at best lying to themselves, and those in government and the Army who deny it are lying to anyone naive enough to believe it. The same situation occurs in every war at any time in any place; believe it or not, Israeli soldiers are not Super Jews, they occasionally do things which cannot be forgiven.

In the case of Cast Lead, the current Israeli government itself gave commands to the IDF to use tactics which could lead, if implemented, to the loss of civilian lives in Gaza. That they did so to save the lives of Israeli soldiers may be forgiven by any number of Israeli mothers, fathers, children, wives and other relatives. However, viewed objectively by Mr. Goldstone’s committee, the actions of the IDF open questions which must be answered. That Bibi’s government refuses to open an independent investigation into the allegations of improper Israeli actions speaks for itself.

Qassam rockets put to good use at the kibbutz The question whether the firing of thousands of Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel justifies the magnitude of the Israeli response is, and must be, seen separately from the investigations into the details of the response itself.

Mr. Goldstone is not a self hating Jew; he is simply a Jew who believes that Jews should live according to Jewish law, Jewish tradition, Jewish morals and Jewish ethics. If that had been the case during Cast Lead, Israel would not now be in danger of being hauled up before the international court in The Hague, and losing the support of too many one-time Jewish and non-Jewish supporters.

Dear President Obama,

The Jewish Telegraph Agency is reporting that your UN ambassador, Susan Rice, has slammed the United Nations’ Goldstone Report, which investigated claims of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead by both Israel and Hamas. She is quoted as saying:

"We have long expressed our very serious concern with the mandate that was given" to the Goldstone commission by the U.N. Human Right Council "prior to our joining the Council, which we viewed as unbalanced, one-sided and basically unacceptable."

I had hoped when I voted for you that your administration would be the first in some time to uphold international law and not simply the law of the jungle. If the JTA’s report is true, this is a disappointing development. The United Nations and the ICC most certainly do have a mandate to investigate these alleged crimes. I expect the United States to respect, not dismiss, international law.

Judge Goldstone, himself a South African Jew, led a commission that accuses both Israel and Hamas of war crimes and potential crimes against humanity. The commission will forward its recommendations to the International Criminal Court in the Hague if independent investigations by Israel and Hamas do not occur within 6 months. This face-saving opportunity provides a way for Israel to deal with these crimes itself. Your administration should encourage Israel to proceed with a serious investigation of its own, not simply torpedo the commission’s findings.

The Goldstone report follows two others by Human Rights Watch, one issued on September 13th on the killing of unarmed civilians, another on the 6th concerning Qassam rocket attacks on Israelis. Both the UN and HRW findings are similar.

B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, carefully documented cases of IDF killings of unarmed civilians, the bombing of ambulances, of the IDF preventing medical personnel from helping the wounded, the use of white phosphorus on civilians, and called on Israel to permit the UN to investigate these allegations. Israel consistently refused, choosing to impede investigations. It is interesting that this is precisely the approach Iran has taken with investigations of its nuclear program.

Israeli Defense Forces soldiers who participated in the Gaza operation recounted the use of the "Johnny procedure" (using Palestinians as human shields) and the shooting of unarmed civilians, 70 cases of which were documented by B’Tselem. Similar findings were released by a group of soldiers called "Breaking the Silence," whom the government attempted to intimidate in the months after Cast Lead. On September 9th B’Tselem released its report analyzing the number of civilian casualties which again were consistent with the UN results.

Another joint report by Israel Physicians for Human Rights and the Palestinian Medical Relief Society documented cases of shooting unarmed civilians and widespread attacks on hospitals and ambulances by the IDF. Employees of the World Health Organization, the World Food Program, and the UN numbered among IDF victims – again corroborating the others.

All of these reports, and several others, have been remarkably consistent. I have followed these events for the last nine months and have read the Goldstone report myself. For your administration to summarily swat these finding down is an affront to reality, to human rights, and to the obligations of civilized nations.

The day after the Goldstone report was issued, Israel immediately went on the offensive. It flew Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon to New York to kick off a number of meetings with Jewish and pro-Israel organizations. Ayalon reportedly told the American Jewish Congress they had to commit to "removing … and torpedoing" the report. The AJC dutifully condemned the findings as "grotesquely distorted" and attacked Human Rights Watch as well. Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League labeled the investigation an "initiative born of bigotry." NGO Monitor, CAMERA, UN Watch, and other pro-Zionist “watch” groups all ratcheted up their attacks on the United Nations and most of the established human rights organizations. And then there is AIPAC.

I hope you are not buying into this public relations campaign at a time when Israel is thumbing its nose at your own administration’s call for an end of settlements and has added racial and religious profiling to Americans’ travel visas within Israel and the West Bank. I ask you: what do you intend to do about this latter issue? I expect your administration to defend my rights as a citizen a bit more zealously than a military ally.

Given what has happened at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and with illegal "renditions," the United States is not in a position to take the moral high road and condemn Israel. But the US also does not need to summarily exonerate Israel either. Such an act would simply be regarded as a mutual defense pact between violators of international law. It would be better that both countries investigate their own actions. Here in the US, Attorney General Eric Holder has work to do in investigating violations of the Constitution and civil and human rights abuses here and abroad. Frankly, he needs much more support from your administration. In Israel the Knesset should convene a special investigator to examine the IDF’s excesses or crimes during Operation Cast Lead. For either nation to try to sweep its misdeeds under the rug would simply constitute criminal behavior followed by criminal neglect.

I look forward to a reply to these concerns.

It’s not surprising, but always shocking, when an Israeli government official convenes a bunch of Jewish organizations and tells them how to conduct a propaganda campaign within the United States.

032609jackbootjustice In the wake of the Goldstone report condemning Israel for war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, Israel has gone on a hasbara offensive. Gil Ronen reports in the right-wing online news source Arutz Sheva that Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has given Jewish organizations in New York their marching orders.

We’ll shortly see which of these Zionist organizations represent American Jewish values, and which simply represent the interests of a pariah-by-choice state.

One day after the publication of the United Nations report by Judge Richard Goldstone, which blamed Israel for “war crimes,” Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon met with the heads of the Jewish community in New York and exhorted them to fight the report.

"The Goldstone report should be treated like the U.N.’s Resolution 3379 that compared Zionism to racism,” Ayalon told the local leaders. “That is why we must commit ourselves and act with all our force against the report, with the purpose of removing it and torpedoing it,” he said.clip_image001

Ayalon was also scheduled to meet Wednesday with Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and with other senior officials in the Obama administration and in Congress. Ayalon intends to raise the subject of the report in all of these meetings and to convey the message that the report is unacceptable and that it undermines Israel’s right to defend itself.

Sources close to Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Wednesday that the UN. Report “is a reward for terror and encourages [terrorists] to continue on the path of terror.” The sources said that the defense establishment is now preparing to give IDF officers legal support.

The sources close to Barak said that “we are checking, through the international and diplomatic channels, the possibility of making the report inadmissible.” They also said that “the comparison that the report makes between the perpetrators of terror and its victims makes no sense.”

Peres’ Letter to the Diaspora

Shimon Peres, in his letter to the Diaspora, asks Jews to:

  • seek peace, even as he insults Palestinians
  • fight for Israeli nuclear hegemony
  • oppose BDS by investing in Israel
  • keep indoctrinating your children
  • stand united with Israel, quoting scripture for political ends

This is all increasingly a tough sell from a state that consistently betrays Jewish values while appealing to them:

Message from the President of the State of Israel, HE Shimon Peres, to the Jewish communities in the Diaspora, on the occasion of the Jewish New Year 5770

Hopefully, the coming New Year will be marked by the realization of our aspirations: attaining peace, increasing security, promoting economic growth, safeguarding the future of the Jewish people and strengthening the ties between Israel and our Jewish brothers in the Diaspora.

The opportunity to attain peace is beckoning, and must be seized, even at the cost of painful concessions. The Arab world’s intractable position to say "No" to negotiations, "No" to recognition of Israel and "No" to peace, has today been replaced by the three-fold "Yes" to the Saudi Initiative. The international community is keen to support endeavors to move the peace process forward, and I am confident that, with concerted efforts, the vision of a comprehensive peace can be realized. This will create stability, tranquility, security and prosperity for our children and their children after them.

Nuclear arms in the possession of extremist fundamentalist hands pose a danger to the whole of humanity and not only to Israel. A broad and consolidated stand by the international community against Iran is called for. I pray that this terrible threat be removed from all of humanity and that the world may enjoy a new era of peace and security.

Israel’s economy is showing the first sparks of recovery from the global economic crisis. The macro-economic signs are promising, and these indications are reflected in a growing scope of investments, the hi-tech industry is reviving and start-up companies are again sprouting. This is the time to seize the opportunity. This is the time to invest in Israel in fields such as alternative energy, water production, homeland security infrastructures, educational and learning-related tools, and in the stem-cell industry. This constitutes the future and it is in our hands.

It is vital to build with our brethren in the Diaspora ties based on solid foundations of partnership and education. Indeed, the role of Jewish education in the Diaspora cannot be overestimated. It serves as the very building-blocks of the bridges that connect the Jewish communities abroad and Israel. It serves as the terms of engagement between the young generation of Jewish youth and our nation and as the stepping stones to a greater awareness of the significance of Israel-Diaspora relations. It will serve to preserve our rich heritage and traditions.

The spirit of partnership must be enhanced in every area of Israel-Diaspora relations. We face dramatic challenges, which again underscore the necessity to stand united in moments of trial, responsible one for the other, as dictated by our Prophets. Indeed, a threat to the well-being of Jewish communities in the world equates a threat to Israel itself, and the fate of Diaspora Jewry is at the very core of Israel’s heart.

Dear Friends, as we embark on this New Year, I want to convey my heartfelt good wishes to all of the Jewish people in the Diaspora, in the hope that it will be a year of joy and good tidings to all.

And let us pray for the safe return home of the hostages and missing soldiers.

Shana Tova U’Metukah,

Shimon Peres

Harris: America second

David Harris at a pro-Israel rally The American Jewish Committee’s David Harris claims in an article in the Wall Street Journal that travel between Caracas and Teheran without visas represents a threat to the Western Hemisphere.

There are many countries which have reciprocal agreements that make visas unnecessary for unrestricted travel. Israel and the United States were once examples of this.

Until recently.

Israel now applies racial and religious profiling to American tourists. The AJC hasn’t uttered a word about this.

Harris is a good example of the aging “Israel first” mentality which, until the last few years, has had no serious competition in speaking for Jews in America.

American Jews are overwhelmingly committed to democratic institutions, but organizations like AIPAC, ZOA and Harris’ AJC can’t seem to stay out of bed with neoconservatives, Christian fundamentalists, and right wing racists when Israel is involved. Or they simply ignore American interests altogether, as the issue of visas demonstrates.

This has created an opening for dozens of Jewish peace groups, including the new lobbying organization JStreet, whose members prefer American democratic values where Israel and American foreign policy are concerned.

“Israel first” groups like the AJC would do well to ponder for a moment why it is that they put the word “American” in their names. They are increasingly mere mouthpieces for Israeli hasbara campaigns and have ceased to represent either American or Jewish values.

This story is just treif on so many levels…

Jews in Chestnut Hill who were faithful to their spouses, good to their kids, honest in all business dealings, and who paid every cent of the taxes they owed may have been wondering what there was to repent as they entered the Jewish High Holidays. So the leaders at the Conservative Congregation Mishkan Tefila in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts decided to defile the sabbath and usher in the High Holy Days by promoting hate speech against Muslims and a neo-conservative message.

[Don’t Boston area synagogues get tired of having talks on the same 3 topics: (1) the Holocaust, (2) Why We Must support Israel, and (3) Evil Islam? What ever happened to Judaism? But I digress…]

On September 12, 2009 David Dalin spoke on the topic of “Icon of Evil: Hitler’s Mufti and the rise of Radical Islam.” The synagogue’s events calendar described the talk:

DR DALIN will speak at 9:00pm. This spiritually enriching prelude to the High Holy Days will conclude with a dessert reception at 10:00pm.

Rabbi Dalin is no stranger to controversy over his scholarship, he is a neo-conservative like his friend and co-author Irving Kristol, and his book, “Icon of Evil: Hajj Amin al-Husseini: Hitler’s Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam” has also drawn criticism for its questionable scholarship. One reviewer described it:

… unfortunately, this book is a ridiculous polemic that tries to paint al-Husseini as a major figure in the Holocaust and claims that secular Arab dictators like Saddam Hussein were radical Islamists who are part of a vast terrorist conspiracy…maybe Dick Cheney was a ghost writer for this piece of fiction. Oh and speaking of fiction, one whole chapter is a crazy "what if" scenario that has the Germans defeating the British in WWII and al-Husseini leading the Holocaust in "Londonistan" where prominent U.S. Jewish figures, like Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter, are unable to escape the onrushing German army and die in concentration camps. This is just way over the top.

dominos-pizza Dalin is currently a professor of history and political science at Ave Maria University, a right-wing Catholic university in Southwest Florida founded in 2003 by former Domino’s Pizza founder and owner Tom Monaghan.

Congregation Mishkan Tefila,
300 Hammond Pond Pkwy.,
Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467
http://www.mishkantefila.org
+1 (617) 332-7770
ExecutiveDirector@mishkantefila.org

Purimspiel

Things with Iran are starting to heat up, especially among pro-Israel organizations.

Jewish Week reports that David Harris of the AJC has launched support for “Plan C” when (not if) sanctions and diplomacy fail:

Sanctions won’t solve the problem — but the absence of sanctions won’t either,” said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee. “If the message to Iran is that they can have their yellow cake and eat it too, then the game is over.”

While sanctions must be part of the policy palette, along with diplomacy and the prospect of negotiations, “the administration must be ready with a ‘Plan C’” if negotiations and sanctions fail to deter Iran, Harris said.

In private, many Jewish leaders believe that Plan C inevitably means some kind of military action — probably not American, since U.S. forces face a worsening and increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan.

The same article quotes a JINSA representative, who flat-out denies the organization is encouraging military intervention:

“The Jews aren’t coming here to ask the administration to bomb Iran, but I also don’t think they’re coming here specifically asking for sanctions, either, because we know sanctions haven’t worked,” said JINSA’s Shoshana Bryen.

But if you ask JINSA advisor John Bolton what JINSA really wants, he doesn’t hold back: Israel will launch an attack on Iran and the US will be blamed for it anyway, so “we” might as well join in.

This whole thing is starting to resemble a Purimspiel (a Purim play).

For those unfamiliar with the story:

Honey, that letch propositioned me!

Purim, as recorded in Megillat Esther (the Biblical Book of Esther), is a festival that commemorates Queen Esther’s saving the Jews of ancient Persia from evil Haman’s plot to destroy them. Esther, who is married to King Ahasverus (Xerxes) and is secretly Jewish, hears of the plot from her uncle Mordechai. Esther persuades the Jews in Persia to fast and pray for 3 days and she brings word of the plot to Ahasverus, reporting also that Haman has been hitting on her (he’s been set up). A jealous Ahasverus turns the tables on Haman and the gallows which were prepared for Mordechai are now used to kill Haman and his sons. In addition, the Jews of Shushan have their revenge on another 75,000 from Haman’s clan. Children eat Hamentaschen and men get plastered. A good time is had by all.

And who’s going to play each part in this spiel?

Esther (Israel) and uncle Mordechai (American Jews) want to get Ahasverus (the US) to back getting rid of Haman (Ahmedinejad).

Chag Purim Sameach!

The Jewish Telegraph Agency reports that a Holocaust education bill (Senate bill 2651 and Congressional H.R. 4604) sponsored by the Simon Wiesenthal Center is making its way through Congress. The bill provides $2 million in cash grants and is intended to be used for education in 9 states with requirements to teach about the systematic murder of 6 million Jews in Nazi Germany. Only this group of genocide victims is mentioned in the bill. I’m sure, with a topic so untouchable, a price tag so cheap, and political advantages so great, the bill will be passed without a single objection.

But here’s what’s wrong with it.

Before the Nazi’s Final Solution there was the Armenian genocide which destroyed 1.5 million human lives, the Rape of Nanking in which 300,000 were killed, and many others — including the murder of approximately 12 million Native Americans between 1500 and 1900.

In our own lifetimes we have seen genocides in Rwanda, which killed almost one million, and in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where almost a quarter of a million perished. Unimaginable mass-murder motivated by politics has been an even greater feature of the Twentieth Century. Mengistu killed millions in Ethiopia, then there was Pol Pot’s murder of 1.7 million, Stalin’s purges and forced collectivization which killed over 10 million, Kim Il Sung’s 1.6 million concentration camp victims, and Mao’s cultural revolution, which was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.

And even the Nazi atrocities were not limited to 6,000,000 Jews. Hannah Arendt in "Eichmann in Jerusalem" makes the case that all Poles were "next" on the Nazi’s list of extermination victims. Besides homosexuals, gypsies, Communists, and other enemies of the state, the Nazis actually ended up extinguishing over 10 million human souls. Timothy Snyder’s article in the New York Review of Books provides a startling account of the much greater scope of Nazi genocide.

The grand total for our century is well over 120 million victims of sinat chinam, the Jewish word for baseless hatred.

To memorialize only this one group is immoral. And not only does the bill trivialize genocide, which is manifestly greater than the bill’s scope, it will only serve political purposes for the constituency that promoted it and will do nothing to actually combat the human urge to hate or destroy the “other.”

Years ago I read an essay by Theodor Adorno entitled "Erziehung nach Auschwitz" (Education after Auschwitz). In it Adorno warns of the relapse into barbarism and cautions that the most important way to prevent this relapse is by looking at root causes:

One speaks of the threat of a relapse into barbarism. But it is not a threat — Auschwitz was this relapse, and barbarism continues as long as the fundamental conditions that favored that relapse continue largely unchanged. That is the whole horror.

Adorno also warns about creating saccharine caricatures of the victims, of nostalgic images of a world destroyed. Instead, Adorno wants us to scrutinize society itself and – specifically – how we raise our children:

I also do not believe that enlightenment about the positive qualities possessed by persecuted minorities would be of much use. The roots must be sought in the persecutors, not in the victims who are murdered under the paltriest of pretenses. What is necessary is what I once in this respect called the turn to the subject. One must come to know the mechanisms that render people capable of such deeds, must reveal these mechanisms to them, and strive, by awakening a general awareness of those mechanisms, to prevent people from becoming so again.

It is not the victims who are guilty, not even in the sophistic and caricatured sense in which still today many like to construe it. Only those who unreflectingly vented their hate and aggression upon them are guilty. One must labor against this lack of reflection, must dissuade people from striking outward without reflecting upon themselves. The only education that has any sense at all is an education toward critical self-reflection. But since according to the findings of depth psychology, all personalities, even those who commit atrocities in later life, are formed in early childhood, education seeking to prevent the repetition must concentrate upon early childhood.

In other words, stopping baseless hatred requires a totally different approach than using grant money to produce materials that will certainly “explain” the need for a Jewish state. It’s a more difficult process of a society looking at itself and its institutions.

Finally, Adorno doesn’t let the “peaceful” superpower off the hook:

Furthermore, one cannot dismiss the thought that the invention of the atomic bomb, which can obliterate hundreds of thousands of people literally in one blow, belongs in the same historical context as genocide.

The cost of self-reflection and coming up short in one’s own estimation is probably what will actually keep modern society from following Adorno’s advice. $2 million for slick Zionist brochures is a bargain in comparison.

Neoconservatives and pro-Israel organizations and ideologues have been calling lately for military action against Iran. House Democrats with close ties to Israel have also been making the same noises. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations has organized a call for rabbis to condemn Iran from the pulpit during the High Holy Days. And now Obama’s Defense Secretary is trying to sell war on Iran – to the Arab world.

It sure looks like we’re being prepped for another war.

The Jerusalem Post, in an article titled “Arab world should arm against Iran,” quotes US Defense Secretary Robert Gates calling for Arab nations to beef-up their militaries. The article is based on an interview with Al Jazeera’s Abderrahim Foukara, which can be viewed below. According to Gates, large weapons purchases are already being negotiated with the United States.

In the interview, Foukara asks Gates about the double-standard of asking Iran to give up nuclear research while never questioning Israel’s nuclear program. Gates responds:

First of all, it’s the Iranian leadership that has said it wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Those threats have not been made in the other direction. It is the Iranian government that is in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions with respect to these programmes, so focus needs to be on the country that is feuding the will of the international community and the United Nations.

There’s so much wrong in Gates’ response that it requires some comment. First, I am still looking for a credible translation of an actual threat by Iran against Israel. Neoconservative and pro-Israel warmongers apparently found what they were looking for in some flowery Farsi. But in terms of violations of UN resolutions, Israel is the clear winner. Then Gates has the threats backwards. Israel’s war games last year, this year’s demonstrations of Israeli naval force in the Suez Canal, and countless Israeli speculations of the “best time to bomb” all convey the impression that, if anyone is about to become an aggressor, it’s Israel.

This is a very troubling interview because it demonstrates that the Obama administration itself, as much as any lobbyist or group of pro-Israel House Democrats, is also starting the beat the drum of war.

Here’s an excerpt from the interview:

FOUKARA: The issue of Iran and Israel is obviously rattling a lot of countries in the region, the Israelis, the Gulf states, who are thinking about buying more and more weapons, and indeed there has been some sales authorised by the United States. Some estimates put the weapons packages to the Gulf states and Israel at about $100bn. How much substance is there to that?

GATES: That figure sounds very high to me. But I think there’s a central question or a central point here to be made and it has to do both with our friends and allies in the region, our Arab allies, as well as the Iranian nuclear programme, and that is one of the pathways, to get the Iranians to change their approach on the nuclear issue, is to persuade them that moving down that path will actually jeopardise their security, not enhance it.
So the more that our Arab friends and allies can straighten their security capabilities, the more they can strengthen their co-operation, both with each other and with us, I think sends the signal to the Iranians that this path they’re on is not going to advance Iranian security but in fact could weaken it.
So that’s one of the reasons why I think our relationship with these countries and our security co-operation with them is so important.

FOUKARA: I mentioned $100bn and you said that doesn’t sound right to you. What does sound right to you as a figure?

GATES: I honestly don’t know.

FOUKARA: But there are a lot of weapons being asked for by the countries in the region?

GATES: We have a very broad foreign military sales programme and obviously with most of our friends and allies out there, but the arrangements that are being negotiated right now, I just honestly don’t know the accumulated total.

FOUKARA: You’re asking the Iranians to give up their intentions to build nuclear weapons. They are saying they’re not building nuclear weapons. On the other hand, a lot of people in the region feel that you know that the Israelis do have nuclear weapons and they say why doesn’t the West start with Israel, which is known to possess nuclear weapons rather than with the Iranians, who are suspected of having them. What do you say to that argument?

GATES: First of all, it’s the Iranian leadership that has said it wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Those threats have not been made in the other direction. It is the Iranian government that is in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions with respect to these programmes, so focus needs to be on the country that is feuding the will of the international community and the United Nations.

FOUKARA: But you decided that the rhetoric of the Iranians reflects the reality of what’s going on in Iran in terms of nuclear weapons. Isn’t that a leap of faith?

GATES: Well, we obviously have information in terms of what the Iranians are doing. We also have what the Iranians themselves have said, so we only are taking them at their word.

FOUKARA: So you know for sure that they are working on a nuclear bomb?

GATES: I would not go that far but clearly they have elements of their nuclear programme that are in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.
We want them to adhere to these resolutions and we are willing to acknowledge the right of the Iranian government and the Iranian people to have a peaceful nuclear programme if it is intended for the production of electric power so on. What is central, then, is trying to persuade the Iranians to agree to that and then to verification procedures under the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency].
That gives us confidence that it is indeed a peaceful nuclear programme and not a weaponisation programme.
The truth of the matter is that, if Iran proceeds with a nuclear weapons programme it may well spark and arms race, a real arms race, and potentially a nuclear arms race in the entire region.
So it is in the interest of all countries for Iran to agree to arrangements that allow a peaceful nuclear programme and give the international community confidence that’s all they’re doing.

FOUKARA: But the Obama administration seems to have a difficult circle to square because on one hand they’re saying that they want improved relations with the Muslim world. On the other hand, any pressure on Iran, is seen by people in the Muslim world as an indication the US is not genuine in wanting to improve those relations because many Muslims say Israel has nuclear weapons, and the US is not doing anything about it.

GATES: The focus is on which country is in violation of the UN Security Council resolutions. The pressure on Iran is simply to be a good member of the international community.
The neighbours around Iran, our Arab friends and allies, are concerned about what is going on in Iran, and not just the governments.
So the question is how does Iran become a member in good standing of the international community. That’s in the interest of everybody.

Damn, that sounded so dirty.

A year ago, columnist David Ignatius dismissed the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran. But, like a bad penny, it’s a story that keeps coming back.

Pundit M. J. Rosenberg’s last posting on Talking Points warns that the Fall will bring renewed calls for liberals to support a military attack on Iran — not necessarily a U.S. attack, but one by Israel. Rosenberg points to hasbara efforts by Jewish organizations to soften up public acceptance of an Israeli military strike on Iran. And there are many: AIPAC statements, the view from Israel that contradicts the State Department’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear readiness, the American Jewish Committee, the Zionist Organization of America, the World Jewish Congress, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, and a poll commissioned by the Israel Project which purports to show a massive increase in public support for a specifically Jewish state and concern over Iran’s nuclear program. But not a peep about Israel’s own nuclear program.

And those are the measured statements. Joshua Muravchik and John Bolton of the American Enterprise Institute, openly calls for bombing Iran. As do Michael Freund of Shavei Israel, Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman, Norman Podhoretz, and many others.

But this is not an altogether new story.

A year ago Israel conducted war games U.S. officials said were intended to send Iran a threatening message. The BBC reported the same story as “Israelis ‘rehearse Iran Attack’.”

In February Reuters reported that Israel claimed that time was running out and it had only about another year to attack Iran.

In May Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak offered to give up settlement outposts in exchange for the U.S. letting Israel “focus its attention on the Iranian nuclear threat”. Make your own inferences about what that means.

In July, the Jerusalem Post reported that a deal between European nations and Israel was evolving, which would permit Israel to attack Iran in exchange for unspecified “concessions in peace negotiations with the Palestinians and Arab neighbors.”

But back to Rosenberg. His particular insights are within American halls of Congress:

Anyway, this fall will be critical. While we’re sweating the health care issue, the usual suspects will be ignoring all that and trying hard to set us up for a third war in the Muslim world. And, I hear, that it will be a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans who will join in opposition to President Obama to sneak this one by us. Why not? Both parties want to please the pro-war crowd in advance of the 2010 elections. Watch your favorite liberal. I expect that if you pay attention, you will hear things that you haven’t heard come out of a Democrat’s mouth since the run-up to Iraq. […] If we go to war or give Israel a permission slip, it will be the Democrats who bear prime responsibility. Pay attention.

Participating in, or permitting, an attack on Iran would have frightful consequences. The Christian Science Monitor ran an article last June entitled ‘How Iran would retaliate if it comes to war.’ The Atlantic Monthly ran one titled ‘What if the Israelis bomb Iran’ War colleges, foreign policy wonks, and even Fleet Street and Wall Street have begun speculating on the results of such an attack.

Rosenberg has it partly correct: the current administration and a Democrat majority will bear responsibility for either condoning or providing support for an Israeli attack. Who now blames the Viet Nam war on anyone but LBJ and the Democrats?

But judging by the number of Zionist organizations rooting for war with Iran, this constituency should also be held accountable. American Zionist organizations may resent the claim that Jews are being unfairly associated with neoconservative politics and Israel advocacy at odds with American interests. But if this were true, then they would stop wallowing in that swamp and dragging American Jews, whom they claim to represent, into the muck with them.

Both Democrats and American Jews will be blamed for any war on Iran.

And finally, if anyone has any doubts that the United States would not be pulled into this war, look at a map:

Why Iran might want nukes

Naomi Chazan has hit the nail on the head in her essay in the Jerusalem Post. Simply put, Jews in the United States and Europe, even those who support Israel, still believe in democracy and universal principles of justice and equality. Increasingly and alarmingly, Israelis don’t. Chazan’s prescription for a rapprochement between Israelis and Diaspora Jews relies on Israel returning to “humanistic worldview that has informed the Judaic tradition.”

Ending the occupation, abiding by international law, and rejoining the world community could go a long way.

The Jewish experience in the 21st century is marked by its democratic character. For the first time, Jews throughout the world, with virtually no exceptions, live freely in open societies. Yet recent polls conducted in the two major concentrations of Jewish existence today – Israel and the United States – reveal a growing divergence of views, interests and mind-sets. These focus squarely on differing approaches to the role of Israel in contemporary Jewish life. Without a thorough, honest and critical reassessment of the humanistic and moral underpinnings of Israel and what it represents, its centrality in the Jewish world will continue to wane.

Attitudes toward Barack Obama among American and Israeli Jews are symptomatic of a much deeper parting of ways. Last week, a Smith Research poll conducted on behalf of The Jerusalem Post showed that only 4 percent of Israeli Jews see the US president’s policies as pro-Israel (down from a paltry 6% in June and a dramatic drop from the 31% who viewed them as such in May). A majority of respondents (51%) consider the new administration’s position more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel, and 35% think they do not evince a bias for one side or the other.

The most progressive leader of the US in recent memory is not liked in Israel.

IN CONTRAST, a poll of Jewish Democrats (78% of American Jews voted for Obama), commissioned by the conservative Traditional Values Coalition and released a couple of week ago, shows that 92% approve of the president’s job performance. In addition, 58% of those queried said he was doing a good job in promoting peace in the Middle East (only 16% disagreed with this statement). The majority of Jews in the US stand solidly behind Barack Obama.

The glaring gap in the attitudes of Israeli and American Jews toward the relationship between their respective governments is undeniable. Assuming that these latest surveys are methodologically sound (they are, indeed, entirely consistent with other polls carried out during the past few months), then the immediate lessons are clear. From the point of view of the present administration in Washington, recent steps have obviously not resonated with the Israeli public, whose built-in defensiveness has been magnified as a result of efforts to propel a resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict. From the vantage point of the Netanyahu government, the bulk of American Jewry is at odds with its basic precepts. Their identification with Israel no longer extends to unequivocal support for its actions.

The growing rift between these two major Jewish communities is not indicative merely of a disagreement over policy directions. It mirrors far more profound processes taking place in both settings.

In the US, Jews have, time and again, evinced steadfast support for the liberal principles of equality and social justice, which they equate with their Jewish heritage as well as with universal values. These binding norms have helped to fuse their collective identity and continually guide their outlooks and their behavior. Concern for the downtrodden, the disempowered and the other has become central to the Jewish ethic in the US. As Darren Pinsker so skillfully demonstrated in these pages just last weekend ("Obama and the Jewish vote"), most Jews in the US consistently adhere to social-democratic precepts domestically and to dovish positions internationally. These views are an inextricable part of their makeup as Jewish citizens of the US.

Trends in Israel point in quite different directions. As more Jews outside Israel – in Europe and Latin America as well as in North America – have internalized the democratic ethos, those in Israel appear to be disengaging from its roots. Six decades of independent achievement are increasingly being clouded by the acceleration of socioeconomic inequalities, the prevalence of discrimination among Jews of different backgrounds (shamelessly brought to the fore by the effort to exclude pupils of Ethiopian origin from some religious schools in Petah Tikva), the systemically unequal treatment of Arab citizens as well as continuing rule over another people, with all that this entails.

THE ISRAEL Democracy Institute’s annual Democracy Index released barely a month ago uncovers an alarming rise in intolerance, bigotry and outright racism which flies in the face of basic democratic principles. A dangerous combination of religious formalism and unfettered patriotism, coupled with an almost inexplicable attachment to neoconservative doctrines, has narrowed Jewish horizons in Israel and threatens to erode its egalitarian foundations.

Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that Jews in Israel and abroad are drifting apart: The symbiotic relationship which bound them together in the past cannot survive in the free environment of the 21st century unless it is cemented by a renewed commitment to human dignity and the values of justice and equality that give it meaning.

Initially, the mutually sustaining link between nascent Israel and world Jewry was predicated on a commonality of tradition and destiny. Jews throughout the globe provided Israel with material support and political backing; in return, Israel’s existence offered the promise of a safe haven and a much-needed rallying point for affiliation and mobilization. Implicit in this somewhat uneven exchange was the belief that Israel, as the homeland of the Jewish people, would exemplify the Jewish contribution to a just global order by constituting a "light unto the nations."

This normative bond has gradually unraveled as Israel has become a fully industrialized country and Jews from the former Soviet Union and its sphere of influence have been liberated from the shackles of totalitarianism. It is also this ethical tie which is in desperate need of repair.

There is a steep decline in American Jewish sentiment toward Israel. If, in the annual American Jewish Committee survey of 2006, 37% of US Jews claimed that they felt very close to Israel, by 2008 -scarcely two years later – this figure dropped to 29%. Undoubtedly the Second Lebanon War, corruption in high places, the Gaza offensive and shifting global currents have left a mark on American Jews. They have found outlets other than Israel to articulate their Jewish identity and their ongoing dedication to its moral dictates. Israel’s actions and the discourse of its leaders no longer dovetail with those of its founders and of many Jews who in the past drew inspiration from their deeds.

Any hope for the revival of a constructive partnership between Jews in Israel and elsewhere must build on the humanistic worldview that has informed the Judaic tradition in the past and has become the essence of Jewish existence today. This requires a serious, frank, egalitarian and value-driven global effort to review and update the Jewish agenda and to make it relevant to the challenges of the present century.

Such an undertaking is a reciprocal obligation – that is the only way to make Israel and the world it inhabits a better place for all. Until such a dynamic is put in motion, the two polls bear evidence to the dual poles which represent the Jewish trajectory today.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804481047&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Zionists in the bedroom

If your mother isn’t sending enough signals that you should really be settling down with a nice Jewish girl, now Israel is on your case too. Ha’aretz reports that MASA, a collaboration between the Israeli government and the Jewish Agency, has released an “anti-assimilation” video warning of “abduction” by, presumably, goyishe aliens.

And what can strengthen your Judaism more than, uh, Zionism?

An organization that works to strengthen ties between Israel and Diaspora Jews Wednesday launched a scare-tactic campaign that urges Israelis to combat assimilation in North America by working to prevent the "loss" of their own Jewish acquaintances there. The 10-day Hebrew-language campaign, to be shown on television and online, was prepared by a leading advertising firm at the behest of MASA, a partnership between the Jewish Agency and the Israeli government that helps finance and market semester- and year-length Israel programs for Diaspora Jews. "More than 50 percent of young Jews assimilate," the filmed commercial informs viewers through the voice of Ayala Hasson, a top reporter for Channel 1. "We are losing them," she adds, as soft, melancholy flute music plays in the background. The 33-second clip features images of missing-person posters hanging in locales in Europe and North America. The posters, in English, French and Russian, show young people with Jewish-sounding names. One "lost" person can be seen wearing a T-shirt that reads "I love Israel." The ad then asks anyone who "knows a young Jew living abroad" to call MASA. "Together, we will strengthen his or her bond to Israel, so that we don’t lose them," the announcer concludes.

Hearts filled with what?

More organized Islamophobia from a Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts Conservative shul. I’m not sure I’d agree with their description that, “our agenda is full, and so are our hearts.” Filled with what?

Please join us for the first Christians and Jews United for Israel meeting of the new year Sunday August 25, 6:45 p.m. Temple Emeth, 194 Grove Street, Chestnut Hill Our agenda is full, and so are our hearts. The past year has been one of activism, outreach and education. CJUI members most recently helped bring to the attention of the media and the public the radical ties of the Islamic Society of Boston’s newly opened Cultural Center in Roxbury. We also co-sponsored, with Israel My Delight, the appearance of Israel advocate (and former PLO member) Walid Shoebat as well as the New England premiere of the DVD “The Third Jihad.” We will honor our outgoing President and Founder, May Long, for her dedication, hard work and vision in creating an organization which brings together Christians and Jews to work together for peace and justice in the Middle East. Fumio Tako, our new president, will introduce himself and present the new members of our board of directors. He will also discuss plans for: programming, including the October 18th Genesis Awards, the restructuring of the board of directors (formerly known as the steering committee) and its new committees, outreach to elected officials, an increased presence in the media, and other plans for an ambitious schedule of events and activities. We look forward to your participation in this meeting and in this upcoming year of activism. If you have any questions please contact CJUI at cjui-mass@hotmail.com. See you August 25th!

Tempest in a Tabloid

The Kidney Libel The recent controversy over the Aftonbladet tabloid article highlights not only the vestiges of anti-Semitism (which I do believe are present in the article), but it raises equally important questions regarding Israel’s right to speak for Diaspora Jews. And it also raises a reasonable question of whether an anti-Semitic myth from the 13th century, adapted for tabloids, has the same meaning or potency in the 21st century that it did 800 years ago.

The first question can be answered by the Swedish Jewish community itself. Lena Posner, president of a Jewish community organization in Sweden, said that the Israel had “blown the issue completely out of proportion.” While she described the article as anti-Semitic, she also argued that Swedes, including Jewish Swedes, were more concerned with civil liberties and freedom of the press in Sweden’s official refusal to condemn the article.

So what right does Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman have to speak for Diaspora Jews? If the Aftonbladet article was a smear on Jews generally, the Swedish Jewish community would have been the logical group to respond to it locally, in the country where the article appeared. But the fact that Avigdor Lieberman became involved shows that the article actually hit an Israeli nerve in elevating the IDF’s well-known mistreatment of Palestinians to stealing organs from their corpses – not an aspersion on Jews in general. As an Israeli government official, Lieberman had the right to address this issue between the two countries, but not as a representative of world Jewry.

If the “kidney libel” had been consciously designed to resurrect the 12th century blood libel, it is interesting to note that it appeared, no longer in the form of a religious ritual, but as a wholly secular criminal conspiracy. In the Aftonbladet article, even though the vestiges of anti-Semitism might be still visible, the meaning of the accusations has changed. It has been transformed from a libel against Jews into rumor-mongering about the IDF – against a government, not Jews.

In a letter to the Jerusalem Post, American Jewish Committee president David Harris presumes to speak for all Jews. Or was it Diaspora Jews? Or perhaps Israeli Jews? Or was it Swedish Jews? His message is all over the map: the Holocaust, the blood libel, the EU, the UN, diplomacy, free speech, the history of Israel, noble Swedish families – it’s hard to keep all the themes straight in his rambling and sputtering denunciation of the tabloid article.

More high quality Aftonbladet reportage But ultimately Harris has no more right to speak for the Swedish Jewish community than Avigdor Lieberman. The Swedish Jewish community had it right – the proper response to the article was to politely ignore it, just as we Americans have politely ignored racist remarks from Israelis regarding our own president. Just as we have politely ignored Mr. Lieberman’s Landsmann Orly Taitz’s tabloid-quality accusations regarding President Obama. Arabs in Israel politely ignored fellow Beitenu MK Yitzak Aharonovitch’s use of the word "araboush.” Yes, there are anti-Semites throughout the world. Yes, there are racist bigots in the United States. Yes, there are racist bigots in Israel – a lot of them. Hate will always exist.

One other question is fair to ask: how much danger does occasional anti-Jewish innuendo actually pose to Jews in the 21st century? Should a vaguely anti-Semitic article in a magazine that publishes UFO sightings be taken as seriously as one that appears in an international newspaper? To pick one’s battles some perspective and judgment is necessary – something absent from Lieberman’s and Harris’ frothing denunciations.

More importantly, in conflating unsubstantiated rumors regarding the IDF with worldwide anti-Semitism, both Lieberman and Harris significantly over-step their right to speak for all Jews.

Continue Reading »

Islamophobia over Bagels

65348285_fd5e01d20c This one comes from a Boston blogger who apparently thinks defending Israel is most properly done by bashing Muslims. The host is a Conservative Jewish congregation’s [oxymoronically named] Brotherhood group in Stoughton, Massachusetts. The speakers are an assortment of Islam bashers and miscellaneous wingnuts from both Judaism and Christianity.

What could be more spiritual and serve the purposes of interfaith relations than bashing a 3rd religion over bagels?

Islam as Religion and the Strategies of Denial and Delusion” is the topic of a panel discussion to be held at Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton. The temple’s brotherhood is sponsoring the discussion and a Sunday brunch on August 23rd at 9:45 a.m.   The panel will include Rebecca Bynum, Hugh Fitzgerald and Jerry Gordon. Rebecca Bynum is publisher and senior editor of New English Review and board member of World Encounter Institute. Among her areas of interest are the intersection of religion and ideology and the nature of interfaith dialogue.  Her book, Allah Is Dead is due to be published this year.  Hugh Fitzgerald is a board member of World Encounter Institute and senior editor of New English Review.  He has appeared in Free Republic, American Nation and Earliest Christianity.  He is also a senior analyst for Jihad Watch, with a focus on the challenge of Islamic aggression toward Israel and the U.S.  Jerry Gordon is a former Army Intelligence officer who served during the Viet Nam era. Mr. Gordon has published widely in such outlets as FrontPageMag.com, The American Thinker, WorldNetDaily, ChronWatch, The New English Review, and Israpundit. He has been a frequent guest discussing Middle East issues on radio in the U.S. and Canada. He is a graduate of B.U. and Columbia University.    Cost of the brunch is $10 for members of the temple and Rep. Jewish Comm. (co-sponsor), $15 for everyone else.  RSVP to the synagogue office at 781.344.8733 or e-mail ahavathtorah@hotmail.com.

You can get a sense of the scope of the Israeli occupation by imagining what it would be like if the United States occupied an area and a population in the same proportions as Israel’s occupation of Palestine:

If the USA were Israel... According to CIA World Factbook data, Israel’s current population is 7,233,701, ours is 307,212,123. Israel’s land area is 22,072 sq km, ours is 9,826,674. The West Bank’s area is 5,860 sq km. According to the human rights organization Adalah, there are 22,000 political prisoners in Israeli jails. According to the United Nations, there were 634 military checkpoints in the West Bank in June 2009. According to the International Institute For Strategic Studies, Israel has an estimated 168,000 troops, 408,000 reservists, compared with Department of Defense figures showing an estimated 1,445,000 troops, 850,000 reservists in the US.

How vast would the occupation be?

  • If the United States were Israel, it would be maintaining an area of 2,608,931 sq km under martial law — the combined land mass of Mexico, all of Central America (and North Korea, to complete the total) .
  • If the United States were Israel, it would be imposing martial law on 104,528,935 people — almost the entire population of Mexico.
  • If the United States were Israel, it would have 7,134,887 soldiers on active duty, with most supporting the occupation, and 17,327,582 on active reserves.
  • If the United States were Israel, it would have 934,330 political prisoners in jail.
  • If the United States were Israel, it would control 276,921 checkpoints throughout its occupied territories.

How can Israel afford this?

Since 1948 Israel has been the beneficiary of, conservatively, over $114 billion in aid from the United States, more in loan guarantees, and the actual costs to U.S. taxpayers have even been greater due to the fact that the United States must pay interest on money we borrow to finance these expenditures. This dollar amount represents only public money to Israel, not funding from North American Zionist philanthropies.

  • If the United States were Israel, the total value in foreign aid received would be $4.84 trillion dollars.
  • This hypothetical, extrapolated figure represents one-half of the American public debt, so it is not an exaggeration to say that the United States has been sustaining not only the Israeli economy but the occupation of Palestine; yet Israel’s own deficit is only 2% of GDB, so this is aid we cannot afford to give Israel.

Judaism for Zionists

med_deed Many Zionists seem to be reading only the page in the Torah with the deed to Samaria and Judea. But the Torah, Talmud, and ethical Jewish writings have much to say on how to treat fellow humans:

The Essence of Judaism

On another occasion it happened that a certain non-Jew came before Shammai and said to him, “I will convert to Judaism, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.” Shammai chased him away with the builder’s tool that was in his hand. He came before Hillel and said to him, "Convert me." Hillel said to him, “What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary; go and learn it.” – Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Compassion

If we Jews remain indifferent to the plight of the oppressed, what right do we have to criticize the leaders of the free world for having abandoned us during the Holocaust? – Elie Wiesel, "From Cambodia to Sudan: Breaking Down Wall of Apathy," Article in the Forward (New York, 11 March 2005)

Respect for Human Dignity

Come and learn: Human dignity is so important that it supersedes even a biblical prohibition. – Babylonian Talmud, Brachot 19b

Rabbi Eliezer said, "Other people’s dignity should be as precious to you as your own." – Mishna, Pirkei Avot 2:10

Equal Application of the Law, even for non-Jews

There shall be one law for the citizen and for the stranger who dwells among you. – Exodus 12:49

I charged your magistrates at that time as follows, "Hear out your fellows, and decide justly between any person and a fellow Israelite or a stranger. You shall not be partial in judgment: hear out low and high alike. Fear no person, for judgment is God’s. And any matter that is too difficult for you, you shall bring to me and I will hear it." – Deuteronomy 1:16-17

You shall not subvert the rights of your needy in their disputes. Keep far from a false charge; do not bring death on those who are innocent and in the right, for I will not acquit the wrongdoer. Do not take bribes, for bribes blind the clear-sighted and upset the pleas of those who are in the right. You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt. – Exodus 23:6-9

When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the LORD am your God. – Leviticus 19:33-34

books

Apartheid sign Recently Israel created a visa system for American visitors which restricts us to either “European” or “Palestinian” areas or locks us out of the West Bank altogether – another reminder of the similarities Israel and the old South African Apartheid regime share. I sent our State Department a letter of complaint, and I hope others do as well:

Department of State
U.S. Consulate General, Consular Section
United States Department of State
27 Nablus Road, 94190 Jerusalem

Dear Mr/Ms Consul:

Europeans only Earlier this year I traveled to Israel and the West Bank with a peace group, to see for myself the "reality on the ground" for both Israelis and Palestinians. It was an important visit for me, and of the kind I would like to see possible for other Americans in the future.

Now, Israel’s new travel restrictions on American citizens will make these important cultural contacts difficult or impossible.

http://jerusalem.usconsulate.gov/border-crossings.html

Israel’s new restrictions on American citizens traveling to and from the West Bank and Gaza are a violation of the Oslo Accords (Article IX, Section 1.e):

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/iaannex1.html

Israel’s limitations of travel on American citizens to a country it has dubious rights to control are an unacceptable limitation by a foreign power of my rights as an American.

Palestinians only One group of Americans, Palestinian-Americans, is unduly harmed by these new restrictions. If they are lucky enough to obtain a "Palestinan-only" visa, they lose the right to visit the rest of Israel. This is clearly discriminatory and it would be my hope that the U.S. government would fight this for American citizens’ interests.

Placing such restrictions on Americans would be analogous to permitting Israelis to visit only several American states — and then only after basing these visas on religious affiliation, thereby discriminating against any visitor.

I urge you to strongly register American objections to these new visas and to ensure continued, unfettered access to all of Palestine/Israel by American citizens.

If Israel is unwilling to comply, I would urge you to place meaningful restrictions on Israeli citizens’ travel to the U.S., including student and special religious visas.

Regards,

David Ehrens

1949-TheFirstIsraelis-ByTomSegev

I just read Tom Segev’s book, 1949: The First Israelis (ISBN 978-0805058963). Segev calls himself a First historian, as opposed to a New historian, in using only recently-available archive materials from the Knesset and national archives. 1949 is the story of the first years of the new Jewish state, told in the words of those who created it. There are many quotes, for example, from Ben Gurion’s diaries and from transcripts of Knesset sessions and other government meetings.

Segev spends a lot of time on Israeli immigration, the secular/religious divide, government austerity programs, school system(s), the relationship to other governments (particularly the US), and what is striking is that, as Ecclesiastes 1:9 puts it, "that which hath been is that which shall be, and that which hath been done is that which shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun" applies nicely to tensions in the Jewish state which persist to this date.

For example, post-Zionism – the view that Zionism has done its job and that it’s now time to move on to make Israel a “normal” nation – is currently seen in Israel as a discredited aberration of the 1980’s and 1990’s. Or anti-Zionism – calling for a single, secular state of Jews and Arabs – is now seen as a contemporary response to the failure of a Two State solution. But Segev discusses some of the voices of the Canaanite Movement, like Yohanan Ratosh, who foresaw an Israel eventually without Jews. Of course, breaking as it did from right-wing Revisionist Zionism, the Canaanite movement was hostile to not only Judaism and Eastern European Yiddishkeit, but Islam and Arab civilization as well. It envisioned a secular, Hebraized, Middle Eastern culture encompassing former Jews, Arabs, and Druze. Other groups, like the Hashomer Hatzair, were militantly anti-religious. Organizations like “The League for the Prevention of Religious Coercion” sprang up within 3 years of the founding of the state. Religious Jews were described as “God’s Cossacks.”

Recent riots in Jerusalem over a parking lot could have been torn from the headlines of 1949. In May of that year, the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) rioted over ticket sales for movies on the Sabbath, and over automobile traffic in the Meah Shearim quarter. The haredi, operating on the warnings in Jeremiah 17:27, took “reproof” to mean even physical violence – arson, rock-throwing, home invasions, bare knuckles, and even biting people – and rioting were justified in protecting the peaceful day of rest. Segev, in the chapter entitled “The Battle for the Sabbath,” recounts how (to avoid writing) the ultra-Orthodox bent down the corners of their prayer books containing page numbers to record the license plates of Sabbath violators, whose cars were then torched later in the week.

Segev reminds us that American peace envoys have been involved in Palestine since the very founding of the state of Israel. In September 1948, when the Swedish UN negotiator, Folke Bernadotte, was murdered by Zionist terrorists, Ralph Bunche took over the UN negotiator’s role. Bunche negotiated the 1949 armistice agreement, for which he was awarded the 1950 Nobel Peace Prize.

And the Israeli relationship with America has often been as troubled as it is today. Although the United States was the first nation to recognize Israel, our support of the state was not the one-sided love-fest now cited by Israel’s defenders. Apparently, in recognizing Israel, the United States also expected (imagine!) that an Arab state would soon follow, in realizing the two states apportioned to the land by the United Nations. And the United States was dismayed by Israel’s already apparent plans to sacrifice peace for more land. Segev writes:

Mark Ethridge, the US delegate to the Lausanne conference, wrote President Truman that Israel’s inclination to base her future on her military security, while forgoing the chance of making peace, seemed “unbelievable,” in view of her being such a tiny state. According to him, he had tried to explain to the Israelis that they were endangering their own future and that of the entire Western world, but his efforts had been in vain.

Truman himself wrote to Ben-Gurion arguing in behalf of an Arab state “because he sympathized with the suffering of the Palestinian refugees, just as he had earlier supported the Zionist cause because he had sympathized with the Jewish refugees…” Ben-Gurion fumed about Truman’s letter:

The State of Israel was not established as a consequence of the UN Resolution. Neither America nor any other country saw the resolution through, nor did they stop the Arab countries (and the British mandatory government) from declaring total war on us in violation of UN resolutions. America did not raise a finger to save us, and moreover, imposed an arms embargo… […] There are no refugees – there are fighters who sought to destroy us, root and branch. […] The rebuke and the threatening style [of Truman’s letter] are incomprehensible.

Interestingly, not all distrust of the United States resulted from Israel’s rejection of American even-handedness. Some of it sprang from Israel’s founding as a state that rejected, at least initially, both Western civilization and capitalism. At the founding of Israel in 1948, MAPAM represented Marxist Zionists and had the second largest bloc, next to Ben-Gurion’s MAPAI party. But even Ben-Gurion himself did not regard Israel as a capitalist state. During the “austerity debates,” which resulted from immigration which overtook Israel’s ability to provide jobs and housing for the new olim, Ben-Gurion defended a planned and controlled economic system. He famously declared, “the state of Israel is not a capitalist state.”

Likewise, Americans were suspected of being members of the CIA with “Arabist” motives. When “Fred Harris”, a freelance American military advisor, actually one Fred Grunich, was asked by Ben-Gurion for his military advice, many in the Knesset openly interpreted the real motivation to the desire by the United States to spy on Israel.  American Jews too were seen as convenient sources of money but were regarded as second-rate Jews who were not prepared to suffer for the new state, as their Polish brethren had.

Israel’s selective enforcement of laws and endemic corruption have likewise been present since its founding, mainly as a consequence of the internal tensions within Israeli society, which have often caused competing groups to “look the other way” to either bolster their own power or prevent offense to another group. The take-away message is that Israel has always been less a nation of laws than a collection of ideologies and a series of handshake agreements. Conflict between religious blocks, MAPAM, and MAPAI, and major organizations like the Histradrut, the JNF, and the army actually made many fear civil war in the early years.

The discussion of the Nakba, now disputed and actually criminalized in Israel, is recounted in a number of memos and letters by various cabinet and Knesset members of Israel’s first government. As Arab village after village and Arab city after city were emptied and its inhabitants deported, it became clear that it was deliberate. While the American ambassador, James McDonald, argued for a return of the refugees, Ben-Gurion was “as hard as a rock” in his rejection of this. Moshe Sharett wrote:

The most spectacular event in the contemporary history of Palestine, in a way more spectacular than the creation of the Jewish state, is the wholesale evacuation of its Arab population. […] The opportunities opened up by the present reality for a lasting and radical solution of the most vexing problem of the Jewish state, are so far-reaching, as to take one’s breath away. The reversion to the status quo ante is unthinkable.

Josef Weitz, head of the Jewish National Fund, proposed measures designed to drive internally displaced refugees even farther into desolate areas:

They must be harassed continually.

1949 recounts the stories of the aliyot of Yemenite and Polish olim. Yemenites were regarded as savages and were subjected to horrendous conditions in the resettlement camps in Israel. Polish immigrants, by contrast, were put up in hotels.

The Kulturkampf between religious and secular worlds in Israel occupies a large portion of Segev’s book, particularly in the story of the Israeli school systems(s). Censorship, laws, agrarian policy, immigration, defense, housing, settlements – any topic the first Knesset ever discussed – is mentioned in this very readable, exceptionally interesting book.

Gaza or Warsaw?Press censorship, preventing Arab political parties from participating in elections, a “Nakba” law which punishes commemorations or public events, followed by banning textbooks that mention it. Then there are the proposed “loyalty oaths”, and now the removal of Arabic names on road signs. Tolerance and civil liberties are not doing very well in Israel. Gaza continues to fester as the largest ghetto on earth and several commentators have made invidious comparisons of Israel and post-Weimar Germany.

Controversial Oliphant cartoon  And now Antony Lerman asks in the Guardian, "Should we ban ‘Nazi analogies’?"

Now is precisely the wrong time to stifle discussion of Israel’s many problems – or the nature of Zionism – and it may soon be difficult to have these discussions anywhere except outside Israel.

Former Arab Knesset member Azmi Bishara in his essay, “Loyalty to racism,” makes the valid point that all these recent repressive measures have been designed to bolster Zionist ideology and coerce patriotism from Israelis, while eliminating political expression for Israeli Arabs.

Khalid Amayreh asks, in his essay “Why Zionism-Nazism comparisons are legitimate":

“Were the Nazis ‘Nazi’ only because they created and used gas chambers to incinerate their Jewish and non-Jewish victims? Would the Nazis have been less evil and therefore ‘less Nazi’ if they had annihilated their victims by way of bullets instead of ovens, or by starving them to death as Israel has been doing to the Palestinians?”

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs suggests applying Natan Sharansky’s “3D” test to such analogies. However the litmus tests of “demonization, double standards, and delegitimization” will always test pink (especially in the hands of zealots) because the tests themselves are flawed. The issue is not the indisputable fact of the Shoah or the legitimacy of the Israeli state, but its nature. Even the National Socialists came to power legally in 1934.

"The homeland is blood and soil, it is earth bound by blood, it is the Alpha and Omega of all existence" Certainly anyone making Nazi analogies must proceed delicately – that is to say, as factually and dispassionately as possible – but, despite some differences, there are also many similarities between National Socialism and Zionism that are based on historical co-evolution, and can not be avoided.

Zionism employs racial, ethnic and religious nationalism as a means to promote the interests of a privileged ruling people ("Herrenvolk") associated with “their” land. "Natural growth" resembles the National Socialist concepts of "Lebensraum" and Israel’s desire to build eastward is what the NS-ers called the "Drang nach Osten." The annexation of other lands ("Anschluss"), occupation ("Besatzung"), and "voelkisch" (ethnic) ties to the land ("Blut und Boden") are painful features of the expression of these ideologies. Like the National Socialists, the Zionists’ nationalist philosophy trembles at the fear of "Umvolkung" (loss of nationhood). The Revisionist Zionist, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, whose school of Zionism holds the most currency in Israel today, was an open admirer of Mussolini.

Mufti Nazis belittled Jewish “belonging” to the German soil (“Boden”) and to the DNA of the nation (“Blut”). According to Nazis, Jews were a deracinated people who were overly urban, sickly, lived in squalor, and had to be removed. Similarly, we often hear the refrain from Zionists that “there was never a Palestinian people.” Jason Kunin touches on some of these themes in his essay, “A Genuine Peace Movement Cannot be Zionist.”

I love those cool Arab hats! Benjamin Netanyahu recently attempted to embarrass the German Foreign Minister by using the Israel Project’s strategy of calling the dismantling of settlements "ethnic cleansing" (he actually used the German word "Judenrein"). Avigdor Lieberman, doing his part for Nazi analogies, published 60-year-old pictures of the Mufti with Hitler to tar Arabs with the taint of Nazism.

Should only Zionists get free passes to use Nazi analogies?

National Socialism and Zionism are the anachronistic product of 19th Century German nationalism: Nazism in part the legacy of Fichte and others, and Zionism flowed from the pen of Herzl. Yet both developed out of a common German Romanticism. Assimilated German Jews like Heinrich Heine and Herzl himself were drawn to, if not torn between, simultaneous German and Jewish nationalism.

Nazism and Zionism, then, are cousins, if not brothers.

Finally, there’s this sobering definition of fascism from Robert Paxton (The Anatomy of Fascism, Vintage Books):

[Fascism is] "a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

The answer to Lerman’s question should be “no." Maybe even “hell no.”

A Rift between Friends

In May and June I traveled to Israel and the West Bank with an interfaith peace group to see for myself the "reality on the ground" for both Israelis and Palestinians. Toward the end of our visit, President Obama delivered his speech to the Arab world in Cairo, calling for an end of illegal settlements in the West Bank. On the day before we left Israel, some of us photographed an anti-American demonstration in Jerusalem.

No, these were not angry Palestinians, but shouting Jewish settlers and religious Zionists in West Jerusalem, pronouncing President Obama a Muslim and mixing both religious and racial insult with protestations that Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) will never be shared with Arabs. This is a widely-held view by most of the coalition parties that comprise the current government – Likud, Beitenu, Kadima, Shas – though not necessarily the average Israeli – and it underscores a growing rift between American democratic values and an increasingly xenophobic and nationalist Israeli government. If there were any doubts before, our democracy is not like theirs and our values are not their values.

The July 19th Jerusalem Post illustrates this rift in an article, "Obama’s Real Agenda," by Anne Bayefsky, which complained that Obama had for the first time invited moderate American Jews, including JStreet, to talk with him about Israel, and was being too even-handed: "President Barack Obama last Monday met for the first time with leaders of selected Jewish organizations and leaks from the meeting now make one thing very clear. The only free country in the Middle East no longer has a friend in the leader of the free world. Obama is the most hostile sitting American president in the history of the state of Israel."

But while President Obama and Secretary Clinton insist on an end to the illegal settlements, Israel keeps building them anyway, pushing settlement blocks deep into the West Bank and clearly trying to create a "reality on the ground" which will forever block the possibility of a Palestinian state – in defiance of American foreign policy goals over many presidencies.

And Israel’s government has also gone on a xenophobic offensive as well. Efforts by Transportation Minister Katz to "Judaize" street signs in even Arab towns and cities in Israel – or the revised "Nakba" bill which punishes Israelis who talk about or commemorate the Nakba (the 1948 Palestinian "disaster") – have even mainstream Israelis concerned about civil liberties. A bill in the Knesset proposing a national biometric identity card is likewise raising a lot of eyebrows. Coalition parties like Shas and Beteinu openly call for the forced deportation of Israeli Arabs to Jordan and Egypt.

But while the United States is now heading in the direction of increased tolerance and compliance with international law, Israel is racing in the opposite direction. Jewish Israelis can no longer speak of their country, which governs an Arab population almost the same size as its own by martial law, as a Western democracy. Israel, for all its cultural links and trade with Europe and the U.S., is giving up hope of ever being accepted as a "normal" Western nation. Although the reason some ascribe to this is "anti-Semitism" it is also true that "normal" nations in the 21st Century no longer build colonies and habitually thumb their noses at international law. Now, with the U.S. sounding more like Europe, Americans have drawn Israel’s ire as well.

Last year the Bush administration initialed a 10-year $30 billion military aid package for Israel. Israel’s per-capita military expenses are the highest in the world and Americans have been paying for roughly 15-20% of these expenses -things like last December’s war on Gaza’s civilian population, guarding settlements in war zones like Hebron, building the 500 kilometer "security wall," the ubiquitous checkpoints, or the recent jailing of a former U.S. congresswoman trying to deliver aid to Gaza.

Nations and empires with an addiction to wielding military power usually have to give it up when they start running out of money. If Israel resents U.S. "meddling" or – worse! – even-handedness, perhaps it’s time to take a step back – starting with the American military aid Israel uses in violation of international laws and in opposition to our own foreign policy. Only when Israeli taxpayers shoulder the full costs of their military occupation will a fair and peaceful settlement with Palestinians occur to them.

Standard-Times, July 23, 2009

Deutsch 201 für Bibi

Many Israelis and Jewish groups get upset when unfavorable parallels are drawn between the Israeli treatment of Palestinians and the Nazi’s treatment of Jews, particularly in Gaza, which has been compared to the Warsaw Ghetto. Groups like the American Jewish Committee see any parallel, even by Jewish progressives, as offensive and anti-Semitic.

But this week Benjamin Netanyahu used the Nazi term "Judenrein" in a meeting with the German foreign minister while discussing the possible removal of West Bank settlements. Reuters quoted a "confidant" of Netanyahu saying that the Israeli prime minister told Frank-Walter Steinmeier earlier this week that "Judea and Samaria" [the West Bank] cannot be Judenrein." The term was used by Nazis to refer to areas "cleansed of Jews." Asked by Reuters how Steinmeier reacted to the term, the confidant said, "What could he do? He basically just nodded."

In attempting to leverage German guilt, the Prime Minister himself opened up the same can of worms the AJC and countless organizations would have preferred to leave buried: the meaning of many of these nationalist terms, and the frightening similarities between German nationalism and Zionism.

Aside from this, recent racist pronouncements by Israeli’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch could really best be uttered auf [1936-era] Deutsch. Germans of today have managed to move past ugly 19th Century racist nationalism, but Israel (which was founded on similar principles first described in Der Judenstaat by Theodor Herzl) just seems to be getting warmed up, especially the new government.

Now that Netanyahu has mastered German 101, here are some other phrases from the German past, with suggested uses, that might be useful for him and his coalition government:

Abwanderung “wandering off” or “emigration” – euphemism for deportation or worse. A synonym for “transfer” or even for the Nakba. For example: The Palestinian Abwanderung never happened in 1948.
Anschluss annexation of other countries. Netanyahu could have said this week: The Anschluss of the Golan Heights will be permanent.
Besatzung occupation. As in: the Besatzung of Palestine.
Blut und Boden "blood and soil" – an ideology focusing on a concept of ethnicity based on descent (Blood) and homeland (Soil) and which celebrates the relationship of a people to the land that they occupy and cultivate. This could be a handy phrase to describe the lure of Zionism to outsiders.
Drang nach Osten "drive toward the East" – a term coined in the 19th century to designate expansion into Slavic lands. In Israel this could be used to describe the pressures of “natural growth” that drive the eastward expansion of already illegal settlement blocks in the West Bank.
Gesinnungs-unterricht ideological indoctrination. This could be used to describe appropriate kinds of education to prevent fellow Jews like David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel from becoming “self hating” (the other Netanyahu story this week) or in forming narratives for public consumption. For example: AIPAC can provide a bit of Gesinnungsunterricht.
Gleichschaltung elimination of opposition. This is a wonderful utility phrase that can describe political detentions of Palestinians, extra-judicial killings, imprisonment and harassment of Jewish activists, and the introduction of new laws banning criticism of Israel’s democracy or even mentioning the Nakba.
Herrenvolk ethnic group which rules. This could be used to describe the relationship of Israeli Jews to Israeli Palestinians, as in the sentence: Our Herrenvolk will replace the filthy Arabs in the Galilee.
Judenrein cleansed of Jews. Oops! Bibi knows this one already.
Konzentrationslager concentration camp. A synonym for Gaza.
Lebensraum "living space" – space to accommodate "natural growth". Wow! This really is a timely word. Bibi could have alternately explained to Steinmeier that: We just need more Lebensraum.
Ostmark euphemism for annexed land in the east. Since Israel is running out of names for illegal settlements in the West Bank, perhaps something like “Ostmark Illit” would have a cute ring to it.
Rassenschande literally, “shaming the race.” This could be used to describe anti-miscegenation programs like those in Petah Tikvah, Pisgat Zeev, and Kiryat Gat which use informers, vigilantes, rabbis, police, and municipal authorities to inform on and threaten girls who date Arabs.
Sprachregelung term meaning "convention of speech," a formal or informal agreement that certain things should be expressed in specific ways to avoid confusing and seemingly contradictory messages, and to enhance the outward appearance of unity, but also to replace sensitive expressions with euphemisms. This could be used interchangeably with hasbara.
Staatsfeind enemy of the state. Since Israel is running out of ways to demonize its critics, and “anti-Semite” and “self-hating Jews” are getting a little too much play these days, this would be a refreshing new word. As in: That verdammter Staatsfeind, Noam Chomsky!
Siedlung settlement or colony. Why use English when Deutsch sounds so cool and sophisticated?
Umvolkung a term used to describe a process of assimilation of members of the people (das Volk) so that they forget about their language and their origin. As in: American Jews are practically goyim because of their Umvolkung.
Untermenschen subhumans. Example: The Palestinians are Untermenschen.
Volk "the people" – a racial or ethnic conception of a nation. In Israel, only for Jews. As in: Israeli Arabs are not a member of unser Volk.
völkisch "ethnic" – the völkisch movement had its origins in Romantic nationalism, and was expressed by early Romantics such as Johann Gottlieb Fichte in his addresses to the German Nation published during the Napoleonic Wars, from 1808 onwards, especially the eighth address, “What is a Volk, in the higher sense of the term, and what is love of the fatherland?” If the word “Zionist” has a slightly negative ring to it, völkisch could be used instead. For example: Herzl described our völkische aspirations.
Zwangsverkauf compulsory sale or transfer of property. This could be useful in describing why the settlements are legal in Israeli courts.

Birthright Israel

Birthright group The bright blue background of the website at http://www.birthrightisrael.com depicts smiling Jewish kids popping up in goofy Flash animations, along with the words "Your adventure. Your birthright. Our gift." For many, Taglit-Birthright Israel equals a free vacation. Trips to the Masada, target practice with the IDF, working on a kibbutz, three and four star hotels, a little eco-tourism, late night DJ parties and “mega events”, and maybe some sex on the beach.

Ready, aim, fire! The “Birthright” experience shields participants from Arabs in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, or Israel’s Arab largest communities. All itineraries are cleared by the government, and the authorities are aware of each group’s location at all times via GPS. Participants are unlikely to get a glimpse of what life is like in the Occupied Territories for Palestinians or within Israel proper for Arab Israelis like former Knesset member Azmi Bishara.

Taglit-Birthright Israel describes itself as a “unique, historical partnership between the people of Israel through their government, local Jewish communities (North American Jewish Federations through the United Jewish Communities; Keren Hayesod; and The Jewish Agency for Israel), and leading Jewish philanthropists”. Since its inception, over 200,000 young adults, 75% from North America, have made the 10-day trips. The cost of the program to-date has been $450 million. Any American Jewish young adult from 18-26 who has never been to Israel before and who is part of a Jewish community with a Zionist organization (Federation or UJC) qualifies for this program — designed to encourage young adults to make aliyah (immigrate) to or to at least enhance ahavat Yisrael (love of Israel).

Fire! Under Israel’s original Law of Return, any Jew (technically a person with a Jewish mother) could become an Israeli citizen. In 1970 the law was amended to permit non-Jews with a Jewish grandparent, in-laws, parent or spouse to immigrate as well. The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law of 2003 restricts immigration of Arabs of childbearing age who are residents of the West Bank and Gaza. But American Jewish and even non-Jewish Russians of childbearing age are most welcome to come to Israel and alter the demographics. Interestingly, Israeli law and Zionist programs like Birthright seem to be designed to slow Arab population growth more than to preserve Judaism. Israel now has more than 300,000 non-Jewish Russians alone. In 1999, half of all Russian immigrants were not Jewish.

But if you really want to clinch the deal, bringing kids to Zionist Disneyland isn’t quite enough. You’ve got to show them the crematoria. Taglit-Birthright Israel has combined a program with the International March of the Living tour of Polish death camps.

44_610x

The website explains:

“A special emphasis is placed on the topic of the Holocaust and Jewish life in Central Europe prior to WWII. Included are visits to concentration camps and centers of Jewish life and culture in Poland prior to the program in Israel. Also explored is the absorption of WWII survivors into Israeli life after the War. […] The tours and activities incorporate all of these subjects into experiences with the sights, sounds, smells and sense of touch in contemporary Israel.”

And apparently it works. There are countless stories, like this one, from disaffected Jewish teens who have overnight become card-carrying Zionists. Others, like this one, reflect on the emotional manipulation of these tours.

An Alternative

Birthright Unplugged is not funded by Jewish federations or Zionist philanthropy, but offers Jewish teens a tour which provides a more accurate view of the reality for Palestinians:

In six days, we visit Palestinian cities, villages and refugee camps in the West Bank and spend time with internally displaced Palestinian people living inside Israel. Throughout the journey, we help participants develop an understanding of daily life under occupation and the history of the region from people profoundly affected by and under-represented in Western discourses about the occupation.

It also runs trips for Palestinian teens which often gives them a first glimpse of East Jerusalem or the sea:

Our Re-Plugged trips are for Palestinian children living in refugee camps. In two to three days, we visit Jerusalem, the sea and the villages their grandparents fled in 1948. The children stay with families who are Palestinian citizens of Israel. They document their experiences with cameras and create exhibits in order to contribute to the collective memory in the refugee camp and to share their stories with people abroad. […] This experience is nearly impossible for most Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, who receive identity cards at age 16 which Israel uses to control their movement. As internationals we are able to move with relative freedom and so, unlike the children’s parents and grandparents, we can take them on this trip.

banner I just came across an organization in Stoughton called the No Place for Hate Committee. Interestingly, it’s a project of the Anti-Defamation League, which should be a bit sensitive to religious hatred.

I wonder if they know there’s a big problem with Islamophobia right in town?

Specifically, the Ahavath Torah congregation, which has run a welcome for Dutch racist Geert Wilders, whom Britain had the good sense to keep from spewing hate speech there, and also a kaffee klatch with an author promoting her book, Allah is Dead.

Stoughton also experienced the famous Danish Flag Incident in 2006, when Town Manager Mark Stankiewicz felt compelled to fly the Danish flag alongside Old Glory to thank the Danes for running the equally famous Muhammad cartoon.

Feel free to call the town and inquire what, if anything, the No Place for Hate Committee is doing. You can reach Mark Stankiewicz at +1 (781) 341-1300, Ext. 211, twnmgr@stoughton-ma.gov.

Dear Mr. Axelrod,

04prexy-600 I watched President Obama’s speech from East Jerusalem, where I was staying during a long tour of Israel and the West Bank. The president’s speech made me proud and I was also moved by expressions of hope from Palestinians I talked to afterwards, although they have been betrayed so many times by U.S. policies that this hope can only be described as a guarded hope.

During my stay I visited the Dheisheh refugee camp, just down the road from Bethlehem, and wept at the desperate life for children who followed us around. I was surprised to see how friendly and open inhabitants were to an American, despite the fact that the IDF rousts them every other night and our nation’s relationship with Israel is well-known. I visited Hebron, a microcosm of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, where I met both gun-toting settlers and a worker for the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem. Again, I was shocked at the war zone “reality on the ground” for Arab residents of the H2 zone in Hebron.

I talked to Israelis in Sderot and Ashkelon who have been the target of thousands of Qassam rockets. I talked to Hebrew University students in Jerusalem,  visited Bir Zeit university in Ramallah, and listened to two men from an organization called “Combatants for Peace” who had each lost daughters to violence from the other side.

People on both sides of this conflict are tired and living in fear and under intolerable conditions, particularly Palestinians living under perpetual martial law. The situation simply cannot go on forever. We talked to an Israeli professor who described Israel’s settlement efforts as “cantonizing” Palestinians into islands which will ultimately be linked together by bridges and tunnels (already being constructed) to try to satisfy a legalistic requirement of “contiguity.” To Palestinians, each of whom knows the details of Oslo, Camp David, and the roadmap to a degree that would shame most journalists, what Israel is doing is tantamount to creating large Indian reservations. And I agree. I can tell you, based on all the conversations I had, any “cantonization” plan would be rejected by even the most moderate of Palestinians. And there are 7 million Palestinian refugees outside Palestine. Any new Palestinian state must be big enough to accommodate some fraction of them who decide to return to a new state.

Satellite (1) I urge President Obama to pressure Israel to accept the Green Line, to remove the “Berlin-like” walls, and to recognize a divided Jerusalem. If Israel cannot do this, the president should hit Israel with sanctions, as the first President Bush threatened to do. The issue of huge illegal settlements like Ma’ale Adumim which cut into the heart of the West Bank, must be negotiated. It might actually serve interests of peace for a few Jewish towns to exist in a new Palestine, just as Muslim towns like Nazareth exist in Israel. But ultimately these are decisions that the PA and Israel will have to make. President Obama’s job is to be an honest, unbiased, peace broker.

I hope the president’s speech really is a fresh start with the Muslim world, but Muslims, as he must certainly know, are sensitive to betrayal or words that are not accompanied by action. I hope the president’s inspiring words translate into concrete action during the next two years. Otherwise, hope can fade into frustration, and frustration can boil over into violence. I urge the president to demonstrate he meant every word in his Cairo speech, and to deploy Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Mitchell in finally ending this nightmare.

Regards,

David Ehrens

The Two Jews

“I was taught from infancy that the Jewish people never existed merely in order to exist, we never survived just to survive, we never just carried on in order to carry on. Jewish existence has always been directed upward: not just to the Father, the King, up in the heavens, but up toward the great human calling.”

I just finished reading Avraham Burg’s book, The Holocaust is over: We must rise from its ashes. Allan Brownfield has written a good review of the book for those who want a quick summary of its 242 pages. Burg’s book, as the title suggests, alludes to the use of the Shoah to justify Israel’s human rights abuses, and Burg documents this in painful ways. But his stories are also filled with amusing insight into how the Shoah has been packaged into a common, unifying, one-size-fits-all, Jewish experience – for example, the anecdote about a Iraqi Jewish friend who experiences the Holocaust “all over again” on a business trip to Poland. Other stories, like the one of his father’s involvement in the Eichmann trial, in which he pictures Jews having replaced Eichmann in his bulletproof defendant’s box, are the keen observations of an insider who grew up in Rehavia, an old Yekke neighborhood in Jerusalem.

Those expecting a trivialization of the Holocaust will be disappointed. From Burg’s stories of his family, neighbors, and friends, it is indeed remarkable how many Israelis have had direct experience of camps or fleeing for their lives.  These are woven into the fabric of the book, but he prefers to bring his readers a different message.

The working title of the book was “Hitler Won.” This angrier viewpoint is indeed embedded within Burg’s pages, but he ends the book by calling – a view he credits to his mother – for a more universal love of humanity which conquers fear and suffering: the “courage of love.”

Burg’s book is really about two Jews. One is represented by his father Yosef, a reserved German-Jewish scholar and government official who witnessed the collapse of a world in which Jews played a major part. The other is his sensitive mother, Rivka, a Sephardic Jew from Hebron, whose family was wiped out in the massacres of 1929. What they represent, of course, is the cosmopolitan, progressive Jew with a connection to Judaism’s humanistic values, and the traumatized Zionist, still reliving the Holocaust and finding in Zionism a kind of “survivalist” Judaism, a worldview we can find today in Israel and in Zionist organizations in the United States.

These two Jews have always existed. Abraham and David. Heine and Jabotinsky. Buber and Kook. Maybe even Hillel and Shammai. This is why we are continually searching for clues about who we are and what Judaism really means.

In May/June 2009 I travelled to Israel and Palestine. These entries are from my travel diary.


Expectations

May 20, 2009

In a few days I will be leaving to go on a two-week trip to Israel and Palestine with a group from Interfaith Peace Builders. I need to be able to see with my own eyes what is happening there, but for me the great mystery is why Israelis have made such an extreme right turn over the last 60 years and why the Palestinians are so divided.

clip_image001

After all the history, news articles, and foreign policy papers I’ve read, the reality on the ground will probably not be very surprising. Perhaps I’ll just be one of those who sees what he expects to see. Or maybe I’ll be influenced by a few of the politically-correct fellow-travelers I’ll be visiting with. Or maybe all I’ve presently concluded will turn out to be accurate. Or just maybe — there will be some place, event, or person which significantly alters my thinking on this issue. I guess I’m prepared for any of these things to happen.

As I travel around this disputed land I will be keeping a notebook on what I’ve seen and whom I’ve talked with, when appropriate. My plan is to rework each day’s notes into an entry in this blog, sometimes illustrated with photos or additional information I’ve gathered. I tend to think on paper, and this is how I intend to digest my experiences.


Into every life a little rain must fall

May 25, 2009

clip_image002

We had a very compressed orientation in Washington DC, then went to the airport to catch our flight through JFK to Tel Aviv. Delta cancelled our flight! After all kinds of aggravation, we finally were put up at the Five Towns Motor Inn outside the airport in NYC and we’ll be flying out of here at 8:30pm tonight — if nothing else goes wrong. Apparently 3 raindrops is enough to shut down JFK because the New Yawkers are such wimps compared with us hardy New Englanders.

The people are wonderful and are not a bunch of politically correct teenagers. We’ve got 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 year-olders, a Mormon, a couple of Jews, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Quaker, Catholics, Unitarians, etc. These are people who have pets, drink beer, swear, and have equally strong opinions. In short, they’re a lot like me. We’ve had a very good chance to see each other under unflattering conditions, sweating and collapsing after a 23-hour day. But bad travel karma has resulted in a lot of time to get to know one another, and it’s been very nice in a bizarre sort of way.

Our adventure has already begun.


Arrival in Israel-Palestine

May 26, 2009

We arrived in Tel Aviv in the afternoon and cleared customs easily. Everyone was fairly friendly and the main concern was Swine Flu (whoops, in Israel, the Mexican Flu).

clip_image003

The first thing you notice when you leave Ben Gurion airport, which is a bit east of Tel Aviv, and start the trip up to Jerusalem, is how small the country is. The bus from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem takes about the same amount of time to get from Taunton to Boston. As we went up route 6, the driver pointed out countless Arab towns that had been swallowed into a suburban sprawl that resembles the East Bay a bit.

Everywhere there are hilltop developments, somewhat like the ugly boxes that made Levitttown what it is. You can occasionally see remnants of old Arab towns if you look, and they are very clearly different, simpler architecture — now relegated to empty hollows on the lower parts of the now settled hilltops, cut off from traffic and rotting until they are bulldozed and new settler housing is constructed.

We continued to East Jerusalem to check into our East Jerusalem hotel, the Azzahra. The accommodations were pretty Spartan. No AC, showers barely work, plumbing so narrow that you have to throw your toilet paper away separately. Jerusalem, even the Arab district, is regulated by Israel and only Arabs with special permits can enter. There are separate bus systems to Arab and Jewish neighborhoods, separate license plates, even rolling checkpoints at street corners, and it very obviously reflects the traces of an occupation.

clip_image004

As we entered East Jerusalem, we passed a home that had been taken by armed Israeli settlers and which had an armed lookout post on its roof. This is something out of the Wild West. I haven’t figured out which analogy is most apt — that of Apartheid, or that of the way we treated Indians in the 18th — 20th centuries. Either way, it doesn’t belong in the 21st century.

Tomorrow we are meeting with an Israeli group which tries to stop home demolitions of Arabs’ homes, and we are also staying overnight in a West Bank refugee camp. Later in the week we become more regular tourists and will be spending more time in Israel proper.

At 9:00 I went to bed and fell asleep instantly. In ten minutes I awoke to the mezzuin’s call to evening prayers. It went on for 2-3 minutes and then stopped. It’s probably no worse than living near a fire station, but it is a reminder that when (and if) Palestinians ever have their own state it will probably have an Islamic character.

As for me — I’ve been wondering if religious states of ANY kind are a good thing.


Home demolitions

May 27, 2009

We met today with Yahav from ICAHD who gave us a glimpse into how home demolitions work. Displaying a number of maps he discussed how developments like Ma’aleh Adumim are used to slice into Palestinian land in the Occupied Territories. Although the theft of Palestinian land is bad enough, the way in which it is executed is pure evil.

Basically, land is suddenly zoned for "green" or military use and Palestinians almost never win zoning appeals. After 3 years of disuse, the land is declared "abandoned" and becomes state-owned. Thereafter, the state demolishes homes and reclaims the land for Jewish-only developments.

clip_image005

Because Palestinian family units are multi-generational, homes expand with every new generation, often by adding a new floor. The gotcha is that Palestinians rarely obtain building permits for a new floor or wing, so out of desperation they build anyway. The state then declares the house "illegal," fines the owner the assessed value of the house, plus demolition costs, and bulldozes the home.

We visited the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. We sat with a group of city counselors from Normandy (France) and listened to a talk on the effects of the Gaza blockade.

We arrived before dinner at the Deheisheh refugee camp outside Bethlehem in the West Bank, where we stayed overnight at a hostel and toured the camp. The camp itself is like a poor neighborhood in Mexico, with unsafe electrical systems, sewage problems, and no trash removal — especially shocking since this is administered by Israel, which should be maintaining some minimal level of care over this subjugated population.

The speakers were very impassioned, but also very helpful in understanding the prospects for a 2 state solution, which seems to basically be zero at this point thanks to not only Hamas, but to Israel, which has virtually cut the West Bank in half with a massive settlement called Ma’ale Adumim which we visited a couple of hours before an armed Palestinian shot at the two security guards who had previously waved our tour bus through their gates. Ma’ale Adumim looks like a really ugly California development and has schools, a junior college, a mall, and 40,000 units — out in the middle of nowhere but specifically located in order to prevent a Palestinian state from ever occurring.

clip_image006

clip_image007

This was a very amazing day and it was a very moving experience to have the cutest little kids say "hello" in English, smile at us, and follow us around despite the IDF patrols that run through this dismal 1 kilometer square ghetto with European faces like ours. I heard a 43 year old mother tell us what she told her son after the IDF killed his best friend in 2002 when the 13 year old threw a rock at them.

I learned that 30-60 percent of all Palestinians have been in prison or detained — not because they are necessarily terrorists, but because the area is under martial law and Israel has the "right" to put people in detention for 6 months at a time without trial, or haul them away for 18 days for simple questioning. No search warrants are ever required.

This has apparently been a great success in making people hate Israelis and teaching them Hebrew. The reasons Palestinians give for these arbitrary detentions are (1) fishing for intelligence, (2) disrupting demonstrations which would be legal elsewhere, (3) seeing who they can turn to collaborators.

I had a nice lunch in a falafel restaurant with the tour guide, a cultured Arab man who seems to know everyone in Jerusalem. While we were eating near the Damascus Gate, we saw a single settler being accompanied by two armed guards through the crowds on the corner. In contrast, here I was having a nice lunch and a good conversation with an Arab who knows full well I am a "Yehudi". The Palestinians really don’t have a problem with Jews. It’s the Occupation they are fighting.


"God is not a real estate agent"

May 28, 2009

clip_image008

Today we got up and drove to Bethlehem for a bit of sightseeing, but also an ambitious set of meetings.

Our first meeting was with Zougbi Zougbi, who runs the Wi’am Center in Bethlehem, a beautiful Arab city. Zougbi is a city counselor and the director of the center, which provides family services to children and women, as well as mediation and conflict resolution based on a pre-Islamic Arab form of mediation called sulha, which involves concluding the agreement with a cup of coffee.

In Zougbi’s view, the occupation has been devastating to families, particularly women. He supports Abbas and said that Abbas is doing a generally good job of keeping peace talks going and that the relationship with the US and Europe has been beneficial, although he laments the one-sided relationship with Israel. It occurred to me that the US was truly wasting an opportunity to befriend the Arab world. Zougbi criticized Zionism as being at odds with a Judaism previously respected by Muslims. "God is not a real estate agent."

We asked him if the Two State solution was dead, and he suggested that it was. We asked about Hamas and he asked us in return if we’d like to talk to a fellow city counselor from the [political, not armed] Hamas party.

The Hamas city counselor, Saleh Shoker, turned up about a half hour later and answered our questions. From the banter between Zougbi and Saleh, it resembled the joking and arguing between, say, a Republican and a Green Party member.

Saleh admitted they were militant, but asserted they were not violent by nature, although he said, "Sometimes you need to wage war to have peace," sounding amazingly like Israelis we had talked with. "How can I talk to someone who holds a gun to me and still talks peace," Saleh said of Israel.

I asked him if Hamas could ever support a Two State solution (which Hamas has previously suggested it might by supporting the Saudi Proposal), and I didn’t get much of an answer. He suggested that the world should first ask Israel to stop the occupation. When pressed repeatedly, Saleh said that he thought there was a remote possibility if Israel were to return to the 1967 borders, but said that Israel never would do this. He treated us like naive fools for even thinking it was a possibility. He could be right. The settlements we saw today are designed precisely to derail any possibility of two states and, thus, any hope of peace.

clip_image010


Refugee Rights

In the afternoon we drove down the street to the Palestinian Center for Residency and Refugee Rights. We met with the communications officer, Hazem Jamjoum, who discussed the mechanics of how the occupation strips Palestinians of their land and the history of the dispossession of Palestinians from their homes and villages in 1947-1948, resulting in 750,000 refugees who could never return to Palestine.

Before Israeli independence, Jamjoum maintains, the Haganah and paramilitary groups Stern and Irgun ruthlessly targeted and terrorized people in 535 villages through a plan called "Plan Dalet" and has subsequently practiced ethnic cleansing through more bureaucratic methods, involving Jewish National Fund land trusts, zoning regulations, and the racist application of Military Order 125, permitting the state to annex land for military use. He suggested a number of resources, including books by Ilan Pappe. He pointed to the Koenig Report of 1976 as an example of explicit plans for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.


"We’re not David anymore, we’re Goliath"

May 29, 2009

clip_image011

Sderot

Today was an excellent view into how progressive Israelis think. In the morning we drove to the Erez checkpoint into Gaza and took photos of the elaborate security measures in place, then drove a few miles into Sderot to meet with a couple of members of a group called "Other Voice". We met with Nomika Zion and neighbor Eric Yellin at Zion’s home. On the way into Sderot we saw the ubiquitous yellow and pastel blue bomb shelters every hundred yards or so, and we noticed that the city was fairly empty.

Yellin and Zion are founders of Other Voice, which is calling for peace between Palestine and Israel despite having first-hand experience with Qassam rockets. Zion began by explaining what her collective does, her family’s relationships to Zionism and kibbutzim, and leaving the kibbutz to establish an urban collective.

She discussed the people who make up Sderot — a large Uzbek population, Ethiopians, Moroccans, Palestinian collaborators who were allowed to leave Gaza, and a variety of social progressives and religious groups including Chabadniks. The one thing that unifies this disparate community is the fear of rocket attacks. From 2007 to 2008, Zion says, roughly 10-60 Qassam rockets per day were lobbed at Sderot.

clip_image012

Because these homemade weapons were so unpredictable, no one ever knew when they would hit and the bombings started at 7:00 in the morning, just in time for school. Zion reported that virtually everyone in the community suffered, continues to suffer, from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. For 3 or 4 years, residents had been sleeping in "safe rooms" which altered family dynamics, intimacy, and broke down even people’s immune systems (we heard similar complaints in the Dheisha refugee camp regarding surprise IDF raids which occur sometimes every night or every other night).

Zion recounted the moral dilemma of a parent transporting a van with her and other children to school when it suddenly became necessary to take all the children out of their safety seats and rush them into a a bomb shelter. Which one to take first or leave last?

She said that Israel had become a much more violent and racist society, that most Israelis didn’t even want to know Palestinians. "No voices, no faces, no names."

She described Gaza as a ghetto and said of Gazans, "they are not our enemies, they are our neighbors." Zion recounted the days when the Moroccans of Sderot would visit Gaza to do their shopping and when there were much closer relationships between Jews and Palestinians. Zion pointed out how the blockade of Gaza had cut Palestinians off from moderates in the West Bank, had starved them, and driven them into the hands of Hamas, for whom their situation was merely a political opportunity. Desperate people will grasp at anything, and the Israeli government’s actions were incredibly stupid.

In Zion’s view, it was in Israel’s interest to stall peace. "The greatest fear of the Israeli leadership is peace," she said. Eric Yellin, who described himself as an "ambivalent Zionist," discussed his wartime blog a bit, then sketched a brief portrait of the politics in Israel. According to Yellin, the left virtually dissolved after Oslo, when suicide bombings increased, after the assassination of Rabin, with Barak declaring no partner in peace, with the second intifada, and the rise of Hamas.


Kibbutz Zikim

clip_image013

We then drove to nearby Kibbutz Zikim in Hof Ashkelon and met with Arieh Zimmerman and Mayan Dror. Arieh gave us a history of the kibbutz from its origins from the Hashomer Hatzair until the present, including the various products its members have produced. Zikim is one of only 80 socialist kibbutzim remaining in Israel (200 have become privatized).

Because of its proximity to Gaza, the kibbutz has been hit by numerous Qassam rockets, resulting in 7 injuries, including those of 2 children. Over the past 7 years Zimmerman estimates that 1000 rockets have been launched from Gaza. The daycare center at the kibbutz is covered by a concrete shell to protect the children within.

Despite the attacks, Zimmerman is quick to point out that "we’re not David anymore, we’re Goliath". He blames the government for not acting to end the occupation. In Zimmerman’s analysis, the only solution is for two states to exist, and for Jerusalem to be divided. Both Zimmerman and Dror pointed out that the kibbutz has actually had Arab members.

Zimmerman also faults Israel’s ultra-Orthodox, which represent only 12% of the population, for exerting a disproportionate influence on Israeli politics, which has resulted in racist settlement policies designed to benefit them to the detriment of Palestinians.

When I asked him why Israel’s Left and progressive ranks have thinned, Zimmerman offered two reasons: (1) that the political pendulum swings from time to time, and (2) that the Labor party was almost single-handedly responsible for the collapse of the Left because smaller leftist parties like Meretz were joined at the hip with it through coalitions. After the unilateral Gaza withdrawal, Barak delivered the message that Israel had no partners in peace with the Arabs and apparently the majority of Israelis bought it.

Even though Zimmerman acknowledges that Hamas (as opposed to the people of Gaza) may not be motivated in peace, neither is the Israeli Right. He wrote me, "Israel, being the stronger in this conflict between two peoples bears the onus of making the greater effort in making peace with our Palestinian neighbors. We ought to have a government and politicians capable and desirous of problem solving rather than being so energetic in demonstrating their arrogance and pandering to [...] right wing extremists." The problem, as Zimmerman sees it, is that no one is a partner for peace at the moment.

Still, the kibbutzniks have managed to preserve their sense of humor. Collecting fragments of Qassam rockets and plough disks, resident artists fashioned a massive menorah from them, proclaiming both their resilience and their belief in turning swords into ploughshares.

I left Ashkelon beginning to understand the extent of the disarray of the Left in Israel.

clip_image014


Palestinian citizens of Israel

May 30, 2009

Today we drove through the Judean desert from East Jerusalem to Nazareth. Along the way we saw many different villages, including Jericho, which has been completely cut off from the highway by a large trench. Across the highway are IDF observation posts with sniper nests. The amount of militarization in Israel and its territories is truly troubling.

clip_image015

In Nazareth we met with Nabila Espanioly, the director of an advocacy center for women and families. Espanioly gave us an overview of the center’s services, mainly funded via European NGO’s and not Israel. She told us that Nazareth is about 4% Jewish, 20% Christian and 76% Muslim.

Nazareth was spared in 1948 because a Canadian officer who had been instructed to destroy the city understood the affection that Christians had for the city and demanded that the order be given in writing. The written order never came. Nazareth remained under military rule until 1966 (as much of the West Bank still is).

In 1948 4% of the land in and around Nazareth was Jewish, while today it is 97%. Despite the fact that Palestinians represent 96% of the population, they receive only 4% of so-called "development" funding — for education, health, and social services — that Jewish Israeli cities receive. The Bedouin population is not even counted and there are 52 "unrecognized" villages around Nazareth.

60% of those living in poverty are Palestinians, and roughly 20% have left Israel in the last 20 years, particularly Christians, who have often had a bit more money than Muslims, and for whom their land is not an essential component of their religion.


Karmi’el

Later in the day we drove to Karmi’el, a Judaization project (settlement) for approximately 60,000 Israeli Jews. It is built on the ruins of a Palestinian village of Suhmata. The area looks a bit like Scotts Valley in California and, like it, is home to a high-tech park with various defense industries. Kibbutz Zuriel is also built on Suhmata.

clip_image016

At the far end of the settlement is a Bedouin camp of 3 families without water, electricity, or heat. We visited one family whose gas-powered generator was supplying their heat and electricity. Their compound was entirely surrounded by concrete, but they were still hoping to preserve their land and way of life in the face of development.

We drove on to the Arab town of Sakhnin, a mixed town with 5 mosques and 3 churches. Like Nazareth, 95% of Sakhnin’s land was confiscated after 1948. Men in the town now have to commute to Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Netanya to find work. While the national unemployment rate is about 11%, among Arabs it is closer to 30%.

In Arab towns where Palestinian citizens of Israel live, police officers are almost always Jewish and do not live in town, but on nearby Jewish settlements. In the evening we had dinner with a Palestinian couple in an outdoor structure they called their "tent". But it was actually made of reeds and reminded me of a sukkah where Jews observe sukkot.


"Following in Moses’ footsteps"

May 31, 2009

clip_image017

Today we traveled to Tel Aviv to meet with Dani Adamansu of the Israel Association for Ethiopian Jews, which originated as an American organization.

The history of Ethiopian Jews, or Beta Israel, is rather interesting. They believe they are the descendents of the Lost tribe of Dan or, alternatively, Jews who went into exile after the destruction of the first temple in 563 BCE. There they resisted conversion to Christianity and retreated to the northern province of Gonder where they maintained a pre-Talmudic type of Judaism, observed laws of Kashrut, and studied Jewish texts.

As early as the 16th century, the Chief Rabbi of Egypt observed that they maintained Jewish laws (Halachah) and viewed them as certainly Jewish. The Beta Israel thought of themselves up until that point as the only surviving remnant of Israel. As a religious minority, and simply as a religious community, they were mistreated by the Mengistu regime during the 1980’s, during which many of the community were forced to escape via Sudan.

clip_image018

In the 80’s Operation Moses brought 8000 Ethiopians to Israel and in the 90’s Operation Solomon brought over 14,000. Between these massive airlifts, many actually walked to Israel. As Adamansu put it, "we were following in Moses’ footsteps."

Today about 85% of the 120,000 Beta Israel in Ethiopia have emigrated to Israel. They regard themselves as orthodox, highly patriotic, but are not completely accepted in Israel.

They have settled in roughly 20 cities in Israel, with many in the Negev, and they are struggling with new immigrant issues, including institutionalized racism, employment, housing, and educational problems.

We asked Adamansu if the Ethiopian community felt it had anything in common with Arab Israelis. The response was "no", which many Palestinians and Arab Israelis agreed with. In many cases, Palestinians reported receiving the roughest treatment from Ethiopian IDF soldiers.

Adamansu shared the opinion we were beginning to see as a widespread one that the Arab armies were greater than Israel’s. "We are not the strongest army in the Middle East," he said.

We asked Adamansu if he thought there could ever be peace with Arabs or accommodation for sharing the land. He answered the question by quoting the Talmudic debate (Bava Metzia62a) between Rabbis Akiva and Ben Petura on the ethical obligations of a man in the desert with a friend and only enough water to save one of them. Petura had maintained that "Better both should drink and die than that one see his friend’s death." But Rabbi Akiva disagreed, stating that the owner of the water had only an obligation to save himself.

We asked if the Ethiopian community included progressives who were concerned at all with the plight of Arabs. "Not really." Most immigrants were concerned more with poverty, clothing, housing, and education, he said.


"An army with a country"

May 31, 2009

clip_image019

We met in the late afternoon with Ruth Hiller, who lives on Kibbutz Haogen about 10 km north of Netanya. Hiller was originally from California, and has lived in Israel since 1972. She came out of a religious Zionist movement and moved to Israel to live out a "romantic, idealistic, activist life of nation-building."

Hiller lived a typical Israeli life, raising a large family (6 children) and sending daughters into the military. But in 1995 her 15-year-old son came to her and told her he was a pacifist. Although it was possible to ask for a non-combat assignment within the military, he did not want any part of the military and was looking for the right to do some kind of alternative civilian service.

After over 20 years in Israel, Hiller was confronted with a clash between national and personal, family values. She discovered that options for Conscientious Objectors were limited in Israel to religious reasons (only the ultra-Orthodox have the right not to serve). She looked for models and patterns in other countries. She talked to Americans, studied the South African Black Sash movement, and went through the process of trying to find a lawyer who would handle her son’s case.

Hiller soon discovered that even Israeli progressives and civil libertarians could not always be counted on to help, and it took the help of a former Meretz Member of the Knesset to find a lawyer who would finally help the family.

In the Israeli military, a "profile" is a person’s military status. What Hiller was looking for was a "new profile" — a civilian designation, not a military one, which would permit young people to serve the nation totally outside the military. Ultimately years of personal efforts led her to establish "New Profile", which provides information to young people who are looking for alternatives to military service. New Profile networks with other organizations: Yesh Gvul, Combatants for Peace, and Shministim.

clip_image020

Among New Profile’s goals is the "Civil-ization of Israeli society." New Profile finds Israeli society highly militarized, dangerously militaristic, and she sums up the relationship between society and military with: "Israel is not a country with an army, rather it’s an army with a country."

The number of soldiers walking around with guns is shocking, though not to Israelis who have become inured to the sight. Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Knesset members are often ex-generals. The surplus of soldiers is being used as teacher’s aides, which exposes children to guns and uniforms at an early age.

At 40-45 military officers can retire and many become teachers, principals, and this in turn offers unlimited access of the military to schools. These teachers take students on week-long boot camps, and then to Auschwitz. Thus, Hiller argues, indoctrination and militarization begin in childhood. And she points out that the arms industry is the largest industry in Israel and so even in employment the militarization continues.

From childhood through retirement, the main business of Israelis is war-related and, despite prevailing views, this only serves to make Israel less secure. Hiller observes, "in attempting to create a safe haven for Jews, we’ve succeeded in making this the most dangerous place for Jews."

clip_image021

Hiller notes a disturbing trend in shutting down public discussion of militarization. New Profile was recently targeted by the government. Eleven members were interrogated, four had PC’s confiscated, and all were slapped with a ban on talking to political associates for 30 days. New Profile has since moved their website to Europe.


"This is the way, the other way leads to nowhere"

June 1, 2009

Each day of this trip has felt like a week. This was no different. We left East Jerusalem this morning and traveled into the West Bank to a small office in which a German film crew were setting up cameras. Our dialog with the speakers was about to be filmed.

Our meeting this morning took place with two men from an organization called Combatants for Peace. We were here to listen to Bassam Aramin and Rami Elhanan, both of whom had lost daughters to political violence. Aramin’s daughter was killed by an Israeli soldier’s rubber bullet, Elhanan’s by a suicide bomber.

clip_image022

Aramin began by sketching a typical progression to Palestinian radicalism, from trying to display the Palestinian flag at 13, to throwing rocks, to reaching for the gun at 16, to ending up in an Israeli prison at 17.

During this time, as with many Palestinians in Israeli jails, he had the chance to study and reflect. He recalls watching a Holocaust movie and initially feeling a flush of hatred, seeing it as revenge on the Jews.

But then he began to see the parallels between Palestinians and Jews, and came to view the enemy with a certain degree of sympathy for their own historical suffering. He started talking with one of his jailers, and he describes the relationship they forged as strange, but a friendship nonetheless.

In 1992 he left prison and began to hear about Israeli refuseniks who wouldn’t serve in the Occupied Territories. In 2005 hear got a call from one of these ex-IDF soldiers and he describes their encounter as "the most difficult meeting of my life."

But, Aramin went on, "we had a common enemy — the Occupation and fear." In 2007 his daughter Amin was killed by a rubber bullet fired from 15 feet away by an IDF soldier. Aramin could have easily returned to violence, but instead he chose to pursue reconciliation.

clip_image024

Then Rami Elhanan spoke. He smiled softly at Aramin and said, "we have an alliance which is sealed by the blood of our daughters" and then told his own story.

A 7th generation Jerusalemite, Elhanan served in the 1973 war, lost friends in that war, and returned to normal Israeli life. In 1997 that life suddenly ended, and a new one began. His daughter Smadar went missing and was later confirmed dead in a suicide bombing on Ben Yehuda street.

A year went by, then Elhanan met Yitzhak Frankenthal, the founder of Parent’s Circle, a man that Elhanan had first pegged as a bigoted religious zealot but who instead turned out to be quite the mensch and one who changed his life. Later Elhanan recalled that Frankenthal was one of many people who had paid his condolences while the family sat shiva for his daughter.

Like his Palestinian counterpart Elhanan could easily have chosen revenge, but instead chose reconciliation. "This is the way, the other way leads to nowhere," he said simply.

Both Elhanan and Aramin believe the ultimate problem is the Occupation, an injustice that serves as the fountain from which much of the violence springs. "The occupation must stop," Elhanan said.

Combatants for Peace now has 600 members, 50 are quite active, and the organization includes men and women, Jews and Palestinians, in equal measure. Members have given over 1000 lectures in Israeli high schools. "We show something not popularized in the media," Elhanan said, referring to how little Americans know of peace groups in Israel. "This is our main activity — to make people lose their indifference."

Both men said that since the Second Intifada, 7000 people have died and that doing nothing about it is a crime. Elhanan scoffed at Israel’s claims that the Palestinians have been the main obstacle to peace. "It’s very convenient to say there’s nobody to talk to, because if there’s no one to talk to there’s nothing to talk about — and nothing to give up."

As we left, I asked both men if there was ever a moment they felt they were at a fork in the road, with one path leading to revenge, the other leading to peace. "God is testing us," Aramin replied. For the more secular Elhanan reconciliation was the only way to be able to get out of bed in the morning.

For both men there is only the one path.


The PA does PowerPoints

June 1, 2009

clip_image025

Later in the morning we met in the Red Crescent offices with a crisply dressed Palestinian Authority representative who gave us his own views on what he regards as a lopsided U.S. relationship with Israel. He introduced himself but requested that we not quote him by name.

Our speaker discussed the U.S. role in the peace process, one he regarded as being in bad faith and biased. He talked about the massive aid the U.S. gives Israel, some of which is in violation of international and even U.S. laws prohibiting aid to countries which commit human rights abuses. And he discussed military aid to the Palestinian Authority.

clip_image026

There were no real surprises in any of the PowerPoints. And perhaps that was the point — that Americans really don’t have much to fear from people who present their views in the most boring of ways.

Our host pointed out that, despite Israel’s presence and its continued theft of land in Palestine, it does nothing and pays nothing to provide any services for Palestinians. Those services, instead, are provided by thousands of NGO’s, many European, which results in a lot of duplication of effort. Some of these efforts, he maintained, were sweet and well-intentioned (such as promoting reconciliation or vague notions of peace), but what Palestine really needed was a well-funded government that could truly provide services for its people. And that just wasn’t happening.

The PA representative criticized the PA’s bloated bureaucracy which at one point employed 170,000 people, 30,000 of which were security forces. But he also said that the PA is now being better and more professionally managed although it still needs much more work.

clip_image027

He was dismissive of Hamas’ commitment to democracy, even while participating in elections. With Hamas, "democracy is a one time thing." It’s what God says; it’s not what people want." This was a pretty tame criticism of the same party that had attacked the PA the day before in Qalqilyah, killing three police officers.

Regarding the Two State solution, our host was generally optimistic. He felt that such a solution had to come about within two years or else it would plunge Palestine into a violent Third Intifada. Our host proposed that, if the world had any concerns about security between Israel and Palestine that West European (not American) forces might be put in place to ensure peace between the two nations.

I came away from this discussion realizing how difficult the PA’s position is. On the one hand, it is seen as a thin veneer of the Israeli occupation — one many Palestinians see as similar to, say, the Vichy regime. On the other, it numbers many who regard themselves as patriots trying to build the infrastructure of a new Palestinian state.



Of Martyrs and Morons

June 1, 2009

clip_image028

Later in the afternoon we are touring Bi’lin, where the construction of the so-called "Separation Barrier" is the site of ongoing clashes between protestors and the IDF, and the site of the recent killing of a Palestinian protestor, Bassem Abu Rahme, who has now joined a long list of "martyrs" in the struggle against Israeli encroachment.

We visit villager’s homes and watch a gruesome video of Bassem’s killing. In it, an Israeli peace activist is shot in the head with a rubber bullet and severely injured. Bassem stands up, screaming that an Israeli has been wounded, and then he himself is struck in the chest by another bullet fired at point-blank range. He is carried to an ambulance. A photographer makes sure to capture the extent of his wounds, and his lifeless body is transported away at high speed.

clip_image029

In the afternoon we take a walk out to the site, which is actually quite remote — even from the settlement which has taken Bi’lin’s land. I can’t help thinking that this young man’s killing was so unnecessary. It serves no purpose for the IDF to even engage them this far from anything.

We sit in the living room of one of the organizers of the Friday afternoon demonstrations, which they describe as non violent. And for the most part they are, although there is a certain amount of in-your-face shouting that no sane person would do to a man with a gun in his hands. But these are people with little left to lose. In the videos, the IDF at times appears to be quite restrained. Then, without warning, the rubber bullets and tear gas canisters, like the one that injured American visitor Tristan Anderson, begin flying in the video we are watching.

Our host’s 4 year-old daughter and her older brother walk through the living room holding the remnants of past confrontations, silver canisters and black bullets each about 4-5 inches in length, and passing out the DVD’s of Bassem’s killing, as they have probably done hundreds of times before for us "internationals." Many of the young adults in the village have digital and video cameras. Many small children know how to use them. This is a land war that Israel cannot win. The Palestinians put themselves at risk, capture the photos and videos, and put them out on Flicker or YouTube. A poster of the newest martyr is placed on walls throughout his village, and the tale is told to a stream of visitors outside Israel.

Quite aside from being the army that did the impossible in the Six Day War, it suddenly occurs to me that the IDF is now being led by morons who don’t understand the public relations disaster that shooting people with cameras out in the boonies can create. And I think of the terrible cost that is being paid for this land grab — not only by the demonstrators who get themselves shot, but the children who are brought into the struggle at an early age, and even the soldiers who go home from their deployments and replay in their nightmares their shooting of unarmed civilians.


Visit with an American-Palestinian entrepreneur

June 2, 2009

clip_image031

We left Bi’lin and headed to the Friends Meeting in Ramallah, where we met with Sam Bahour, an American born in Youngstown, Ohio, who moved to Palestine in the Nineties with his family, in order to be the first Telcom giant in Palestine. He has a joint master’s degree from Northwestern and Tel Aviv University, which he attended specifically to cultivate Israeli business contacts after his arrival in Palestine.

The Oslo Accords have been a disappointment, and Bahour is still waiting for the telcom spectrum to open up in Palestine, but he is almost a giant at 6′6". He is also someone extremely capable of explaining the Palestinian situation to Americans in their own language.

Bahour resents the portrayal of Palestinians as terrorists in Israel and the U.S. In a country where everybody’s a politician, divisions between Fatah and Hamas run deep. But Bahour thinks that the West should open up channels with all political entities in Palestine and should take at least a hands-off approach to Palestinian politics. Even though he is secular, Bahour acknowledges that even Hamas has political objectives. "[Hamas] is not a carload of bandits, it’s a constituency."

In discussing the Occupation, Bahour says, "either we have the law of the jungle or international law." Israel, says Bahour, completely violates international law in neglecting its obligations as an occupier toward its subjugated people. He also blames other nations, specifically the U.S., which have obligations to monitor the observance of international law by an ally.

Bahour dismisses American calls for Palestinian unity between Hamas and Fatah as a precondition for talking to Israel about its international law violations. "Our unity is none of your business."

The expectation of a Two State solution, Bahour says, has succeeded only in prolonging the conflict and has virtually destroyed its likelihood of success. If it is to be successful, Palestinians will start a national timer (perhaps a couple of years) toward a deadline for two states, after which all options are "bad."

"Non-options" include the status quo and transferring Palestinians to Jordan or Egypt, as Israeli hardliners have called for. "Options" within this time frame include the improvement of international support for a Two State solution under international law; transferring the occupation to a third state (in which the IDF is replaced by some other nation’s army); or "Israel wins and the national struggle changes overnight to a civil rights struggle."

For the moment, Bahour says, the Palestinian Authority is a "fake layer" between the Occupation and the Palestinian people. In other words, the PA has the responsibility for pretending to be a government, while Israel maintains martial law throughout much of the West Bank.

Then what?

clip_image032

A month ago, Bahour and Geoffrey Lewis co-authored a piece in the Boston Globe called "Endgame Diplomacy for Mideast". The piece calls on President Obama to carry out an intervention between Israel and Palestine along the lines of that in Northern Ireland. And Bahour predicts it will cost Obama some political capital, especially in Israel (see image below).

Bahour thinks that, while Hamas has a small constituency, some new entity must emerge to unify Palestinians, and it won’t be Fatah. "There’s not enough superglue to put Fatah back together again," he joked. But he thinks this is a Palestinian problem, not an Israeli or American one.

Bahour called for Israel to dismantle the "security barriers" which serve no other purpose than to steal land. "Put it on your land, but not in my living room." He criticized Israel’s arbitrary enforcement of even its own laws, and called on Israel to dismantle the illegal settlements.

And then he stretched, opening up the floor to questions with a smile. "Other than that, everything’s great!"


Birzeit: University under Occupation

June 2, 2009

clip_image033

After meeting with Sam Bahour, we had lunch and drove to Birzeit University in Ramallah. Originally a girl’s school, Birzeit graduated its first class in 1976. Our university guide, Omar Khoura, told us that student elections are often watched as early indicators of Palestinian social values.

The university has 8,500 students, 41 B.A. programs, and 25 masters level programs. Most students are Palestinians, with approximately 125-150 foreign students each year. Tuition is approximately $1600/year, or $2000 for more expensive programs such as Information Technology.

clip_image034

The university’s first president was deported in 1973 by Israel. From 2001 to 2003, during the First Intifada (1987–1991), the university was closed, and from 2001-2003 a road blockade prevented traffic from reaching the university. From 1979 to 1992 the university was shut down 60% of the time. In 1980 Israel used Military Order 854 to set curriculum, hire and fire faculty, and to control admissions, but this met with international condemnation and was eventually abandoned.

Students and faculty face unexpected challenges under Israeli Occupation. Foreign faculty are routinely deported or denied entry. Even a visiting American professor can use his 3-month visa only once, and it is not quite long enough to be a guest lecturer for an entire semester. A student who wishes to do graduate work in the United States also has some unusual problems. To obtain a student visa, students have to travel to Jerusalem. But residents of Ramallah cannot enter Jerusalem, so the U.S. consulate visits Ramallah periodically or forwards a written request to Israel. If, at the end of all this red tape, a student is accepted in a U.S. graduate program, he or she may not leave Israel via Ben Gurion airport but must travel to Jordan, a more complicated route that adds 2-3 days to the trip because of checkpoints.

Khoura added that a whole generation of students has never been to Jerusalem and never seen the Mediterranean because of laws restricting movement of Palestinians.

After speaking with Khoura we toured the library and university art gallery where I saw a beautiful painting, Jerusalem, by Suleiman Mansour. We then peeked into classrooms and wandered around the campus before our dinner with Hebrew University students.


Hebrew University students

June 2, 2009

clip_image035

Four Hebrew University students joined us for dinner and we talked for quite a while before and after dinner.

Elinor was studying international relations and was interested in Arab dialog, as was Aviad. Elad was a Likudnik who described himself as a "cave man" in comparison to the others, and Rona talked about the "hallucinating Left" and the "Tel Aviv bubble."

No matter what their politics, all four feared the Arab armies and their "tool," the Palestinians — a theme we would see over and over again.

Some of us had protracted conversations with one of the students. I ended up discussing a software project of Aviad’s which would let Palestinians and Israelis engage in discussions over the internet.

Although we mainly discussed the mechanics of software design, it seemed so sad that such discussions could not take place face-to-face.


"This is all Jewish property"

June 3, 2009

clip_image036

clip_image037

Today we visited the H2 section of Hebron which is connected to the Kiryat Arba settlement. We entered H2 from Kiryat Arba, which is an illegal settlement under international law. But H2 contains settlements which are illegal even under Israeli law, such as the Hazon David settlement shown in my photo.

We met with David Wilder, the English-speaking representative of the Hebron Jewish community. Wilder was all business, taking us into the settlement’s museum which documented the 1929 Hebron massacre, in which 67 Jews were slaughtered by an angry Arab mob.

clip_image038

Wilder did not mention the 1994 Hebron massacre in which an American-Israeli, Baruch Goldstein, murdered 29 Muslims who were praying in a mosque and wounded over 100 with an automatic rife and grenades, but most in our delegation knew of the community’s reputation and were simply there to listen to, not confront, Wilder.

The Jewish presence in Hebron goes back to Abraham, who bought a crypt for his family there. The Cave of Machpelah is housed within the Tomb of the Patriarchs, the oldest Jewish holy site and perhaps the second most important to Jews. The tomb was built by Herod using the same construction methods as the temple in Jerusalem. No one was arguing with Wilder on that one.

Besides, he was packing a pistol.

Wilder reviewed the history of Jewish presence in Hebron. In 1540 Sephardim built a synagogue there. In the 1800’s Chabadniks arrived, and in 1928 Lithuanian Jews came too. Relationships between Jews and Arabs soured in the Twenties, and the Haganah attempted to arm the Jewish citizens, but they refused the weapons, believing they were safe. Wilder credits Arab incitement and deceit to the massacre which occurred in August 1929. In 1931, he continued, Jews returned, again in 1967. "We came back home," he said.

Wilder wanted to make sure he got his points across before any questioning. Main point. Why we are here. The roots of Monotheism — well, actually, the Jewish roots of monotheism (Abraham was not really being portrayed as the father of both people). And then from Jewish beginnings, Jewish renewal. Jews had to come back to reclaim Hebron. "We all know what happens when you take a tree and cut off its roots."

And then, as if he had failed to make his point: "This is all Jewish property."

Wilder went on to debunk the notion that a community of 400 living in a compound protected by 2,500 IDF troops and at war with 180,000 Arab residents of Hebron might be tad zealous. "The kids here live ideals," he explained.

Then Wilder explained that Israel was at war with terrorism, that Arabs in Palestine were tools of the great Arab armies, no different from al Qaeda. And now we had received this same analysis from every political color on the Israeli spectrum.

He viewed U.S. calls for peace as tantamount to acquiescence to terror, and claimed that Islamists were planning to take over the U.S. capital. He recommended a video, Farewell Israel, which paints a view of the inevitable clash of civilizations between Islam and everyone else.

Wilder continued, that all European nations are afraid of Islamists, making little distinction between Islamists and Muslims. Then came the big surprise: "U.S. Jews are petrified of Obama" (even though 78% of all American Jews voted for the president).

It was all certainly interesting, but I concluded that Wilder lives in a bubble.

We took a peek into the community’s compound then went on a tour of Hebron’s Old Souk, the Arab market. Walking around, the town resembled a war zone. Every square inch of H2 was patrolled by the IDF. Arab homes had windows broken regularly by settlers, who regularly rain down trash and garbage on the market. Nets and cages have been built to catch the debris and to prevent injury. Arab homes have been torched, and only those with yellow license plates (Jews) can drive on the main street.

Later we met with Donna Hicks from Christian Peacemaker Teams, an organization which provides escorts to Palestinian children, monitors settler violence, and intervenes in military invasions of Palestinians homes. Hicks explained that it is impossible to be neutral in the face of such oppression and they are not there in the same capacity as the international observers who also roam Hebron’s streets. Hicks described Hebron as a microcosm of the Occupation.

clip_image039

clip_image040

clip_image041

clip_image042

clip_image043


"It’s the Wild West"

June 4, 2009

clip_image044

On the last day of our tour we met in suburban Jerusalem with Ronen Shimoni from B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.

B’Tselem was established in 1989 by academics and politicians who thought it would only be necessary for 10-20 years. B’Tselem’s goal was originally to pressure Israel to respect international law during its Occupation. But, as the human rights situation has not improved, B’Tselem sees its work continuing long into the future.

Shimoni outlined B’Tselem’s structure, the work it does, the number of field workers, and some of the challenges it has faced. To Shimoni the main problem is that the Occupation has been carried out completely arbitrarily, with no regard to rights or law. "There is no law. It’s the Wild West."

clip_image045

Theoretically the IDF is supposed to carry out internal investigations whenever there are complaints of abuse by soldiers. But investigations are either never done, investigators never travel to the scene, or serious human rights abuses are seen as minor disciplinary infractions. A case in point was the shooting of a handcuffed, blindfolded teenager in Ni’ilin who had been detained at an emotional funeral that the IDF regarded as a riot.

Because of B’Tselem, villagers had received cameras they could use to document the abuses, and the shooting was captured on video. Settler violence has also been documented in this way.

The case is now closed. The IDF soldier was demoted for "inappropriate conduct."

The same problem exists in civilian courts. A case brought to civilian courts by B’Tselem, documented with a video showing Ze’ev Braude of Kiryat Arba shooting two Palestinians at close range was recently dismissed despite the powerful evidence.

clip_image046

Administrative detentions are another serious issue, says Shimoni. Palestinians can be picked up for "suspicion," with no reason given, even to a lawyer. Detentions can be as short as 18 days, or as long as 6 months, but can be automatically renewed. This, says Shimoni, is a legacy of British colonial martial laws. At the moment there are about 459 under administrative detention, some who have been there for 4-5 years. Administrative detention has even been applied, in rare cases, against Israeli Jews. And then there are thousands of Palestinians in prison for relatively minor infractions, such as rock throwing and demonstrating.

Recently B’Tselem has done a lot of work documenting human rights abuses it regards as war crimes during the Gaza invasion. But it is no surprise that Israel’s suppression of Gaza was so violent, Shimoni says. After Israel unilaterally evacuated settlers from Gaza, it was declared an "enemy state".

clip_image047

We asked Shimoni how such institutional problems could exist, why the IDF appears to be so undisciplined, and why settlers seem to have such power in relationship to the government. Shimoni gave us an interesting explanation.

Settler councils function as massive lobby groups, and receive a lot of support from Jewish communities in the United States. Because most Israeli citizens serve in the military, there are a lot of connections between people in the IDF and civilian entities. There are many "gentleman’s agreements" between the IDF and settler groups, such as the one in Hebron that permits the illegal (even by Israeli law) Hazon David settlement from being torn down. The Israeli government has official settlement policies that are tepid versions of some of the actions that settlers carry out, so even when cases come to a court, rarely are the punishments more than a wrist slap.

All this, Shimoni says, contribute to Israel’s arbitrary (or non) enforcement of laws.

So for Palestinians, Israel is the "Wild West" and they’re the Indians. Or as Sam Bahour put it, they are subjected to the "law of the jungle."

Shimoni was asked if Israel was an apartheid state. He answered the question by saying that the closest analogy was what China is doing in its occupation of Tibet through martial law and the settlement of large numbers of Han people in Tibet.


Parting thoughts

June 6, 2009

After being back for a few days my niece Pamela, always one to get to the heart of any matter, asked me what the "take-away" message from my trip was.

That’s a tough one I couldn’t answer in the tiny IM message box before me. I promised I’d think about it.

In Israel and Palestine we met a lot of really good, decent people on both sides of the checkpoints (since we cannot speak of borders) — people who just want to live without fear in their own country. But it was very clear to us from what we saw with our own eyes, and to most of those we listened to on both sides, that the Occupation was unjust, illegal, and arbitrary.

To Palestinians a forty-year occupation has meant the frustration of their own national aspirations, a fact totally lost on Israelis who, almost without exception, regard them as simply terrorist tools of great, massing Arab armies. The number of human rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza, and the degree of discrimination against Arabs in even Israel proper, leaves no question that Israel is a racist society. Since returning from Israel, the Obama speech in Cairo has let loose a torrent of racist and xenophobic rage in Israel (see this video or this article, for example). Even with a Two State solution, Israel will be grappling with these issues internally for decades, just as we — even with an African-American president — continue to do.

There is no question that violent elements from both the Palestinian and Israeli worlds exist — and that includes often-forgotten Israeli state terror — but Israel has long been given a free pass in the West, while Arabs have been demonized. Obama’s Cairo speech encouraged the Palestinian mainstream, most of whom are fairly moderate. But if Obama fails to deliver on a Two State solution, almost every Palestinian we talked to predicted a violent Third Intifada.

Take-away insights? Things I didn’t know before?

First, Israel-Palestine is a tiny land, far smaller than I had thought. You can be in the Negev in the morning and the Galilee in the afternoon. In the mountains in Galilee you can see halfway across the country.

Second, the Occupation is far worse than anyone can imagine. The system of checkpoints and what some call the "matrix of control" can only be described as totalitarian rule. And Israel’s gotten quite good at it over 41 years.

Third, the amount of militarization in Israel is frightening. Americans notice it immediately, but Israelis are used it, and it pervades every aspect of society — from the defense industries which are Israel’s number one product, to teacher’s aides in their military uniforms. Everywhere you see soldiers with their automatic rifles, settlers with pistols and uzis — even at a political demonstration against Obama in Jerusalem some of us observed. And those are just the external manifestations.

Fourth — and this is just my own view as an American Jew, Israel has managed to pervert its own state religion. When Hillel was asked to summarize Judaism while standing on one foot, he is famously said to have replied, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it." But nothing is left of Hillel’s Judaism in Israel. The Occupation has become a giant land grab. The Torah (never mind the Talmud) prohibits the destruction of fruit or food-bearing trees even in wartime: "When you shall besiege a city a long time, and wage war to capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against fruit trees… Only the trees which you know are not trees for food, you may destroy and cut them down to build siege machinery against the city waging war with you." (Deut. 20:19-20). And yet this is a common tool to destroy Palestinian orchards. In amending its Law of Return to permit non-Jewish Europeans to immigrate to Israel (as almost a million Russians are) for no other reason than to displace Arabs, Israel has further undermined its own Jewishness. Zionism has largely replaced Judaism as the state religion.

Fifth, there are serious contradictions between a state that is in part secular and sees itself as democratic, yet in all aspects discriminates against its non-Jewish (or not Jewish-enough Conservative or Reform) citizens. Secular Jews hate the ultra-religious and visa versa. Ashkenazim despise the Ethiopians and prefer to settle them in the Negev. Everybody hates the Arabs, making little distinction between Christians or Muslims. And most Jews, even the secular, find little wrong with laws which give priority to them, while discriminating against everyone else. Israel’s 22 political parties betray the reality of a highly fragmented, dysfunctional society. One person we talked to offered the view that Israel’s common enemy, the Palestinians, and fear were the only things holding the country together.

Sixth: Is Israel an Apartheid state? All its laws, checkpoints, transit and auto licenses, restriction of movement, economic subsidies for settlements, ghettoization, and institutionalized racism sure suggest that it is. And many progressive Israelis actually do refer to it in this way. But it also resembles the United States of 200 years ago in the way we treated American Indians. Massive developments slice into Arab towns, while military laws, transparently racist "environmental" laws, and selective enforcement of building codes are all used against Palestinians to take more and more of their land. Whether you call them "bantustans," "cantons," or "reservations," the words are less important than the reality.

Lastly: What are the prospects for peace? I came away with the feeling that only international pressure on Israel to observe international law and to return to something close to the 1967 borders will ever create peace. We are at a very good point in history, in which the right-wing government of Netanyahu and Lieberman has really spelled out its policies quite clearly: no home for the Palestinians and continued persecution of them. They want an abstract notion of peace, but without justice. The amount of racist rhetoric in Israel has grown quite loud of late, and the world now has a much better idea of just who the main obstacle to peace is. And the United States is going to be critical in creating a Palestinian state. A Palestinian state is essential to peace in the region. It is in our American interests to have peace with the Arab world, and it simply has to be done — despite the objections of a far-right Israeli government and its supporters in the United States.

Many people are pessimistic about a Two State solution, and many feel that the entire land should become a secular state of Palestine. I am not one of them. The realities that created Israel left a traumatized population, still hunkering down behind their gates and security barriers, still shaking over every international slight, still associating any criticism with anti-Semitism, still living in their own ghettos. I don’t see any way for them to live with Palestinians for many years. And they say this themselves. Palestinians, for their part, want — and have always wanted — a state of their own. Like Jews, they have their own traditions and they will likewise need some time to develop their own democratic institutions — separate from those in Israel that occupied them for 60 years.

As far as land swaps and the status of settlements go, these are things that will have to be negotiated by the parties themselves. But I do believe that massive settlements like Ma’ale Adumim, which stab into the West Bank and which were designed for no other purpose than to destroy the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state, should be dismantled. Maybe, to avoid humanitarian issues, the settlers could continue to live there for 10-20 years under some international agreement or lease arrangement. After all, Israel already leases land in Jordan. This issue is going to require some creative thinking and less ideological intransigence. Perhaps the tens of billions we currently give Israel for military aid could instead be placed in escrow to aid both countries’ resettlement efforts.

I hope Obama’s words prove to be more than flowery speech, and I am cautiously optimistic that in my lifetime we will see the end of this nightmare.

Neo-Nazis in the shul

Who am I calling Neo-Nazis? Geert Wilders or the Florida synagogue leaders who invited him? The proper answer is: both.

On April 28, 2009, Geert Wilders brought his hate speech to the Orthodox Palm Beach Synagogue in Palm Beach, Florida. In the speech, Wilders went through his usual laundry list of hate-filled views, including his claim that "Islam is not a religion" and "the right to religious freedom should not apply to this totalitarian ideology called Islam," all to the applause of the audience. Wilders also called for stopping immigration from Muslim countries and urged "voluntary repatriation" to those countries. A video of the speech can be viewed online.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called on members of the Jewish community to condemn Wilder’s hate speech:

A synagogue should be the last place that Geert Wilders’ Nazi-like propaganda would find a warm reception," said CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper. "Members of the Jewish community know all too well what happens when a religious minority is demonized by demagogues. Wilders uses the same scurrilous attacks on Muslims and Islam that the Nazis used against German Jews and Judaism in the 1930s.

Here’s the congregation that defiled their own sanctuary with sinat chinam:

Rabbi Moshe Scheiner
Palm Beach Synagogue
120 North County Rd.
Palm Beach, FL 33480
+1 (561) 838-9002
pbsynagogue@bellsouth.net

No peace without justice

To the editors:

In his letter of March 24th ("A disconnect in the dialog") David Cohen makes a strange interpretation of my criticism of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, claiming that such criticisms "demonize and objectify" that country, thus introducing his own disconnect in whatever dialog he hopes for. Yet Israel can blame only itself, not its critics, for the world’s disapprobation.

I had pointed out how deftly Mr. Cohen, the ADL, and the Jewish Federation had managed to change the subject from Gaza to anti-Semitism. Mr. Cohen saw this as "writing off [my Jewish friends and neighbors] as genocidal partners of an apartheid state." I’m not in the habit of using such incendiary rhetoric, but friends can disagree.

Cohen goes on that the Jewish Holocaust is singular in history. I wish he were right, but of course there is the Armenian genocide — which his own employer, the ADL, actually denied. And there have been many more, starting with King David’s slaughter of the Amelekites and including genocides in our own lifetimes in Cambodia, Bosnia, and Rwanda.

There is nothing singular about the human capacity of violence, injustice and brutality. And it is indeed shocking, after all Jews have endured through the centuries, that a Jewish state could be guilty of human rights abuses. But it’s a fact, and one that Mr. Cohen wants to filter through "lenses," explain by past persecutions, and diminish by assigning equal blame to oppressor and oppressed.

I’ll happily accept Mr. Cohen’s challenge to acknowledge that not every violent act is Israel’s fault. Israelis in Sderot are justifiably frightened from countless home-made rocket attacks that have killed several civilians.

But does this mean any sensible person must assign equal blame to both parties? Do Palestinians have racist policies that take Israeli homes and land? Did Palestinians kill 1500 Israelis in the Gaza offensive? Do Palestinians control Israel’s borders and internal checkpoints in their own land? Did Palestinians build a "Berlin Wall" on Israeli farms? There are fundamental injustices underlying this conflict that have yet to be acknowledged by Israel’s defenders and professional lobbyists, of which Mr. Cohen is one.

I would in turn challenge Mr. Cohen to acknowledge the reality and Israel’s responsibility for the Palestinian "catastrophe," the Nakba, which "cleansed" 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland in 1948. But Cohen seems to believe that dialog is only possible if no one criticizes Israel or asks it to confront some ugly realities.

In fact, the Nakba is a fitting event to consider next month at Passover, which re-tells the story of persecution and the flight from oppression. Recalling both the Exodus and the Nakba, we are reminded us that oppression is universal and that when our religious texts call on us to pursue justice: "justice, justice shalt thou pursue" — it means justice for everybody. On Passover some Jews add an olive to the seder plate to remind us that Jewish history is forever linked with that of Palestinians, and neither people will be truly free until justice exists for both.

Mr. Cohen may talk that line, but let’s see him walk it. There will never be peace without justice, and justice requires some painful admissions that, as of yet, Israel’s defenders are not prepared to make.

To the editor [of the Standard-Times]:

I am responding to Bob Unger’s essay of March 8th, in which the Standard-Times apparently took some flak for a Danziger cartoon and a few letters opposing Israel’s siege in Gaza. With very little effort, a delegation from the Jewish Federation and David Cohen, who works for a number of pro-Israel lobbying organizations including the ADL, succeeded in convincing the paper that the problem was anti-Semitism.

How easily the subject can be changed.

The subject, in this case, being the illegal and (a number of us would say) immoral treatment of Palestinians in Israel’s Occupied Territories.

340xThe descriptions of Unger’s friend’s father sleeping with a packed suitcase under the bed indeed strikes a chord with many Jews who regard Israel as their rainy-day policy. Of course, sleeping with a suitcase under the bed also is a current reality for Palestinians who never know when their homes will be bulldozed. But the world has changed much in 60 years. A couple weeks ago "Waltz with Bashir," a film based on an Israeli soldier’s nightmares resulting from his involvement in the Sabra-Shatila massacres in Lebanon in the 80’s, almost took an academy award for best animation. Military "refuseniks" regularly decline to serve in the Occupied Territories. In 2007, Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Israeli Knesset, wrote a book which appeared last year in English, "The Holocaust is Over: We Must Rise from its Ashes." This is the counterpoint to Mr. Unger’s editorial and, more importantly, suggests the tremendous ethical turmoil Israelis are grappling with in confronting their society and their history.

But for American pro-Israel groups like the Federation or the ADL, it doesn’t matter that Israel is now the most powerful military nation in the Middle East, the only nation in the region to have nuclear weapons, and has both the ear and the purse of the United States. David has become Goliath and yet these organizations still think of Israel as a nation of helpless refugees of three generations ago.

jeff-danziger_cartoonThe cartoon which partly prompted the delegation’s complaints was indeed in poor taste and does not adequately depict the politics of Netanyahu or Livni, although Lieberman publicly urged that Gaza should be destroyed completely like Grozny was by the Russians, and that Arab members of the Knesset should be killed — so Danziger had him pegged correctly. As for Netanyahu, his party flatly rejects a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River and so Palestinians must either remain in a quasi-Apartheid state, or be forcibly deported. Not quite as bad as Lieberman, but bad enough. And none of the three candidates seemed particularly appalled by the massive loss of life in Gaza. So maybe Danziger didn’t have it so very wrong after all.

For the ADL to whine to the Standard Times about anti-Semitism is the very definition of the term “chutzpah.” The ADL itself has been criticized by Jewish peace groups for actually defending Avigdor Lieberman’s racist attacks on Israeli Arabs.

Cultural understanding is already alive and well in this community. Any visitor to Buttonwood Park will see Abe Landau’s arm with its concentration camp number on the Holocaust memorial there. Avahath Achim is among the oldest synagogues in New England. A charter school is operating in the Tifereth Israel building. Jews have been well integrated into our region’s and American life for centuries. Jonathan Sarna’s excellent history, "American Judaism" from the Yale Press, paints a fairly positive portrait of Jewish acceptance in America since the earliest Sephardic Jews arrived with the Dutch. In the Truro Synagogue, you can read a wonderful letter from George Washington stating that this is a country of all faiths — a letter that Washington wrote to all 24 of the nation’s Jewish congregations at the time. The suitcase under the bed has been unnecessary in this country for hundreds of years.

The dispute over Palestine is a political and territorial issue which has less to do with Jew versus Muslim than occupied versus occupier. It is an issue which demands more attention to justice, human rights, and international law than to exploring our feelings or singing Kumbaya (or Hatikvah). If anything, we’ve been a bit remiss in the cultural or historical understanding of Palestinians.

What is interesting now is that the Obama administration has sent a number of signals indicating a new, more balanced, approach in dealing with the Arab world — and pro-Israel supporters don’t like it a bit. This, I suspect, not simply the cartoon, is what truly upsets pro-Israel flag-wavers, fixated on persecutions of the past, in which every affront means an existential threat or anti-Semitism.

So let’s not change the subject.

Friends of Israel have been a little touchy about the upcoming UN Review Conference on racism, dubbed Durban II, and its resolutions. Israel plans to boycott the conference and several of its friends, including the U.S. and Canada, have stepped back considerably from endorsing the conference. Although it will attend as an observer, the U.S. has abandoned efforts to continue to shape the draft resolutions. In doing so, the United States made the right decision, and for the right reasons.

HC_contribution_hp The Durban II document blasts xenophobia toward foreigners in general terms. It mentions discrimination against immigrants without identifying particular nations. It deplores propaganda used against foreigners vaguely. It expresses shock at tribal and ethnic violence, once again without so much as a mention of a continent. The document says that militias should not be used to terrorize minorities – where? It suggests that victims of slavery might have some justification for seeking recourse to reparations (a view which President Obama has opposed). It complains that the global War against Terror has given rise to racial profiling and human rights abuses, including spying on people in their places of worship. If this had been a much shorter document of universal principles, it would have meant the same thing to all countries.

1201218304fight_racism_not_jews But on about the 8th page the document dutifully deplores the Holocaust, then launches into a full page of criticisms of Israel. The word "Zionism" does not appear in any draft resolution (despite distortions by Israel and its policy defenders in the U.S.) and only the facts of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, as well as its discrimination toward its own Arab citizens, are condemned. The document criticizes Israel’s "Law of Return" as a racial law, which is indisputable since the law pertains only to Jews or in-laws of Jews. And who can rationally dispute the facts of Israel’s occupation — facts documented for decades? Everything on that page was true.

But Israel is the only country that is specifically singled out for criticism, and for all the committee-generated verbiage, the Durban II document lacks the courage to target any specific human rights abuses other than those in Palestine and Israel. There are also quite a few missed opportunities. On about page 16 it calls for an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation, but fails to identify the countries with the worst records of persecution of gays (Iran and Saudi Arabia come to mind). The document goes on to encourage the recognition of international bodies and discusses UN procedures and bodies, but in none of the remaining 30 pages are any countries other than Israel ever mentioned by name.

It is regrettable that the United States decided to walk away from the draft process after several dozen revisions, but it did try. Other points might have been added to the document — expressions of concern for the treatment of native people in the U.S., Brazil and Tibet, or concern for the persecution of Uighurs in China might have been added. The treatment of religious and ethnic minorities in Islamic countries, Venezuela, the treatment of Baha’i or Kurds in various countries, or the treatment of foreign workers or religious minorities in Saudi Arabia, could all have been mentioned as well. Of course, by naming names and naming crimes for each of the 195 nations of the earth, the draft document would have been tens of thousands of pages long.

no_racism-1cfc3 While Israel and several pro-Israel organizations in the United States rejoiced in the State Department’s seeming rejection of anti-Semitism, there is a more obvious truth: The Durban II document was simply a mess. In fact, the word “anti-Semitism” was absent from State Department spokesman Robert Wood’s explanation for the rejection of the document.

It may be true that the United States is not eager to pay reparations, doesn’t welcome criticism, and doesn’t want to criticize its friends – which includes not only Israel, but Saudi Arabia and China. But another truth is that the Durban II outcomes document, by failing to hold none of the nations of the world accountable for racism and human rights abuses (with the notable exception of one), is also a document that means nothing.

The U.S. actually did the right thing.

Another Islam-bashing event at Congregation Ahavath Torah in Stoughton, Massachusetts on February 27, 2009, courtesy of JTA, reprinted in the Baltimore Jewish Times. It truly irks me when Jews act like neo-Nazis:

STOUGHTON, Mass. (JTA) — In his home continent, Dutch politician Geert Wilders is something of a pariah, banned from the United Kingdom and facing prosecution in the Netherlands for his harsh views of Islam.

His calls to end immigration from Muslim countries and ban the Koran — he compared it to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and said it incites to violence — have earned him broad condemnation in Europe and forced him under the protection of a security detail, a rarity for Dutch leaders.

But in some quarters of the American Jewish community, Wilders is more akin to a hero. At the very least, he was greeted as such by about 250 people last week at a Conservative synagogue in this Boston-area town.

The boisterous crowd at the Ahavath Torah Congregation gave Wilders, who heads the Dutch Party for Freedom and serves in the parliament, a standing ovation and shouted “Bravo” at the conclusion of his speech.

In an event co-sponsored by the Middle East Forum’s Legal Project and the Republican Jewish Coalition, Wilders made his only synagogue appearance on his recent tour of the United States, where he appeared on cable news networks and radio talk shows, spoke at the National Press Club and held a private showing of his anti-radical Islam film “Fitna” for senators and their staff on Capitol Hill.

The Middle East Forum’s director, Daniel Pipes, said he doesn’t agree with Wilders that the Koran should be banned. But he does believe that Wilders should be able to publicly present that view, which is why his organization co-sponsored the talk and is raising funds for Wilders’ legal defense.

“I don’t need to agree with him to see the importance of him making his arguments,” Pipes said.

Wilders is among a small number of European political figures who have spoken out forcefully about the impact of Muslim immigration and what they see as a religion irrevocably at odds with Western values. In the Netherlands, renowned for its liberalism and tolerance, the debate has often been particularly fraught.

A former parliamentary colleague of Wilder’s, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was forced into hiding for her work on a film critical of Islam’s treatment of women. Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker and Hirsi Ali’s partner, was murdered on an Amsterdam street in 2004. Pim Fortuyn, another Dutch politician outspoken about immigration and Islam, was murdered in 2002.

In Europe, where freedom of speech laws are generally more restrictive — Holocaust denial, for example, is widely outlawed — figures like Wilders have pushed the boundaries of acceptable discourse. But in the United States, with its comparatively looser speech laws, the violence and intimidation directed at Islam’s harshest European critics is seen by some as allowing radical viewpoints to flourish.

“If our collective voice is impeded from speaking” or “shut down,” said Pipes, then “the way is paved for radical Islam to move ahead.”

Pipes says hate speech laws, which also have been used to prosecute Holocaust deniers in Europe, are a bad idea.

“I believe in the First Amendment,” he said.

Republican Jewish Coalition executive director Matt Brooks takes a similar position, saying that while he also opposes banning the Koran, he believes Wilders’ views should still be given a hearing.

“If we only had speakers we agree with 100 percent of the time, it would be a very small universe of speakers,” Brooks said.

Bjorn Larsen, whose International Free Press Society arranged Wilders’ U.S. tour, said the Dutch politician was invited personally by the rabbi at Ahavath Torah, Jonathan Hausman.

Hausman would not speak on the record to JTA about the event.

Security was tight in Stoughton, with bags being checked and guards for Wilders. After a showing of “Fitna,” Wilders said the Koran is being used as a justification for “hatred, terrorism and violence against the world,” and he outlined how he believes the rise of Islam in Europe is threatening the traditional Judeo-Christian values of the West.

A staunch supporter of Israel who once lived on a moshav, Wilders also proclaimed solidarity with the Jewish state.

Israel “is receiving the blows for all freedom-loving people,” he said. “We are all Israel. We have to defend our freedom.”

Wilders noted that while he was banned from the United Kingdom despite being a member of the Dutch parliament and carrying an E.U. passport., the head of Hezbollah was allowed to enter the country.

“This is Europe today,” he said.

There were no protests at Wilders’ speech — there was little advance publicity — and many in the crowd were sympathetic to his arguments. Andrew Warren of Sharon said he wanted to judge for himself whether Wilders is xenophobic, and said afterwards that Wilders had not crossed the line.

“The unfortunate reality is that a lot of troubling passages in the Koran are being embraced by militant ideology,” Warren said.

Louise Cohen of Brookline described Wilders as a hero and a man of courage.

“What’s disturbing to me is that no one has said that there is anything in his movie that is false,” she said.

While unaware of Wilders’ call to ban the Koran, Cohen said his film makes a case that the Koran is a hate document.

That view troubles Ron Newman, who said Wilders took certain verses from the Koran that appeared to promote violence and used them to generalize about all of Islam.

Saying that a similar approach could be used with portions of the Torah, Newman cautioned that the line of reasoning could be used to produce an anti-Semitic film.

“I don’t like that being done to us," he said. "I don’t support people who do that to others.”

Nonetheless, as a staunch supporter of free speech, Newman said the attempt to squelch Wilders’ film and the refusal to allow him into Great Britain is a travesty.

A video of this hate speech was recorded.

Israel is not a democracy

checkpoint In his recent letter defending Israel’s assault on Gaza, Irving Fradkin again maintains that Israel is blameless for human rights abuses which have received widespread international condemnation. He also attempts to sell Israel as a modern democracy as one reason for Americans to support it. Enough has been said about Gaza, but I would like to refute Dr. Fradkin’s rosy image of Israel as a democracy like ours with a few facts.

jordan Dr. Fradkin claims that "Arabs and Israelis there have equal rights." Perhaps this is just a Freudian slip, but Arab Israelis are Israelis. Palestinians in occupied territories clearly do not enjoy the same human rights as Israelis. However, Fradkin’s portrait of happy Arabs in Israel is totally distorted. Because of institutionalized racism, Arab Israelis do not have the same rights to own property or exercise freedom of speech or assembly. Wages for Arab citizens are 30% lower. Nor do Arabs now even have full electoral rights. Two weeks ago, the Central Elections Committee in Israel banned the Arab parties Ta’al and Balad from running in recent election. Avigdor Lieberman has openly called for revoking Arabs’ citizenship and called for "transfer" — forced deportations of Arabs. This is a more realistic picture of life for Arab Israelis.

Dr. Fradkin writes that Israel "wants peace and wants to share land peacefully with the Arabs." But go to the Knesset’s website at http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm and look at the Likud’s platform: "The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river." Now look at a map and you’ll notice that all of the West Bank is west of the Jordan River. Where do Israeli hardliners want Palestinians to live? Jordan and Egypt. Forced deportations are not the same as peaceful sharing.

He writes "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East." First of all, unlike Turkey, a secular democracy which Dr. Fradkin fails to mention, Israel is a theocracy[1][2][3]. It has no constitution. Its laws are selectively enforced along racial and religious divisions – or ignored altogether. It has major human rights problems, including the use of torture. Israel has press censorship. If all this is a democracy, then let’s call Pakistan a democracy too.

Standard-Times, February 17, 2009

Applying Pressure on Israel

For those who work for peace in Israel and Palestine, there are a number of strategies for applying pressure on Israel. Divestment is one, while boycotts and sanctions are others.

Divestments

ahava-london Divestments can be divided into those concerning (1) Israeli businesses based on illegal settlements (such as the well-known cosmetics line, Ahava), (2) American or international companies whose products are used for oppressive means (for example, the militarized Caterpillar tractors used to bulldoze Palestinian homes), or (3) all Israeli companies. The Global BDS movement, for example, has demonstrated cases of companies which have been forced to move out of settlements into undisputed territory. I am generally supportive of divestments, but would caution against calls for divestment of all Israeli companies, particularly if their only crime is being a subsidiary of an international company. Of course, many of these international companies are subsidiaries of military contractors which profit enormously from continuing oppression and human suffering. This is a tricky area which needs some kind of litmus test.

Boycotts

251 Boycotts can similarly be divided into (1) academic, sports and cultural boycotts and (2) consumer boycotts. While I have read the arguments for restricting Israeli cultural connections with the U.S., "human" boycotts punish even progressive Israeli voices — athletes who want to promote peace, non-Zionist Israeli history professors, or Israeli film makers who try to depict the truth. We have already seen in the case of Tariq Ramadan, who was denied a visa to the United States to teach for a semester, or in the case of the Israeli tennis player Shahar Pe’er, how these forms of punishment can be applied to hurt individuals. I oppose punishing civilians for their government’s positions (Americans would be unable to travel anywhere if this were the case). I am opposed to any form of ideological purity tests applied to individuals, whether they are Avigdor Lieberman’s loyalty oaths for Arabs, or ways of exempting people with “correct” views from boycotts. We have had some experience with this in our own history. These were the HUAC hearings in the Fifties. I am certain this view differs from many who are working for peace in the Middle East.

boycott_bloody_orange Rather than limit the contact of Israelis in the United States, I would like to see the expansion of Palestinian contacts with the U.S. While www.pacbi.org makes some valid points about the exceptionally free access that Israelis, many of them dual-nationals, have in the United States, only stepped-up cultural and political contacts with Palestinians will counteract this. We need a more free exchange of ideas, not more restrictions on them. In the case of consumer boycotts, however, I believe that Israel must feel the pinch of the world’s disapproval of its policies, so I am in favor of boycotts of all Israeli products as long as the Occupation continues. This is something that does not target an Israeli citizen individually, but is something he has the power to change.

I believe that, as a political tactic, a boycott must be easily explained or understood to be adopted by the public. PACBI has issued a clarification of how to consider various types of boycotts. While this is a good start, it demonstrates the complexity of explaining cultural boycotts to the public.

340x

Sanctions

Sanctions are perfectly justified, since Israel is in violation of so many international, U.S. export control, and even its own laws that we have lost count. There are many kinds of sanctions, among them: (1) military, (2) economic, and (3) diplomatic. Tactically, boycotts and divestments may distract us from concentrating on sanctions, which, to me, are the most powerful forms of demonstrating disapproval of Israel’s policies and actions. The most effective sanction we could apply is to completely withdraw all military aid from Israel. The United States has no business propping up any government which commits human rights abuses, whether it is in Pakistan, Egypt or Israel. For this reason, Americans must cut all military aid to Israel and eliminate economic cooperation projects, including cooperative energy programs.

IAF_F-16D_B40_Israel Israel’s current military expenditures, the highest per capita in the world, are approximately $14 billion a year and roughly 7.3% of its GDP. Israel has over 150 defense industries, with revenues of $3.5 billion. Yet Americans are paying for between one-third and one-half of Israel’s military budget, or subsidizing Israel’s GDP by 2.5% or more. The only way to reverse Israel’s extreme right turn is to place these military burdens on their own shoulders. This can be a painful reminder to Israeli voters of how expensive their misadventures in the Occupied Territories have become (just like our own disaster in Iraq). In any case, Americans should not be responsible for bailing out Israel. In regard to diplomatic sanctions, however, it is not productive for any country (for example, Venezuela) to cut off relations with Israel. Peace only happens when enemies talk. And Israel has a lot of enemies. Besides, doesn’t it accomplish more to call in the Israeli ambassador weekly for a well-publicized dressing-down?

Another Jewish View of Gaza

I have recently read several of my co-religionist’s pieces in the Standard Times, and would like to offer a different Jewish view on the siege of Gaza. Does the world unfairly fault Israel for protecting itself, as Irving Fradkin and Bob Feingold maintain? Are critics of Israel usually anti-Semites, as another recent article suggests? The answer to both of these questions is an emphatic "no."

Israel bombs a UN school in Beit Lahiya with illegal phosphorus bombs Before the siege of Gaza, Hamas and Israel had been exchanging rockets for months, both parties in violation of a truce. On November 4th Israel launched attacks in Gaza. On December 19th Hamas announced an end to the truce, and on December 27th Israel unleashed its tremendous military might on a population of 1.5 million locked into a space twice the size of Dartmouth. After the escalation of hostilities, 3 Israeli civilians were killed, 1500 Palestinians were killed — half of them children, and 10 Israeli Defense Force soldiers were killed, half by "friendly fire." It was the reckless and disproportionate use of force on a civilian population that had nowhere to go, combined with the use of phosphorus bombs on civilians and other violations of international law that has so enraged the world and drawn the criticism of the UN and human rights organizations. In addition, there was indiscriminate bombing of infrastructure — sewage plants, first responders, medical facilities, UN food distribution centers, schools, and aid agencies. This was calculated to punish Palestinians for voting for Hamas, and for no strategic military reason.

Irving Fradkin suggests that what Israel did was simply what the United States would do if Mexico or Canada began bombing the US. A more apt analogy is: what would the United States do if the military wing of a Canadian political party began lobbing missiles into Detroit? Would we destroy most of Windsor, Ontario and the surrounding province, killing thousands and destroying half its infrastructure? I would like to think we would act swiftly, forcefully, but far more surgically than Israel did in either Gaza or Lebanon.

Those with longer memories than Mr. Fradkin will recall that, in 2002, Israel similarly destroyed the Palestinian government in Ramallah and brought about the demise of Fatah, the Palestinian political party it now wishes were in power. Israel now openly admits it is trying to do the same with Hamas. Although the U.S. and Israel have categorized Hamas as a "terrorist" organization, it actually has more in common with Sinn Fein than Al Qaida or Israel’s Irgun. For years Hamas has been running social services important to desperate Gazans, is involved in government, is constituted as a political party, and has generally been less corrupt than Fatah. Like it or not, Palestinians have some valid reasons to embrace Hamas. And, like it or not, Israel will have to talk to Hamas — just as it is now clear that the United States will have to start talking to Iran.

"Apartheid is not a Jewish Value" Those who find Israel’s indiscriminant and disproportionate attacks on civilians and infrastructure repugnant are not anti-Semites. Sure, there will be a few who couch their criticisms of Israel in racist terms, but some of the strongest critics of Israel can be found in our own community. Both here and in Israel one can read condemnations by peace groups like Gush Shalom, Peace Now, Not in My Name, b’Tselem, Jewish Voice for Peace, and many others. The Jewish lobby JStreet, a progressive alternative to AIPAC, has condemned the Gaza siege. The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz and the American Jewish paper Forward have run some fairly critical coverage of Gaza. The Jewish monthly magazine Tikkun has condemned the invasion on its web site. Nine different human rights organizations, including the Israeli organizations Physicians for Human Rights and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, have accused Israel of war crimes. We can find wanted posters of Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni for war crimes at http://wanted.org.il . Many Sephardic Jews have condemned the siege of Gaza. In Britain and Canada the Jewish organization Independent Jewish Voices has taken out advertisements in newspapers condemning the blockade of Gaza and accusing Israel of violations of international law. In Australia, hundreds of prominent Jewish intellectuals signed a statement calling the invasion of Gaza "inhuman, superfluous and abominable." In Britain, Sir Gerald Kaufman, a Member of Parliament and whose grandmother was murdered by Nazis, expressed his disgust at the siege of Gaza with "my grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza." And in more diverse Jewish communities than ours there are congregations and havurot which  condemn the mistreatment of Palestinians, and usually have more balanced discussions on these issues.

Gush Shalom demonstration in Israel The issue of peace in Israel and Palestine is complicated by all sorts of emotional, religious, historical, and racial baggage. The only way this issue will ever be resolved is to look clearly at the reality of life for both Israelis and Palestinians. Israel/Palestine in 2009 is not biblical Israel. The Ottoman empire is gone. Israelis aren’t leaving, and they won’t be bombed. Palestinians aren’t leaving, and they’re not going to permit themselves to be herded into Indian reservations. Israel must admit and address the misery of Palestinians since the Nakba, and Palestinians and the wider Islamic world around it must acknowledge that the Israelis, too, had nowhere to go after the Shoah. But Israel holds more cards than the Palestinians, receives massive military aid from the United States, and has less motivation to compromise on the basic issues that have stymied a resolution. It will be up to Israeli voters in the next election to decide whether they want to reject a militaristic, go-it-alone strategy that we have abandoned here — or to finally engage in good-faith negotiations organized by a very different U.S. administration. I would urge everyone, especially American Jews, to pressure Israel and our own government to keep the fragile and heartbreaking realities of not only Israeli lives — but those of Palestinians too — in their minds and hearts.

Standard Times, January 30, 2009

Vladimir Jabotinsky (1923)

Sometimes it’s helpful to go back to political statements of a nation’s founders to find its deep roots. Vladimir Jabotinsky was the founder of the Revisionist Zionist movement, the precursor of the Likud, which lists him as its first leader, and also the Yisrael Beitenu party. Jabotinsky is perhaps best known for an essay he wrote in 1923 called "The Iron Wall," which describes the Revisionist strategy for dealing with Arabs. Not surprisingly, Jabotinsky begins with a discussion of the treatment of American Indians and condemnations of earlier Zionists who claimed Palestine could be shared. Read it and judge for yourself if the far right Israel parties will ever be partners in peace in Palestine.


jabotinsky Contrary to the excellent rule of getting to the point immediately, I must begin this article with a personal introduction. The author of these lines is considered to be an enemy of the Arabs, a proponent of their expulsion, etc. This is not true. My emotional relationship to the Arabs is the same as it is to all other peoples — polite indifference. My political relationship is characterized by two principles. First: the expulsion of the Arabs from Palestine is absolutely impossible in any form. There will always be two nations in Palestine — which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. Second: I am proud to have been a member of that group which formulated the Helsingfors Program. We formulated it, not only for Jews, but for all peoples, and its basis is the equality of all nations. I am prepared to swear, for us and our descendants, that we will never destroy this equality and we will never attempt to expel or oppress the Arabs. Our credo, as the reader can see, is completely peaceful. But it is absolutely another matter if it will be possible to achieve our peaceful aims through peaceful means. This depends, not on our relationship with the Arabs, but exclusively on the Arabs’ relationship to Zionism.

After this introduction I can now get to the point. That the Arabs of the Land of Israel should willingly come to an agreement with us is beyond all hopes and dreams at present, and in the foreseeable future. This inner conviction of mine I express so categorically not because of any wish to dismay the moderate faction in the Zionist camp but, on the contrary, because I wish to save them from such dismay. Apart from those who have been virtually "blind" since childhood, all the other moderate Zionists have long since understood that there is not even the slightest hope of ever obtaining the agreement of the Arabs of the Land of Israel to "Palestine" becoming a country with a Jewish majority.

Every reader has some idea of the early history of other countries which have been settled. I suggest that he recall all known instances. If he should attempt to seek but one instance of a country settled with the consent of those born there he will not succeed. The inhabitants (no matter whether they are civilized or savages) have always put up a stubborn fight. Furthermore, how the settler acted had no effect whatsoever. The Spaniards who conquered Mexico and Peru, or our own ancestors in the days of Joshua ben Nun behaved, one might say, like plunderers. But those "great explorers," the English, Scots and Dutch who were the first real pioneers of North America were people possessed of a very high ethical standard; people who not only wished to leave the redskins at peace but could also pity a fly; people who in all sincerity and innocence believed that in those virgin forests and vast plains ample space was available for both the white and red man. But the native resisted both barbarian and civilized settler with the same degree of cruelty.

Another point which had no effect at all was whether or not there existed a suspicion that the settler wished to remove the inhabitant from his land. The vast areas of the U.S. never contained more than one or two million Indians. The inhabitants fought the white settlers not out of fear that they might be expropriated, but simply because there has never been an indigenous inhabitant anywhere or at any time who has ever accepted the settlement of others in his country. Any native people — its all the same whether they are civilized or savage — views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner. And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth right to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our "Arabo-philes" comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network.

This view is absolutely groundless. Individual Arabs may perhaps be bought off but this hardly means that all the Arabs in Eretz Israel are willing to sell a patriotism that not even Papuans will trade. Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement.

That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of "Palestine" into the "Land of Israel".

Some of us imagined that a misunderstanding had occurred, that because the Arabs did not understand our intentions, they opposed us, but, if we were to make clear to them how modest and limited our aspirations are, they would then stretch out their arms in peace. This too is a fallacy that has been proved so time and again. I need recall only one incident. Three years ago, during a visit here, Sokolow delivered a great speech about this very "misunderstanding," employing trenchant language to prove how grossly mistaken the Arabs were in supposing that we intended to take away their property or expel them from the country, or to suppress them. This was definitely not so. Nor did we even want a Jewish state. All we wanted was a regime representative of the League of Nations. A reply to this speech was published in the Arab paper Al Carmel in an article whose content I give here from memory, but I am sure it is a faithful account.

Our Zionist grandees are unnecessarily perturbed, its author wrote. There is no misunderstanding. What Sokolow claims on behalf of Zionism is true. But the Arabs already know this. Obviously, Zionists today cannot dream of expelling or suppressing the Arabs, or even of setting up a Jewish state. Clearly, in this period they are interested in only one thing — that the Arabs not interfere with Jewish immigration. Further, the Zionists have pledged to control immigration in accordance with the country’s absorptive economic capacity. But the Arabs have no illusions, since no other conditions permit the possibility of immigration.

The editor of the paper is even willing to believe that the absorptive capacity of Eretz Israel is very great, and that it is possible to settle many Jews without affecting one Arab. "Just that is what the Zionists want, and what the Arabs do not want. In this way the Jews will, little by little, become a majority and, ipso facto, a Jewish state will be formed and the fate of the Arab minority will depend on the goodwill of the Jews. But was it not the Jews themselves who told us how ‘pleasant’ being a minority was? No misunderstanding exists. Zionists desire one thing — freedom of immigration — and it is Jewish immigration that we do not want."

The logic employed by this editor is so simple and clear that it should be learned by heart and be an essential part of our notion of the Arab question. It is of no importance whether we quote Herzl or Herbert Samuel to justify our activities. Colonization itself has its own explanation, integral and inescapable, and understood by every Arab and every Jew with his wits about him. Colonization can have only one goal. For the Palestinian Arabs this goal is inadmissible. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible.

A plan that seems to attract many Zionists goes like this: If it is impossible to get an endorsement of Zionism by Palestine’s Arabs, then it must be obtained from the Arabs of Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and perhaps of Egypt. Even if this were possible, it would not change the basic situation. It would not change the attitude of the Arabs in the Land of Israel towards us. Seventy years ago, the unification of Italy was achieved, with the retention by Austria of Trent and Trieste. However, the inhabitants of those towns not only refused to accept the situation, but they struggled against Austria with redoubled vigor. If it were possible (and I doubt this) to discuss Palestine with the Arabs of Baghdad and Mecca as if it were some kind of small, immaterial borderland, then Palestine would still remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence. Therefore it would be necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs, which is the same condition that exists now.

But an agreement with Arabs outside the Land of Israel is also a delusion. For nationalists in Baghdad, Mecca and Damascus to agree to such an expensive contribution (agreeing to forego preservation of the Arab character of a country located in the center of their future "federation") we would have to offer them something just as valuable. We can offer only two things: either money or political assistance or both. But we can offer neither. Concerning money, it is ludicrous to think we could finance the development of Iraq or Saudi Arabia, when we do not have enough for the Land of Israel. Ten times more illusionary is political assistance for Arab political aspirations. Arab nationalism sets itself the same aims as those set by Italian nationalism before 1870 and Polish nationalism before 1918: unity and independence. These aspirations mean the eradication of every trace of British influence in Egypt and Iraq, the expulsion of the Italians from Libya, the removal of French domination from Syria, Tunis, Algiers and Morocco. For us to support such a movement would be suicide and treachery. If we disregard the fact that the Balfour Declaration was signed by Britain, we cannot forget that France and Italy also signed it. We cannot intrigue about removing Britain from the Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf and the elimination of French and Italian colonial rule over Arab territory. Such a double game cannot be considered on any account.

Thus we conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say "no" and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population — an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.

Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be deterred from interfering with our efforts.

All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences between our "militarists" and our "vegetarians." One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad’s bayonets — a strange and somewhat risky taste’ but we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall. We would destroy our cause if we proclaimed the necessity of an agreement, and fill the minds of the Mandatory with the belief that we do not need an iron wall, but rather endless talks. Such a proclamation can only harm us. Therefore it is our sacred duty to expose such talk and prove that it is a snare and a delusion.

Two brief remarks: In the first place, if anyone objects that this point of view is immoral, I answer: It is not true; either Zionism is moral and just or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have settled that question, and in the affirmative.

We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not.

There is no other morality.

All this does not mean that any kind of agreement is impossible, only a voluntary agreement is impossible. As long as there is a spark of hope that they can get rid of us, they will not sell these hopes, not for any kind of sweet words or tasty morsels, because they are not a rabble but a nation, perhaps somewhat tattered, but still living. A living people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions only when there is no hope left. Only when not a single breach is visible in the iron wall, only then do extreme groups lose their sway, and influence transfers to moderate groups. Only then would these moderate groups come to us with proposals for mutual concessions. And only then will moderates offer suggestions for compromise on practical questions like a guarantee against expulsion, or equality and national autonomy.

I am optimistic that they will indeed be granted satisfactory assurances and that both peoples, like good neighbors, can then live in peace. But the only path to such an agreement is the iron wall, that is to say the strengthening in Palestine of a government without any kind of Arab influence, that is to say one against which the Arabs will fight. In other words, for us the only path to an agreement in the future is an absolute refusal of any attempts at an agreement now.


First published in Russian under the title O Zheleznoi Stene in Rassvyet, 4 November 1923.
Published in English in the Jewish Herald (South Africa), 26 November 1937.
Transcribed & revised by Lenni Brenner
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan

Not a War over Rockets

Recent discussions of the war in Gaza have focused on rocket attacks, Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorists, or that it is our only friend in the region. But Operation Cast Lead is not a war over the exchange of rockets. Despite Israel’s assertions, the massive civilian casualties in Gaza are well beyond anything required for self-defense. These deaths are in fact the costs of a calculated attempt to neutralize Hamas before elections in February.

Gaza has been described as the largest prison camp in the world. It is one-tenth the size of Rhode Island and houses 1.5 million stateless people, refugees and children of refugees from what became the Jewish state in 1948. Israel controls Gaza’s borders and hunger is endemic. Most Gazans are dependent upon the United Nations’ World Food program. Unemployment is about 45%. Gaza’s tunnels, while known primarily as conduits through which arms are smuggled, are also used for bringing in food and trading goods for Gaza’s underground economy. And that’s Gaza in times of relative calm.

Israel’s siege of Gaza has killed over 800 Palestinians, a third of whom are children. 1500 people have been wounded. What Israel categorizes as ‘militants’ are often just policemen or government employees. In addition to reckless bombing of schools, mosques, police stations, and apartment buildings, Israel has also targeted indisputably non-military infrastructure, including a sewage treatment facility. Two thirds of Gaza is without power and food supplies have been exhausted. Israel has barred doctors, food, aid agencies, and journalists from Gaza. There is now a massive humanitarian crisis.

Hamas and Israel have been exchanging rockets for months, previously with few casualties on both sides, so Israel’s urgency is political theater. Next month Israel holds elections (from which its Arab parties have been excluded). Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni of Kadima is talking as tough as the Likud. These two right wing parties officially refuse to talk to the elected Hamas government. Livni is openly critical of lame duck Ehud Olmert, who has urged concessions to Palestinians, including returning illegal settlements. Livni wants to create new "facts on the ground" — code for a political landscape without Hamas. While the United States has historically taken Israel’s side in peace negotiations and at the UN, Israeli politicians don’t quite know what to think of an incoming Obama administration open to at least talking to enemies. Anything brutal had better be done quickly in the waning days of the Bush administration.

Israeli hardliners seem to have learned nothing from their own experience in Lebanon in 2006 or from American misadventures with Neo-Conservatism. The slaughter of large numbers of civilians does not weaken support for militants living among them. In fact, it has the opposite effect. And Hamas has a political and social service dimension, as Sinn Fein had, which distinguishes it from terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or the Irgun. Hezbollah has not disappeared from Lebanon and neither will Hamas from Gaza. Whatever their negative views of Fatah, Palestinians recall the 2002 siege in Ramallah which removed Arafat from power and effectively destroyed Fatah and increased Hamas’ credibility. Operation Cast Lead has only produced a humanitarian disaster and sowed more anger on the Arab Street. If it truly wants peace in a Two State solution, Israel must instead address the issues of its future neighbors and try something new.

The solution to peace in Israel and Gaza is not the wholesale destruction of Palestinian government, infrastructure, and massive carnage, but long-term negotiations with Palestinian leaders. A new wind is blowing in Washington, and it will serve Israel’s interests better to abandon militarism and unilateralism before it damages its last remaining friendship.

Robert Frost’s poem, "Mending Wall," paints a portrait of neighbors fixing their common stone fence in the spring. It is a fairly apt description of the relationship we have with our neighbor in the north, Canada. Unfortunately, Frost’s famous line also has been used to describe Israel’s "security barrier" in the West Bank. The chief problem with this analogy, and with the Israeli wall itself, is that "good fences make good neighbors" only when the fence is situated on one’s own property.

Consequently, the International Court of Justice ruled in July that the fence is "contrary to international law" and that Israel must cease its construction, dismantle it and pay reparations to those damaged by it.

Senate Resolution 408 condemns the International Court’s ruling. Massachusetts senators must vote against this resolution, and thereby vote for the international rule of law, when it comes up for a vote around Labor Day.

Strangely, although there is little discussion in the United States about this issue, the Israeli supreme court has condemned the wall in recognizing that Israel is occupying the West Bank and that the wall violates Palestinian human rights.

On June 30, it ruled that Israel has held the West Bank "in belligerent occupation" since 1967 and "the route which the military commander established for the security fence, which separates the local inhabitants from their agricultural lands, injures the local inhabitants in a severe and acute way, while violating their rights under humanitarian international law."

On Aug. 24, the Jerusalem Post reported that Israeli Attorney General Menahem Mazuz recommended that Israel formally declare that the Fourth Geneva Convention, which formed the basis of the ICJ advisory opinion, applies to its military occupation of the West Bank.

It is true that the United States, Korea and India also have built security barriers, but they all have been built on recognized borders or cease-fire lines.

The wall Israel is building in the West Bank cuts deeply into Palestinian territory. The wall is twice as long as Israel’s border with the West Bank, and it has not even been completed.

Israeli Attorney General Mazuz, in an 84-page report to the prime minister, recommended that the government show "respect" for the ICJ’s decision, despite its misgivings, and that "a maximum effort to adapt, as soon as possible … the fence’s route and arrangements … in the seam zone to the principles the High Court of Justice has set." Thus, even Israel appears to offer more respect for the ICJ and world opinion than this Senate resolution would.

If there is ever to be a solution to this 50-year-old problem, it will require evenhanded foreign policy by the United States.

By voting for this resolution, the United States effectively flouts international law and eliminates any influence it could ever hope to exert in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Urge your senators to vote "no" on Senate Resolution 408.

Standard Times, New Bedford (September 2, 2004)

The Likud has presided over all but three of the past 13 Israeli governments since 1977 and bears the greatest responsibility for government policies and for the way both intifadas have been handled. Thus, my harsh critique of Israel is in some ways synonymous with a critique of the Likud. As a Jew myself, I find no connection between Judaism’s ethics and current Israeli policies.

Far from creating a strategic center of stability in the Middle East, as neo-conservatives had once hoped, the U.S. occupation of Iraq is now a mirror of the 16-year-old Israeli quagmire in Gaza and the West Bank. Both situations in parallel threaten to destabilize any remaining good will the Arab world once had toward the United States, not only because of our own missteps but because of our uncritical support, and now overt emulation, of Israel. After 9/11 the gloves came off. Israel, known for its "extrajudicial killings" (i.e., illegal assassinations), torture and preemptive strikes against terrorists was seen as the model of how to handle homeland security and terrorism.

The Dec. 9, 2003, issue of Time magazine asked, "The U.S. military is reportedly turning to Israel for tips on how to manage the insurgency in Iraq. Will it work?" Iraqis, who as Time pointed out, grew up with images of Israelis dishing out rough treatment to Palestinian civilians, had an idea of what might be coming. Americans, had they and Congress not suspended critical judgment, should have expected a disaster, as well.

Israeli Defense Forces trainers were sent to Fort Bragg to train U.S. squads. Use of the IDF technique of bulldozing homes of suspected terrorists is now being used in the Sunni Triangle. Searches of homes are often accompanied by destruction of doors and walls, a technique used by the IDF in Gaza and the West Bank.

Also familiar in the West Bank, checkpoints and home invasions have become routine in Iraq. Israeli practices of kidnapping and incarcerating relatives of targets of military interest also have been introduced in Iraq. Many of the female detainees in Abu Ghraib are simply spouses or children of suspected Baathists.

According to a November 2002 article by John Diamond in USA Today, Israeli commandos were active in Iraq, looking for Scud missile sites before the invasion. The same article reported that Israel also built two mock Iraqi towns in Israel for American training exercises that were taught by IDF forces.

Using the Israeli policy of preemption used in Lebanon and Syria, U.S. troops are now behind the lines in Syria, hunting down suspected jihadis before they can cross the border into Iraq. However, this technique might have unintended consequences. This week, for example, U.S. troops accidentally wiped out a clan of 45 people at a wedding party in Iraq on the Syrian border.

Techniques employed at Abu Ghraib also appear to have been patterned after those used at one time by Shin Bet, the Israeli security service. In September 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that Shin Bet’s "coercive techniques" could be no stronger than those applied by the police. However, the list of techniques documented in the Taguba report reads like a list of those banned techniques: blasting prisoners with noise while bent, bound and beaten in urine-soaked hoods, violent shaking, sleep deprivation and forcing prisoners into painful positions for long periods of time.

The U.N. Committee Against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, among others, all have criticized Israel for routine torture. The second intifada, which began in September 2000, has killed 2,700 Palestinians, including 545 children, and there have been as many as 20,000 injuries. Israeli deaths have totaled approximately 840, including 100 children, with perhaps 2,500 injuries. The disproportionate number of deaths and injuries of Palestinians results from the continual use of lethal force against civilians. Of course, it is also true that Hamas targets civilians almost exclusively. However, both sides’ atrocities should be receiving equal condemnation from the U.S.

For example, on May 19, Israeli forces opened fire with tanks and helicopter gunships on a protest march of 3,000 people in Rafah in Gaza, killing 10 to 23 children. Israelis from peace organizations such as Shalom Achsav, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, and other segments of society condemned the massacre, but here in the U.S., the Bush administration only called for more "restraint" by Israel. The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution, 14-0, condemning Israel.

The U.S. abstained. Why the tepid condemnation or none at all? Could it be because the U.S. is now using similar tactics in Afghanistan and Iraq?

It has been recently reported in the Arab press that American snipers have killed a high proportion of women in Falluja. One report counted 56 women killed by snipers as of April 17.

Also on May 19, the newspaper Ha’aretz reported that 2000 Israelis in a peace march were headed for the besieged city of Ramallah with 20 vehicles of donated food and supplies. Police broke up the march with tear gas and rifle butts. Several people were injured, including a member of the Knesset. Peaceful assembly and rights of expression are often a problem in Israel. Within Israel, there has been strong condemnation of the IDF’s treatment of Palestinians. In a November 2003 article by Esther Schrader and Josh Meyer in the Los Angeles Times, Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon, a group of retired leaders of the Shin Bet internal security service and a number of active-duty soldiers are quoted as saying that Israeli measures have been unduly harsh and threaten to destroy Israeli and Palestinian society if no solution is found to the conflict.

Even Israel’s military establishment knows that these strategies have failed. On November 26, 2002, Maj. Gen. Yaakov Amidror addressed the Washington Institute’s Special Policy Forum. In this speech, he suggested that "if Saddam Hussein were deposed … the Palestinian leadership would see that reform is inevitable in the long run — that the only way to negotiate is without terror. Hence, action in Iraq could be an important factor in changing the mindset of the Palestinians and, perhaps, other Arab leaders."

Of course, Amidror was wrong, but his better points, dwarfed by the remarks on Iraq, were that Israel’s current methods lack a coherent strategy. He warned policymakers that "at the end of the day," Israel must negotiate with the Palestinians and that civilians must not be harmed.

Just as even formerly pro-war Americans have begun to call for an exit strategy in Iraq, many Israelis have been calling for an exit strategy in Gaza and the West Bank for years. Last weekend, 150,000 people demonstrated in Rabin Plaza in Tel Aviv, calling for Israel to get out of the territories. Even Ariel Sharon, who apparently is seen as a softy within his own Likud party, sees the hand writing on the wall: Israel cannot hang on to the West Bank and Gaza much longer. Whatever our cultural and religious backgrounds in this country, we should be standing up for justice, not defending policies that we would be embarrassed by or prevented by federal law from carrying out domestically. This applies to our actions in Iraq and our support for Israel. Why is the Bush administration trying to create legal gray zones where U.S. law does not apply?

In Israel’s case, certainly it is a nation of laws and a parliamentary democracy. But we don’t need to idealize a nation that builds a Berlin Wall on stolen land, bulldozes homes, runs checkpoints that remind one of apartheid, conducts dubious and violent interrogations and has not been able to draft a Constitution in the 50-plus years it has existed. In our own case, we should not be supporting leaders who have ripped up selected pages of our own constitution, such as habeas corpus.

We have to stop conducting and condoning Machiavellian foreign policy and just do the right thing. And the right thing is to condemn torture, cease practicing it ourselves, condemn attacks on civilians, cease practicing it ourselves, and deal fairly with all people in the Middle East, whether they have oil reserves or not. This is going to require Americans to replace the Bush administration, just as peace in Israel will require the Likud to be replaced.

Like us, like Iraq, like Israel, every nation is a country in evolution. No country finds its way by being forced to follow another’s example.

This is the lesson we need to learn from our disaster in Iraq. This is the lesson we should learn from many of Israel’s failures. And it is a lesson we should have learned more than 30 years ago in a place called Vietnam.

Standard-Times, New Bedford, MA (May 21, 2004)

In this 2001 speech, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani discussed Israel’s nuclear advantage. The passage in “US-British support for Israel” below is usually taken as a threat to destroy Israel. But the speech discusses neutralizing Israel’s monopoly on nuclear weapons, not destroying the nation. Rafsanjani does, however, refer to a “reverse exodus” of Jews from Israel. Read it yourself and make your own inferences.


In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate… In response to your demands I will dedicate the first sermon to the Palestinian issue and the events in the world of Islam. I will use the second sermon to deal with other matters.

First, I have to thank all the good people who have made an effort to participate in the Quds rallies. In many streets I saw their ranks moving towards the university. This reflects the vigilance, the awareness, the faith and the dependable character of our good people. I hope similar support for the Palestinians is being expressed throughout the world.

Palestinian issue

The Palestinian issue, and the formation of the state of Israel, is among the worst periods of our contemporary history. I don’t know of any similar tragedy. In the fifty years that this pseudo state has been formed, and in the several decades before it, when fighting was going on, hundreds of thousands of holy people shed their blood, millions of people lost their homes, millions of people were injured, tragedies resulting from these events constitute the greatest encyclopedia of crime committed by the World Arrogance. History will not forget these things. In my sermon I would like to discuss some 30 points about the history of these events. I think it may be possible to speak about them in a single discourse and I would like to refer to the important points of this history.

First, this is the most misfortunate, tragic and bitter colonial event. Secondly colonialism, lead by Britain and then America, and supported by the United Nations and other sections of the World Arrogance are responsible for these crimes. If in the future an international court is formed – and this is my third point: a court will be formed sooner or later – and if those responsible for these crimes are put on trial many bitter truths will become known in the court. We should follow up this idea and we should ask just and knowledgeable judges to look into these crimes.

The fourth point is that the engine for this disaster is international Zionism. Zionism is a political party which was created some 100 years ago. It is named after the devotees of Zion, a hilltop in Bayt al-Maqdis. This party is not purely Jewish and not all Jews are Zionist. There are many Jews who don’t believe in Zionism. There are many Jewish scholars in America who have been active against the these events. They are also present in other parts of the world. Not all the members of the party are Jewish. There are distinguished Western politicians who were Zionist, such as Churchill, Eisenhower, Kennedy, etc. Of course, I am not an expert in this field and I don’t want to put any names in this list but those who are interested can find out the names of the well known Zionists. This party is still very active around the world and it is the engine for important events connected to Israel, and the Arab and Islamic world. This was my fourth point.

The fifth point is that the loss suffered by the formation of the pseudo state of Israel went beyond Palestine. The Jewish people themselves suffered. This is so because the Jewish people were settled in many countries. In our country, Iran, they were getting on with their life. They were engaged in business. They were rich. They enjoyed influence and a good life. This Zionist movement provoked many Jews, on the basis of their devotion to a religious state of their own, to take a wrong posture. They were put under pressure. There was an exodus and many of them became homeless. Now they have to live in those territories. I will discuss the living conditions in this country if I have the time. But they now have to wait for a possible reverse exodus because finally one day, this tumour in the body of the Islamic world will be removed and then millions of Jews who have moved there will be homeless again. When will this happen? We have to discuss this point on another occasion.

Formation of Israel

This formation of Israel was also to the loss of the region. The region suffered a great loss. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on armament and war. This is beside the acts of injustice committed against the people of Palestine. So who has benefited from the situation? This is my sixth point: The root of the problem is colonial. As traditional form of colonialism came to an end the colonialists sought new instruments of influence. One of these was to impose lackey governments in the previous colonies. The other was to create many military bases across the world, in the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, and other sensitive regions of the world. Costly military colonial posts on land and sea. But the most important objective was to create governments which were totally dependent on colonialism and the best case was that of the Jews – the Zionist government in the Palestinian land. This base was to serve several objectives.

Firstly, it was aimed at getting rid of Zionism in the West, which had become a real nuisance to governments and great powers. It was causing trouble. They threw them out and brought them to Palestine. Secondly, they made Zionism and the Israeli government dependent on themselves to make sure that they would be a tool in their hands. However, the opposite is true as well. They have lobbies which take advantage of colonialism to ensure their own survival. However, colonialism is the main factor. Later on, it was transformed into imperialism because colonialism did not officially exist any more. That was how it manifested itself.

Thirdly, they did that to cause insecurity and threaten other governments and force them to become dependent on imperialism. Then they could sell them arms and do other military things as well. This deeply affected the lives of the people and government of the region and Muslims because they needed particular Western and imperialist products.

There was constant warfare and regional countries became insecure and there was an attempt to prevent their economic and technological growth. We can see this happening and one does not need to explain it in detail. You can see all these things. Therefore, that is the important point. Please do not forget that point until the end of our discussion. Then we can see how much we can count on that when we are analysing the situation or when we are making predictions about the future. The Israeli government was established to act as a guardian, protector and gendarme that defends the interests of imperialism. I have already mentioned several points with regard to that issue.

The Israeli government itself, be it when it was in its embryonic stage or in its present shape, has been hanging from the umbilical cord of colonialism. It has been feeding off it. If the imperialists stop supporting it, it will be in trouble. Thus there is no independent government in Israel in the true sense of the word. It is totally dependent. Now, the Americans are officially contributing 4bn dollars a year to it. There is also the unofficial contributions made by Jewish communities and others. It is a lot.

US-British support for Israel

It is also supported politically in the United Nations and many other places. They also contain Islamic and Arab governments. Israel needs all of those things and the Americans and Britain are meeting its needs. Therefore, we should consider it to be an outgrowth of colonialism and a multi-purpose colonial base. That is where we should start discussing the next point. So the survival of Israel depends on the interests of imperialists and colonialists. So they go together.

The colonialists will keep this base as long as they need it. Now, whether they can do so or not is a separate issue and this is my next point. Any time they find a replacement for that particular instrument, they will take it up and this will come to an end. This will open a new chapter. Because colonialism and imperialism will not easily leave the people of the world alone. Therefore, you can see that they have arranged it in a way that the balance of power favours Israel. Well, from a numerical point of view, it cannot have as many troops as Muslims and Arabs do. So they have improved the quality of what they have. Classical weaponry has its own limitations. They have limited use. They have a limited range as well. They have supplied vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction and unconventional weapons to Israel. They have permitted it to have them and they have shut their eyes to what is going on. They have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles and suchlike.

If one day … Of course, that is very important. If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists’ strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. Of course, you can see that the Americans have kept their eyes peeled and they are carefully looking for even the slightest hint that technological advances are being made by an independent Islamic country. If an independent Islamic country is thinking about acquiring other kinds of weaponry, then they will do their utmost to prevent it from acquiring them. Well, that is something that almost the entire world is discussing right now.

Now, even if that does not happen, they can still inflict greater costs on the imperialists. That is possible as well. Developments over the last few months really frightened the Americans. That is a cost in itself. Under special circumstances, such costs may be inflicted on the imperialists by people who are fighting for their rights or by Muslims. Then they will compare them to see how they could advance their interests better or what they can do. However, we cannot engage in such debates for too long. We cannot encourage that sort of thing either. I am only talking about the natural course of developments. The natural course of developments is such that such things may happen.

Those who are desperate, but who are also faithful and idealistic, see that this is in their best interests. Then no-one will be able to control them. That is when they become disappointed with such ordinary deceptive methods. Therefore, in the future, the interests of colonialism and imperialism dictate whether Israel will survive or not. Moreover, it is the resistance put up by Muslims and Iraq and the Palestinians themselves that matters. They should besiege imperialists and make them think about whether it serves their interests or not. They should also think about whether maintaining the current balance of power, which favours Israel, is affordable or not. Both of those things may change in the future.

Iran’s policy

Well, what kind of policy should the Islamic Republic pursue? That is a different issue, which is our eighth or ninth point. As I said, the supreme leader of the revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i has repeatedly said what our policy is. He explicitly said that during the Friday-prayer sermons which he delivered recently. He has enunciated our policy. Whatever we say is an analysis of those policies. The government, the Majlis and all the Iranian institutions and our friends abroad all pursue the same policy.

Well, during all those stages, the Palestinian jihad was proceeding as well. To be honest, the Palestinians never remained completely silent. They had their ups and downs. However, they never became silent. For a while, armed struggle intensified. However, they had to intervene. Their intervention took place through the pressure that was exerted on those who were involved in the armed struggle. It raised the issue of Camp David through puppet governments. It took up 20 years of the Palestinians’ time.

It is not the case that the jihad has completely subsided. However, there have also created false hopes along with the people’s rather quiet jihad. In the end, it resulted in the formation of the so-called national authority. They made false promises which included only 6,000 km of the 28,000 km of the Palestinian territory. In this way, they could form a small and insignificant government here. However, it seems that that era is coming to an end.

At this stage the Palestinians waited. They fell silent and waited. They formed political parties. Some of them took up arms but they were not strong. The final stage of compromise was held at Camp David II, in New York or Washington in America. At that stage Arafat who had been optimistic about the efforts of the American brokers lost hope. When he came to Iran he said President Clinton’s comments at the meeting was a bomb which destroyed the negotiations, the statements of the American president – expressed after several days of intense negotiations – was merely a different version of the Israeli demands, and the meeting broke up. Arafat had written it all down. He read them for me from his notebook.

In the meantime the intifadah began and found a new climax. The Palestinians came to the conclusion that negotiations, be they in Madrid, Camp David, Oslo or any other place, will succeed, only if it is accompanied by their own efforts, selflessness and revolutionary actions. This was the background to the second Intifadah. It began when the Lebanese, with their spirited actions, forced the Israelis, for the first time, to flee in disgrace. This was a good and inspiring lesson. The Palestinian struggle lives on and the Intifadah, the current climax of the Palestinian struggle, is the result of the misleading and dishonest actions of the Western powers. We are witnessing this in the world today. The situation has deep roots. This is the tenth point that I wanted to make.

Now is the Palestinian revolution, the current Intifadah, going to weaken in the future? Some people may think that the Palestinians are going to get tired, that a small community is not going to be able to stand against all this power, that the feebleness and incapability of the Islamic world and its governments will undermine their resolve. But this judgement is wrong.

Palestinian intifadah

For one thing the Palestinian jihad has been the source of inspiration to many other Islamic movements throughout the world. It was a source of inspiration to us in Iran. It has been a source of inspiration to Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Central Asia, Chechnya, African countries, Sudan. They feel obliged to support this jihad. Furthermore, their own advancement has similar positive effects on the Palestinian movement. These countries are not going to forget their source of inspiration. They will keeping an eye on the situation. The Palestinian movement will survive. There may be ups and downs. There many be small ups and downs in view of the global situation. But this is not going to die because it is rooted in the homelessness of five million people, in the innocence of eight million people, in the innocent blood of hundreds of thousands of martyrs whose call is still being heard, in the fallen weapons that call to be taken up, in the feelings of innocence and justice, and more than anything, in the path of martyrdom and happiness and the path of the Almighty. Therefore, you cannot say that the Palestinian movement will die. There may be ups or downs but it will survive. And it will undoubtedly end with the liberation of Palestine.

The huge wave of Islamic jihad of Palestine subsided with the start of the compromise negotiations. Then, when the talks reached a deadlock, the Palestinian intifadah intensified once again, and today, we face a new situation. The important issue today is very important and deserves a mention.

This is my 11th point. It seems that global arrogance has planned four different moves to stop and quell the present intifadah, or at least rid itself of its grave consequences. The first one concerns propaganda. You can see the great propaganda campaign which is in progress in the world today with the aim of introducing them the Palestinians as terrorists, and Israel as the side that is defending itself. You need someone as foolhardy as Molla Nasreddin legendary witty folk figure to believe this. Otherwise, who can believe that Israel, with all its helicopters, F-16 aircraft, tanks and rockets – which it uses to assassinate people – is the side that it is engaged in self-defence, but a selfless and devoted human being, who sees no other option but to attach a bomb to himself and blow himself to pieces in some place, is the terrorist element? If one day, the world reaches such a conclusion and offers such a judgment, then we must consider humanity as dead and buried, and we must start to believe that humans are the same as, or even worse than, animals. Of course, already there are people who act in such a way, but at the same time, claim to champion the cause of human rights.

In my opinion, such a belief is not going to find any place among the righteous-seeking and struggling people. Yet, this kind of propaganda exists in the world today.

The second method they have chosen is violence. You can see how it Israel is perpetrating violence. When one person is killed inside the Israeli territory, a squadron of helicopters begin to fire indiscriminately at the people. You can see for yourselves how far violence has gone. Is this kind of violence a proportionate and appropriate response? Of course, it must be acknowledged that both these methods – that is to say propaganda and violence – have had some effect, but in general, they just aggravate an already bad situation. The people who have no choice but to resort to martyrdom-seeking operations are not going to frightened of this violence. After all, they have nothing to lose. How is a person going to lose anything when he believes that by blowing himself up, one minute he is on this material world and the next moment he is going to be transferred to the divine paradise on the wings of divine angels, and once there, he will sit next to the Prophet and the disciples of God, in a reception given in the honour of divine martyrs?

This is really like a duck trying to threaten the river, or the sea. There is no way that a fish can live without the water of the sea.

As I said earlier, the conditions in Palestine are creating this type of people. These acts of violence by Israel may silence some uncertain or opportunist elements, but as a rule, they will strengthen the resolve of others. It is because of this that I want to tell global arrogance to be on guard. It is here that the cost of exerting pressure on the people of Palestine and lending support to Israel can be very high for global arrogance. If one day, these tired, faithful and martyrdom-loving people decide to deliver blows to the vital interests of arrogance no matter where they are, then they can do this. They the Americans may be able to stop half of these operations, or even two-thirds of them, but some will still be carried out, and when they do, the costs will be huge. The events in New York can be a lesson for the Americans, particularly today, when, due to their aggressive moves and their mistakes, they have paved the way and made it possible for some groups to be armed with non-conventional weapons.

Therefore, as a person who has good knowledge of history, particularly the history of popular movements, I would like to admonish the Westerners not allow to matters to go this far. They should not feel happy about events such as attacks by helicopters, or other acts of violence by Israel. This is very dangerous, and we really do not want to see the world security to be disrupted, and we do not want to see the present insecurity – which has cost the world more than 1,000bn dollars and has paralysed the world in many areas, including in Israel itself. The West should not allow the world to suffer from such conditions. They should not allow a situation of confrontation and antagonism between the devoted, martyrdom-seeking forces, and the centres of arrogant power, in the form of the Third World War. This is the worst possible scenario, if arrogance continues with its present ways.

The other path that they have chosen is the path of deceit and false promises. America announces that it supports an independent Palestinian state, with Bayt al-Maqdis as its capital. However, we see that things are different in practice. Europe says the same thing, and Mitchell puts forward a plan. Naturally, such plans have short-term effects for a month or two. Nonetheless, after a while, it seems the people who made these promises start to regret their statements, while, at the same time, those who had believed these promises also start to regret their decision. These plans are not going to produce much. Their last plan involves the use of the so-called Palestinian self-rule authority. This is very bitter indeed. They provide the self-rule authority with a list of names, and ask them to arrest and hand over to Israel for example 200 people on the list. God forbid if the leaders of the self-rule authority fall for this, although they already have done to some extent. They the Israelis are not going to be happy with just an arrest. They are after more.

The worst things that can happen is division and fighting among themselves. All those who have been engaged in jihad for the past 50 years will destroy all their background with one wrong action. We do not want this bitter incident to occur in the history of the Palestinian struggle. However, it is possible for such a thing to happen. I think a few days ago, the Israelis announced that they had complete confidence in Arafat and his intention to establish security. You have witnessed that Israel and America emphasize that there should be complete calm for one week before serious negotiations can begin. They think that this one week is enough and after that it will be difficult to revitalize it the intifadah. During this week other decisions will be made. The self-rule government should not give in to this and think that it will achieve its objectives in this way. In America, he Arafat saw and heard the final words of Mr. Clinton and he noted them in his old note book. He knows what can happen. As a result, God willing, the leaders of the self-rule government will not be deceived by this big trickery.

Another solution that they are hopeful about, is to tire the mojahedin and to propagate, what they used to always say to us in Iran, that there is no use in these actions, and they are like trying to achieve the impossible; they said why should these valuable human beings be destroyed like this. These are not in line with Islamic and Koranic logic. These who are in the arena are Muslims.

The Koran says that it is not such that your enemy should not be harmed… In a serious and true jihad, if you suffer, your enemy will also suffer. It addition, it says: you have some hopes that are far beyond their reach. With this suffering, you will reach absolute prosperity and with their suffering, they will plunge into hell; these are not equal. You rely on justice and God, and they are on the edge of an abyss of fire preceding sentence in Arabic and these two are not the same.

You, who believe yourselves to be intelligent people and diplomats, shouldn’t say that why are these Palestinian children are being lost like this. These blows are very fatal. You are destroying the enemy from within. A nation which does not have atomic and chemical weapons and F-16s, has discovered something stronger than F-16s which it has pursued. You have left them no option. You have shut off everywhere to them. You have placed them there through your extermination methods. As a result, it seems that these methods which the imperialists are using, will lead to no where. These were some eight or nine points which I have made and not kept count of. You yourself should count them.

Self defence or terrorism

See what arrogance Israel is demonstrating in this regard. The conference of the Islamic countries’ foreign ministers in Qatar was on the basis of an invitation by Arafat and everyone was Arafat’s guest. Israel arrogantly said that Arafat has no right to leave Palestine and even went further and said he shouldn’t leave Ramallah. Today, they are saying he has no right to leave his home. Well, this is a self-rule government. He is a weak designated against elected mayor without any authority. What government and establishment is this? What have you pinned your hopes on? Why have you wasted the Palestinian nations’ time for 20 years. Today some advise the youth and the women who have recently joined the masses of martyrdom-seeking individuals, to protect and preserve themselves for some other time. I want to mention two other important issues in another part of my speech.

Now that the situation has become a bit desperate, the Europeans, who during the past few months pursued a different approach to that of America and Israel and had made the Islamic world a little hopeful, have changed their stance.

They are openly saying that Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine are terrorist organizations. They are so shameless that they ask Islamic countries to treat these groups as if they were terrorists, to close down their accounts, to close their offices, to put their members on trial. To be so obedient is a source of shame for European governments which see themselves as being equal to America. How can they explain this injustice to their own nations and freedom-loving people? Is this fair judgment? There are five million Palestinian refugees, their families live on UN handouts in camps and shanty towns. Their groves, homes, farms and workshops inside Palestinian territories are being taken over by rich Zionists. They are only defending themselves and you call them terrorists. It is shameful. You have to be truly shameless. What sort of people pronounce these things and vote for these things in their countries? Let the world see the truth. Let the freedom-loving people of the world see the truth. Let them see that those who call themselves the leaders of the free world and who claim to be defending human rights are, in fact, opposed to human rights. They are weak and inferior. There is no rationale for their actions. Their helicopters openly terrorize people on the streets. They, and not the Palestinian Authority, control the airspace. The helicopters come down and target taxi passengers after identifying them. This is what terrorists do. Are they defending helpless people? If this is their rationale then the actions of ordinary terrorists are truly more honourable than this form of freedom seeking encouraged by the West ? One day the world will judge.

Warns USA

The second issue concerns America itself. In Afghanistan, the Americans – according to their own thinking, according to their own analysis – achieved a swift victory through the power of bombardment. Of course, it seems to be the case, but they attach very little value to the main principle and they think that the role played by the Afghan nation, the United Front and the mojahed forces. That is at least what they pretend. That is what they are displaying to the world, even if they do not truly think so. They are trying to exhibit to the world that America has found a way for fighting its opponents. The bombings, on the one hand, and the use of domestic Afghan forces, as far as they do whatever America tells them. But, such calculations about Afghanistan cannot work in other places. You know that the forces which forced the Taleban to withdraw were also involved fighting, their problem was that wherever they were about to advance, Pakistani aircraft would hit their positions in support of the Taleban. And, wherever the Taleban had any shortcoming, the systematic army of Pakistan would intervene voluntarily. Now, the reverse is happening. Now, America is attacking the Taleban instead of the United Front which Pakistan was attacking. America also tied the hands of Pakistan so that it does not interfere from the other side. Yes, that role was indeed played by America, we accept that much. But, if America intends to compare this with other situations and use this process as a model and tested method for its future policies – which seems quite likely at the moment, because such assumptions exist in the While House and the American parliament – that would create another tragedy for mankind and world security, and it will very soon draw the attention of the Americans to the fact that they have made a strategic mistake. That is not a simple task.

The people of Afghanistan were in fact long tired of war, of clashes and of the selfishness of their domestic leaders and many other things. The way was already paved. Even if it was not America, any other powerful country, if it had become involved, could have done this and could have organized such a task. Of course, the future of this is very difficult to predict , because neither America has the capacity, acceptability or popularity among the people, nor there is any trust for it America. Others will not accept this either. We should all work together for the future of Afghanistan so that the people of Afghanistan do not fall into the trap of war, and so that their security, work and reconstruction of their country could get under way. And, if America wishes to show good will, it could also support and help. They the Americans should not think of turning that place Afghanistan into a military base, because the consequences of that can already be envisaged. It will result in dealing blows and receiving blows, it will have ups and downs; but, ultimately, nations cannot accept captivity.

You see that despite this massive deployment of forces the Jews in Palestine are faced with such circumstances. Fifty years have passed and it will be the same in 100 years. The Crusades lasted nearly 200 years and they ended like that. It’s the same now. At the end, nations will rise and resist. Amidst this, some will secure their immediate interests, and many will experience the loss.

On the whole, it seems today, the world situation and our region, is in need, on the one hand, of the alertness of nations and governments, and on the other, the realism and fairness of the arrogant powers who want to revitalize the colonial era by deploying troops, and occupying the previously abandoned military bases and securing a presence in the region. There is the hope that, God willing, this trend will secure the interest of justice and righteousness…

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2001/011214-text.html

Qods Day Speech (Jerusalem Day)
Chairman of Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani
December 14, 2001, Friday
Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran, in Persian 1130 gmt 14 Dec 01
Translated by BBC Worldwide Monitoring