Category Archives: Zionism

The Bibi Files

Alex Gibney is a co-producer of The Bibi Files, a new documentary directed by Alexis Bloom and available on jolt.film. In early 2023 Gibney received anonymous footage of police interrogations of Prime Minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu, his wife Sara, son Yair, and high profile associates, including billionaires Arnon Milchan, [the late] Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, personal assistants, house and security staff, and hundreds of other witnesses to the Netanyahus’ crimes. The investigation, launched in 2016, is focused on the Netanyahu’s extortion of millions of dollars worth of luxury “gifts” in exchange for political access.

Top left: “democracy” demo in Tel Aviv. Top Right: Netanyahu quoting Don Corleone. Bottom left: fighting with police interviewers. Bottom right: Legacy.

Highlighting the kind of “access” being sold, Former Finance Minister Yair Lapid recalled that Milchan was seeking the continuation of an Israeli tax exemption and Netanyahu dutifully brought up the subject with Lapid. Netanyahu also personally intervened with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to have Milchan’s U.S. visa reinstated. It must be nice to be so fabulously wealthy that heads of state volunteer for personal concierge service.

Gibney has encountered numerous hurdles trying to get the film before audiences. For starters, The Bibi Files is banned in Israel. In addition, no major streaming service wants anything to do with it and the BBC has rejected it as well.

The physical files the film is based on fell into Gibney’s hands long before the October 7th, 2023 Hamas attack and Israel’s genocidal response. Among those interviewed for the film was former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who himself went to jail for corruption. Given how routine official corruption seems to be in Israel, the story was spiced up with the thesis that Israel’s long, cruel war in Gaza is simply Netanyahu trying to stay out of jail. And that Netanyahu’s political partners, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, represent a marriage of convenience with fringe extremist elements. Without the corruption investigation, so the film’s thesis goes, there’s no need for a coalition with Kahanists. Without the Kahanists, there wouldn’t have been a protracted war in Gaza. The problem all boils down to a freak constellation of circumstances.

Well, I’m not buying it.

Top left: “Kahane chai (lives). Top right: with Ben Gvir. Bottom left: Smotrich promising annexation. Bottom right: Smotrich denying existence of Palestinians.

The simplistic, ahistorical narrative is tailor-made for Liberal Zionists who would prefer to ignore the fact that the goal of Zionism has always been to cleanse the land of Palestinians (or to use a scriptural term expropriated by religious fanatics, to “redeem the land”). Every Israeli prime minister, from Ben Gurion forward, has followed the plan. One of Netanyahu’s “liberal” predecessors, Golda Meir, famously pronounced that “there is no Palestinian people.” Sentiments like Meir’s have been heard in the Knesset since Israel’s founding.

Netanyahu’s father Benzion was a secretary to Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky, author of “The Iron Wall,” a polemic that argues that Jews must treat Palestinians as mercilessly as American settlers treated Native Americans. When we meet Netanyahu’s ultra-right son Yair, the filmmakers insist he is pushing his father to the right. But darling Yairi, sitting out the war in a heavily guarded Miami condo, is simply a chip off the old block of both his father and grandfather. And Netanyahu himself is simply the latest iteration of Prime Minister to do his part to “redeem the land” from its indigenous inhabitants.

The film would have you believe that one crafty Israeli has wrapped the entire American foreign policy establishment around his little finger.

As the film winds to its end, we see Netanyahu speaking before a Joint Session of [U.S.] Congress – his 4th or 5th such appearance. The film’s point is not that he’s a habitual partner in crime with the U.S., but that Netanyahu is an especially cunning operator with a phenomenal memory who has consistently wound U.S. presidents, Congress, and Secretaries of State around his little finger.

I’m not buying this either.

The filmmakers don’t bother to point out that, without U.S. weapons, funding and diplomatic cover, Israel could never have waged its war — any of them — in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Egypt, and elsewhere. The film also misses the opportunity to remind viewers of the famous words of current President Joe Biden: “if there were not an Israel, we’d have to invent it.”

The truth is: Israel is America’s proxy, its Middle Eastern attack dog.

The 2019 film King Bibi covers much of the same bibliographic ground as The Bibi Files, but makes a convincing case that Netanyahu is a product of the American far right. After he first returned to Israel from Boston, where the well-spoken MIT man was slumming as a marketing executive for a furniture company, Netanyahu was still regarded in Israel as an “American.”

But Netanyahu had a knack for marketing “fighting terrorism” to the Americans, and above all marketing himself to Israelis. With considerable encouragement, two campaigns run by Americans, American speech and elocution classes, and a stint as ambassador in Washington, Republicans came to like the young Israeli who sounded almost like them. Netanyahu soon became as indispensable to the American foreign policy and military establishment as the little nation he would go on to lead.

IAC National Summit 2024

img

The Israeli-American Council (IAC) is yet another node in a vast network of pro-Israel and Israel-linked organizations known as the Israel Lobby. As opposed to American Jewish groups which might embrace Zionism, the IAC is openly operated, and in apparent violation of FARA laws, by Israelis on US soil.

The IAC was created in 2007 by Israel’s Consul General, Ehud Danoch, and it immediately began recruiting dual (Israeli-American) nationals, primarily with backgrounds in American business. In 2013 the IAC obtained additional financial support from casino mogul and Trump donor Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, as well as Hollywood producer/investor and Biden donor Haim Saban. In 2014 a third billionaire and convinced Zionist, Adam Milstein, was appointed its chairman.

To say the IAC’s politics are far-right is an understatement. On September 19, 2024 the IAC convened its three-day National Summit at the Washington DC Hilton, and it had all of the features of a MAGA Republican CPAC Hungary conference — militarists, authoritarians, enemies of civil liberties, propagandists, Christian Zionists, and even a wannabe dictator — two if we count Donald Trump’s surprise appearance at the event.

Kim Jong Un was unavailable

The DC Summit featured three days of workshops, among which the following were offered:

  • “Taking Antisemitism to Court” featured speakers from the Brandeis Center, the Lawfare Project, the National Jewish Advocacy Center, and IAC Action, which coordinates its efforts with right-wing Republicans.
  • “The IHRA Definition: A Tool for Fighting Antisemitism” hosted MAGA Republican legislators from Georgia, South Carolina, and Arkansas sharing tips with two Israelis from IAC for Action.
  • The “Civic Engagement” workshop was a hodge-podge of miscreants that included: Elise Stefanik, who represents Israel more reliably than her own Congressional district; Trump defender Alan Dershowitz; Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi of Falls Church, Virginia, son of Iran’s brutal Shah, who now supplements his CIA stipend by hitting the conference circuit; Shabbos Kestenbaum, who sued Harvard for not doing enough to shut down free speech; Christian Zionist actress Patricia Heaton; and several other nobodies from stage, screen, and television.
  • At “Head of the Snake: The Global Terror Network and Iran’s Leadership Role” Israeli defense analyst Yoav Limor moderated a discussion with: Elliot Abrams, war criminal, convicted felon, Gulf War cheerleader, and now one of Biden’s national security advisors; Victoria Coates, another warmongering American neocon and former National Security Advisor under Trump; and two Israeli terrorism “experts” — Boaz Ganor and Anat Berko.
  • “Tragic Awakening Documentary Film & Conversation” was a film screening by its director, Rabbi Raphael Stone, founder of the Clarion Project, which the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as a hate group because of its Islamophobic focus.
  • “The US-Israel Alliance Now and Tomorrow” was moderated by Israeli broadcast journalist Yuna Leibzon and included: Ofir Akunis, Likudnik and Israeli Consul General of New York; former Middle East envoy and “Israel’s Lawyer” Dennis Ross; former NSC advisor Victoria Coates; and Michael Oren, Israel’s former Ambassador to the U.S.
  • And, finally, for those who needed to hear justifications for the carpet bombing of civilians, there was “Ethics in Combat and the Law of Armed Combat” featuring: Alon Ben David, who specializes in “International communications” at Bar-Ilan University; Colonel Richard Kemp of the Gatestone Institute, a far-right Islamophobic advocacy group founded by Nina Rosenwald and funded by billionaire megadonor Rebekah Mercer, whose more recognizable members include John Bolton, Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes, R. James Woolsey, Dutch fascist Geert Wilders, and Amir Taheri, who has repeatedly been accused of fabricating stories about Iran.

A partial list of participants

Assessing the Damage

We are in the midst of another McCarthy era. Universities and public schools are under attack by organized witch hunts. Slanderous accusations of antisemitism are ending careers. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is being weaponized by Zionist “lawfare” organizations. Protests against Israel’s carpet-bombing of Gaza (not to mention the West Bank and over half a dozen Middle East countries) are twisted as endorsements of terror. Conversely, condemnations of Israeli terror are twisted as antisemitism.

It is rare that we encounter a single story involving Israel and its strong-arm tactics with so many moving parts. It is even rarer that we encounter one in our own backyard. The following story illustrates just how the state of Israel and unregistered agents and lobbyists, coordinating with American Zionist organizations and MAGA Republicans, can marshal the resources of federal investigators, police agencies and prosecutors, to threaten an Ivy League university and take down its president, throw a school district into chaos, and manipulate politicians — all to suppress protests of Israel’s war crimes and to ruin its critics.

The Inciting Incident

In the early days of Israel’s carpet-bombing of Gaza, pro-Palestinian demonstrators set up a “die-in” at the Harvard Business School’s campus in Allson. Yoav Segev, a Jewish Harvard Business School student, was attempting to surveil the “die-in.” As Segev stepped awkwardly over the bodies of prostrate protesters attempting to film their faces, he raised suspicions he was trying to dox them. Corinne Shanahan, a Harvard Law School student, felt Segev was filming “in bad faith, either to intimidate or dox” the protesters.

Shouting “exit!” and “shame!” student safety monitors told Segev to stop and, after he refused to leave, half a dozen students blocked his camera with scarves and banners. This included Divinity School student Elom Tetty-Tamaklo, a safety monitor, and also Harvard Law Review editor Ibrahim Bharmal. In what now appears to have been clearly a set-up, Segev claimed he had been “assaulted” and two of the camera-blockers were soon arrested by an undercover Harvard campus police officer working on a federal task force. As an editorial in the Harvard Law Record points out, both Tetty-Tamaklo and Bharmal were trying to protect protesters from Segev. Somehow the safety of this segment of Harvard students has been forgotten.

It was Segev’s father Ilan who emailed the Harvard University police (HUPD) with the complaint. The elder Segev knew just whom to contact using intelligence from an unnamed source, and he provided HUPD with the identities of two students, informing HUPD that the son wanted to press charges. Out of more than half a dozen students the two Segevs could have accused of “assault,” the two chosen were both men of color. A letter of support from Harvard Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine asks “why Tettey-Tamaklo, who is Ghanaian, was singled out from the other protesters as a threat?” While racism was certainly one possibility, another become apparent when we learn that Tettey-Tamaklo was a co-founder of the campus group Harvard Graduate Students 4 Palestine. He was targeted because he was the leader of the pro-Palestinian group.

While Segev is only 26, he owns a tony condominium in Boston’s South End purchased for just over $1 million and now valued at $1.24 mil. His parents, as we will see, are extremely well-connected. Tetty-Tamaklo, on the other hand, was a proctor from a poor country who lived in student housing, receiving meals as part of his aid package. Ibrahim Bharmal had been a member of the Harvard Law Review — that is, until Harvard’s Chabad rabbi Hirshy Zarchi, Harvard megadonors Bill Ackman, Jonathan Neman, and David Duel, 94 Jewish alumni, and the Brandeis Center, a Zionist “lawfare” group, all showed up with pitchforks demanding the two students’ heads on spikes.

The lynch mob

Both Tetty-Tamaklo and Bharmal face charges of Assault and Battery and Violations of Civil Rights. Although the cases against them are weak and have not yet been dismissed by Suffolk County DA Kevin Hayden, neither Tetty-Tamaklo nor Bharmal have court dates, much less convictions. Rejecting any presumption of innocence, Harvard punished the two without hearings anyway. Zionist attack groups further “punished” the two with character assassination. Someone set up a libelous webpage using Tettey-Tamaklo’s identity, and both are being doxxed by Canary Mission, a particularly repulsive Zionist attack group funded by deep pocketed donors, including the late Sheldon Adelson and Adam Milstein. Harvard quickly bowed to the well-orchestrated attack campaign, evicting Tetty-Tamaklo from his university housing. And after megadonor Bill Ackman demanded to know, “How does this man remain Editor of the Harvard Law Review?” Ibrahim Bharmal’s bio was yanked from the Harvard Law website. But still the Defenders of Israel weren’t done with their enemies.

The mob takes down a president

With the university scrambling to appease its attackers, donors like Bill Ackerman, long critical of both the Harvard Trustees and its President, as well as Zionist and MAGA organizations, demanded President Claudine Gay’s head — and those of the Trustees. On December 5th, 2023 Virginia Foxx (R-NC) launched her McCarthyite Congressional hearings at which a grandstanding Elise Stefanik (R-NY) outdid herself defending Israel while haranguing Gay and assaulting free speech and freedom of association. It was a shameful display of deference to a repressive, foreign regime.

Unfortunately, Gay’s spineless defense of student Constitutional rights and academic freedom at Harvard was nearly as shameful. Even Gay’s apologies and assurances were not enough to assuage the MAGA and Zionist zealots. After a month of “deeply personal and sustained attacks [that have] played out in […] the form of repugnant and in some cases racist vitriol directed at her through disgraceful emails and phone calls” the beleaguered university president had had enough. On January 2nd Gay stepped down.

An extremely weak case

Those who have seen footage of the Segev incident are hard-pressed to recognize anything resembling an assault. Adrian Walker writes in the Globe, “As someone who has covered crime in Suffolk County for decades, I’ll just say this: I can’t remember a weaker assault case. Not only does this case not clear the bar for prosecution, it doesn’t even approach it. Assault by scarf? Please stop it.” Thomas Nolan, a former Boston Police lieutenant, commented: “I didn’t see anything in the video that I would characterize as an assault and battery … or anything remotely approaching a civil rights violation.”

Barbara J. Dougan, legal director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Massachusetts, found the politically-motivated prosecution of the two troubling: “As a lawyer who has represented the victims of hate crimes for 25 years, I view the way this incident is being handled as highly unusual. In my experience, police departments are unwilling, despite the victim’s wishes, to bring charges for incidents that don’t clearly rise to the level of a crime. […] I trust that Suffolk District Attorney Kevin Hayden will take a good, hard look at the facts of this case when deciding whether to prosecute.”

More on the Segevs

But the story gets more interesting. Not merely another Jewish student at a school that is 25% Jewish, Segev junior is a student member of Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education (JAFE), part of a pro-Israel “lawfare” group, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB). LDB has filed dozens of legal complaints of alleged “antisemitism” against universities and school districts all over the U.S. based on purported violations of Title VI protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sniffing for antisemitism is exactly what LDB does. It is reasonable to assume Segev was operating as an operative of LDB the day of his confrontation with protesters.

LDB was created by Kenneth L. Marcus, Donald Trump’s former Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. Not related to a similarly-named university, LDB has been at its game a long time and was party to the lawsuit which ultimately dismantled affirmative action admissions. Besides opposing affirmative action and launching a tsunami of Title VI lawsuits, LDF and JAFE also work to pressure universities to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.

LDB’s interests overlap considerably with those of MAGA Republicans who, like Zionists, are fierce foes of DEI and affirmative action and reject any suggestion that the U.S. is or ever was a settler-colonial state. The nation’s 30 million Christian Zionists also see Israel as a model for a Christian Nationalist renewal in the U.S. Zionist and MAGA interests also converge in opposing anti-colonialist Middle Eastern studies programs and the faculty who teach courses on, critique, or even discuss settler colonialism with their students. Christian Zionists promote the IHRA definition, which will eventually result in arrests and punishment if fully weaponized. Maybe they’re just thinking ahead to the day when criticizing Christian Nationalism will result in similar repression.

Within MAGA World the accusations of “antisemitism” have been increasingly adopted and weaponized by grandstanders like Elise Stefanik, who libeled Segev’s “assailants,” and Mitt Romney, Harvard class of 1974, who signed a letter painting a melodramatic picture of “Jewish students [who] have locked themselves in dorm rooms across your campuses afraid for their own safety.” The fact that a Jewish student like Segev could feel safe enough — if not entitled — to wade through a field of protesters knowing he wouldn’t actually be harmed undercuts such rightwing talking points.

All of the chaos created by reckless and slanderous accusations is ultimately to the advantage of the Israeli government, which makes young Segev’s family background all the more interesting.

Segev’s father Ilan is a former Israeli diplomat who transitioned to American investment manager at Morgan-Stanley, where he manages portfolios sizable enough to attract the occasional lawsuit. Segev senior is founding Co-Chair of and donor to the Israeli-American Council of Boston, a member of the Israeli-American Civic Action Network (ICAN), whose leadership overlaps somewhat with the ICA’s. Segev donates to a variety of Boston-area institutions, including: the Jewish Community Day School, where he is a Director; the [former] Kehilla Schecter Academy, where he was also a Director; the Landmark School, a secular school for autistic children; and Newton-Wellesley Hospital, where he is on the Board of Overseers. Segev held diplomatic posts in Qatar and served as Israel’s Vice Consul in Atlanta, Georgia. In 2001 Segev visited Wake Forest University to deliver the Foreign Ministry’s message that Palestinians are entirely responsible for their own occupation, their loss of territory, and the many racist laws they are subject to.

Segev’s mother Shiri (Shira) is also a former diplomat with the Israeli Foreign Ministry and is now a financial compliance officer at Omniguide. She serves on the Boston Jewish Community Day School’s Board; like her husband is also a member of the Israeli-American Council; a trustee of the Gann Academy, a Jewish day school; Educating for Excellence, a pro-Israel education group; the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, where she is a director. Owing to their wealth and connections, the Segevs have a lot of friends in very high places.

IAC and ICAN

The Israeli-American Council (IAC) to which both parents belong is yet another node in a vast network of pro-Israel and Israel-linked organizations known as the Israel Lobby. As opposed to American Jewish groups which might embrace Zionism, the IAC is openly operated, and in apparent violation of FARA laws, by Israelis on US soil.

The IAC was created in 2007 by Israel’s Consul General, Ehud Danoch, and it immediately began recruiting dual (Israeli-American) nationals, primarily with backgrounds in American business. In 2013 the IAC obtained additional financial support from casino mogul and Trump donor Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, as well as Hollywood producer/investor and Biden donor Haim Saban. In 2014 a third billionaire and dedicated Zionist, Adam Milstein, was appointed its chairman.

To say the IAC’s politics are far-right is an understatement. On September 19, 2024 the IAC convened its three-day National Summit at the Washington DC Hilton, and it had all of the features of a MAGA Republican CPAC Hungary conference — militarists, authoritarians, enemies of civil liberties, propagandists, Christian Zionists, and even a wannabe dictator — two if we count Donald Trump’s surprise appearance at the event. For a closer look at the conference, click here.

There are now between 200,000 and as many as one million people with Israeli citizenship living in the U.S. In the Boston are there are some 30,000. As an organization for Israeli expats, IAC shares much of its membership, some of its leadership, and — owing to its ongoing connections to the Foreign Ministry and IDF — it shares Israeli government objectives with other Israeli-American groups such as the Israeli-American Civic Action Network (ICAN) and its sister group, the Israel-American Civic Education Institute (both headed by lobbyist Dillon Hosier). All three target American educational institutions and cultivate friends within MAGA World. For example, ICAN Massachusetts recently endorsed Steven Howitt, arguably the most right-wing representative on Beacon Hill.

ICAN and ICA have gone all out in attacking the Massachusetts Teachers Association, which supports a ceasefire and voted to develop materials that can be used for teaching the Israel-Palestine conflict. Joined at the hip in unsavory ways, MAGA World and the pro-Israel media both went into simultaneous attack mode.

Fox News commentator Kassy Akiva (Dillon) of the Daily Wire published an attack on Ricardo Rosa, who had been tasked with developing the MTA curriculum, and this was followed up by a press release from Steven Howitt, issued in the name of the Massachusetts House and Senate Republican Caucus. The Times of Israel and Canary Mission then attacked the MTA. Parents Defending Education and JNS, the Jewish News Syndicate, piled on, accusing the MTA of rank antisemitism, putting targets on both Rosa and Newton City Councilor BIll Humphrey, whose only crime was failing to fall in line by condemning the MTA. The Jewish News Service, the MAGA Patriot Post, and other far-right sites followed suit. It was quite the team effort by Israelis, the Israel lobby, and the American far right. Rosa showed me the death threats recorded on his phone.

One important objective of the Israeli-American Council — and the Israeli Foreign Ministry that created it — is shaping perceptions of Israel and Zionism within American educational institutions. In June 2016 the IAC hosted a meeting at its Newton headquarters, chaired by Ilan Segev, to which Mayor Setti Warren was invited. The Forward describes Newton, a city 30% Jewish, as “one of the most Jewish cities in the United States.” Ignoring how ludicrous such allegations are, Segev charged Newton’s schools with “sweeping antisemitism under the rug,” while Charles Jacobs, a notorious Islamophobe who led opposition to the construction of the Islamic Center of New England (since built), claimed the Newton schools were using maps of Palestine created by the PLO. For both Israel and its MAGA friends, talking points don’t have to be true. it’s all about manufacturing outrage.

Thomas Karns

Returning to the thread of the “assault” at Harvard we now meet Thomas F. Karns Jr., the campus cop who arrested Tetty-Tamaklo and Bharmal. Karns is a former Boca Raton police officer and Gulf War veteran. In 2019 he was briefly suspended for calling a Black colleague a “f—t n—r.” His LinkedIn page lists extensive training in computer forensics and provides references from at least one federal prosecutor. Karns set up Veritas ex Machina Consulting LLC in Marblehead MA in 2015. His organizational filing states the purpose was “digital forensic consulting and computer incident handling.” Karns’s LLC was dissolved by court order in 2019.

In 2008, in a strange echo of the 2023 incident, Karns arrested two Massachusetts residents during campus protests against Israel’s Cast Lead operation in Gaza. Karns was then wearing a track suit, not a police uniform, filming protesters. He later admitted he was “conducting plain clothes surveillance on a demonstration.” Karns illegally arrested the two for simply documenting his surveillance of pro-Palestinian protesters, not for committing an actual crime. In 2020 Karns was again seen monitoring Black Lives Matter protesters after George Floyd’s murder; his suspension for racist behavior the previous year seemed relevant to the Harvard Crimson.

A 2012 paper by the Massachusetts ACLU documented the practice of policing dissent in New England. The Boston Police Department routinely collaborates in federal task forces, violating the Constitutional rights and civil liberties of those it spies upon, just like the [private] Harvard University police. Although Harvard denied that Karns was operating as part of a federal task force, Massachusetts ACLU Legal Director John Reinstein pushed back: “They claim they don’t have a political surveillance ‘unit,’ but they do have a guy who goes out and takes pictures of people in peaceful demonstrations…” According to an article by Mike Damiano in the Globe, Karns testified in sworn testimony in another case that he was there as part of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Brigitte Karns

Brigitte Karns (Thomas Karns’s wife) is a Marblehead teacher and a fitness instructor at the JCC North Shore. She owns a registered “educational enrichment” company. It turns out that Karns is also deeply involved in pro-Israel advocacy — just like the Segevs, with both the Israeli-American Council and the Israeli-American Civic Action Network. When criticism of Israel’s carpet-bombing of Gaza surfaced at Karn’s school, she was so outraged that her first impulse was to shut down opposing views: “As you know, my parents are Holocaust survivors and most of my family lives in Israel and what you’re saying is incorrect. You need to stop.”

Karn’s wrath seemed focused on three fellow teachers, members of her school’s DEI committee. Karns’s simmering gripes surfaced at a June 10, 2024 webinar organized by a “who’s who” of far right Zionist organizations: ICAN, Massachusetts Educators Against Antisemitism (a front for ICAN), CAMERA Educational Institute, Christians and Jews United for Israel (CUFI), StandWithUs K-12 Educator Network, the “anti-woke” Combat Antisemitism Movement – and of course the Consulate General of Israel to New England.

On June 20, 2024, at a meeting again sponsored by the Israeli-American Civic Action Network (ICAN) Brigitte Karns went after her fellow Marblehead teachers, specifically targeting Candice Sliney: “Marblehead has been knowingly supporting a hostile work environment of some of the Jewish teachers and students. The Marblehead Education Association is using intimidation tactics to silence Jews and then the administration is perpetuating antisemitic and anti-Israel ideology by remaining silent.”

Sliney — who is a member of the Marblehead Task Force Against Discrimination, which partners with the ADL to train students and teachers to fight antisemitism and discrimination — was astounded by Karn’s allegations: “Every single accusation was a lie. She has attacked my character, endangered my family and put my career at risk, with zero evidence.” Sliney urged the School Committee to hire an independent investigator. Voices from the community fortunately came to Sliney’s defense.

But Karns wasn’t finished with her colleagues. She went on testify to the psychic trauma of having to listen to fellow teachers condemn Israel’s war on Gaza: “This anti-Zionist interaction has left me feeling unwelcome and isolated at work. The encounter pierced deeply, shaking my trust in the place I work and with whom I work with. The silence from the administration and the union amplified my feelings of isolation. It’s like a double blow, being marginalized by a colleague and then having administration ignore my feelings and concerns.”

It’s really a shame that our fantasies of forcing everyone we interact with to adopt our own views and refrain from uttering contradictory ones can’t be realized, but at some point we need to pop out of it and accept reality.

Following Karns’s allegations, the Marblehead Current reported that the Marblehead Schools had been forced to conduct an “antisemitism” probe — at taxpayer expense. Schools superintendent John Robidoux signed an agreement specifying that “the district shall pay Kurker Paget at a rate of $360 per hour for the services of any partner of the firm and $160 per hour for the services of the firm’s paralegals, billed in six-minute increments. MPS will incur fees for the time Kurker Paget staff spend traveling in connection with the investigation.”

The Current also reported that the Marblehead schools did receive a number of letters accusing the schools of doing little to protect Jewish students. But most were identical, generated by a computerized form, and began with, “I am emailing you to show my support for the Jewish teachers that have experienced antisemitic/anti-Israel incidents in the Marblehead schools…”

Assessing the damage

To date, a handful of zealots, the Israeli Foreign Ministry, the Israel lobby, and its MAGA fellow-travelers, all working together, have managed to take down a university president, ruined the lives of two human rights advocates and at least one teacher, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in hearings and needless studies, subverted free speech in universities and public schools, marshaled the powers of Congress, the FBI, the police, and the courts against Americans and those protected under our laws — and they’ve done it all without a single shred of oversight or regulation.

New York Mayor Eric Adams is politically finished as a consequence of acting as an unregistered agent for the government of Turkey. Robert Menendez’s career is over after acting as Egypt’s. Paul Manafort went to prison after acting as an agent for Ukraine. All of these men violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act in one way or another. And all of them were Americans. Yet somehow none of this applies to the Segevs and the “Israeli-American” and pro-Israel organizations running amok over the American political landscape.

In 2018 M.J. Rosenberg — who worked for AIPAC himself at one point — argued that AIPAC and lobby groups like it ought to be required to register under FARA laws. Rosenberg described the mind-bending loophole that allows such groups to function as agents for Israel (and apparently only Israel). If a similar loophole had been in place in the Fifties allowing Americans to act as agents for the Soviet Union, perhaps Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (no relation) could have avoided the electric chair.

The conclusion Rosenberg drew in 2018 is as relevant as ever today:

“No, AIPAC is not a ‘pro-Israel’ lobby. It’s the Netanyahu lobby and our laws should treat it as such […] As for the thousands of Americans gathered in Washington this weekend, they need to know one thing: They are not supporting the dream of a secure, democratic Israel at peace with its neighbors and the world. They are, unwittingly, supporting a right-wing political agenda that is placing Israel in ever-deeper peril and, frankly, jeopardizing its very existence.”

The Two State Lie

After years of illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank, the only thing left of the “Two State Solution” is as a prop for liberal politicians and liberal Zionists to point at while doing nothing to advance any now clearly impossible partition plan.

The charitable or gullible may view these liberals as idealistic dreamers, but realists will recognize them for what they are — purveyors of an obvious, damnable lie. In truth, Israel and its colonial enablers will permit only an exclusively Jewish state — and this has always meant the inevitable mass-murder or expulsion of a people who will never renounce their claims on their own land.

Even when the opportunity has presented itself to create or move forward the idea of a Palestinian state – even a rump state or a disconnected set of cantons or reservations — the United States has rejected or vetoed the idea, pointing to its other gaslighting prop — the equally dead and pickled Oslo Accords — as the “only game in town,” as George Bush’s Secretary of State Colin Powell used to call it.

Oslo may be long-dead but it is still the straw man that US presidents and their Western allies recite while demanding that Palestinians negotiate directly with Israel — as if such were negotiations between states on equal footing. But since Israel has physically destroyed literally every Palestinian government (and that includes assassinating its leaders and negotiators), only the toothless, highly unpopular Palestinian Authority remains, and it has absolutely no mandate to negotiate with anyone.

Meanwhile, no American president has ever made any effort to hold Israel to account for its illegal settlements, actively worked for two states, or even presented a vision for one. That’s because for decades it has been impossible (not to mention embarrassing) to look at a map of the West Bank and explain to anyone with a straight face how a Palestinian state could ever be cobbled together from the tiny crumbs still left on the table. So when I hear liberal stalwarts like Elizabeth Warren mumbling “two states” I want to demand that she show me her detailed plan. Or shut the hell up.

As reasonable as a demand that the thief return the property he stole, or the home invader vacate the home he invaded, or that damages (criminal or civil) must be paid to a victim, no Western nation with its own sordid history of slaughter and displacement of indigenous people will will ever impose this sort of justice on a fellow settler-colonial state. When you think about it, this is nothing more than professional courtesy between rogue states.

But now, after 75 years of injustice and now an exceptionally well-documented genocide, the world is screaming for a solution to be found. Israel’s solution is to double down on every technique that created its Apartheid state in the first place — massacres and ethnic cleansing. The Zionist state remains committed to “thinning” the Palestinian population — as if it were a herd of animals, stealing even more land, and devising ever more creative schemes to push Palestinians into the Sinai, Jordan, or Egypt. But a previously inattentive world has been paying attention, and now Israel’s many crimes have justifiably made it a pariah.

AND YET American politicians are still on board with Israel’s slaughter, ethnic cleansing, and continued annexation. Republicans, including Donald Trump, have suggested that Israel “bounce the rubble,” drop atomic bombs, or “finish the job” — echoing genocidal calls openly and increasingly advanced by members of Israel’s Knesset and its public. The Democratic president, a self-described “Zionist,” generously funds the ongoing genocide, has placed boots on the ground and boats in the Gulf. His National Security Advisor and Secretary of State shamelessly lie about the scale and scope of Israel’s war crimes.

Democratic Party politicians avert their eyes from the victims of Israel’s genocide, and couldn’t bring themselves to allow a Muslim congresswoman to address their national convention (while allowing two Israelis the platform). They vote with Republicans to criminalize protests, vote for new laws to muzzle speech critical of Zionism or opposition to Israeli policies — all while continuing to hide behind Oslo and the fictive Two State Solution. And while the Democratic majority is too well bred to openly cheer for genocide like their Republican brethren, they still do everything they can to sustain the “lethal” slaughter.

Zionists interpret the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as a call to exterminate all the Jews. I doubt they actually believe this propagandistic “interpretation” any more than I do because Israel’s ruling party actually uses a similar formulation in its own platform. What is true, however, is that throughout all the territory it controls Israel — and no other people — maintains an actual One State ethnocracy by extreme violence. Again, literally from the river to the sea. This single state includes 5.5 million Palestinian subjects in areas occupied by Israel and Israel’s 9.1 million citizens, totaling 14.6 million souls.

Of this total population 7.2 million – a slight minority – are Jewish. But Israel’s One State Jewish minority is even smaller because up to a million Israelis don’t actually live in Israel and many of the Russian olim were admitted under an amended 1970 Law of Return which permitted non-Jews to immigrate (specifically to offset Arab demographics). So when you also factor in the Palestinian diaspora — between 6 million and 7 million people displaced by the 1948 Nakba — Jews represent only a third of the total number of people who have claims to Palestine.

This, together with the racist, repressive, even neofascist, nature of the Israeli state, perfectly justifies classifying Israel as an Apartheid state. As a state for only a fraction of its “subjects,” Israel maintains the status quo only through violence and terror, and it can’t even do this on its own.

As its colonial era Mandate expired, Britain turned over its military and colonial infrastructure to the Jewish Company, not the majority Palestinian population it had occupied. Since its founding, Israel has depended on hundreds of billions of dollars of American subsidies to its military, defense, tech, and energy programs. Billions of dollars in funding came from North American Zionist organizations, notably the private Jewish Federations and large donors. Like a failing tech startup, the Zionist state only exists by pumping more and more money into it. In the long run it is unsustainable.

France made Israel the nuclear power it is today. Russia armed it in its early years. Americans can’t have national healthcare, but between 15-20% of Israel’s defense budget is paid for by American taxpayers. In any other financial arena where expenses are properly scrutinized, from business to government to non-profits, throwing wads of cash at a recurring disaster is the very definition of insanity.

By at least 1990, with hope for a Palestinian state all but dead, it was obvious that a different version of the One State solution — not exclusively Jewish — would be necessary to end the madness of Zionism’s ruthless control over all of Palestine. Though different, several of these plans end exclusive Zionist control over Palestine by giving Palestinians a long-denied voice and exactly the same rights as Jews — security, respect for personal property, freedom of movement, a political voice, and the right of refugees to return to their communities.

Taxonomy of One State solutions

In 2005 Tamar Hermann, a liberal Zionist Israeli political scientist who now works at the Israel Democracy Institute, looked at the structure of four different One State solutions:

  1. a “unitary state” that denies the non-dominant nationality any rights, redress, or power
  2. a system that grants the non-dominant group [some] individual rights but no collective political rights or power
  3. a classical liberal democracy in which no nationality has special or collective political rights and where the relationship of citizen to state is not mediated by ethnic or religious membership
  4. a “parity-based” bi-national framework in which each nationality becomes a collective political unit and is accorded equal status and power regardless of size
  5. a “consociational” bi-national arrangement which recognizes ethno-national rights within “cantons” (preserving one aspect of the “two state” solution) while permitting freedom of movement and property ownership for both nationalities within all of Palestine

Although it’s a bit dated, Hermann’s taxonomy provided both a useful outline and an analysis of how Israel has systematically opposed both one- and two-state solutions. Note that Option #1 is the current reality, and the only reality acceptable to Israel and its Western enablers. Note also that various options that would address injustices toward Palestinians have been systematically rejected by elements of the Israeli Left, Right, and Center.

Early Jewish Bi-nationalism

As Hermann writes, Zionism ignored and discounted both Arab existence and resistance to displacement:

“For many devoted Zionists, it came as a severe blow to realise that implementing the dream of the Zionist movement – the ingathering of the Jews in the land of their forefathers and the building of a national home for the Jewish people – bluntly interfered with the life of the Arab community in the same land. Although warnings in this regard were expressed as early as 1907–08 (Epstein 1907/1908), awareness of the hostility that massive Jewish immigration created among the Arabs was minimal.”

But there were plenty of Jews who recognized the flaw in Zionism:

A small minority, however, rejected these strategies as early as the 1920s, denouncing them as immoral for disrespecting the national rights of the Palestinians and for putting the Jews and Arabs on a collision course. Instead, this minority position advocated a bi-national arrangement. Thus, in 1925 the Brit Shalom (Covenant of Peace) group was formed with the aim of promoting Jewish–Arab understanding and co-operation.

The members of Brit Shalom, some of them prominent figures in the political or academic establishment, believed that the domination of one people by another would lead to severe friction and, eventually, war. At least in its early days, Brit Shalom’s bi-nationalism could be described as optimistic: it was meant to forestall the conflict before it ripened. Switzerland and Finland were the examples of successful bi-nationalism that encouraged Brit Shalom. In practical terms, the group advocated creating a legislative council based on Jewish–Arab parity, which would run the affairs of a bi-national state in which the two peoples would enjoy equal rights irrespective of their relative size at any given time.

The “Disturbances”

The wave of violent Arab riots against the Jews in 1929, known as the ‘disturbances’, were a severe blow to the group [my note: and should have been to the Zionists as well] since they suggested that time was running out faster than they expected. Brit Shalom warned that these ‘occurrences’ were not a sporadic, transitory phenomenon but the beginning of a national liberation struggle that would only get fiercer if not properly handled. Nevertheless, as noted, the chances for bi-nationalism to be adopted when other, more ‘natural’ options have not yet been tried, and failed, are slim.

Indeed, Brit Shalom was harshly attacked by the mainstream and accused of defeatism. The fact that they spoke their minds while the murdered Jews were not yet buried infuriated their rivals even further, and the Zionist establishment denounced them as either pathologically naive or traitors. It is important to note that the bi-national advocacy of Brit Shalom and its successors in the pre-state days was not echoed on the Arab side. Given their numerical superiority, the Palestinians rejected a parity-based regime.

Magnes

Detroit Jewish Chronicle, October 3, 1941 calling Magnes a “Quisling”

The “Ihud” (Union)

Apart from Brit Shalom, however, the group most identified with it is Ihud (Union), which was led by Martin Buber and Judah Magnes and was active from the early 1940s till the establishment of the state, though it continued its activities until the mid-1960s. Ihud was established in 1942, almost a decade after Brit Shalom had expired.

By that time the conflict was already an undeniable and very violent reality. Moreover, Ihud operated against the background of World War II and the catastrophe of European Jewry. Its members believed that bi-nationalism offered the only way of saving both the Jewish community in Palestine and the survivors of the Holocaust. They did not deny the Jewish people’s special attachment to the Land of Israel but maintained that together with the Arabs living in Palestine they must develop the country without one side imposing its will on the other.

In their submission to the Anglo-American Commission (1946), Magnes and Buber, who represented Ihud, argued, in stark contrast to the position presented by the Zionist establishment, that since both Jews and Arabs had a national claim to Palestine, it could neither be an Arab state nor a Jewish one. They also rejected the partition option, saying it was impractical and a ‘moral defeat for everyone concerned’. Instead, they recommended that a bi-national state be formed in which Jews and Arabs would share power. According to this parity-based model, Jews and Arabs would have equal representation in a democratically elected legislative council, and the head of state would be appointed by the United Nations Organisation, with each community exercising autonomy in cultural matters.

Zionism’s conflict with Jewish values apparent

Indeed, the bi-nationalism of Brit Shalom and Ihud had a strongly moralistic aspect. They saw it as a natural derivation of the Jewish tradition of antimilitarism – the victory of the spirit over the flesh. At the same time, they promoted bi-nationalism as the only practical solution that might be acceptable to both sides.

A brief appearance by Israeli Bi-nationalists

The tiny camp of today’s (2005) Israeli bi-nationalists can be divided into two subgroups. First there are those, mostly belonging to the radical, non-Zionist or even anti-Zionist Left, who favor this model per se. Second are those who would prefer a different scenario but have concluded that the existing geopolitical and demographic realities dictate bi-nationalism.

The bi-national idea was already raised by a few Israelis in the 1970s, and again, strongly but by very few, soon after the launching of the Oslo process. Political activists of the radical Left, such as Michael Warschawski of the Alternative Information Centre and others, warned against the pitfalls of the Oslo paradigm, claiming that the Palestinian state to be established in this framework could not be viable but would only be a Bantustan-type entity.

For this they mainly blamed the expansionist Zionist ideology and the Israeli government, while also criticising the Palestinian Authority’s impotence and inability to defend its people’s interests: ‘If Arafat had not accepted the conditions laid out at Oslo, this miserable agreement might have remained a mere position paper (Ben Efrat 1997; see also Pape 1999, Warschawski 2001). These activists called for the adoption of the PLO’s ‘secular-democratic state’ model, which they referred to as bi-national in essence. However, theirs was a cry in the wilderness; it was heard, if at all, only within small circles of the Left and was mainly understood in the context of the internal rivalries between the Zionist and non-Zionist components of the peace camp.

Until very recently, however, bi-nationalism was not a significant (albeit highly contested) option in the Israeli repertoire of possible solutions to the Israeli–Palestinian strife. Thus, when in the summer of 2003 the weekly supplement of the Haaretz daily published a lengthy interview with two public figures, Meron Benvenisti and Haim Hanegbi, in which both expressed their support for a bi-national, Israeli–Palestinian state, many within and outside Israel were taken by surprise. In this pathbreaking interview Hanegbi, a well- known figure of the radical Left, admitted to his initial support for the Oslo process (Shavit 2003).

Yet as time passed and the process seemed to be leading nowhere, he came to view Oslo as a mistake – a diversion of everyone’s attention to Israel’s rhetoric rather than its deeds, namely, the ongoing settlement expansion. Therefore, dwelling on sweet memories of his childhood in Mandatory Jerusalem amid Jewish–Arab harmony and coexistence, Hanegbi asserted that Israel was unable to free itself from its expansionist mentality since ‘it is tied, hands and feet, to its core ideology of dispossession and original mode of action’. His conclusion was that: ‘Only binational cooperation can save us. Only this can transform us from foreigners in our land to locals, to natives’.

More on the debate

Benvenisti, the second interviewee in this scandal-stirring article, is also a nonconformist but comes from the heart of the Israeli establishment. Having warned prophetically for years that the ever-growing settlement project was becoming irreversible, his shift to bi-nationalism reflects much frustration and pain: Israelis, like the Afrikaners in South Africa, should realise that the present discriminatory regime ought to be dismantled, since it has failed to impose its hegemony over the dominated collective, and replaced it with a regime of individual and collective equality. Like Hanegbi, Benvenisti also admits to making a mistake in the past – in his case, defining the Israeli– Palestinian struggle as a national one when the correct definition, he now acknowledges, is that of a struggle between natives and settlers/colonisers, resulting from the atavistic hatred of those who feel dispossessed by foreigners.

Separation, then, is no longer an option, and the entire Land of Israel should be regarded as a single geopolitical entity (Shavit 2003). Although in this interview Benvenisti did not describe the details of the bi-national arrangement he suggested, he mentioned some combination of a horizontal sharing of powers on a parity basis and a vertical (territorial) one, a federalist structure that would include the entire land west of the Jordan River and be divided into several ethnic cantons.

In an article published a few months later, however, Benvenisti advocated the consociational model, ‘which recognizes the collective ethnonational rights and enables cooperation in the government at the national level while guaranteeing well-defined political rights for minorities’ (Benvenisti 2003). He views such an arrangement as based on a cantonal division under a federal umbrella. Such an arrangement, he states, also enables maintaining ‘soft’ borders and constructive ambiguity, which facilitates handling symbolic issues such as Jerusalem and even the refugees and the settlers (ibid.). He also states his pessimistic bottom line: ‘I am not happy with what I have just suggested. . . . We are not going to have peace here. Even if there is some binational arrangement, it can only manage the conflict. At its outskirts, however, violence will always prevail’ (Shavit: 10–14, 2003).

The publication of the interview with Benvenisti and Hanegbi by a major Israeli newspaper brought strong aftershocks, including many letters to the editor and opinion columns in the printed and electronic press. Paradoxically, for reasons to be explained below, the most negative reactions came not from the Right but from the Centre and moderate Left, both supporting one or another version of the two-state solution. For example, Yosef Gorni, a mainstream Zionist historian, fiercely attacked Benvenisti, who is also a historian along with his other professional activities:

As Benvenisti knows very well, this approach [bi-nationalism] is a complete non sequitur. . . . This is essentially because of the national spirit and history of the Jews and the Arabs. Both peoples find it very difficult to have minorities in their midst. . . . Furthermore, this idea also has a deplorable moral aspect, as it is unthinkable to legitimate such collective discrimination, by which all other peoples of the region, besides the Jews, will be entitled to a national state of their own. (Gorni 2003)

Another mainstream critic (Shacham 2003) fiercely attacks Hanegbi: ‘better not to bamboozle us with some bi-national phrasing when what one actually means is a regular state, with a majority and a minority, with the majority defining the rights of the minority’ (ibid.). His criticism of Benvenisti is no gentler: ‘The use of the phrase ”bi-national paradigm”, which sounds so intelligent, cannot compensate for the total lack of thinking on how such a state can be established and function’ (ibid.). Shlomo Avineri, a prominent political scientist and former director-general of the Foreign Ministry, states categorically: ‘A binational state? There is no such thing. Simply put: nowhere in the world has a conflict between two national movements been resolved by squeezing two national movements, holding each other’s throats, into the boiling pot of a binational state’ (Avineri 2003). Clearly alluding to Benve- nisti, he continues:

What happened to them [i.e. the advocates of bi-nationalism who were not part of the radical Left but came from the mainstream] was that they simply collapsed in the face of the Palestinians’ determination and resistance and their readiness to sacrifice themselves, reaching the conclusion that Zionism can never win and hence should be given up altogether.

Interestingly enough, there is also some opposition to the Hanegbi and Benvenisti-style bi-nationalism on the radical Left, the traditional (albeit tiny) support base in Israel for the PLO-style, secular-democratic bi-national state. These voices maintain that dividing the entire country into cantons a la Benvenisti has a misleading ring of plausibility. Israel boasts a First World economy, while the Palestinian-populated areas belong to the Second or even Third World. In such a situation, where the Jewish cantons are ‘haves’ and the Arab ones ‘have-nots’, the chances of real equality under the new federal or other framework are practically nil. Yet the question is idle, the argument goes, because there is no apparatus for realising this concept anyway; there is nothing to motivate Israel, which has brought Arafat to his knees and divided the Palestinian national movement, to enter into such an adventure (e.g. Ben Efrat 1997).

As noted, the Right’s criticism of the ‘new school’ bi-nationalists was surprisingly mild, apparently because any plan that implies retaining the Land of Israel as a single unit is appealing – with some amendments – to supporters of that principle. Thus, in November 2003 the Yesha (Judea, Samaria and Gaza) Council released its own ‘bi-national’ plan as the solution for the conflict. It divides the entire historic Land of Israel into ten cantons, each of which would have cultural autonomy, with their boundaries delineated according to the ethno-national composition of the population in the specific region. These cantons would come under a federal umbrella.

However, according to this plan’s principle of division, only two of the cantons would be Palestinian, thereby guaranteeing a Jewish majority in parliament (Eid 2003). The right-wing activist and journalist Israel Harel proposed another bi- national model: ‘We should take the Arabs on both sides of the Green Line as one body and the Jews on both sides as one body, and give the Arabs Jordanian citizenship and the Jews Israeli citizenship’ (Harel, in Susser 2003). There are, however, moderate right-wingers who fear that if such positions are embraced, the bi-national reality may impose itself on the land and destroy the settler community from within.

Thus Yair Sheleg, a journalist living in a settlement yet writing in Haaretz (which is left-of-center on Israeli–Palestinian relations), urged his fellow settlers to agree to the two-state solution before it was too late. With their powerful opposition to evacuating even the smallest, most isolated outpost, Sheleg argues, the settlers have created a balance of deterrence with the government. Sheleg urges the settlers to stop pressuring the government and concludes: ‘In specific moments of their life, individuals often agree to undergo painful operations, including amputating this or another organ of their body so as to save their life. The same level of responsibility such individuals take regarding their private life could be expected from those who aspire to be in the leadership position regarding the good of the nation.

Glimmers of One State

In 2004, frustrated with an Oslo process that was going nowhere, with Israel still occupying Gaza and beginning to wall off Jerusalem, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Alta) – who would shortly be succeeded by Hamas’s Ismail Haniyah – threatened that if there was no real progress in negotiations Palestinians would call for one binational state.

The United States, smack in the middle of a Middle East war of its own making, placed its heavy thumb on the scales, acting as the biased peace broker it has always been. Elliott Abrams, soon to become a convicted felon and an accused war criminal, was part of the American delegation tasked with making sure Israel would prevail. US Secretary Colin Powell “categorically” rejected a one state solution and demanded that Palestinians “wrest authority” from President Yasir Arafat. For its part, Israel rejected any sort of a Palestinian state.

And prevail Israel did. The 2006 elections which swept Fatah from power and ushered in Hamas were a consequence of Israeli intransigence and American connivance. The US and Israel had no idea at the time that anointing (and later funding) Hamas would eventually blow up in their faces so spectacularly.

Thus, rather than “Palestinians never failing to miss an opportunity” for peace, peace in Palestine has been systematically subverted by Israel and the colonial powers (notably the US) that created it. These parties have worked tirelessly, always behind the scenes, to scuttle any sort of just solution or compromise that would allow two peoples to live in peace on the land one party stole.

Apology

My last post addressed two letters in the New Bedford Guide concerning Zionism. One clearly defended it, while another by my friend Betty Ussach only sounded like it. I have known Betty for many years, worked with her on social justice issues, and, while I may not have been the only person to misread her intentions, I should have given her much more credit for what should have been read as a principled objection to Israel’s violence in Gaza, not the opposite. Another letter she published in the New York Daily News leaves no doubt as to where she stands. Betty, again, I’m really sorry.

While I am apologizing, the New Bedford Guide did eventually publish my response. As uncomfortable as the issue may be for some to confront, covering vital public discussions that have otherwise been banished from the local papers is an important function of the press. Anyone who, even belatedly or reluctantly, publishes unpopular views on the war in Gaza or Zionism is doing an important public service. I hope the NB Guide will keep it up because the other local news outlets aren’t.

While to some people Gaza may be somebody else’s war — a topic made radioactive because of cynical accusations of “antisemitism” or something having nothing to do with our national priorities — without American bombs, naval fleets, intelligence sharing, missile defense systems, vetoes at the UN, and cumulatively hundreds of billions of dollars of military aid to Israel, neither Israel’s Apartheid system nor their genocidal war on Palestinians would be possible. And everybody knows it — most of all the vast Israel lobby.

At some “Walter Cronkite moment” in the future, with almost every international body condemning the war and Israel’s Apartheid system, Americans are going to finally realize that pumping billions after billions to prop up a nationalist supremacist state is simply throwing bad money after bad.

Anti-Zionism is NOT antisemitism

It’s been said that freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. This is certainly the case with the New Bedford Guide, which falsely claims “in fairness and objectivity, we share opinions from our readers whether we agree or disagree with their opinion.” Not even remotely true. NB Guide refused to print either an August comment on one pro-Zionist letter or the following rebuttal to two of them.

September 17, 2024

Two recent contributors to the New Bedford Guide have made separate arguments that opposing Zionism is antisemitic. Both may be passionate but are wrong.

On August 22nd Abrah Zion expressed her opposition to posters at Wings Court featuring quotes from well-known Jewish critics of Zionism. One poster depicted Albert Einstein and a quote from his December 4th, 1948 letter to the New York Times decrying widespread massacres and the ethnic cleansing of Arabs, as well as the presence of fascist elements in Israel’s first government. Mrs. Zion found the posters “antisemitic” and went so far as to make the strange claim that they somehow threatened her children, further asking that Mayor Mitchell censor the posters critical of Zionism by having them removed.

On September 16th Betty Ussach published a letter, again equating opposing Zionism with antisemitism. I have several quibbles with her arguments. First, Israel’s genocidal response to Hamas’s incursion on October 7th was not “Netanyahu’s war” alone. It took its place in a series of disproportionate Israeli responses to Palestinian resistance over the 75 years Israel has imposed British-era martial law on the Territories. She writes that opposing Zionism now seems to be an “acceptable” way for antisemites to express their hatred of Jews, and that conditioning aid to Israel will only unleash worldwide attacks on Israel, implying that the US should give Israel carte blanche to continue to slaughter Palestinians.

The only thing wrong with this argument is that MORE Israeli aggression and the strong possibility of drawing the US into Israel’s conflicts — exemplified by post-October 7th bombing attacks on the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran — is the result of NOT conditioning aid. And her insinuation that opposing Zionism is tantamount to yelling “Jews will not replace us” simply refuses to acknowledge any of the many valid criticisms of Zionism and the violence required to sustain it that were raised by Arabs and Jews alike long before the founding of the Israeli state.

As the Einstein letter indicates, Israel was founded on terror and expropriation of Palestinian territory. Fascist elements in the first Israeli state whom Einstein mentioned have now been joined by new ones. Just listen to Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir from the Kahanist Otzma Yehudit party. Listen to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who represents radical religious settlers. Both want Palestinians completely dead or gone. Listen to Likud Knesset member Revital Gotliv, who advocates nuking Gaza. Last week the English language podcast “Two Nice Jewish Boys” told listeners that if there was a button that could wipe out all Palestinians, they’d press it in a heartbeat. Moreover, they suggested, this is a widespread Israeli sentiment.

I certainly hope not, but I also hope that this is not what my American tax dollars are subsidizing since the US pays for between 15% and 20% of the Israeli military.

The ideology which founded Israel, sustains it, and makes possible the continued expropriation of Palestinian land and even personal property has a name — Zionism. For many of us — Jews included — Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism. Another Jew on the Wings Court posters was Hajo Meyer, a survivor of Auschwitz. This is his quote from the poster:

“Because Zionism was created by Mr. [Theodor] Herzl and others at the end of the 19th Century, and in that era it was commonplace to be colonialist, to be racist, to be super-nationalist, to adore the nation-state — so the idea of France for the French, Germany for the Germanics, and then some state for the Jews. They were very bad ideas and they all formed the basis for Zionism. […] Zionism and Judaism are contrary to each other. Because Judaism is universal and humane, and Zionism is exactly the opposite. It is very narrow, very nationalistic, racist, colonialist, and all this. There is no ‘National Judaism.’ There is Zionism and there is Judaism, and they are completely different.”

Just as Americans are right to fear Christian Nationalism and its ugly manifestations, we are equally right to reject “Jewish” Nationalism (in quotes because I agree with Hajo Meyer). Nationalisms and supremacist states of every stripe are repellent, and it is no more antisemitic to oppose Israel’s supremacist state than the “Christian” version MAGA America has lined up for us.

Zionism’s genocidal fantasies

Recently an episode of the podcast “Two Nice Jewish Boys” fantasized about slaughtering 6 million Palestinians. The video was taken down — but nothing ever disappears completely from the Internet.

Podcasters represent the Zionist mainstream

Naor Meningher and Eytan Weinstein have the longest-running English language podcast in Israel. The two, who met in film school, have been producing Two Nice Jewish Boys since 2016. They have a YouTube channel, they’re on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, SoundCloud, Podbean and others, and their podcast is syndicated on the Jerusalem Post. The duo also produce a second podcast, The Melting Podcast, which promotes moving to Israel. They pen dozens of Zionist-themed news articles every year for Jewish publications. These two guys are an entire cottage industry.

While anti-Israel opinions are quickly censored and de-platformed, none of the internet platforms these two sociopaths use have knocked them off the air yet — even though I’m pretty sure that calling for genocide is a violation of Apple’s, Google’s, and Overcast’s Acceptable Use policies.

So mainstream are these two, so in tune with Zionist attitudes within Israel and with Zionist policies defended from criticism outside the state, that the co-hosts have nothing to fear. Meningher and Weinstein not only have the rapt attention of Israeli society and Jewish English-language listeners worldwide, they have been interviewing mainstream Israeli and Zionist cultural figures for the better part of a decade. They appear on Israel’s most influential news outlets, are featured on virtually every important English language Jewish publication outside of Israel, and have extremely high level government and Zionist connections.

For instance, here they are interviewing Deborah Lipstadt, now America’s Antisemitism Czar with the U.S. State Department.

America’s antisemitism czar with two sociopaths

These two “nice Jewish boys” are as mainstream as you can get, so Weinstein’s assertion that genocide is a mainstream sentiment among most Jewish Israelis is particularly troubling — and, unfortunately, backed up by plenty of evidence.

Meningher is the producer of the podcast and has written hundreds of articles for: Arutz Sheva, which is identified with the Israeli settler movement; Israel National News, the English-language version of Arutz; Channel 7 News; and the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, a Zionist publication originally distributed by the Jewish Federation. Meningher’s website is currently down for “maintenance” but an archived portfolio highlights his skills in video production, setting up chatbots, and running political campaigns — including the five that he worked on for Benjamin Netanyahu.

)

Meningher working on Netanyahu’s campaigns

Eytan Weinstein was raised in Birmingham, Alabama. His father Gilbert is an associate professor of math and physics at Ariel University, built illegally on stolen Palestinian land in the West Bank. Weinstein junior has written for: Arutz Shevah and Israel National News; Channel 7 News; the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles; the Algemeiner Journal, originally a Yiddish publication whose board includes Martin Peretz (neocon, Islamophobe, and owner of The New Republic), Abe Foxman (former ADL President), and Malcolm Hoenlein (executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, founding executive director of the Greater New York Conference on Soviet Jewry, and head of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York).

The Times of Israel’s founder attacks liberal news outlets

Both Meningher and Weinstein write for the Times of Israel, published in English and funded by American hedge fund billionaire Seth Klarman (who donates to Birthright Taglit, founded the David Project, a now-defunct Hillel spinoff that attacked academics critical of Israel, and funds other Zionist attack groups). The Times of Israel also hosts New York’s Jewish Week, Britain’s Jewish News, the New Jersey Jewish Standard, Atlanta Jewish Times, Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, and Australian Jewish News — many of which Meningher and Weinstein write for as well.

These guys are not just mainstream themselves — their audiences are as well.

Turns out, genocide is a mainstream Zionist sentiment

When South Africa filed charges of genocide with the International Court of Justice, one of the submissions to the Court was a list of 500+ instances in which prominent Israelis had called for genocide on Palestinians. It seems that every other day an Israeli politician calls for Palestinians — dehumanized as “animals,” “Nazis,” or “Amalek” — to be nuked, slaughtered, expelled, burned, tortured, or executed. “Death to Arabs,” “Muhammad is Dead,” and “Burn Your Village” are widely shouted at soccer games, graffitied on Arab homes, and shouted at nationalist rallies.

In an interview on Israeli channel 13 last December, former Knesset MK Danny Neumann said, “I tell you, in Gaza without exception, they are all terrorists, sons of dogs. They must be terminated, all of them must be killed. […] We will flatten Gaza, turn them to dust, and the army will cleanse the area. Then we will start building new areas for us, above all …”

And Israel’s war on Gaza has matched this genocidal fixation on a Final Solution for Palestinians. With few targets left to bomb in Gaza, the West Bank is now being destroyed, its land annexed at a furious pace, while pogroms have become a daily occurrence. For Palestinians every night is Kristallnacht.

Israel has now almost completely demolished Gaza and slaughtered nearly 41,000 people (or more) with 2000 pound ordnance and bunker busters. Despite this, according to a Tel Aviv University poll, 58% of Israelis say that the IDF has deployed “too little firepower” on Palestinian civilians. Israeli politicians are less and less inhibited about calling for Palestinian erasure. And there is now absolutely zero appetite for protecting the civil rights of, or listening to, the Palestinian citizens of Israel who are treated as a fifth column.

According to a Pew Research Center survey conducted last April, 70% of Jewish Israelis (versus 18% of Arab Israelis) want social media content sympathetic to Palestinian civilians to be censored. There is widespread censorship in Israel. Loyalty oaths, arrests, intimidation and purges in Israeli universities have become routine. As Russia, criticizing the war on Gaza has severe consequences.

In 2016 Israel passed legislation that assumes that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are all hostile to the state. Of course, Zionism almost by definition is antithetical to universal human rights. An analysis of the bill showed virtually every anti-occupation or human rights group, including B’Tselem, ACRI, Ir Amim, Gisha, Breaking the Silence, or Zochrot, would be severely limited by the law. Only two days ago, Likud Party Member of the Knesset Revitaly Gotliv asked prosecutors to arrest B’Tselem’s executive director Yuli Novak for “assistance to the enemy in war,” a charge that carries the death penalty.

In August 2014 the Times of Israel published an article titled “When Genocide is Permissible” by Yochanan Gordon, sales manager for an Orthodox newspaper owned by his father that serves five New York boroughs. Gordon’s post was eventually taken down but was saved elsewhere. Gordon wrote that President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry approved of Israel’s right to defend itself, that Prime Minister Netanyahu had stated that the 2014 invasion of Gaza was “protective,” and that any government has a right to ensure the safety of its people; so therefore:

“If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals?”

Gordon’s post was retracted after complaints. But after issuing an initial and insincere apology in which he said he had been misunderstood, Gordon then doubled down on his argument for genocide in a Tweet:

“The existence of Israel and the Jewish people is at stake. How do you suggest we neutralize the threat?”

Just as with Gordon’s post, the “Two Nice Jewish Boys” podcast has been disavowed by a few fellow Zionists, to the tune of “these are not our Zionist values.”

But it’s clear that Zionism has run out of ideas. For Israel, there are really only two options: either share Palestine with the Palestinians — an option Zionists reject outright — or carry out extermination, pogroms, and genocide.

You only need to watch the news to see which option Israel really believes in.

Lying about genocide

In the early 70’s I was working in Germany, living in a low-rent district near the train station in a small city in Baden-Württemberg. I occasionally watched the evening news with my elderly landlady, who had grown up in the same building she now rented out. After a news segment touching on Germany’s Nazi past I asked her what she and her parents had known of the trains that took Jews to their deaths from the train station just a few blocks away: “Gar nichts!” (absolutely nothing) was her emphatic and earnest-sounding response.

Of course this was a lie — millions of people had been arrested, stripped of their possessions, spirited away on a vast transportation network constructed expressly for an extermination project, gassed and turned into powder all over Europe. Sports facilities in some cities were not available to the public because they had been commandeered as staging areas for concentration camp transport.

The Nazis began their Reinigung (cleansing) in 1939 by first “euthanizing” disabled and mentally-ill family members of even non-Jews. The photo above of a work party from Dachau was taken by a German civilian who simply snapped it from his balcony in 1945.

For years atrocities went on under everyone’s eyes. Who could not have known?

The Holocaust, just like today’s Gaza genocide, was no secret to either the Nazis or the Allied powers. Every Western power simply ignored the Holocaust, denied it, cast doubt on its scope and scale, or lied about the desperate plight of Jews when asked to help save their fellow human beings. For these Western powers, Jews were apparently not fully human.

In 1943, shortly before Yom Kippur, 400 rabbis marched on Washington to plead with Franklin Delano Roosevelt to rescue European Jews from the ovens. FDR, a Democrat like any today, myopically focused on domestic issues, told the rabbis to go take a hike. FDR also made no effort to destroy German rail infrastructure critical to the transport of so many to mass slaughter, even when advised it would save lives. Fortunately for FDR, social media hadn’t yet been invented to document his sins of omission and commission.

The 1917 Balfour Declaration, addressed to Lord Rothschild and conveyed to the British Zionist Federation, which “gave” Palestine for Jewish settlement, was not offered out of love but in order to facilitate British Jews leaving the country, and also to raise money for the war effort. British antisemitism also determined the response to the desperate plight of European Jews. As Louise London documents in “Whitehall and the Jews: 1933-1948,” the British government had no use for refugees, especially more Jews. Britain simply let them die, like FDR.

This is more or less where we are today with Palestinians — the world’s new Jews. But this time, rather than simply ignoring mass atrocities and loss of life, Western colonial powers are actually contributing to the genocide through arms sales, diplomatic cover, boots on the ground, and boats in the Gulf — and then lying about it, denying the root cause of the conflict, disputing the severity of human suffering, defending the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians, and recycling propaganda points provided by the Israeli Foreign Ministry and a galaxy of domestic lobbying groups that serve only Israel’s interests.

The biggest lie of all is that this is a war Israel is waging to protect itself. Like a parody of the Manchurian Candidate (“Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life”), politician after politician gets up before the cameras, repeating virtually the same words, “Israel has a right to defend itself and has the ironclad support of the United States,” when referring to a slow-motion genocide.

This is a genocide that began — not as a response to October 7th, 2023 — but with the massacres, terror, and mass-expulsions of Palestinians by Yishuv (pre-Israel) terrorist groups in 1947 that created the state of Israel. American support for this has led to decades of loss, dispossession, and exile for Palestinians. Now, led by Israel’s most far-right government of all time, including nationalists literally calling for genocide, Americans are still siding with the original perpetrator and waving away the latest genocide.

Think of all the genocides we have managed to ignore in our lifetime. Some of the blame is personal. Sticking one’s head in the sand when faced with horrific barbarity — especially from our so-called “friends” — and having no real political power to stop it, seems to be a reaction typical of the human societies and governments we have inherited.

Local newspapers play their part in keeping us unaware or distracted by mindless fluff. This is what the New Bedford Standard Times has written about Gaza: virtually nothing. The New Bedford Light, originally conceived to shed light on important topics (and I would include Gaza), has refused for the better part of a year to report on local efforts to stop the slaughter in Gaza. These publications apparently regard genocide as not “newsworthy” — or their timidity betrays political bias or a fear of alienating sponsors and advertisers.

When the media is not deep-sixing articles on Gaza, mass-producing fluff, or blatantly censoring its reporters, it pulls on its fatigues and boots and ten-huts, proudly serving in the propaganda wars that obscure the history of Israel’s colonization of Palestine or de-contextualize the conflict. Too many news sources, notably the New York Times, demonstrate lazy journalism, outright bias, violations of professional ethics, or simply toss journalistic standards in the dumpster.

In politics, consider also how institutionalized the denial of the Gaza genocide has become throughout government, Republican and Democrat alike. Even with widespread knowledge of the scope of destruction — and Gaza is the best-documented genocide in world history — Western “democracies” still do exactly what my old German landlady did: deny, deflect, and lie.

And if you’re a nationalist propagandist or lobbyist or a politician receiving money from any of them — Christian Nationalist or Zionist, it makes no difference — you follow the Narcissist’s playbook — deny, attack, and make yourself the victim. And there seems to be a willing market for their disinformation.

In the case of Gaza, there is no information deficit, nor is there a deficit of empathy and humanity. Despite the moral darkness of this politically-unchallenged genocide and the sheer madness of a nation which exploits the phrase “never again” while actually doing it again, I still believe in the inherent decency of humankind and refuse to accept that a majority of us values life so cheaply as our politicians.

And polls confirm my woolly-headed, idealistic views — a majority of Americans want a ceasefire and disapprove of Israel’s crimes against humanity and the Zionist nation’s genocidal destruction of Gaza. Americans are, truly, decent people. But they are also mute and spineless, too fond of their vast military, too attached to the creature comforts an advanced Capitalist economy provides, too credulous when fed heaping, stinking propaganda.

As a consequence we have a foreign policy and a hyper-aggressive militarism no one ever wanted and no one ever voted for, almost always imposed on the world’s most oppressed people. This is what Americans call “democracy” without a trace of irony.

In my own lifetime our nation has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people — slaughtered in the name of anti-communism, or the war on terror, or the war on drugs, or for “peacekeeping” missions, or in the “defense” of authoritarian, repressive regimes, and — now — as a willing participant in a genocide. Americans not only have blood on our hands; we are dipping them into a bucket of blood every day we remain complicit in the elimination of Gaza.

For More and More Jewish Americans, Zionism Looks Like

Zionism — White Christian Nationalism’s kissing cousin — has been the* problem in Palestine for 82 years, and it is increasingly difficult or career-ending to say this out loud in public. Nowadays anyone — Jews included — who criticizes Zionism is accused of antisemitism. This is patently absurd, especially since anti-Zionism has a long history within Judaism itself. The* American Council for Judaism is a group of anti-Zionists within Reform Judaism who have been extremely vocal for 82 years that Zionism is not Judaism, and for Judaism to make a central place for Zionism in American Jewish life is a terrible mistake. For more on the history of Jews opposing Zionism, see my November 2023 piece. The following post is reproduced with the kind permission of the author, Allan C. Brownfeld. You can subscribe to the ACJNA’s newsletter here.

For More and More Jewish Americans, Zionism Looks Like a Dangerous Wrong Turn

Allan C. Brownfeld — Issues Spring – Summer 2024

In recent months increasing attention has been focused upon developments in the Middle East. The October 7 terrorist assault on Israel by Hamas and Israel’s response, which has already cost the lives of more than 34,000* Palestinians, including thousands of women and children, has focused attention upon the way in which Zionism has come to dominate American Jewish life.

More and more Jewish Americans are coming to the conclusion that Zionism was a dangerous wrong turn for American Judaism, as the American Council for Judaism has argued from the beginning. In the Council’s view, Judaism is a religion of universal values, not a nationality. American Jews are American by nationality and Jews by religion, just as other Americans are Protestant, Catholic or Muslim. Zionism, on the other hand, argues that, somehow, Israel is the “homeland” of all Jews, and Jews living elsewhere are in “exile.” Zionism has come to dominate American Jewish life, with Israeli flags on synagogue pulpits and Jewish schools promoting the idea that emigration to Israel is the highest ideal for Jewish young people.

Much of American Judaism seems to place the state of Israel in the position of a virtual object of worship, a form of pagan idolatry much like the worship of the golden calf in the Bible. This is not Judaism, which is a religion of universal values dedicated to the long Jewish moral and ethical tradition which declares that men and women of every racial and ethnic background are created in the image of God.

Jewish Americans Are Not In “Exile”

Jewish Americans are not, as Zionism proclaims, in “exile,” but are very much at home, and always have been. In 1841, in the dedication of America’s first Reform synagogue in Charleston, South Carolina, Rabbi Gustav Poznanski told the congregation, “This country is our Palestine, this city our Jerusalem, this house of God our temple.”

Zionism, many forget, was a minority view in Jewish life until the rise of Nazism in Europe. Even then, many Jewish voices warned against substituting nationalism for the humane and universal Jewish prophetic tradition. In 1938, alluding to Nazism, Albert Einstein warned an audience of Zionist activists against the temptation to create a state imbued with “a narrow nationalism within our own ranks against which we have already had to fight strongly even without a Jewish state.”

The prominent Jewish philosopher Martin Buber spoke out in 1942 against “the aim of the minority to ‘conquer’ territory by means of international maneuvers.” From Jerusalem, where he was teaching at the Hebrew University, Buber, speaking at the time hostilities broke out after Israel unilaterally declared independence in May 1948, cried with despair, “This sort of ‘Zionism’ blasphemes the name of Zion; it is nothing more than one of the crude forms of nationalism.”

A Rupture in American Jewish Life

In an article titled “The Great Rupture in American Jewish Life” (New York Times, March 22, 2024), Peter Beinart, an editor of Jewish Currents, notes that, “For the last decade or so, an ideological tremor has been unsettling American Jewish life. Since Oct. 7, it has become an earthquake. It concerns the relationship between liberalism and Zionism, two creeds that for more than half a century have defined American Jewish identity. In the years to come, American Jews will face growing pressure to choose between them.”

Beinart points out that, “The American Jews who are making a different choice — jettisoning Zionism because they can’t reconcile it with the liberal principle of equality under the law…their numbers are larger than many recognize, especially among millennials and Generation Z…The emerging rupture between American liberalism and American Zionism constitutes the greatest transformation in American Jewish life for decades to come.”

American Jews, wrote Albert Vorspan, a leader of Reform Judaism in 1988, “have made of Israel an icon—a surrogate faith, surrogate synagogue, surrogate God.” In the years to come, Peter Beinart believes, “For an American Jewish establishment that equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, these anti-Zionist Jews are inconvenient. There’s nothing antisemitic about envisioning a future in which Palestinians and Jews coexist on the basis of legal equality rather than Jewish supremacy…For many decades, American Jews have built our political identity on contradictions. Pursue equal citizenship here; defend group supremacy there. Now, here and there are converging. In the years to come we will have to choose.”

No Liberal Rights for Palestinians

Many are in the process of choosing now. Noah Feldman, the Harvard Law School professor and First Amendment scholar, and author of the book “To Be a Jew Today,” declares: “Today, many progressive American Jews find it difficult to see Israel as a genuine liberal democracy, mostly because some 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank live under Israeli authority with no realistic prospect of liberal rights.” Shaul Magid, a professor of Modern Jewish Studies at Dartmouth College, says, “In my view, the Zionist narrative, even in its more liberal forms, cultivates an exclusivity and proprietary ethos that too easily slides into ethnonational chauvinism.” Oren Kroc-Zeldin, director of Jewish Studies at the University of San Francisco, says that “Jewish liberation in Israel was predicated on the oppression and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.” He says he rejects “a monolithic Pro-Israel identity.”

Within Reform Judaism, there have been calls for a move away from Zionism. A letter signed by more than 1200 alumni and current members of the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) addressed to the organization on Dec. 16,2023 declares, “We grieve for the 1,200 killed during Hamas’s Oct. 7th attack and the more than 18,000 Palestinians killed by the Israeli military—almost half of whom have been children —since then. Israel has cut off water, electricity, fuel and supplies to Gaza. We are deeply concerned that tax dollars have been so easily provided to support Israel’s military assault on Gaza, while we struggle for the basic needs of our communities.”

The letter declares that “The URJ teaches practicing Pikuach Nefeshz, ‘saving a life,’ and Tikkun Olam, ‘repairing the world.’ An immediate cease-fire is in line with these Jewish values.”

“Atrocities committed In Our Name

At the same time, a letter was released from descendants of progressive rabbis and leaders to express “our horror at URJ’s failure to call for a cease-fire in Gaza. We are alarmed that the leadership of our community has not demanded an end to Israel’s devastating violence against Palestinians in addition to the safe and immediate return of the hostages…A decades-long campaign to dehumanize Palestinians has hardened the American Jewish community’s hearts. Atrocities are being committed in our name. We do not consider the killing of thousands of innocent civilians to be a justifiable consequence of ensuring our community’s protection.”

The letter concludes: “The URJ continues to actively alienate alumni with its uncompromising Zionist rhetoric…We will reconsider our and the next generation’s membership and support for the URJ unless there is a public and dramatic shift in the way the movement addresses Israel.”

Among the original signers of the letter are Zippy Janas, a descendant of Rabbi Julius Rappaport, Chana Powell, daughter of current URJ rabbi Talia Yudkin Toffany, and Zachariah Sippy, son of Rabbi David Wirtschaffer.

Reform Jews for Justice

At the same time, an organization called Reform Jews for Justice has been established (https://reformjewsforjustice.com). It declares that “As Reform Jews we stand together for Justice in solidarity with Palestine. We unite in our values to call for a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and an end to U.S. military aid to Israel. …We have come together to call on our movement to engage in Solidarity with Palestine. We envision a Reform Jewish movement that…rejects the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism…The URJ leaders have unabashedly demonstrated shameful tactics of ethno-nationalism and tribal political priorities over simple ethics and the illegitimate and dangerous conflation of Zionism and Judaism. We have been alienated from the movement that raised us to ask, ‘If I am only for myself, what am I?’—through binary language suggesting that our affiliation is conditional on Zionism. We will not stand by.”

In recent years, there has been a growing effort to redefine “antisemitism” to include not simply bigotry toward Jews and Judaism, but also criticism of Israel and Zionism. In May 2022, Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) declared that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” Ignoring the long history of Jewish opposition to Zionism, he has been strenuously promoting this false and ahistoric notion ever since. Some Israelis admit that falsely equating anti- Zionism with antisemitism is a tactic to silence criticism of Israel. Shulamit Aloni, a former Israeli Minister of Education, and winner of the Israel Prize, described how this works: “It’s a trick. We always use it. When from Europe, somebody criticizes Israel, we bring up the Holocaust. When in the United States, people are critical of Israel, then they are antisemitic.”

The tactic of equating criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism has come under widespread criticism. Writing in Slate (April 29, 2024), Emily Tamkin headlined her article, “The ADL has abandoned some of the people it exists to protect: For those with the wrong opinions, the group is now a threat to Jewish Safety.”

Muddying The Waters About Antisemitism

Tamkin writes: “Over the past six months, Jonathan Greenblatt, head of the ADL, has stressed repeatedly that he is concerned about rising antisemitism. Unfortunately, he has also made clear that he cares about antisemitism only as he defines it and as it affects people who agree with him on the definition…The ADL… is insisting on conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism and it has made its conflation central to the ADL’s work. This has not only muddied the waters of its own antisemitism research, it has also undermined the safety, security, and pluralism of American Jews.”

One example is the fact that ADL evidently mapped protests for a cease-fire led by the Jewish groups Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow as “antisemitic incidents” on its calculation of how much antisemitism has risen. This makes it more difficult to assess the year-over-year change in antisemitic incidents. Tamkin notes that, “Of course, an increase will seem more dramatic if you are now counting incidents, you weren’t before—but it also arguably undermines the rest of the ADL’s reporting of antisemitism.”

When it comes to Jonathan Greenblatt, a story in Jewish Currents from 2021 revealed that former ADL employees felt that Greenblatt was choosing defense of Israel over protecting civil liberties, one of the group’s- stated missions. In March 2023, Jewish Currents published a report on internal dissent at ADL over Greenblatt publishing a report comparing pro-Palestinian groups to the extreme right. Greenblatt has compared pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia University to the explicitly neo-Nazi march in 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia. He likened the group Jewish Voice for Peace to the terrorist group Hezbollah and called it an “on campus proxy for Iran.”

Younger Jews Disconnected from Israel

In Emily Tamkin’s view, “I wonder how likening a Jewish student group to a terrorist organization helps stop the defamation of the Jewish people, or scores justice and fair treatment to all…Younger American Jews are increasingly critical of and feel disconnected from Israel. The Pew 2020 study on American Jews found 51% of those between the ages of 18 and 29 were not emotionally connected at all to Israel…Young American Jews were “less likely to view antisemitism as ‘a very serious problem.’…Greenblatt is failing to stand up for the rights of all American Jews. He is using his position to make clear that some Jews are more worthy of protection and political representation than others. He’ll have powerful allies, including non-Jews who have made common cause with open antisemites.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu falsely described student protestors on behalf of Palestinian rights as “antisemitic mobs” and likened the demonstrations to “what happened in German universities in the 1930s.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (IND-VT), who is Jewish and lost members of his family in the Holocaust, pushed back against Netanyahu’s characterization of the pro-Palestinian demonstrations. He declared to Netanyahu: “It is not antisemitic to point out that your bombing has completely destroyed more than 221,000 housing units in Gaza, leaving more than one million people homeless—almost half the population.”

Sanders continued: “Antisemitism is a vile and disgusting form of bigotry that has done unspeakable things to many millions of people. But please do not insult the intelligence of the American people by attempting to distract us from the illegal and immoral policies of your extremist and racist government. Do not use antisemitism to deflect attention from the criminal indictment you are facing in Israeli courts.”

Protesting Against Slaughter Is Not Antisemitism

Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor and now professor of public philosophy at the University of California at Berkeley, writing in The Guardian (April 3, 2024) makes the point that, “Protesting against this slaughter is not expressing antisemitism. It is not engaging in hate speech. It is not endangering Jewish students. It is doing what should be done on a college campus —taking a stand against a perceived wrong, thereby provoking discussion and debate.”

In the view of Robert Reich, who is Jewish, “Education is all about provocation. Without being provoked—stirred, unsettled, goaded—even young minds can remain stuck in old tracks…The Israel-Hamas war is horrifying. The atrocities committed by both sides illustrate the capacities of human beings for inhumanity, show the vile consequences of hate. Or it presents an opportunity for students to re- examine their preconceptions and learn from one another…Peaceful demonstrations should be encouraged, not shut down…To tar all offensive speech ‘hate speech’ and ban it removes a central pillar of education…”

Jewish critics of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians are receiving increasing attention. The Forward (May 6, 2024) carried a feature article with the headline, “This 100-year-old Jewish activist is speaking up again—this time about Gaza.” It reports that, “Jules Rabin stood at the busiest intersection of Montpelier, Vermont in early April with snow still on the sidewalks, protesting the war in Gaza. Accompanied by about 75 friends and family members —holding a sign that asked, ‘How could the Nazi genocide of Jews 1933-45 be followed by the Israeli genocide of Palestinians today?’ He was celebrating his 100th birthday.”

“A Piecemeal Holocaust”

Jules Rabin, a World War 11 veteran, graduate of Harvard, former Goddard College professor and a pioneer in Vermont’s bread-making renaissance who, with his wife, ran a bakery for more than 40 years, appeared on a podcast on the nonprofit Vermont Digger. He referred to the tragedy unfolding in Gaza as a “piecemeal Holocaust.” He told podcast host David Goodman that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza “resembles what the Germans did to Jews in the Warsaw ghetto and everywhere else in Europe.” In Rabin’s view, the Jewish claim for restitution after World War 11 should have resulted in the Germans awarding Prussia or Bavaria to the Jewish people. Concerning the latest news from Gaza and the West Bank, Rabin says, “One can’t look the other way when something dreadful is going on.”

In May, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would enshrine a contentious definition of antisemitism into U.S. law. The Antisemitic Awareness Act (AAA) passed the House by a wide margin. It mandates government civil rights offices to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This definition has drawn widespread criticism because most of its examples of antisemitism involve criticism of the state of Israel, such as calling it a “racist endeavor.”

If this bill is passed by the Senate, which will consider it at a later date, it would mean that this definition would apply when officials adjudicate Title V1 complaints alleging campus antisemitism. Opponents say it chills legitimate criticism of Israel. The bill passed by a vote of 320-91. Opponents of the IHRA definition include Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), the House’s longest serving Jewish member. He declared that “Speech that is critical of Israel alone does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title V1’s ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.”

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (May 2, 2024) reported that, “Americans for Peace Now, a dovish pro-Israel group worried that the bill, should it become law, would be used as ‘a cudgel against the millions of Americans, including many Jewish Americans, who object to the Netanyahu government’s decisions and actions.”

Jewish Critics of AAA Legislation

Even some members of the Jewish establishment are critical of the AAA legislation. Alan Solow, who serves on the board of the Nexus leadership Project and is a former Chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, wrote this in The Forward (May 3, 2024): “Distinctions…are vital for developing strategies to fight this prejudice. If those with whom we disagree about Israel—sometimes vehemently—are labeled antisemitic without regard to nuance or context —they will not join us in coalition against anti- Jewish bigotry…A viable strategy against this scourge…must recognize this….It cannot ignore…the diversity that exists in this country, a diversity reflected in an intense debate about Israel within the Jewish community, on college campuses as beyond…If the Senate passes the AAA, it will alienate our political allies, including stalwart supporters of Jewish causes and Israel, and narrow the coalition we need to confront the spread of antisemitism.”

An editorial, “Not in Our Name” appeared in the Jewish journal Tablet (May 3,2024). It declared, “There is no exception for hate speech in the Constitution —it is not, according to the Constitution of the United States of America, illegal to say that the State of Israel ‘has no right to exist’…No governmental authority has the standing to penalize you for (making such a statement) …That includes Congress. The fact that a word or idea is annoying or upsetting to you —or us! —does not make it illegal.”

Tablet declares that “This includes the phrase ‘From the River to the sea,’ which the House of Representatives voted to condemn last month. This is wrong. No citizen of America, Jewish or not, should support the condemnation of speech by those whose conditional authority is entrusted to them by the people. You are American citizens. However noxious your beliefs, as long as they stay beliefs, they should be done the business of government.”

Danger Of “Weaponizing Antisemitism”

The staff attorney for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Chris Godshall-Bennett, who is Jewish, provided this assessment: “In weaponizing antisemitism by equating it with criticism of Israel, this bill evades the fundamental principles of free expression and academic freedom. As a Jewish person, who stands hand-in-hand with my Palestinian brothers and sisters, and who works daily against anti-Arab hate, I found this weaponization of my identity particularly disgusting. Criticism of Zionism and of the Israeli government is not antisemitism and conflating this only serves to provide cover for Israel’s ongoing human rights abuses in violation of international law…”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) strongly condemned the House of Representatives for passing this legislation (H.R. 6090) which, it declared, threatens to censor political speech critical of Israel on college campuses under the guise of addressing antisemitism. Christopher Zanders, director of ACLU’s Democracy and Technology Policy Division declared that “The House’s approval of this misguided and harmful bill is a direct attack on the First Amendment. Addressing rising antisemitism is critically important, but criticizing America’s free speech rights is not the way to solve the problem. This bill would throw the full weight of the federal government behind an effort to stifle criticism of Israel and risks politicizing the enforcement of federal civil rights statutes precisely when their robust protections are most needed. The Senate must block this bill that undermines the First Amendment protections before it is too late.”

As a recent ACLU letter to Congress made clear, a federal law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities, and the Antisemitism Awareness Act is not needed to protect Jewish students from discrimination. Additionally, as the Supreme Court ruled more than fifty years ago in the landmark decision of Healy v. James, “This Court leaves no room for the view that, because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large. Quite to the contrary, the vigilant protection of Constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of America’s schools.”

“Netanyahu Making Israel Radioactive”

Many of Israel’s longtime supporters are expressing dismay over recent events. In a column, “Netanyahu is making Israel Radioactive” (New York Times, March 12, 2024), columnist Thomas Friedman writes: “Israel today is in grave danger, with enemies like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran, Israel should be enjoying the sympathy of much of the world. But it is not. Because of the way Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist coalition have been conducting the war in Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank, Israel is becoming radioactive…”.

Friedman argues that “I fear it is about to get worse…No fair-minded person could deny Israel the right of self-defense after the Hamas attack…But no fair-minded person can look at the Israeli campaign…that has killed more than 30,000 Palestinians in Gaza…and not conclude that something has gone terribly wrong there. The dead include thousands of children, and the survivors many orphans… This is a stain on the Jewish state…Netanyahu has sent the IDF into Gaza without a coherent plan for governing it after any Hamas dismantling or cease-fire…Israel has a prime minister who apparently would rather see Gaza devolve into Somalia, ruled by warlords…than partner with the Palestinian Authority or any legitimate broad-based non-Hamas Palestinian governing body because his far-right Cabinet allies also dream of Israel controlling all of the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, including Gaza, and will oust him from power if he does.”

In an important and much discussed article entitled “We Need an Exodus from Zionism” (The Guardian April 24, 2024), Naomi Klein, a Guardian columnist and director of the Centre for Climate Justice at the University of British Columbia, writes: “I’ve been thinking about Moses and his rage when he came down from the Mount to find the Israelites worshipping a golden calf. It is about false idols, about the human tendency to worship the profane and shiny, to look to the small and material rather than the large and transcendent.”

Worshipping A False Idol

In Klein’s view, “Too many of our people are worshipping a false idol once again… Zionism is a false idol that has taken the idea of the promised land and turned it onto a deed of sale for a militaristic ethnostate. It is a false idol that takes our most profound biblical stories of Justice and emancipation from slavery —the story of Passover itself—and turned them into brutalist weapons of colonial land theft, road maps for ethnic cleansing and genocide.”

The whole concept of a “promised land” has, Klein declares, become “a false idol that has taken the transcendent idea of the promised land — a metaphor for human liberation that has traveled across multiple faiths to every corner of this globe —-and dared to turn it into a deed of sale for a militaristic ethnic state… Political Zionism’s version of liberation is itself profane. From the start, it required the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and ancestral lands in the Nakba…Zionism has brought us to our current moment of cataclysm and it is time that we said it clearly: it has always been leading here….It is a false idol that has led far too many of our people down a deeply immoral path that now has them justifying the shredding of core Commandments: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet…We seek to elevate Judaism from an ethnostate that wants Jews to be perennially afraid.”

More and more One-time advocates of Zionism have moved away from this position. One of these is Daniel Boyarin, professor of Talmudic Culture Emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley. In his book, “The No-State Solution, A Jewish Manifesto” (Yale University Press), he writes, “I was a Zionist in my youth. In those years, I thought of myself as a left-wing Zionist. I was very active in Habonim (a Socialist Zionist youth movement). I think I ultimately caught the leftism and socialism more than the Zionism. And when it became clear to me that I had to make a choice, I finally realized I had to let the Zionism go. That choice came when Yitzhak Rabin stated that the Israeli Army should break the legs of Palestinian kids who threw stones at soldiers. I asked at that time, what is this cruel idea of breaking the arms and legs of little boys? And somebody explained to me that this was necessary in order to maintain the state. I said, if that’s necessary…then the state is clearly a wrong thing…I remember the first time I wanted to say I was an anti-Zionist…. I couldn’t say the words. That’s how hard it was for me.”

For Dr. Boyarin, “…the dilemma is how to maintain a truly, vital, authentic, rich, lively and compelling Jewish cultural life without falling into the kinds of nationalism and ethnocentrism that we find all over the world today.”

Zionism Was a Minority View

Zionism, many now forget, has, before the Holocaust, always been a minority view among Jews. It seems likely that it is on its way to becoming a minority view once again. Only during the period of the Holocaust, when Jews were endangered by Nazism, did the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine gain support. The fact that Palestine was already fully populated was largely ignored. Deena Dallasheh, a historian of Palestine and Israel who has taught at Columbia University and Rice University, told the New York Times ((Feb. 4, 2024) that, “The Holocaust was a horrible massacre committed by Europeans. But I don’t think the Palestinians figure that they will have to pay for it. Yet the world sees this as an acceptable equation. Orientalist and colonial ideology were very much at the heart of thinking, that while we Europeans and the U.S. were part of this massive human tragedy, we are going to fix it at the expense of someone else. And the someone else is not important because they are Arabs. They’re Palestinians and thus constructed as not important.”

Most Jews historically believed that their Jewish identity rests on their religious faith, not any national identification. Jews in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, Italy and other countries never viewed themselves living in “exile,” as Zionist philosophy holds. Instead, they believe that their religion and nationality are separate and distinct. The God they believe in is a universal God, not tied to a particular geographic site in the Middle East.

An early leader of Reform Judaism, Rabbi Abraham Geiger, pointed out in the 19th century that the underlying essence of Judaism was ethical monotheism. The Jewish people were a religious community destined to carry on the mission to “serve as a light to the nations,” to bear witness to God and His moral law. The dispersion of the Jews was not a punishment for their sins, but part of God’s plan whereby they were to disseminate the universal message of ethical monotheism.

Not A Nation but A Religious Community

In 1885, Reform rabbis meeting in Pittsburgh adopted a platform which declared, “We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community.” In 1897, the Central Conference of American Rabbis adopted a resolution disapproving of any attempt to establish a Jewish state and declaring that, “America is our Zion.” In 1904, The American Israelite declared, “There is not one solitary native Jewish-American who is an advocate of Zionism.”

To the question of whether Jews constitute “a people,” Yeshayahua Leibowitz, the Orthodox Jewish thinker and long-time Hebrew University professor, provides this assessment: “The historical Jewish people was defined neither as a race , nor a people of this country or that, nor as a people which speaks the same language, but as the people of Torah Judaism and its commandments…The words spoken by Rabbi Saadia Gaon (882-942) more than a thousand years ago: ‘Our nation exists only within the Torah’ have not only a normative but also an empirical meaning. They testified to a historical reality whose power could be felt up until the 19th century. It was then that the fracture which has not ceased to widen with time, first occurred: the fissure between Jewishness and Judaism.”

An early leader of the American Council for Judaism, Rabbi Irving Reichart of San Francisco, made his first significant declaration of opposition to Zionism in a January 1936 sermon: “If my reading of Jewish history is correct, Israel took upon itself the yoke of the law not in Palestine, but in the wilderness at Mt. Sinai and by far the greater part of its deathless and distinguished contribution to world culture was produced not in Palestine but in Babylon and the lands of the Dispersion. Jewish states may rise and fall, as they have risen and fallen in the past, but the people of Israel will continue to minister at the altar of the Most High God in all the lands in which they dwell…There is too dangerous a parallel between the insistence of some Zionist spokesmen upon nationality and race and blood, and similar pronouncements by Fascist leaders in Europe.”

Zionism: A Dangerous Wrong Turn

In America at the present time, Zionism looks to more and more Jewish Americans like a dangerous wrong turn. Those who resisted Zionism from the beginning appear to have been prophetic in their warnings and misgivings. Let us hope that prophetic, universal Judaism will be restored.

You can subscribe to the ACJNA’s newsletter at https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/sl/CA1wEC4

What, do you support Hamas?

Anyone who opposes Israel’s genocidal wars is smeared as a Hamas sympathizer. I got my first taste of this myself in 2009 when I visited then-Massachusetts Senator John Kerry’s office in Washington, DC to lobby against US support for Israel’s “Cast Lead” operation, which was a smaller version of today’s genocidal war on Gaza. I was asked, and I quote, “What, do you support Hamas?”

I concluded at the time that the Senator, who had just replaced Joe Biden as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee, was an evil bastard incapable of understanding that opposing war crimes and disproportionate force was not at all the same as supporting terror — which by the way he seemed to define extremely narrowly since Israel wasn’t included.

When Kerry eventually became Barack Obama’s Secretary of State, the evil bastard hypothesis was confirmed, though I then understood that Kerry’s understanding of terrorism would never include his own government’s drones, assassinations, black sites, black ops, wars of choice, regime change, or support for proxy regimes that also used terror and repression. Kerry, like most American politicians, is a disappointing creature of empire not unlike his many simulacra at the DNC convention this week.

With thanks to Mehdi Hasan, who was hounded from MSNBC for his outspoken views on Palestine, here’s a list of a few others who have gotten the same treatment. It turns out you don’t have to argue for human rights or against genocide to get on this not-at-all exclusive list; you simply have to have a momentary lapse of conscience or exhibit involuntary shock at how depraved imperialism and capitalism are.

Amnesty International, AOC, Bella Hadid, Ben & Jerry’s, Bernie Sanders, Billy Eilish, Cate Blanchett, Charlotte Church, Children in Gaza, Chuck Schumer, College students, Cori Bush, Elizabeth Warren, EU Foreign Affairs chief, Gary Lineker, Harvard, Hostages’ families, Human Rights Watch, Ice-skating young people, IfNotNow, Jake Tapper, Jewish professors, Jewish Voice For Peace (JVP), Joe Biden, John Cusack, John Oliver, Jonathan Glazer, José Andrés, Kamala Harris, Keir Starmer, Kenneth Roth, Mayor of London, Ms. Rachel, Norman Finkelstein, Oxford University Press, Pramila Jayapal, South Africa, Spain, State Department, Susan Sarandon, United Nations, UN humanitarian chief, UNRWA, UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine, World Health Organization, and Zara Larsson.

Impunity

The October 7th attack on Israel may have been Israel’s 9/11 but it was also a defining moment in American politics. As Israel unleashed its genocidal response, which has now destroyed almost all of Gaza, left 2.3 million homeless and snuffed out at least 40,000 lives, Americans had a choice to make. Instead of locating their moral center and preventing a barbarous human rights abuse, America sided with an ongoing, historical injustice and — as usual — against the rule of law.

But the culture of impunity that shields Israel is the same that shields our own politicians from accountability and justifies almost every injustice in this country. Our culture of impunity exists because we have always worshipped at the altar of raw power instead of true democracy.

The particular intensity of the cruelty and the barbarity of hounding 2.3 million people from one place to another, then bombing them, using crude AI models to target 100 civilians for every suspected Hamas commander, and the use of massive American munitions — all made a lie of Israel’s claims of “surgical” strikes against terrorists.

Israel’s genocidal violence, accompanied by numerous Israeli public and political expressions of genocidal intent, finally got to some Americans. Many for the first time — including a large proportion of young American Jews — began to examine the sickness and inconsistency of our foreign policy and to connect these with the sickness of our domestic institutions that rhyme so well with it.

The disproportionate Israeli Blitzkrieg on Gaza was a waterboarder’s bucket of ice-water to the face that reminded us of empire’s cruelty — not just Israel’s but our own. A handful of “terrorists” had managed to kill and kidnap hundreds of Israelis — and that led to Israel’s slaughter of dozens or possibly hundreds more of their own citizens, as the Israeli media itself has reported. The documented number of Palestinian dead is now over 40,000 as I write this, but the British medical journal Lancet estimates the number could be as high as 186,000 — 8% of the entire Gaza population.

For decades Israel’s theft of Palestinian land and pogroms against Palestinians have proceeded with the collusion of settlers, politicians, the Israeli public, the Israeli military, and the US foreign policy establishment. The barbarity of Israel’s war on Gaza is nothing new.

With revelations that prisoners of war and even civilians face summary execution (which also occurred during the 1948 Nakba) as well as torture, murder and rape in detention, Israel’s claims ring hollow that it has the “most moral army in the world.” Thousands of social media posts by IDF soldiers have documented Israel’s many war crimes, from looting to heinous crimes against humanity. I sincerely hope these are being collected as evidence in a future war crimes trial.

We are told that Israel “has a right to defend itself” and that any response to “terrorism” is justified. But what of the terror of 1948 that created Israel? And if we are discussing terrorism we should not forget that no one does terrorism as well as a state with an air force, nuclear weapons, and unlimited munitions from a friendly imperialist benefactor. If Hamas is a terrorist organization after killing 1,000 people and destroying a few kibbutzim and military posts, then what is a nation that slaughtered forty times that number, terrorized and destroyed an entire enclave?

There’s no other word for it. Israel is a terrorist state.

After international institutions like the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, and the International Court of Justice condemned Israel’s war crimes, and the ICJ ruled that charges of genocide leveled by South Africa at Israel were credible, the United States and its Western imperial partners showed their contempt for the so-called “rules-based order” — the thin veneer of “civilization” they hide behind when not providing arms and diplomatic for friendly repressive regimes. It is nauseating to see a Biden, a Macron, or a von der Leyen supporting Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or the Philippines as if they did not deserve the status of international pariahs. It turns out that the “rules-based order” involves absolutely no respect for international law but simply follows the law of the jungle.

Joining Republicans in mocking the rule of law as something only for suckers, rubes and peons, Democrats screamed a loud Fuck You! to international conventions on cluster munitions and domestic laws, including the Leahy Law and the Magnitsky Act, which forbid military aid to human rights abusers. Democrats, who frequently accede to demands to dismantle or defund social programs, went on a veritable bomb-buying spree, shelling out billions for [internationally prohibited] cluster munitions for Ukraine, jets and munitions for Taiwan, and 2000-pound neighborhood-leveling bombs with which Israel has inflicted so much carnage and damage to civilian infrastructure in Gaza.

Both American political parties went on to reject the ICJ’s determination of genocide by Israel, defund the United Nations refugee program, reiterate their objections to the International Criminal Court’s mandate to indict war criminals, and to promise that, if Netanyahu and Gallant were ever indicted, the U.S. would continue to thumb its nose at international law.

For Democrats, there ought to be no whining about the lawless Supreme Court and its disregard for our domestic “rule based order.” In that institution, operating with complete impunity, habitual corruption among Justices goes unpunished — not including the Court’s own unaccountable departures from established jurisprudence and legal precedence. How can Democrats object to any of this while thumbing their nose at the ICJ?

Democrats who object to the MAGA president’s attempts to overturn inconvenient election results should not announce plans to impose unelected puppet regimes on post-war Gaza or Venezuela. Democrats who bristle at Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and land theft are curiously mute on Israel’s identical crimes. The same Democrats who call for Russia’s complete withdrawal from the Donbass should not speak of a “Two State Solution” that fails at a minimum to require a complete withdrawal from the West Bank by settlers coddled by Israel and the US and funded by American Zionist institutions.

The American lame-duck president, a self-described Christian “Zionist” who cannot enunciate his own foreign policy to the American public and instead leaves that to his military-security establishment, has given Israel everything it wants, which includes the deployment of U.S. naval fleets as well as beefed-up military bases in Iraq, Jordan, and Syria. There is no question that — regardless of the nature of Israel’s belligerency — the U.S. will never hesitate to put American troops in harm’s way to defend the Zionist state.

The Israeli Prime Minister, all but indicted in both Jerusalem and at the Hague, was invited to address Congress by leaders of both political parties and he used that opportunity to gaslight Congress and the American public, insulting both the American people and the institutions of the host nation that underwrites his genocidal war.

Americans listen to our elected officials using words like “ironclad,” “unbreakable,” and “no daylight” to describe the US-Israeli relationship. We hear again and again that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, that its military is the most moral, its enemies nothing but virulent jihadist antisemites bent on its total destruction. Like the fabled “beheaded babies,” such talking points begin life in the Israeli Foreign Ministry, bounce about among an armada of Israel lobbyists and Zionist organizations who serve only Israel, and end up glued to the lips of American politicians. Billions in junkets and PAC money ensure American politicians’ subservience to a foreign state.

Despite the relentless propaganda thrown at us by Israeli and domestic propagandists, Americans can see with their own eyes the carnage that Israel is inflicting with our complicity. The cognitive dissonance between the propaganda and what we see and read with our own eyes is so great that some weak minds simply deny the reality. Israeli propagandists do their part by conjuring up “crisis actors,” a term they pilfered from their MAGA bedfellows to discredit what is seen and real as “just an act.” If not slammed as “fake news” then accurate descriptions of Zionism’s dark reality are termed “antisemitic.” The White House, the State Department, and the national security establishment invariably follow Israel’s lead, disputing Palestinian casualty figures, denying documented atrocities, sanitizing Israel’s crimes, recycling Israeli Foreign Ministry talking points.

Despite all this, Americans have begun to tally the costs of our reflexive, uncritical support for a murderous rogue state. American taxpayers — denied national healthcare like Israel or even Mexico — nevertheless have to foot the bill for 15% of Israel’s military budget, more if you factor in the many buy-at-cost military programs, or the numerous joint technology, security, and energy ventures.

Uncritical American support for Israel’s murderous regime also threatens our own democracy. Israel’s defenders have thrown tens of millions of dollars at the Democratic primaries and recently unseated the second of two members of Congress they had targeted for opposing genocide.

Thousands of people have lost their jobs in purges of critics of Israel. Laws in 36 states — New Hampshire just joined them — create a legal definition of “antisemitism” that has nothing to do with “the baseless hatred of Jews” (the traditional definition) and everything to do with punishing any or all criticism of Israel. American universities, once safe places for debate and critical studies, are now in ideological lockdown, experiencing a new form of McCarthyism — as Zionist attack groups working with MAGA Republicans take down their real targets: DEI programs and the faculty members who challenge settler colonialism — including Israel’s.

The near-assassination of Donald Trump brought forth a torrent of repudiations of political violence — of the “this is not who we are” sort of argument. But this is exactly who we are.

Less than a week before a white supremacist managed to clip Donald Trump’s ear, North Carolina governor and Christian nationalist Mark Robinson told a church assembly that secular America were all Nazis and that “some folks need killing… it’s a matter of necessity.” Church pastor Cameron McGill agreed with Robinson, who suggested that the “guys in green” or the “boys in blue” were up to the job.

Not surprisingly, Americans were quick to applaud Israel’s targeted assassination of Ismael Haniya. Besides the hundreds if not thousands of our own political assassinations carried out by American presidents (remember Obama’s “Terror” Tuesday?), many more have been carried out by agents of foreign governments in our employ — just as Israel paid off two disaffected Iranian IGRC agents to plant a bomb in Haniya’s residence. The Guantanamo detention center remains open; the US tortured prisoners to death there and at Abu Ghraib and at other “black sites” — all artificially and yet unimaginably outside the reach of the Constitution. And all this occurred despite numerous U.S. laws and directives prohibiting assassination. In America the rule of law means nothing.

But Governor Robinson was simply speaking of reality when he suggested having the police carry out assassinations. This is exactly what they do in thousands of documented cases each year. We already give the police — who act like and are often armed precisely like military occupation forces in non-white and working-class neighborhoods — carte blanche to kill people. In practice “qualified” immunity amounts to complete blanket immunity, as Justice Sotomayor observed.

Likewise, the American judicial system — which convicts 95% of those it processes by inflating charges in order to coerce plea deals — carries out assassinations every time it applies the death penalty. Even knowing that we are murdering a not insignificant number of demonstrably innocent people, those who had an inadequate defense, or those who lack the mental capacity to understand their crime, makes no difference to the terror state. We go so far as to use untested drugs and mystery cocktails to stop a human heart, keeping their provenance secret, preventing the public and the press from observing or documenting these gruesome rituals — which now include the reintroduction of the firing squad and the gas chamber.

Rounding out the injustice and impunity at work in both our foreign policy and domestic government is the Presidency. The rogue Supreme Court recently ruled that whatever the President does — whether a blatant crime for personal benefit or an official act of state — is protected. The President is a goddamned emperor.

It is not the anarchists or the communists that scare me. It’s the fascist thugs and the neoliberal machinators making up the law as they go along. In this climate of official corruption, hypocrisy, lawlessness, and impunity, how is the average citizen supposed to respect the rule of law — when virtually every branch of government revels in its unchecked corruption?

If the nation’s moneyed and “connected” murderers, bribe-takers, scofflaws, insurrectionists, and war criminals can get away with anything — then open the doors to all the prisons and let them all out.

No one’s a more murderous criminal than the politician who signs a bomb bound for Gaza or the one who votes for it.

Who is Kamala Harris’s Middle East Advisor?’

As the Democratic National Convention convenes in Chicago, a handful of “Uncommitted” delegates hopes to influence the party to stop funding genocide. With all respect to the moral certainty of this tiny group, they are tilting at windmills and have already been told to shut the hell up. The party’s 2024 platform planks on Israel remain unchanged from 2020. More importantly, Kamala Harris’s choice of Middle East advisor offers the greatest clue about her policies; the advisor may talk a good game, but in the end he joins all his predecessors as little more than a creature of empire and occupation.

Harris’s advisor, Philip H. Gordon, previously served under Bill Clinton, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton and is a member of the National Security Council and the Council for Foreign Relations. Although tapped as Harris’s Middle East advisor, Gordon’s expertise is mainly on Europe and Eurasia. He has been around a while and published articles in The New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, the Atlantic, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Le Monde, and others.

Compared to much of the American foreign policy establishment, Gordon at first glance appears to be a moderate. He has argued, for example, against US involvement in regime change schemes, for the preservation of the US-Iran nuclear deal, and has questioned the usefulness of crippling sanctions on nations the US opposes. Gordon’s less belligerent tone immediately placed him in the GOP’s crosshairs. MAGA whackadoodle Elise Stafanik actually accused Gordon of being in bed with Iranian foreign agents.

Because Israel is constantly pushing the US toward outright war on Iran, Iran-watchers have naturally been curious about Gordon’s background. Last week the Iranian expat website Iran International produced an interesting and extraordinarily detailed roundup of Gordon’s career and connections (for example — who knew? — Gordon and Biden’s Secretary of State Anthony Blinken used to play on the same indoor soccer team at the Washington DC Edlavitch Jewish Community Center). Similarly, Jewish Insider also ran a profile of Gordon, as did Politico and The Nation.

Bottom line: Gordon is simply Pepsi to someone else’s Coke or Dr. Pepper. In terms of foreign policy there is little to suggest that a Harris presidency will look any different from any that have preceded it. Gordon was a booster of NATO’s disastrous involvement in the US war in Afghanistan. And given that both Gordon and Harris support continued US support for the war in Ukraine and continued US support for arming Israel, defense contractors have nothing to worry about under a Harris presidency.

Repairing the U.S.-Israel Relationship

For readers of this substack, Gordon’s monograph Repairing the U.S.-Israel Relationship, written together with Robert D. Blackwill, the Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow at the Council for Foreign Relations, may provide the best idea of his orientation toward Israel and Palestine. Gordon and Blackwill argue that the US and Israel ought to exhibit as little divergence (“daylight”) in policy as possible, particularly where Iran is concerned. In the preface written by CFR President Richard N. Haass:

“Here they note the widening gap between many in Israel and the United States over the desirability and feasibility of pursuing a two-state solution to this long-standing conflict. They then go on to suggest a more conditional American approach that would tie elements of U.S. policy to a range of Israeli actions on the ground, including settlement policy and what Israel is prepared to do to improve the daily lives of Palestinians and prospects for the emergence of a viable Palestinian state.”

Gordon and Blackwell acknowledge the dirty little secret of Israel’s reliance on the United States:

“Israel prides itself on being able to “defend itself by itself,” but the reality is that it continues to rely heavily on the United States for both military and diplomatic support. The United States has provided Israel some $100 billion in defense assistance since the 1979 Camp David peace treaty and regularly expends an enormous amount of political capital at the United Nations and in a wide range of other international organizations to shield Israel from criticism or sanction. Israel can choose to shrug off concerns about growing differences with Washington if it wants, but a decline in support from the United States would only embolden Israel’s enemies and imperil its legitimacy and security.”

but also Israel’s strategic importance to the United States:

“Despite the arguments of some of Israel’s critics, the United States profits substantially from the relationship as well. Israel is the United States’ closest strategic partner in the world’s most unstable region and shares valuable intelligence with Washington on terrorism, nonproliferation, and regional politics. The United States also derives important military benefits from the partnership, in areas such as military technology, intelligence, joint training and exercises, and cybersecurity. And, despite its relatively small population, Israel is the largest regional investor in the United States, the third largest destination for U.S. exports in the Middle East, an important research and development partner for the U.S. high-tech sector, and a source of innovative ideas on confronting twenty-first-century challenges such as renewable energy and water and food security.”

The thesis of their monograph is that certain tweaks need to be made to the US-Israel relationship:

“The future of the U.S.-Israel relationship is at risk. The two countries continue to share many interests and deep cultural bonds, but the relationship is threatened by diverging strategic perspectives on a region undergoing fundamental change and by long-term demographic, political, and social trends that are undermining the pillars on which the relationship once stood. No one is well served by pretending that these risks do not exist. For strategic, historical, and moral reasons, both governments should do all they can to reframe and revive the U.S.-Israel strategic partnership. The upcoming transition to a new U.S. administration provides an opportunity to put recent disagreements aside and to show the political will needed to reverse the negative policy trends described. This report offers several realistic and necessary steps the leaders on both sides should take as they contemplate their stewardship of this important relationship in the years to come. Although some of these steps would entail painful compromise and political risk, those leaders should understand that preserving this special relationship is worth the effort.”

These tweaks included:

  • Seek to reframe the relationship at a summit in early 2017 at Camp David focused on developing a new strategic vision for a changing Middle East, committing the United States to remain engaged in the region, seriously addressing the Palestinian problem, and institutionalizing an intensive bilateral strategic dialogue.
  • Enhance Israel’s sense of security and confidence in the United States by committing to expanded missile defense, anti-tunnel, and cybersecurity cooperation under the terms of the September 2016 longterm defense assistance Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
  • Move beyond the debate about the merits of the Iran nuclear agreement and work together to implement and rigorously enforce it, with a commitment to imposing penalties on Iran for noncompliance and a joint plan for preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons after the deal’s main restrictions expire.
  • Develop detailed common understandings about how to more effectively contain Iranian hegemonic regional designs and take action designed to do so.
  • Agree on a set of specific, meaningful measures that Israel will take unilaterally to improve Palestinian daily life and preserve prospects for a two-state solution, linking continued U.S. willingness to refrain from or oppose international action on Israeli settlements or the peace process to Israel’s implementation of such positive, concrete steps.
  • Expand economic cooperation focused on bilateral trade, investment, energy, innovation, and Israel’s integration into the region.

Unfortunately, the monograph’s proposals were simply so much boilerplate. US “engagement” in the region from administrations Gordon served in had already consisted of destabilizing Iraq, Syria, and Libya, undermining the Arab Spring, and arming Saudi Arabia to the hilt. Naturally, all joint security initiatives with Israel were pursued. Ignoring Gordon’s tepid suggestions, the Biden Administration made no effort to re-establish the Iran nuclear agreement and dismissed Gordon’s concerns about increasing sanctions. “Meaningful measures” to improve Palestinian life were never implemented by either Donald Trump or Joe Biden. Israel’s “integration into the region” was pursued by both Trump and Biden under the rubric of the Abraham Accords. And now the United States has doubled-down on the complete destruction of Gaza and its people.

There has been virtually no difference between Democratic and Republican policies vis-a-vis Israel or Palestine. Democrats who imagine a Harris administration will abandon a road long traveled are simply deluding themselves.

Further reading

Anderson, Lisa. “Book Review – Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East.” Foreign Affairs, 5 Feb. 2021, www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2020-12-08/losing-long-game-false-promise-regime-change-middle-east.

Deutch, Gabby. “The Obama Mideast Expert Guiding VP Harris on Foreign Policy.” Jewish Insider, 22 Dec. 2023, jewishinsider.com/2023/12/phil-gordon-national-security-advisor-to-the-vp-kamala-harris/.

Gordon, Phil. “Harris’ Support for Israel ‘Ironclad’ after Attack on Golan Heights.” Reuters, 28 July 2024, www.reuters.com/world/harris-support-israel-ironclad-after-attack-golan-heights-2024-07-28/.

Gordon, Philip H. “As Israel’s Greatest Defender and Closest Friend, We Owe It to You to Ask Fundamental Questions.” Times of Israel, 9 July 2014, www.timesofisrael.com/as-israels-greatest-defender-and-closest-friend-we-owe-it-to-you-to-ask-fundamental-questions/.

Gordon, Philip H. “Back up NATO’s Afghanistan Force.” The New York Times, 6 Jan. 2006, www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/opinion/back-up-natos-afghanistan-force.html.

Gordon, Philip H. “Philip Gordon and Ray Takeyh on Iran.” Council on Foreign Relations, 10 Jan. 2018, www.cfr.org/podcasts/philip-gordon-and-ray-takeyh-iran.

Gordon, Philip H., and Robert D. Blackwill. “Repairing the US-Israel Relationship.” Council for Foreign Relations, 1 Nov. 2016, cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2016/11/CSR76_BlackwillGordon_Israel.pdf.

Gordon, Philip H., and Robert D. Blackwill. “Repairing the US-Israel Relationship.” Council on Foreign Relations, 1 Nov. 2016, www.cfr.org/report/repairing-us-israel-relationship.

Gordon, Philip, and Ariane Tabatabai. “The Choice That’s Coming: An Iran with the Bomb, or Bombing Iran.” The New York Times, 6 Jan. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/opinion/irans-crisis-nuclear-expansion.html.

Gordon, Philip. “Opinion: Israel’s Arabian Fantasy.” Washington Post, 27 June 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/06/27/israels-arabian-fantasy/.

Harris, Kamala. “Readout of National Security Advisor to the Vice President Phil Gordon’s Trip to Israel and the West Bank.” American Presidency Project, 26 June 2024, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/readout-national-security-advisor-the-vice-president-phil-gordons-trip-israel-and-the-west.

Israel National News, Editors. “VP Harris’ Security Advisor: ‘Some in Israel Reject a Ceasefire Deal, We Simply Disagree.'” Israel National News, 25 June 2024, www.israelnationalnews.com/news/392050.

Our Clergy

On June 23rd an Israeli company set up a real estate bazaar in an ultra-Orthodox kollel and synagogue in Los Angeles. The company sells real estate both in “Israel ’48′” and in the West Bank. Protesters protested, counter protesters hurled eggs, LAPD showed up in riot gear, there were fistfights, and it just got even uglier.

CNN commentator Van Jones called the protest a “pogrom” against Jews, likening the keffiyah that Palestinian protesters wore to a “Confederate flag” — though he had no problem with an actual, foreign flag Jewish counter-protesters draped themselves in. Newsweek called the protest a “synagogue attack” — as if protesting an illegal real estate sale was tantamount to Kristallnacht.

While the protest was organized by a Palestinian student group, many of the protesters were Jewish — who saw the sale of illegal property as a violation of both the 1965 Civil Rights and 1968 Fair Housing acts. From both a Palestinian and a progressive Jewish perspective, the illegal land sales were outrageous and criminal. For the Jews among the protesters it was also unforgivable that these violations of US law and Jewish ethics were taking place in a synagogue.

But casting the Gaza-related protests as “antisemitism” has become a highly successful strategy pro-Israel groups use to distract from central issues like land theft and genocide. So much so that American media have become largely incapable of distinguishing Judaism from Zionism. Likewise, the Israel lobby’s push to create repressive laws based on the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which equates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews and Judaism with Israel, further threatens any distinction.

* * *

But Judaism is a religion that existed for centuries after the ancient Hebrew state (also called Israel) collapsed after only 125 years, in part due to civil war. Long after this collapse, Jewish culture still thrived in multiple cultural forms and languages. Rabbinic Judaism developed. The crown jewel of Jewish scholarship, the Talmud, was written over centuries in present-day Iraq. While early Zionists like Ahad Ha’am hoped that Zionism might enrich and strengthen Jewish culture, contemporary Zionists have managed to reduce Judaism down to Zionist land grabs and conquest — its ethical values further dishonored by the state of Israel’s repression, war crimes, and genocide and the insistence of Zionists that this is all that Judaism is.

But right from the beginning, Zionism has shamelessly placed Judaism at the service of its political agenda. In Der Judenstaat (the “Jewish State“) Theodor Herzl described (see original German in the graphic) the rather heavy-handed approach by which the Jewish Company would issue instructions to Jews:

Our Clergy

Every group will have its Rabbi, traveling with his congregation. Local groups will afterwards form voluntarily about their Rabbi, and each locality will have its spiritual leader. Our Rabbis, on whom we especially call, will devote their energies to the service of our idea, and will inspire their congregations by preaching it from the pulpit. They will not need to address special meetings for the purpose; an appeal such as this may be uttered in the synagogue. And thus it must be done. For we feel our historic sanity only through the faith of our fathers as we have long ago absorbed the languages of different nations to an ineradicable degree.

The Rabbis will receive communications regularly from both Society and Company, and will announce and explain these to their congregations. Israel will pray for us and for itself.

It is worth reading Herzl’s foundational work describing the Zionist project. Among other things he made clear how little he thought of Palestine’s indigenous people, that he recognized that in a “pure” Jewish state it would be necessary to ethnically cleanse the inhabitants by “spiriting them away” across the border. Anticipating the cognitive dissonance of today’s liberal Zionist when trying to see Israel’s Apartheid state as both “democratic and Jewish,” Herzl’s Jewish state was to be structured as either a “democratic monarchy” or an “aristocratic republic,” neither of which would tolerate popular unrest.

Herzl’s state was to be a bulwark against the Asian hordes, which would then endear it to the Western powers. The Zionist project, Herzl wrote, would depend on colonial support and patronage. And not only was Zionism to be — explicitly — a settler colonial enterprise, it was to be a settler colonial enterprise that both served and profited from European colonial nations. Today’s Zionists become apoplectic when DEI scholars and scholars of colonialism point this out, but these very words were all in the draft of the Jewish state that Herzl described in Der Judenstaat.

Herzl, who eventually helped organize the Jewish Colonial Trust and the Jewish National Fund, also helped create the Jewish Colonial Bank. In 1898 Herzl described the purpose of the bank in Die Welt: “The task of the Colonial Bank is to eliminate philanthropy. The settler on the land who increases its value by his labor merits more than a gift. He is entitled to credit. The prospective bank could therefore begin by extending the needed credits to the colonists; later it would expand into the instrument for the bringing in of Jews and would supply credits for transportation, agriculture, commerce and construction.”

Of the Jewish Company, which was central to the Zionist project in Der Judenstaat, Herzl wrote: “The Jewish Company is partly modelled on the lines of a great land-acquisition company. It might be called a Jewish Chartered Company, though it cannot exercise sovereign power, and has other than purely colonial tasks.”

Acknowledging the similarity of Jewish colonial settlement to that of the American West, Herzl wrote: “In America the occupation of newly opened territory is set about in naive fashion. The settlers assemble on the frontier, and at the appointed time make a simultaneous and violent rush for their portions. We shall not proceed thus to the new land of the Jews. The lots in provinces and towns will be sold by auction…”

Which brings us to Los Angeles of 2024. The auction of stolen property at Adas Torah has been a principal feature of Zionism for over a century.

Despite attempts by early Zionist organizations like Brit Shalom and the Ihud to advocate for a binational state that would avoid ethnic cleansing, land theft and the inevitable resentment of the dispossessed, Herzl’s 19th Century dream of an undemocratic, racist Jewish state was ultimately realized.

From the moment of its founding, Israel has been an ugly, illiberal, nationalist anachronism in a world that has since adopted more democratic aspirations. As Herzl wrote, “if you will it, it’s not a dream.” And, strangely enough, Herzl was right: the ethno-nationalist state he dreamed of has become an absolute nightmare.

Of ‘Pogroms’ and Propaganda

On Sunday, June 23, 2024 an Israeli real estate firm called My Home in Israel (“housing projects in all the best Anglo neighborhoods in Israel”) staged a real estate event inside a synagogue, Congregation Adas Torah, in Los Angeles together with another Israeli company called International Marketing & Promotions (“We sell things to Jews. We sell Israel to the world.”). This unseemly event not only dragged a synagogue into the muck but broke U.S. civil rights and international human rights laws in the process. Yet protests against the event were quickly spun as quite literally a “pogrom” against Jews — and by some of America’s most recognizable “liberal” Democrats.

The protest was organized by the Palestinian Youth Movement and was joined by a number of pro-Palestinian groups on the Left, including CODEPink. As an article in the Forward reported, “Hundreds of counter-protesters — toting their own flags and megaphones — were present when it began at 12 p.m. […] The scene recalled a fracas at a pro-Palestinian encampment at UCLA the night of April 30 which began when a pro-Israel mob arriving after the conclusion of Passover lobbed fireworks, poles and other items at the encampment and tried to tear down its makeshift walls.”

The vehemence of the counter-protest betrays an ugly truth about Zionism. It has always used land theft and land sales to accomplish the displacement of Palestinians. Such property is illegal; international law recognizes the West Bank as Palestinian and settlements as illegal. Real estate sales like Adas Torah’s are no different from selling stereos off the back of a truck under some overpass.

The usual shrill accusations of antisemitism have been turned up a notch and the propagandists’ keyboards are on fire — because these real estate sales, more than anything else we see right out in the open, demonstrate exactly how Zionism works and its absolute depravity.

In March a similar event took place at Keter Torah synagogue in Teaneck, New Jersey. This followed almost identical events — all at synagogues — in Montreal and Toronto and was to be followed in Lawrence and Flatbush. According to New York Magazine, “The Great Israeli Real Estate Event is an annual exhibition produced by Gideon Katz, a self-described ‘expert in marketing Israeli real estate to the global Jewish community.’ […] At most of the events was a company called My Home in Israel, brought along to showcase available properties in both Israel and the Palestinian territories it occupies: multiple units in a building near Givat HaMatos in East Jerusalem, townhouses in near Ariel University in the heart of the West Bank, and a five-bedroom villa with a pool in the luxury enclave of Efrat south of Bethlehem.”

Rich Segal, a resident of Teaneck, New Jersey and himself Jewish, testified at a public hearing in March that he believes restrictive sales of Palestinian land to Jews-only buyers (American Muslims can’t buy any of the houses) violate both domestic and international law, including the 1965 Civil Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act. “We don’t allow real estate events to be for whites only, or for Jews only. Now, as Jews, we don’t get to fly under the radar and break the law and hide it in the synagogue. Segal went on to say that such sales also violate international law because, at the Teaneck sale, homes from three different [illegal] West Bank settlements were being offered.

At these events much of the violence has come from counter-protesters. In Toronto, Ilan-Reuben Abramov, a supporter of the Israeli real estate event, attacked protesters with a nail gun. In Los Angeles pro-Palestinian protesters were punched, shoved, pelted with raw eggs, and soaked with bear and pepper spray. Well-organized counter-protesters and members of nearby synagogues, many with Israeli flags, were there expressly to confront the pro-Palestinian protesters.

Predictably, a Jewish Chronicle headline screamed “Keffiyeh-clad mob launches bloody assault on Los Angeles synagogue.” CNN commentator Van Jones actually called the protest a “pogrom.” And Democratic Party leaders at all levels — President Joe Biden, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass — all endorsed stomping on the First Amendment by barring protests in front of houses of worship. Bass promised to meet with the Jewish Federation Los Angeles, Rabbi Noah Farkas, and “other law enforcement and faith leaders” to prevent a repeat of the protests.

President Biden, who after October 7th claimed to have seen videos of nonexistent beheaded babies on kibbutzim in the Negev, sputtered that the protests were “antisemitic and un-American.” But what of those American and international laws being broken by the Israeli real estate organizers? Isn’t violating the 1965 federal Civil Rights Act un-American? The Fair Housing Act? Apparently not to the great enabler of a genocide — who as Senator undermined civil rights provisions, lobbying his colleagues as a Delaware Dixiecrat against school busing, calling it a “liberal train wreck.”

Because pro-Israel spin has transmuted the protest into an attack on Jewish worshippers, it is necessary to point out that the protest took place on a Sunday — not the Jewish sabbath. It was also not, as echoed throughout the mainstream media, a random racist attack on a synagogue but a protest at an offensive and illegal sale.

Religious institutions, including synagogues, often open their facilities to community groups and for public meetings or voting. Churches hold medical screening clinics. Synagogues hold on-site blood drives. A New Bedford synagogue rents out part of its facility to a girls school. These are all commendable public uses of religious property, but none has anything to do with Judaism. And neither did the Zionist real estate event in a meeting room at Adas Torah.

In 2009 Stoughton (MA) synagogue Ahavath Torah hosted a series of far right speakers, including Dutch fascist Geerd Wilders. When it repeated the stunt in 2016 over a hundred clergy, including rabbis from other congregations, protested. And quite justifiably.

So, again, it is unfortunate to have to point out the obvious — but like any organization, houses of worship are capable of staging questionable (even illegal) events, and the public has every right to protest them.

Adas Torah Congregation is situated in the Pico-Robertson neighborhood of Los Angeles in an area known as the “kosher corridor.” According to an Aish magazine profile, “In a 20-minute stroll down Pico […] I encounter 30 shuls, kollels and outreach programs: Persian, Modern Orthodox, kiruv, yeshivish, Chabad, Carlebach, Yemenite, Chassidic, Israeli. There are boutique shuls for musicians and artists; one for Moroccans and another French-Moroccan. Plus 30 kosher restaurants!”

With all these opportunities to conduct a so-called “pogrom” why was only Adas Torah chosen for protest? The answer is staring you right in the face – because of the illegal sale of Palestinian land and the violation of domestic and international laws shamefully taking place inside the building.

One State, Two State

The Two State Solution is a fundamentally dishonest proposition. When Western colonial powers first conceived carving up the Middle East, starting with the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1919 League of Nations mandate system — and by way of dozens of partition schemes to take one people’s land and give it to another — the whole notion of partitioning Palestine became nothing less than an organized system of land theft persisting until the present day.

Naturally, Palestinians have reacted with understandable anger at the imposition of a Jewish state literally built on the rubble of their homes and communities — some 500 cities and towns — and the forced expulsion of over 750,000 Palestinians accomplished through massacre and state terror. Today Israel continues to extend Jewish domination on the rubble of newly bulldozed and cratered Palestinian homes and cities. And state terror continues to be an important arrow in its quiver of control and repression techniques.

Operating out of desperation, with much of the Western world arrayed against them, Palestinians have at varying times acquiesced to partition schemes — just as one might have no choice but to allow an armed home invader to move into his house while he flees to the basement. These are essentially the terms that American “peace” brokers from various, mainly Democratic, administrations have dictated to the Palestinians. Americans who live in communities that long ago overran Native American lands — I’ll wager this is most of White America — somehow find this arrangement completely normal and reasonable.

So, while incapable of condemning the home invader, the fictive Two State Solution has become the default position of Centrist Democrats who promote this “solution” at every opportunity while offering neither description nor outline of how such an impossibility could ever be conjured into existence. Lately, these Two-Staters’ biggest problem is that One State is official Zionist policy and the entity our politicians are working in behalf of — Israel, not the US — won’t consider any sort of Palestinian state — even the “basement” option. And, of course, Palestinians are none too eager to accept a third-rate rump state on a fraction of their homeland while leaving the heavily-armed home invader still in charge.

As much as a Two State solution has become a deservedly lampooned article of faith among American Liberals and liberal Zionists, it is no longer even a remote possibility. 10% of Israel’s population — 15% of them Americans, many of them non-Jewish Russians — now occupy the West Bank. The scale of Israeli settlement is so vast, especially with Israeli laws that “legalize” ongoing pretextual land grabs and encourage Judaization of even Arab communities within Israel proper, that there is no longer enough contiguous land in the West Bank — forget about the isolated Gazan enclave — from which any sort of Palestinian state could ever be cobbled together. To speak of Two States, then, is to promote a damnable blatant lie.

A few years ago I read about an 11-foot python that swallowed a baby deer. It was a meal that cost both the deer and the python their lives. Israel has exactly the same problem as the snake — in a land where Zionism has long struggled to attain and maintain a Jewish majority, Palestinians have always been an indigestible mass that a Zionist ethno-state can never control, repress, or eliminate without massive assistance from the same colonial powers that created it. Zionism, which now openly expresses itself in the most vile, racist, separatist jingoism and violence, will never be able to contend with Palestinians in their midst or make peace with the Arab neighbors who sympathize with them. And it’s just a matter of time — repeated attempts to eat the deer will eventually kill the snake.

Historically, Zionism is an aberration and an anachronism, as historian Tony Judt and innumerable Jewish writers have observed in recent years. While earlier proto-Zionists like Ahad Ha’am, Martin Buber and Judah Magnes may have envisioned a bi-national homeland, by the 1942 Biltmore Conference it was clear that Zionism now meant an exclusionary Jewish state. In 1945 the last European concentration camps were liberated but that did not alter the trajectory of Revisionist Zionism’s plan — initiated in the late Thirties — to completely rid Palestine of Arabs. As Israel’s New Historians have shown, the massacres, atrocities, and mass expulsions of Arabs of the Nakba had been long planned.

Ethnic cleansing was arguably built into Zionism by its best-known advocate, Theodor Herzl, who wrote in Der Judenstaat (the Jewish State) that the indigenous people would be “spirited across” the border. Though the Nakba had been planned for almost a decade, Plan Dalet was finally implemented on March 10th, 1948 — months before the fabled “massing Arab armies” supposedly instigated the 1948 war. Any discussion of the present conflict should begin not with October 7th but with March 10th, 1948, the day that the Nakba was launched from David Ben Gurion’s offices in Tel Aviv. It has been 76 years since then, and the snake is still trying to eat the deer.

* * *

Today we live in a vastly different world than our mothers and grandfathers did in 1948. Colonialism has fallen into disrepute, South Africa’s Apartheid regime has collapsed. America’s foreign adventures in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have been recognized by a significant percentage of voters as bloody disasters that not only killed millions but tore our own country apart. Here in the US we are making uneven progress with our long-festering race problems, but a significant part of America remains committed to racial justice (even as a significant number is not). All this is to say that the climate for accepting a racist ethno-state like Israel’s has changed. What was normal at the end of Jim Crow America in 1948 is now seen as obviously racist. Yet, fighting to keep JIm Crow alive in Israel, Zionists are pulling out all the stops to demonize young protesters, pass laws that criminalize criticism of Israel, and assure that Israel-friendly candidates have a leg up in the Democratic primaries.

Peter Beinart, who one could consider a “recovering Zionist,” offers one of the best explanations of why young people today, including Jewish students, are turning their backs on Zionism. One of the reasons is “intersectionality.” This generation of students has been involved in racial justice and police accountability struggles following George Floyd’s murder, gun control, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ justice, and in climate and environmental justice campaigns. Some of these issues intersect with justice for Palestinians, but mainly their activism represents the fact that young people are simply paying more attention to the greater world we live in.

And this goes for Jews too. As the list of Israeli human rights abuses, crimes against humanity, and charges of genocide grows, many Jews have become soured on Zionism, particularly the Revisionist strain that became official policy after 1942. Following the 1967 war, especially, Zionism began hijacking Judaism and threatens to destroy the religion by compromising Judaism’s values as it insists that there is no difference between an ethno-nationalist movement and a religion. This, of course, is exactly what is happening to Christianity in the United States and Eastern Europe. And in fact many Zionists are politically in bed with the autocratic Far Right and Christian Nationalists. Consider Israel’s cozy relationships with Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Spain’s Vox party, and Christian Zionists like John Hagee, to cite just a few examples. Zionism is literally Christian Nationalism’s kissing cousin. Jews who fear our domestic turn to the right also fear Israel’s now shamelessly open expression of the same.

It’s fair to say that Europe-facing Israel would love to be part of an illiberal autocratic ethno-nationalist global Far Right, even as it courts the economically powerful neoliberal Western nations (US, Germany, France, Great Britain). While these nations admittedly have emerging autocratic, illiberal, and ethnocratic tendencies of their own, they also have significant numbers of people pushing back against these tendencies. This is what makes the unprecedented opposition to American and European policy on Gaza so remarkable — it is not antisemitsm, as the Zionists would have it, but a growing awareness of how our domestic turn to the right is connected with the illiberalism at Israel’s core.

Ultimately both MAGA revanchism and Israel’s attempts to preserve its antique ethno-nationalism are doomed to fail. In 2003 historian Tony Judt wrote in “Israel: the Alternative” that

“In a world where nations and peoples increasingly intermingle and intermarry at will; where cultural and national impediments to communication have all but collapsed; where more and more of us have multiple elective identities and would feel falsely constrained if we had to answer to just one of them; in such a world Israel is truly an anachronism. And not just an anachronism but a dysfunctional one. In today’s”clash of cultures” between open, pluralist democracies and belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno-states, Israel actually risks falling into the wrong camp.”

* * *

All this has led to the idea of a single, secular bi-national state for both Palestinians and those who made their homes out of Palestinian homes.

In 2010 Merav Michali asked Tony Judt what his idea of a bi-national state looked like:

“I don’t know. What I do know is that since I wrote that in 2003, everyone from Moshe Arens through Barak to Olmert has admitted that Israel is on the way to a single state with a potential Arab majority in Bantustans unless something happens fast. That’s all that I said in my essay.

But ok, since it looks as though Israel is determined to give itself this future, what will it look like? [It will look like] Hell. But what could it look like? Well, there could be a federal state of two autonomous communities – on the Swiss or Belgian model (don’t tell me the latter doesn’t work – it works very well but is opposed by Flemings led by people very much like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and [Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman). This could have crossover privileges and rights for both communities, but each would be autonomous. I think this would work better than a mixed single-state, and it would allow each community to set certain sorts of religious and other regulations according to its taste.”

Why “Hell?”

Because it would start from a very bad place. It would begin with Jews running the place in the name of a Jewish state, defined by Orthodox Rabbis and controlled by an army whose officer core is increasingly permeated by religious and settler communities. No Arab would feel remotely safe, much less equal or a citizen in such a “single state”. The Arabs’ lack of property, rights, status and prospects would either make them a sullen and potentially violent underclass or else the best of them would try to leave. This is no good basis for integration, though it is of course what some of Israel’s present leaders privately desire. And then there would be Gaza…

… Defense Minister Ehud Barak and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also recognize that Israel is on its way to a single state. […] In such a state, Jews would soon be a minority. Doesn’t that frighten you?

Not as much as it seems to frighten others. Why is it ok for a Jewish minority to dominate an Arab majority, its leaders to call for expulsions of majority members, etc., but not ok for a democracy to have a majority and minority both protected under law? At least Israel could then call itself a democracy with a clear conscience.

What you are really asking is whether I think the Palestinians would immediately set out to rape, pillage and murder the Jews? I don’t see why they would want to — there is no historical record suggesting that this is what Palestinians do for fun, whereas we have all too much evidence that Israelis persecute Palestinians for no good reason. If I were an Arab, I would be more afraid of living in a state with Jews just now.

Can you see or understand why Israelis are afraid?

Yes, but only in the sense that someone who has been brought up to fear and hate his neighbors will have good reason to be frightened at the thought of living in the same house with them. Israelis have created a generation of young Palestinians who hate them and will never forgive them and that does make a real problem for any future agreement, single- or two-state.

But Israel should be much, much more afraid of the Israel it’s creating for itself: a semi-democratic, demagogic, far-right warrior state dominated by racist Russians and crazed rabbis. In this perspective, an internationally policed and guaranteed federal state of Israel, with the same rights and resources for Jews and Arabs, looks a lot less frightening to me.

Can you see why American Jews are fearful as well of that?

No. This is the fear of the paranoid hysteric – like the man at the dinner table in the story I wrote in the New York Review who had never been to Israel but thought I should stop criticizing it because “We Jews might need it sometime.” American Jews — most of whom know nothing of Jewish history, Jewish languages or Jewish religion — feel “Jewish” by identifying unthinkingly with Auschwitz as the source of their special victim status and “Israel” as their insurance policy and macho other. I find this contemptible — they are quite happy to see Arabs killed in their name, so long as other Jews do it. That’s not fear, that is something between surrogate nationalism and moral indifference.

Judt was certainly not the first or last to speak of a one-state land-sharing solution, but he certainly roiled the waters when he suggested it. Zionists accused him of antisemitism and of denying the Jewish people both their “historic home” and “Jewish self-determination.” Aside from the fact that all the religious states we are familiar with are nightmares (Saudi Arabia comes to mind), Germany of early 1945 was the last European nation with laws privileging or demonizing specific ethnic groups. That Israel would essentially preserve Nuremberg-style laws in a Jewish state has always seemed aberrant. Especially to many Jews.

In the last two decades there have been dozens of proposals, all with slightly different wrinkles, offering plans to end the ongoing nightmare in Palestine. Contrary to the shrill voices of Zionists telling the rest of us what we mean when we say “from the river to the sea…” Palestine will be free someday. For everyone. There will be something closer to a democracy, and it will offer the world a hopeful example.

An overview of One State proposals — good and bad — will be the subject of my next essay.

Zionism’s Lost Cause

Israel’s genocidal destruction of Gaza and its people, as well as the Israeli government’s open expressions of genocidal intent, have pricked the consciences of millions and launched a case at The Hague. While there have been many comparisons between today’s ceasefire protests and those against the war in Viet Nam, the explosion of disgust at the Gaza genocide and Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians bears greater resemblance to antebellum Abolitionist outrage at the “peculiar” American institution of slavery.

The Abolitionist movement rode a long wave of 17th and 18th century Enlightenment values, and by the 18th and 19th centuries slavery was on the way out over much of the world. Successful slave revolts, the British campaign to end the slave trade throughout its empire, a similar ban by the Ottoman empire, abolition of slavery in the Northern US, Britain, Latin America, the emancipation of serfdom in the Russian empire, and France’s abolition of slavery throughout its colonies – the moral arc of the universe was straining but the South was almost alone in resisting the bend toward justice. Just as Israel is today.

What survived slavery was scarcely better. While it was no longer acceptable for individuals to exploit a hundred or a thousand lives as personal property, rules were different for empires. Virtually every empire that had abolished slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries colonized and exploited entire populations, typically of a different race. And in order to extract wealth and exert control over these subjugated people, settlers were needed to colonize, administer, and defend the ill-gotten gains.

One of Hannah Arendt’s critiques of Zionism is that it turned its back on Enlightenment values. But writing as a Jew who had just barely escaped Nazi terror no thanks to Western democracies, she was also rightly skeptical of Western liberal traditions. In the Arendt Center’s newsletter Roger Berkowitz writes,

“The weakness of the enlightenment is baked deeply into the liberal tradition. Montesquieu follows Aristotle in insisting that limited and liberal government depend upon the virtue of citizens. Liberals such as John Stuart Mill and John Locke insisted that only some countries had citizens who were evolved enough and civilized enough to enjoy the freedoms of liberal democracy. There is, as Uday Mehta has so powerfully argued, an Imperial project at the foundation of liberalism, one that insists that all peoples be assimilated into the values and virtues of liberal civilization before they can be allowed to enjoy the benefits of liberal government. Until that time, backwards peoples need to be governed by liberal colonialists. Much of the critique of enlightenment and liberal government is a result of this imperial drive in liberalism to insist that only those who think like liberals are capable of freedom.”

This is clearly reflected in the Charter of the League of Nations and also in the Charter of the British Mandate in Palestine, whose laws of military occupation Israel still uses in the West Bank.

Israel’s colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestine is scarcely different from the American settler-colonial project, Australia’s, or that of the British in India. China and Russia both have ongoing settler-colonial projects – and American politicians just spent tens of billions to slow down the competition. The United States too has its colonies. An estimated 15% of Israel’s illegal West Bank settlers are American citizens. Most of us live on land stolen by earlier generations of settler-colonists, some of whom were our ancestors.

We may not have colonized Africa but we literally kidnapped and enslaved the ancestors of 13% of our own population and yet have made no attempt to redress wrongs to them. We fork over up to $40 billion each year to maintain the supremacy of Israel’s 6.8 million Jewish citizens but for our own 10 million Native Americans the budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs is $3 billion.

Israel’s bad luck is that their settler-colonial project began in the 20th Century, when – just as in the case of slavery – the evils of the “peculiar institution” of settler-colonialism were well-understood and beginning to be regarded as morally reprehensible.

* * *

I recently reread Charles Reagan Wilson’s Baptized in Blood: The Religion of the Lost Cause, 1865-1920 and was struck by the many similarities between Zionism and the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.

Baptized in Blood distinguishes between the CSA’s government and the culture it represented. Wilson recognized two “civic religions” of the United States, one dedicated more or less to Enlightenment values, another to darker aspects of European nationalism, myth, and racial supremacy.

Zionism’s self-defense and propaganda efforts have much in common with the South’s vehement defenses of its “morality,” customs, and values from Northern criticism. The South rejected Enlightenment values that the North had embraced more or less at the same time early Zionists were rejecting them.

Both Zionism and the Confederacy promote a narrative of persecution and threat to a “way of life.” Their way of life, of course, means sovereignty for a chosen people who, whether at the Biltmore Hotel or at Fort Sumpter, secede from one nation to create a separate nation that privileges their ethnicity. Both the South and Israel cultivated the good will of foreign empires. Judah Benjamin, who held positions with the Confederacy as Attorney General, War Secretary, and then Secretary of State, unsuccessfully negotiated support for the CSA from both France and Britain. Similarly, the newly-established World Zionist Organization negotiated with both the British and Ottoman empires for support for its own nationalist project.

Just as both Southern religion and what Wilson calls its “civic religion” parted ways from Northern Christianity, Zionism makes a mockery of Jewish values. Early Zionists were regarded as heretics by almost every branch of Judaism, particularly Orthodoxy. Today the largest ultra-orthodox sect, the Satmars, continues to oppose Zionism. Abolitionists and a fleet of Northern clergy similarly regarded Southern Christianity as an aberration.

Civic and cultural values have also diverged because of Zionism, especially now that Israel’s 37th government includes outright fascists. It is no secret that for many years American Jews have held democratic values not shared by a majority of their Israeli cousins. A significant number of younger Jews in North America and Europe who grew up in “democracies” that claim liberal values have embraced those liberal values and reject what is, in the end, nothing but ethnic nationalism. And such was the case with a divided antebellum United States where Abolitionists were every bit as zealous as kaffiya-wearing ceasefire demonstrators.

The conscription of religious leaders into propaganda efforts was central to Southern religion and culture just as it is to Zionism today. Theodor Herzl wrote that the Zionist project depended upon the conscription of rabbis into its service (“The Rabbis will receive communications regularly from both Society and Company, and will announce and explain these to their congregations”). Ultimately the centrality of ethnic cleansing to create a Jewish majority in Israel and the centrality of the institution of slavery for the Confederacy corrupted both religions enlisted to defend them.

The South may have lost the War, but its true believers embarked upon a campaign to justify and legitimate their vision of their dying culture. In contrast, Israel won its many wars and successfully established a state (both with significant American support), yet nevertheless must justify its ongoing crimes against a subjugated and repressed Palestinian people – as well as its continuing embrace of 19th century settler-colonialism.

As is the case with Judaism, the tragedy of the Shoah (Holocaust) has been ruthlessly exploited by Zionism. Both Ian Lustick and Avraham Burg have written about how Israel’s first Prime Ministers retroactively and tautologically seized upon the Holocaust as the ultimate raison d’être for Zionism, as an excuse for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (and worse), and as a shield from criticism for crimes of the state they created. In the United States Israel employs a constellation of propaganda and lobbying groups in its service, many operating in contravention to the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The South similarly spawned an entire cottage industry devoted to Confederate propaganda, much of it written by Christian ministers. In 1860 an anthology of pro-slavery propaganda, most essays by clergymen, was published under the title Cotton is King.

Zionism as “civic Judaism” and the Lost Cause as “civic religion” were both built on victimization, martyrology, and myth. Dixie and Zion are both mythic lands of the imagination. Where the South dreamed of an eventual resurrection of Dixie, the Zionists had been dreaming of Zion’s resurrection for a hundred years. Both Confederates and Zionists believed in a special destiny for their people, born of and sanctified in bloodshed and sacrifice. Both were obsessed with monuments, memory, and military heroics. The CSA had their “knights”; Israel has its elite fighting units. Both embrace ethnic supremacy.

The birth of Zionism and Southern Christianity and their corresponding civic religions owe profound debts to Romanticism and German nationalism. Fritz Stern and Wolfgang Schivelbusch have studied the Southern debt to German nationalism, while Zionism’s founder Theodor Herzl belonged to a German nationalist fraternity and even advocated conversion to Christianity for a time. Herzl’s 1902 novel AltNeuLand (Old-New Land) is the story of a German-Jewish lawyer who retires to a tropical island for 20 years then visits Palestine only to discover a German-speaking, pan-European New Society that Zionists have created.

Again, the South may have lost the War but the North all too willingly embraced Southern myth, heroics, and military veneration. Since Reconstruction it’s been a struggle to rid American military bases of the many Confederate generals’ names, even as white supremacy remains as malign as ever. I would argue that our contemporary American civic religion – militarism – shares this with Israel’s, both reinforcing one another.

Whether it is turning our backs on Reconstruction, continuing to propagate neo-Confederate myth and culture through a hijacked Evangelical MAGA Christianity, or providing 75 years of bipartisan support to a racist Jewish ethnocracy, America has firmly turned its back on its supposed Enlightenment values, as a skeptical Arendt was well aware. Today – and especially since Gaza 2023 – Democrats have torn up or ignored international agreements, laws, and institutions as readily as their MAGA brethren. So much for the supposed “rule based order.” So much for the Enlightenment.

Today’s young “genocide abolitionists” represent the best in our civilizational aspirations despite being smeared as “antisemites.” There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of cases of firings, cancelled talks, banned meetings, arrests, assaults, doxxing, and language policing of ceasefire supporters. Laws are being enacted to shut down protests, ban a social media outlet that does not censor criticisms of Israel, redefine “antisemitism,” and criminalize criticism of Zionism.

How much democracy are we willing to give up for American and Israeli imperium?

Jon Mitchell’s all-expenses paid junket

Last week New Bedford mayor Jon Mitchell spent 4 days in Israel on a junket funded by the American Jewish Committee’s “Project Interchange,” a program “dedicated to connecting global leaders to Israel.” As such, it had nothing to do with Jewish life in the U.S. It was all about cultivating pro-Israel support from foreign leaders for Israel’s benefit.

The “delegation” of the US Conference of Mayors which Mitchell headed was in fact the AJC’s fourth all-expenses paid tour of Israel for mayors. The group toured Sderot, one of the towns raided by Hamas, and participants spoke with families of hostages. There were no meetings with victims of Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing in either Gaza or the West Bank.

Yet according to Mitchell, “The current conflict is widening the political fault lines in our country, and I believe that it is important for mayors, as the leaders of their cities, to take opportunities like this to deepen their understanding of a situation that, as everyone can agree, is complicated and difficult.”

If only that were true. If only an understanding of a complex issue could be obtained by allowing a highly biased party in the conflict to completely shape your views. What’s next for the mayor? Trips to Riyadh and Kiev to obtain insights into what? School funding? Improving municipal services? For most of these mayors their participation in an AJC-funded junket had nothing to do with their day jobs and everything to do with performances meant to burnish their political resumes and broaden contacts with potential donors.

Aside from the fact that the junket took the better part of a week out of Mitchell’s schedule, the AJC is hardly an even-handed educational outfit. It is one of a constellation of Zionist lobbying organizations that exist solely to build support and sympathy for Israel, even as that nation 5,500 miles away conducts a genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and ongoing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.

One of the AJC’s chiefly pro-Israel propaganda efforts is the criminalization of any criticism of Israel. The AJC astroturf group Mayors Against Antisemitism promotes the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which includes roughly 15 features, of which 11 relate to criticism of Israel and Zionism. This is the basis on which the AJC also opposes the non-violent Palestinian BDS movement. In opposition to official US policy but completely in line with Israeli policy, the AJC also opposes a Palestinian state.

The AJC also follows the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s lead in labelling South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at The Hague “meritless” and “a travesty.” The AJC’s antisemitism glossary regards as antisemitic the recognition of Zionism as settler colonialism. It takes some extreme mental and moral gymnastics to willfully deny a historical reality like colonialism.

Partly because of DEI’s critiques of settler colonialism, The AJC has joined other Zionist and Christian Nationalist groups in opposing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Last December former ADL national director Abe Foxman and former AJC CEO David Harris both called for an end of DEI programs. The ongoing McCarthyite Congressional hearings on supposed “antisemitism” in the Ivy Leagues headed by MAGA Republican Virginia Foxx serves both Christian and Jewish ethno-nationalist interests at the expense of American First Amendment rights.

But academics, progressives, and intellectuals have long been a thorn in the side of Zionist groups like the AJC and the ADL. The AJC’s own history reflects this. In the Fifties the AJC was involved (again) in McCarthyite witch-hunts of supposed Communists, in the Seventies it actively opposed affirmative action (in fact celebrating the Baake decision), and in a 2007 pamphlet authored by Alvin H. Rosenfeld with a forward by AJC President David Harris, attacked a number of liberal and anti-Zionist Jews, naming names in a now-familar pattern of smearing critics of Israel.

The AJC is a far-right defender of ethno-nationalist supremacy, occupation and war crimes. Mitchell and other politicians who participate in its programs ought to be called to account. What could they have possibly learned from a tour guide like the AJC? What were their actual reasons for attending? And did any of this have even the remotest thing to do with running their cities?

Jon Mitchell owes his constituents an explanation.

About the IHRA definition of antisemitism

Last February Massachusetts state representative Steven Howitt (R-Seekonk) filed H.1558 (“An Act relative to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism”) which, like a recent U.S. House Resolution, seeks to define any criticism of Israel as antisemitic. The Massachusetts bill declares:

The term ‘Antisemitism’ shall have the same meaning that is endorsed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which shall mean a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Howitt’s description is incomplete if not intentionally dishonest. While the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, originally concocted by Israel’s Foreign Ministry, does enumerate actual manifestations of antisemitism found in the politically-neutral Jerusalem Declaration, much of the IHRA’s definition centers on Israel and Zionism and is intended to weaponize any criticism of Israel, particularly to criminalize the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment (BDS) movement.

Anti-BDS legislation, which threatens Americans’ First Amendment rights, is now found in 37 states. How such bills can even be filed boggles the mind. The right of Americans to boycott was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1982 in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. Fortunately, most Massachusetts legislators have had the good sense to reject anti-democratic bills like these, as they ought to reject the adoption of a weaponized, revisionist definition of “antisemitism.”

The Jerusalem Definition of antisemitism explicitly rejects several elements of the IHRA definition Israel and Zionist groups use for transparent political purpose. Regarding Israel (and not Jews), the Jerusalem Definition says:

  1. Supporting the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil and human rights, as encapsulated in international law.
  2. Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants “between the river and the sea,” whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.
  3. Evidence-based criticism of Israel as a state. This includes its institutions and founding principles. It also includes its policies and practices, domestic and abroad, such as the conduct of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, the role Israel plays in the region, or any other way in which, as a state, it influences events in the world. It is not antisemitic to point out systematic racial discrimination. In general, the same norms of debate that apply to other states and to other conflicts over national self-determination apply in the case of Israel and Palestine. Thus, even if contentious, it is not antisemitic, in and of itself, to compare Israel with other historical cases, including settler-colonialism or apartheid.
  4. Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic.
  5. Political speech does not have to be measured, proportional, tempered, or reasonable to be protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and other human rights instruments. Criticism that some may see as excessive or contentious, or as reflecting a “double standard,” is not, in and of itself, antisemitic. In general, the line between antisemitic and non-antisemitic speech is different from the line between unreasonable and reasonable speech.

Let’s say it again – opposing Zionism, criticizing or boycotting Israel is not antisemitic.

Long before the establishment of the State of Israel — and long after — there has been considerable disagreement about the nature of the Israeli state, especially among Jews.

Orthodox Judaism rejected Zionism until the establishment of Israel, and Jews like Hannah Arendt, Martin Buber, Judah Magnes, and Albert Einstein voiced numerous criticisms of the Zionist founders of Israel. For over a century even Zionists themselves have warned of the dangers of harshly treating Arab neighbors in Palestine. For example, see Hannah Arendt’s articles in Aufbau, recorded in her “Jewish Writings” (ISBN 9780805211948) .

Zionism and the nature of the Jewish State have long been a polarizing issue within Reform Judaism. The American Council for Judaism is a contemporary anti-Zionist organization that formed after Reform Judaism abandoned its previous condemnation of Zionism (see Thomas A. Kolsky’s “Jews Against Zionism” (ISBN 9781566390095).

Today anti-Zionist Jews include people from the Reform, Reconstructionist, Havurah, Humanist, and Masorti movements, even some Orthodox sects such as the Satmars and Neturei Karta. One public intellectual, Peter Beinart, a modern Orthodox Jew, was once a well-known Zionist but has since joined the anti-Zionist camp. The most likely anti-Zionist Jews today are young people who grew up embracing the promises, if not the reality, of American democratic values, not racist ethnocentrism. There are dozens of organizations in the United States, Europe, and even Israel who represent these overwhelmingly young Jews, among them Jewish Voice for Peace and Not In Our Name.

At the end of the day, Americans have a Constitutional right to disagree about foreign policy. Should we fight with Taiwan if China invades? Should we have expanded NATO after Gorbachev? Should we have invaded Iraq? Is India a democracy? As with any of these examples, Americans ought to be free to hold an opinion on whether Israel is a democracy or not, whether its treatment of Palestinians respects human rights and human dignity, and whether we ought to continue pumping billions of dollars into the economy of a nation that keeps millions of people caged in concentration camps.

Most controversial of all, should Americans support the continued existence of Israel as an illiberal ethnocracy or are we free to advocate for a true democracy “from river to the sea”? Anti-Zionists answer this question with a call for freedom — while those who promote the IHRA definition dishonestly characterize any call to abandon Zionism’s inherent racism and colonialism as somehow advocating a second Shoah.

As it happens, the IHRA definition has a long and twisted history. It was concocted by an extremist settler, Natan Sharansky, ideologically related to settler extremists Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich who serve in Netanyahu’s coalition government. Sharansky’s definition of antisemitism wended its way from the Israeli government to an Israeli think tank, to Zionist advocacy groups, to the US State Department, only to be subsequently weaponized against the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. A short chronology:

  • 1978: For many years the Hansell Memo was the policy of the United States in terms of illegal Israel settlements. “While Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, for reasons indicated above the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law.”
  • 1986: Soviet Refusenik Natan Sharansky is released in a prisoner exchange and moves to Israel
  • 1995: Sharansky founds the Yisrael BaAliyah Party to advocate for the eventual absorption of 2 million Russians, many not Jewish, as a demographic offset to rising Arab population growth. He holds a variety of governmental posts.
  • 1999-2005: Sharansky serves as Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, Minister of Housing and Construction, Interior Minister, and Minister of Industry and Trade. Sharansky becomes Israel’s Minister without Portfolio, responsible for Jerusalem’s social and Jewish diaspora affairs. In this position, Sharansky chairs a secret committee that approves the confiscation of East Jerusalem property of West Bank Palestinians.
  • 2005: Sharansky resigns from Ariel Sharon’s cabinet in protest of the Prime Minister’s withdrawal from Gaza.
  • 2005: Sharansky invents the New Anti-Semitism (his term). This innovation includes the “3D Test” – demonization, double standards, delegitimization. The definition eventually finds its way into the EU working definition and then, after being dropped by the EU, is recycled by the IHRA. As employed today, “demonization” can refer to any type of condemnation of Israel. Avoiding “double standards” requires that, as the only Jewish state in the entire world, Israel must not be criticized. And “delegitimization” means that Israel has a right to exist in any form — even as a repressive state. Hence, criticism of Israel’s Apartheid system, for example, is off-limits if since calls into question Israeli self-determination, regardless of the form.
  • 2005: The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights develops a working definition of antisemitism in conjunction with the Wiesenthal Center. It doesn’t take long before that definition is misused to smear critics of Israel.
  • 2005: The EU drops the use of the working definition precisely because it is so political, igniting anger from Israel.
  • 2010: Israeli Think Tank, the Reut Group, creates a “conceptual framework [as a] response to the assault on Israel’s legitimacy.” Reut has specifically studied critiques of South African Apartheid in order to develop a political firewall against so-called “delegitimization” of Israel.
  • 2010: Israel’s National Security Council determines that a Palestinian state will delegitimize Israel — hence both Palestinians and supporters of a Palestinian state are by definition antisemitic.
  • 2010: President Barak Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorse Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand that Palestinians recognize Israel’s “right” as a Jewish state. HIllary Clinton begins using the draft version of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition in her State Department.
  • 2016: If at first you don’t succeed… The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance announces its working definition of “antisemitism” which includes Sharansky’s 3D test and recycles the EU’s working definition. The Pompeo State Department formally adopts the IHRA definition.
  • 2018: Israel approves the Jewish Nation-State Law affirming that Israel is not only a Jewish state but “a state for all Jewish people.” The Law also establishes “Jewish settlement as a national value” and mandates that the state “will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.” When the law is passed, Arab parliamentary members rip up copies of the bill and shout, “Apartheid,” on the floor of the Knesset (Israel’s parliament). United States Secretary of State (under Trump) Michael Pompeo voids the Hansell memo.

The IHRA definition is not benign. It is intensely political and the creation of an Israeli extremist in a previous extremist government who then turned it over to a think tank tasked with weaponizing it. The purpose of the IHRA definition is to pervert the natural meaning of antisemitism (baseless hatred of Jews) and punish any criticism of Israel or the nature of the Israeli state.

For any legislature to regulate what is “acceptable” speech is not only a violation of civil liberties but also (when directed at anti-Zionist Jews) both laughable and antisemitic.

Yes, antisemitic because for any legislative committee to hold a preconceived notion of what all Jews believe, or ought to believe, is the very definition of antisemitism.

Gessen – speaking truth to power

Objectivity Wars panel held at the Columbia School of Journalism, with Masha Gessen speaking (Kegoktm, 2022, CC)

Masha Gessen knows something about totalitarianism and human rights abuses. The Russian journalist, translator, trans rights activist, and public intellectual was born in Russia in 1967 to a Jewish family that survived the Holocaust only to experience Stalin’s Soviet Union. In 1981 Gessen’s family relocated to the United States. As a journalist, Gessen (they, their) have written extensively about Russian authoritarianism. In 2020 they wrote in The Nation about MAGA World’s threats to American democracy. Until last week everybody wanted to hear from Masha Gessen.

In mid-December Gessen was in line to receive the Hannah-Arendt-Preis from the [Heinrich] Böll-Stiftung and the German State of Bremen for their prescient warnings and advocacy for human rights. But the latest Gaza war erupted, and with it a wave of repression of voices critical of Israel’s human rights abuses — or any advocacy of Palestinian liberation.

Just before the Böll award was to be conferred, Gessen published a piece in the New Yorker entitled “In the Shadow of the Holocaust.” The piece was mainly about how memory and history are managed in Europe. In it Gessen casually ripped Israel’s human rights abuses in Gaza. They framed the piece with a visit to the Berlin Jewish Museum:

“There, an installation by the Israeli artist Menashe Kadishman, titled ‘Fallen Leaves,’ consists of more than ten thousand rounds of iron with eyes and mouths cut into them, like casts of children’s drawings of screaming faces. When you walk on the faces, they clank, like shackles, or like the bolt handle of a rifle. Kadishman dedicated the work to victims of the Holocaust and other innocent victims of war and violence. I don’t know what Kadishman, who died in 2015, would have said about the current conflict. But, after I walked from the haunting video of Kibbutz Be’eri to the clanking iron faces, I thought of the thousands of residents of Gaza killed in retaliation for the lives of Jews killed by Hamas. Then I thought that, if I were to state this publicly in Germany, I might get in trouble.”

Gessen chafes at governmental regulation of thought and language, and takes issue with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of “antisemitism” which “began with the obvious — calling for or justifying the killing of Jews — but also included ‘claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor’ and ‘drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.'” A competing definition, the Jerusalem Declaration, does not regard as antisemitic: support for the Palestinian demand for justice; criticizing or opposing Zionism; or evidence-based criticism of Israel.

Gessen goes on to criticize the German Bundestag’s resolution to condemn the BDS [Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement], which was originally introduced by the ultra-right and Nazi-connected AfD Party (Alternative für Deutschland). Gessen writes: “one could argue that associating a nonviolent boycott movement, whose supporters have explicitly positioned it as an alternative to armed struggle, with the Holocaust is the very definition of Holocaust relativism. But, according to the logic of German memory policy, because B.D.S. is directed against Jews — although many of the movement’s supporters are also Jewish–it is antisemitic.” Gessen reminds us that the Director of the Berlin Jewish Museum Gessen began their essay with was forced to resign in 2019 for supporting the non-violent BDS movement.

Gessen mentions Zionist extremism, fascistic tendencies within it, the unprecedented extremism of the current Israeli government – and yet the demonization of any criticism by the German government and cultural institutions. “Holocaust recognition is our contemporary European entry ticket,” Gessen quotes historian Tony Judt in his 2005 book, “Postwar.”

Their New Yorker article contrasts the “Holocaust Memory Wars” in Germany and Poland and the involvement of the Far Right in both countries which includes even Holocaust deniers. Despite this, “Netanyahu was building alliances with the illiberal governments of Central European countries, such as Poland and Hungary, in part to prevent an anti-occupation consensus from solidifying in the European Union. For this, he was willing to lie about the Holocaust.”

Babyn Yar is a giant ravine outside Kyiv in the Ukraine. In September 1941, in just 36 hours, tens of thousands of Jews were murdered in what is known as the “Holocaust by bullets,” which Benjamin Netanyahu inevitably compared to the Hamas attack on a rave in the Negev desert. Netanyahu has also compared Palestinians to the Jewish concept of Amalek – a biblical story about a race of people who attacked the Hebrews and mix multitudes in the desert but which now refers to the very personification of evil. Gessen writes: “Netanyahu has been brandishing Amalek in the wake of the Hamas attack. The logic of this legend, as he wields it–that Jews occupy a singular place in history and have an exclusive claim on victimhood–has bolstered the anti-antisemitism bureaucracy in Germany and the unholy alliance between Israel and the European far right. But no nation is all victim all the time or all perpetrator all the time.”

And now we get to Gaza and the quote that landed Gessen in hot water with the German arbiters of Holocaust memory:

“For the last seventeen years, Gaza has been a hyperdensely populated, impoverished, walled-in compound where only a small fraction of the population had the right to leave for even a short amount of time–in other words, a ghetto. Not like the Jewish ghetto in Venice or an inner-city ghetto in America but like a Jewish ghetto in an Eastern European country occupied by Nazi Germany.”

The reaction in the German press was predictable. Even supposedly “left-leaning” media like taz.de (Die Tageszeitung) savaged Gessen. Die Zeit, considered to be a newspaper of record (like the NYT or WaPo), favors the narrative of the Deutsch-Israelische Gesellschaft, the German-Israel Society, or DIG, which was founded by German protestant theologians in 1957. According to die Zeit, the German-Israel Society maintains that Gessen’s article is in:

“clear contrast to Hannah Arendt’s thinking” with such statements. […] Gessen is free to repeat such views, [DIG] goes on to say. “But Masha Gessen’s views should not be honored with a prize intended to commemorate the Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt.”

Anyone who has read Arendt’s work on Nuremberg, Totalitarianism, or her “Jewish Essays” knows this to be a dishonest characterization. Arendt may have been a Zionist inasmuch as she had been hounded from Germany herself, but Arendt was no friend to the Zionism that emerged following the Biltmore Conference in 1942. Arendt’s Zionism gravitated more to a binational concept promoted by Judah Magnes, whom she revered (and who was called a “Quisling” by American Zionists for warning that the Arab world was not going to accept Revisionist Zionism’s cruel vision of “Israel” and for opposing the Biltmore Conference).

Arendt gave credit – albeit with her characteristic side of critique – to a fringe Zionist group called the Ihud which promoted an Arab-Jewish federation. She made an absolute distinction between a Zionist state and a Jewish homeland. In Arendt’s writings, the latter (as long as it also provided refuge for Shoah survivors) was to be preferred. The Ihud was in fact only one of several groups with similar bi-national proposals that, as early as the Twenties and Thirties – a century ago! – knew that forcing Palestinians into cantons or concentration camps was a recipe for disaster.

Throughout her essays in Aufbau and later in the New Yorker (collected in The Jewish Writings) Arendt was brutally opposed to the extreme Revisionist Zionism that became normative Israeli Zionism and which was widely promoted by American Zionists. To cite one example, in December 1948 Arendt wrote a long essay in the New York Times in which she violated the “antisemitic” Verbot of comparing Israeli fascists to other fascists – which Gessen quotes in part in their article:

“Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the”Freedom Party” (nuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy, and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine. The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.”

“A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April, The New York Times reported that terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants — 240 men, women, and children-and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Transjordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.”

“The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party. Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultra-nationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model. During the last year of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and widespread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.”

In today’s new climate of suppressing all criticism of Israel, Masha Gessen has joined thousands of victims of firings, cancellations, shutdowns, and even arrests throughout the Western world.

The irony is that Gessen’s essay — though it may have run up against the perfunctory New German Philosemitism that replaced the reptilian Old German Antisemitism — is true to Hannah Arendt’s legacy, right down to its reaction by mainstream pro-Israel groups and the Western nations too eager to blindly defend it.

Stop funding Apartheid (and worse)

The October 7th assault on Israel by Hamas militants was a heinous, gruesome, and traumatizing act of terror for Israelis who had become complacent to inevitable resistance from people they have subjugated for 75 years. Despite members of Israel’s new government now speaking openly of genocide and ethnic cleansing, there was never much doubt that the US would side with Israel. Americans, who learn their history and geography only when wars break out, generally have little idea what kind of state they are funding, or even what kind of conflict this is.

Though almost always painted as a religious war, this last outbreak of violence is the latest chapter of a long-festering land dispute that drags on, largely because of the amount of money and weaponry the US sends Israel to maintain their grip on Palestinians and slowly erase them from lands they should have had when colonial powers carved up the Middle East in the wake of World War I.

After the attack, with concern for Israel rarely displayed toward any other country, a stream of US politicians — congressmen, senators, mayors, presidents — flew to Tel Aviv to be photographed with Israeli officials and offer condolences, even as Israel launched a barrage of over 6,000 bombs into Gaza, killing thousands of civilians indiscriminately. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced a “complete siege” on Gaza’s civilian population (illegal under international law) and added, “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” Member of Israel’s Knesset Ariel Kallner called fora “Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of ’48. Kallner was referring to the ethnic cleansing of over 750,000 Arabs in 1948, many of whom fled to Gaza and have lived in refugee camps for three generations. Similar appeals to cleanse the West Bank of Palestinians are routine now.

Ignoring these genocidal intentions, 420 congressmen signed a resolution supporting Israel without reservation and omitting any mention of war crimes being committed in reprisal for Hamas’s attack. A parallel House resolution calling for a pause in Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of civilians and allowing Gaza to receive humanitarian aid was supported by only thirteen Democrats — all people of color. Biden’s ambassador to the UN vetoed a similar resolution, cynically saying “We believe we need to let that diplomacy play out.” As the US well knows from previous vetoes, only mass civilian casualties will result from letting missile diplomacy “play out.”

Americans love Israel so much that an Israeli “lobbying” group is permitted to operate in violation of FARA laws and regularly flies congressmen on junkets to Israel. Laws in 37 states punish criticism of Israel. Israel has been the recipient of the largest amount of foreign and military aid of any ally, to date receiving more than $150 billion, with more dished out every year. The United States reliably vetoes any UN resolution critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. State Department officials regularly speak of “no daylight” between US and Israeli positions and the two countries’ “unbreakable bond.” Israel is routinely described as “the only democracy in the Middle East” although it is no democracy at all for Palestinians inside Israel itself or in Gaza and the West Bank.

Although it’s not clear the love is reciprocated, American love for Israel is a product of similar history and religion. In addition to the ethnic cleansing both the US and Israel were founded on, there is also a religious dimension to the relationship. When Anthony Blinken flew to Israel after the Hamas attack he told the Israeli Defense Ministry, “I come before you not only as the United States secretary of state but also as a Jew.” From the Christian bleachers Lindsay Graham managed to inject good-ole-boy American racism into a call for genocide on Gazans: “To Cornel West and the Black Lives Matter group […] We’re in a religious war here. I am with Israel. Do whatever the hell you have to do to defend yourself. Level the place.”

When George Washington stepped down after a reasonable number of years of service (listen up, Joe!) he left behind his thoughts on foreign entanglements in his famous Farewell Address. Warning of precisely “unbreakable bonds” and “zero daylight” with allies, Washington wrote, “nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave.” Washington could have been speaking of Israel and Iran.

So when progressive Democrat Pramila Jaypal referred not long ago to Israel as a racist country practicing Apartheid, all hell broke loose. Republicans seized the opportunity to force a non-binding resolution that read: “(1) the State of Israel is not a racist or apartheid state; (2) Congress rejects all forms of antisemitism and xenophobia; and (3) the United States will always be a staunch partner and supporter of Israel.” The second point served to reinforce the taboo of criticizing Israel – lest one be accused of antisemitism. All but nine Democrats of color voted for the resolution.

To be fair, most white Democrats defend the United States precisely as they do Israel (we are a good people, this is not who we are) even though the U.S. was founded on genocide and slavery and continues to oppress people of color. In the case of Israel, theirs is a nation with an immense occupation by Jews of an almost equally-sized population of Palestinians, depriving them of their human and civil rights for the last 75 years and systematically taking more and more of their land.

Like the old American Confederacy through Jim Crow days, Israel promulgates laws to enshrine and reinforce Jewish supremacy and ethno-religious segregation. The degree of segregation even applies to Israeli Jews. Haredi women ride segregated buses. Segregated communities are common. Their Supreme Court affirmed the right of communities to exclude Arabs, LGBTQ+, and the disabled. Vigilantes attack Arab men dating Jewish women. More than 65 laws discriminate against Arab citizens of Israel – the 20% who were not expelled to refugee camps.

Although Israelis are officially prohibited from entering Palestinian areas, over 650,000 settlers have already seized land in the West Bank. Separate highways have been built for settler use only. Israel may be a nation of laws but Israeli courts are overly friendly to land-grabbing scofflaws while all Palestinians get is endless martial law. Life for Palestininans in Gaza and the West Bank is hell. As an occupier, Israel destroys Palestinian civilian infrastructure arbitrarily and attacks civilians indiscriminately. In the West Bank settlers operate with impunity while the government destroys Palestinian homes, schools, and crops or decides to clear a village for military purposes – only to turn around and hand it over to settlers.

Just as in the United States, where Christian nationalism is rapidly destroying what’s left of our so-called “democracy,” Jewish nationalism, with its attendant racism and illiberalism, has similarly brought Israel’s “democracy” to the point of collapse. Almost every Israeli political party has historically embraced Palestinian expropriation or expulsion to some degree, but now the most extreme Zionist elements have “taken the gloves off” and are coming not only for Palestinians but for secular Jews and their secular values. Suddenly religious settlers are being recognized for the dangerous fanatics and racists they are.

Israel’s 37th government includes elements from the Kach party, once banned as a terrorist organization. Former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of “tak[ing] the Ku Klux Klan and [bringing] them into the government,” equating ministers Itamar Ben Gvir, Betzalel Smotrich and others with the KKK (which actually operates in Israel). Netanyahu’s Revisionist Zionism had a long association with extremism and fascism, long before the founding of the state.

Israel’s extremist government acknowledges that Apartheid is their goal. Israeli Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who once displayed a photo of the man who massacred 29 Muslims at prayer in his illegal settlement home, told an Arab journalist on Israel’s Channel 12, “excuse me, Mohammed, but this is the reality. This is the truth. My right to life outweighs your right to move on the streets.”

The West Bank Yishi community, which was built on land stolen from the ethnically-cleansed village of Dayr Aban, used to advertise two-acre plots with tennis courts and a forest preserve to Americans eager to emigrate. “Looking for the American Dream in Eretz Yisrael? …. Do you want American neighbors and immediate access to Bet Shemesh and Ramat Bet Shemesh schools? …. Does an Arab-free environment sound appealing? Yishi is miles inside the green line and even further from the nearest Arab settlement… A place in Israel that comes as dreamed, no concessions, no compromise.” Its residents would heartily endorse Alabama governor George Wallace’s declaration, “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

While American politicians ignore the grim reality for Palestinians and pretend that Israel is a Western democracy, Israelis are much more willing admit that their country practices Apartheid.

The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem asserts it. Israeli author David Grossman has said it. The Israeli anti-occupation group Yesh Din calls the occupation Apartheid. Before he was assassinated by an extremist from the settler movement, Yitzhak Rabin called the settler movement a “cancer” and warned that Israel risked becoming an Apartheid state. In the 1980‘s Uri Davis, an Israeli activist, and Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli political scientist, used the phrase. The Israeli groups Adalah, B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence, Combatants for Peace, Gisha, HaMoked, Haqel: In Defense of Human Rights, Human Rights Defenders Fund, Ofek: The Israeli Center for Public Affairs, Physicians for Human Rights–Israel and Yesh Din all supported an Amnesty International report calling Israel’s practices Apartheid.

And who knows better than the nation of South Africa? South Africa downgraded Israel’s embassy in protest of Israeli Apartheid and openly called Israel an Apartheid state at the UN. Of course, perhaps they were just sore that Israel actually supported South African Apartheid.

Many other voices recognize parallels with the old South African system. Last April, for the first time, the venerable journal Foreign Affairs ran an article calling Israel an Apartheid state. Human Rights Watch considers Israel’s treatment of Palestinians Apartheid. Amnesty International says so too. The American group Jewish Voice for Peace agrees. The American Friends Service Committee uses the term “Israeli Apartheid.” Former UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon cautiously says Israel is “inching” toward Apartheid. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman blasted a Republican pro-Israel position as pro- Apartheid. Marine Corps General James Mattis used the term describing Israel’s “democratic” dilemma: democracy or Apartheid. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made exactly the same argument. Former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean called Israel an Apartheid state. Former President Jimmy Carter thought so too. He even wrote a book making the case.

And if compassion for Palestinians is antisemitic, you’d better tell American Jews. Among respondents of a 2021 survey commissioned by the Jewish Electorate Institute, a group led by prominent Jewish Democrats, 34% agreed that “Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is similar to racism in the United States,” 25% considered “Israel is an apartheid state” and 22% thought that “Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians.”

Yet none of this has managed to reach the ears of Congress or the President.

House Republicans may have an excuse for the open embrace of ethnic cleansing and ethno-religious supremacy – that’s just who they are – but Democrats who refuse to call out a violent occupation and an Apartheid regime deserve nothing but contempt for their cowardice. In fact, the defense of racist ethno-religious nationalism in Israel only undermines Democrats’ credibility if not their ability to fight it here at home.

The United States has never applied either carrots or sticks to Israel. Instead we just turn on the spigot and keep the money flowing for Apartheid. This needs to stop now. Let Israel fund its own repressive racist regime without our help.

Claiming Palestine “from the river to the sea”

Poster in Wing’s Court, New Bedford (Author, 2023)

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) considers the call for Palestinian liberation — “from the river to the sea” — to be both anti-semitic and an endorsement of terrorism:

“This rallying cry has long been used by anti-Israel voices, including supporters of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the PFLP, which seek Israel’s destruction through violent means. It is fundamentally a call for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, territory that includes the State of Israel, which would mean the dismantling of the Jewish state. It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland.”

But it’s not quite so simple as the ADL would have it, and accusations like theirs are symptomatic of a new McCarthyism that demonizes people who recognize that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict simply cannot continue without a just resolution, and that the root cause has always been the injustice of oppressing Palestinians.

Setting aside for a moment the terror required to subjugate millions of people for three generations in prisons, reservations, city-sized ghettos, or refugee camps weaponized into concentration camps, let’s consider the terror of only the last month.

Long before we heard an Israeli general call Palestinians human animals and long before our jaws dropped as a member of the Knesset demanded a doomsday nuclear strike on Gaza, fatalities related to Israel’s occupation were already over 10,000. Craig Mokhiber, a UN human rights official who recently resigned in protest, called Israel’s actions in Gaza “a text-book case of genocide.” US State Department Political-Military affairs analyst Josh Paul resigned in protest over US aid to Israel, while State Department foreign affairs specialist Sylvia Yacoub wrote a policy dissent, warning that the US is “complicit in [Israeli] genocide.”

Plans for dropping the entire population of Gaza in the Sinai desert — which an intelligence report called the “final rehabilitation” — were published in even the Israeli news. And now that Israel has surpassed Hamas’s terror by slaughtering another 10,000 civilians (with another 2,200 missing and presumed buried under rubble) and has imprisoned 10,000 Palestinians without charges versus the 200 kidnapped by Hamas, it’s clear that the winner of the terror sweepstakes is Israeli state terror — aided, abetted, and funded by US tax dollars.

Subject to steady encroachment by violent fundamentalist settlers who refer to it as Judea and Samaria, the West Bank has for decades avoided total annexation by Israel and represents an inconvenient impediment to a contiguous span of entirely Israeli territory. If Israel’s extremist government succeeds in their stated goal of full annexation of the West Bank and completes its task of ethnically cleansing Gaza, it will mean the death of any sort of Palestinian state and the denial of self-determination for Palestinians. But that has been the objective of Zionism since the beginning.

You’ve got to hand it to the ADL — which has moved over the years from sounding the alarm on discrimination against Jews to becoming little more than a pro-Israel mouthpiece — for the consistency of its hypocrisy. The ADL regards any challenge to or criticism of Zionism to be anti-semitic. Protests are anti-semitic. Boycotts are anti-semitic. Calls for freedom and liberation are anti-semitic. Murals like the one in Wing’s Court, New Bedford (image above), which use the dreaded phrase must also be anti-semitic.

But is there really anything objectionable in “from the river to the sea” — other than the obvious shorthand for borders, as Americans might use “coast to coast” or “sea to shining sea”? Or is it because American protesters, many of us Jews, are allies in pushing for Palestinian freedom? Such accusations and pushback from pro-Israel mouthpieces like the ADL are precisely like the segregationists who had derisive names for whites who supported civil rights. One was “race traitor” and the other ended in “–lover.”

As it happens, the word “river” never actually appears in the original Hamas Charter, which is indeed an offensive document rivaling equally offensive Zionist documents like Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall or the propagandistic and racist pseudoscience coughed up by Yair Netanyahu, the Prime Minister’s son and Israel’s Eric Trump.

But the 2017 Hamas Charter does contains two mentions:

“Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras al-Naqurah in the north to Umm al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit.”

and another sentence uses the ADL’s censored words:

“Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.”

Interestingly, the Likud uses similar language in its 1977 platform, which calls for complete Jewish control of all of Palestine between the river and the sea, and specifically rules out a Two State solution:

from Jewish Virtual Library

“Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan [river] there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”

Israel’s Revisionist Zionist movement, the progenitor of Netanyahu’s Likud party, had greater territorial ambitions than a state bounded on the east by the Jordan River. In pre-1948 posters from the Irgun, the Harut youth movement, and in fundraising appeals to North American Zionists and others, Revisionist Zionists used a verse from Bereshit (Genesis) 15:18 which refers to the Euphrates river, not the Jordan:

On that day, the Lord formed a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt until the great river, the Euphrates river.

That biblical quote appears at the top of the left-most poster shown below with the caption “Land of Israel” and in another Irgun poster advocating taking not only the portion of the British Mandate reserved for Jews and Arabs (west of the Jordan) but Transjordan (present-day Jordan) as well — by force:

Left to right: 1947 Irgun map; Herut youth movement; Tel Chai fund; Irgun Poster showing all of Transjordan as “the only solution”

The Revisionists, and every bible-thumper they appealed to, were no doubt also familiar with verse 13:

And He said to Abram, “You shall surely know that your seed will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will enslave them and oppress them, for four hundred years.

Whatever the origins, and whoever has adapted or used it in some variation, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is now used by peace activists — anti-Zionist rabbis among them — to signify liberation and justice for Palestinians in both Gaza (which borders the sea) and the West Bank (which touches the Jordan but is an occupied military zone).

For many the phrase is simply an affirmation — long denied — of a Two State Solution that successive US administrations give frequent lip service to. For some of us it’s the recognition of both the futility of Two States and the impossibility of continuing to support an Apartheid state while denying any kind of statehood to Arabs. A bi-national secular democracy uniting Jews and Arabs in a single secular state could be a solution. Israel, as a Zionist nation built on an Apartheid model, would cease to exist. And so would Hamas’s dreams of an Islamic state.

In any case, just as Israel still has no Constitution after 75 years, it also has no internationally recognized, undisputed borders. Perhaps the best anyone can do is to speak of the river and the sea and the possibilities of freedom in between.

Zionist Apologetics

Shortly after October 7th, the Atlantic Monthly published a piece by Simon Sebag Montefiore, British aristocrat, Tory, earnest defender of colonialism, and sloppy Pop historian.

Montefiore’s article was nothing but Zionist apologetics laced with talking points from the American far right’s war with “woke” intellectuals. It was not surprising that the Atlantic printed it, as this has long been a publication for Democratic neocons and Zionists. The issue of Palestine has always exposed the dishonesty and hypocrisy of certain liberals, quoting conservatives and claiming to support democracy and equality here at home while supporting the opposite in Israel. This is precisely the debate that is now tearing the Democratic Party apart. Young Americans who grew up knowing nothing but non-stop American wars since 2001 now understand that support for Israel is part and parcel of the militarism and imperialism that followed September 11th, 2001, and of course the militarists and imperialists are pushing back.

These Young Americans have also taken note of the undeniable similarities between Zionism and Christian nationalism. Both are malignant nationalist, supremacist ideologies. Zionism, which pretends to be a perfectly natural, reasonable form of self-determination by one people is in fact the ideology underlying a racist state built upon the suffering and ethnic cleansing of another.

Jews, especially those from the Austro-Hungarian empire who settled in Palestine long before Herzl wrote “Der Judenstaat,” had a very different conception of what life in the “Heiliges Land” meant. Early “Palestinians” were largely motivated by religion. These early Zionists thought of living in the land peaceably with the indigenous people and it was normal to think of themselves as citizens of the Ottoman empire. It wasn’t until the Revisionist Zionist movement that the notion of territorial maximalism took root. This was formalized at the 1942 Biltmore Conference in New York City. In any case, there is only one Zionism now, and it is a cruel, savage, selfish ideology based on a zero-sum calculation — Jews must own all of Palestine, and no sharing or compromise can be possible for the state to be fully “Jewish.”

There are now almost 10 million Israelis. No one imagines anyone marching them into the Sinai desert — as Israel has long fantasized about marching Gazans. Even without formal recognition, there are numerous regional trade deals, particularly between Israel and Saudi Arabia and the UAE. If official recognition is withheld it is chiefly because of the brutal treatment of Palestinians. Israel’s preoccupation for its existence — at a time when it is the 14th military power in the world, BFF’s with every other colonial power, can claim to have had a couple of US aircraft carriers deployed as a courtesy, and is the only nuclear power in the Middle East — is overwrought if not outright propaganda. The “massed Arab armies” so often cited (as in Montefiore’s piece) are in fact Palestinian liberation movements without states, navies or air forces.

Although Israel has always regarded Palestinian statehood as a non-starter (see Jabobinsky and the Likud platform), it is touchy when anyone questions its legitimacy.

But Israel’s legitimacy is not a question of the right of Jews to exist, or even to remain in Palestine. The question of Israel’s legitimacy concerns Israel’s “right” to exist as an Apartheid state — a designation many Israelis accept, by the way. Israel’s legitimacy also depends on its geographical boundaries. Just as I have a legitimate claim to my own home but not my neighbors’ or the entire neighborhood, Israel’s legitimacy depends on how much of other people’s property it has stolen or has claimed.

Besides annexing the West Bank and openly seeking to reclaim Gaza, Israel occupies both Lebanese and Syrian territory. Israel’s legitimacy is also called into question when asking why Jews should hold all the power in the state, while 56 laws discriminate against non-Jewish citizens of that state. Or when asking what right Israel has to keep millions of stateless Palestinians under martial law, in ghettos and concentration camps. Or the legitimacy of a Law of Return for Jews that lets any Jew anywhere “return” to Israel while the same is denied to Palestinians. In the United States, the legitimacy of the state flows from the consent of the governed. In Israel, the legitimacy of the state seems to flow from the fact of being a Jew. To describe Israeli and American democracy as indistinguishable is completely wrong. Americans may live in a racist nation, but not one with laws literally based on race.

So let me get on with my critique of Montefiore’s rubbish.

  • The usual racist trope of the barbaric Palestinian versus the civilized European: “The Hamas attack resembled a medieval Mongol raid for slaughter and human trophies–except it was recorded in real time and published to social media.” However, Israel’s siege of Gaza seems to harken back in history before the Mongol’s, to the Hebrew genocides recorded in the Bible – sieges of civilian populations behind walled cities (as Gaza is) and genocide of civilians.
  • Anti-intellectual posturing: Western academics have supposedly “denied, excused, or even celebrated the [October 7th] murders by a terrorist sect that proclaims an anti-Jewish genocidal program.” Montefiore has been watching FOX News too much, as apparently have the editors of the Atlantic. If you take the effort to look at the first controversy at Harvard, one by a group of students supporting Palestinians, it is in fact not a celebration of Hamas at all. For the most part academics have nuanced views of both colonialism and the right of oppressed people to fight back, and apparently Montefiore believes there is no colonialism or oppression in Palestine.
  • Right-wing epithets used for effect not clarification: “fashionable ideology” “leftist intellectuals” “Marxist theory” “Soviet propaganda” “anti-semitism” “intimidating jargon” “once-respectable intellectuals” “radical follies.” I can only conclude that Montefiore has been hanging out with Ron DeSantis or Chris Rufo and exchanging notes on Truth Social. He’s not talking to the average liberal; he’s signaling to Christian and Jewish Zionists — extreme ones. Montefiore is one more link in the attack engine that has been going after academics who don’t toe the line on Israel.
  • Resents calls for “decolonization: Well, guess what? Israel is a colonial settler project. Zionism had a long history of appealing to colonial empires (Ottoman, British, American) for its existence, and it now depends on colonial empires (Britain, France, US) for its continued existence. It may be a great shock to Montefiore, but colonized people resent being colonized. There is nothing wrong with trying to shake off the oppressor, though I wish Hamas had not ended its breach of the Gaza concentration camp security walls with the massacre of civilians and kidnappings. He goes on to insult those who share the view that colonized people have a right to fight their oppression as poseurs, wine-drinking fakes.
  • Antisemitism: Montefiore claims that the Hamas massacre is pure and simple antisemitism, and he provides a list of all the Jewish calamities that Jews recall at Tisha B’Av. He fails to mention that in the Zionist madrassas in the West Bank they are teaching kids that Palestinians are Amalek — the personification of pure evil. He fails to mention that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is first and foremost a land dispute.
  • Genocide denial: Montefiore denies that a genocide is taking place in Gaza. When General Yoav Gallant announced a total siege on civilians and called them “human animals,” it was clear that a genocidal war was about to begin. And sure enough, it began with cutting off everything civilians need to live. Then half of Gaza’s 2.2 million people fled south for their lives, only to be bombed there. Over 8,000 civilians have been killed, half of them children. More than half of all Gaza homes were destroyed a week ago; by the end of the war there will not be anything left. Wolf Blitzer interviewed an Israeli colonel who left him speechless when he admitted slaughtering 50 civilians to kill one Hamas commander. PBS showed an Israeli tank shooting a passenger van in Gaza. Thirty journalists have been bombed. The New York Times reported that Israeli officials told State Department officials they were going to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Gazans. And liberal Israeli media is reporting on two different plans to illegally transfer whatever is left of the carpet-bombed Gazans to 10 cities in Egypt in further violation of laws of war. Of course this is genocide. Instead, Montefiore mentions some harassment of West Bank Palestinians by settlers but glosses over the 1948 Nakba, where Zionist militias wiped out 500 villages and displaced 750,000 Arabs, many of whom live in Gaza today and for whom this is a second Nakba. He claims the Jewish exodus of almost a million Mizrachi Jews is somehow equivalent. However, two thirds were recruited by the Jewish Agency and the Knesset debated the necessity of doing so. The only thing that makes them equivalent is that both the Nakba and the various aliyot were organized by Israel.
  • Montefiore whines about corrupt Arab governments – as if the multiple-indicted Netanyahu were also not the head of a corrupt government.
  • Montefiore admits that the British stiffed the Arabs when it promised its new spoil of war to British Zionists in a letter from Balfour to Rothschild. He writes that the only promise of an Arab state was a 1915 agreement with Sharif Hussein, but he omits the many partition plans that were proposed. One, the Morrison-Grady plan, included the Negev in an Arab state, but it was thwarted by the Jewish Agency’s establishment of “11 points” — militarized kibbutzim in the Negev which included some of those attacked by Hamas on October 7th. I could go on, but Montefiore’s history lesson is simply a dishonest exercise by a professional historian.
  • Montefiore writes: “It was an armed Jewish revolt, from 1945 to 1948 against imperial Britain, that delivered the state. Israel exists thanks to this revolt, and to international law and cooperation, something leftists once believed in.” What a warped portrayal. Montefiore would have you believe that the West was opposed to Zionism but it was only saved by plucky Zionists who persisted. Not so. The British outsourced much of the administration of Palestine to the Jewish Agency, which was a plus because it didn’t cost Britain a cent, and the departing colonizers bequeathed Israel with most of their infrastructure, armaments, and the military laws used to subjugate Palestinians to this day. Britain had departed long before May 14, 1948 and when they finally issued the official Termination of the Mandate it praised Zionists for making the desert bloom. The United States recognized Israel 11 minutes after its independence was declared. Israel has always been the darling of colonial powers and not the plucky little victim. It didn’t take long at all after independence for the colonial powers to arm Israel with nukes.
  • Montefiore is either wrong or lying when he writes: “Most Israelis are descended from people who migrated to the Holy Land from 1881 to 1949.” This is complete garbage. In 1947 the population of Israel was roughly 650,000 Jews and Arabs twice that number. From 1948-1951, 690,000 Jews immigrated; from 1952-1960 300,000 Jews immigrated; from 1961-1971 430,000 immigrated; from 1972-1979 268,000 immigrated; from 1980-1989 154,000 immigrated; from 1990-2001 over a million; from 2002-2010 181,000 immigrated; from 2011-2020 237,000 immigrated. An overwhelming majority of Israel’s population came as a result of recent settlement efforts funded by Zionist organizations, notably the Jewish Federations of North America. Over 2 million European Jews immigrated after 1948 and 1.2 million Russians came in the Seventies — many of them not even Jewish but useful as a demographic counterpoint to Arab birth rates. Although the American Jewish community has played an outsized role in colonizing Israel, only about 140,000 Americans have immigrated.
  • Montefiore writes that if Americans are no longer settlers, then Israelis should not be considered such either. I suppose the implication of his argument is that if Americans can normalize the occupation of indigenous lands, why can’t Israelis do so too? There’s too much to unpack here but I will point out that Native Americans can move anywhere they like within the United States, can vote, run for political office, and are subject to dual systems of law ONLY when one system is their own, not imposed on them by race laws.
  • Montefiore attempts to put a spin on Israel’s ethnic mix, citing Ethiopian Jews and Mizrachim. It’s the “some of our best friends are X” argument only slightly repackaged. But Ethiopians and Mizrachim serve in the IDF and prisons and drive the bulldozers which destroy Palestinian homes. They live in West Bank settlements where they destroy Arab and Bedouin crops and livestock. Israel’s Ashkenazim are sill the Cabots and Lodges of the Jewish state. Newer olim (immigrants) from Ethiopia, Yemen, Iraq, and even Russia lack the status but thank their lucky stars they’re not reviled Arabs.
  • Identifying Israel as a colonial settler project is antisemitic: “But the decolonizing narrative is much worse than a study in double standards; it dehumanizes an entire nation and excuses, even celebrates, the murder of innocent civilians.” This is quite the stretch. What Hamas did was immoral and a war crime; What Israel is doing to Palestinians is immoral and a war crime. I think we can condemn both, especially when the scale and historical breadth of Israel’s crimes is so much greater.
  • Identifying Israel as a colonial settler state blocks a solution: “The Israel-Palestine conflict is desperately difficult to solve, and decolonization rhetoric makes even less likely the negotiated compromise that is the only way out.” This in itself is vapid rhetoric. How can anyone deal with systematic land theft, an occupation, a double set of racist laws, and genocidal suppression without talking about throwing off the yoke? And if Apartheid and settlements are the problem, they should be named and stopped.
  • Zionist lobby groups have made it difficult to criticize Israel. In 37 states there are laws on the books which create penalties for people and organizations who support the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement. But Montefiore is ready to declare war on academic institutions where students and faculty exercise their free speech: “Parents and students can move to universities that are not led by equivocators and patrolled by deniers and ghouls; donors can withdraw their generosity en masse, and that is starting in the United States. Philanthropists can pull the funding of humanitarian foundations led by people who support war crimes against humanity (against victims selected by race). Audiences can easily decide not to watch films starring actors who ignore the killing of children; studios do not have to hire them. And in our academies, this poisonous ideology, followed by the malignant and foolish but also by the fashionable and well intentioned, has become a default position. It must forfeit its respectability, its lack of authenticity as history. Its moral nullity has been exposed for all to see.” For a guy who hates boycotts, here he is ready to launch boycotts on multiple levels.
  • Montefiore laments the feckless Palestinian “governments” of the West Bank and Gaza. Surely he must know that Abbas has only one function: to be the West Bank’s police chief. Abbas was not elected, while Hamas held elections most recently in 2006 — a full generation ago! It’s safe to say, Palestinians never voted for any of these crooks and thugs. And how could they? Democracy can never thrive in a prison, or where faux Palestinian “governments” are selected by Israel.
  • Montefiore waxes poetic as he sings of the peace made between Yitzhak Rabin and Yassir Arafat. He neglects to mention that Israel’s settler movement, now in power, actually assassinated Rabin while Israel tried to take out Arafat before he became ill, and then cynically invested millions of shekels in Hamas, a Muslim Brotherhood group they thought had no chance of gaining traction or popularity, in order to marginalize Fatah and the PLO. And now we’ve seen how that’s worked out.

Jews opposing Zionism

In May 2022 Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), spoke at the organization’s leadership summit, telling attendees, “To those who still cling to the idea that anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism — let me clarify this for you as clearly as I can — anti-Zionism is anti-semitism.” Greenblatt directed his remarks at three organizations. One of them was CAIR, the Council for Islamic American Relations, which fights discrimination against Muslims.

Another was Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), with half a million mainly Jewish members and 70 chapters throughout the country. JVP rejects Zionism as strongly as it condemns Christian Nationalism, Zionism’s equally evil twin. But JVP is not an anomaly. For decades if not longer there has been strong anti-Zionist sentiment within the Jewish world.

Theodor Herzl’s pamphlet “Der Judenstaat” outraged Orthodox Jews. Zionists arriving in Palestine were informed upon by Palestinian Jews to the Ottoman authorities. Before it eventually embraced Zionism, Reform Judaism rejected Zionism at its 1885 convention in Pittsburgh:

“We recognize, in the modern era of universal culture of heart and intellect, the approaching of the realization of Israel s great Messianic hope for the establishment of the kingdom of truth, justice, and peace among all men. We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state.”

Jewish communities in Lithuania, Britain, Germany, the United States, and Russia objected to Zionism for a number of reasons: Jews were already at home in their own countries; creating a temporal state contradicts the messianic promise of Judaism; it would jeopardize relations between Jews and Muslims in Palestine (!!); it would destroy acceptance of Jews in countries in which they live; Judaism is a religion, not a political theory; Zionism would exacerbate suspicions of dual loyalty and foster anti-semitism (!!); and a Jewish state is inherently undemocratic (!!).

In 1919 Jewish Congressman Julius Kahn presented an anti-Zionist petition to Woodrow Wilson signed by 300 prominent American Jews including Henry Morgenthau, Sr.:

“We protest against the political segregation of the Jews and the re-establishment in Palestine of a distinctively Jewish State as utterly opposed to the principles of democracy which it is the avowed purpose of the World’s Peace Conference to establish. Whether the Jews be regarded as a ‘race’ or as a ‘religion’, it is contrary to the democratic principles for which the world war was waged to found a nation on either or both of these bases.”

In 1944 Hannah Arendt published Zionism Reconsidered, in which she points out the obvious:

“Only folly could dictate a policy which trusts a distant imperial power for protection, while alienating the goodwill of neighbours […] If the Jewish commonwealth is obtained in the near future […] it will be due to the political assistance of American Jews […] if the Jewish commonwealth is proclaimed against the will of the Arabs and without the support of the Mediterranean peoples, not only financial help but political support will be necessary for a long time to come. And that may turn out to be very troublesome indeed for Jews in this country, who after all have no power to direct the political destinies of the Near East.”

And in fact, Zionists have depended on colonial powers for Israel’s existence as well as its continued existence. The dependency has persisted for over 75 years.

According to Zionists like the ADL’s Greenblatt, anti-Zionism is “anti-semitic” because it rejects the “peoplehood” of Jews. “Peoplehood” in the political sense is a Zionist innovation, not a necessity of Judaism. Even between the destruction of the Second Temple in the 2nd Century and the establishment of Israel in 1948, Jews managed to remain a “people” in cultural, religious, and linguistic terms. With the founding of Israel, however, Zionists expected Jews everywhere to embrace, if not immigrate to, the temporal state of Israel without questioning its policies, legal structure, or its human rights practices. This expectation was doomed from the start because of the long Jewish antipathy to Zionism.

American Jews, particularly younger generations, recognize the many obvious defects of American democracy but revere the ideal of a secular republic which privileges no one and offers justice to everyone. Some of America’s most democratic jurists have defended this kind of America, from Louis Brandeis to Ruth Bader Ginzburg. But Zionism, in order to express itself in a Jewish state, must privilege Jews and Jewish rights at the expense of “others” it must subjugate. When anti-Zionists hear the words “Jewish and democratic” in relation to Israel they hear the same contradictions in terms that anti-Zionists a century earlier noticed.

Peter Beinart may be one of the best-known ex-Zionists in the United States. In 2019 Beinart penned an article for the Guardian, concerned with the rise of anti-semitism but also cautioning to distinguish between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism.

Beinart systematically debunked the Zionist argument that anti-Zionism equals anti-semitism by pointing out that (1) statehood for any group is neither guaranteed nor always desirable; that (2) there is nothing inherently discriminatory in dismantling a state itself built on discrimination (the example he gives is South Africa); and that (3) the conflation of the two terms is contradicted by the existence of anti-semites who are full-throated supporters of Zionism (examples provided are Christian Zionists and Christian Nationalists).

In a 2020 podcast Beinart advocated a One-State solution in Palestine. Rejecting the hollow phrase “the Two-State solution,” now impossible because not enough contiguous land remains for a Palestinian state, Beinart explained his reasons for writing another essay, “I No Longer Believe in a Jewish State.”

“If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fulfills his pledge to impose Israeli sovereignty in parts of the West Bank, he will just formalize a decades-old reality: In practice, Israel annexed the West Bank long ago. Israel has all but made its decision: one country that includes millions of Palestinians who lack basic rights. Now liberal Zionists must make our decision, too. It’s time to abandon the traditional two-state solution and embrace the goal of equal rights for Jews and Palestinians. It’s time to imagine a Jewish home that is not a Jewish state.”

In an article in Jewish Currents Beinart explained that, just as Judaism thrived when it transitioned from temple-based practice to rabbinic study, it will likewise be the better for abandonment of Zionism:

“For roughly a thousand years, Jewish worship meant bringing sacrifices to the Temple in Jerusalem. Then, in 70 CE, with the Temple about to fall, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai imagined an alternative. He famously asked the Roman Emperor to “Give me Yavne and its Sages.” From the academies of Yavne came a new form of worship, based on prayer and study. Animal sacrifice, it turned out, was not essential to being a Jew. Neither is supporting a Jewish state. Our task in this moment is to imagine a new Jewish identity, one that no longer equates Palestinian equality with Jewish genocide. One that sees Palestinian liberation as integral to our own. That’s what Yavne means today.”

Beinart went on to explain why the Two-State solution is dead and what might replace it. He warned that “Averting a future in which oppression degenerates into ethnic cleansing requires a vision that can inspire not just Palestinians, but the world. Equality offers it.”

With the carpet bombing of “human animals” in Gaza we just saw how prescient Beinart’s words were.

Nobody in Palestine is going anywhere. Millions of Jews, millions of Palestinians will remain attached to the land. The only thing prolonging the conflict is the massive financial and military aid to Israel by the United States, used mainly for the repression and carpet-bombing required to maintain Jewish supremacy.

But would the fabled “massed Arab armies” actually attack a democratic Jewish-Arab state that offered the same rights to everyone? Would a unified state be any more dangerous to live in than two states, each building walls and stockpiling weapons against each other?

This is why many anti-Zionists share Beinart’s vision of a single state in Palestine. But to get there Israel’s Apartheid state must be dismantled and in its place something equitable for both people must be built.

The plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza

Killing the “animals” – Israel’s “surgical” bombing of Gaza

Genocide and ethnic cleansing are part of America’s DNA and many of us would prefer to not think about it. Maybe that’s why American politicians bristle at those words when applied to Israel. It is inconceivable to many of us that a nation often described as “the only democracy in the Middle East” and (for Believers) the second incarnation of Biblical Israel could ever commit such atrocities. Congressional resolutions, preferred trading status, military and intelligence cooperation, and vetoes at the UN shield Israel from the consequences of its actions. Israel has received over $165 billion in aid from the US, the largest for any country. Laws in 37 states penalize or criminalize criticism of Israel. It’s been a veritable love-fest. Until this month Israel has largely enjoyed impunity for humanitarian crimes against a civilian population almost as large as its own.

But these last couple of weeks have been very different. Israel’s bombing of Gaza has moved well beyond retaliatory, far beyond indiscriminate, to a level bordering on genocidal. And there is no clearer sign of the persistence of the ethnic cleansing that created Israel than a widely-discussed plan to use it again in concert with the bombing of Gaza.

On October 9th Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant declared a siege on the entire civilian population of Gaza, calling them “human animals.” Intended was apparently a return to primitive warfare where walled cities are conquered by destroying all life within. But a walled city is more than just a metaphor in Gaza, where the world’s largest open air prison is surrounded by deadly border technology.

Palestinian home vandalized, reads – “Death to the Arabs”

Voice after Israeli voice promised vengeance on Gaza’s civilian population for the Hamas attacks. “Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist,” retired IDF Major General Giora Eiland wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth. In a nation that enshrines Jewish supremacy in law and where “Death to the Arabs” is chanted at marches, rallies, soccer games or sprayed on Palestinian homes and graves, and where government ministers invoke it while encouraging anti-Arab pogroms, it’s not just Hamas Israel is looking to expel or kill. It’s every Palestinian in Gaza.

Gallant’s orgy of bombing, which launched as many strikes in a single day as the United States launched in Afghanistan in a year, was originally to be followed up by forcible transfer of all Palestinians from Gaza.

Leaflet warning Gazans to flee south

On October 13th Israel dropped leaflets telling residents of Gaza City:

“You must evacuate your homes immediately and go to the south of Wadi Gaza. For your security and safety you must not return to your homes until further notice from the Israeli Defense Forces. Public and known shelters must be evacuated. It is forbidden to approach the security wall, and anyone who approaches exposes himself to death.

Gazans from the north made the trip by car, donkey cart, and on foot in scenes reminiscent of the 1948 Nakba. Almost as soon as compliant refugees from Gaza City arrived in Khan Yunis, Israel began carpet bombing them. An episode of the New York Times podcast “The Daily” gave listeners a sense of the desperation of civilians and the indiscriminate nature of the bombing. Nowhere was safe. Everything was being bombed. Thousands of children have been killed as a result. A panel of U.N. experts has called Israel’s bombing “collective punishment” and “a war crime.”

But vast destruction and massive civilian casualties, not precision strikes on Hamas, were always the objectives.

A document provided to the Israeli financial magazine Calcalist (roughly, the Economist) and circulated within the Intelligence Ministry promotes the forced transfer of all residents from Gaza. According to Calcalist, “the document, [recommended by Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel], which is unlikely to affect government policy, may have been written to give a boost to the settler movement and its objectives [but] in any case it is a direct continuation of the extreme policy that the government has been promoting since it was established.”

“Gamliel’s document supposedly looks at three alternatives in the post-war era, but the alternative ‘to yield positive and long-term strategic results’ is a transfer of Gaza citizens to Sinai. The move includes three steps: establishing tent cities in Sinai to the southwest of the Gaza Strip, creating a humanitarian corridor to assist residents and, finally, building cities in northern Sinai. At the same time, a sterile area of several miles will be established within Egypt south of the border with Israel, so that evacuated residents cannot return. In addition, the document calls for cooperation with as many countries as possible so that they can absorb the displaced Palestinians from Gaza and provide them with absorption packets. Among other things, Canada, European countries such as Greece and Spain, and North African countries are mentioned.”

A similar white paper calling for ethnic cleansing of Gaza was produced by Misgav, the Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy. The document, “A plan for resettlement and final rehabilitation in Egypt of the entire population of Gaza,” is exactly what it sounds like – a plan to force all of Gaza’s inhabitants over the Rafah crossing into ten refugee cities in the Sinai desert. As with Gamliel’s white paper, the international community is expected to fund Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Gazans and absorb the resulting stateless refugees. According to Misgav plan, whatever the cost, it’s

“actually a very worthwhile investment for the State of Israel. The land conditions in Gaza, which are similar to the Gush Dan area, will in the future allow many Israeli citizens to live at a high level and in fact will expand the Gush Dan area to the Egyptian border. It will also give a tremendous impetus to settlement in the Negev.”

The white paper goes on to say that a deal between Egypt and Israel (and also Saudi Arabia, which would provide some of the funding and construction) could be easily concluded in days. The authors salivated over the Hamas attack as an opportunity that might never come again:

“The IDF must create the right conditions for the Gazan population to immigrate to Egypt [and] there is no doubt that in order for this plan to come to fruition, many conditions must exist at the same time. Currently, these conditions are met and it is unclear when such an opportunity will arise again, if ever. This is the time to act. Now.”

Click image to hear Ayalon discuss the Misgav plan to expel Gazans from Gaza

While Calcalist did not anticipate that the Gamliel document would get much traction within the government, in an interview with Marc Lamont Hill on Upfront, former Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon cited the Misgav plan (with its ten cities) and downplayed the forced transfer as a “temporary relocation.” But who was Ayalon kidding? Building ten cities for refugees in Egypt sounds like a “relocation” that is anything but temporary.

End U.S. support for the Occupation

Nof Zion is a religious Zionist settlement in East Jerusalem created by removing the Palestinian residents of Jabel Mukaber (Author, 2009)

Friends and family know that I am no partisan of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine, its 75-year occupation of Palestinians now either relegated to refugee camps or internally-displaced, controlled by barbed wire, high-tech fences, whose movements are controlled by ubiquitous checkpoints, who are surveilled, suffer warrantless searches by the Israeli military and indeterminate detention without recourse to a justice system only for Jews, whose houses are bulldozed or expropriated by settlers, who are denied their own state, ringed by settlements that further ghettoize them and breed resentment and hatred, such as we saw last week.

for Palestinians in the West Bank there is no such thing as freedom of movement. Instead, checkpoints and walls and barbed wire (Author, 2009)

I have friends and family with Israeli roots, and I am still in touch with peace activists from the Eshkol district in Israel where almost all the attacks occurred. I have plenty of anger and grief over what happened in the Negev. But I do think we have to be honest about where Palestinian resentment comes from. We also need to admit that killing a child, whether by commando, blockade, sanctions on medical equipment, or F16, is still the murder of a child.

Over the years I have followed Israel’s many military operations against both Fatah and Hamas; its shameful participation in the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres of 3,500 Palestinians in Lebanon by Falangist militias; a commando attack on the Mavi Marmara, which killed 19 peace activists, including Americans trying to deliver aid to Gaza; Israel’s disproportionate use of military force in Operation Cast Lead, the 2008 version of what is likely to come this week; and the killing of journalists, last year Palestinian-American reporter Shireen Abu Akleh, three days ago Reuters videographer Issam Abdallah.

I have met Palestinians whose olive groves are routinely vandalized or destroyed by settlers, whose young men are routinely harassed in often deadly versions of Stop and Frisk, and whose children are detained without warrant or counsel in adult prisons for throwing rocks. I have met Gazans who live in the tiny enclave of refugee camps the size of Detroit – but with 3.5 times the population – and can’t even fish the waters off their own coast. And I have met Palestinians who still have the key to a home now occupied by a Jewish family in Jerusalem. Both historical and daily wounds afflict Palestinians because of ethnic cleansing and occupation that began in the 20th Century and festers well into the 21st.

Over time Israel’s politics have lurched from right to far right. Its 37th government is now comprised of extremists who intend to neuter Israel’s supreme court – the last obstacle to full annexation of the West Bank. And they also want to impose religious restrictions, such as gender segregation and changes to marriage law, on even secular citizens. Last week’s trauma to Israel has been compared to 9/11. As with 9/11, when Americans began chanting “USA! USA!,” Israelis now heed the call to “Stand with Israel.” Trauma seems to feed nationalism. This is also true of Palestinians.

A member of the ruling coalition recently endorsed pogroms on Palestinian villages after extremist settlers went on a rampage of killing and arson. “I think the village of Huwara needs to be wiped out. I think the state of Israel should do it,” said Israeli Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich, who is also responsible for civil administration in the occupied West Bank. Meanwhile, Israel’s Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir enlightened journalists with his Jewish supremacist views: “My right, the right of my wife and my children to move around Judea and Samaria [biblical names for the West Bank] is more important than freedom of movement for the Arabs.”

These are the gloves-off versions of Apartheid and ethnic cleansing that Israel’s government was once too ashamed to say out loud. Before Hamas attacked Israel such talk was beginning to frighten semi-liberal secular Israelis. Now Israel’s pro-democracy demonstrators are fully behind a new war government that has already killed over 2,000 in Gaza with indiscriminate bombing.

But territorial maximalism is a primary goal of all the political parties in Israel’s coalition government. Israel’s settler movement and its friends in the Knesset are still angry about Arial Sharon’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza. Even if Hamas had not attacked Israel last week, many expected extremist ministers to propose re-establishing some of the 21 Jewish settlements that once occupied 45% of the Gaza Strip. Such talk has surfaced in the wake of the attacks, and Israel is now forcing 1.1 million Gazans to flee south – an incomprehensible number which Palestinians fear could create a second Nakba (catastrophe). Those with passports are fleeing across the Erez Crossing into Egypt. Between the bombing and the forced expulsions, there will surely be another reduction in the population of Gaza. Someone has called it “ethnic cleansing on the installment plan.”

Throughout the years the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem has documented the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians through raids, military operations, or settler violence. Israel calls this periodic bloodletting “mowing the grass.” In its efforts to target Hamas fighters, Israel manages to mow down mostly civilians, more often than not children. Each time a payment on the aforementioned installment plan.

Even assuming that reports of children being decapitated by Hamas fighters last week are true, why have so few tears been shed for the thousands of children whose bodies are blown apart by Israeli bombs paid for by American tax dollars? Perhaps for the same ugly reason it has been so easy for Americans to kill Mexicans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Central Americans, Puerto Ricans, Afghanis, and Iraqis. Israel certainly has some soul-searching to do. Americans too.

For all the US State Department and Israeli Foreign Ministry press releases expressing shock, anger, and solidarity — for all the many emotional appeals, for all the bias in the media, the cynical invocations of the Holocaust, the unfortunately necessary pushback against antisemitic incidents that inevitably occur in the wake of this conflict, or the religious and racial connections between Western Jews and Christians – we’re still ignoring the most glaring feature of this conflict: the wrongs done and wrongs being done to Palestinians.

The Occupation is Israel’s and Israel’s alone. Every death that emanates from this conflict weighs most heavily on Israel because Israel chooses not end the Occupation. No nation should enable, justify, defend, or fund the Occupation. Let Israel go it alone and see how quickly change can come about – when the US isn’t subsidizing it.

It is an abomination that Israel’s occupation has gone on for 75 years. The human misery it has inflicted and inflicts daily ought to shame every Western power complicit in its continuation.

The United States must not provide a cent more to Israel.

Those to whom evil is done

Approximate range of Hamas attacks

For some people, the Hamas attacks came out of nowhere and can only be explained by sinai chinam, the Hebrew term for baseless hatred. This of course ignores the history and the reality of the moment. With American politicians streaming into Israel to express sympathy and solidarity, it has become politically and socially dangerous to point out that the Hamas attack, while violating every standard of human decency and every law of war, was not unprovoked. It is also politically and socially dangerous to note that, unless something changes, Hamas’s savage attack and Israel’s savage response won’t be the end of it. That “something” is Israel’s 75 year occupation of a population almost its own size.

W.H. Auden’s poem, September 1, 1939, is a deeply dark and political poem about the rise of Nazism culminating in the invasion of Poland on September 1st, 1939. In it we find these lines: “I and the public know / What all schoolchildren learn, / Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return.” As today, Auden’s expressions of simultaneous revulsion at Nazism and disgust for the reparations and humiliations Germany was subject to, and which fed Nazism, were not appreciated by a flag-waving public averse to nuance.

Managing the occupation of a population almost its own size has left Israel with basically three options: (1) to grant citizenship to Palestinians and create a democratic secular state; (2) clear out of the illegal settlements to permit a Palestinian state to exist; or (3) kill as many Palestinians as possible and force them to flee elsewhere. Israel has always chosen the third option and, appallingly, most Western nations with histories of colonialism and ethnic cleansing themselves have been complicit enablers — the United States especially.

Some of the 20 sites attacked

Americans may not like to face facts, but for years many Israelis, including those in Israel’s security establishment, have warned that Israel has become an apartheid state. In September, Tamir Pardo, the former head of Mossad, used exactly those words: that Israel was forcing an apartheid system on Palestinians in the West Bank. The month before, Israel’s Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir acknowledged exactly how the system works: “My right, the right of my wife and my children to move around Judea and Samaria” — the biblical names for the West Bank — “is more important than freedom of movement for the Arabs.” And this was the West Bank he was talking about, not the strip of squalid, densely-populated refugee camps in Gaza to which residents of hundreds of Arab villages in the Negev were forced to flee and which is now the largest open-air prison on the planet.

Last week’s attack on Israel was stunning and ambitious. Amid a barrage of rockets which temporarily overwhelmed the Iron Dome defense, Hamas commandos also used low-tech ordnance, drones, and paragliders to overwhelm Israel’s border surveillance systems, then systematically attacked over 20 kibbutzim. All were within striking distance of Gaza, and the targets in most cases were kibbutzim and moshavim of military importance or which had been built on “cleansed” Arab villages. There is no question that Hamas used terror, but it was not merely a symbolic act like felling the Twin Towers or crashing into the Pentagon. Hamas was conducting a military operation to test Israeli defenses, new tactics, and its own reach. For next time.

Nahal Oz, which was one of the 20 attacked, is half a mile from the town of Sakarya in Gaza. After the 1967 war it became an access point for the Gaza Strip. Because of its proximity to Gaza, it has been under steady attack since its founding in 1951 as Israel’s first Nahal (paramilitary/vocational) settlement.

Density of Israel’s agricultural settlements and Gaza’s refugee camps

In April 1956, Nahal Oz’s security officer Ro’i Rothberg was killed and his funeral was attended by none other than Moshe Dayan, whose eulogy acknowledged Gazans’ anger at being ethnically cleansed from their own land, the burden that Nahal border settlements bore to serve as security buffers for the rest of Israel, and – freely expressed – that Israel’s settlement can only proceed by ignoring the pain and anger of those it has consigned to the life of refugees. It is an astoundingly warped and profoundly un-Jewish perspective on human suffering:

Early yesterday morning Roi was murdered. The quiet of the spring morning dazzled him and he did not see those waiting in ambush for him, at the edge of the furrow. Let us not cast the blame on the murderers today. Why should we declare their burning hatred for us? For eight years they have been sitting in the refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we have been transforming the lands and the villages, where they and their fathers dwelt, into our estate. It is not among the Arabs in Gaza, but in our own midst that we must seek Roi’s blood. How did we shut our eyes and refuse to look squarely at our fate, and see, in all its brutality, the destiny of our generation? Have we forgotten that this group of young people dwelling at Nahal Oz is bearing the heavy gates of Gaza on its shoulders? […] We will make our reckoning with ourselves today; we are a generation that settles the land and without the steel helmet and the cannon’s maw, we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home. Let us not be deterred from seeing the loathing that is inflaming and filling the lives of the hundreds of thousands of Arabs who live around us. Let us not avert our eyes lest our arms weaken.

Ashkelon, which was bombarded by missiles during the attack, was once the Palestinian town of al-Majdal with 10,000 residents, mainly Muslim and Christian. It was ethnically cleansed in 1948.

Be’eri, one of this hardest-hit by Hamas, is roughly 2 miles from Gaza and, as the crow flies, perhaps 5 miles from Gaza City. It is one of 11 settlements in the Negev established by the Jewish Agency in 1946 to block the Morrison-Grady Plan, a partition plan which would have assigned the Negev to a Palestinian state. The rave at which over 260 young people were slaughtered is just outside Be’eri, where over 107 were also butchered at the Be’eri kibbutz. Most of Be’eri’s members belong to Israel’s secular left. Vivian Silver, who was on the board of B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization reviled by the Netanyahu government, was one of those abducted by Hamas.

Kfar Aza was another scene of brutal butchery of civilians by Hamas. Established in 1951 by Maghrebi Jews from Egypt and Morocco, Kfar Aza lies 3 miles east of Gaza.

Kissufim, whose residents were murdered and abducted, is another Nahal settlement founded in 1951 by the Zionist Youth Movement and is quite close to the former Gush Katif settlement in Gaza, one of 21 settlements evacuated by Arial Sharon in 2005. There is also a crossing to Gaza two miles to the West.

Magen is 2.5 miles from the Gaza border and was also overrun in the Hamas attack.

Nirim is another 11-point settlement founded in 1946 by Hashomer Hatzair volunteers to thwart the Morrison-Grady partition plan. An important battle took place in Nirim in 1948 but Israel was able to hold the town.

Ofakim was founded in 1955 by Moroccan and Tunisian Jews, displacing Bedouins in an area called Khirbat Futals. The original residents fled to Al-Muharraqa, from which they were then expelled to the Gaza Strip. Many of the hostages from the October raid by Hamas were from Ofakim.

Sderot s only a half mile from Gaza and was built on the site of the Palestinian village of Najd, whose 13,576 residents were ethnically cleansed the day before the British Mandate ended and Israeli independence was declared. Villages like Sderot were intended to serve as buffers to prevent “re-infiltration” by Palestinians to Israel. For years towns like Sderot in the Negev were where Israel’s Ashkenim settled new arrivals from the Maghreb, then Ethiopia and Russia.

The Eshkol district which includes most of these communities includes Yesha, where Trump’s ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, himself a settler, owns a home.

Urim, which was attacked but not penetrated by Hamas, is built over the ruins of the Arab village of Al-Imara, whose original residents were forced to flee to Gaza.

Yad Mordechai kibbutz was founded in 1936 by Polish Hashomer Hatzair on the site of the Palestinian village of Hiribya.

Yated (“anchor”) was founded in 1982 and is among the southern-most settlements near Gaza’s Rafah crossing to Egypt.

Zikim, which was the scene of a naval assault by Hamas, was originally known as Hiribya. In 1945 it had a population of 2500. Its residents fled Jewish militias and most fled to Gaza. In 1949 Hiribya was re-settled by Hashomer Hatzair, a Labor Zionist youth group which formed several kibbutzim in Israel’s South.

* * *

One of the most disturbing videos that surfaced after the attacks was of the attack on young Israelis at a rave barely two miles from Gaza. Disturbing because 260 young people with the rest of their lives before them were massacred just to make a political point. But also disturbing that anyone can imagine the freedom to dance with joyous inhibition barely two miles from so much inflicted human misery.

Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return.

No justice, no peace

Israel’s occupation has been ongoing since either 1947 or 1967, depending on how you count. An indisputable fact is that Israel has kept Palestinians under martial law for the last 75 years and has steadily chipped away at land intended to be their national homeland.

Israel and the Western nations, however, have continuously thwarted Palestinian statehood and winked as endless incursions, assassinations, land theft, and marginalization has created a de facto Apartheid state. American politicians speak of their deep commitment to a “two state” solution, knowing full-well that the land theft has now progressed so far that, without dismantling the illegal settlements, “two states” is nothing but a cynical, meaningless slogan.

Much like the US creation of the Taliban, Israel’s creation of Hamas (which was intended to neutralize the political power of Fatah and the PLO) has backfired spectacularly.

In 2005 Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made the decision to “withdraw” from Gaza. The Israeli military indeed withdrew from Gaza, but more controversial and traumatic for Israelis was the decision to physically dismantle 21 illegal settlements. This was seen as a betrayal of Zionist ideals by Israel’s far right, which still lists Sharon’s “betrayal” in its long enumeration of grievances.

Israel’s 2008 war on Gaza, known as “Operation Cast Lead,” killed 3 Israeli civilians and left 10 IDF soldiers dead by “friendly” fire. It also left vast devastation in Gaza and killed between 759 and 926 Palestinian civilians. A prize-winning photo by AFP photographer Mohammed Abed shows Israeli phosphorus munitions (which melt human bodies) raining down over a ruined school in Gaza. This was a brutal, disproportionate use of Israel’s military, which drew widespread international condemnation — though very little from the United States.

Israel is now in the throes of a crisis of its one-sided democracy. Amid demonstrations that have exposed fault lines in Israeli society, the nation formed its 37th coalition government around Netanyahu’s ultraconservative revisionist Zionist Likud party, Bezalel Smotrich’s ultranationalist Religious Zionist party, and Itamar Ben Gvir’s Neo-fascist Jewish Power party, which openly calls for expelling all Arabs from Israel and territory that Israel claims.

Ben Gvir’s political base is the old Kach party, which was banned for its advocacy of terrorism, and consists of extremists from the settler movement with links to Ygal Amir, who assassinated Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin in 1995, and Baruch Goldstein, who murdered 29 Palestinians at prayer and injured 125 in Hebron in 1994.

Last year Netanyahu and Ben Gvir agreed to legalize settlements frozen, not coincidentally, in 2005. The entire West Bank is to be Israel’s Wild West. In a nation without a constitution, Israel’s supreme court is the only obstacle to human rights abuses. And now this coalition wants to neuter the nation’s court. Liberal Israelis fear the country is headed toward a future like Hungary’s.

With greater Palestinian suffering and the rise of a more authoritarian Zionism with fewer restraints and greater territorial aspirations — this is the dangerous context to this weekend’s invasion of Israel by an undisciplined group of Hamas fighters who carried out horrific murders, rapes, assaults and abductions of Israeli and international civilians in violation of international law.

But as an opinion piece by Sanjana Karanth reminds us, the Hamas attack may have been sadistic, indiscriminate and illegal. But to consider it totally “unprovoked” is to ignore 75 years of Israeli repression and Palestinian suffering.

As I watched videos of Hamas fighters moving systematically house-to-house in Sderot, it reminded me of the many videos I’ve seen of IDF troops moving house-to-house in Palestinian villages. It is likely that the Hamas kidnappings were intended in some twisted way to parallel Israel’s arrests, removal to Israeli soil, and indefinite imprisonment of Palestinians, arrested without warrant and imprisoned without court proceedings.

In 2009 I visited Israel and Palestine. I saw one of Israel’s physical Apartheid walls with my own eyes, the dehumanizing checkpoints, and I got a sense of the grim reality and deprivations for Palestinians. I visited a refugee center that generations of Palestinians have had to call home. I also visited an illegal settlement so large and so “American” that it was indistinguishable from an Orange County suburb with its ACE Hardware store and a community college. I visited Hebron and met an ultranationaist settler whose zealotry and violent fantasies alarmed me more than walking around Ramallah unchaperoned looking for a lunch spot.

In Sderot, which this weekend was ravaged by the Hamas invasion, I met with Mizrachi (Jews from Arab countries) peace activists who used to go into Gaza City to shop and who described the widespread PTSD of adults and children who have to hide in safe rooms. At the Zikim kibbutz, which was also breached by Hamas, I met with lefty Jews like me who sympathized with the plight of Palestinians despite being shelled. A huge concrete shield is built over the kibbutz’s daycare center to protect it from ketusha rockets fired so often that a cheeky rockets-to-ploughshares menorah was constructed out of the spent cylinders.

Everyone I met on that visit were all dear people, all precious lives. For everyone, Israelis and Palestinians alike, I want what we should all have – peace, enough to eat, security, a future for children and grandchildren. But for both Palestinians and Jews there can be no peace so long as Israel and Western nations (themselves no strangers to colonialism) wink at Israel’s colonial oppression and refuse to recognize the explosive potential of an oppressed people rising up in frustration because no one cares about them.

Once again this week we saw that potential.

As Israel’s “pro-democracy” movement suggests, Israelis themselves are beginning to understand that a state only for Jews with laws that privilege only Jews cannot ultimately even be a democracy for Jews. Just as white Americans have started to acknowledge this truth and our own history of genocide, slavery, and Jim Crow, many Israelis are beginning to grapple with the realization that Zionism is not so different from good old-fashioned American white supremacy. It might help that many are former Americans who emigrated.

The long-awaited Third Intifada has finally broken out. The old slogan “no justice, no peace” seems particularly apt. Palestinian desperation and Israeli insecurity will be permanent features of Israel’s Apartheid state unless there is sufficient American and international pressure on Israel to abandon its vast illegal settlements to finally enable a Palestinian state to become a reality.

Two ‘democracies’ in crisis

Most Americans still think of Israel as the “little country that could” – what Israelis call their “startup nation.” Some fondly recall the kibbutzim or the old Labor governments, liberal-ish but not really all that liberal and certainly not democratic — at least for those in Arab villages inside and outside Israel’s borders. But since the 1967 war Israel has moved quite far to the right and has had a succession of right-wing governments. Over the years the U.S. has pumped over $150 billion into its economy, dedicated, at least in part, to maintaining a ethno-religious state many liken to South African Apartheid.

The 37th government of Israel, formed at the very end of 2022 and led by Smotrich, Ben Gvir, and Netanyahu, is the most right-wing of all time. It’s so extreme that Israel’s apologists now have an almost impossible job of defending the nation’s illiberal and openly racist policies. Liberal Israelis are alarmed by authoritarianism now directed against them and by religious extremism that now seeks to marginalize them. 28% are considering leaving the country. Tech companies (many of which are registered in Delaware) and some physicians are relocating. Both Smotrich and Ben Gvir openly call for murdering and expelling Palestinians. A settler now under arrest for murder in a pogrom on a Palestinian village once worked for an extremist Member of the Knesset who praises him as a hero.

All this is so over-the-top that a completely different response is required from the United States. And when I say “over the top” I mean: what’s happening today exceeds the routine mistreatment and deprivation of human rights that Israel has inflicted for 75 years on a population almost its own size — realities the U.S. ignores as it dishonestly claims to support a “Two-State Solution” — now impossible because of the colonization of the West Bank by over 650,000 settlers.

As enablers of Israel’s occupation and illegal settlements, U.S. administrations have complained unconvincingly that they have no real leverage with Israel. But the United States has always had both carrots and sticks. “Tough love” for Israel does not necessarily mean dismantling US-Israel military cooperation or slapping sanctions on a state that is arguably doing some of the same things to Palestinians that Russia is doing to Ukrainians. It could involve stopping the annual billions in subsidies (which even progressive Israelis are calling for). It might entail altering diplomatic status or pulling our embassy out of a colonized Jerusalem. It might be voting in the UN Security Council for or against resolutions condemning mistreatment of Palestinians on the basis of desired policy choices by Israel. Or it might take the form of rewarding Israel with economic deals (particularly in the tech, energy, and security sectors) when – and not until – Israel fully withdraws from the West Bank. That is, if the U.S. really wants to see a Two State Solution.

Speaking of economic development, a current focus for both Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu is making the Saudi-Israeli deal a reality. It’s to the personal political advantage of both to make the deal happen. Netanyahu is fighting to regain control of a coalition in which he’s now in the minority, and to stay out of jail on corruption charges. Biden is trying to score points with the American Right and Center. Supporting this effort, Hakeem Jeffries was in Israel recently with the Israeli lobby group AIPAC, which has been spending a lot of PAC money on attacking Democrats. Jeffries’ goal was apparently to send a message to an American Right that loves ethno-religious nationalism: Biden hasn’t given up on Israel. In fact, there’s a never-ending procession of Democratic supplicants arriving in Israel on either AIPAC or state and city-funded junkets. This week it was New York’s Democratic mayor Eric Adams seeking an audience with Netanyahu.

Instead of all this slavish ass kissing, Democrats ought to be exerting pressure to save what’s left of Israeli democracy and preserve the Two State option they claim to support – not endorsing an extremist government led by a prime minister about to be indicted, who was just presented with a plan from his coalition partners to put a million settlers in the West Bank.

For Netanyahu, who recently had a pacemaker implanted and has poured the last of his political, if not physical, capital into a government built out of the old Kach movement (at one time declared a terrorist organization and banned from Israeli politics), a Saudi-Israeli deal could be part of his legacy — that is, if it’s not tarnished by a prison sentence for corruption.

Liberal and Progressive — and even some not-so-liberal — Israelis are begging the U.S. to show some tough love for Israel. Organizations like ACRI (the Association for Civil Rights in Israel), the Israel Policy Forum, Partners for Progressive Israel, even the right-of-center Shalom Hartman Institute, and US Jewish organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace and Americans for Peace Now are concerned about the judicial coup now underway, which is intended to remove Supreme Court impediments to “unreasonable” actions by an extremist government. If the judicial coup succeeds, it will be the death of what is left of “democracy” in Israel proper (though neither democracy nor legal redress have ever existed in the West Bank or Gaza).

But that doesn’t faze Biden or Jeffries one bit. They’re playing to a right-wing or right-of-center electorate accustomed to displays of affection for “our unbreakable bond” with a nation whose ethno-supremacist dynamics are precisely like our own. And when the President invokes jingoist American exceptionalist rhetoric, calls for God’s blessings on the nation, and cheer-leads religious-ethnic supremacy elsewhere, it looks an awful lot like the “Lite” version of the Christian Nationalism that suffuses GOP politics. What ever happened to universal human rights and real democracy?

Neither Israel nor the U.S. has ever truly had a democracy for all of its people. In both cases the design of our democracies has privileged one group at the expense of deeply harming another. And now, because both designs were so deeply flawed right from the beginning — because neither even pretends to be a real democracy — they’re not even working for the privileged.

I am working on another piece on the “startup nation.” In the meantime there are some excellent books and online resources for readers and people who follow podcasts.

Resources on Israel / Palestine

News from and about Israel-Palestine

The following websites feature Jewish Center and Progressive news and views, as well as Palestinian perspectives on Israel’s occupation and politics. Most have associated RSS feeds and podcasts.

Suggested Reading

I’m sure there are plenty of great books on the subject. I can only recommend ones I’ve actually read:

  • 1949: The First Israelis by Tom Segev A co-editor of the Israeli newsweekly Koteret Rashit and a former writer for the Tel Aviv newspaper Ha’aretz, Segev was given access to previously restricted official documents and personal diaries. The book tells the unvarnished story of the first year’s effort to build the State of Israel and in 1986 raised an uproar in Israel when many of the country’s founding myths were shown to be untrue. “1949” documents directives, many from David Ben-Gurion, to expel and prohibit readmission of Palestinians. Negev was perhaps the first Israeli to document the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The second part of the book documents Israel’s cruel treatment of Mizrahim (Arab Jews) and the growing conflict between religious and secular Jews.
  • A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to Our Time by Howard M. Sachar This is a monster of a book. While Laqueur’s book (below) is on placing Zionism in historical context, this book places Israel in historical and world context. Just as one example, it describes the British Mandate which was the agar plate on which Israeli statehood grew. If you are interested in long descriptions of battles in Israel’s various wars, with accompanying maps, this is for you (I skipped past a lot of it). Though Sachar is no friend of the “new historians” and much of his material seems to reflect “official” positions of the government, other parts of the book seem fair. In a later chapter on Israeli politics, for example, he cites a 1984 Knesset report on Orthodox schools warning that “our schools have been thrown wide open to chauvinist and antidemocratic influences.” Considerable anti-Arab hate was generated by Rabbi Zvi Kook, spiritual leader of the Gush Emunim settler movement. Religious arguments were twisted into hate speech. Arabs became Amalek. “Death to the Arabs” became a common phrase. The Techiya Party was founded by Gush Emunim zealots who began calling for the expulsion of all Arabs. Other “hate” parties popped up (Tsomet, Molodet, and Kach, established by Meier Kahane). Kahane was a Brooklyn racist who founded the Jewish Defense League and then emigrated to Israel. As Sachar describes him, Kahane was a civic cancer much like Donald Trump: “Attracting public attention with his demagoguery, [and] his flagrant appeals to racism and mob intimidation […]” Israel’s Jewish nationalist bigotry is the twin of America’s Christian nationalist bigotry and Kahanists now dominate Israel’s current government.
  • A History of Zionism by Walter Zeev Laqueur This is an excellent companion to Hertzberg’s anthology (below). While Hertzberg lets Zionists speak for themselves, Laqueur places each in historical context. He begins with the Jewish ghettos of the Middle Ages and ends with the establishment of the state of Israel and, finally, Thirteen Theses on Zionism. It is not unfair to say that Laqueur is a conflicted admirer of Zionism. For him the jury’s still out, but as far as he’s concerned it was a necessity. His theses are worth reading, and their implications tell us certain things about Zionism. Thesis 3, for example, points out that assimilation is the enemy of Zionism and a product of contact with Europe. Thesis 8: The Zionist movement was unclear about its objectives until Nazism arrived. The betrayal of Palestinians by the West created much of the animosity toward Jewish settlement. Thesis 9: This animosity sharpened as Zionism moved from a cultural renewal focus to statehood. Thesis 10: “Seen from the Arab point of view, Zionism was an aggressive movement, Jewish immigration an invasion […] Throughout history nation-states have not come into existence as the result of peaceful development and legal contracts. They developed from invasions, colonisation, violence, and armed struggle.” Laqueur adds, “It was the historical tragedy of Zionism that it appeared on the international scene when there were no longer empty spaces on the world map.” Thesis 13: Zionism has succeeded in restoring dignity to Jews in the eyes of the world and becoming a focus for world Jewry. But in terms of “fanciful” expectations (“Zion as a new spiritual lodestar, a model for the redemption of mankind, a centre of humanity”) it has not panned out quite as the early Zionists had hoped.
  • How Israel Lost by Richard Ben Cramer Cramer writes, “any Jew who isn’t an Israeli and not on psychotropic drugs, could solve this Peace-for-Israel thing in about ten minutes of focused thought. Give back the land to the Palestinians. All of it [the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem]. And since Palestinians are already living in their own country, they should have equal rights, a fact so laughably obvious – the only nation that can’t see this is Israel.” And this, remarkably, is from a guy who doesn’t bother to disguise his contempt for Arabs in general.
  • The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappé Pappé is one of Israel’s New Historians who, with the release of British and Israeli government documents in the early 1980s, began rewriting the history of Israel’s creation in 1948, and the corresponding expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians that same year. Pappé maintained that the expulsions were not on an ad hoc basis but constituted the intentional ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in accordance with Plan Dalet, drawn up in 1947 by Israel’s future leaders. By the time he left Israel in 2008, Pappé had been condemned in the Knesset, a minister of education had called for him to be fired, his photograph with an attached bullseye had appeared in a newspaper, and Pappé had received several death threats. American historians grappling with our own white supremacy know exactly what Pappé faced from those who refuse to look clear-eyed into the mirror of history.
  • The Iron Cage by Rashid Khalidi This is an interesting book by a Palestinian who looks at not only Israel’s (and the West’s) tight control of Palestinians but at the historical errors pre-1948 which Palestinian leaders made and which contributed to the non-existence of a Palestinian state. Of course the West dealt the death-blow to Palestinian statehood when Britain gave up Palestine. Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour stated in 1919, “Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far greater import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.” Translation: Fuck the Arabs. Khalidi ends with an appeal to the U.S., Israeli, and Palestinian leadership to “look honestly at what has happened in this small land over the past century […] and especially at how repeatedly forcing the Palestinians into […] an iron cage, has brought, and ultimately can bring, no lasting good to anyone.”
  • The Israel-Arab Reader edited by Walter Laqueur and Barry Rubin Israel is situated in a very big neighborhood and its nearest neighbors, the Palestinians, often have no voice in historical accounts. This book does not have a “through” narrative like many anthologies, but it is provides a handy reference of important historical documents. It includes hundreds of official documents and speeches, from some of the first Zionist Congresses to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, to the San Remo Conference assignment of Palestine to Britain, to the Balfour Declaration, the PLO Constitution, speeches by Anwar Sadat, George Schultz, Yasir Arafat, and more.
  • The Jewish State by Theodor Herzl In many ways this is the blueprint for Israel. This book is also found in Arthur Hertzberg’s anthology as well as on Project Gutenberg in both English and in the original German. It is a fascinating read. Herzl did not have a democracy in mind for the Jewish state (“I incline to an aristocratic republic”). Settlement was to be coordinated by a colonial enterprise he called the “Jewish Company” (not far off from the Jewish Agency which actually accomplished the task ). The Constitution (which never materialized) was to be forced upon the settlers (“Our people, who are receiving the new country from the Society, will also thankfully accept the new constitution it offers them. Should any opposition manifest itself, the Society will suppress it”). This year Herzl got his wish for an openly anti-democratic state. And as for those living In Palestine already? Expropriate their property and kick them out! “We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back.”
  • The Other Israel: Voices of Refusal and Dissent edited by Roane Carey and Jonathan Shainin This is a collection of essays by writers, journalists, academics, and historians on the Israeli Left. These critics of Apartheid, Occupation, settlements, human rights abuses, and Israeli domestic and foreign policy are as reviled as many of their American equivalents on the progressive and socialist democratic Left. In 2009 I was in Israel and met Jeff Halper, one of the contributors to this volume, who discussed Israel’s “matrix of control” for the systematic theft of Palestinian land. His essay on the topic is included in this collection. The book concludes with Tom Segev’s essay on “Transfer” – a common euphemism for ethnic cleansing used by many on the Israeli right and center. And to be clear: ethnic cleansing is intended not only for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Former Labor Party minister Ephraim Sneh actually proposed transferring sovereignty of Israeli Arab towns, including Umm al-Fahm which is near both Haifa and Jenin, to the Palestinian Authority.
  • The Zionist Idea edited by Arthur Hertzberg Zionism may have originally been intended to be Jewish self-determination in the service of self-protection, pride, and autonomy, but it has become a lot like its evil twin Christian nationalism. In this volume you hear the words of Zionists themselves. And there are many. Those whose names you may recognize include: Theodor Herzl (The Jewish State); Max Nordau; Hayyim Nahman Bialik; Abraham Isaac Kook; Martin Buber; Mordecai Menahem Kaplan – and some who actually had a hand in creating the state of Israel: Meir Bar-Ilan; Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky; Chaim Weizmann; Abba Hillel Silver; and David Ben-Gurion.
  • Whither Israel? The Domestic Challenges edited by Keith Kyle and Joel Peters This book by British foreign policy specialists was first published in 1993 – thirty years ago – but still identifies many of the issues catching up with Israel today. From the book’s blurb: “As it enters the 1990’s Israel faces crucial political, economic and social challenges. Its parliamentary system is proving increasingly ineffective, prompting demands for electoral and constitutional reform; its economy is beset by stagnation, inflation and unemployment and its economic difficulties feed and exacerbate existing social and political tensions. This book considers the impact of these problems and their implication for the future direction of Israeli politics and society. Different chapters examine the social and ideological divisions that beset Israel, the roots of the country’s economic problems, the dynamics of the Israeli political system and recent developments within political parties.”

Required Reading

If you want to understand Israel you have to understand its longest-serving Prime Minister and his attachment to Jabotinsky’s strain of Zionism.

  • The Iron Wall by Ze’ev Jabotinsky “Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.” Jabotinsky was an admirer of Mussolini as were many of the Revisionist Zionists (until Italy’s alliance with Germany). Benjamin Netanyahu is at heart a Revisionist Zionist and, not coincidentally, his father was Jabotinsky’s secretary.

Let’s talk about antisemitism

Among the many unsettling images from last Wednesday’s attempted coup at the Capitol were vicious attacks on Capitol police officers, bombs, terrorists with stun guns and spears, a lynch mob with its own gallows, a mob prepared to kidnap legislators, numerous Confederate flags, with many of the participants screaming anti-semitic and racist slurs.

One of the insurrectionists, Robert Keith Packer of Virginia, sported a sweatshirt reading “Camp Auschwitz – Work Brings Freedom.” Packer’s presence at the Capitol reminded us of the very real American anti-semitism which, most starkly, resulted in the murders of 11 people at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue in 2018, and an attack on the Poway synagogue in 2019 which left one dead and three injured.

That year was especially bad because, in addition to Poway, there had also been an attempt to blow up a synagogue in Pueblo, Colorado, followed by a shooting in a kosher supermarket in Jersey City, and a mass-stabbing during Hanukkah in Monsey, New York.

There is no denying that anti-semitism exists. It is toxic and it is pervasive. At Passover each year we recite the line “in every generation they rise up against us.” In good years the oppression is universal. In bad years, it’s all too literal.

But one of the memes that has come out of the unrest and displays of hatred in this country is the claim that both the Left and Right are equally guilty of hatred and violence. These claims have been so powerful that they have become potent weapons. Precisely as intended, they resulted in a purge of thousands of Leftist members of the British Labor Party. In the United States, progressive Democrats have had the same target drawn on their backs.

While memes like this may tap into a naive desire to return to an imaginary “center,” there is really no center to return to. The Democrats have moved right since Clinton, but the Republicans have moved into fascist territory since Trump. We can preserve the center only by moving back a bit to the left.

In a community conversation sponsored by the YWCA yesterday, a couple of people claimed that “Far Left” violence was just as bad as the Far Right’s. But this is a baseless claim. We may have seen people upset with an epidemic of racist police murders marching in the street last May, along with some property damage — but you’d have to go back to the days of the Weather Underground to match the violence of today’s Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, KKK, neo-Nazis, militias, QAnon conspiracy nuts, and lone wolf terrorists like Timothy McVeigh.

Another remark made yesterday by a good friend of mine with whom I have disagreed on this topic for many years is that the Left is equally guilty of anti-semitism.

Sorry, friend. This accusation has only empty calories if you lump in critics of Israeli domestic and foreign policy with those who actually shoot up synagogues or spread conspiracies of Jewish “cosmopolitans” trying to take over the world.

More specifically, the accusation of “Left anti-semitism” targets people with legitimate criticisms. Is it anti-semitic to point out that Palestinians have no legal protections and have lived under martial law since 1948? Is it anti-semitic to point out that, under international law, Israel is obligated to provide for Palestinians but has not even made COVID-19 vaccines available to them? Is it anti-semitic to prefer the non-violent Boycott and Divestment (BDS) campaign to an armed intifada?

Precisely because BDS has touched a moral nerve and has been so successful, its supporters are now in Israel’s crosshairs, and also in the crosshairs of a number of domestic groups which lobby in Israel’s interests. Worse, these lobbying efforts have convinced many Americans that opposing Zionism is precisely the same as hating Jews and this has given rise to legislation that punishes those who support BDS.

Long before Theodor Herzl wrote “der Judenstaat” Zionists dreamed of “returning” to the Israel from which Jews were sent into exile in the 2nd Century. 19th Century anti-semitism made their dream more vivid, and the Holocaust made the dream a necessity, as Jewish refugees were literally turned away at ports by many countries, including Britain and the United States.

But Herzl’s description of the Holy Land as a “land for people without land” was not exactly true, and if you read his pamphlet you note the variety of methods for making those already living there leave in favor of the newcomers. Interestingly, Herzl did not envision Israel as a democracy but as a regency. And Herzl himself proposed Uganda as one possibility for settlement at a Zionist Congress. Zionists also considered buying a portion of Argentina. The Balfour Declaration essentially gave Britain’s post-war colony to Jewish settlers. As in Herzl’s pamphlet, settlement was originally handled by a corporation that would buy land. And for a short while, Israel did purchase land. But then Israel simply took land from the Palestinians.

The history of Israel and Palestine is complicated, but one thing is indisputable. Zionism is a colonial settler enterprise. Stripped down to its basic function, it was designed to send settlers to a land with indigenous people and take land and resources from them. Whatever you think of biblical justifications for taking land, or the fact that two millenia before Jews had lived there, Zionism was a project precisely like the Puritans arriving in Massachusetts with the London Company and taking what the Wampanoag owned — including their lives.

No one expressed this dark side of Zionism more clearly, more unapologetically, than Ze’ev Jabotinsky, a Russian admirer of Benito Mussolini, who is credited with creating “revisionist Zionism” and writing “The Iron Wall” — in which he wrote:

It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.

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.”

We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached. So that all those who regard such an agreement as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say “non” and withdraw from Zionism.

Jabotinsky understood well what Israel was doing was replacing Arabs with Jews, committing cultural and political, if not physical, genocide. Jabotinsky’s program was to erect an “Iron Wall” — not a literal wall like Trump’s but a “no concessions to indigenous people” policy. This is the policy that the Likud Party has followed since its inception. It is no coincidence that Binyamin Netanyahu’s father was Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s secretary.

The Neo-fascist revisionist Zionists of yesterday were more honest than their American defenders today who ignore the ongoing oppression, land theft, and human rights abuses. Jabotinsky actually called the Palestinians by their name in contrast to Golda Meir — often associated with a more “liberal” pre-Likud Israel — who denied Palestinian peoplehood.

Today, Liberals continue bending over backward to defend Israel’s abuses and to demonize its critics. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accepted Israel’s definition of anti-semitism for the U.S. State Department, and it includes the murder of Jews in synagogues but also numerous forms of criticism of Israel. The author of this definition was Natan Sharansky, Israel’s minister for Diaspora affairs and Jerusalem. Imagine not being able to criticize the House of Saud or the Vatican. Imagine not being able to “single out” Britain because it is the only nation whose official church is the Anglican Church.

Israel’s defenders include not only pro-settler elements of the Republican Party like former ambassador David Friedman or the late Sheldon Adelson. But reflexive defenders also include American liberals who long ago decided that having white nationalist, Christian fundamentalist control of the goverment did not add up to a democracy — but, somehow, Jewish supremacy and extreme racism toward Arabs does. This is a country where half of Israelis believe in expelling Arabs and where one out of four prefer Jewish law to democracy.

To the credit of many Israelis — including a sizeable diaspora of those who have left, and for a large segment of American Jews — nationalism of any kind is a scourge.

If you think these are fringe observations, check out the human rights reports of B’Tselem, take a look at Israel’s liberal newspaper Haaretz, visit +972, a collective of Jewish and Palestinian writers, or get on the Jewish Voice for Peace mailing list. And inform yourself about the BDS movement.

Nationalism — white, Christian, Hindu, Polish, Hungarian, German, or Jewish — is fundamentally undemocratic, divisive, and toxic.

Honestly, I don’t know why I even have to write these words.

Foreign meddling

“America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” AIPAC, has long sponsored legislation to stifle the American public’s right to discuss or protest Israel’s abuses. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement’s founder Omar Barghouti, is prohibited from entering the US, while Israel’s lobbyists have successfully sponsored legislation in roughly 30 states and in both the US House and Senate to make BDS boycotts illegal. Amazingly, these lobbyists are not required to register as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). At the federal level, with AIPAC’s legislation opposed by numerous civil liberties groups, AIPAC is still trying to keep their foot in the door. Senate Resolution S.Res.120 and House resolution H.Res.246 still support criminalizing boycotts of Israel.

Perhaps the only silver lining in all this is that AIPAC just made it easier to decide the fitness of Democratic candidates in the coming election. Representatives Tim Ryan and Eric Swalwell, and Senators Michael Bennet, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar are all co-sponsors of the AIPAC-written resolution. For me, human rights, foreign policy, and free speech are all litmus test issues. These candidates apparently have no respect for any of these concerns. Other Democratic presidential candidates have had their flirtations with AIPAC as well. Only Bernie Sanders — ironically the only Jewish candidate in the bunch — has refused to attend AIPAC conventions.

In Massachusetts, half the Democratic delegation support AIPAC’s assault on free speech. No surprise from the usual Blue Dogs — Representatives Bill Keating, Joe Kennedy III, Richard Neal, and Lori Trahan — but a shock to see Senator Ed Markey joining them — by supporting the AIPAC resolution, all just displayed their contempt for both human rights for Palestinians and Americans’ right to do something about it peacefully.

Regardless of what some Republicans think, Israel is a secular nation like any other. As such, it has all the usual warts — traffic jams, corruption, poverty, and pollution. But Israel also imposes martial law and has occupied Palestinian territory for generations, closely resembling South Africa’s Apartheid system — separate courts, separate roads, the original Trumpian wall, imprisonment without charges for parents and children alike, and Israel has enacted ugly race laws that determine who is a citizen. Naturally, not everyone thinks this is such a great thing. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is a non-violent protest against Israel’s policies. AIPAC, which serves as Israel’s attack dog on BDS, does not even remotely represent any shared value with the United States. But it certainly is an effective, unregulated foreign agent for Israel.

While the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may be the best-known of BDS opponents, there are dozens of organizations that lobby for Israeli interests, foreign, military and economic aid — including changes to American laws. There are about three dozen pro-Israel political action committees that funnel millions of dollars to politicians of both parties. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CoP) consists of over fifty organizations that advocate on behalf of Israel, all of whom sit on AIPAC’s executive committee.

The American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF) is a branch of AIPAC that runs free junkets for congressmen to Israel to hear from Israel’s Foreign Ministry and provides funding to AIPAC. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) pushes hard-line, anti-Arab, anti-Iranian Middle Eastern policies. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) used to be a civil rights organization, but now primarily attacks critics of Israel and promotes Likudnik foreign policy. The Israel Project disseminates Israeli propaganda, while the Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces (FIDF) raises funds for a foreign military [!!] and brings Israeli soldiers to the US as good-will “ambassadors.”

The Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) links 125 Zionist organizations to 17 umbrella groups for 4 main Jewish religious currents in the US. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) receives much of its funding from Sheldon Adelson and has embraced the American Far Right. The American Jewish Committee (AJC) describes its mission as “advocating for Israel and the Jewish people.” The Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) — like many of the others — conflates Jewish life with Israeli interests and functions primarily as an extension of Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

The Jewish People Policy Insitute (JPPI) is dedicated to “strengthening the attachment of young American Jews to Israel.” Its board of directors includes former US Ambassadors Dennis Ross and Stuart Eizenstat, Iran hawk Elliot Abrams, and other leading lights of US Zionist organizations such as Michael Steinhardt (Birthright Israel) and Steve Hoffman (Cleveland Jewish Federation). Interestingly, JPPI is critical of far-right politics — In Israel — but grateful for the help from the American far right.

And then there are the media watchdogs, which attack journalists critical of Israel. These include: the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which at times has provided questionable translations of news from the Middle East; the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA) which often targets specific news sources as “antisemitic”; the Middle East Forum (MEF); and the Haym Salomon Center, which disseminates pro-Israel spin and Islamophobic content “in order to defend Western civilization.”

Campus organizations like Hillel used to provide a friendly place for Jewish students to come together. But, as right-wing benefactors have politicized and weaponized Jewish institutions, Hillel has now become a means of silencing Israel’s campus critics, including faculty. Hillel’s FAQ describes its mission: “Israel is at the heart of Hillel’s work. Our goal is to inspire every Jewish college student to develop a meaningful and enduring relationship to Israel and to Israelis.” Stand With Us and Israel on Campus Coalition likewise promote pro-Israel messaging on American college campuses.

In Congress itself we have the Republican Jewish Coalition — which, despite the word Jewish, does not study Torah but instead promotes pro-Israel policy. There is also the National Jewish Democratic Council, which “educates Democratic elected officials and candidates to increase support for Jewish domestic and foreign policy priorities” — as if all American Jews supported the Israeli occupation or its far right governments. American lawmakers frequently participate in all-expenses-paid economic missions to Israel courtesy of the Association of America-Israel Chambers of Commerce. Who, after all, would fault a politician for trying to drum up a little business back home?

Then there are the Christian Zionist groups — the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFC) — “be an advocate for Israel.” Christians United for Israel (CUFI) is run by Evangelical minister John Hagee, who is eagerly waiting for the Middle East to blow up to bring on the End Times. Passages “offers Christian college students with leadership potential a fresh and innovative approach to experiencing the Holy Land to make them “voices for Israel.” The Israel Allies Foundation (IAF) promotes “Judeo-Christian values” and, once again, is nothing but an unregulated foreign lobbying group.

In 2006. foreign policy scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were commissioned by the Atlantic to write about the Israel lobby — and they covered many of the groups mentioned above. But the Atlantic refused to publish their article and it was left to the London Review of Books instead, a foreign publication, to give the essay an audience. The essay was later fleshed out in a much-maligned book that was savaged by most liberal newspapers and magazines.

A decade later the tide is turning on the acceptability of criticizing Israel’s occupation and treatment of Palestinians, Bedouins, and Druze. And some Israelis themselves are doing the same. As Americans come to terms with their own White Supremacy, many of the similarities between Israel and the United States have come into focus. After years of lying to ourselves about the meaning of words, some have refused to use “alt-Right” and instead write ‘fascist.” Journalists have begun to criticize their own timid use of “racially charged” and some opt for the more honest word “racist.”

Courageous legislators have become disgusted by the Orwellian term “detention facilities” and now simply call them what they really are — “concentration camps.” The freedom to use honest language has had a liberating effect on young Jews, who recently committed acts of civil disobedience in front of ICE facilities all over the country.

So it is long overdue that we had a long, hard look at Israel’s aggressive, unregulated “lobbying.” It’s time we confronted Israel’s relentless efforts to alter American law for its own benefit that it conducts in coordination with a sprawling network of American groups with ties to the American far right.

Let’s call it what it really is — foreign meddling.

The bipartisan war on Iran

For over a century Iran has experienced US meddling in its affairs and, for all our professed love of democracy, it was the US which ended Iranian democracy in 1955 when it installed a dictator. After Iran subsequently became an Islamic theocracy, the United States has spied on it, unleashed the Stuxnet computer virus on it (and half the world by accident), supported violent Iranian exile groups like the MEK, hit Iranian civilians with crippling sanctions, and parked aircraft carriers of Iran’s coastline at no greater a distance than from Falmouth to Oak Bluffs.

Most recently the United States unilaterially withdrew from the US-Iranian nuclear agreement, placed the Iranian military on a terrorist watchlist, and put economic sanctions on Iran’s Ayatollah. But let’s remember — Iran was not responsible for 911, nor has Iran been implicated in any act of terrorism in the United States. And yet American politicians of both parties file bill after bill, resolution after resolution, ratcheting up sanctions on Iranian civilians — all to stop supposed Iranian aggression. But who’s the aggressor here?

If there is a war — and it’s looking more likely every day — it won’t be over drones and shipping channels. It will be a long-desired war to ensure Israel’s status as the only nuclear superpower in the region, and a war to augment the power of the Saudi dictatorship. And, if Trump’s neoconservatives John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, and Michael Pompeo have their way, it will also be another war to effect regime change in the Middle East. Because the United States, always playing God more than policeman, seeks to make the world in its own image.

The War in Vietnam, the Iraq debacle, and the Spanish-American war were only possible because a credulous American public allowed itself to be deceived by nationalism, propaganda, and outright lies. U.S. claims of Iranian attacks on marine vessels in the Persian Gulf are the just the latest justifications for war.

Neoconservatives have convinced Republicans that invading Iran is one way to make America Great Again, and that an American invasion would be a “slam dunk.” Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton thinks it wouldn’t take much to defeat Iran — “two strikes, the first strike and the last strike.” But an entire generation has grown up since the first Gulf War and the US is still not out of Iraq, a much smaller country than Iran. After hundreds of thousands killed, and trillions of dollars squandered, the US is also still in Afghanistan propping up a puppet regime.

Cooler and better-informed heads remind us that Iran is 3.7 times the size of Iraq — 1.5 million square miles, almost the size of Alaska, with 3 times the population of Iraq — 81 million people. Iran can also mobilize 1.5 million paramilitary forces and 500,000 active duty military. And while the Gulf War “coalition” could count on NATO allies, Europe is now skeptical of another American war and is still party to the nuclear agreement the U.S. unilaterally dropped out of.

Understanding the conflict with Iran is to understand the history of American Imperialism and military adventurism. While Native American genocide, slavery, colonialism, Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine all had roots of U.S. Imperialism, the United States embarked upon Imperialism with a vengeance during the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars. The American SouthWest, Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Philippines, and Guam were all taken from Spain and Mexico. Several islands are still colonies after more than a century.

The modern period of American Imperialism began after the US emerged relatively unscathed by World War II. The United States regarded the Soviet Union as its enemy in the post-war period, and the profitable machinery of the military-industrial complex, which Eisenhower warned of, kept churning. The Cold War was the result of a combination of prudence, paranoia, ideological zealotry, and capitalist profit-taking.

1950

In 1950 the National Security Council circulated a document, NSC-68, which made its recommendations to President Harry Truman. NSC-68 lays out a view of a bi-polar world in which the U.S. and the USSR compete for power. It establishes “containment” of the Soviet Union as its primary goal, which requires fostering “the seeds of destruction within the Soviet system” and requires becoming a nuclear superpower “in dependable combination with other likeminded nations.”

1960

Starting in roughly 1960, Israeli nuclear technology was acquired by stealth and back-door help from Western nations, including the U.S., France, Norway, and Germany. Neither Israel nor its colonial allies has ever acknowledged its nuclear weapons program.

The first nuclear reactor in the Middle East was Israel’s Dimona reactor

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/israel-nuclear-weapons-117014?o=3

“three successive U.S. administrations–under presidents Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon–would have to deal with it as well. Kennedy chose the toughest path of struggle and confrontation in his effort to check the program; Johnson realized that the U.S. had limited leverage on the issue and planted the seeds of compromise and looked the other way; finally, in a bargain with Prime Minister Golda Meir, Nixon accepted the Israel’s de facto nuclear status as long as it stayed secret–a controversial and unacknowledged deal that remains in place effectively through the current day.”

1965

In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a disgruntled worker with Israel’s nuclear program, blew the whistle on the program. In 2014, former member of the Knesset, Avraham Burg, blew the whistle on both Israel’s nukes and chemical weapons. When reporter Helen Thomas asked Barak Obama if Israel had nukes, he dodged the question and refused to “speculate.” Experts believe Israel now has between 80 to 100 nukes.

1981

One question not frequently asked is: what was the U.S. involvement in Israel’s 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor and Israel’s 2007 bombing of Syria’s al-Kibar reactor? If past is prologue, then it might be useful to examine the history. A “senior US intelligence officer” testified to Congress in 2008 on American participation of the al-Kibar bombing:

“One of the things that I’m sure also people are wondering is whether there was any discussion between us and the Israelis about policy options and how to respond to these facts. We did discuss policy options with Israel. Israel considered a Syrian nuclear capability to be an existential threat to the state of Israel. After these discussions, at the end of the day Israel made its own decision to take action. It did so without any green light from us – so-called ‘green light’ from us; none was asked for, none was given. […] We understand the Israeli action. We believe this clandestine reactor was a threat to regional peace and security, and we have stated before that we cannot allow the world’s most dangerous regimes to acquire the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

The facility had been under watch by the United States since 2003. Without having to read between the lines too much, it is clear that the bombing of the al-Kibar reactor was done with the assistance, permission, advance knowledge, and blessings of the Bush administration, which saw the reactor as an effort by two of Bush’s “axes of evil” to threaten “regional peace and security.”

2007 – October

U.S. plans to bomb Iran (Biden no, Clinton yes)

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/opinion/10dowd.html

2008 – June

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’.”

2008 – August

Washington Post 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.

2009 – February

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

2009 – May

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.

Israel offers to trade settlements for U.S. permission to bomb Iran

Netanyahu: Outposts in exchange for Iran

2009 – June

Pundit M. J. Rosenberg’s last posting on Talking Points warned that the Fall would bring renewed calls for liberals to support a military attack on Iran – not necessarily a U.S. attack, but one by Israel. Rosenberg pointed to hasbara efforts by Jewish organizations to soften up public acceptance of an Israeli military strike on Iran:

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.

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.

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.

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.

2009 – July

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.”

2009 – September

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 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.

plugin:youtube

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.

2009 – September – more

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, including 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.”

“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.”

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.”

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.

2009 – September – even more

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

2009 – September – much more

The 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 these lies are the same ones who claimed 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.

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.

Rather than the global or 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, fears losing its nuclear monopoly.

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.

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.

2009 – December

Michael Freund (American-born rightwing Israeli who supports expansionism and who worked as Netanyahu’s propagandist) calls for bombing Iran

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/4008

2010 – May

Elliott Abrams calls for crippling sanctions on Iran

https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/32802/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-iran

https://www.thenation.com/article/an-actual-american-war-criminal-may-become-our-second-ranking-diplomat/

https://inthesetimes.com/article/21758/war-criminal-elliott-abrams-nicaragua-venezuela-maduro-trump-ilhan-omar

2010 – June

J Street joined with AIPAC and broke with Americans for Peace Now in applauding new sanctions on Iran. To its credit, J Street made one distinction from AIPAC — in calling for continued diplomacy and warning against war:

We believe that a dual track approach that combines meaningful diplomatic engagement with broad-based sanctions is necessary to convince Iran to clarify its nuclear intentions. We commend the President for his efforts in strengthening the resolve of the international community on Iran. […]

We reiterate that nothing in this bill should be taken as authorizing or encouraging the use of military force against Iran. We are opposed to the use of military force by Israel or the United States against Iran.

While J Street joined with AIPAC in welcoming the sanctions, it broke with APN and Gush Shalom. Americans for Peace Now, on whose board J Street’s Jeremy Ben Ami also sits, condemned the sanctions. APN’s Deborah Lee issued a statement which contained this critique of sanctions — any sanctions:

APN’s core concern about this bill remains unchanged: imposing sanctions the goal of which is to ‘cripple’ the civilian economy and inflict misery on the population — in the hopes that this population will rise up against its government — is a flawed and in all likelihood counterproductive approach.  It is an approach that has failed for decades in Iran. It failed in Iraq and Haiti. It has failed in Cuba and North Korea. And it is an approach that only last week Israel abandoned in Gaza, recognizing that squeezing the population of Gaza with a blockade on civilian goods had not only failed to force Hamas out of power, but had enabled Hamas (and the world) to blame Israel for all the misery the people of Gaza were facing. It took Israel three years to recognize the error of this approach.  It is regrettable that Congress did not draw the obvious lesson from these experiences.

While J Street has taken it on the chin from mainstream Jewish organizations and the Israeli Lobby for its unwavering support of a Two State solution, many of its recent positions — endorsing supplemental military aid for Israel and sanctions on Iran — seem designed to blunt right-wing criticisms and win supposedly “moderate” Jewish support.

J Street today applauded increased sanctions on Iran at the UN. An enrichment processing proposal brokered by Turkey and backed by Brazil, which had previously been acceptable to the United States, was rejected by the US in backing Israel’s demands for sanctions on Iran. A J Street press release supported the move:

J Street welcomes the passage of enhanced multilateral and broad-based sanctions on Iran at the United Nations Security Council today.

This vote would not have been possible without the tireless diplomatic efforts of the Obama Administration. We commend President Obama and his team for their effort and this step in the right direction, and urge them to continue employing a dual track approach – meaningful engagement plus multilateral sanctions – to convince Iran to change course.

Today, the Government of Iran hears a clear message from the international community that there are real consequences to continued obfuscation, delay, and intransigence over its nuclear program, as well as real benefits should they fully address international concerns.

We expect the Iranian regime to immediately make clear it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, to submit to international inspections, and to end its support for groups that use violence and terror against Israel. Such action will put Iran on the road to reintegration into the international community.

These sanctions are particularly stupid because there was an opportunity to try a reprocessing scheme the US had once supported and to insist on monitoring access. Teheran had warned that the offer would be off the table if sanctions were imposed, and this now gives them a domestic popularity boost in standing up to the United States. There will also now be no monitoring, and Iran will have scored points for its home team.

The imposition of sanctions, however ineffective they are expected to be, coupled with the attack on the Mavi Marmara, is also a setback for NATO ally Turkey and a gain for Israel. A message certainly not lost on certain Middle Eastern and new European allies, these sanctions make it crystal clear that the United States is willing to betray NATO allies and friends when it comes to Israel. Stephen Walt calls it right when he cites Stephen Cook of the Council of Foreign Relations complaining about how Turkey needs to be “kept in its lane.” We can’t have just anybody running around being a regional power broker in the Middle East. There’s already a reserved seat.

This move is also exceptionally misguided because it further complicates the United States’ relations with other nations in the Middle East. But the president, the State Department, and apparently J Street, all continue to see the world as it was during the Bush administration. The US with the help of Israel will continue to try to project its power in the Middle East – at least for a few more years. Other regional players need not apply for the job.

2010 – August

In 2010 foreign policy wonks went into overdrive dissecting the musings of Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in the Atlantic Monthly on Israel’s likely future attack on Iran. Goldberg’s career has been notable as a shill for the IDF (he was also a former Israeli solder) and he was also a notorious proponent of the Iraq war, so Goldberg’s conclusions on the inevitability of such an attack were not surprising. But neither is the fact that so many of his sources were anonymous. The piece was a major piece of Israeli propaganda masquerading as a liberal essay in a liberal US publication. On page 63 of the magazine’s print edition there was an obligatory picture of IDF jets flying above Auschwitz as if to highlight the “reasons” for Israel’s posture.

It’s all about the U.S. interest in Israel’s nuclear hegemony.

Goldberg is correct only in his conclusion that the US will assist Israel with the attack – not for all the Israeli propaganda reasons he enumerates.

Israel’s reason is not to protect itself from an “existential threat” but to continue to amass armaments to delay the inevitable end of its Occupation of Palestine and create more “facts on the ground.”

The U.S. reason is not to preserve regional peace and security but to simply ensure continued nuclear hegemony by its proxy, Israel.

If and when the US becomes involved in the bombing of Iran – even if only by logistical support, looking the other way while Israeli F16s fly over Iraq, or providing the bunker-buster bombs Israel will use – it will not be an unwilling participant in the next war, its fourth and possibly a World War.

2010 – August – more/worse

While foreign policy junkies were busy parsing Jeffrey Goldberg’s overhyped article in the Atlantic on Israel’s likely future attack on Iran, another article in the same issue of the Atlantic by Robert D. Kaplan attempted to repurpose one of Henry Kissinger’s old Cold War theories for use with Iran – specifically, that the only way to deal with upstart revolutionary nations like Iran is to be willing to engage with them in limited nuclear war. Kaplan writes:

We must be more willing, not only to accept the prospect of limited war but, as Kissinger does in his book of a half century ago, to accept the prospect of a limited nuclear war between states.

What is he saying? That, should Goldberg’s wet dream not come true and that Iran does get the bomb, the United States should be willing to use its own against it – regardless of preemptive use or massive civilian casualties. Kaplan reflects a little on the implications, but seems pretty happy with the war criminal’s approach anyway:

At the time of his writing Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, some analysts took Kissinger to task for what one reviewer called “wishful thinking”- in particular, his insufficient consideration of civilian casualties in a limited nuclear exchange. Moreover, Kissinger himself later moved away from his advocacy of a NATO strategy that relied on short-range, tactical nuclear weapons to counterbalance the might of the Soviet Union’s conventional forces. (The doctrinal willingness to suffer millions of West German civilian casualties to repel a Soviet attack seemed a poor way to demonstrate the American commitment to the security and freedom of its allies.) But that does not diminish the utility of Kissinger’s thinking the unthinkable.

This analysis is typical of Kaplan. In 2005 he tried to sell the same stinking Kissinger fish, this time for war with China.

Couldn’t the Atlantic have hired two writers with different views for these bookended articles? More to the point: couldn’t the Atlantic have hired a couple of real Iran experts? And couldn’t the Atlantic have hired a couple of writers who personally had NOT served in the Israeli army?

Kaplan, a stealth neocon armed with only a BA from UConn, seems to have the ear of ostensible Liberals. Unfortunately, his influence is all out of proportion to his scholarship or the quality of the goods he’s selling. Tom Bissell’s blistering review of Kaplan’s career and work shines light not only Kaplan’s errors of judgment – but that shown by those who peddle Kaplan’s work.

2011 – August

This morning’s editorial section contained a piece by Lawrence J. Haas advocating war on Iran. It was typical of ramped-up calls from neoconservatives inside and outside the Obama administration, many of whom have a misplaced preoccupation with Israel and who claim Iran has promised to incinerate half of the world’s Jews in a second nuclear holocaust. No matter that it is Israel which possesses the nukes and that no proof of Iranian nuclear weapons actually exists.

While this war-mongering is really all about who shall maintain a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and Central Asia — and in so doing preserve oil-dependent colonialism for a few more decades — the war mongers and their friends in the defense industry and pro-Israel lobby have stepped up the calls for U.S. military action, and they’ve added a few new justifications for it. Now in addition to threatening to nuke Israel with (non-existent) nuclear weapons, Iran is being blamed for attacks on Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan and allying itself with Al Qaeda. And now that the U.S. has successfully assassinated bin Laden, we really need another bogeyman.

But since our country seems bound and determined to get into — frankly, I’ve lost count of the number of wars we’ve got going on now — let’s just call it another war, it might be good to understand precisely what the Iranians think of us. Simplistic formulations like “clash of civilizations” and “they hate us for what we have” don’t provide any insight. Apparently nobody wants to re-hash or even look at history: the U.S. coup which removed a secular, democratic Iranian government in the Fifties, American support for the Shah and his brutal secret police, or recent American and Israeli assassinations and sabotage. But in fact, the U.S. has been meddling in Iran since the beginning of the 20th century and the Iranians have a long list of gripes. Iran also has legitimate concerns for its security, as Ron Paul pointed out yesterday in a GOP candidate debate. It is virtually surrounded by the United States. Given all this, it is unlikely Iran presents much of a military threat to anyone, including Israel. And even Ehud Barak agrees.

So, if the real issue is not the bogus existential threat to Israel, and the real issue actually is the preservation of Israel’s nuclear monopoly, how do the Iranians feel about it?

One of the best documents to gauge Iran’s views is the transcript of a speech given in 2001 by Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Iranian presidents come and go, but the mullahocracy remains to guide not only domestic life in Iran but also foreign policy.

In this 2001 speech, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani discussed colonialism, capitalism, the world since 1948, and Israel’s nuclear advantage, which he sees as a colonial effort and not a Jewish conspiracy. A passage below on “US-British support for Israel” is often cited as a veiled threat to destroy Israel. But the speech discusses neutralizing Israel’s monopoly on nuclear weapons, not destroying the nation. Read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

2011 – September

Once the Israel Lobby digests its meal of the remains of the Palestinian state, what’s next on the menu? Already the pro-Israel hawks are calling for war on Iran. Most of the Republican hopefuls are nodding in agreement with Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon when he says: “All options are on the table.”

Whose table is that?

2011 – October

The Standard Times again is raising a cri de guerre from Lawrence J. Haas, a man who never met a war he didn’t want the taxpayers to fund. I will again make the observation that readers are being treated to more of this syndicated rightwing fare than ever before.

Haas is one of a number of neoconservatives who believe the answer to a failed policy of trying to remake the Middle East in America’s image is more of the same. The Kagans, Raymond Tanter, various Republican presidential candidate’s advisors, and others have been on the warpath lately, calling for military strikes, bunker busters, or – in the case of Haas – “surgical strikes” on Iran. Were it only true that surgeons, rather than butchers, conducted wars.

The cockamamie story of a Texan-Iranian used car salesman and his supposed contacts within the Iranian government plotting an assassination and attacks on multiple embassies, as sketched out by Attorney General Holder and Secretary of State Clinton, has never been properly explained. The Texan-Iranian is an habitual offender with a penchant for drugs and domestic abuse. The missing man, Gholam Shaakuri, whom Haas and others claim is a member of the Iranian government, actually turns out to be a member of the Mujahadeen e-Kalq, the MEK – a terrorist organization which opposes Iran from exile. I wouldn’t expect the administration to show any proof because there is none.

We’ve gone down this road many times before, with the Gulf of Tonkin, in Central America, with exiled Cubans (Bay of Pigs), exiled Iraqis (non-existent yellowcake, fabled WMDs, thanks to Chalabi and others). Pretexts for war are an American tradition. Remember the Maine?

We would do well to get a grip and not let the shrill voices of militarism dictate entry into another war – especially when the only justification is ideological. After decades of wars and drone attacks in Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, and now even Kenya, the head spins, and the only thing certain is that we are bankrupting ourselves and making yesterday’s friends into tomorrow’s enemies.

2012 – August

When it comes to Israel, we seem to be continuously inundated with Israeli hardliner views. The August 21st piece (“Cooling off Israel: Five ways to avert a strike on Iran”) by former chief of Israeli intelligence Amos Yadlin, curiously labelled “National View” since it hardly reflects an American view on the subject, was no exception. The “five” views in his article basically boil down to one: Israel can’t go it alone, so the U.S. should see that it is in “our” interests to bomb Iran for Israel, or at least threaten it with war. But while Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak may bluster about unilaterally bombing Iran, they first need to drag the U.S. into such a war. Why? Because they can’t even sell their war domestically.

The Israeli public is justifiably wary of such go-it-alone threats. A recent poll by Israel’s Dahaf Institute showed 61 percent of Israelis believe Iran should not be attacked without U.S. consent. Yadlin’s article, and those like it, bear the fingerprints of a massive P.R. offensive – by AIPAC stalwarts; the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren in a recent WSJ article; frequent Standard Times contributors Richard Haas and Charles Krauthammer calling for war; a recent article in the NYT by Uzi Dayan, former IDF chief of staff; a recent barrage of Israeli government “leaks,” including a “shock and awe” style war plan; speculations in Israel’s English-language newspaper, and elsewhere.

And both House Democrats and Republicans, as well as every Republican candidate up to and including Mitt Romney, have eagerly parroted the Likudnik line: Iran has the bomb; Iran presents an existential threat to Israel; Israel’s interests are American interests.

None of this is true. This is about nuclear hegemony: Israel’s.

Despite the alarm an Iranian enrichment program provokes, Iran does not yet possess either a nuclear weapon or a missile capable of delivering it. In fact, “recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.” (NYT article by James Risen and Mark Mazzetti, Feb 24, 2012).

America’s intelligence agencies say: baloney.

Hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties would result from an Iranian response to an Israeli (and/or American) first strike. If Americans still have a taste for reckless wars after our many adventures in the Middle East, we could delude ourselves that the mighty American military could make quick work of Iranian missile defenses (Iran has a military budget of only $6 billion a year), but no one can predict Iran’s non-military responses. Would the Straights of Hormuz stay open? How would the rest of the world respond? Even a brief (unlikely) war would cost at least $40 or $50 billion, to be paid for by either Israeli – or more likely American – taxpayers who already shell out $4 billion a year to the highly militarized state.

But here’s an even better idea for averting another unnecessary war.

Israeli nuclear scientist Uzi Even suggests that Israel shutter its nuclear plant in Dimona and dismantle its own (approximately 200) nuclear weapons in exchange for Iran dismantling its program. After all, if we are concerned with nuclear weapons presenting an existential threat to the 7 million people in Israel, we should also be at least somewhat concerned that Israel’s nukes present an existential threat to the other 350 million people in the Middle East.

If the U.S. goal is not simply to ensure Israel’s nuclear hegemony in the region, an approach other than beating the drums of war is necessary. On the other hand, if this kerfuffle indeed is about preserving the Zionist state’s nuclear advantage and thumbing our nose at the rest of the world, well, then we’d better be prepared to pay the price for this madness.

2015 – March

John Bolton writes Op Edi in NYT calling for bombing of Iran

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/to-stop-irans-bomb-bomb-iran.html

Joshua Muravchik writes a similar article in WaPo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/war-with-iran-is-probably-our-best-option/2015/03/13/fb112eb0-c725-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html

2017 – May

Last year Democrats drafted a national party platform that some said was the most progressive platform of all time. And maybe it was – for the Democratic Party – and only when limited to certain domestic planks.

But when it came to foreign policy, the Democratic Party’s hawkish platform reflected its presidential candidate’s worldview. We would fight ISIS by giving taxpayer money to repressive and right-wing governments – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel – the Usual Suspects – though so far they’ve been useful only to Defense contractors. The DNC platform ignored Congress’s right and obligation to declare war while calling for the use of presidential AUMF statements – like the one Donald Trump used last week. The platform downplayed the use of ground forces while preferring technology – Tomahawks and drones – like the ones Donald Trump used last week. Nobody really has a different plan – just keep on using extrajudicial killing indefinitely, without ever declaring war, without ever clearing the endless war with Congress.

The DNC platform is full of jingoistic phrases such as “Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism.” But many are beginning to question whether it just might be the United States that has inflicted the most damage on world peace and stability. We originally funded Islamists to fight the USSR, have given Israel $128 billion since 1948 while simultaneously turning our backs on Palestinians, created failed states in Iraq, Libya, and Syria – and then created millions of refugees Europe and Turkey have had to deal with.

2017 – June

In June 2017 the Senate voted on S.722, “Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017,” a bill which slapped economic sanctions on both Russia and Iran. The vote passed almost unanimously except for two senators with fiercely independent streaks. One of them was Rand Paul. The other was Bernie Sanders.

On his website Sanders wrote that, if fashioned as a separate bill, he would have voted for Russian sanctions and noted he has previously voted for sanctions on Iran. But the bill, he wrote, “could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015.”

Massachusetts senators Warren and Markey, however, both enthusiastically voted for the sanctions, as did every Democrat in the Senate. Warren had previously been opposed to Iran sanctions and supported the Iran deal. But on Thursday she voted with the herd to both jeopardize the work John Kerry had done and to wage economic war on Iran. In fact, Warren not only voted with the herd but was a co-sponsor.

Bernie Sanders was right. The vote by every Democratic senator jeopardizes the Iran nuclear deal and creates a more precarious world. Here in Massachusetts we just learned our so-called “progressive” senators just couldn’t resist waving the flag and voting for more American bullying.

Sanctions

Economic sanctions are acts of war. The Council on Foreign Relations characterizes them as alternatives to war, but the targets of sanctions understand quite well what they really are. When, in 2015, the EU slapped sanctions on Russia, one Russian banker called it “economic war.” And North Korea has never minced words: “We consider now any kind of economic sanctions to be taken by the Security Council as a declaration of war.”

As economic acts of war, sanctions can provoke military responses just as easily as bombing. Students of history may recall that reparations and economic sanctions against Germany following World War I fed both German nationalism and militarism leading up to World War II. Writing in Foreign Policy Journal, Gilles van Nederveen wrote:

Sanctions can lead to war “if the state is militarized and the central government is backed to the wall. Consider an example of pre-World War II Japan. American and Japanese militaries prepared for a confrontation throughout the twenties, but real tensions did not start until the 1931 invasion of Manchuria by Japan. At the outset of U.S.-imposed oil blockade in 1940, Japan estimated that it had a fuel reserve of just under two years. The Imperial Japanese Navy drafted plans to seize the oil fields in the Dutch East Indies (present day Indonesia) in order to maintain steady supply of oil and its military strength. International organizations like the League of Nations were powerless in curtailing aggression during the thirties. After the initial oil blockade in 1940, each Japanese move was met with yet another U.S. embargo: scrap metal, access to the Panama Canal, and finally, the U.S. froze all Japanese accounts in the US, effectively putting Japan on the collision course with the U.S.”

Sanctions are an overused tool of both neoconservatives and neoliberals. The Heritage Foundation pointed out in 1997 that, during Bill Clinton’s administration, Clinton managed to slap sanctions on 42% of the world’s population. Of course, this was twenty years ago when Conservatives were out of power and posing as reasonable statesmen. Fast forward twenty years: they’re back in power and they’re leading the charge themselves.

Economic sanctions are often accompanied by physical blockades, embargoes, interdiction of shipments on the high seas, proxy wars, and covert warfare. All of these apply to Iran. Speaking at the Carnegie Endowment, former Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew described sanctions in the same terms as precision bombing:

“The sanctions we employ today are different. They are informed by financial intelligence, strategically designed, and implemented with our public and private partners to focus pressure on bad actors and create clear incentives to end malign behavior, while limiting collateral impact.”

But economic sanctions do not limit collateral impact. Sanctions are every bit as lethal as bunker-busters. On May 12, 1996 — long before Obama awarded her a Presidential Medal — Madeline Albright was asked if the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from U.S. economic sanctions were worth it. Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State didn’t shed a tear or miss a beat when she answered “yes.”

2017 – July

Keating was reluctant to support Obama’s and Kerry’s Iran deal and has courted the MEK, an exile group which until 2012 was designated a terrorist organization seeking to overthrow and replace the Iranian government with its own “government-in-exile.” Thanks to Republican and Democratic hawks the designation was lifted.

Keating is pro-Likud. He has fought international efforts to support a Two State Solution, advocated moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, opposed the use of the word “Palestine” and threatened to cut off U.S. contributions to the U.N. and funding for U.N. refugee efforts because of the international body’s criticism of Israel’s land theft and occupation.

2019 – May

Elliott Abrams is a war criminal convicted of lying to Congress, though he was subsequently pardoned. Mike Pompeo is fond of threatening enemies with US invasion. Like Pompeo, John Bolton has never met a war he didn’t love, pressing for “regime change” in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, Yemen, North Korea, and Iran. With the selection of these three sociopaths, Trump is telegraphing plans for Venezuela and Iran. Like Iraq, both countries have long been in the crosshairs of American neoconservatives. The administration’s plans may be old but they’re reliable — coups, puppet regimes, and manufactured threats to the US and its allies. All depend on gullibility and attention deficit from the American public.

Of all the chaos that Trump has unleashed, the threat of an attack on Iran is the most terrifying. Neocons have never been happy with John Kerry’s Iran deal, in which Iran and the US agreed to an accord that would keep Iran from enriching weapons-grade plutonium in exchange for relief from US sanctions. Despite zero evidence of violations by Iran, Trump withdrew from the deal and is considering prosecuting Kerry for violating the Logan Act — for speaking with foreign diplomats, as most former American diplomats do even after leaving their diplomatic posts.

To escalate the provocations even further, Trump denoted the Iranian Guard a “terrorist” organization. And last week, following the deployment of a carrier strike force and B-52 bombers to the Persian Gulf, the US accused Iran of sabotaging tankers. Two Saudi, one Norwegian, and one Emirati ship were allegedly attacked with improvised limpet mines close to the Emirates. Trump threatened to send 120,000 troops to the region, telling the press, “It’s going to be a bad problem for Iran if something happens, I can tell you that. They’re not going to be happy.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif suggested that the sabotaging of vessels was a “false flag” operation and ascribed war noises to the work of the “four Bs” — Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, United Arab Emirates crown prince Mohamed bin Zayed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and White House national security adviser John Bolton, who in 2015 advocated bombing Iran. And if one looks at a map of US military bases surrounding Iran, it is hard to imagine why Iran would want to provoke the US.

Europeans, who remain party to the Iran agreement, are skeptical of Trump’s accusations. Norbert Röttgen, chair of the Foreign Affairs committee of the German parliament, downplayed American warnings of imminent Iranian attacks. He said that the BND (German intelligence) has not found any escalation in Iranian threats. In fact, Röttgen described the US warnings as mere “saber rattling, a show of force to demonstrate seriousness and to justify American foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran.”

But, after a generation of American wars in the Middle East, there is still an appetite for more. The Trump administration and its supporters believe invading Iran would be a “slam dunk,” as the Bush administration thought Iraq would be. Almost a generation has gone by since the first Gulf War and the US is still not out of Iraq. And after a generation, hundreds of thousands killed, and trillions of dollars squandered, the US still remains in Afghanistan propping up a puppet regime. Geniuses like Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton doubt it would take much to defeat Iran — “two strikes, the first strike and the last strike.”

Cooler heads remind us that a US invasion would be the Mother of all Quagmires. Juan Cole, a Mideast expert at the University of Michigan, published the “Top Ten differences between the Iraq War and Trump’s Proposed Iran War.” Among them:

  • Iran is 3.7 times bigger than Iraq — 1.5 million square miles, almost the size of Alaska
  • Iran has 3 times more people than Iraq — 81 million
  • Iran can mobilize 1.5 million paramilitary forces and 500,000 active duty personnel
  • While the Gulf War “Coalition” drew on NATO allies to fight Iraq, Europe is now skeptical of a war on Iran
  • Iraq’s neighbors were happy to see Saddam go; Iran still has many regional friends

Even FOX News host Tucker Carlson was concerned about Bolton’s influence. “More than anything in the world, national security adviser John Bolton would love to have a war with Iran. It will be like Christmas, Thanksgiving, his birthday [all] wrapped into one,” Carlson said.

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has introduced a petition to block Trump’s unilateral entry into a war with Iran, and Nancy Pelosi reminded everyone that “the responsibility in the Constitution is for Congress to declare war. So I hope that the president’s advisers recognize they have no authorization to go forward in any way. They cannot call the authorization, AUMF, the authorization for the use of military force that was passed in 2001, as any authorization to go forward in the Middle East now.”

Impeachment might be largely a formality in the almost certain absence of Senate prosecution of Trump’s crimes, but proceedings should be initiated anyway. Congress must insist on all its rights and powers, which include declaring war. As for Abrams and Bolton, they deserve tenures just as short as Anthony Scaramucci’s — if not cells at the Hague.

But if anyone should be getting regime change this month, please, let it be the American people.

Children deserve rights everywhere

Suddenly a few Republicans are demonstrating that they actually have souls. Franklin Graham, Laura Bush and even Melania Trump are among those who have recently spoken out against separating children from their parents at the border.

Another insidious form of child abuse has taken place for decades in Palestinian occupied territories, where Israel routinely rounds up and imprisons hundreds of children each year. I am forwarding an appeal from Jeff Klein, of Mass Peace Action, asking Congress to support the McCollum Bill, which so far has only two Massachusetts Congressional sponsors. I have written about Betty McCollum’s legislation before. Please read Jeff’s letter and then contact Congressional Reps. Richard Neal, Niki Tsongas, Joseph Kennedy III, Katherine Clark, Michael Capuano, Stephen Lynch, and Bill Keating, to let them know they need to be on the right side of this issue. They need to be better friends to children than to a government that just last month slaughtered hundreds of demonstrators.

————————————————

STAND UP AGAINST THE ABUSE OF PALESTINIAN CHILDREN

Dear Activist,

When many Americans and their elected officials are protesting the mistreatment of immigrant minors at our southern border, it is time to renew our demand that Members of Congress also speak up to protect Palestinian children.

When we sent out our earlier alert on the McCollum Bill, Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act, H.R. 4391, only one member of the Massachusetts delegation, Rep. Jim McGovern CD2), had co-sponsored the resolution. Since then, CD6 Rep Seth Moulton has joined him in supporting the bill. But other members of our delegation have not yet taken a stand against the abuse of Palestinian children. This is unacceptable.

There are two things you can do.

  1. CALL YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS to ask that they co-sponsor the McCollum Bill. Do it again even if you have called before. (And please thank Reps. McGovern and Moulton for their co-sponsorship.)

This is Rep. McCollum’s explanation of the bill:

“Given that the Israeli government receives billions of dollars in assistance from the United States, Congress must work to ensure that American taxpayer dollars never support the Israeli military’s detention or abuse of Palestinian children. Congresswoman McCollum’s legislation, the Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act, requires that the Secretary of State certify that American funds do not support Israel’s military detention, interrogation, abuse, or ill-treatment of Palestinian children.”

  1. ASK THAT THEIR OFFICES ATTEND A BRIEFING JUNE 25 on H.R. 4391 and the situation for Palestinian children after the U.S. embassy move to Jerusalem. You can use the No Way To Treat a Child campaign tool to send an email asking Members of Congress to send a representative to the briefing. If you are in contact with a relevant Congressional staffer, also please phone them directly.

Each year the Israeli military arrests and prosecutes around 700 Palestinian children. Last year alone, more than fourteen Palestinian boys and girls under the age of 18 were shot dead by Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip — and many more were wounded – using resources provided by our own government. We cannot allow this situation to continue.

For Massachusetts Peace Action and its New Day for Israel and Palestine organizing project.

Jeff Klein, Convener, MAPA Palestine/Israel Working Group

Please sign the letter today!

A NEW DAY is a network sponsored by Massachusetts Peace Action.

PLEASE SIGN UP for regular “A NEW DAY” Action Alerts if you have not already done so and please reach out to your contacts to have them sign up for by emailing (and please note your Congressional District).

(NEW DAY members will receive a limited number of action-oriented emails)

Massachusetts Peace Action 11 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138 617-354-2169 Follow us on Facebook or Twitter

Dayenu

Tonight is the first night of Passover.

This is a night for celebrating Jewish liberation from slavery with friends and family. Jews first came to Egypt during a famine and lived as guests a short while, but then in a bitter turn became slaves under Pharaoh. Only after generations of suffering, and only by miracles and plagues demonstrated to Pharaoh and his sorcerers and military, were the Israelites able to gain their freedom. A final miracle — clearing a path for the Israelites across a dry sea bed — brought forty years of wandering in the desert before the establishment of their own kingdom.

This, in a nutshell, is the story told at Passover. It is both a story of liberation and persecution (“In every generation they rise up against us)”. For many liberal Jews there’s far too much of the supernatural and too much about one peoples’ story. For this reason many of us prefer to see our story as the universal struggle for freedom. In our family we sing “Go Down Moses” as poorly as we do “Dayenu.” In years past we’ve had an orange to signify gay liberation. We’ve had an olive for Palestinian freedom. When conducting a seder, in fact, innovation is a requirement. What always brings life to Passover is the truth that — in every generation they rise up against someone.

Dayenu — literally “enough” — is a song with fifteen questions that begins by asking if it would have been enough for god to bring us out of Egypt, to part the sea, to provide manna, and it ends with the building of the temple. The grateful answer to each question in turn is — yes, this would surely have been enough even without all the other gifts.

But one question Dayenu doesn’t ask is what would have happened if the Israelites had met immigration agents in the desert. What would the arc of history have been if we were sent back into Egyptian slavery?

Dayenu doesn’t ask what the descendants of the Israelites would be expected to do with 40,000 African refugees who — just like their own ancestors — travelled thousands of miles across deserts to Israel and now sit in detention centers awaiting deportation. Or Palestinians, who have lived under martial law almost twice as long as the Israelites wandered the desert.

Dayenu doesn’t ask what kind of society we are obliged to create to treat fellow human beings better than we were treated by Pharaoh — an especially relevant question this year as the number of police murders of black men is exploding. And at a time white Americans still continue to rise up against African-Americans, even after centuries.

Dayenu never asks, but the seder certainly points at, the seemingly endless procession of new Pharaohs emerging on the world stage — strutting dictators surrounded by their modern-day sorcerers and charioteers. A plague on all of them; they certainly do rise in every generation.

Dayenu doesn’t ask, but the implication seems clear to me, that those who have found their freedom are now obligated to help others realize their own liberation. After all, didn’t the Israelites take the mixed multitudes with them out of slavery?

For some it is enough to recognize persecution and victimization. Dayenu. For others it’s enough to recognize persecution and demand liberation. Dayenu. But for liberation to be truly realized, as the Passover story reminds us, injustice and cruelty must be directly challenged and crushed.

Chag pesach sameach.

Thirteen Democratic Senators

I’ve written about this before and it is now closer to becoming law. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S.720) is a piece of legislation promoted by a foreign nation that will violate the civil liberties of Americans. It joins recent laws in Turkey and Poland criminalizing “insults” to a nation. But it is fundamentally a form of thought control that has no place in a democracy.

S.720 is co-sponsored by 51 U.S. Senators. To their shame, thirteen are Democrats: Michael Bennet (CO); Richard Blumenthal (CT); Maria Cantwell (WA); Christopher Coons (DE); Joe Donnelly (IN); Margaret Hassan (NH); Joe Manchin (WV); Claire McCaskill (MO); Robert Menendez (NJ); Bill Nelson (FL); Gary Peters (MI); Charles Schumer (NY); and Ron Wyden (OR).

S.720 criminalizes speech and forbids political expression. The Anti-Israel Boycott Act is basically a Sedition Act in disguise which punishes any American joining a boycott to oppose the Israeli government’s occupation of Palestinians with a fine of up to $1 million or imprisonment up to 20 years.

S.720 wants to have it both ways — doing the bidding of a foreign nation (Israel) while punishing Americans from following boycotts suggested by a foreign entity (the UN and the still-stateless Palestinian people).

Whether the bill is eventually successful or not, the ACLU notes the harm it has already done:

“On its face, the bill appears to directly prohibit boycott activity that is protected under the First Amendment. Even if the bill could be interpreted more narrowly, as some of its supporters claim, its broad language could still chill protected expression by scaring people into self-censorship. Either way, the bill would impose serious First Amendment harms.”

According to S.720’s subsection (a)(1) the bill criminalizes even gathering information about companies doing business in Israel or in occupied Palestinian territories. You post an inquiry on Facebook — for example, does Sodastream manufacture its products in the West Bank? The next thing you know, you face arrest or a fine.

Besides violating the rights of Americans, S.720 is a perfect example of the sort of foreign meddling that Democrats claim to hate. S.720 is promoted by numerous pro-Israel groups like AIPAC whose single focus on promoting Israeli interests should require it to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Even Canada is obliged to register its lobbyists but no such limitations apply to AIPAC, which literally pays American legislators to work for Israel’s interests.

Imagine if Russian lobbyists did the same — worked through a group we’ll call ARPAC — the American Russian Political Action Committee — to create legislation to criminalize sanctions against Russia and its oligarchs. Or imagine ATPAC — the American Turkish Political Action Committee — buying support to keep Americans from mentioning the Armenian Genocide or protesting Turkey’s treatment of Kurdish people.

What’s especially galling to Americans is that the Senate is telling us we can’t take political action against a foreign country knee deep in corruption — a country with a prime minister about to be indicted for criminal conspiracy. A country in which the former prime minister went to jail for bribery and influence-peddling. The Senate needs to be reminded: Israel is not our 51st state.

S.720 echoes laws in Israel which have already criminalized the BDS movement in “the Middle East’s only democracy.” The Senate bill also joins a growing list of American “gag” legislation written for agribusiness, anti-abortion zealots, and pipeline companies. The Trump administration now seems eager to join its authoritarian counterparts in China, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Poland, the Philippines, and elsewhere in policing the views of its citizens.

And thirteen Democratic senators, including Chuck Schumer, are just fine with that.

Now its official

A politician’s legacy is not his alone. He often builds on policies and practices of previous administrations. While Trump’s mendacity and incompetence (and dementia) are his and his alone, many of his most noxious initiatives have been bipartisan projects all along. Trump’s recklessness simply airs America’s dirty little secrets and turns already bad policies into unbearable ones. Forget the “kinder, gentler” versions. Now the worst of militarism, racism, and predatory capitalism are simply official.

If we tremble at the recklessness with which Trump toys with American nukes, we forget that Obama authorized a $1 trillion upgrade to them. If we abhor Trump’s new Mexican wall, we forget that Democrats helped build them. Twice. If we despise the racism of the GOP, we willfully forget that Democrats had a hand in drug, crime and prison policies that disproportionately harmed people of color. If we detest Trump’s shady friends in high places, we forget that these were the guys Democrats bailed out in 2008. If we mouth concern about Trump’s affinity for dictators, we forget that the Obama administration kept them in power in Honduras and Egypt and the Ukraine. If we wring our hands over Trump’s saber-rattling toward Iran, we forget that Democrats destabilized Libya and Syria.

None of this would be so offensive if Democrats had changed their ways or said their mea culpas for, say, wrecking Iraq or Vietnam or creating a carceral state. Yet for all the crocodile tears and hypocritical indignation over Trump’s policies, Democrats have some very selective memory.

This week it was Donald Trump’s declaration of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Democrats responded immediately and harshly. Nancy LeTourneau, in her piece “Trump’s Dangerous Pandering to White Evangelicals on Jerusalem” in the Clinton-friendly Washington Monthly, wrote:

“the announcement from Trump today that the U.S. will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and begin the process of moving our embassy there is a key ingredient to this president’s support among white evangelicals.” [… and ] “this is a perfect example of what happens when we tear down the wall separating church and state. Having a foreign policy that panders to people who welcome war in the Middle East as a sign that we are approaching the climax of history is as nutty as it is dangerous.”

But LeTourneau and the rest of her Pants Suit Nation “forget” the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

That was the year that Barak Obama added a plank in the party platform at the behest of the Israeli lobby group AIPAC to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It was a plank that had somehow been omitted. But a majority of delegates opposed the restoration. Convention Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa kept calling for voice votes to affirm the adoption of the plank, and it kept failing. Finally, Villaraigosa simply ignored the “nays” and declared that it had passed — a moment that revealed how democracy really works in the DNC.

“Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.” This has been the DNC position since at least 2008. LeTourneu’s complaint that Trump’s foreign policy panders to people who welcome war in the Middle East is certainly true — but it applies equally to her own party. The rest of the language in the plank — completely disregarded by Democrats — called for an open city, not for gifting the Al Aqsa mosque to Israel:

“The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain a divided city accessible to people of all faiths.”

Yet for the last fifty years of Israel’s martial law over Palestinians only the United States has defended the occupation and the settlements. The U.S. has consistently shut its eyes to Israeli abuses and Israel continues to demolish Palestinian homes and businesses in East Jerusalem without a peep of protest or without the U.S. using its considerable supply of sticks and carrots. The U.S. could easily cut off military and economic aid or vetos at the Security Council. Or it could sanction Israel’s nukes.

Democrats now fume at settler donors Jared Kushner and David Friedman working so transparently in behalf of Israel, but it was former Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller who first coined the phrase “Israel’s attorney” in 2005, referring to the United States.

Whether out of gutlessness, lack of empathy for those whom Israelis displaced, craven political opportunism, or maybe just the cash, Democrats have presided over an irreversible buildout of Israeli settlements and half a century of oppression of Palestinians. By being “Israel’s attorney” Democrats have neglected the peace process so long that there is no longer any hope of a Two State solution and so-called U.S. “leadership” is a cruel sham.

Trump just made it official.

Thank you, Betty McCollum

Finally. For the first time ever someone in Congress is doing something about Israel’s systematic abuse of Palestinian children — abuses that include torture and incarceration of kids as young as eight.

As Israel celebrates its 50th anniversary of land theft, martial law, and human rights abuses on Palestinians, Democratic Minnesota Congresswoman Betty McCollum quietly filed H.R.4391, the Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act, which prevents U.S. tax dollars from supporting the “Israeli military’s ongoing detention and mistreatment of Palestinian children.” The bill has twelve cosponsors, all of them progressive Democrats.

H.R.4391 has been endorsed by the American Friends Service Committee, Amnesty International USA, Center for Constitutional Rights, Churches for Middle East Peace, Defense for Children International – Palestine, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Global Ministries of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and United Church of Christ, Jewish Voice for Peace, Mennonite Central Committee, Presbyterian Church (USA), the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, United Methodists for Kairos Response (UMKR), and United Methodist General Board of Church and Society.

plugin:youtube

Read about it.

The progressive Jewish magazine +972 features a number of articles on Children Under Occupation.

Do something about it.

Sign a petition, write, call, or email your Congressman and ask them to co-sponsor H.R.4391.

Sign a petition

Take action

And remember.

When midterm elections come around, check if your Congressman cared enough to try to end child incarceration and torture.

If not, why are you supporting him?

Ketchup

The president that Republicans really want
The president that Republicans really want

Israel’s influence is all out of proportion to its objective strategic importance to the United States. Yet because of American religious sentiment and a strong Israel lobby, any attempt to end its occupation or alter its settlement policies are rebuffed, while conversely the tiny nation seems to constantly intrude into our domestic politics.

Israel is an insignificant trading partner, although every state governor travels there on a trade mission during his term. The state of Israel is not part of NATO, though NATO has provided it with an office in Brussels. No Israeli troops have ever assisted in any US-led military “coalitions” in the Middle East. Israel serves as a check to Hezbollah and Syrian power, tests American military equipment, assists in intelligence gathering, and its nuclear weapons can more easily reach Asia and Eastern Europe. Still, not even NATO allies during the height of the Cold War ever received the level of military aid Israel has.

Since its founding Israel has received more foreign and military aid than any other nation – $124 billion as of 2015, plus another $40 billion this year. An analysis by the Congressional Research Service describes Israel’s unique benefits:

“Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $124.3 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance. Strong congressional support for Israel has resulted in Israel receiving benefits not available to any other countries… In addition to receiving U.S. State Department-administered foreign assistance, Israel also receives funds from annual defense appropriations bills for rocket and missile defense programs. Israel pursues some of those programs jointly with the United States.”

Negotiations over Israel’s aid package last summer were a lopsided and distasteful affair, with Israel demanding more money from the United States and Congress hammering the American president in Israel’s behalf.

Although often described as “the only democracy in the Middle East,” Israel’s “democracy” extends many rights only to its Jewish majority and punishes Arabs – from a right to immigrate only for Jews and sixty years of occupation for Arabs; to civil law for Jews but martial law for Palestinians. On land that has been expropriated from Palestinians separate roads and services exist only for Jewish settlers. There is also widespread segregation of Jews and Arabs within Israel’s own disputed borders and numerous instances of racism and Islamophobia. This has led many to compare Israel with the old South African Apartheid system, which never qualified as a democracy, though in 1985 Ronald Reagan tried to sell it as such:

“They have eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country — the type of thing where hotels and restaurants and places of entertainment and so forth were segregated — that has all been eliminated.”

Of course, Reagan also said that ketchup was a vegetable.

Daylight

Democrats have been unreliable peace brokers in the Middle East, and – just like Republicans – censor any criticisms of Israel. Democrats pretend that Israel’s nuclear weapons don’t exist, while other countries are sanctioned or threatened with fire and fury if they so much as spin up a centrifuge. When Israel kills American citizens our own government does little or nothing. Every politician from Susan Rice to John Kerry, to Mitt Romney, and now Donald Trump, has used the tired old phrase “no daylight between Israel and the U.S.” to imply that the interests of both countries are identical.

The Democratic Party has wrestled with “Israel as Foreign Policy” in each of its last two conventions. Actually, the party has a serious AIPAC problem and its wrestling is mainly with AIPAC’s power. Now, with Donald Trump in office, some Democrats say they are worried that the president’s settler-ambassador David Friedman will move the American embassy to Jerusalem.

But in 2012 the DNC itself tried to push through a motion to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. An undemocratic roll was called by Antonio Villaraigosa and an unexpectedly loud “no” vote caught the DNC offguard. AIPAC had “vetted” the motion – had actually written the text – and Obama was counting on its passing. The “no” vote was finally overturned after multiple attempts in a clearly undemocratic maneuver, and the incident remains an ugly stain on the party’s ethics and democratic practices.

In 2016 the issue of the occupation of Palestine came up again. Clinton supporter Robert Wexler insisted that Democrats could not afford to mention the “O” word if a Two State Solution could be salvaged. Sanders supporter James Zogby pushed back, pointing out that everyone knows the occupation exists. Both sides disagreed whether Democrats should support or condemn the BDS movement. At the end of the day, the DNC adopted wording that made AIPAC and Clinton happy. And the Democratic Party has since chosen to tar the BDS Movement with the Israel lobby’s “anti-Semitic” brush.

So in December 2016, when the UN Security Council took a vote on a motion to condemn Israeli settlements, the US abstention was remarkable, something that had rarely been done before. Obama was again denounced by Republicans and the Israel lobby as an Islamist-Leftist who loved Shariah and hated Jews.

But what had happened was that a tiny crack of daylight had opened up between the United States and Israel. Because Israel’s interests are not identical to ours. Not even close.

Obama’s abstention was a Hail Mary to save the Two State solution. America’s extreme right white ultrationalists in their brown shirts and white hoods, and uncompromising Zionists like David Friedman, are now singing a triumphant tune: there will never be a Two State solution.

But, really, what is the alternative?

Between Gaza and the West Bank there are 4.5 Palestinians living under continuing Israeli military occupation. There are another 1.7 million Arab Israelis. There are almost 6 million stateless Palestinian refugees waiting for a homeland. There are 8 million Jewish Israelis in Israel, some of whom live most of the time in Europe or the U.S. Demographics are not on Israel’s side. By 2035 Jews will be a minority in Israel-Palestine.

Israel can either (1) work with the international community to create a contiguous Palestinian state that would accommodate some number of the Palestinian diaspora; (2) continue the occupation indefinitely; or (3) turn Israel into a multicultural democracy under secular law.

Democrats had better figure out if they prefer option (1) or option (3) because option (2) is barbaric and cannot be sustained. And Democrats will need to develop muscle and guts to push back against AIPAC and the boatload of Israel lobby groups that work tirelessly to keep the occupation in place – to steal more land and build more settlements.

And, frankly, it’s hard to understand why Democrats have such a problem with a secular, multicultural democracy. If that’s what they truly believe in.

As he was leaving office, George Washington offered a few pieces of advice. One was a warning about permitting double standards that favor a particular nation:

“… a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter… It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions … and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity…”

No one in modern times has said it any better.

Birds of a feather

Expulsions from the USA
Expulsions from the USA

One of the most disturbing realizations of the past election was how many of Donald Trump’s supporters are racists, anti-Semites and white supremacists. A majority are Islamophobes as well, supporting Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians and – here’s the strange part – they’re also enthusiastic Zionists.

How can anti-Semism and Zionism manage to coexist? This was the question Naomi Zeveloff asked in a piece in the Forward, a lefty Jewish magazine.

Zeveloff found that many white supremacists admire Israel for “fighting the ‘good fight'” with Muslims. They admire a society which privileges a single ethnicity and religion and actively discourages multiculturalism. For white supremacists Israel is a “model for white nationalism and/or Christianism.”

Israel's own Apartheid Wall
Israel’s own Apartheid Wall

Columbia University sociologist Todd Gitlin put it less charitably:

“Anti-Semitism and right-wing Zionism are varieties of ultra nationalism, or, to put it more pejoratively (as it deserves to be put) tribalism. They both presume that the embattled righteous ones need to bristle at, wall off, and punish the damned outsiders. They hate and fear cosmopolitan mixtures. They make a fetish of purity. They have the same soul. They rhyme.”

Weeks after the election white supremacist and anti-Semite Richard Spencer gave a talk at Texas A&M University. Security was provided by Houston’s Aryan Renaissance Society and WhiteLivesMatter. Some came to listen, others to protest. But Texas A&M Hillel Rabbi Matt Rosenberg came to engage. After Spencer’s talk Rosenberg asked Spencer, somewhat naively, to join in a “loving and radically inclusive” act of studying Torah together. Spencer scoffed at the idea that he needed some loving to counterbalance all the hating, and instead used the rabbi’s invitation to point out Zionism’s uncanny similarity to white supremacy:

“Do you really want radical inclusion into the State of Israel? […] Jews exist precisely because you did not assimilate to the gentiles […] I respect that about you. I want my people to have that same sense of themselves.”

Birds of a feather.

The right to boycott

Despite plenty of evidence Donald Trump has a thing for Russian mobsters and Kremlin operatives, we still don’t know if he actually conspired with Russia to throw the 2016 presidential election.

But last week I wrote about some indisputable foreign meddling – AIPAC’s attempts to take away political rights of Americans to protest Israel’s domestic policies with economic boycotts.

And Israel is trying the same thing right here in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts House bill H.1685 and Senate bill S.1689 sound harmless enough (“An Act prohibiting discrimination in State Contracts”). No one would ever admit liking discrimination. And one would hope that any legislator co-sponsoring bills like these would have only the best of intentions.

But these two bills do much more harm than good.

Like cookie-cutter legislation crafted by ALEC, these were pushed by a pro-Israel organization, the JCRC, which regards them as tools to block the BDS Movement. Lobbyists for Israel have introduced similar legislation in 35 states and they have been enacted in 19.

Seekonk Rep. Steven Howitt was crystal clear about the bill’s intent: “This bill clarifies to businesses that either support BDS or who boycott Israeli-owned businesses and products that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will not engage in commerce with them.”

In short, this is an attack on the exercise of the Constitutionally-protected right to boycott a foreign nation on political grounds. Not surprisingly, the Massachusetts ACLU opposes H.1685.

The bills’ supporters claim that any criticism of Israel’s occupation and settlements is tantamount to anti-semitism. But the international BDS Movement has specific political goals. And Israel’s domestic policies as well as American foreign policy toward it are political issues. Both bills are opposed by a number of Jewish organizations, including the Boston Workmen’s Circle, Jewish Voice for Peace, over 100 progressive organizations, and also the National Council of Churches.

In 1982 the Supreme Court affirmed the right of Americans to use boycotts for political purposes. After fifty years of occupation and creeping settlements Israel just might need a little economic incentive to stop. But no matter how you feel about Middle Eastern politics, Israel’s problems can not be solved by violating the civil liberties of Americans.

Contact House and Senate sponsors from your district and ask them to kill these bills and withdraw their co-sponsorship.

This bill must die

Lately there’s a Russian under every rock if not every bed. We’ve also been seeing some new bipartisan frenzy over Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Senators keep heaping sanction after sanction on America’s many enemies, including Russia, and there is revived interest in the registration of foreign agents. “People should know if foreign governments, political parties or other foreign interests are trying to influence U.S. policy or public opinion,” says Iowa Republican and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Chuck Grassley.

Indeed, people should know who is trying to influence U.S. policy and public opinion.

And they should also know who the worst offender is.

AIPAC, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, is unique in bending U.S. policy and public opinion to a foreign government’s will. Try to imagine a ChinaPAC, a SaudiPAC, or a RusskyPAC operating with as much impunity, introducing whatever federal legislation it wants on a regular basis, sending hundreds of congressmen on junkets to Moscow every summer recess, establishing Russian trade delegations in every state, letting Russians decide how we interrogate terrorists, giving a major voice to Russia on our foreign policy in Eastern Europe. It’s shocking when our relationship with Israel is described like this, but It’s especially shocking that Israel gets away with it because neither political party objects.

AIPAC is only a slice of an Israel lobby that spans dozens of organizations, but it is the largest of the Israel attack dogs, and it has teeth. As FORTUNE magazine put it, “if a congressman from Kansas gets a call from an AIPAC lobbyist, he and his constituents may not think much about about Israeli affairs, but voting with the lobby is politically beneficial. Voting against them, meanwhile, gives that congressman a powerful enemy.” Plus, the money and junkets are great.

Unlike lobbyists who represent China, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Russia, the Ukraine or other foreign interests, AIPAC seems free to flaunt FARA, the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act. Indeed, this week, in the middle of discussions on Russia, Senator Lindsay Graham asked [rhetorically] whether AIPAC should be required to register: “They come up here in droves: lobbying Congress to do things, in their view good for the U.S.-Israel relationship. I know they have a lot of contacts in Israel. Should somebody like that be a foreign agent?”

If they’re not representing Israel, who does AIPAC really represent? Although it frequently claims to speak for American Jews, Jewish Voice for Peace rabbi Joseph Berman would beg to disagree: “they don’t speak for the Jewish community.” Poll after poll shows that American Jews are, first and foremost, Americans who believe in religious plurality, do not believe in ethno-religious government, and support diplomacy with Iran rather than reckless provocation. There are already plenty of lobbyists for a strong defense and muscular foreign policy so, once again, who does AIPAC really represent? In the words of Middle East expert Juan Cole, “the only logical possibility is that AIPAC is acting on behalf of the Likud government of Israel.”

In 2005 AIPAC Policy Director Steve Rosen and AIPAC Senior Iran Analyst Keith Weissman were fired after the FBI became suspicious the two had passed classified information to Israel. The stolen information was provided by Larry Franklin, who served a 12 year sentence for espionage. And though the two AIPAC employees were plainly operating in Israel’s behalf, because of the belief that American and Israeli interests are synonymous the prosecution claimed it could not prove that passing stolen information to Israel had actually harmed the United States.

AIPAC is involved with many linked organizations, including the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF) – which operates out of the same building and sent almost all freshmen Congressmen to Israel in 2015 – and Islamophobic groups like Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran (CNFI). As the INTERCEPT reported, AIPAC’s political beneficiaries are bi-partisan. Four ostensibly “liberal” Democrats, for example, advise CNFI, which in turn finances some of Frank Gaffney‘s work. AIPAC has gotten Democrats to suppress the BDS movement at both legislative and executive levels. New York governor Andrew Cuomo wrote an executive memo to establish an anti-BDS blacklist. And Hillary Clinton’s AIPAC speech made it clear that her party would fight BDS for Israel in the halls of Congress. And AIPAC was grateful when Republican David Friedman became the U.S. ambassador to Israel.

But the only party AIPAC really cares about is the Likud.

For the moment, however, AIPAC continues to pretend that it represents a domestic constituency and not a foreign government. But, like ALEC, it has numerous legislators willing to sponsor its Israel-friendly bills. And the legislation just keeps on coming.

Back in March AIPAC sponsored Senate bill S.722, “Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017,” designed to promote Israel’s foreign policy goals regarding Iran.

In May the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed H.R.672, “Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017,” which makes the United States responsible for Israel’s interests in Europe. The bill accused European leaders who have voiced even tepid criticisms of Israel, including Angela Merkel, of anti-semitism.

More recently the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, also sponsored by AIPAC, appeared in both House and Senate flavors and has been roundly denounced by civil liberties and progressive organizations.

The “Israel Anti-Boycott Act” joins the federal Combating BDS Act of 2017 and last year’s Anti-Semitism Awareness Act in trying to outlaw the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement in the United States. It also joins legislation filed by Israel’s lobbyists in 35 states, and enacted in 19, which outlaw the use of anti-Israel boycotts, a First Amendment right affirmed by the Supreme Court’s 1982 ruling in “NAACP vs. Claiborne Hardware” that tested the legality of peaceful advocacy of a politically-motivated boycott.

Despite its dubious constitutionality, the proposed law would make support of the BDS movement a felony, slapping $1 million dollar fines and imposing 20 year prison sentences on critics of Israel. It specifically goes after BDS supporters by suppressing political opposition to the Israeli government. The text of the bill reads: “The term ‘politically motivated’ means actions to impede or constrain commerce with Israel that are intended to coerce political action from or impose policy positions on Israel.”

And this is what the 46 Senate and 249 House co-sponsors really oppose – the political right of their constituents to pressure for change in Israel.

Because the “Israeli Anti-Boycott Act” is so vaguely-worded, it could be interpreted quite extremely. For example, suppose a consumer, before deciding to boycott an individual Israeli product, wanted to know if SodaStream machines, Naot shoes, or Ahava cosmetics are made in Israel proper or in the occupied West Bank. According to the ACLU, posting even an inquiry on social media could theoretically cost a citizen 20 years of freedom or $1 million for his exercise of free speech. Moveon.org defends the right to use boycotts, “regardless how you feel about BDS,” as a Free Speech issue. As well it is.

Another defect of the bill is that, while it was clearly written specifically for Israel’s benefit, it contains ambiguous language punishing anyone who boycotts any “country friendly to” the United States, or who joins, supports, or echoes support for a foreign boycott of that country. This could also have unintended consequences because the United States has many dubious friends – including the Saudi dictatorship, Egypt’s dictator, Philippine dictator Duterte, Pakistan, Afghanistan’s kleptocracy, Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Honduras, Qatar, Kyrgyzstan, Djibouti, Kazakhstan, Turkey, and many others.

“Friends” of the United States also include several new European members of NATO that are in the process of shedding their democracies, including Poland and Hungary. And Thailand, a SEATO member, is a government currently under dictatorship. No citizen should feel safe criticizing a repressive foreign regime with a toxic combination of vague, anti-democratic legislation and our present authoritarian president.

Brand Israel has successfully sold itself as the “only Democracy in the Middle East.” Yet the government’s public relations campaign rings as hollow as anything to come out of the Trump administration. Israel has much in common with South Africa’s Apartheid regime in maintaining a cruel, repressive occupation over a people denied their civil rights. And Israel just celebrated its fiftieth year of occupation. As Israeli historian Ilan Pappe puts it, Israel is not a democracy, nor with an occupation could it ever be. “What we must challenge here, therefore, is not only Israel’s claim to be maintaining an enlightened occupation but also its pretense to being a democracy. Such behavior towards millions of people under its rule gives the lie to such political chicanery.”

Israel is no longer recognizable as the spunky little nation of friendly kibbutzniks. Over the years it has transformed into an extreme right-wing settler state and has instituted a series of anti-democratic laws of its own. Israel has cracked down on domestic human rights advocates like B’Tselem and Breaking the Silence. Like our own president, Israel treats its own press as enemies. Journalism is frequently censored in Israel and, like Saudi Arabia, the government is now trying to shut down the Jerusalem office of Al Jazeera. Despite wide support for so-called “shared values,” the more Americans learn about Israel the more its reputation in the United States suffers. Shutting down the BDS movement is not a shared value but a desperate attempt to shut down criticism within a nation that is Israel’s most useful enabler.

A few weeks ago, on a tour of Eastern Europe, Israeli prime minister Netanyahu was caught lecturing leaders of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech republic – xenophobic nations that oppose resettlement of refugees – that Israel was a bulwark in the defense of “Judeo-Christian” values against Muslim hordes and that European concern for Palestinians was “crazy.” Netanyahu sounded precisely like American white supremacist Richard Spencer and an awful lot like Donald Trump in Poland last week. “Don’t undermine that one European, Western country that defends European values and European interests and prevents another mass migration to Europe,” Netanyahu told his fellow right-wing Islamophobes.

BDS activists say that a boycott is a legal, peaceful way to keep pressure on Israel so long as its Palestinian occupation continues and land thefts persist. Only a few days ago 100 armed settlers invaded the home of the Abu Rajab family in Hebron and forcibly ejected them into the street. Speaking for the government, Israel’s Agriculture Minister, Uri Ariel, defended the home invasion: “The entry into the home is another step in strengthening the natural connection of the Jewish people to its land. In the last few days in which Jerusalem has been under incessant incitement, I am glad that the people of Israel continue to establish themselves in the City of the Patriarchs.” Another government minister, Tzachi Hanegbi, threatened Palestinians with a “third Nakba” (more ethnic cleansing).

These were voices of the government speaking and, curiously, Ariel used the word incitement, which is frequently deployed when talking about BDS or making any appeal for Palestinian rights.

Sponsors of the “Israel Anti-Boycott Act” should have known a backlash was coming. Democratic Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland says now that his bill was misinterpreted by the ACLU. But the ACLU’s David Cole and Faiz Shakir stood by their reading in a Washington Post editorial:

“Whether one approves or disapproves of the BDS movement itself, people should have a right to make up their own minds about it. Americans engage in boycotts every day when they decide not to buy from companies whose practices they oppose. Students have boycotted companies that sold clothing manufactured in sweatshops abroad. Environmentalists have boycotted Nestlé for its deforestation practices. By using their power in the marketplace, consumers can act collectively to express their political points of view. There is nothing illegal about such collective action; indeed, it is constitutionally protected.”

Cardin has since offered to tinker with the bill’s wording. But regardless of how it is phrased or re-phrased, the bill ultimately has only one purpose – to make political action by Americans illegal if it offends Israel.

This practically defines the phrase “un-American.”

Voters must let Senate co-sponsors and House co-sponsors of this bill know in no uncertain terms that this bill must die. Here in Massachusetts that includes Reps. Richard Neal and Joe Kennedy who once again sullies the family name.

In addition, Congress must ensure that the AIPAC lobbyists at 251 Massachusetts Avenue in Washington D.C. all follow what their colleagues Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Monica Farley, John Podesta, and thousands of others have been forced to do – register with the Justice Department under the 1938 FARA Act as agents of a foreign country.

Human Rights – a line in the sand

While Democrats argue whether a woman’s choice really is a “core Democratic value” they remain pretty comfortable ignoring the human rights of non-Americans. This week Human Rights Watch documented extra-judicial killings by Egypt’s army – let’s ditch the euphemism and call them what they really are – death squads. HRW is calling on the United States to cut off funding to Egypt’s dictator (and Trump Rat Pack bro) Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. But Democrats are in an awkward position because, while they were running the circus, Clinton and Obama coddled Egyptian dictators as much as Trump. A GAO report written during Obama’s administration alluded to Egyptian human rights abuses. And they are worse now under Trump.

Last Month Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin proposed legislation that would violate First Amendment rights of those boycotting Israel for its military occupation and settlements. There is a similar bill in the House, co-sponsored by a number of Democrats, including one representative from Massachusetts. In the Massachusetts legislature there are two more of these “anti-BDS” bills being considered. In fact, these AIPAC-sponsored bills have popped up all over the country like the plague of ALEC legislation. In New York, governor Andrew Cuomo set up a blacklist to punish those using the constitutional right to boycott.

My point – foreign policy is not just national. It pulls states and even cities into controversies over everything from human rights to free speech. And out in the states and cities, we ought to have a voice.

The boycott controversy recently came up in Massachusetts Democratic Party platform discussions. Progressive Democrats want to insert language into the platform stating that “Israel’s settlements in the occupied West Bank are obstacles to peace.” Settlements have been condemned by virtually every nation outside the US, by the UN, and even members of Israel’s security establishment see the problem. If you can see how “gentrification” might be a problem, now imagine gentrification plus martial law, ethnic cleansing, and land theft. I’d call that an obstacle to peace. It’s as much a fact as global warming. And the reality is denied just as doggedly by Democrats.

Former AIPAC lobbyist Steve Grossman thinks the issue is “divisive” for Democrats and broadly hints that he couldn’t possibly remain in a party that won’t support Israel’s Occupation. Barney Frank’s former aide James Segel thinks the party needs to hold fast to “protect the values and commitments we hold dear” – meaning another half century of occupation and land theft? Rubber-stamp vetoes in the UN?

Democrats are on the wrong side when they attack free speech and human rights. And this has got to stop.

The Democratic Party’s platform may be the “most progressive” ever written. But this does not include its foreign policy section. That part was written by Hillary Rodham Clinton and reflects her neo-conservative and neo-liberal views. Traditionally, state parties have deferred on matters of foreign policy to a presidential candidate. But the approaches both parties have used for generations are not working. And despite Democrats calling for more “soft power” it’s hard power they always use. Invading new countries each year and spending our national wealth on war is bankrupting us, not making us safer. Right now, 53 cents of every dollar of discretionary spending goes to “defense.” And Trump wants even more.

So if Republicans are on the wrong track, what’s our plan?

One state Democrat Party – Washington – actually thought about it and did something. Progressives from this state wrote their own foreign policy platform, and it’s based on the golden rule, not on golden contracts for Raytheon and Boeing:

http://www.wa-democrats.org/issues/foreign-policy

In 2016 the two truly “divisive” issues separating progressive Democrats from Hillary Clinton-ites were her hawkishness and support for corporate-friendly trade deals. While we may all want to put the 2016 election behind us and join the unity tour with Bernie Sanders and Tom Perez, issues of Democratic support for neo-liberalism and neo-conservative foreign policy are not going away. They have to be resolved.

Democrats from each state need to weigh in separately. Like Steve Grossman, there are certain lines in the sand for some of us. I’ll never find a home in a party that turns its back on human rights. As a newbie delegate to the Massachusetts Democratic convention in June I’m optimistic that important changes can be made, at least in this state. But I’m not blind to the reality that Clinton and Obama people still own the party.

I hear the #DemExit and Draft Bernie calls, though impatience and the right wing seem to be driving many of them. I am reminded by my progressive brothers and sisters in the Greens and elsewhere that I may be on a fool’s errand. And maybe they’re right. My sixth sense tells me they are right. But I think patience and a certain amount of blind optimism are warranted right now. Now is a unique opportunity to move the center of gravity toward the left in a party that has lost its way – and admits it.

By the 2018 midterms we should have an idea of what the party is really committed to, how democratic it’s prepared to be, and how welcoming to progressive values it is.

And that should begin with a renewed commitment to Human Rights and new ways of formulating foreign policy.

Better figure out what democracy really means

Republican and Democratic coddling hasn’t stopped Israel’s self-destructive settlements. And now, with little land remaining for Palestinians, the Two State Solution is dead. Both parties got it wrong on Saturday’s editorial page.

For Charles Krauthammer Obama’s attempt to preserve the Two State Solution by abstaining from the customary U.S. veto of a UN resolution condemning settlements, was more proof Obama is an antisemite and Israel-basher. Krauthammer griped that Obama is keeping Jews from worshiping on the Temple Mount. Actually, it’s the Israeli government that is blocking End Times wingnuts from damaging what is also the site of the Al Aqsa mosque. Krauthammer joins Trump’s ambassador nominee David Friedman in a new age of Republican advocacy for extremists even too extreme for Israel.

Then there is Eugene Robinson, who praised the veto, even while acknowledging “Two States” is a dead letter. Robinson failed to hold Democrats accountable for doing little to stop the settlements, and he ends by praising Israel’s “vibrant democracy,” worrying what kind of democracy it will now become.

Become?

For Middle East correspondents based in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, for American politicians on AIPAC junkets, or for those who have never seen the West Bank or the Galilee, the sanitized version of Israel may have some trappings of a democracy. But for the 1.7 million Arab and Bedouin citizens of Israel, it’s a place where the phrase “filthy Arab” is heard repeatedly, where racial epithets are common, and brawls occurs at soccer games between Maccabi Petah Tikva and Hapoel Haifa. Arab Israelis earn 30% less than Jewish citizens, and jobs, scholarships and loans are harder to obtain. Life expectancy is lower, and half live in poverty. Israeli Bedouins are nomads and also the domestic victims of Jewish settlement.

Vigilante groups in Petah Tikva, Pisgat Zeev and Kiryat Gat beat interracial couples. Schools in Kiryat Gat “educate” Israeli girls on the dangers of interracial dating. One of their videos is called “Sleeping with the Enemy” and was co-produced with local police. In 2004 Safed’s chief rabbi, Shmuel Eliyahu, called Arab and Jewish dating “an act of war.” Israel’s Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman advocates the forced expulsion of the nation’s Arabs (“finishing the job”), a view supported by half the Jewish population.

A few years ago, the Israeli community of Moshav Yishi, whose motto was “The American Dream in Eretz Israel,” had a webpage that asked: “Looking for the American Dream in Eretz Yisrael? Two acre plots, farmland, reservoirs, and terrific views? Does an Arab-free environment sound appealing? Yishi is miles inside the Green Line and even further from the nearest Arab settlement.”

If Israel really is a democracy, says former Palestinian-Israeli Knesset member Azmi Bishara, “I would call it a trivial democracy.”

And then there is the required submission of news articles to military censors; a law forbidding Arab Israelis from observing Nakba Day (commemorating the expulsion of 80% of Palestinians from their homes in 1948); and a different law penalizing Jewish supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. ACRI, the “Association for Civil Rights in Israel,” reports widespread discrimination, civil liberties violations, abrogation of treaties, mistreatment of asylum seekers, crackdowns on whistleblowers and journalists, and ongoing abuses in the Occupied Territories. ACRI’s December 2016 report laments: “This year, we unfortunately moved backwards.”

And this was Israel proper.

Then there are the territories that Israel occupies (West Bank) or dominates militarily (Gaza), which include about 4.5 million people under military control. Imagine if the United States occupied all of Mexico and Central America – and you can begin to fathom the scale of the Israeli occupation. Detentions in the West Bank don’t require warrants, and forty percent of all Palestinian men have been in prison. Land is stolen and homes bulldozed. Future ambassador David Friedman has a building with his name on it built on stolen land in the West Bank settlement of Beit El. Palestinians must travel through checkpoints like the one in Qalandia that, when I passed through in 2009, reminded me of how cattle are moved in stockyards.

With Two States dead, Republicans are now embracing Israel’s homegrown religious extremists, while Democrats continue to embrace a fairy-tale “democracy” that never was. And now the “Alt-Right’s” antisemites and white supremacists have joined the circus. Astonishingly, many of them are full-throated Zionists. After all, what’s not to love about a militaristic nation of ethnic and religious privilege, where government is mixed with religion, and half the citizens want to throw the “filthy Arabs” out?

It may be too late for Republicans, but Democrats had better figure out what democracy really means. At home and elsewhere.

The Two State Illusion

Donald Trump’s nominee for American ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, has long been a supporter of Israeli settlements. A building with his name on it sits in the West Bank town of Beit El, built on private Palestinian land in a settlement known for settler violence. Friedman supports the complete annexation of the West Bank and wants the United States to bless sixty years of settlements and abandon any pretense of pursuing a Two State solution.

With Democrats in disarray and Republicans ready to hand Israel anything it wants, it’s as good a time as any for Democrats to start planning for their post-Trump relationship to a little nation some either earnestly or bitterly call our 51st state. It’s also time for Democrats to abandon the illusion that, after so much land expropriated by Israel, a state for Palestinians is still possible. And when Democrats ultimately regain the White House the American-Israeli relationship is going to have to change.

Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli diplomat, questioned whether Friedman would be working for Israel or for the United States: “Based on what he has said in the past, it seems as though he is very opinionated on Israeli issues, even though his role is to advance U.S. policies and interests and not the other way around.” Friedman has accused liberal American Jews (most of whom support Two States) of being “worse than Kapos” (Jewish collaborators with the Nazis). At the Saban Forum Friedman doubled-down on his invective.

As if to put a stamp of disapproval on Trump’s extremist nominee, this week the UN Security Council voted 14-0 (with a U.S. abstention) to condemn Israeli settlements as flagrant violations of international law. For the first time the United States did not automatically veto the resolution – a departure from the long-standing practice of shielding Israel from criticism. Israel was outraged and accused President Obama of orchestrating the vote, of rank antisemitism, and promised to hand over evidence of the “plot” to the next U.S. president.

In a futile gesture, Secretary of State John Kerry announced he’d use his remaining time to present a vision for a Two State solution, while an angry Netanyahu promised to step up the rate of settlement which has continued unabated since 1967. But even before the UN vote Israel was preparing to legalize almost 4,000 outposts in the West Bank. None of this should have surprised anyone. Last April Israeli Housing Minister Uri Ariel announced that the Two State solution was in its “dying throes” and that by 2019 Israel will have expanded settlements by 50%. But international criticism is not going away anytime soon. Aaccording to the Geneva Conventions seizing land from an occupied people is a war crime.

And yet hope persists. Irrationally.

In Israel 56% of secular Jews support a Two State solution with Palestinian demilitarization, but only 35% of religious Jews and 39% of Palestinians approve of the plan. Here in the U.S. only 39% of Americans support a Two State solution while 77% of American Jews do. American Jewish views on the occupation and on Two States have long been divided – generally between Orthodox and other Jewish traditions. Republicans and hard-line supporters of Israeli settlements are furious with liberal American Jews for breaking with Israel and acknowledging the violations of international law.

Israel, which does less trade with the U.S. than Switzerland, is not a NATO member and has never participated in a U.S.-led military coalition, yet this tiny country is nevertheless the beneficiary of considerable favor and largesse. Israel has received $124 billion to-date from the United States, and just received another $38 billion. Both Republicans and Democrats go out of their way to defend Israel’s interests – even censoring U.S. citizens. A recent Senate bill tried to block criticism of Israel on college campuses and New York governor Andrew Cuomo set up a blacklist of those supporting boycott and divestment campaigns to apply economic pressure on Israel.

To many Republican politicians Israel is not merely another nation but the birthplace of Christ. And for Evangelicals Israel is not just a modern state – it’s the Judea and Samaria of the Old Testament. Thus, David Friedman’s settlement in Beit El is not simply in the “West Bank” – but “Samaria.” Besides appealing to American religious sensibilities, Israel’s considerable lobby operates more freely than those of other nations which must register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. This double standard may be partly due to the bipartisan sentiment that “there can be no daylight” (or conflict of interest) between our foreign policy and Israel’s – a tired and dangerous formulation.

But clearly no such “daylight” exists between Israel and David Friedman, who often says “we” when referring to Israel and has close ties to the Yesha Council of Settlements. Because Friedman, in virtually every sense, is an Israeli settler.

There was a time when the U.S. separated its interests from Israel’s. Michal Doran, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, described Eisenhower’s reaction to Israel’s involvement in the Suez crisis: “In 1956, Britain, France and Israel launched coordinated invasions of Egypt. To say that Eisenhower disapproved would be an understatement. He directed at his allies a level of hostility typically reserved for worst enemies. After demanding that the attacking forces evacuate Egypt immediately, he imposed crippling economic sanctions on France and Britain. Against Israel, he threatened sanctions while engaging in bare-knuckle diplomacy.”

Yet. with the exception of Republican shutdowns of the U.S. government, there has never been a suspension of military aid to Israel or thought of witholding its get-out-of-trouble vetoes in the UN Security Council. Even Jimmy Carter, a critic of Israeli settlements for over 30 years, never used aid to Israel as a carrot or a stick. Progressive Democrats have been demanding even-handed leadership from their party on this issue, but centrist Democrats have instead thrown buckets of military aid at Israel and a few bucks at an unelected and despised figurehead in the West Bank. Like Republican Evangelicals, AIPAC Democrats have always been happy to maintain the status quo. And Israel has been grateful for all the time the charade has bought – for expropriating more land.

But Friedman has a point. The Two State solution has been dead for years. American presidents have come and gone, each happily mouthing the words “Two States” – but none has ever advocated for a Palestinian state as zealously as for Israel’s.

Perhaps now, with Trump about to be sworn in, Democrats will recognize the unsustainability and depravity of a 60-year occupation. Perhaps, with Trump now running the circus, Democrats and even a few Republicans will have to acknowledge that, paradoxically, many anti-Semites are actually quite pro-Israel. From both David Friedman’s and Steve Bannon’s perspective – what’s not to love about a militaristic nation of ethnic and religious privilege, where government is mixed with religion, and half the citizens want to throw the “dirty Arabs” out?

But without new leadership at the DNC, I wouldn’t pin too many hopes on the Democratic Party. As an article in the lefty Jewish Forward magazine put it, Democrats have a Haim Saban problem. Saban, the American-Israeli movie mogul who brought us the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, was Hillary Clinton’s top donor, a man even Breitbart News describes as an Islamophobe. Saban himself puts it this way: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”

The Democratic Party has wrestled with its cozy relationship to AIPAC in each of the last two conventions. Although Democrats say they are worried that David Friedman will move the American embassy to Jerusalem, in 2012 the DNC attempted to push through a motion to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. An undemocratic roll was called by Antonio Villaraigosa, and the voice votes caught the DNC by surprise. AIPAC had “vetted” the motion – had actually written the text. In 2016 the issue of the occupation of Palestine came up again. Clinton supporter Robert Wexler insisted that Democrats could not afford to mention the “O” word (“occupation”) if a Two State solution could be salvaged. Sanders supporter James Zogby pushed back, pointing out that everyone knows the occupation exists. Both sides also disagreed whether Democrats should support the BDS movement. Ultimately the DNC adopted wording that made AIPAC (and Clinton) happy.

So when the UN Security Council took its vote this week, the US abstention was quite the exception. And now Democrats find themselves accused of being Islamist-Leftists who love Shariah and hate Jews. But Obama’s abstention was a desperate, and ultimately futile, “Hail Mary” to save the Two State illusion.

Decades of “peace” negotiations under Democratic presidents tell us that “Two States” was always more an act than a plan of action – at least the part involving a Palestinian state. We can only assume now that another four years of extreme coddling under Trump will permit Israel to turn the rest of East Jerusalem and huge swaths of the West Bank into even more American-style suburbs – like Ma’ale Adumim with its mall and ACE Hardware.

But after that? What then?

In nine years Jews will be a minority (48%) in Israel-Palestine, which will make continued Jewish domination more difficult and unjustifiable. Within a few decades of this demographic shift, Theodor Herzl’s experiment will very likely come to an anti-climactic end.

* * *

Further reading

Not the Double Standards you think

We’ve seen an uptick in attacks on minorities recently, especially following the election. At a time when Muslims have really been taking it on the chin the Senate tried to push through the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016,” an innocuous-sounding bill. But this legislation would have turned universities into censors by threatening “federal funding at colleges and universities where political speech against Israel occurs,” an expert on anti-Semitism and extremism wrote.

The bill would have required the Department of Education to alter the meaning of anti-Semitism to include “demonizing Israel” or “judging Israel by a double standard.” This new definition was adopted by the State Department under Hillary Clinton but was originally conceived in 2004 by Natan Sharansky, the founder of Israel’s Ba’Aliyah (immigration) party. Free speech advocates including the ACLU object to the political manipulation of a concept that has been around since 1879 – well before Israel was established.

While the bill’s supporters claim it was simply intended to shield Jewish students from hate, it was really just another attempt to censor debate over Israeli settlements and shut down the Boycott and Divestment (BDS) movement on college campuses, particularly student calls for university trustees to divest of Irael-related portfolios. With such legislation even progressive Jewish groups like JStreet-U, which is critical of Israeli policy without advocating BDS, and Jewish Voice for Peace, which does support BDS, could be subject to loss of their First Amendment rights.

According to Sharansky’s “3D Test” anti-Semitism is no longer simply the demonization of Jews. In fact, he doesn’t even bother to include this well-understood aspect in his definition. For Sharansky anti-Semitism is (1) demonization of the state of Israel; (2) holding double standards regarding the state of Israel; and (3) deligitimization = denying the right of the state of Israel to exist.

According to Sharansky “demonization” of Israel refers to unfair or exaggerated comparisons of Palestinian and Jewish suffering, or comparing Israel’s crimes with the Nazis. For Sharansky (and now the U.S. State Department) “deligitimization” refers to critics who refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Recognition of nations is a political function and one state can choose to recognize another any way it chooses.

Israel’s borders are contested by Palestinians, and land that Israel seized in Lebanon and Syria is also disputed. Neverthess, all U.N. members fully recognize Israel, and even the three with land disputes give Israel limited recognition. Israel, however, insists on being recognized specifically as a Jewish state. No nation seriously intends to erase Israel from a map – especially one with nukes. What Israel wants is the international seal of approval for Zionism.

Unfortunately for Israel, the world’s experience with Germany soured everyone on 19th Century ethno-nationalism. Zionism – any kind of ethno-nationalism – is incompabile with a pluralistic democracy. Israel’s occupation of 4.5 million Palestinians is brutal. Palestinians need their own state but Israel has effectively placed them in reservations or bantustans. This can’t g on. BDS is one way to exert a little economic pressure.

But this is a political discussion – one we should be free to have, on a street corner or a campus. Few Americans want the United States to become a Christian theocracy (I hope I’m right about this), and there are many Saudis, Pakistanis, and Iranians opposed to religious law in their own countries. Americans aren’t stingy with criticisms of Saudi justice and Americans have plenty to say about Cuba, China, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela. It’s hard to see how Israel is being held to a different standard.

But whether Natan Sharansky or the government of Israel object to criticism. It’s a right to criticize a foreign country – or even one’s own – regardless of criteria. One doesn’t even need facts – like Republicans on climate change.

The injustice of Israel’s occupation is what the BDS movement hammers away at – martial law, settlements, selective application of laws, thirty-foot separation walls, private roads for settlers, checkpoints, settler violence, water theft, destruction of olive trees, night raids without warrants, prison sentences without trial, press censorship, gag laws for Israeli dissidents, “Judaizing” of both the West Bank and Arab communites in Israel proper. The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem documents a lot of it.

But a double standard does exist. Just not the one Mr. Sharansky wants to talk about.

Israel is not a western democracy in any recognizable sense. Democracies don’t maintain martial law for half a century over an ethnic and religious minority corraled into reservations. Democracies don’t legislate religious and racial laws that advantage members of a single group. We’d have a stroke if full legal rights in Germany were extended only to blond-haired, blue-eyed people in the year 2016.

Israel’s 1951 Law of Return permitted Jews (defined as having a Jewish mother) from any land to “return” to Israel, while millions of Palestinians have been permanently locked out of homes their parents lived in. As distasteful as it is to admit, eliminating Palestians by recognizing only Jewish blood is effectively a racial law. But the Law of Return was amended in 1971 to make it possible for non-Jewish relatives of immigrants to join their families in Israel, so the amendment took on an additional racial cast since mainly Ashkenazim (European Jews) were added to Israel’s population. Imagine if Britain offered automatic citizenship (along with settlement benefits) only to Anglicans and Episcopalians from any country (plus their blue-eyed descendants regardless of religion). We would wonder what kind of democracy it was.

And this is the real double standard – that Israel gets a pass for thumbing its nose at democratic norms.

Jerusalem Post columnist Larry Derfner thinks he knows why Israel bothers western critics so much: “Western liberals – not to mention Israeli liberals – whose greatest moral outrage is reserved for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians have nothing to apologize for. It’s a natural reaction, an inevitable one. As with apartheid South Africa, Vietnam, European colonialism and other examples from the West’s history, the occupation enflames leftists in a way that other, greater tyrannies in the world don’t, simply because this tyranny – the last of its kind still standing – is being perpetrated by their own side.”

Derfner has a point, but even with greater tyrranies I’m entitled to a little extra outrage over Israel. After all, I’m paying taxes to my “own side” to help Israel prolong the suffering of stateless Palestinians. I’m not providing aid to Assad to kill residents of Aleppo. And the hypocrisy of the double standard from my “own side” disturbs me the most because the link between foreign policy and domestic policy has implications which affect me personally. If politicians overlook war crimes in Israel, they’ll also overlook the abuse of civilians by police domestically.

Meanwhile, Israel has quite the enabler in the United States. American politicians pretend that Israel does not have nuclear weapons while other countries are punished if they spin up a centrifuge. When Israel kills American citizens our own government does nothing. Israel receives massive aid packages every year – ones like no other nation on earth receives. Double standards.

Without doubt Israel is America’s favorite nation and is the beneficiary of a double standard – not because it has stood with the US in Afghanistan or Iraq like its NATO allies, but because many American politicians are evangelicals, for whom this little country is not just another nation – but the birthplace of Christ. For them Israel is not even Israel as a modern state. For evangelicals it’s a Biblical Disneyland. Israel’s substantial lobby operates as if represented domestic interests, while lobbyists for other nations have to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. More double standards.

Yet is it a double standard to point out that maybe – just maybe – there should be a little daylight between our foreign policy and Israel’s – that our interests are not identical? This tired formulation (“no daylight”) is used repeatedly by politicians for no other country. And it’s just not true.

As he was leaving the presidency, George Washington offered a few pieces of advice – “honesty is the best policy” was one. But Washington also had something to say about permitting double standards for a favorite nation:

“… a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter… It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions … and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity…”

No one in modern times could say it any better.

Resources – One, Two, or No State

One State Solution

Most of the organizations which comprise the formal Israel Lobby, including AIPAC, WINEP, and ZOA, promote policies which are virtually identical to the Likud’s One State platform, which states that there will never be a Palestinian homeland west of Jordan. Look on a map to see what that means. AIPAC has enjoyed bipartisan support for years, even as both the GOP and DNC neglected the creation of a Palestinian state and lavished many billions of dollars on Israel. Besides formal lobbyists, there are also several American Zionist organizations that fund settlements and, in so doing, undermine the Two State solution.

No-State Solution

There’s no arguing with the fact that America has a lot of anti-Semites. This week the neo-Nazi friends of Richard Spencer and Steve Bannon are planning an armed march to terrorize Jewish families and businesses of Whitefish, Montana. For most of us, however, like former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who was referring to pornography, we know anti-Semitism when we see it.

But Israel managed a linguistic coup by extending the definition of anti-Semitism to include any criticism of Israel. Organizations that once fought and illuminated hatred of Jews now find themselves spending a lot of time enmeshed in Israeli foreign and domestic policy. They claim to support the Two State solution but argue that only because of anti-Semitism and recalcitrance do Palestinians have “no state” and deserve none for the time being – until Israel’s “security” needs are satisfied.

Two-State Solution

The majority of American Jews want a Two State solution and it’s not hard to see why. The One State solution means either (1) expelling all Arabs (something Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman has advocated and which half of Israelis support); (2) depriving Palestinians of a state, civil laws and rights, squeezing them into reservations or bantustans, and subjecting them to endless checkpoints; or (3) inviting Palestinians into the Israeli state. Israel has backed itself into a corner with decades of “annexation” and there’s hardly anything left for Palestinians. Occupation is all it knows. Israel could also embrace (4) the American “Indian reservation” model and unilaterally declare encircled “cantons” a “Palestinian” homeland. I fear this option would satisfy most Americans because – it seems to have worked nicely for us.

American Jews and progressive Israelis see both the moral danger and the self-destructive effect of leaving nothing for Palestinians. Consequently many American Jewish organizations support the Two State Solution:

The President they always wanted

On March 3rd, 2015 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to a joint session of Congress for the third time, tying a record previously held only by Winston Churchill. That same evening the American Secretary of State was in Switzerland negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran – precisely the deal John Boehner had invited Netanyahu to sabotage in the People’s House.

With this invitation the Republican Congress was conducting its own foreign policy, one at odds with the State Department’s, and thumbing its nose at the president. Netanyahu’s appearance was an attempt to undermine American foreign policy. The Republican invitation was a potential violation of the Logan Act and it placed the interests of a foreign nation before our own.

As Netanyahu stood at the podium where presidents deliver their State of the Union addresses, Republicans were ecstatic. Netanyahu was the president Obama would never be – right-wing, uncompromising, eager for war – and White. The Israeli Prime Minister also represented the values of a nation Republicans have long admired and emulated – a land of fighters, where religion blends with governance and a favored ethnic or religious group runs the country.

Update 11/9/2016:

Republicans got the president they always wanted.

Defender Wrong about ADL

In Rafi Kanter’s recent letter he questions the truthfulness of my statements about the ADL. The suggestion of dishonesty require a response.

The ADL’s recent protestations that they never denied the Armenian genocide are much like Bill Clinton’s disavowals of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Yet strenuous denial does not equal the truth.

A July 2007 piece from Jewcy, an online Jewish magazine, explained how the ADL took on the job of being Israel’s mouthpiece: “Abdullah Gul needed a favor. […] The Turkish foreign minister was fighting a push in the U.S. House of Representatives to recognize the Turkish murder of over one million Armenians during World War I. […] Gul summoned representatives from the Anti-Defamation League and several other Jewish-American organizations to his room at the Willard Hotel in Washington. There he asked them, in essence, to perpetuate Turkey’s denial of genocide. Abraham Foxman’s ADL acquiesced…”

Plenty of Jews objected to the cowardice, if not hypocrisy. One of them was Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, a staunch Israel supporter who has given talks to the Jewish Federation at Rabbi Kanter’s very pulpit. On August 23, 2007 Jacoby wrote in the New York Times: “Particularly deplorable has been the longtime reluctance of some leading Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, to call the first genocide of the 20th century by its proper name. When Andrew Tarsy, the New England director of the ADL, came out last week in support of a congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide, he was promptly fired by the national organization.”

On April 16, 2008 the Armenian Genocide Museum also blasted the ADL and on August 14, 2007 the Watertown, Massachusetts Town Council voted unanimously to rescind its affiliation with the ADL’s “No Place for Hate” campaign.

Only after widespread outrage at its cowardice reached a crescendo did the ADL change its tune.

In a June 2010 piece in Salon magazine Armenian writer Mark Arax expressed disappointment with the ADL best: “As victims of the Holocaust, Jews might be expected to stand beside the Armenians and their tragedy. […] This sudden embrace of the Armenian Genocide actually marks a shameless turnaround for the major American Jewish organizations. For decades, they have helped Turkey cover up its murderous past.”

My original point was that the ADL too often wades in on political issues as a proxy for Israel – even when it is contrary to American or Jewish values. The Liberty billboard incident was just the latest example.

No matter what the ADL says it now believes, what I wrote was absolutely correct.

This was published in the Standard Times on April 27, 2016
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20160427/opinion/160429527

Of Censorship and Mirrors

This morning’s Standard-Times contained an article about the removal of a billboard by Outdoor Media referencing the 1967 USS Liberty incident, in which an American ship was attacked by Israel and 34 U.S. sailors were killed. The Johnson administration immediately suppressed the story and it is still relatively unknown. The Standard-Times article quotes the New England Defamation League, which attacks the group that placed the ad (“If Americans Only Knew”) for alleged “antisemitism.” No other view was presented in the article.

Interested readers can find a curated version of the story at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident or at the group’s website http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ussliberty.html.

Without a doubt “If Americans Only Knew” is confrontational – as is PETA, who also unsuccessfully waded into local billboard marketing with disastrous results. But if you actually visit their website instead of merely taking the ADL’s word for it, it’s clear that their issues are with American foreign policy around Israel and Palestine. They leave generalizations about Jews to people like Donald Trump.

It is hardly surprising that the Defamation League would come down on the side of censorship. The ADL in recent years has expanded its definition of antisemitism to include criticism of Israel and it has become primarily a mouthpiece for the Israeli foreign ministry. In 2008, when it served Israel’s interests to be less hostile to Turkey, the ADL denied the Armenian genocide. Now, at a time that Jews are better-integrated into American society than ever before, the ADL has turned away from defending Jewish Americans to defending Israel’s militarism and occupation.

But the Israel-Palestine issue is not going away. More than ever, it is a valid foreign policy debate, just as American militarism is. Last year the [U.S.] Congressional Research Service reported that “Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $124.3 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance…”

I can think of many better uses for that money – and it is certainly worth debating.

We can pretend all we want that Israel is a beleaguered little David fighting off Arab Goliaths day and night – or we can acknowledge that, like us, Israel has turned its back on its founders’ ideals and has become an ugly xenophobic nation – with an equally ugly dependency on militarism and an occupation habit. But it’s hard for Americans to criticize Zionism when we so enthusiastically embrace our own American Exceptionalism.

Still, if we are looking for an explanation for the unrelenting efforts to censor the debate on Israel and Palestine, we need only look in the mirror. This – as Walter Russell Mead wrote in “Foreign Affairs” many years ago – is the real reason we cannot bear criticism of Israel: they’re just too much like us.

Besides, who really wants to look in that mirror?

This was published in the Standard Times on April 13, 2016
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20160413/opinion/160419873

To the Jewish Federation

Jewish Federation of Greater New Bedford

Dear –,

This is a bit awkward. I am writing you in your capacity as President of the Federation, not as the old friend that you are to both of us.

Please ask the Federation to stop sending me appeals for donations. Deborah certainly holds her own views, but I am speaking for myself here.

My views on Zionism and Israel within our community are well-known, and these campaign appeals are unappreciated. I have previously asked the Federation to remove my name from its mailings, and it has ignored my requests. What other steps must I take to make this stop?

Zionism is not a religion. It is a remnant of 19th century nationalism, of a destructive and divisive type we have seen all over the world – in Germany, Serbia, Africa, and the Middle East. Nationalism is incompatible with democracy because within nationalist states there is always a preferred people, race, or religion – and its “others” always find themselves in its crosshairs. In Israel proper and in the occupied territories, Palestinians don’t have to wear yellow stars, but they might as well be required to. They are third-class citizens in Israel, and essentially non-humans in the West Bank.

Judaism, on the other hand, is a religion, and one in which ethics mean everything. It has evolved since the days of temples and priests, but apparently the fundamentalist conception of God literally conferring land ownership of Israel has not similarly evolved. Until modern day Messianism reared its ugly head after the Six Day War, many Jews believed that talking about a reconstituted Israel was an abomination. Now only the Satmars reject Zionism, but many progressive Jews believe that Zionism must be reigned-in and that Israel’s rejection of Two States leaves no other alternative for peace except a single, democratic, secular state. This is my view. I cannot consider myself a Zionist in any form.

Those who believe in a fusion of nationalism and religion remind me of the Islamic zealots who want their own religious state. Israel should strive to be a 21st century democracy and not a Jewish Caliphate. Most Americans believe in separation of church and state. Why, then, should we be expected to make an exception for Israel?

Since the program of the Federation is Zionist, I cannot support any of it. Please take my name off your list permanently. Thank you for your understanding. I hope this explains why I do not wish to have any donations given in my name.

David Ehrens

Freedom is Personal – Passover 2015

B’chol dor vador chayav adam lirot et-atzmo, k’ilu hu yatzav mimitzrayim.

In every generation, everyone is obligated to see themselves as though they personally left Egypt.

The beauty of Passover is that we consciously place ourselves in the shoes of people struggling to be free. We remember a story that happened long ago and far away. But our real job is to remember – personally – the slave’s struggles – any slave – and to identify personally with the underdog, the little guy, the bigot’s victim, the person whose destiny is not in his own hands. For most of us, Passover will always be a warm ritual of Jewish history, one in which we enjoy the company of family and friends – and all those cups of wine. For others it mirrors very real struggles that continue even today.

I read a wonderful article by Michael Twitty, a chef, and an Afro-American Jew. He was writing about what went into his seder plate. Exactly 150 years ago, one of his ancestors, Elijah Mitchell, was released from slavery, virtually at the moment the Civil War ended. At Passover Twitty serves a bitter herb – collard greens – on his seder plate. Instead of a shank bone there is a chicken leg – of the sort his family took with them when they began their way North during the Great Migration. For Twitty freedom is personal. The Civil Rights movement brought freedom another step closer for Afro-Americans. But who would say the struggle is over? For Blacks, like Jews, there have been numerous flights to freedom, each time discovering there is always some new way to strip them of rights and dignity. But the value of remembering history, the value of Passover, is that it illuminates the present.

Passover is a call to action. It is a constant struggle to be free. It always has been, and this is still the case today. We are at a point in our history where our democratic freedoms are threatened by any number of things. Our American ideals, and our Jewish ideals, have gone wildly off the rails, both here and in Israel.

If we really value freedom, we cannot deny it to others. A nation built on inequality and injustice, xenophobia, militarism, surveillance, paranoia, bigotry, and privilege for a small group of people is not free. Those of us who feel free, like German Jews before 1935, are at least partially deluding ourselves. The strongest person or group in a twisted society can become the most vulnerable – in the blink of an eye, in the signing of a piece of legislation, or in the interests of national security.

Unless we are the ones shaping our own government – and not Big Money or their friends in a growing police state – we can never be free. And until everyone is free, even the most vulnerable, none of us truly will be. You will not be free.

We Keep on Buying It

When Republicans invited Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress, the public might have wrongly concluded that lawmakers are worried about an existential threat to Israel. But Israel, with 100 nukes and growing, is the only state in the Middle East with such weapons, and it is backed by the United States, the only country on earth to have incinerated human beings with them. If anyone should be worried about nuclear weapons in the Middle East, it should be Iran.

In fact, when you look at a map of U.S. military bases in the Middle East, there aren’t many nations bordering on or near Iran that don’t have at least one U.S. military base in them: Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel, the Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And the Fifth Fleet is all over the Persian Gulf. Iran is totally surrounded by the United States. And it is the United States Iran is preoccupied with, not Israel.

Netanyahu’s theatrical performance, and the recent letter by 47 GOP senators to Iran, are both part of a campaign to garner support for throwing more U.S. weight around in the Middle East – by people who have already destroyed Iraq, Libya, Syria, and created the vacuum that ISIS has stepped into. Now Iran is in their crosshairs. What country do they want to wreck next? Iran, apparently.

For the last 20 years Netanyahu has been whining that Iran is on the verge of destroying Israel. Each time he calls “wolf” he becomes that much less credible. Even Mossad, Israel’s security agency, calls his claims hogwash: Mossad reported recently that Iran is “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons.” But by claiming an imminent existential threat, attention is deflected from the Likud’s reckless, racist policies and its illegal settlements. And, of course, Netanyahu’s address to Congress just so happened to occur during Israeli Prime Time right before an election.

But what’s in it for the Republicans and hawkish Democrats? Political cover. You might have thought the American public would have had enough war-mongering in the last two decades. But apparently not. One more questionable act of aggression wouldn’t be very popular. But by hiding behind “existential threats” to Israel and painting a defenseless David and an Iranian Goliath, the GOP and its neoconservative allies on both side of the aisle hope to galvanize support for future, reckless military actions.

Remember the Maine? Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Remember Saddam’s supposed weapons of mass destruction? Apparently no one remembers any of these bogus pretexts for war or the criminals who sold them. We keep on buying it. Again and again and again and again.

This was published in the Standard Times on March 18, 2015
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20150318/opinion/150319473

Gaza Again

The one-sided “war” in Gaza was not about murdered yeshiva students or a Palestinian burned alive. It wasn’t about Qassam rockets or Israeli drones. It wasn’t about smuggling tunnels, which besides armaments also move food and building materials into Gaza. The most recent attack on Gaza was not even Israel punishing Hamas for rejecting divide-and-conquer tactics by signing a unity agreement with the PLO.

Since 1948 Israel has refused any sort of peace with Palestinians. Zionism is a zero-sum game. There can only be one winner. For Israel two states or one non-Zionist state are both losses. Occupation is unfortunate but necessary, so goes the reasoning.

Americans are extremely uncomfortable watching what is essentially a repeat of our own genocidal campaigns against Native Americans. But, then, isn’t conquering Zion THE story in the Bible? Even House Democrats talk “separation of church and state” out of the side of their mouth not supporting Zionism. And while these same liberal Congressmen fear the return of Jim Crow in the South, they apparently have nothing against martial law only for Palestinians and far worse than Jim Crow. What they are supporting is a toxic form of colonialism buttressed by US vetoes in the UN Security Council (also a vestige of colonialism) no matter which party is in power.

Israel has long maintained it has no “partner for peace” with any faction among the Palestinians. But this has been by design. In the late 1980’s Israel, which had refused to talk with the PLO, seriously erred by supporting Sheikh Ahmed Yassin’s Mujama Al-Islamiya (Muslim Association) movement, the precursor of Hamas. But by the time Americans realized their similar Islamist strategy in Afghanistan had backfired, Hamas was militant and Israel sent gunships to blow the Sheikh and his family to smithereens.

With the Oslo Accords, the PLO and Fatah renounced terrorism and hopes were high for a Two State solution offering Palestinians a sovereign homeland. But Israel never rewarded the defanged, dependent West Bank with a state of its own, instead continuing to take more Palestinian land for right-wing settlers. By now it’s obvious that Israel never had any intention of giving up lands it and American supporters like to call by the biblical names Judea and Samaria. In fact, the charter of the long-ruling party, the Likud, specifically denies a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. So, from Israel’s perspective, negotiations are only for stalling and stonewalling silly Americans. Spying on the American Secretary of State just gives them an edge.

If Gazans are more militant than those in the West Bank, there is a reason. A majority of those living in Gaza now are descendants of refugees who were purposely expelled from their homes in Israel in 1948. While Israel has a “Right of Return” for Jews, this does not extend to Christians or Muslims who owned property in what is now Israel. They are now living in what is essentially a concentration camp looking over barbed wire at people who put them there. Only a fool would fail to acknowledge their anger or their rights.

There is little sense in constructing timelines of which acts of terror preceded others. While we may call Hamas terrorists, a recognized state killing 1800 people, mainly civilians, also should be called terrorist. There is no sense or justification in the cliché: “this has been going on for 3000 years.” No. It hasn’t. It’s been going on since 1948. It’s a land dispute and not a clash of civilizations or religions.

It is not surprising, then, that virtually every nation on earth – with the exception of present and former colonial powers – understands why Palestinians resist having sovereignty taken from them. It’s the Occupation. The United States and Israel can label anyone who resists “terrorist” all they want, even forgetting acts of resistance and terror that created these two nations. But the problem in Israel-Palestine, like most of the messes created by the Sykes-Picot “deal” that carved up the Middle East, will remain a mess for any knucklehead who refuses to understand why those they oppress fight back.

It’s the Occupation, Stupid.

Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby Keynotes Annual Meeting

Jewish Messenger, Fall 2012 The Jewish Federation of Greater New Bedford

Jeff Jacoby speaking at the bima at Tifereth Israel

Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby Keynotes Annual Meeting

Jeff Jacoby, an award-winning columnist for The Boston Globe and a nationally syndicated journalist, was a keynote speaker at the annual meeting of the Jewish Federation on September 23, 2012. Although the choice of a speaker may have appeared somewhat controversial, Mr. Jacoby has a following among Federation member as well as in the general community. It became apparent by a good number of guests who came to hear the noted commentator. In the absence of Federation president Dr. Stuart Forman, Dr. Jack Belkin, Federation Vice-president, led the meeting.

The business part of the meeting opened with the Board elections. This year, along with reelecting a number of seasoned board members, two new members were added to the Board roster, Meg Steinberg and Abrah (Salk) Zion. Rabbi Barry Hartman installed the new and reelected Board members with his inimitable mix of humor, advice, and good wishes. He noted that While Meg Steinberg and her husband Barry are newcomers to the area, having moved to Marion two years ago, Abrah Zion comes from a long-time New Bedford family. Following her family’s history of communal involvement, Abrah has been actively involved with the PJ Library program of the Jewish Federation. Federation executive director Olga Yorish opened her remarks by acknowledging the passing of two very special women, Shulamith Friedland and Rubye Finger who will be missed greatly by the Federation and the whole Jewish community. She then gave an overview of Federation’s past year’s activities, stressing the central theme of working in collaboration with other Jewish organizations in the community, as well as with other religious and civic organizations in New Bedford. “We had a challenging campaign last year and worked very hard to maintain our programs and allocations on the same level,” said Yorish, adding that she was looking forward to working with Ellen Hull again on the 2013 campaign. Ellen Hull kicked off the 2013 annual campaign whose theme “ordinary things” was coined by the Jewish Federations of North America. “We promise to do more and to work differently to keep up with the changing communal environment,” said Hull (see page 3).

Rev. Pam Cole and Rev. David Lima with Jeff Jacoby

Mr. Jacoby built his presentation as a response and elaboration on the question raised by Ambassador Michael Oren in a Wall Street Journal article “What happened to Israel’s reputation?” “Why has Israel’s image deteriorated?” asks Oren in his article. “Why have anti-Israel libels once consigned to hate groups become media mainstays? Especially now, after nearly two decades of the peace process in which Israel has gone to extraordinary lengths to end its conflict with the Palestinians.” To these questions, Mr. Jacoby offered his controversial answer, which he first suggested on the Globe’s opinion page on May 23, 2012. According to Mr. Jacoby, “The real answer is that Israel’s global standing has been debased not despite the “peace process,” but because of it.” Following the presentation, Mr. Jacoby answered a number of questions from the animated audience. The meeting was rounded up by a scrumptious dessert reception.

Selling the One State Solution

On Sunday, September 23rd, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby gave a talk at the Greater New Bedford Jewish Federation. As a member of the community, I was there to see if he would blast Jews for voting Democratic and pitch the Republican Party (he writes that God is a Republican); or if he was going to take potshots at multiculturalism and secularism and talk about the primacy of “Judeo-Christian” values – or if he was going to hop on the recent Muslim-bashing bandwagon – all points of view he regularly flogs in his Globe columns (website http://www.jeffjacoby.com). But this particular evening he chose another subject: selling the One State Solution.

Before I go on, I should point out that I agree with Jacoby on a One State Solution – though only because Israel has now taken so much Palestinian land that the Two State Solution is dead. Coming from an American, it should come as no surprise to say that a single, secular, democratic state is not only best, but is now the only practical solution to packing 12 million people into a space the size of New Jersey. Jacoby would consider this view antisemitic. Yet he sees nothing wrong with forcing Jewish law and ethnic privilege upon a substantial (and some say, only temporary) minority. Besides, there are many ways that Jewishness and democracy can coexist without requiring a quasi-religious settler state. Jewishness seems to be alive and well in the United States. We’ve also had 64 years to see what Zionism has become.

Jacoby started his talk, “Whatever Happened to Israel’s Good Name?” by asking if anyone remembered when the media actually loved Israel. Hammering away at the theme of how the media and forces of delegitimization have now conspired to “demonize” Israel, Jacoby asked the friendly audience if they remembered when LIFE Magazine had described Israel as a little nation “struggling to survive.” Well, not any more, he lamented.

He pulled out a copy of a special issue of LIFE Magazine from 1973, the “Spirit of Israel,”commemorating the nation’s 25th birthday with 92 pages of photos and articles, and held up his prop. Jacoby asked the Federation audience: Can you imagine the media publishing something like this today? Can you imagine them being concerned with Israel’s survival today? Jacoby was clearly preaching to the choir, and most of the audience was rapt and nodding in agreement. What Jacoby downplayed was that the Israel of 1973 was under a Mapai government, the Prime Minister was a bit of a novelty as both a woman and an American, most of the kibbutzim had not yet been converted to corporations, Palestinian territory had not yet been completely expropriated, and messianic nationalism had not yet taken root in Israel. This was a very different Israel in 1973.

Next Jacoby mentioned Michael Oren’s Wall Street Journal article, “Whatever Happened to Israel’s Reputation? – How in 40 years the Jewish state went from inspiring underdog to supposed oppressor.” Oren’s piece invokes the same LIFE Magazine issue and extols democracy and vitality in Israel, but stops short of admitting to readers of the international business magazine that Israel has finally come clean and formally abandoned the Two State Solution – although this was the message that Jacoby and the Jewish Federation were selling that Sunday night.

Jacoby repeated points he had made in his May 23rd Boston Globe column, “Peace process harmed Israel’s reputation,” in which he wrote: “The concessions Israel has made in pursuit of peace are unprecedented in diplomatic history. (I found myself wondering what actual concessions he was talking about). In his piece, Oren claims the concessions consisted of: Recognizing the PLO as a diplomatic partner, creating an armed Palestinian Authority, twice offering the Palestinians a sovereign state, agreeing to share control of Jerusalem, removing every Jewish community in Gaza.” But this conflates the PA with the PLO, paints Palestinian policemen as an army, casts offers of an emasculated state as true self-determination, defines continued land theft in East Jerusalem as “sharing,” and offers a revisionist version of the Gaza pullout. Jacoby didn’t even bother putting a spin on Israel’s human rights abuses or its Occupation. For him and most of the audience, Israel has no warts – and it was still 1973.

He described Ariel Sharon’s unilateral pullout from Gaza as the work of “appeasers.” The “appeasers” in this case – Ariel Sharon and Shaul Mofaz, who implemented Tokhnit HaHafrada (the Apartheid-sounding “separation plan”) – were members at various times of both the Likud and its spin-off, Kadima. Why would crafty old Ariel Sharon suddenly go soft? Well, he didn’t, said Sharon’s closest advisor, Dov Weissblas, explaining: “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. […] When you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Disengagement supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.”

Indeed, the Two State solution is dead and still pickling in the same formaldehyde – although the U.S. State Department continues to maintain that Palestinians must sit down in direct talks with Israel, even as Israel denies it needs to. The “Roadmap” is all but forgotten and Israel’s hasbarists have a ready-made answer for why there is no “political process with the Palestinians” – We never had a partner for peace.

In much of his talk, Jacoby seemed to be implying that, during all the years that Israel claimed to be negotiating a Two State Solution alongside American intermediaries, this was actually the work of an evil “Mr. Hyde” appeaser – because the more sensible “Dr. Jeckyl” knew all along what his “red lines” were – and that if it were not for Likud-Kadima’s temporary insanity no one would have promised to actually honor such appeasement crazy talk. But now the world unreasonably expects Israel to live up to the yet-to-be-explained “magnanimous concessions” it made while temporarily insane, and the damned Palestinians continue to insist on a state. No, we must have it all. Reconciling Zionism and Palestinian statehood is a zero-sum game in which there can only be one winner. This was the gist of his talk.

No one should be surprised at any of these sudden revelations because the Likud’s platform for years has spelled out its “red lines”:

  • The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.
  • Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem.
  • The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
  • The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

That night Jacoby (and the Jewish Federation) were also selling the line that American Jews no longer want Two States. He cited figures he claimed came from the American Jewish Committee, which purported to show that 55% of American Jews are opposed to a Two State Solution. He called this a “healthy development” and added that a Palestinian state would be a big “mistake.” I was unable to verify his statistics on the AJC website or elsewhere. In fact I discovered not only the opposite, but figures strongly to the contrary. A 2011 Gallup poll reported that 78% of American Jews and 81% of American Muslims support a Two State solution.

Lies and damned lies notwithstanding, he was on a roll, at least with a large portion of the audience. Jacoby complained that, somewhere along the line, people had actually started seeing things from the Palestinian perspective. He claimed that the act of simply sitting down and negotiating with Palestinians “has undermined Israel’s claim to the land.” He dismissed Palestinian national aspirations as being based on antisemitism, citing an admission by Edward Said. From my reading, what Said actually wrote is that antisemitism has been an obstacle to Arab nationalism, not its basis.

Jacoby then argued that Israel is now in a 19-year retreat from the Likud’s “red lines” and that Israel should unapologetically reject Palestinian statehood and sharing of Jerusalem once and for all. He tried to paint these views as “shared U.S. values.” Perhaps they are shared with people like Mike Huckabee, but One State and a completely Judaized Jerusalem are not accepted United States foreign policy and (outside the Jewish Federation) not acceptable to most American Jews. Yet many in the audience nodded in agreement. Jacoby added that Israel’s backing away from these “red lines” has created “irresolution,” “weakness,” and “panic” which only encourages Israel’s enemies and diminishes Israel’s respect.

Jacoby again echoed the obligatory throwaway line (“Israel has never had a partner for peace”), and asked provocatively, What is peace, anyway? Peace means one partner in conflict must give up his aims. He continued, Besides, peace is over-rated. Israel can exist without peace. He cited statistics showing that Israelis are quite happy with their quality of life – presumably including the economic and moral consequences of being an occupier. The hardliners firmly expect Two Staters to give up this aim.

His time was up and he took questions. I held up a copy of the 2011 B’Tselem Human Rights report and countered, As long as we’re displaying magazines tonight, this one displays another dimension of Israel that it doesn’t like to address: human rights abuses, illegal detentions, assassinations, home demolitions, confiscation of land, and press censorship.

The audience booed, and Jacoby asked me if there was a question in there somewhere. I wrapped up, Yes, my question is this – why shouldn’t Americans, especially American Jews, be concerned about these issues? He brushed off B’Tselem as an antisemitic group generating “libel” and “propaganda” against Israel, and totally ignored the question of whether Americans and American Jews had a right to be concerned with Israel’s actions. Instead he talked about a flowering democracy, flowering press freedoms, and a flowering economy in Israel.

The combination of wilful ignorance and denial in the room that night spells a real danger for this community and others like it. The extreme form of Zionism represented by people like Jeff Jacoby and peddled by the Jewish Federation repeatedly (this was Jacoby’s second talk to the group) – one which is so at odds with both U.S. foreign policy and Jewish ethics – will forever wreck the chance of Israel actually living up to the bright and shiny 1973 LIFE Magazine image that many still cling to in their minds and hearts today.

This was published in MondoWeiss on October 3, 2012
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/10/boston-globe-columnist-sells-one-jewish-state-and-wonders-why-israels-image-is-tanking/

American Jews – still loving Obama

Republicans are fond of accusing the President of “throwing Israel under the bus.” This argument has drawn a few percent of the most hard-line Zionists toward the Republican Party, but according to a Gallup poll, 68% of American Jews still love Obama — and 80% of us vote.

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote in Commentary magazine: “Time and again, Obama has made clear both his lack of sympathy for the Jewish state and his keen desire to ingratiate himself with Arab and Muslim autocrats. The disparities in the administration’s tone and attitude have been striking. For the prime minister of Israel, there have been humiliating snubs and telephoned harangues. […] Yet many American Jews chose to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, telling themselves that he could be numbered […] among Israel’s strongest supporters. Only the wilfully blind could believe that now. And many American Jews are wilfully blind. […] Obama is unlikely to duplicate the 78 percent of Jewish votes he drew in 2008. But will American Jews turn away from him en masse? Don’t bet on it. F– the Jews, Obama’s advisers can tell him. They’ll vote for us anyway.”

Despite Jacoby’s delusional belief that American Jews are “wilfully blind,” what Jewish “leaders” have nevertheless been seeing is Obama delivering for Israel.

David Harris, of the American Jewish Committee, has endorsed Obama. In an editorial in June lauding the President, Harris notes that Romney’s “pro-Israel” strategy is to position himself as the opposite of Obama. But Harris asks: “What in Obama’s record on Israel does Romney Oppose?”

Edgar M. Bronfman, former president of the World Jewish Congress, endorsed Obama in an August 6th piece in Haaretz. Says Bronfman: “The reality is that when confronted with rhetorical attacks and efforts to sow doubts about his support for Israel, President Obama could have simply adopted the swagger and bravado of his predecessor. It would have been easy for President Obama to go on a speaking tour pandering to the Jewish community and those in America who love Israel. But that is not his style. President Obama is a thoughtful, decisive and pragmatic leader. He values substantive solutions over political gamesmanship. Forgoing the bluster and bravado of others, President Obama continues his practical and deliberate support for the State of Israel.”

Even though the President is accused of being “weak” on Iran, the Jerusalem Post carried an article a few days ago entitled “Obama has Israel’s Back on Iran,” quoting Israel hawks Dennis Ross and Alan Dershowitz, who speculated that the United States could be brought into a war against Iran. Former ambassador Martin Indyk went so far as to predict that the US will join an attack on Iran next Spring — just in time for the _Purimspil, _the Purim play in which the evil Hamaan and his 10,000 sons are hanged.

Republicans sigh that Obama hasn’t made a state visit to Israel, and they were especially miffed last week when Obama did not meet with Benjamin Netanyahu, instead appearing on David Letterman to campaign. Where are the man’s priorities? But in an August article in Foreign Policy entitled “Obama has been Great for Israel,” Colin Kahl observes that 7 of the last 11 presidents — including Truman, who recognized Israel, and Ronald Reagan, the Republican saint — never visited Israel, and Republicans Bush and Nixon only did so in their last years of office.

In fact, Obama visited Israel as a US Senator in 2008, even before becoming President, stopping at outposts like Sderot, two miles from Gaza, expressing his support and solidarity in the strongest of terms for Israelis, when he could have simply posed for photo ops at the Kotel or Yad Vashem. More to his credit, Obama refrained from displaying embarrassingly poor knowledge of history, law, and geography — like most of the Republicans who have slapped on a yarmulke and drawled “Shalom.”

Aside from big endorsements, Obama has not been just good for Israel. He’s been great — even while he’s been a disaster for the Two State Solution or failing to stop illegal settlements. Some of his first term accomplishments for Israel that have won him such friends in the Israel Lobby:

  • Asked Ambassador Charles Freeman to withdraw his bid for the National Intelligence Council after the Israel Lobby objected to him
  • Kept AIPAC/WINEP lobbyist Dennis Ross on from the Bush administration as a Middle East advisor — which meant that Obama…
  • Did nothing to apply leverage to Israel to stop illegal settlements
  • Did little to apply leverage to Israel to pursue a Two State solution
  • Didn’t give Special Middle East envoy George Mitchell much to work with, and didn’t bother replacing him after he resigned
  • Intercepted arms shipments to Hamas
  • Provided an additional $1 billion in funds for Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow missile defense systems (separate from the $3 billion a year in military aid and $9 billion a year in economic aid)
  • Made bunker busters available to Israel
  • Imposed a series of crippling sanctions against Iran
  • Vetoed any and all criticisms of Israel at the UN
  • Attacked the Goldstone report on the siege of Gaza
  • Defended Israel on the attack on the Mavi Marmara, even though an American citizen was killed
  • Opposed a joint PA-Hamas effort to negotiate with Israel – so that the two entities which represent Palestinians can’t even come to the table with Israel
  • Opposed the Palestinian Authority’s efforts to obtain observer status at the UN
  • Continued and initiated some very expensive wars in the Middle East which ultimately benefited Israel, in some ways even more than the United States.
  • Collaborated with Israel on Stuxnet and other computer virus attacks on Iran
  • Decriminalized the Iranian terrorist group MEK which has been working with Israel to kill Iranian scientists and carry out sabotage in Iran
  • Granted the most meetings with a foreign head of state (this according to Netanyahu himself)
  • Increased military aid to Israel every year since taking office, assuring approximately 20% of its military budget
  • Forged a close relationship with the Israeli defense and intelligence establishment (Ehud Barak said in a July CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer “I’ve seen many different administrations on both sides of the political aisle and I honestly feel that this administration has done more in regards to Israel’s security than anything I can remember in the past.”)
  • Improved Israel’s QME – qualitative military edge – by providing Israel with advanced technology unavailable to any other country, such as the Fifth-generation stealth Joint Strike Fighter

About the only thing Obama has not yet committed to Israel to-date is a green light to bomb Iran. Yet.

Many are surprised at how liberally American Jews vote, even on Israel, and how liberally we answer opinion polls. Two States? Justice for the Palestinians? Wow, that’s very liberal of you. But American Jews are not seriously challenged by two real states or real justice for Palestinians or real cessation of Israeli settlement building or real concessions in returning stolen land. Obama simply gives his Jewish constituency the lip service he gives to all Democrats, and we all get to feel good about how liberal we are.

So, with a stellar “for Israel” performance record like the one above, what’s really so surprising after all? There’s still no Hope for Two States, and still no Change to bring justice to an occupied people.

War on Iran?

When it comes to Israel, we seem to be continuously inundated with Israeli hardliner views. The August 21st piece (“Cooling off Israel: Five ways to avert a strike on Iran”) by former chief of Israeli intelligence Amos Yadlin, curiously labelled “National View” since it hardly reflects an American view on the subject, was no exception. The “five” views in his article basically boil down to one: Israel can’t go it alone, so the U.S. should see that it is in “our” interests to bomb Iran for Israel, or at least threaten it with war. But while Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak may bluster about unilaterally bombing Iran, they first need to drag the U.S. into such a war. Why? Because they can’t even sell their war domestically.

The Israeli public is justifiably wary of such go-it-alone threats. A recent poll by Israel’s Dahaf Institute showed 61 percent of Israelis believe Iran should not be attacked without U.S. consent. Yadlin’s article, and those like it, bear the fingerprints of a massive P.R. offensive – by AIPAC stalwarts; the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren in a recent WSJ article; frequent Standard Times contributors Richard Haas and Charles Krauthammer calling for war; a recent article in the NYT by Uzi Dayan, former IDF chief of staff; a recent barrage of Israeli government “leaks,” including a “shock and awe” style war plan; speculations in Israel’s English-language newspaper, and elsewhere.

And both House Democrats and Republicans, as well as every Republican candidate up to and including Mitt Romney, have eagerly parroted the Likudnik line: Iran has the bomb; Iran presents an existential threat to Israel; Israel’s interests are American interests.

None of this is true. This is about nuclear hegemony: Israel’s.

Despite the alarm an Iranian enrichment program provokes, Iran does not yet possess either a nuclear weapon or a missile capable of delivering it. In fact, “recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.” (NYT article by James Risen and Mark Mazzetti, Feb 24, 2012).

America’s intelligence agencies say: baloney.

Hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties would result from an Iranian response to an Israeli (and/or American) first strike. If Americans still have a taste for reckless wars after our many adventures in the Middle East, we could delude ourselves that the mighty American military could make quick work of Iranian missile defenses (Iran has a military budget of only $6 billion a year), but no one can predict Iran’s non-military responses. Would the Straights of Hormuz stay open? How would the rest of the world respond? Even a brief (unlikely) war would cost at least $40 or $50 billion, to be paid for by either Israeli – or more likely American – taxpayers who already shell out $4 billion a year to the highly militarized state.

But here’s an even better idea for averting another unnecessary war.

Israeli nuclear scientist Uzi Even suggests that Israel shutter its nuclear plant in Dimona and dismantle its own (approximately 200) nuclear weapons in exchange for Iran dismantling its program. After all, if we are concerned with nuclear weapons presenting an existential threat to the 7 million people in Israel, we should also be at least somewhat concerned that Israel’s nukes present an existential threat to the other 350 million people in the Middle East.

If the U.S. goal is not simply to ensure Israel’s nuclear hegemony in the region, an approach other than beating the drums of war is necessary. On the other hand, if this kerfuffle indeed is about preserving the Zionist state’s nuclear advantage and thumbing our nose at the rest of the world, well, then we’d better be prepared to pay the price for this madness.

American Taxpayers funding Israel’s Occupation

According to a 2012 Congressional Research Service report, Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance. To date, the United States has provided Israel $115 billion in military assistance. Strong congressional support for Israel has resulted in Israel receiving benefits not available to any other countries; for example, Israel can use some U.S. military assistance both for research and development in the United States and for military purchases from Israeli manufacturers. In addition, all U.S. assistance earmarked for Israel is delivered in the first 30 days of the fiscal year, while most other recipients normally receive aid in installments. In addition to receiving U.S. State Department-administered foreign assistance, Israel also receives funds from annual defense appropriations bills for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs.

The Obama Administration’s FY2013 request includes $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing for Israel and $15 million for refugee resettlement. Within the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s FY2013 budget request includes $99.8 million in joint U.S.-Israeli co-development for missile defense.

On March 5, 2012, House lawmakers introduced H.R. 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012. If passed, this bill would, among other things, allocate additional weaponry and munitions for the forward-deployed United States stockpile in Israel; provide Israel additional surplus defense articles and defense services, as appropriate, in the wake of the withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq; expand Israel’s authority to make purchases under the Foreign Military Financing program on a commercial basis; encourage an expanded role for Israel within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises; support extension of the long-standing loan guarantee program for Israel, recognizing Israel’s unbroken record of repaying its loans on time and in full; and require the President to submit a report on the status of Israel’s qualitative military edge in light of current trends and instability in the region.

The Washington Post reported last year that Israel receives $9-10 billion a year in economic loans (ESF funds) guaranteed by the U.S. Government.

The U.S. War Reserves Stocks for Allies program from the 1980’s allows the US to store weaponry in Israel, and to “lend” it to Israel. Some of this weaponry was used in Gaza in 2008. Basically, this is a military welfare program.

A 1984 Christian Science Monitor article reported that in that year Congress passed a law sponsored by Alan Cranston and –_ note the name_ — Joe Biden which essentially forgave Israel a $9 billion debt by giving it the funds to cancel the outstanding debt.

And periodically ESF and military debts to Israel are simply forgiven or written off. This is money we cannot afford, but Israel receives more bipartisan largesse than the American working poor. The Congressional Research Service estimates we have given $130 billion to Israel over the years.

Israel maintains military control over a vast disputed area in the West Bank. If we translate it into American terms, it is like the US occupying Mexico and Central America. This costs serious money.

But last October ( 2011), Israel actually cut its own defense spending by $850 million – 5%. How can it afford to do this ? Because we, the American taxpayers, are picking up the tab.

Criticizing Israel

[]

Nowadays it’s difficult to criticize Israel without being called an antisemite. Somehow a revisionist definition of antisemitism has replaced racist generalizations of Jews. Now antisemitism is defined as any critique of Zionism, criticism of Israel’s occupation, land theft, rampant racism, civil rights abuses, press censorship, or noting similarities with the old South African Apartheid system. Despite the hasbarists’ best attempts to quash criticism, the fact remains: Israel is a rogue state with plenty to dislike.

  • Illegal settlements, land theft
  • Settler violence
  • Use of martial law to appropriate land, which is then turned over to settlements
  • Arrests without warrants
  • Detentions without trial for tens of thousands of people, many children
  • The killing of 6400 Palestinians since 2000
  • The killing of of over 1000 civilians during the siege of Gaza
  • Using children as human shields
  • Bombing schools, hospitals, ambulances, water and sewage facilities in Gaza
  • Using white phosphorus bombs on humans
  • Kidnappings, like the recent case in the Ukraine
  • Assassination teams, like the one in Dubai
  • The killing of 8 Turks and one American citizen on the Mavi Marmara
  • Resale of joint US-Israeli military technology to China
  • Spying on the United States
  • Killing and wounding of international protesters and journalists
  • Impunity Israel enjoys at the UN — like Syria enjoys thanks to Russia’s veto
  • Meddling in US politics and foreign policy by pro-Likud AIPAC, WINEP, JINSA, ZOA, and others, whose politics are not mainstream American or even moderate Israeli views
  • Israel’s outreach toward right-wing Fundamentalist Christian groups and wingnuts like Glen Beck, with their Jerusalem revival meetings and End Times nonsense
  • Avigdor Lieberman, an incredible racist, whose campaign Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism called “an outrageous, abominable, hate-filled campaign, brimming with incitement that, if left unchecked, could lead Israel to the gates of hell.”
  • Former Sephardi Chief Rabbi Ovadia Josef, who looks and sounds like an ayatollah himself and has said a number of offensive things about gentiles, besides advocating the murder of all Palestinians
  • The institutionalized racism and discrimination against Arab Israelis, Ethiopians, and the difficult legacy of growing up as Mizrachim — Arab Jews
  • Vigilante groups (in places like Petah Tikva and Kiryat Gat) which beat Arab men who date Israeli women, or stage “interventions” with the families of the women
  • Laws which call into question the “Jewishness” of American Jews, of Masorti Reform, Reconstructionist, Humanist Jews — or privilege Orthodox Judaism

Atlanta 5771, might as well be 1935

It finally found its way into my synagogue’s newsletter.

Making its rounds on the internet is a sermon entitled “Ehr kumt” (Yiddish for “he’s coming”) given during last year’s Jewish High Holidays by Rabbi Shlomo J. Lewis of Atlanta’s Etz Chaim (Conservative) synagogue. The piece, also called by its admirers the “Sermon of the Century,” has been reproduced on all the usual Islamophobia hate sites, the Republican Jewish Committee’s web site, and its notoriety has increased due to commendations for Lewis by the Georgia legislature and the US House of Representatives. I won’t reproduce the almost 4000-word piece because it’s simply too long, but if you haven’t read it you will find it here.

Quite simply, it’s nothing but a piece of hate speech by a religious leader. Not only that, it’s a piece of dreck delivered at a pulpit by a rabbi on the first day of Rosh Hashanah – a day for introspection and self-examination, not high political theater.

I read and found the sermon very offensive, as I do any time a preacher, rabbi or imam takes to the pulpit to bludgeon his congregation with bigotry. It reminded me of an exchange with a Muslim neighbor who emailed me that “I want to tell you that the situation in the U.S. now is similar to that in Germany in 1935, where bigotry, hatred, lies, and wide-spread discrimination against a hunted minority were very common.” His deepest fears, true or only partially true, made me wonder what sort of ranting about Jews was common in German churches in 1935.

I thought about this while I re-read Rabbi Lewis’ sermon and it struck me as ironic that a Jew – a rabbi no less – would willingly play the part of religious Hetzer.

In the Germany of 1935, while there were certainly members of the clergy like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Niemoeller, or Karl Barth, who spoke out clearly and with almost as much passion as Jewish prophets themselves against the Nazi regime, for the most part the Pfarrer (pastors) of mainly the Evangelische (Lutheran) church (but also the Catholic church) practically tripped over themselves in embracing the new German culture war on Jews. Even the church itself was enlisted in the persecution. Susannah Heschel has documented this sad chapter of German religious history.

Rabbi Lewis reminds me of a pastor in some Pomeranian backwater who chose to deliver – not a homily on redemption and hope – but the most virulent, anti-Semitic diatribe he could think of on an Easter morning in 1935, using some of Lewis’ own themes and words to paint a portrait of Jewish evil. The pastor might have invoked passages from Martin Luther’s 1543 pamphlet, “Von den Jüden und ihren Lügen” (About the Jews and their Lies), as Lewis seems to take his from the world of Islamophobia.

On this holiest of days Lewis led with a martial theme:

“We are at war. We are at war with an enemy as savage, as voracious, as heartless as the Nazi.”

Ridiculing what he regards as present-day “moral relativism” and political correctness, Lewis’ prescription is to return to the imagined moral absolutes of an idealized World War II:

“Evil – ultimate, irreconcilable, evil threatened us and Roosevelt and Churchill had moral clarity and an exquisite understanding of what was at stake. It was not just the Sudetenland, not just Tubruk, not just Vienna, not just Casablanca. It was the entire planet.”

The evil that faces us, then, according to Lewis, is Amalek – the personification of evil and existential threat. Lewis then continues the story for which his sermon is named. It is the story of none other than the neo-fascist Revisionist Zionist Ze’ev Jabotinsky showing up at a synagogue in Kovno, Lithuania, and warning the city’s Jews of impending doom. Lewis embellishes the story to paint Jabotinsky as a prophet:

“When Jabotinsky came, he delivered the drash [sermon] on Shabbos morning and I can still hear his words burning in my ears. He climbed up to the shtender, [lectern] stared at us from the bima [pulpit], glared at us with eyes full of fire and cried out. ‘EHR KUMT. YIDN FARLAWST AYER SHTETL – He’s coming. Jews abandon your city.’ We thought we were safe in Lithuania from the Nazis, from Hitler. We had lived there, thrived for a thousand years but Jabotinsky was right – his warning prophetic. We got out but most did not. […] We are not in Lithuania. It is not the 1930s. There is no Luftwaffe overhead. No U-boats off the coast of long Island. No Panzer divisions on our borders. But make no mistake; we are under attack – our values, our tolerance, our freedom, our virtue, our land.

These last words are exactly the same ones our German pastor would have used in 1935: Unsere Freiheit, unsere Ehre, unsere Heimat. Lewis doesn’t even have any idea of how distastefully he has expropriated the same language used against Jews by Nazi collaborators.

At this point, the congregation is transfixed. Lewis is working the pulpit, reciting Prophet Jabotinsky’s words. But this time the villains are not Nazis or the mutable forms of Amalek – but Muslims. High Holidays be damned, Lewis is not in a forgiving mood. Muslims – all Muslims – are guilty by association. If they aren’t perpetrators, they’re mute enablers of evil:

“Today the enemy is radical Islam but it must be said sadly and reluctantly that there are unwitting, co-conspirators who strengthen the hands of the evil doers. Let me state that the overwhelming number of Muslims are good Muslims, fine human beings who want nothing more than a Jeep Cherokee in their driveway, a flat screen TV on their wall and a good education for their children, but these good Muslims have an obligation to destiny, to decency that thus far for the most part they have avoided. The Kulturkampf is not only external but internal as well. The good Muslims must sponsor rallies in Times Square, in Trafalgar Square, in the UN Plaza, on the Champs Elysee, in Mecca condemning terrorism, denouncing unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent. Thus far, they have not. The good Muslims must place ads in the NY Times. They must buy time on network TV, on cable stations, in the Jerusalem Post, in Le Monde, in Al Watan, on Al Jazeera condemning terrorism, denouncing unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent – thus far, they have not. Their silence allows the vicious to tarnish Islam and define it.”

Of course, the same could be said about his own congregation’s – most any Jewish congregation’s – silence on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, but Lewis’ point is clear: there really are no good Muslims because even the “good” ones have thumbed their noses at their obligation to destiny and decency. And worse: they haven’t chosen sides properly in the Kulturkampf. For the remainder of his talk, Lewis doesn’t bother making a distinction between terrorists, Islamic radicals, Islamists, political Islamists, or just plain Muslims. His audience knows what he means.

But what Lewis is peddling is stronger than just Kulturkampf. It’s War of the Worlds or maybe an old-fashioned Evangelical Apocalypse:

“Let us understand that the radical Islamist assaults all over the globe are but skirmishes, fire fights, and vicious decoys. Christ and the anti-Christ. Gog U’Magog. The Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness; the bloody collision between civilization and depravity is on the border between Lebanon and Israel. It is on the Gaza Coast and in the Judean Hills of the West Bank. It is on the sandy beaches of Tel Aviv and on the cobblestoned mall of Ben Yehuda Street. It is in the underground schools of Sderot and on the bullet-proofed inner-city buses. It is in every school yard, hospital, nursery, classroom, park, theater – in every place of innocence and purity.”

As in many shuls, Lewis is playing to a crowd that sees Israel as a beleaguered Western force of good fighting forces of darkness and evil (translation: Muslims). The rest of Lewis’ rant is reserved for whining about Europeans, NGOs, the United Nations, the “liberal” media, and Christian Liberation Theology. For Lewis it’s not just about terrorism. It’s about the Muslim hordes knocking on the gates of Vienna while the liberal appeasers make tea for them.

Next, Lewis paints Islam as a disease to be eradicated:

“Let’s try an analogy. If someone contracted a life-threatening infection and we not only scolded them for using antibiotics but insisted that the bacteria had a right to infect their body and that perhaps, if we gave the invading infection an arm and a few toes, the bacteria would be satisfied and stop spreading. […] Anyone buy that medical advice? Well, folks, that’s our approach to the radical Islamist bacteria. It is amoral, has no conscience and will spread unless it is eradicated. – There is no negotiating. Appeasement is death.”

I found this disturbing and repugnant because, once again, my neighbor had a point. In 1935 German propaganda posters portrayed Jews as a bacteria. Yad Vashem has also documented a series of “educational” materials published at the time in Germany which included descriptions of Jews as:

“… foreigners threatening to displace the Germans from Germany. As hyenas strike disabled animals, Jews are portrayed as preying upon disadvantaged Germans/Christians. Other animals included in these comparisons are the chameleon (the great deceiver), the locust (the scourge of God) […] and the tapeworm (the parasite of humanity). Finally, Jews are compared to deadly bacteria, which threatens the existence of the human race. Just as deadly bacteria must be exterminated, so must the Jew.

Now concentration camps and crematoria hopefully weren’t in the back of the good rabbi’s mind when he talked of “eradicating” the Islamist bacteria. But what in God’s name was he thinking? I suspect, for Lewis and his right wing political message, God didn’t even enter the equation. This was not a drash. It was a political rant, an abuse of his position.

Lewis then moves on to a meditation on the story of an Afghan woman who was a victim of an “honor” disfigurement by a relative– something which unfortunately occurs numerous developing, not just Muslim, countries. For Lewis, though, it’s all about Islam:

“If nothing else stirs us. If nothing else convinces us, let Bibi Aisha’s mutilated face be the face of Islamic radicalism. Let her face shake up even the most complacent and naive among us.”

Lewis then finishes with a rhetorical flourish, once again using the neo-fascist Jabotinsky’s words:

“A rabbi was once asked by his students….’Rebbi. Why are your sermons so stern?’ Replied the rabbi, ‘If a house is on fire and we chose not to wake up our children, for fear of disturbing their sleep, would that be love? Kinderlach, di hoyz brent.’ Children our house is on fire and I must arouse you from your slumber. […] My friends – the world is on fire and we must awake from our slumber. ‘HER KUMT.'”

This was the end of a pathetic performance that should never have taken place at a synagogue, much less the pulpit, and never on the first day of Rosh Hashanah. This was the kind of outrageous performance one expects from Glen Beck or David Duke.

On the same day, my rabbi, in contrast – also at a Conservative synagogue – talked about new beginnings. He cited stories, without embarrassing individuals, of people who had made enormous, positive changes in their lives over the course of the year. It was as inspiring and sweet as Lewis’ was repellant and hateful.

What now for rabbi Lewis, flush with his 15 minutes of fame? He’s back at it again. His latest message to his congregation is again a long political piece you’ll just have to read to understand why the framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted separation of church and state. I sincerely hope Rabbi Lewis’ congregants don’t need him for spiritual matters pertaining to Judaism or for pastoral counseling. Because this is a guy truly obsessed with seeing evil in Muslims and too busy writing his political screeds.

This was published in Loonwatch on November 30, 2010
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/shlomo-lewis-atlanta-5771-might-as-well-be-1935/

Bring all the political prisoners home

Gilad Shalit was released today. I posted the following essay more than a year ago. There are still roughly 7,000 Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails whose families love them every bit as much as Shalit’s.

Tomorrow, June 25th, 2010, will be the fourth year that Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit has remained in captivity. But it has also been over forty years since Palestinians in greater numbers have been imprisoned – many without ever receiving a trial.

All in a day's work for the IDF

For three generations, more than 20% of all Palestinians – and some estimate half of all Palestinian men – have see the inside of an Israeli prison sometime in their life.

In 2010, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics reported over 7,000 Palestinians being held in Israeli prisons, 264 under administrative detention – indefinite imprisonment without trial.

Another day of the occupation

Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel cites statistics noting that as of March 2010, 6631 Palestinians were imprisoned in Israel, 8 detained under the Illegal Combatants Law (7 of whom are from Gaza) and 237 were administratively detained. 35 were women; 337 were child prisoners, including 39 under the age of 16; and 773 were from Gaza.

Marwan Barghouti

The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem detailed civil and human rights abuses in a report titled “Without Trial” and has called for an end to Israel’s illegal detentions: “Under international law, a state may detain a resident of occupied territory without trial to prevent danger only in extremely exceptional cases. Israel, however, holds hundreds of Palestinians for months and years under administrative orders, without prosecuting them. By doing so, it denies them rights to which ordinary detainees in criminal proceedings are entitled: they do not know why they are detained, when they will go free and what evidence exists against them, and are not given an opportunity to refute this evidence.”

Two weeks ago, blogger Richard Silverstein reported that “Yediot Achronot published a story about a Mr. X imprisoned in an Israeli jail.  The man was in solitary confinement. His jailers did not know who he was, did not share a word with him, no one came to visit him. No one seemed to know he was there. They didn’t even know what crime he had committed or how he came to be in the prison. His prison cell was completely isolated from other prisoners and he couldn’t communicate in any way with them.” Then the article was pulled from the paper and the story was censored. The story was picked up by the Daily Telegraph in the UK. The prisoner apparently shares the same treatment as Gilad Shalid.

Shalit

The Israeli Foreign Ministry lists seven Israeli soldiers either kidnapped or missing in action: Staff Sergeants Zecharya Baumel, Zvi Feldman, and Yehuda Katz – all missing since 1982 in a battle at Sultan Yakoub, in Lebanon; Major Ron Arad, who was captured on 16 October 1986, after his aircraft was shot down near Sidon, Lebanon; Guy Hever, who went missing on the southern Golan Heights in August 1997; Majdy Halabi, last seen hitchhiking in Dalyat El Karmel in May 2005; and finally Cpl. Gilad Shalit, who was abducted on June 25, 2006 near Kibbutz Kerem Shalom. Only for Shalit has there been any recent “proof of life” and Hamas acknowledges holding him.

For the last four years 23-year-old Shalit has been held in an undisclosed location and, like Israeli Prisoner X, even Red Cross visits have been denied. Lt. General Gabi Ashkenazi has gone on record that securing the release of Shalit is of the utmost importance to Israel. But Ashkenazi has clashed with the Netanyahu government over the degree of importance. For four years Israel and Hamas have rejected each other’s demands and offers. In 2009 a German-brokered deal collapsed after Hamas rejected additional Israeli requirements that released political prisoners go into exile.

the only 'unbreakable bond' there should be

Any father – Israeli, Palestinian, or American – feels the pain that Shalit’s father swallows when he talks about his son. I know I do. I understand Noam and Aviva Shalit’s desperation and frustration with both Hamas and their own government. And it deeply disturbs me that Shalit, who was still a teenager when he was captured, and his family are paying a steep personal price. But so are Palestinian families. The father in me appeals to both sides to settle the prisoner negotiations and let all political prisoners – Palestinians and the one Israeli – free. But neither the Hamas nor Likud and Beteinu extremists have ears for appeals to humanity.

But there is a more pragmatic reason to resolve this issue now.

Israel has announced a relaxation of bans on certain humanitarian imports to Gaza in the wake of the flotilla attack. Flotilla organizers and the Turkish charity whose members were killed on the Mavi Marmara may have been accused of being Al Qaeda and Hamas operatives, but the incident has underscored the fact that Hamas remains in charge in Gaza and it represents governance in the besieged strip. While Israel and Hamas can both fume about Zionist or terrorist “entities,” it becomes clearer by the day: they have to start talking to each other. As diverse as the responses to the flotilla attack have been (suits against Israel in the EU versus an outpouring of Congressional resolutions s

upporting Israel in the US), there are two sides – and they must start talking.

Israel recently denied German development minister Dirk Niebel entry into Gaza. To Israel such visits only serve to legitimize Hamas. While this is somewhat ironic in light of Israel’s campaign against “Israel delegitimizers,” the snub of the German diplomat may also have been meant as a message to the international community to butt out of the Shalit negotiations and that talks with Hamas are off-limits.

Indeed, the issue of Hamas legitimacy has been the major stumbling block. Israel has an official policy of not talking to “terrorists.” Neither Israel, the PA, Egypt, nor the US want to acknowledge Hamas. For all its lofty verbiage, the Obama administration has also kept neocon ideology alive by refusing to talk to enemies. But Europe and the Arab and Muslim worlds are more pragmatic. Despite funding from Iran, the Arab League, Turkey, and the EU are willing to at least talk to Hamas. Hamas’ growing legitimacy has been observed by Americans. The New York Review of Books ran an interesting article on Hamas last year by Nicolas Pelham and Max Rodenbeck. Charlie Rose interviewed Khaled Meshaal in Damascus about a month ago. Pretending that Hamas does not represents 1.5 million people is as senseless as pretending that two Republican senators do not represent Idaho, a state with the same population as Gaza.

Acknowledging both elected governments (Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza) would force an accommodation with each other. But as long as “Palestinian unity” is a precondition for talks, there will be no peace, no end of hostilities between Israel and Hamas, and no resolution of a prisoner exchange.

But resolving a prisoner exchange – perhaps the simplest first step in restarting peace negotiations – would be in everyone’s interest.

It is in Israel’s interests to build on its gesture of relaxing Gaza imports by demonstrating flexibility it has not shown for some time. Now that Israel has been able to turn this gesture into a minor public relations victory and has indeed relaxed some import items, Shalit becomes slightly less valuable to Hamas as a tool to win import concessions from Israel. For Hamas, Shalit now has value only for a prisoner exchange. This would be a good time for Hamas to make some minimal concessions of its own in regard to Israel’s demands. Similarly, on the anniversary of Shalit’s capture, the Netanyahu government is under increasing pressure to bring him home. It would be a good time for Israel to make some concessions as well.

To both sides: Bring Gilad Shalit home. Bring all the political prisoners home.

Whose foreign policy objectives are we pursuing?

Libyan rebels

Two months ago the United States recognized South Sudan. Last March the US started bombing Libya for regime change. Four months later it recognized that new rebel regime. For decades the United States recognized Taipei, not China, as the legitimate Chinese government. Only in 1972 did the US finally recognize a nation of nearly a billion people.

Hillary Clinton at AIPAC

Despite the ease with which nations can be recognized or ignored, the United States insists that a Palestinian state cannot exist without further negotiations with a Likud government whose party platform says: “Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River. [..] The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.”

For decades the United States has mouthed support for a Two State solution. But for 42 years US-mediated talks have produced nothing but delays during which Israel continued its military occupation and built more settlements. In 2009 President Obama went to Cairo and again made promises to resolve the issue. But once again the US has failed to deliver.

Abbas at UN

On Friday, frustrated by four decades of stonewalling and US bias, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas will go to the UN and, in more a poker play than anything, will ask the Security Council to grant Palestine the same type of statehood that it granted Israel 63 years ago. Though this will almost certainly be defeated, Abbas will finally force the US to show its hand. The US has promised Israel it will use its veto to kill a Palestinian state despite the fact that over three quarters of the General Assembly support it.

The reasons for a US veto run counter to its own interests in supporting democracy and peace in the Middle East. Instead, they are motivated by a powerful pro-Israel lobby and by growing “Old Testament” fundamentalism among a Congress which sees Israel as a divine nation.

Cantor v'Netanyahu

Last month a fifth of all American Congressmen and half of all Freshman Congressmen accepted free junkets to Israel funded by a wing of AIPAC instead of facing their own constituents on economic issues during the recess. At the same time, the Israel Project, a right-wing, Muslim-bashing group, brought 18 American ambassadors to Israel as well.

All this effort was to kill a Palestinian state. The pressures that both Democrats and Republicans feeding at the trough of the Israel Lobby or acting out of religious sentiment exert on foreign policy is intense. Intense and extremely dangerous.

Dangerous because the United States is ignoring the lessons of the Arab Spring – that its pliant regimes in Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, and elsewhere are despised; and, by extension, the US is too for supporting them.

Dangerous because former allies like Egypt and Turkey have finally had it with biased US foreign policy and now see the United States as toxic and irrelevant. Even the Saudis have threatened to reevaluate their relationship with the United States. And Turkey is starting to challenge the US as a regional power broker.

Obama at AIPAC

Dangerous because the United States is becoming isolated internationally by confusing Israeli interests for our own. Two weeks ago, in a speech at the Jewish People Policy Institute, Ambassador Daniel Shapiro said it quite bluntly: “The test of every policy the Administration develops in the Middle East is whether it is consistent with the goal of ensuring Israel’s future as a secure, Jewish, democratic state. That is a commitment that runs as a common thread through our entire government.”

Dangerous because an isolated US and Israel make war more likely.

This subservience to a foreign nation’s interests troubles even strong Israel supporters.

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman worried in a recent editorial that Israel’s policies have “left the U.S. government fed up with Israel’s leadership but a hostage to its ineptitude, because the powerful pro-Israel lobby in an election season can force the administration to defend Israel at the U.N., even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America’s.” Friedman thinks the US is painting itself into a corner with its veto: “the U.S. does not have to cast a U.N. veto on a Palestinian state, which could be disastrous in an Arab world increasingly moving toward more popular self-rule.”

War on Iran

Once the Israel Lobby digests its meal of the remains of the Palestinian state, what’s next on the menu? Already the pro-Israel hawks are calling for war on Iran. Most of the Republican hopefuls are nodding in agreement with Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon when he says: “All options are on the table.”

Whose table is that?

In Iran’s own words

This morning’s editorial section contained a piece by Lawrence J. Haas advocating war on Iran. It was typical of ramped-up calls from neoconservatives inside and outside the Obama administration, many of whom have a misplaced preoccupation with Israel and who claim Iran has promised to incinerate half of the world’s Jews in a second nuclear holocaust. No matter that it is Israel which possesses the nukes and that no proof of Iranian nuclear weapons actually exists.

While this war-mongering is really all about who shall maintain a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and Central Asia — and in so doing preserve oil-dependent colonialism for a few more decades — the war mongers and their friends in the defense industry and pro-Israel lobby have stepped up the calls for U.S. military action, and they’ve added a few new justifications for it. Now in addition to threatening to nuke Israel with (non-existent) nuclear weapons, Iran is being blamed for attacks on Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan and allying itself with Al Qaeda. And now that the U.S. has successfully assassinated bin Laden, we really need another bogeyman.

But since our country seems bound and determined to get into — frankly, I’ve lost count of the number of wars we’ve got going on now — let’s just call it another war, it might be good to understand precisely what the Iranians think of us. Simplistic formulations like “clash of civilizations” and “they hate us for what we have” don’t provide any insight. Apparently nobody wants to re-hash or even look at history: the U.S. coup which removed a secular, democratic Iranian government in the Fifties, American support for the Shah and his brutal secret police, or recent American and Israeli assassinations and sabotage. But in fact, the U.S. has been meddling in Iran since the beginning of the 20th century and the Iranians have a long list of gripes. Iran also has legitimate concerns for its security, as Ron Paul pointed out yesterday in a GOP candidate debate. It is virtually surrounded by the United States:

new.base.map.6.10

Given all this, it is unlikely Iran presents much of a military threat to anyone, including Israel. And even Ehud Barak agrees.

So, if the real issue is not the bogus existential threat to Israel, and the real issue actually is the preservation of Israel’s nuclear monopoly, how do the Iranians feel about it?

One of the best documents to gauge Iran’s views is the transcript of a speech given in 2001 by Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Iranian presidents come and go, but the mullahocracy remains to guide not only domestic life in Iran but also foreign policy.

In this 2001 speech, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani discussed colonialism, capitalism, the world since 1948, and Israel’s nuclear advantage, which he sees as a colonial effort and not a Jewish conspiracy. A passage below on “US-British support for Israel” is often cited as a veiled threat to destroy Israel. But the speech discusses neutralizing Israel’s monopoly on nuclear weapons, not destroying the nation. Read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

The Speech

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 cos

t 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

Congress – How I spent my Summer vacation

President Netanyahu

Last Spring we were presented with the unseemly sight of a foreign leader insulting a sitting president before both houses of Congress. On May 24th House Majority leader Eric Cantor escorted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into the congressional chambers in what could easily have been mistaken for a State of the Union Address by the President. What made the display particularly unseemly was that Netanyahu used the opportunity to excoriate President Obama for his tepid criticism of Israel’s illegal settlements while the President was in London.

An article in the New York Times guessed at the motives: “With elections coming up next year, the lawmakers appeared eager to demonstrate their support for Israel as part of an effort to secure backing from one of the country’s most powerful constituencies, American Jews.” The article failed to mention that most congressional Zionists are fundamentalist Christians, not Jews, for whom Israel is not just another country, but a veritable Biblical Disneyland.

All this is bad enough, but now they’re at it again. This week we learn that, instead of meeting with constituents during the Summer recess, a fifth of American Congressmen will be accepting free junkets to Israel funded by the American Israel Education Foundation, one of AIPAC’s many PACs. According to the Jerusalem Post, 81 Congressmen, 55 Republicans and 26 Democrats, will visit Israel. Significantly, the number includes half of all freshman Republicans. The Republican delegation will be headed by Eric Cantor and the Democrats by Steny Hoyer.

Not to be outdone, the Israel Project, a right-wing group known for its vicious Muslim-bashing, is bringing 18 American ambassadors to Israel as well.

Obama at AIPAC

All this precedes an anticipated call for a Palestinian state at the United Nations in September. Similar to a call for Israel’s creation 60-some years ago, also at the UN, the call for a Palestinian state is largely symbolic because it is expected that the Obama administration, like Congress, fully subservient to a pro-Israel lobby, will cast a veto. This call for Palestinian statehood — without American “facilitation” — is a final recognition of the fact that the United States has been consistently biased and is no longer relevant to the peace process.

So, while the American economy is in shambles, a motley group of American Congressmen will be getting tans at the Dead Sea, a militarily-controlled area off-limits to Palestinians. They will be touring Jerusalem, visiting Tel Aviv, and possibly popping into Ramallah to visit a Palestinian caretaker government most Palestinians hold in contempt. They’ll be meeting with Israeli generals who will tell them how Israel is stopping terrorism in its backyard so that we don’t have it in ours.

Rep Eric Cantor (R-Israel)

If you do a little research online, you can find out about these junkets. According to legistorm.com, a number of groups send congressmen to Israel for these — I wouldn’t call them serious fact-finding missions — vacations. The American Israel Education Foundation is the major organizer, but other groups fund similar “educational” trips: the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, the Brookings Institution, Center for Middle East Peace & Economic Cooperation, Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, IDT Corp., the Jewish Community Relations Council, Makhteshim Agan, New America Foundation, Project Interchange, the Republican Jewish Coalition, numerous local Jewish Federations, Tel Aviv University, Telos Group, United Jewish Appeals, and the World Jewish Congress. In all, Legistorm has recorded 1020 of these junkets to Israel since roughly 2001.

In contrast, there have been 2 fact-finding missions to Palestine.

It’s bad enough that Congress is being diverted from doing its job of fixing the economy by these trips and that the Likud gets more attention than constituents, but the worst part is that we are letting a foreign nation and its boosters corrupt and bias our foreign policy. In exchange for the campaign donations they disburse, these lobbyists assure that our Congressmen keep giving Israel $8 million a day in military assistance and producing vetoes at the United Nations.

All this will eventually result in a backlash, not only against Israel, but unfortunately against Jewish Americans too, whether they objected to this madness or supported it. It’s time to say: enough. And time to do the right thing and abstain from vetoing a Palestinian state in September.

Nativism and “Judeo-Christian” values

Multiculturalism is a filthy word in their lexicon. Feminism is just as bad. Gays merit both contempt and physical punishment. Violence toward minorities has always been their trademark, and for decades they’ve attacked liberals, secularists, and those who do not share their Middle Ages mentality.

Ku Klux Klan

No, I’m not talking about the Taliban. I’m not even talking about Anders Breivik and his Knights Templar revivalists (who pathetically are a hundred years behind the KKK), or the Tea Party racists who want to bring back Jim Crow, although the description is certainly apt for any of these groups.

Meir Kahane

I’m talking about their cousins, the religious Right in Israel, particularly the Kahanists, who for years have been running amok with few or no consequences and who are now the model for violent extremists like Breivik and multiculturalism-haters in the Tea Party or rabid Zionists in the U.S. like Joe Kaufman. As incomprehensible as it seems to me for Jews to be involved in violent, hate-soaked, religion-perverting nationalism, it is more shocking that these particular fellow Jews (if indeed we share any values) are the model to which the rest of the haters aspire.

Last year a guidebook called “Torat HaMalech” was published in Israel. The subtitle of this book could easily have been “Who Would Moses Slay?” because it was nothing more than a 230-page justification for murdering non-Jews. If there had not been such an uproar, a second printing could easily have been accompanied by a forward by one of the many Israeli Islamophobes who inspired Anders Breivik.

Why do Jewish brownshirts and thugs like Baruch Marzel, a “former” Kahanist who had a little love-fest last month with Glen Beck at the Knesset, operate so freely in Israel and in the Occupied Territories and in the Orthodox communities of the United States? Because, as the U.S. State Department is fond of saying of the American relationship with Israel, there is hardly any “daylight” between them and the government. Israel’s Likudnik policies are fully congruent with the extremist right. Israel is slowly being ethnically cleansed of Arabs, both in the West Bank and the Galilee, and even at the cost of importing hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish Russians. As the Mizrachim might agree grudgingly, It’s never been about religion. It’s always been about race and culture, particularly the domination of Ashkenizi culture. And as always, religion is just a tree the nativists hide behind. Even “liberal” and “secular” Jews who have moved into the West Bank because of economic inducements prefer not to think too much about how they got their cheap housing. For them it’s not about religion either. When it comes right down to it, there’s never been enough “daylight” between the Left and Right in Israel. And that’s the triumph and corrupting influence of nationalism.

Zionism

Living in Israel today is like living in Anders Breivik’s Norwegian Utopia of 2083, where Muslims are being removed by state institutions and racial and cultural “purity” is well on track to being restored by a brutal form of nationalism. Israel’s twisted form of Revisionist Zionism has now become not merely the paradigm for European Christian nationalism but their How-To manual. But if by chance Breivik’s dreams come true, it won’t be a win for religion. And Europeans may not turn out to like all that concertina wire and concrete.

So when I hear Jews or Christians utter the phrase, “Judeo-Christian values,” I wince because a perverted and violent form of religious-themed nationalism is what it is has really come to mean.

Just another meaningless, cynical phrase falling from hate-filled, profanity-laced lips.

David Mamet, Anders Breivik, and Jewish Self-Loathing

As a theater lover, a Jew, and a political junkie, I read David Mamet’s first book, “The Wicked Son,” a couple of years ago. The book’s title refers to the telling of the Passover story, in which the “wicked son” asks what Passover means “to you” – demonstrating that he has distanced himself from the Jewish community. Mamet then proceeds to present the most hardline version of Zionism which, if you disagree with even a point of his extremist views, qualifies you as a Self-Hating Jew. So, besides being the author of the misogynistic piece “Oleanna” I already knew him to be a right-wing shmuck.

But now David Mamet has outed himself as a Self-Hating Jew. And I mean exactly, precisely, literally that. He hates Jews. And he was only too happy to bloviate about his apparently stupid co-religionists on a fundamentalist Christian television show. Listen to this embarrassing, shameful performance yourself:

plugin:youtube

In the clip, Mamet is on Pat Robertson’s show, 700 Club, to flog his new book, “On the Dismantling of American Culture,” which tries to sell the same themes as disgraced German economist Thilo Sarrazin’s book “Deutschland schafft sich Ab” (“Germany Does Away With Itself”) and Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik’s manifesto – namely, that (like Breivik and Sarrazin’s Europe) “America is a Christian country. Its Constitution is the distillation of the wisdom and experience of Christian men, in a tradition whose codification is the Bible.” Mamet’s book contains a number of other fundamentalist prescriptions similar to Breivik’s: feminism has emasculated men, global warming is a hoax, multiculturalism is evil, and Obama is a “one-worlder.”

In his previous Zionist screed, only Jewish Two Staters or those sympathetic to rights of Palestinians drew his ire. But this time around, in today’s interview with Robertson, Mamet blasted away at Jews in general. “My people, the Jews, have a lot to answer for” over their support for Obama. Robertson asks, “Do you think the Jews are ever gonna wake up?” Mamet answers that Jews in general always wake up too late.

I suppose that was the answer and the opportunity that Robertson had been waiting for all along: Damned Jews; Why don’t they just embrace Jesus while there’s still time?

David Mamet was only too happy to help make Robertson’s point.

Israel passes anti-boycott law

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement has been successful. So successful, in fact, that Israel has responded – as it usually does – by sealing another crack, putting another finger or gob of gum in the dike, in an effort to stanch the flood of criticism of its Apartheid laws and occupation.

This week Israel made it illegal for citizens to support non-violent boycotts of the nation.

If you thought that, somehow, Israel was still the “only democracy in the Middle East” because at least its Jewish citizens were free, well now you can forget that. Although primarily targeting Israeli Palestinians, it also restricts the rights of its Jewish citizens.

Haaretz columnist Bradley Burston has it about right: this is the quiet sound of the nation finally turning fascist. If going fascist is too strong, then it’s the sound of the last feeble exhalations of a dying democracy.

And what about American citizens who still want to boycott Israel? Rest assured that our Constitutional rights are still … being held ransom.

image

Passover 5772

The ideal

I’ve always loved Passover, dragging in the big tables, turning the living room of our small Cape house into a dining room, inviting visitors who had nowhere else to go or nothing else to do, or finding silly props for the ten plagues. The home-made Haggadah my wife and sister-in-law created back when the children were small, the dog bone substituting for lamb shank for the vegetarians among us, my wife’s matzoh ball soup, the different charoset recipes, all these adaptations have kept Pesach going after our generation stepped up to replace beloved parents, aunts, and uncles no longer at the table.

On occasion we’ve added oranges and olives to the Seder plate, as we honor the liberation of real people in real times. The same cacophony of “Dayenu” being sung in several keys simultaneously by my tone-deaf family can also be heard when we belt out “Tell old Pharaoh, Let My People Go.” Liberation is liberation, at least in our book. When we say, “Next year in Jerusalem” my thoughts used to fly to a peaceful Jerusalem, one in which both Jews and Palestinians had somehow managed to work things out. Despite the hopeless odds and the ugly reality, I had always hoped for a Two State solution, long after logic told me it was impossible.

Out with Palestinians

But this year Passover will be quite different. By the time April rolls around, the Two State solution will be a dim memory. For the first time in the experience of everyone around the table, there will no longer be even the illusion that, if only everyone had talked things out, there could be peace. Talking and photo ops went on for the better part of my adult life. The only constant in all this theater was the building of settlements on Palestinian land. Without a state or land of their own, Palestinians are now the subjects of a Jewish Pharaoh enforcing Jewish laws. While little bloodshed is likely to follow next week’s U.S. veto of a Palestinian state in behalf of Israel, there will be no peace for generations. The quest for a Palestinian homeland must now necessarily turn to a battle for civil rights in some new version of Israel that ensures rights for all, not just for Jews.

In with settlers

What is so different this year is that it is no longer possible to hold that sweet old picture of interdependent Jewish and Palestinian liberation in my mind. For years I believed that Israel’s survival depended upon Palestinian liberation. I believed also that the establishment of the state of Israel itself was incomplete because Israel had chosen the role of the Egyptian taskmaster, and only by repudiating oppression could it ever hope to survive in the long term. And I also believed that, as Jews, we could never support oppression by a supposedly Jewish state. Now that hope for Palestinian self-determination is about to be destroyed, there is nothing left but to acknowledge that, by these actions, Israel is simply another flawed state and not the deserving recipient of any prayers. At least this Israel.

Oppression and occupation have been institutionalized for so long that Israel cannot conceive of its existence as anything but a Zero Sum game in which a Palestinian state cannot also exist. And most of this has been accomplished through the cheerleading, political support, and funding from American Jews. The point of no return has finally been reached. The lovely postcard images of Jerusalem as the City of Peace have been replaced by the stark photographs of Palestinian “squatters” being kicked out of their houses by settlers in formerly Arab neighborhoods. This is now the only true image that can remain of Jerusalem.

Next year I’ll have to have to find a way to celebrate a Passover which celebrates liberation, justice, and hopes for the City of Peace. But next April it will no longer be Israel’s story.

No More Carrots

Re: “US deal for Israeli freeze on settlements helps Mideast talks” editorial in the Thursday, November 18

What was the Globe thinking when it endorsed an extravagant American giveaway to Israel engineered by Dennis Ross – in exchange for three more months of a charade known as US-brokered peace talks and a promise never again to exert such pressure on Israel?

If anyone has noticed, the 10 months of the so-called settlement freeze were never observed by Israel. So what does another 3 months of non-observance buy anyone? Just more settlements for Israel.

And if anyone has noticed, Israel’s new precondition – demanding that the Palestinians recognize not just Israel, but a Zionist Israel – is designed to scuttle such talks because of the implications for not only Israel’s 1.5 million Palestinian citizens but for millions of Palestinian refugees with unresolved land claims.

This US-financed largesse most closely resembles bribing both a home invader never to do it again and the judge to not prosecute him.

It is well past the time for tasty carrots for Israel – carrots we can scarcely afford. Now it’s time for some well-applied pressure – if not the stick. Withholding UN vetoes, taking away military aid, and demanding that Israel comply with international law have a greater chance of producing the needed attitude adjustment that decades of asking “pretty please” has failed to deliver.

Clemens Heni – A Lesson in Anti-Semitism

_Geerd Wilders

I have written previously about those who claim to be friends of Jews, for example Islamophobes, House Democrats and Republicans, talk show hosts, and Christian Evangelicals, but who (if you scratched them) would probably show a different color underneath their paint job. In Germany, as in the United States and even Israel, there is often quite a difference between having truly learned the lessons of the Holocaust and providing mere lip service. In Germany there are many who utter all the right words but — scratch the surface — and you discover a garden variety anti-Semite. There’s even a name for this phenomenon: Philosemitism. The following is my translation of a recent analysis by a German Jewish blogger. It’s important to watch Europe because the degree of its anti-Semitism and Islamophobia is just a preview of what we can expect to be seeing here shortly. And the discussion of Philosemitism is one we should be having as pro-Israel organizations increasingly are sleeping with people who are anything but the friend of Jews.

How do you discredit a woman and turn her into a “controversial” scholar? Another example of how anti-Semitism works.

Tamar Amar-Dahl is a historian who emigrated from Israel. Like many young Left or liberal Israelis, she left Israel and, in 2006 in protest against the Lebanon War, surrendered her passport in exchange for German citizenship. Now Tamar Amar-Dahl has found herself in the crosshairs of Anti-Semitism researcher Clemens Hani.

You have to wonder what motivates Henri’s attack on Amar-Dahl. Is it envy from an unsuccessful political scientist whose best effort is the occasional article in Ha’galil, and who couldn’t manage to get a teaching position as Amar-Dahl did last year at Humboldt-University in Berlin? What leads Clemens Heni, the “Aryan with the oversized nose for anti-Semites” (Posener) to fling dirt at a young political scientist? Is it “only” political differences? Or is it possibly animosity toward people of Jewish ancestry who just don’t fit into Clemens Hani’s preconceived notions of how to be Jewish?

In a pamphlet published a few days ago attacking Amar-Dahl, Heni writes:

“Dr. Tamar Amar-Dahl received her doctorate in 2008 in Munich at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University for work on Shimon Peres. She is a highly controversial political scientist and activist.”

Why Amar-Dahl is “highly controversial” remains Heni’s little secret. In reality he’s less interested in performing after-the-fact “quality control” on political science than in cobbling together conspiracy theories of “anti-Zionist machinations” at German universities, in which he takes on any political scientist who had anything remotely to do with Amar-Dahl — beginning with Prof. Dr. Stefanie Schüler-Springorum, the director of the Institute for History of German Jews in Hamburg, who had the temerity to invite Amar-Dahl to a lecture; to the director of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich, Prof. Dr. Horst Möller, who together with Prof. Dr. Moshe Zuckermann from Tel Aviv, had supervised Amar-Dahl’s dissertation; to Prof. Dr. Christina von Braun, the director of the newly-established College of Jewish Studies in Berlin, where Amar-Dahl recently accepted a teaching position.

Yes, our relentless little denunciator, Clemens Heni, didn’t even stop with Hans Mommsen, who has praised Amar-Dahl’s work. Don’t forget: Mommsen is without a doubt one of the most internationally well-respected historians of National Socialism and the Holocaust, but Heni nevertheless paints him as “no expert on anti-Semitism.” Apparently those in Heni’s circle still hold a grudge against Mommsen for refuting the Goldhagen hypothesis in 1996 and in so doing discrediting Heni’s great role-model in all things relating to anti-Semitism research.

And so, with his big detector he sniffs at any fart in order to breathe it in, eyes wide open. Even Amar-Dahl’s former supervisor, Prof. Dr. Michael Brenner, was quoted, and Heni apparently phoned around looking for new critics in Munich. In the end he reveals to an incredulous public that Amar-Dahl was not all that serious because she based her work on the theories of Edward Said and even published them in a periodical which reprinted materials from the “anti-Israel agitator” Noam Chomsky. A collection of “facts” that basically just makes you shrug and which ultimately says less about Tamar Amar-Dahl than it does about Clemens Heni. Because the only one who seems to be shocked and stunned is the great sniffer himself.

A bewildered Heni asks:

“Didn’t the faculty of the Institute for the History of German Jewry know who Tamar Amar-Dahl is, how unscientific (sic!) she works, and what she represents?

[…]

Why is Humboldt University funding an anti-Israeli academic?”

Not even Heni is stupid enough to accuse Amar-Dahl of “secondary anti-Semitism” for her remark at an FES [Friedrich Ebert Foundation] conference, where she said:

“I’m shocked that, once again, the subject of the Holocaust and the Jews is — as they say — being replayed and regurgitated here. Sometimes I feel it’s just way too much.”

A quote taken completely out of context — but quite a find for “sensible anti-Semitism researchers,” as Clemens Heni is: is someone who would now accuse the daughter of Moroccan Jews of being an anti-Semite because she — especially as a Sephardi Jew — apparently was not personally as affected by the destruction of European Jewry as the Ashkenazim who survived. In whose personal lives persecution and destruction do not happen to play a more significant role. Almost every family lost relatives or friends — in contrast to most Sephardim or Mizrachim. Such different experiences, which form an individual and are passed along to his children as well as current acquaintances — all this leads Heni to hate the young political scientist.

A person of Jewish faith or ancestry has to match the Jew in Clemens Heni’s mind. And if he doesn’t, he’s bound to invoke the personal animosity of this “Philosemite.” This in a nutshell is the dangerous side of Philosemitism. Just as he has an exaggerated sense of everything Jewish as positive, he threatens to revert to raw hatred when individual Jews or people of Jewish ancestry simply don’t conform to the image he has fantasized.

I have to admit: for a long time I didn’t understand how this kind of Philosemitism really worked. I always thought that it expressed itself in extreme forms of classical anti-Semitism. That someone — even one claiming to be a “friend” of Israel and of Jews, could suddenly become disappointed in some imaginary, only in his own head, with a collective notion of “the Jews” — and then erupting into raw hatred. Precisely against a “collective” Jew whom he had once regarded as infallible. But the real — at least more typical — Philosemitism is even more insidious. It does not direct its type of anti-Semitism at the collective itself; rather, it selects a specific group: those who are in some way not “Jewish” enough, as Philosemites have defined it. He is disappointed in them and he directs his hostility at these “disrupters” of his own picture of Jewry. Precisely this, no difference, is how it works with Clemens Heni: a person of Jewish ancestry who commits the crime of not being “like a Jew should be” can be nothing other than an anti-Semite. Sure, what else can it be, Heni? Of course! But the worst thing is: there will always be more! More and more anti-Semitic Jews. Pretty soon you won’t be able to see Israel because of all the anti-Semites.

That’s why this type of Philosemitism is not the opposite of anti-Semitism, as one might be led to believe. Portraying it as simply the opposite, as positive racism, makes it seem harmless. Because if it is really the opposite of anti-Semitism, it can’t be all that dangerous: it doesn’t result in the destruction of an enemy. But it works another way. This specific form of anti-Semitism doesn’t target Jewry in its entirety, opposing “the” Jews. At least not directly. Philosemites like Heni reserve their worst attacks for those who disappoint them. For these they reserve the most awful portrayal they can think of — which for Philosemites with their moral categories is: to be an anti-Semite.

This is the real hatred of the Philosemites. The moment in which his understanding of Jews leads to disappointment, he targets — not collective Jewry — but “anti-Semitic Jews” whom he equates with them — as enemies whom ultimately he’d like to see wiped out. Admittedly: Heni has gone easier on Amar-Dahl than Alex Feuerherdt. Meanwhile, the latter insults Jews as openly as anti-Semites. But according to Heni it’s only a “secondary anti-Semitic response.” But they mean the same thing.

This is exactly why it’s often not enough to check one’s “facts” in the case of people like Tarach, Feuerherdt, or Heni. Because (historical) proof doesn’t even occur to them. Refute one of their assertions; they’ll just find a new one in order to legitimize their attacks. You can’t address such people with empirical data alone. We also have to expose their followers for what they are: just garden variety anti-Semites, cloaked in fleece as “friends of the Jewish people.”

Charles Jacobs – Americans for Hate and Intolerance

The Forward listed Charles Jacobs as one of America’s Top 50 Jewish leaders in 2007. Apparently they were looking more at the range of his activism and less at what mischief he was actually up to.

Jacobs has been a founder of Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, the American Anti-Slavery Group, and the David Project, a member of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and has now created the oxymoronically named Americans for Peace and Tolerance. Jacobs has taken Abe Foxman to task for being too soft on Muslims.

Long before the Park51 project made news, Charles Jacobs spearheaded opposition to an Islamic Center in Roxbury and slammed governor Deval Patrick and Boston mayor Thomas Menino for supporting the project and meeting with Muslim community leaders. Despite widespread repudiation Jacobs continues to maintain that the Roxbury center is linked to global terror plots. He has also leveled personal attacks in the Jewish Advocate on fellow Jews who extended hands of friendship to the Muslim community, notably Rabbi Eric Gurvis. In June seventy Boston area rabbis signed a petition supporting Gurvis and denounced Jacobs’ smears.

In a FrontPage Mag interview Jacobs describes how he – and Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs – views Islam as nothing more than a rulebook for terrorists:

Two years ago I attended a three day conference in Jerusalem on Global Anti-Semitism sponsored by Israel ‘s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Senior leaders of American Jewry were present. We all heard how Islamic anti-Semitism – theologically based, was spread with Saudi funding to mosques and madrassas throughout the Islamic world, instructing tens if not hundreds of millions of people that Jews were the sons of monkeys and pigs and that to kill us is a holy deed.

Jacobs is a regular contributor to Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace blog and to David Horowitz’s Frontpage Mag. His “Clash of Civiliations” worldview meshes with pro-Israel advocacy and neoconservatism.

In July of this year Jacobs participated in a panel discussion in Aspen, Colorado, entitled “Conscience and Conflict,” featuring fellow neocons John Bolton, Phillis Chesler and Caroline Glick, at which he bemoaned Europeans as “neopagans” and “socialists,” decried mosques as “victory markers,” and stated “there is no moderate Muslim doctrine.”

Recently Jacobs made a big stink over a visit of students from the Wellseley public schools to an area mosque as part of multicultural education. In an article entitled “Propaganda is not Education,” Jacobs wrote:

Those who care about “religious ignorance and conflict over belief systems” should care about the radicalization of the historically moderate American Muslim community and the unwitting embrace of radical Muslims by our political and civic leaders.

Not only are Jacobs’ enemies all of the world’s Muslims, the press, Europeans, the United Nations, non-governmental aid agencies, liberals, and academics – but now even political and civil leaders have let him down too.

This was published in Loonwatch on October 26, 2010
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/10/charles-jacobs-americans-for-hate-and-intolerance/

Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager is at war with leftists, secularists, labor unions, civil rights organizations, Big Government, academics, atheists, Europeans, internationalists, “moral relativists” – and Muslims. Nothing personal, it’s just his worldview – that and the fact that not one Muslim in the entire world is a moderate:

There are a billion Muslims in the world. How is it possible that essentially none have demonstrated against evils perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam? This is true even of the millions of Muslims living in free Western societies. What are non-Muslims of goodwill supposed to conclude?

Long before it was fashionable to burn Qu’rans, Prager, a Republican convert, began trash-talking them:

In 2006 he wrote that “America, not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on,” in taking great offense that the first Muslim elected to Congress had decided to take his oath of office on a Qu’ran and not on a Christian bible. The ADL noted the bigotry of Prager’s remarks and conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson pointed out the irony that “here we have a Jew pushing a Muslim to use the Christian Bible.”

In Moment Magazine, which features articles of contemporary Jewish interest, Prager awkwardly (and self-contradictorily) defended his views, even after it was pointed out that many politicians had sworn their oath of office on books other than the bible or on none at all:

America has no state religion, nor should it ever be allowed to have one. But it has always been a Judeo-Christian country. Jews – and America itself – will suffer if we cease to be one. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe how their secular societies treat them and Israel. For that matter, just think about how our secular universities have become anti-Israel hate centers.

On the one hand Prager says America should be secular. But on the other hand he says it should privilege Jews and Christians. This is vintage Prager – a new believer in Kulturkampf between Islam and the West.

Despite his own advanced case, Prager denies that Islamophobia actually exists. As the co-author of a book on anti-Semitism himself, Prager should know better, but he wrote:

The fact remains that the term islamophobia has one purpose – to suppress any criticism, legitimate or not, of Islam. And given the cowardice of the Western media, and the collusion of the left in banning any such criticism (while piling it on Christianity and Christians), it is working.

When it comes to anti-Semitism, however, Prager rejects identical arguments and in fact argues that Zionism is part of Judaism – so any criticism of Israel or Jewry amounts to the same thing:

Among the many lies that permeate the modern world, none is greater – or easier to refute – than the claim that Zionism is not an integral part of Judaism or the claim that anti-Zionism is unrelated to anti-Semitism.

Thus, anyone who challenges Zionism – for example, Palestinians who are in conflict with Israel or the legions of academics, NGOs, international organizations, or human rights groups, even many Jews – is by definition an anti-Semite.

The Middle East conflict? Bah! That’s just anti-Semitism he writes in a piece, “The Middle East conflict is hard to solve but easy to explain:”

Those who deny this and ascribe the conflict to other reasons, such as “Israeli occupation,” “Jewish settlements,” a “cycle of violence,” “the Zionist lobby” and the like, do so despite the fact that Israel’s enemies regularly announce the reason for the conflict. The Iranian regime, Hizbollah, Hamas and the Palestinians – in their public opinion polls, in their anti-Semitic school curricula and media, in their election of Hamas, in their support for terror against Israeli civilians in pre-1967 borders – as well as their Muslim supporters around the world, all want the Jewish state annihilated.

Thus Prager completely dismisses any geopolitical causes or trivial issues like land theft or ethnic cleansing. No, there is just one reason for all this hostility and it can only be Islam. And it’s clear that Prager is not just talking about a few fanatical winguts when he lumps all of the world’s Muslims into this denunciation, in an article entitled “The Islamic threat is greater than German and Soviet threats were:”

A far larger number of people believe in Islamic authoritarianism than ever believed in Marxism. Virtually no one living in Marxist countries believed in Marxism or communism. Likewise, far fewer people believed in Nazism, an ideology confined largely to one country for less than one generation. This is one enormous difference between the radical Islamic threat to our civilization and the two previous ones. But there is yet a second difference that is at least as significant and at least as frightening: Nazis and Communists wanted to live and feared death; Islamic authoritarians love death and loathe life.

But in fact, for Prager, who participated in one of David Horowitz’s “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” events, “Islam is identical to”Islamofascism:

So once one acknowledges the obvious, that there is fascistic behavior among a core of Muslims – specifically, a cult of violence and the wanton use of physical force to impose an ideology on others – the term “Islamo-Fascism” is entirely appropriate.

Dennis Prager’s attitudes toward Muslims are echoed in his views on immigrants in America. A Tea Party supporter, Prager supports Arizona Law SB1070 and believes in American Exceptionalism or Judeo-Christian Dominionism. In this clip at a Tea Party event in Colorado, sitting next to Sarah Palin, Prager describes his revulsion for internationalism and European morality, praising something rather like an American version of Zionism. His a world view common to the Tea Party, Likudniks, and neoconservatives.

As for Islamophobia – it’s just one of Prager’s many hobbies – but integral to this worldview.

This was published in Loonwatch on November 23, 2010
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/dennis-prager-at-war-with-muslims/

US backs Israel as a “Jewish State”

[secular-religious

YNet News reported today that the United States has backed Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand for recognition by the Palestinians as a “Jewish state” — even though Israelis themselves heatedly dispute the meaning of the term.

State Department spokesman Philip Crowley backed the new Israeli demand, saying, “I’m not making any news here. […] It is a state for the Jewish people. […] What Prime Minister Netanyahu said yesterday is, in essence a core demand of the Israeli government, which we support.”

In siding with Netanyahu, the US move puts Abbas in an impossible position, but it also ignores the fact that Israel is actually more religiously diverse than the United States.

Israel’s population of 7.64 million is 75% Jewish and 25% non-Jewish. The Jewish population may in fact be lower than the official numbers because of Eastern Europeans who are not halachically Jewish and Druze and Bedouin populations may be higher because some have never been counted. In comparison, the population of the United States is 86% Christian and 14% non-Christian, yet sensible Americans do not define the United States as a Christian state.

kill-arabs

Of Israel’s 5.77 million Jews, 42% or 2.44 million are secular. The number of people in the Jewish state who actually want to preserve a Jewish ethnocracy could well be a minority. And yet the State Department feels compelled to butt into a discussion of the character of another state.

When Herzl wrote Der Judenstaat, there was no question he had a Jewish state in mind, although the monarchy he proposed governing a nation of transplanted Europeans, which had purchased (not stolen) the land of natives who then conveniently disappeared, bears almost no resemblance to Israel. But since the first Zionist congresses and even Ben Gurion’s time the nature of the “Jewish state” is something that has deliberately remained a bit vague. Zionism, as a nationalistic movement, promised to offer something for everyone [except of course the native people who did not go as willingly as Herzl had hoped], but the intractable tension between secular and religious Jews has existed since the founding of Israel.

On the one hand, seen from a purely Jewish perspective, the nature of Israel is a Zionist question which Israeli Jews (and perhaps friendly Diaspora Jews) have to dispute. But in this discussion Phillip Crowley and Hillary Clinton don’t get a vote.

On the other hand, seen from a democratic perspective, the nature of Israel as a country with substantial religious minorities is one the minorities should also have a vote on. Unfortunately, the 25% of the non-Jewish population is represented in only 9% of the Knesset and not at all in the governing coalition. And then their remaining democratic rights are to be scrutinized and be subject to loyalty oaths.

Not surprisingly, the Jewish and democratic perspectives do not align at all.

peace-talks

If the United States feels compelled to speak out for something, it should be human and civil rights for all of Israel’s citizens and the subjects of its half century occupation. It is disappointing that the State Department continually demonstrates contempt for the principles of freedom or justice — such as by not intervening on behalf of Abdallah Abu Rahmah or taking an interest in the American citizen killed in the Mavi Marmara flotilla attack. It is shocking and sickening that the Obama administration is backing the religious nature of a state jammed down the throats of its victims — something even inimical to our own constitution — and that this new Israeli precondition is actually a new obstacle to peace.

If anyone doubts the unsuitability of the United States as an “honest broker” in this conflict, this is just one more example.

Zionism or American-style democracy

The First Amendment

There’s no pretty way to say it — Zionism is incompatible with American values. American Zionists do not — can not — really claim to respect Constitutional principles of separation of church and state, basic equality, or a democracy for all citizens. To be fair, fundamentalists of all stripes lack respect for these values, but American Jews are not typically fundamentalists.

Shariah law

Yet it is astounding to speak with normally liberal, tolerant fellow Jews — who fear creeping Christian fundamentalism or express contempt for shariah in places like Afghanistan — but who see nothing wrong with creeping Jewish shariah (pardon me, halakha) in Israel. Or who find nothing wrong with expressly making Palestinians second class citizens. Their argument is simple — there are many Arab countries but only one Israel; the Palestinians should simply go away so that a Jewish state can exist. What’s so wrong with that?

Jews not allowed

Of course such an argument makes as much sense as forcing Native Americans to go back to — where? Asia? — because America is now mainly a Caucasian nation. Yet the argument for Zionism voiced by many American Jews is essentially the same and it could quite easily be turned against us. For example, some future Evangelical Avigdor Lieberman (spawning in a Tea Party test tube somewhere as I write this) could simply declare the US a Christian nation. Legal, social, and professional rights would be restricted for non-Christians in this nightmare world. Jewish heretics who taught evolution would end up in the slammer. Jewish civil libertarians would be given the same treatment they were given in the early 1900’s when everyone suspected them of being anarchists; or given the same treatment that they got in the 1950’s when everyone suspected them of being communists. Most Jews are liberals precisely out of such fears — at least on one side of the brain.

Settler assaulting woman in Hebron

But then there’s Israel. Many Jews regard Israel as an “insurance policy” against precisely the kind of Christian dystopia I just described. But this is where the two hemispheres of our brains do not seem to be connected. On the one hand, we have our fears. On the other, we are completely prepared to inflict the same violence and ill-treatment on Palestinians. In fact, it’s worse than that. We wouldn’t do it ourselves – after all, here in America we have friends everywhere in business, at university, in the community, who are Muslim. But Israel, as the ultimate insurance policy, must be allowed to do anything it likes as long as it exists to protect us from our most secret fears.

Greater Israel

But there are many other aspects of Israel for American Jews. Israel is the land of the patriarchs, the landscape of the prophets and of countless Torah stories. Jewish fundamentalists believe it was literally given by God (although they would like to have David’s Kingdom, which includes Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and more real estate). For some Israel is a Jewish Disneyland where American Jews can go to live out a fantasy of returning to our roots — even though, as Helen Thomas pointed out, our roots might actually be in Germany, Poland, Russia, or Lithuania. As a secular Jew, it seems to me that the allure of making aliyah (emigrating to Israel) fulfils a mainly psychological function. American Jews from Brookline to Orange County are not in any kind of real danger, so let’s be honest — they are not moving to Israel to ensure Jewish survival. And let’s be a little more honest — when you move from country A to country B, you do love country B more.

Torah

While Jews have always revered the land of our ancestors and desired some kind of return to Israel — at least by the pious among us — Judaism managed to survive thousands of years without the Revisionist Zionism of today. During all these centuries, Jewishness was something preserved in cultural diversity, observance of the law, study of the Torah or — for the more secular — in Judaism’s ethics. Collectively the “Jewish people” — Klal Yisrael — meant many different things. But when the Jewish state came into existence, Zionism expropriated thousands of years of tradition and understanding and replaced “the Jewish people” with a state to which all Jews were able (if not obligated) to immigrate. And this state has not done a particularly good job of preserving the Jewish cultural diversity of the past; as in any society, there are winners and losers. In Israel the Ashkenazim now determine what Germans like to call the Leitkultur. Yet most American Jews now speak of their great love for this particular state, its centrality to their Jewish identity, and even the siddurim (prayer books) make references to the modern state — not just the biblical one — and offer prayers for it. In religious institutions, the preoccupation with the state of Israel has advanced nearly to the point of idolatry.

The Nakba

All these seem to be symptoms of some serious cognitive disorder. We just can’t help ourselves. Real estate has taken priority over values. We are no different from the Wahhabists. Jerusalem and Hebron are our Mecca and Medina. Our attachment to Judaism is now defined only by this new nation-state. Without Israel, our identities would be shattered, our faith incomplete, our hope for redemption lost. And don’t forget the Holocaust! We are a traumatized people! It is argued to the point of annoyance that Israel is necessary as a refuge to preserve Jewish existence. But even if it no longer serves an existential purpose, then it is a psychological homeland for people who can never return to Europe. Of course I am glad that so much positive mental health has been achieved, but I also care about the Palestinians.

Founding Fathers

I am sitting here on the eve of national elections a free man, permitted to vote, to write letters to the editor, to demonstrate, to live in a neighborhood with people of other ethnicities and religions, and I live under the same laws that apply to all citizens. My home cannot be summarily bulldozed with twenty-four hour notice. My neighborhood cannot be declared a military zone one day and then given to a Christian developer the next. Except for exceptional circumstances If I run afoul of the law I will be tried under transparent civilian laws, not by a military tribunal.

I am a free man and a free Jew not because of Israel but because of a bunch of privileged white male slave holders whose flawed but thoughtful and secular vision of democracy was nevertheless sound enough to endure and to improve upon for a couple of centuries. Meanwhile, the “Jewish state” we love so much exhibits an advanced case of the disease starting to afflict us here. In Israel non-Jews barely merit being treated as human, democracy is in shambles, and I am left to wonder whose perverted concept of Judaism managed to make Israel a nation which (for many Jews) has become a proxy for authentic Jewish values or practices.

You can’t be a Zionist and claim to revere American-style democracy too.

Too little, too late, for Israel or Palestine

carter-sadat-begin

The current Middle East peace talks have played out much as they have in past years. The United States lavishes billions of dollars of military aid each year on Israel, ignores or defends its misuse of military power on civilians throughout the world, and still pretends to be an impartial peace broker. The Israeli Right calls for more settlements. The Palestinians, their unity fractured, call for an end to settlement activity. A few days ago a formal 10-month “freeze” on Israeli settlements ended — although in practice building never stopped in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. The Palestinian side had warned that they would walk away from the peace talks if building resumed formally, but so far they have only appealed to the United States to exert whatever influence it can to stop the new construction.

arafat-rabin_wh

The United States and its Israel Lobby advisors are now asking Israel for a two month extension of the November 2009 ten-month “freeze” in exchange for backing Israel’s annexation of the Jordan valley (goodbye 1967 borders!), offering future vetoes in the UN security council in behalf of Israel, additional aid beyond the $30 billion defense plan, this year’s $205 million Iron Dome gift (which has ballooned to $422 million), a $3 billion missile shield program called David’s Sling, and this year’s outright gift of $2.75 billion for F35 jets, another $1.5 billion in contracts for parts for those jets, and $2 billion in jet fuel. All this for two months of extending a freeze that actually never happened. Or could these bogus peace talks simply be an opportunity for the US to arm Israel to attack Iran? Obama’s willingness to abandon even approximate 1967 borders is something that neither Palestinians, members of the Arab League, Jordan, Syria, or Egypt are likely to accept.

obama_abbas_netanyahu_432

To make matters worse, in this round of talks, Israel has introduced new preconditions which can only be interpreted as signs that, as a recent TIME magazine article reported, Israelis are not particularly interested in peace. Netanyahu now wants the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. While to some this may appear to be a perfectly reasonable request, it is not the same as recognizing Israel — to which both the Arab League and Hamas have agreed in exchange for a return to the 1967 borders. For the Palestinian Authority, however, it would sign away the civil rights of Israel’s 1.5 million Arab Israelis and claims to property in Israel by Palestinian refugees — which not even the Abbas government dares. Israel has also stated that it will not give up the Jordan Valley or return “consensus” settlements like Ariel or Ma’ale Adumim. And it just keeps building because there is nothing — and no one — to stop them. These are not the actions of a nation that wants peace.

shrinking-palestine

For anyone who has bothered to look at a map of Israeli settlements and military zones in the West Bank, such as the one at peacenow.org/map.php, it is easy to see why the issue of settlements is central to peace talks. There is no longer enough land remaining after decades of Israeli land theft to cobble together a contiguous state. Palestinian writer Ali Abunimah advocates a bi-national state in his 2006 book, One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. Former Israel defense minister Moshe Arens and current Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin have also promoted a bi-national state — an idea which 56% of West Bank Palestinians support. Mahmoud Abbas has hinted at it as an option. A few years ago, Meron Benvenisti, Jerusalem’s former deputy mayor, wrote that “the question is no longer whether [Israel-Palestine] will be bi-national, but which model to choose.” It has come to this.

u1_obama_aipac

American favoritism, Israeli theft and intransigence, and Palestinian disunity have all led to the failure of a Two State solution. Perhaps it’s for the best, but a single state will plunge Israel and Palestine into several generations of a civil rights struggle we can’t even imagine. Besides the indigestible lumps of an already fractious Israeli society – twenty-two political parties, the ultra-Orthodox, the secularists, the settlers, the Russians, the non-Jewish Eastern Europeans, the Asian immigrants, the Ethiopians, the Mizrachim, the Ashkenazim, the existing Palestinians — the resulting national configuration will have a few million more new Palestinians — and there could still be the problem of Gaza. At some point — whether by politics or demographics — the Jewish nature of Israel will be questioned and — whether one, two or five decades from now — it will cease to be an ethnocracy which privileges only Jews.

isratine

The alternative, of course, is a Two State solution. But Israel and its domestic defenders will make sure that unchecked land theft makes that an impossibility.

All that remains is to pick a name for the new, eventual, bi-national state.

This was published in the Standard Times on October 4, 2010
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/20101004/opinion/10040304

Jailing a voice of peace

Abdallah Abu Rahmah

Today Abdallah Abu Rahmah, a well-respected Palestinian activist in Bil’in, was convicted of “incitement” and organizing illegal marches by an Israeli military court. For the crime of organizing non-violent protests Abu Rahma faces up to ten years in prison.

His conviction ended an eight month long trial, during which he was kept in prison.

Peace sculpture

I have written previously about this case — in which Abu Rahma was initially charged for possession of spent Israeli grenades and rubber bullets used on protestors – well, actually for making a peace sculpture (pictured here) out of them. I also wrote previously about the stupidity of maintaining a military presence so far out in the hinterlands solely to confront peaceful protestors.

But Israel’s goal is to crush all resistance, even peaceful protests. Imagine if Martin Luther King had been sentenced to ten years behind bars for his work. Yes, there are many Palestinians working with non-violent methods of protest and resistance.

Despite the charges, Abu Rahmah did not find himself behind bars because he presents any danger to society. On the contrary: Abu Rahmah, who is a teacher and part-time farmer, is probably Palestine’s most famous non-violent advocate — and apparently an all-too successful one.

As a member of the Popular Committee and its coordinator since it was formed in 2004, Abu Rahmah has represented the village of Bil’in around the world. In June 2009, he attended the village’s precedent-setting legal case in Montreal against two Canadian companies illegally building settlements on Bil’in’s land; in December of 2008, he participated in a speaking tour in France, and in December 2008, exactly a year before his arrest, Abdallah received the Carl Von Ossietzky Medal for Outstanding Service in the Realization of Basic Human Rights, awarded by the International League for Human Rights in Berlin.

This is not the work of a violent man.

Carter, Tutu, and Abu Rahma (center)

Last summer Abdallah stood in a group with Nobel Peace laureates and internationally renowned human rights activists, the Elders, discussing Bil’in’s grassroots campaign for justice and was photographed with Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu when the Elders visited his village. Ironically, Abu Rahmah may soon be in prison precisely for his involvement in this peaceful campaign.

Look! Palestinian Avatars!

Abu Rahma’s work has been characterized by insistence on non-violence and noted for its creativity. Demonstrator in Bil’in have called attention to their struggle by painting themselves like James Cameron’s Avatars and have expressed their solidarity with people in Gaza by creating a parade float like a Gaza flotilla ship. 

Bil'in flotilla ship

Today’s conviction will likely be followed by a sentence in coming weeks. If Abu Rahmah serves any more time than the eight months he has already been held in military prison it will only serve to send a message to young Palestinians that non-violence is a useless option. And if Abu Rahmah serves one more day in prison it will reinforce the view, increasingly justified in even Israel itself, that Israel is a becoming nothing more than a police state.

Please send a message to the Department of State** urging Secretary Clinton to convey a message to Israel** that a sentence of any more prison time for Abu Rahmah would send the wrong message to the world and an entire generation of Palestinians.

Fire Abe Foxman

foxman

After the firing of Helen Thomas for her imprudent remarks that Israel should get out of Palestine, it’s clear our nation has no more tolerance for bigotry. And so, in this new Zero Tolerance climate, I’m surprised by the tolerance shown to Abe Foxman of the now inaptly-named Anti-Defamation League.

Foxman recently sided with bigots in condemning Cordoba House, an Islamic community center patterned on Jewish Community Centers. Some gave Foxman the benefit of the doubt on his position, seeing in his weasel words a possibly nuanced view:

But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right.

Unfortunately, right above this paragraph were his insinuations that Islamic radicals were behind the project, and highlighting the fact that these Islamic interlopers were not from the Judeo-Christian “shared values” club:

In recommending that a different location be found for the Islamic Center, we are mindful that some legitimate questions have been raised about who is providing the funding to build it, and what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values.

I wish Foxman were referring to the values most Americans share in condemning religious persecution.

But Foxman’s logic only works for Islamophobes. Jerry Haber points out that:

Perhaps some Christians are offended when those they consider to “Christ killers” wish to build a synagogue nearby? This sort of sensitivity we have to pay attention to?

On the ADL’s Interfaith web page there are a number of items taking various swipes at the Catholic Church, the Presbyterians, and Sabeel (a Christian Palestinian organization). According to Foxman, the Oberammergau Passion Play has not been sufficiently rehabilitated since Hitler’s time; the Presbyterians are still flirting with anti-Semitism, and Sabeel should not be opposing Israel-friendly Christian Zionists or supporting the BDS (Boycotts, Sanctions, and Divestment) movement. No mention of the ADL’s own Islamophobia.

None of this shocks since the ADL long ago stopped being an anti-defamation group and has now become principally a pro-Israel attack organization.

Almost from the beginning the ADL has displayed incredibly poor judgment. In the Seventies the ADL was implicated in spying on American citizens who opposed Israel’s and South Africa’s occupations and passing the information along to both countries. Foxman himself attended the funeral of Meir Kahane in 1990. Kach, Kahane’s organization, is listed as a terrorist organization by both the United States and Israel. Foxman equivocated on calling the slaughter of millions of Armenians by Turkey a “genocide” in 2007. Many Jews were not happy with this decision. And in 2006 Foxman sided with the Wiesenthal Center’s decision to build a museum on top of a Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem.

These all were, if I may throw Foxman’s own words back at him, “not [just] a question of rights, but a question of what is right.”

Kamran Pasha, in a wonderful essay, calls on Foxman to rethink this position. Pasha reminds Foxman of Hillel’s dictum:

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah, the rest is commentary.

Unfortunately, Foxman does not operate from either an ethical or a Jewish ethical framework.

While Abe Foxman’s position may be echoed by some number of Christian bigots, such as Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, or the FOX-based lunatic fringe, and Jewish bigots like David Harris or the David Project (a Boston-area group which opposed a similar community center), most Jews have no problem with Cordoba House. J Street, a Jewish PAC, condemned the ADL’s defamatory statement and mayor Michael Bloomberg, himself Jewish, has welcomed Cordoba House. Even Alan Dershowitz, the self-appointed one-man Israel Defense League, has condemned the ADL’s statement.

Speaking for New Yorkers, Bloomberg expressed nicely the reasons Americans should welcome Cordoba House:

If somebody wants to build a religious house of worship, they should do it and we shouldn’t be in the business of picking which religions can and which religions can’t. I think it’s fair to say if somebody was going to try to on that piece of property build a church or a synagogue, nobody would be yelling and screaming. And the fact of the matter is that Muslims have a right to do it too. What is great about America and particularly New York is we welcome everybody and I just- you know, if we are so afraid of something like this, what does it say about us? Democracy is stronger than this. You know, the ability to practice your religion is the- was one of the real reasons America was founded. And for us to say no is just, I think, not appropriate is a nice way to phrase it.

Foxman, who has been with the ADL for 45 years too long, has not only betrayed the ADL’s mission to fight against religious discrimination, he has unfortunately become a bigot himself. Having backed into the anti-Arab corner he finds himself in, Foxman is hopelessly out of touch with American values of religious tolerance and is also out of touch with mainstream American Jews and Jewish ethics.

It’s time for Abe Foxman to be forcibly retired. Now.

Tisha b’Av 5770

Destruction of the temple

Tisha b’Av recalls the destruction of both temples. It is a time for reflection, reading the Book of Lamentations, and thinking about the darker human impulses which are said to have led to these historical calamities.

As always, a number of thoughtful essays have appeared on the internet. Some predictably hammer away the theme of Jewish power over powerlessness, or beat the drum for war against external powers of darkness, while others recognize that darkness exists in our own souls and that this is a time for reflection and re-prioritization.

http://www.forward.com/articles/129350/

http://rabbibrant.com/2010/07/19/meditations-on-tisha-bav-5770/

http://www.jewishjournal.com/cover_story/article/what_are_you_doing_for_assarah_bav_20100713/

http://www.marcgopin.com/?p=3677

http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2010/07/nine-reasons-for-fasting-on-ninth-of-av.html

http://www.forward.com/articles/110372/

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3921895,00.html

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/anshel-pfeffer-it-is-wrong-to-fast-on-tisha-b-av-1.302241

http://zeek.forward.com/articles/116856/come-in-take-your-shoes-off-a-new-look-at-tisha-bav/

http://jta.org/news/article/2010/07/12/2739856/lamenting-the-gulf-on-tisha-bav

Hot Dang!

Does this sound great, or what!?

Find the White American Dream in Eretz Yisrael in a totally “arab-free environment“!

Pre-cleaned of riffraff and centrally located in the only Democracy in the Middle East!

Act now!

Moshav Yishi

Oh no not I, I will survive

What have we really learned from the Holocaust? Was it of the suffering of European Jews? Or was it an evil that challenged moral complacency in the 20th century and reverberates even today? Is it a franchise for the state of Israel, Yad Vashem, or the Wiesenthal Center — or does anyone living have a right to invoke it for art or politics or ethics?

In the last week two news articles appeared which raised these questions.

Arbeit macht Frei

Liberate all Ghettos

One concerned a video that has gone viral, called “Dancing Auschwitz,” produced by Melbourne artist Jane Korman. The other was the posting, in Hebrew, of the message “Liberate all Ghettos” on a wall of the former Warsaw Ghetto by Israeli conscientious objector Yonatan Shapira, an Air Force pilot who created the 2003 “Pilot’s Letter” signed by 27 pilots who publicly refused to fly missions over the Palestinian territories.

Korman’s video, which features Korman’s father, an 89 year old survivor, and other family members dancing to Gloria Gaynor’s “I Will Survive,” was warmly received in the local Melbourne Jewish press and the Orthodox Jewish world.

Shapira’s graffiti, on the other hand, was immediately slammed on the Jewish Telegraph Agency website, Yad Vashem, and YNet News. Noah Flug, chairman of the Center of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors in Jerusalem, called on Polish police to launch a criminal investigation and said, “Yonatan Shapira and his ilk disrespect the Holocaust and its heritage. His actions harm the commemoration of the Holocaust and hurt the feelings of the survivors and the memory of the victims, including his family members who were murdered by the Nazis.”

Flug’s representative message on Shapira’s political act — and his silence on Korman’s video — make it clear that as long as the Holocaust is invoked in a way that does not stray from Jewish territory, it’s OK. But as soon as the messages of the Holocaust begin to be applied universally, they are condemned.

I have watched Korman’s video a half dozen times, and each time I find myself crying. Tears for both the absolute evil and the resilience and hope of the human race. It is edgy, but Korman’s message is precisely about these themes. While I did not have an emotional response to Shapira’s message, it was equally daring and timely, and — with the message in Hebrew — a challenge to Jews to internalize the universal message of the Shoah

I applaud both Korman and Shapira.

In one of the segments of Korman’s video, we are reminded of the absolute universality of the Holocaust. “Lo tir tzakh” (“Thou shalt not kill”) appears in front of the dancing family. In Shapiro’s graffiti, the universal again appears in the message: “Free all ghettos.”

The real messages of the Holocaust, whether in art or politics, will continue to resonate with anyone on earth who has endured persecution. Survival and liberation belong to us all.

lo-tir-tzakh

Moral hibernation and self-interest

Flotilla attack

After Israel’s attack on the Gaza-bound flotilla, with very few exceptions the organized American Jewish community reacted with overwhelming approval of the hijacking, kidnapping, and murder of nine flotilla activists, which also involved one American ship and one American death. Representatives of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism joined an anti-flotilla demonstration which mocked the flotilla attack and launched their own “Free Gilad” flotilla in the East River. The Union for Reform Judaism was “saddened” by the flotilla attacks but continued to defend the collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza. No surprises from the Orthodox Union: even its youth organization was given talking points for defending Israel’s Entebbe-style attack on the flotilla.

As the Forward reported:

… the American Jewish establishment heeded the call of the Israeli government to defend its actions in the face of an extremely negative public relations storm.

“Thank you for listening and understanding and for advocating and for trying to put things in the right perspective, remembering that we are the victims here and we are the ones who were compelled to take these actions to defend ourselves,” said Daniel Ayalon, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, on a conference call June 1, organized by the JFNA and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, in which more than 700 people participated. “As you know, today the war is on the screens. The war is a political war, a PR war and also a legal warfare. And for that we need you more than ever.”

Israel right or wrong

Bottom line: American Jewish denominations have not criticized any of Israel’s attacks on Americans or Palestinians. And they have never questioned whether any of these attacks were legal, disproportionate, or ill-advised.

They have willingly enlisted in every one of Israel’s wars and have now entered a state of moral hibernation.

But now America’s Jewish Establishment has a little problem of its own. A conversion bill in the Knesset now threatens to give Israel’s Orthodox rabbinate exclusive control over conversions. The bill actually involves a change to Israel’s Law of Return.

Naturally, American Orthodox Jews see nothing wrong with the change sponsored by Avigdor Lieberman’s Beteinu party, but Conservative and Reform Jews are crying foul. The Jewish Federations of North America, which represents most Jewish movements in the United States, are concerned about changes in the Israeli law.

Haaretz reports that the “Reform and Conservative movements both in Israel and abroad were up in arms” too over the bill which threatens the Israeli Masorti (Conservative) and Progressive (Reform) movements. Both groups are already upset over laws which impose Orthodox practices at the Kotel (Wailing Wall). But, to keep things in perspective, there are only 24 Reform congregations and only 53 Masorti congregations in all of Israel and the movements do not have as much political clout as they do in the United States, where less than a quarter of Jews are Orthodox.

plugin:youtube

So it’s not surprising, but quite disappointing, that the American Jewish denominations have been so blind and so quiet on issues of human rights and justice in Israel and the occupied territories, while being so vocal in defense of “religious pluralism” in Israel.

Jewish peaceniks in Boston

But religious hegemony in Israel is just another side of Zionism. As long as this tiny nation continues to occupy another population almost its own size, continues to occupy land in two other countries — and continues to turn on its own Arab, Druze, Ethiopian, Mizrachi, civil libertarian, and anti-war citizens — is it really so surprising that it also discriminates against Masorti and Progressive Jews?

And then there’s the law itself.

The entire controversy ignores the fact that the Right of Return is, by very definition, a discriminatory law which promotes ethnic cleansing and discriminatory ethnic or racial laws. My children can immigrate to Israel while Palestinians who have lived there for a millennium have their houses razed. Under other Israeli laws, Palestinian refugees cannot return to their homes in Israel.

If justice is the issue, the “Right” of Return should simply be scrapped, rather than amended for the benefit of American Ashkenazim.

Israel is in crisis. Lobbying for religious pluralism in narrow self-interest, while ignoring systemic injustice in Israeli society, is pointless. The American Jewish community must rouse itself from its moral slumber and begin speaking out for justice — for all citizens and the millions whose land it occupies.

For an instruction book, look in the back of any Tanakh.

National Self-Discovery

On July 1st something rather remarkable occurred in the German parliament. A motion calling for an investigation of the Gaza flotilla, improving the situation of the people of Gaza, and for renewed support of the Middle East peace process passed unanimously. But not everyone thought it was so wonderful.

The Jerusalem Post printed an article with a response from the Wiesenthal Center. The Juedische Allgemeine ran an article entitled roughly “Mental Blockade in Parliament” and pictured an upside-down photo of the Bundestag.

In an article in Der Spiegel written by Henryk Broder, a Zionist journalist who regularly rails against critics of Israel by calling them anti-Semites and whose works can be found on his German-language site, Achse des Guten (axis of good), Broder slams parliament’s “veering” out of its depth into the Gaza controversy. In an article titled, “Einigkeit und Recht und Gaza” (Unity and Justice and Gaza), a play on the German national anthem, Broder invokes the spirit of Kaiser Wilhelm II moving about the room – Germans uniting in an anti-Semitic universe to sing an anthem which before 1952 included the verse “Deutschland ueber alles.” Broder takes CDU representative Philipp Missfelder to task for Missfelder’s remarks:

Now, against the background of our historical responsibility and our history, which is marked in today’s world not by guilt but by great responsibility, it is now a matter of coming together to achieve the objectives of peace.

And he slams Rolf Muetzenich for spelling out the message parliament is sending Israel:

I think we need to make it clear to Israel that the siege on Gaza only achieves the opposite of what Israel really wants to accomplish… It is the responsibility of the federal government to help – something we can do because of our special relationship with Israel – so that this problem area is finally acknowledged by the political actors in Israel. I would hope that both the Chancellor and the Foreign Minister to the Israeli government would be more proactive than those who have preceded them.

Broder concludes:

The debate late Thursday was not a triumph for parliamentary democracy, it was an act of national self-discovery. To deputies who have not tired of assuring each other how great it would be to all reach cross-party consensus, they were presumably unaware that – each for himself and all together – they had conjured up Wilhelm II. If in the past the so-called “Jewish question” was the cross-party tape that held Germans together, it is now the Palestinian question which creates a sense of national unity. A parliament and a government stymied by one self-inflicted crisis after another, which can’t even agree on hotel taxes, now wants to make a significant contribution to peace in the Middle East. Like children playing monopoly who take over Opel and want to save Karstadt from bankruptcy.

Whether making a joint resolution on Gaza or declaring that the earth’s surface rests on the back of the faction leaders, it’s completely irrelevant to the course of world history. On the one hand this is comforting, on the other it’s terrifying. The deputies just want to play. Yesterday it was a trip to Jerusalem, tomorrow it will be cops and robbers.

I don’t agree with Broder’s conclusions, but his article points out that Germany is now confident and independent enough to be motivated by friendship and responsibility – and, yes, no longer guilt. And perhaps there is even a germ of truth in Brodeur’s snotty reference to “national self-discovery.” It could very well be the same kind of national self-discovery that Brazil and Turkey and the Arab League and the EU have experienced in puzzling out the Israel-Palestine conflict. These nations have all discovered that they do not have to imitate the US relationship with Israel.

Aside from Broder’s whining, there is also the fact that Germany really has become a friend of Israel’s.

Since the war Germans have paid reparations, introduced Holocaust curriculum into education, and each government since 1965, when diplomatic relations between Israel and Germany were restored, has strengthened the relationship between the two countries. Holocaust denial violates German law. German presidents have visited Yad Vashem, knelt in supplication at the site of the Warsaw uprising, and pursued a policy of repeated apologetic gestures toward the Jewish state. As Paul Belkin points out in a monograph published by the US Congressional Research Service, German’s first chancellor, Konrad Adenauer

pursued a foreign policy rooted in the belief that the legitimacy of the young German state depended largely on its willingness to atone for atrocities perpetrated by the National Socialist (Nazi) regime of Adolf Hitler. Accordingly, his policies were motivated by a perceived moral obligation to support the Jewish state. The cornerstone, enshrined in the Luxembourg Agreement, was a long-term commitment to provide unprecedented financial reparations to the state of Israel and restitution and compensation to individual victims of Nazi persecution.

To this date, reparations have totaled approximately $32.5 billion. As Belkin points out, reparations paid were in excess of international expectations. The US actually voiced concern for Germany’s ability to rebuild itself under the weight of the reparations it had voluntarily chosen to pay.

Descendants of German Jews stripped of citizenship during the “Nazizeit” (nazi period) are granted automatic citizenship and Jewish communities have begun to reappear in Germany. In Berlin, which once had 170 synagogues, the largest German synagogue was recently rebuilt at a cost of $10 million. There are now 100,000 Jews living in Germany, compared to over half a million before the war. In 2008 the German and Israeli cabinets met – the only such meeting with a cabinet outside Europe.

Germany is now Israel’s second largest trade partner after the US. A variety of cultural exchange programs exist between the two countries, including a sister cities program. Like the US, German politicians regularly speak of a “special relationship” with Israel and refer to “shared values” between both countries. In short, relations have normalized in a way that would have been unimaginable shortly after the war.

In 2000 Germany paid for half the $1 billion cost of two “Dolphin” class nuclear submarines. Germany’s BND cooperates with the Mossad in intelligence gathering. During the Six Day War Germany permitted the US to make covert deliveries of supplies to Israel via Bremerhaven. As part of UNIFIL, German naval vessels patrol the Lebanese coast, ready to interdict Hezbollah arms shipments.

Many Europeans see themselves as post-national multilateralists. Germany is also constrained by its own reticence to again become highly militarized. And Germany, as one of the wealthiest and most visible nations in the EU, often provides the leadership for pan-European initiatives. This stance (“Haltung”) often brings Germany into conflict with US and Israeli unilaterialism and militarism. While Israel and the US would have been content to let the peace process die, in 2002 Joschka Fisher, Germany’s former Foreign Minister, helped resuscitate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

But, as Fischer’s own history attests, the German electorate can at times be much farther to the left of, say, the American electorate and certainly Israel’s. Germany has not always been in sync with its “special friend.” For instance, Israel (with a US echo) has sharply criticized Germany for its efforts to involve Syria in Israel-Palestine peace negotiations. Israel has also conducted “flyovers” of Germany’s UNIFIL vessels, triggering German complaints for the Israeli harassment. While Germany has repeatedly slammed Hamas for its use of violence and has denied certain Hamas members visas, it has also been open to unity talks between Fatah and Hamas and, to the consternation of Israel and the US, recognizes both political parties. Germany is one of the Palestinian Authority’s donors, and this irks both Israel and the US. Similarly, in the case of Lebanon, neither the EU nor Germany classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization because it plays a role in Lebanese politics and UNIFIL must deal with it.

Nor has Germany always been in sync with the EU. In 2002 Germany blocked EU sanctions against Israel. In 2004 it voted for an EU resolution condemning Israel’s “separation” wall but government officials privately defended it. In 2006 Germany voted against a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah. The same year Israel blocked EU condemnation of the Gaza blockade. Germany has been involved in prisoner exchange negotiations in Israel’s behalf since 1996, most recently being involved last year in the case of Gilad Shalit. And Germany is Israel’s voice within the EU, with which it frequently differs on Israel.

“Delegitimization” and the death of the two state Solution

Criticism of Israel is “anti-Semitic”

Antisemitic sign

Israel and its American lobbyists were once fond of using a sledgehammer to pound critics. The sledgehammer was, of course, the loosely-wielded accusation that objections to Israel’s occupation were “anti-Semitic.” Of course, for most people anti-Semitism is like pornography — you recognize it when you see it. Swastikas on walls, death threats, discrimination, slurs, publications like the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” or stories like the “blood libel” and assumptions about the physiology or psychology of Jews were all recognizable features of anti-Semitism. Jewish “rootlessness,” “clannishness,” “cosmopolitanism,” or avarice were as common as charges that Jews controlled the global economy. To all of this the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia added the rejection of Jewish nationality (meaning “peoplehood” and clearly not, in 1906, referring to a state):

While the term Anti-Semitism should be restricted in its use to the modern movements against the Jews, in its wider sense it may be said to include the persecution of the Jews at all times and among all nations as professors of a separate religion or as a people having a distinct nationality.

So it was understandable when Israel’s critics, in response, uttered a collective “You’ve got to be kidding” and waved the classical definitions of anti-Semitism back at the accusers.

So Israel simply redefined anti-Semitism.

Redefining anti-Semitism

Sharansky and Bush

In 2005 Natan Sharansky developed a definition of anti-Semitism which was published in the Jewish Political Studies Review and is now used by many Jewish and political organizations.

Sharansky’s definition of anti-Semitism completely throws out ill-treatment of Jews as individuals or a people and replaces the “Jewish people” with the “state of Israel”:

The first “D” is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel’s actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz – this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

The second “D” is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel’s Magen David Adom, alone among the world’s ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross – this is anti-Semitism.

The third “D” is the test of delegitimization: when Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied – alone among all peoples in the world – this too is anti-Semitism.

A Jewish child taunted for wearing a yarmulke and bullied on the way home would not be the victim of anti-Semitism according to this revisionist definition.

“Delegitimization” equals a Palestinian State

In the last few years Sharansky’s last “D” has been getting quite the workout. The Reut Institute, an Israeli think tank, has developed a strategy for fighting Israel’s critics by labeling them “delegitimizers” and “naming and shaming” them. As BDS becomes a more accepted way of challenging the occupation, Israel is fighting back by categorizing BDS supporters as “delegitimizers” and anti-Semites. The concept has entered Israeli consciousness to the point that politicians bludgeon each other with it. Tzipi Livni recently accused Benjamin Netanyahu of delegitimizing Israel. Everything is potentially delegitimizing. The Gaza flotilla was described as a delegitimization effort. The Goldstone report was seen as another such effort. Refusing to buy Jaffa oranges is too.

But, by far, the most creative application of “delegitimization” is that a Palestinian state will delegitimize Israel, according to Uzi Arad, chairman of Israel’s National Security Council. For Arad, Palestinian legitimacy equals Israeli delegitimization and talk of two states only fosters this:

On the one hand, most of the people of Israel see the two-state solution as the path to a peace agreement. There are even quite a few Israelis who have mobilized for a Palestinian state and the promotion of its legitimacy, and are winning converts to it.

What they do not notice is that this claims a certain price. The more you market Palestinian legitimacy, the more you bring about a detraction of Israel’s legitimacy in certain circles. They are accumulating legitimacy, and we are being delegitimized.

So one doesn’t even have to deny Israel’s right to exist. Simply calling for a parallel Palestinian state makes one an anti-Semite, as Jewish groups like J Street are beginning to discover.

While Arad says that most Israelis want a two-state solution, Israel’s political parties and members of the Knesset have apparently not heard. For instance, no one who has bothered to read the Likud platform really believes that Israel has ever been dedicated to two states:

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. [..] The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.

It is therefore questionable if the polls are correct and Israelis really want a two state solution. Or, if they do, what they mean by two states.

No Palestinian State equals a One State Solution

Isratine

It is pronouncements like Arad’s that convince many that Israel will never accept a Palestinian state.

But Arad is hardly alone in rejecting two states.

A few weeks ago Moshe Arens, who has served as both defense and foreign minister with the Likud, suggested simply granting citizenship to Palestinians:

Unlike the dire predictions heard so often, Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria would not be the end of the State of Israel, nor would it mean the end of democratic governance in Israel. It would, however, pose a serious challenge to Israeli society. But that is equally true for the other options being suggested for dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This option of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria merits serious consideration.

Shrinking Palestine

The one-state solution is an option that many Palestinians now recognize as inevitable, although they might take issue with Arens’ claims that Israel would “continue” to govern democratically. For instance, the Palestine Strategy Group, which represents the viewpoints of Israeli, occupied, and Diaspora Palestinians, examined different state formations in a paper it published in 2008, Palestinian Strategic Options to End Israeli Occupation. While a Palestinian state has always been a national goal, the end of Occupation is an even greater goal:

[…] So, if Israel refuses to negotiate seriously for a genuine two-state outcome, Palestinians can and will block all four of them by switching to an alternative strategy made up of a combination of four linked reorientations to be undertaken singly or together. […]

  • Fourth, the shift from a two state outcome to a (bi-national or unitary democratic) single state outcome as Palestinians’ preferred strategic goal. This reopens a challenge to the existence of the State of Israel in its present form, but in an entirely new and more effective way than was the case before 1988. […]

Is this what Israel wants? Israel cannot prevent Palestinians from a strategic reorientation along these lines. Does Israel really want to force Palestinians to take these steps?

One of the authors has described this option as simply shutting down the PA and turning the struggle for a sovereign state into a civil rights struggle. Given the fact that Israel’s land grab has already eliminated the possibility of a viable contiguous state and Israel itself is ideologically opposed to a Palestinian state, a single state appears inevitable. And because of demographics, that state will not remain exclusively Jewish.

A number of political analysts share this view. John Mearsheimer recently discussed the inevitability of a single state in detail in a talk last April at the Palestine Center, in which he began:

Contrary to the wishes of the Obama administration and most Americans — to include many American Jews — Israel is not going to allow the Palestinians to have a viable state of their own in Gaza and the West Bank. Regrettably, the two-state solution is now a fantasy. Instead, those territories will be incorporated into a “Greater Israel,” which will be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa.  Nevertheless, a Jewish apartheid state is not politically viable over the long term. In the end, it will become a democratic bi-national state, whose politics will be dominated by its Palestinian citizens. In other words, it will cease being a Jewish state, which will mean the end of the Zionist dream.

It is ironic, but Zionism’s own excesses, rather than external enemies, have destroyed the dream of a Jewish state.

J Street breaks with APN on sanctions

Once again J Street’s positions fail to significantly distinguish it from AIPAC. Today J Street joined with AIPAC and broke with Americans for Peace Now in applauding new sanctions on Iran. To its credit, J Street made one distinction from AIPAC — in calling for continued diplomacy and warning against war:

We believe that a dual track approach that combines meaningful diplomatic engagement with broad-based sanctions is necessary to convince Iran to clarify its nuclear intentions. We commend the President for his efforts in strengthening the resolve of the international community on Iran. […]

We reiterate that nothing in this bill should be taken as authorizing or encouraging the use of military force against Iran. We are opposed to the use of military force by Israel or the United States against Iran.

While J Street joined with AIPAC in welcoming the sanctions, it broke with APN and Gush Shalom. Americans for Peace Now, on whose board J Street’s Jeremy Ben Ami also sits, condemned the sanctions. APN’s Deborah Lee issued a statement which contained this critique of sanctions — any sanctions:

APN’s core concern about this bill remains unchanged: imposing sanctions the goal of which is to ‘cripple’ the civilian economy and inflict misery on the population — in the hopes that this population will rise up against its government — is a flawed and in all likelihood counterproductive approach.  It is an approach that has failed for decades in Iran. It failed in Iraq and Haiti. It has failed in Cuba and North Korea. And it is an approach that only last week Israel abandoned in Gaza, recognizing that squeezing the population of Gaza with a blockade on civilian goods had not only failed to force Hamas out of power, but had enabled Hamas (and the world) to blame Israel for all the misery the people of Gaza were facing. It took Israel three years to recognize the error of this approach.  It is regrettable that Congress did not draw the obvious lesson from these experiences.

Jeremy ben Ami

While J Street has taken it on the chin from mainstream Jewish organizations and the Israeli Lobby for its unwavering support of a Two State solution, many of its recent positions — endorsing supplemental military aid for Israel and sanctions on Iran — seem designed to blunt right-wing criticisms and win supposedly “moderate” Jewish support.

But aside from a position truly supportive of two states, J Street is beginning to look much like AIPAC. J Street has adopted the Obama approach: position yourself as a progressive, but consistently make tactical political calls that sell out progressive principles. Positions on the Goldstone report, BDS, sanctions, supplemental military aid,  slamming the UN — all have been disappointing echoes of AIPAC.

Today J Street took the additional step of distancing itself from even the progressive Zionist peace movement.

J Street has a short window in which to establish itself as a voice for something new in the Middle East.

Where is that voice?

Scrapping the First Amendment

Sometimes disparate news items all come into focus as parts of a larger story.

“Material Support” for terrorists expanded to include Free Speech

The recently scrapped Amendment

This week the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a ban on providing “material support” to terrorist groups. The particular “material support” in a case brought by the government against the Humanitarian Law Project referred to the Project’s efforts to advise the Kurdistan Worker’s Party on non-violent means to resolve conflicts with the Turkish government. In its 6-3 ruling the Supreme Court essentially scrapped the First Amendment by declaring that, in the interests of fighting terror, the government had the right to determine who Americans can talk to and what kind of speech is permitted.

“Not even the ‘serious and deadly problem’ of international terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote. “There is no obvious way in which undertaking advocacy for political change through peaceful means or teaching the PKK and LTTE, say, how to petition the United Nations for political change is fungible with other resources that might be put to more sinister ends in the way that donations of money, food, or computer training are fungible.”

“The decision sends a clear message that the First Amendment does not protect even the most benign forms of advocacy on behalf of groups designated as ‘foreign terrorist organizations’ by the Secretary of State,” said Stephen I. Vladeck of the American University Washington College of Law.

Even conservative Justice Roberts wrote that Kagan’s positions had gone too far. “The government is wrong,” he wrote, “that the only thing actually at issue in this litigation is conduct” and not speech protected by the First Amendment. But he nevertheless concluded that combating terrorism trumped protection of free expression.

Justice Sotomayor, in dissenting, said that “under the government’s definition, teaching these members to play the harmonica would be unlawful.”

Demonstrating the high caliber of arguments for the majority position, Justice Scalia replied, “Well, Mohamed Atta and his harmonica quartet might tour the country and make a lot of money.”

Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court

Kagan and Obama

The ruling highlighted President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan, who appears to on her way to be the Court’s newest conservative justice.

It was Kagan who argued the government’s case as Solicitor General. Kagan has also defended indefinite detention without trial.

When liberal Justice John Paul Stevens retires, he will most likely be replaced by Kagan. To the many other disappointments with the Obama administration this can be added.

Freedom of Speech will now be regulated by lobbyists

Although the Secretary of State maintains the official lists of whom Americans can talk to or visit, this list is subject to tinkering, political posturing and lobbying by foreign governments and their friends.

A case in point is the recent call by AIPAC, an Israeli lobbying group, to redefine the Turkish charity, IHH, as a terrorist group. The call was enthusiastically endorsed by a majority of Congressmen from both parties.

Clinton at AIPAC

Based on documents supplied by AIPAC, echoing Israel’s claims that the charity “has well documented ties to Hamas and has been linked to other Islamic terrorist organizations, including al‐Qaeda,” Congress will likely add it and additional politicized (but hardly terrorist) organizations to the State Department’s watch lists – even though the State Department itself has never established such “documented ties.”

Oh, well, with a bit more lobbying and a few more PAC contributions I’m sure such ties will be “established.”

The end of nuance

Over the last few years I have struggled with the idea of BDS. A year and a half ago I set about informing myself of the different kinds of BDS tactics.

Omar Barghouti

About a year ago I visited Israel and Palestine. One of the people I met was Omar Barghouti, a well-known voice for BDS. Nothing about divestment from occupation or military-related industries – whether Israeli or international corporations – seemed inappropriate at the time, but I had reservations about cultural boycotts and felt that consumer boycotts were meaningless or even destructive. Part of the reason is that I have Israeli friends – great people who share a vision for peace but will be affected by these campaigns.

This year – having seen the occupation up close and having a chance to think about it – it was more difficult to define the parameters of what was appropriate and what was not, but I gave nuance and thoughtfulness my best shot.

And I’m not alone. Lots of Jews have grappled with BDS. Jerry Haber, in an excellent piece, analyzes Bernard Avishai’s nuanced and thoughtful reflection on the subject in his Nation article. Avishai is a decent guy, a progressive Zionist whom I heard speak last October in Washington. His ethical gyrations reminded me of my own.

Avishai, like numerous other liberal Jews, voices the great fear that BDS will drive even progressive Israelis into the arms of the right, and that BDS would create a “siege mentality” in Israel – and on this basis he advocates selective application of BDS tactics. Yet Haber parts with Avishai and describes how he added his name to a petition for TIAA-CREF’s divestment from Israel.

Where I part with Avishai’s arguments – an argument shared by well-respected figures in the Israeli peace movement like Uri Avnery – is that it’s way too late: Israel has been in a siege mentality almost since its founding. If this is the primary progressive Jewish argument against BDS, it’s a non-starter.

As we have by now been forced to recognize, Israel itself admits that the blockade of Gaza is meant to strangle the Gazan economy and punish its people. This has become such a well-known secret that Chuck Schumer can recite the same rationale (“Strangle them economically”) to Orthodox constituents without fear of being labeled a bigot, as Helen Thomas was. And it’s not just Gaza. Palestinians in the West Bank cannot travel and their economy is still severely limited by Israeli control. Critics of Israel, NGOs, and just recently a German development minister, have all been barred from Israel-controlled areas.

Finally it was clear to me: the Israeli government doesn’t appreciate nuance and that force might be the only language they understand. Economic force.

BDS Poster

All this being the case, why is it not appropriate that Israel drink its own medicine as long as the Palestinians are forced to? There are no longer any justifications for any more tortured, nuanced discussions of BDS. It’s a matter of justice, and a simple matter at that.

Boycotts, divestment, and sanctions should be applied to Israel until the day that the Israeli equivalents of BDS (economic strangulation, restrictions on travel, etc.) cease to be imposed on Palestinians and international critics of Israel’s occupation.

From the Likud platform

If anyone thinks that Israel has any intention of sharing Palestine with its existing inhabitants, please read the Peace & Security portion of the Likud’s platform:

http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

The Likudniks are still peeved that they never got what they regard as their proper amount of land from the British:

1920-mandate_for_palestine

Settlements

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

Self-Rule

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. [..] The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.

Jerusalem

Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem, including the plan to divide the city presented to the Knesset by the Arab factions and supported by many members of Labor and Meretz. […] The Likud government will act with vigor to continue Jewish habitation and strengthen Israeli sovereignty in the eastern parts of the city

The Jordan River as a Permanent Border

The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan is a desirable partner in the permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians in matters that will be agreed upon.

Security Areas

The government succeeded in significantly reducing the extent of territory that the Palestinians expected to receive in the interim arrangement. The government will insist that security areas essential to Israel’s defense, including the western security area and the Jewish settlements, shall remain under Israeli rule.

The Golan

Based on the Likud-led government’s proposal, the 10th Knesset passed the law to extend Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration over the Golan Heights, thus establishing Israeli sovereignty over the area. The government will continue to strengthen Jewish settlement on the Golan.

Israel’s Flotilla whitewash is a foregone conclusion

Let’s let British Petroleum conduct an investigation of what it did wrong in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP oil rig

One has to wonder what kind of fool would suggest this. But the Obama administration and Congress have agreed to let Israel investigate its own attack on a group of ships bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza on May 31st — an attack that killed one American citizen and took control of an American ship and affected citizens from numerous countries.

The Associated Press report which most Americans saw, reads:

The White House backs Israel’s inquiry into its deadly raid last month on a flotilla trying to break a blockade against Gaza, saying the independent public commission is “an important step forward.” … Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says Israel’s panel can meet the standard of a “prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation.”

The McClatchy News Service ran a similar article, titled “Israel plans impartial inquiry of its deadly attack on aid flotilla,” by Jerusalem-based reporter Shera Frenkel.

Not only are we getting a whitewash, it’s being packaged as an “independent” and “impartial” investigation.

If citizens of the 40 countries whose citizens were hijacked, beaten, or killed by Israel are content that at least “some kind” of investigation is being conducted, think again. A whitewash is under way. Whatever Israel’s own probe concludes – and Prime Minister Netanyahu has promised that it will exculpate Israel – the world must keep pressing for a credible, independent, international commission to investigate the flotilla attack.

Obama

With US approval, Israel appointed a commission to investigate itself composed of chairman Yaakov Tirtel, 75, a retired Israeli Supreme Court judge who still serves on a military appeals court; member Shabtai Rosen, 93, who worked on maritime law issues while at the UN; and member Amos Horev, 86, a retired major-general in the Israeli army, former president of the Technion, and an advocate for the Israeli defense industry.

Besides old guard members of Israel’s military-industrial complex, Israel appointed two “international observers” without voting rights. Neither of the men hastily chosen, a Canadian general who may have looked the other way on human rights abuses in Afghanistan and a Loyalist politician once associated with Ian Paisley and British colonial abuses in Ireland, is likely to stand up to much scrutiny.

Ken Watkin, the Canadian, was implicated in the Canadian Afghan detainee issue, in which several detainees arrested by Canadian Forces disappeared or were tortured following transfer to the Afghan National Police. According to a report in the Toronto Star, while acting as the Judge Advocate General, Watkin refused to answer questions when testifying in Canada’s House of Commons about whether he had been told to authorize the transfers or knew of the torture, and claimed attorney-client privilege in refusing to answer the House’s questions.

No criticism allowed

Irish Loyalist David Trimble, the second Israeli observer, is known for his association with Ian Paisley and British suppression of the Irish independence movement. Trimble is a neoconservative who supports interventionist foreign policy, as his membership in the Henry Jackson Society indicates. Trimble opposed the appointment of former US Senator George Mitchell as chairman of multi-party talks which resulted in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement (GFA) of 1998. He recently founded the “Friends of Israel Initiative” to combat “international delegitimization” of the Jewish state. Trimble also has been quoted as saying, “One of the great curses of this world is the human rights industry.”

With an investigative body like this, don’t get your hopes up. My guess is the whitewash has probably already been written. Israel’s forthcoming report should be ignored and, instead, there must be a truly credible, independent, international investigation of the flotilla attack. As a recent Ha’aretz editorial concludes:

… both its puzzling membership and weak mandate – bodes ill for Israel. A committee whose makeup and authority are perceived as predetermined will be unable to satisfy international leaders and their constituencies abroad who demanded the inquiry in the first place. It would therefore have been better if the Turkel committee had never been born, sparing us the deceptive appearance of a real investigation.

JStreet again calls it wrong on Iran sanctions

J Street today applauded increased sanctions on Iran at the UN. An enrichment processing proposal brokered by Turkey and backed by Brazil, which had previously been acceptable to the United States, was rejected by the US in backing Israel’s demands for sanctions on Iran. A J Street press release supported the move:

J Street welcomes the passage of enhanced multilateral and broad-based sanctions on Iran at the United Nations Security Council today.

This vote would not have been possible without the tireless diplomatic efforts of the Obama Administration. We commend President Obama and his team for their effort and this step in the right direction, and urge them to continue employing a dual track approach – meaningful engagement plus multilateral sanctions – to convince Iran to change course.

Today, the Government of Iran hears a clear message from the international community that there are real consequences to continued obfuscation, delay, and intransigence over its nuclear program, as well as real benefits should they fully address international concerns.

We expect the Iranian regime to immediately make clear it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, to submit to international inspections, and to end its support for groups that use violence and terror against Israel. Such action will put Iran on the road to reintegration into the international community.

Thumbs down

Other nations seem to be held to a different standard than Israel on nuclear weapons. J Street has not called on the UN for an end of Israel’s formal policy of nuclear ambiguity/obfuscation or asked it to rejoin the world community in respecting the international laws it continues to break. Such lopsided resolutions are guaranteed only to ratchet up the rhetoric from Teheran and make the Iranian regime more unpredictable.

These sanctions are particularly stupid because there was an opportunity to try a reprocessing scheme the US had once supported and to insist on monitoring access. Teheran had warned that the offer would be off the table if sanctions were imposed, and this now gives them a domestic popularity boost in standing up to the United States. There will also now be no monitoring, and Iran will have scored points for its home team.

The imposition of sanctions, however ineffective they are expected to be, coupled with the attack on the Mavi Marmara, is also a setback for NATO ally Turkey and a gain for Israel. A message certainly not lost on certain Middle Eastern and new European allies, these sanctions make it crystal clear that the United States is willing to betray NATO allies and friends when it comes to Israel. Stephen Walt calls it right when he cites Stephen Cook of the Council of Foreign Relations complaining about how Turkey needs to be “kept in its lane.” We can’t have just anybody running around being a regional power broker in the Middle East. There’s already a reserved seat.

This move is also exceptionally misguided because it further complicates the United States’ relations with other nations in the Middle East. But the president, the State Department, and apparently J Street, all continue to see the world as it was during the Bush administration. The US with the help of Israel will continue to try to project its power in the Middle East – at least for a few more years. Other regional players need not apply for the job.

Refuting Israel apologists on the flotilla

To the editors:

Stuart Forman’s letter on the Gaza flotilla makes several statements which distort or put a spin on Israel’s war with Hamas, the blockade of Gaza, and attempts by protesters to break it.

Stuart writes that as a result of Israel’s evacuation of Gaza Israel became the target of 10,000 Qassam rockets. This is a distortion of the timeline. In 1996 Shimon Peres declared war on Hamas. In September 2005 Ariel Sharon withdrew Israeli settlers from Gaza. In January 2006 during Olmert’s term Hamas won popular elections in Gaza. In 2008 Israel and Hamas agreed on a cease-fire of hostilities which had dated back to the 90’s. During much of this time Gaza was under periodic bombardment by Israel and a number of Hamas leaders were assassinated, often with significant collateral damage. In December 2008 the cease fire ended and Israel attacked Gaza, killing more than a thousand civilians.

Thus, the hostility between Hamas and Israel long predated Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. The thousands of rocket attacks must be considered over decades, not just a few short years – and within a context of a war declared by Israel.

Stuart states that Israel provides 15,000 tons of humanitarian aid each week to Gaza. This aid is actually provided by humanitarian organizations like UNWRA or foreign NGOs and is funded by foreign nations like the US or the EU. The delivery is simply managed by COGAT, the office for Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories. And the UN estimates that the amount of aid is only one-quarter of what Gazans actually need.

cleveland

Stuart suggests that Israel is only doing what is necessary to protect its citizens, but banned aid includes: biscuits and sweets, cardamom, cattle, cement, chickens, chocolate, coriander, cumin, donkeys, dried fruit, fabric, fishing nets, fishing rods, fresh meat, fruit preserves, ginger, glucose, goats, greenhouse planters, halva, heaters, horses, iron, jam, margarine, musical instruments, notebooks, nutmeg, pens and pencils, plaster, potato chips, razors, rope, ropes, sage, salt, seeds and nuts, seltzer, sewing machines, size A4 paper, tar, tarpaulins for shelter, toys, various containers, vinegar, and wood. Israel has also apparently estimated the minimum number of calories required by Gaza inhabitants, though it claims this data has never been used to restrict food.

Stuart portrays the Israeli government’s blockade as a reasonable effort to keep weapons out of terrorist hands and that humanitarian aid could have been delivered if only the protesters had first docked in Ashdod. But as we see from the list above, Israel’s intent goes well beyond protection, to punitively crippling the Gaza economy and depriving its inhabitants for voting for Hamas in 2006. The flotilla organizers’ intent was clearly to point out this collective punishment by an act of civil disobedience.

Israel still has stores of confiscated materials that have never been delivered to Gaza from eight previous attempts to break the blockade. Thus, Stuart’s repetition of promises by the Israeli Foreign Ministry are simply not to be believed. In addition, by failing to deliver humanitarian aid and impounding it, as it has done with all flotilla shipments, Israel is violating any number of international laws.

While Gazans may have originally voted for the political wing of Hamas, the Israeli blockade has only entrenched the military wing. Israel is making the same mistake it made in 2002 in the West Bank when it decided it didn’t like the Palestinian Authority and bombed the government compound in Ramallah. The more Israel beats and bombs and deprives Palestinians, the more radicalized they will become.

But the deprivations of Gazans are not all to be laid at the feet of Israel. Egypt has been complicit in the boycott by closing its Rafah crossing into Gaza. Hamas itself has diverted aid that might have gone to the Fatah faction. Assisting Israel in its punitive measures, a Democratic congress actually cut US aid to Gaza in March 2009. There is plenty of blame to go around. But now that the world knows how dire the situation in Gaza is, it’s time to fix it.

not printed

Piracy and Murder on the High Seas

piracy

Today, 78 miles in international waters, Israel Defense Forces boarded a small flotilla of six ships bound for Gaza with food, building materials, medical equipment, books, and toys – killing 19 on board with live ammunition, according to Israel’s Channel 10 and the BBC. Most of the deaths occurred on the Mavi Mamara, a Turkish ship.

turkish-ship

The “Freedom Flotilla” consisting of 700 people from 40 different countries, including many Americans, a Nobel Peace laureate, European parliamentarians, and non-violent peace organizations, was again attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. In the past, many of the same organizations and individuals found similar ships boarded, contents inspected, passengers brought to Israeli jail, then deported. This time, Israel displayed the same callous disregard for the lives of Western civilians that it has previously shown toward Arabs.

Since Israel’s siege of Gaza in 2008, which killed thousands of civilians, Israel has maintained a clampdown on imports and exports in Gaza – punishing Gazans collectively for supporting the political wing of Hamas in elections – and creating hardships which have predictably increased support for the military wing of Hamas. Despite initial promises to investigate the situation in Gaza, such as Senator John Kerry’s visit shortly after the siege, the United States has turned a blind eye to the resulting hunger, homelessness, poverty, and unemployment in Gaza. Israel has been permitted to impose capricious bans on imports such as pasta and spices and on exports such as fish and Gazans have had to rely on a network of tunnels to survive. Israel’s actions are in violation of numerous human rights principles and international law. The flotilla was intended to raise awareness of this and the hopelessness of life in Gaza.

boarding

The flotilla attack comes at a time when Israel’s rightwing government has clamped down on civil liberties, barred foreign critics from entering Israel or the West Bank, arrested journalists, banned NGOs, placed numerous non-violent Palestinian leaders in prison without laying charges, proposed stripping some of its own citizens of their citizenship, and stepped up harassment of peace organizations.

Despite Israel’s recent entry into the OECD – a club for the world’s wealthiest nations – and despite our own financial difficulties – the United States continues to pamper Israel with $3 to $5 billion a year in military aid, loans, military and energy development projects, and occasional splurges like last week’s “Iron Dome” boondoggle which gave one of Israel’s state-owned military industries, Rafael Systems, $205 million for a missile shield system that in 2008 was judged to be useless against Qassams.

It is high time to pull the plug on aid to Israel and to make that nation accountable for its attacks on American citizens. It has long been clear that Israel has used US aid to finance racist settlement programs, build separation walls, private roads for settlers, maintain checkpoints, and to inflict casualties on civilians in the West Bank, Lebanon, and Gaza. Now this military aid is being used against our own citizens.

In the long run, the leverage this will apply on Israel will actually benefit it. Unless the United States stops asking “pretty please” and applies meaningful pressure on Israel to coexist with a Palestinian state, its 62 year occupation will continue until the same fate befalls Palestinians as American Indians – where they live in isolated reservations within Greater Israel. When that happens, Israel will be in precisely the same position that white South Africans found themselves. It will be the end of either Israeli democracy or a Jewish state.

This was published in the Standard Times on June 3, 2010
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/20100603/opinion/6030329

Thoughts on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement

What BDS is

BDS

BDS, short for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions, is an umbrella term for several non-violent tactics used by opponents of Israel’s occupation of Palestine. BDS is also a movement originated by Palestinians who wanted to replicate the success of a similar campaign in South Africa. Just as farm worker boycotts in the United States were joined by Anglos who refused to buy Gallo wine, product boycotts and institutional divestments from Occupation-related companies have been embraced by individuals, schools, religious organizations, investment advisors, and trade unions. On many college campuses a large proportion of BDS supporters are Jewish. The basic purpose of BDS is simply to apply economic pressure on Israel to end the Occupation.

Israel’s foreign revenue

In 2008 Israel’s GDP was $207 billion. For purposes of comparison, Israel’s population and area is roughly equivalent to New Jersey, which has a GDP of $475 billion. Israel’s exports are about $45 billion, with about a third to the United States, and roughly the same amount to Europe. Israel’s major domestic product is weapons systems, and it is the 4th largest defense exporter in the world, right behind the US, Russia, and France, and slightly ahead of Britain. Many of its defense industries are government owned, such as IMI and Rafael Systems which was recently given $205 billion by the United States for the Iron Dome missile system.

In 2009 Israel’s major exports to the US were gems ($6 billion), medical ($4b), computer ($3b), military ($2b), and electronics ($2b). While some of these products are benign, many of Israel’s industrial and agricultural zones, such as Mishor Adumim, Barkan, Katzerin, Tulkarem, Hinnanit, Ariel, Maale Efrayim, Ataroy, Qiryat Arba, and the Jordan Valley, are built in or around settlements. This makes selective boycotts of particular products almost impossible because the Occupation is so deeply integrated into Israel’s entire economy. While products from these industrial zones could be forced to be correctly identified or banned, as Britain has begun to do, this is a tedious task which requires massive categorization and publication efforts from the BDS movement. Consequently, blanket boycotts of Israeli products have been proposed.

Besides military subsidies, Israel also enjoys period gifts from the US, such as this month’s $205 million Iron Dome project, various loans, joint military and energy development projects, and a free trade agreement dating from 1985 – a decade before similar agreements with our Canadian neighbors.

BDS and Israel advocates

Israel advocates have been predictably hostile to BDS. In Israel the Reut Institute published a 92-page document delivered at the 10th Herzliya conference last March, “Building a Political Firewall Against Israel’s Delegitimization,” which attacked BDS as a “delegitimization” tool of anti-Semites. A similar document, “Delegitimization of Israel: Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions” by Mitchell Bard and Gil Troy, also conflates BDS with anti-Semitism. The Jewish Council for Public Affairs recently issued a “Resolution on Campaign to Delegitimize Israel through Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Movement,” painting BDS as “reminiscent of the ancient blood libel.”

Acknowledging that the Occupation is morally indefensible, Bard and Troy describe their counterattack: “Israel advocates are always going to lose a fight over ‘settlements’ and ‘occupation,’ or at best get mired in stalemate. BDS shifts the terrain, making the battle one over Israel’s right to exist, over the legitimacy of Zionism, over the anti-Semitic tropes shaping the anti-Israel movement, and the rank anti-Semitism behind the disproportionate, obsessive focus on Israel.”

In its “Firewall” paper, the Reut Institute writes that BDS is a “primary assault on Israel’s existence today [which] is directed at its political and economic model; [and] it may become existential…” It goes on, “Ending ‘occupation’ and resolving the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is very important to combating delegitimization; yet Israel’s delegitimization is fundamentally ideological, and stems from a core rejection of Zionism’s and Israel’s political model. Therefore, it is likely to continue even following a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Reut’s other prescriptions are varied, from PR efforts like softening discrimination in Israel toward Arabs, to cultivating more effective hasbara networks. Another of their strategies is to attack specific BDS supporters by “establishing a ‘price-tag’ for attacking Israel by ‘naming and shaming’ delegitimizers.” Yet accusations of anti-Semitism are rarely made with much discrimination.

But Reut’s most troubling recommendation is that “Israel [my italics] must identify delegitimization hubs, usually metropolitan areas hosting strong anti-Israel sentiments and containing a concentration of international NGOs, media, corporations, and academia. Within these hubs – such as London, the San Francisco Bay Area, Madrid, Paris, Toronto, and Brussels – Israel must significantly increase its diplomatic and public diplomacy activities. Contending with each hub requires a tailor-made approach based on unique constellations of hundreds of relationships with local elites in political, business, media, and security spheres.”

Joe McCarthy

In other words, Israel is to develop a hit list of mainly academics, NGO’s, and progressives and then unleash local American Jewish organizations on them. These “delegitimization hubs” must be obliterated like terrorist hideouts by drones. This new Jewish McCarthyism has already brought back the pogrom and led to censorship and blacklisting of progressive Jewish groups by more “mainstream” Jewish organizations. In the Bay Area, for example – one of the Reut Institute’s targets – the Jewish Federation actually created a blacklist of Jewish peace groups who work with BDS supporters. In Boston and Seattle this story has been repeated. This is troubling on many levels, not the least of which is that a foreign nation is directing attacks on individuals in the United States.

For these defenders of Israel, the basic tactic is to use fear-mongering to change the subject from the Occupation to an existential threat from rabid anti-Semites. This is not a new tactic and it isn’t playing to younger Jews. It’s also not succeeding with older American Jews and is indicative of a greater split between Disapora Jews and Israel, in part over the Occupation.

BDS and liberal Jews

BDS is also suspiciously or negatively viewed by many liberal Jews. Rabbis Arthur Waskow and Michael Lerner, both lightning rods for their criticism of the Occupation, oppose BDS, as do Israel’s Gush Shalom founder Uri Avnery and various progressive American Jewish groups such as Meretz USA and J Street. They see BDS targeting not only the Occupation but also positive aspects of Israeli society and democracy, and they complain that BDS targets only Israel.

Well-known critic of Israel, Noam Chomsky, judges BDS to be ineffective because, in his calculations, only the US government, not consumer pressure, will work on Israel to end the Occupation. Chomsky also opposes BDS on principle because “breaking contact with Israeli academics, artists, writers, journalists … means breaking contact with many people who have played an honorable and courageous role well beyond what can be found here, and are a much more substantial element within their own society.” Americans for Peace Now, like J Street, opposes cutting US military aid to Israel, preferring diplomatic efforts and reductions of non-military aid (both unsuccessfully tried).

Arieh Zimmerman, a friend who lives on a kibbutz a couple miles from Gaza, understands the Palestinian use of BDS: “We so outgun the Palestinian side of the equation that any serious resistance to Israeli rule is effectively ruled out. Personally, I prefer the idea of economic resistance to that of suicide bombing. But what is clear is that any people with their backs to the wall will find some means of resistance to their conqueror.” But he also believes that BDS is a crude tool where precision is required, and boycotts raise the same ethical issues posed by Israel’s own collective punishment of Palestinians: “There are boycotts and there are boycotts. Boycotting the corner butcher because he is known to have a heavy thumb is one thing; boycotting his neighborhood to teach him a lesson is another. Can collective punishment ever be excused? Unless collective guilt is proven, what justification can there be for collective punishment?”

Jews supporting BDS

But some Jews regard BDS more as a set of tactics than just a movement – tactics which must be at least selectively tried, given the lack of political will by presidents and congress to resolve this festering international issue. Jewish Voice for Peace cautiously supports BDS as a tactic. Independent Jewish Voices in Canada and Americans Jews for a Just Peace cite human rights as their justification for supporting BDS.

But cultural boycotts are especially troubling for many Jews because of strong family, cultural, and religious connections. Rabbi Brant Rosen echoes Zimmerman and describes the painful realization that “though a movement like BDS might feel on a visceral level like just one more example of the world piling on the Jews and Israel, we need to be open to the possibility that it might more accurately be described as the product of a weaker, dispossessed, disempowered people doing what it must to resist oppression.” Orthodox Jewish studies and philosophy professor Jerry Haber recently enumerated 13 reasons for Liberal Zionists to give guarded support to the BDS movement.

BDS is as American as apple pie

Boston Tea Party

While Palestinians may have recycled BDS from the South African anti-Apartheid movement, boycotts have precedents in American and Jewish history. The original Boston Tea Party was part of a wider boycott of British goods. The day after Rosa Parks was arrested, 35,000 flyers were distributed urging a boycott of the Montgomery, Alabama transit system. Recently a number of cities have passed resolutions calling for a boycott of Arizona over several pieces of legislation directed at Latinos. Rather than being a tool of hate, boycotts have more often been used as a tool of justice.

And boycotts have been frequently used by Jews, too. The Talmud recounts the boycotting of price-fixed myrtle. In 1936, American Jews organized a counter-boycott of German products. In 1989 Jews boycotted the 50th anniversary of WWII in Poland. In the 90’s, the Reform movement proposed boycotts of several states. In 2008 Israelis in Acre boycotted Arab merchants. Jewish organizations have at various times promoted boycotts of Pepsi, Coke, Burger King, and Starbucks. Were these signs of bigotry or simply acts born out of principle?

Divestment, too, is an everyday investment activity. Whether to avoid supporting defense or tobacco industries, or to promote green products, we often align our investments with our ethics. Churches apply their own teachings to guide investments. Catholic Church doctrine on abortion and contraception frequently initiates their divestments. Similarly, many Protestant churches have pursued selective divestments because of the Occupation, not because they hate the people who brought them the Old Testament.

Finally, American sanctions have been imposed on Cuba over human rights abuses which have affected far fewer people than in Palestine. Sanctions have also been slapped on Iran in recent years. Unfortunately, sanctions as practiced by the US have often been a proxy for warfare. Despite Israel’s hostility to the US and intransigence toward repeated demands to end settlements, any use of sanctions on Israel – at least by that name – would not fly in the US in the present political climate. However, pulling the plug on Israel’s many sources of American taxpayer-funded revenue might during our economic disaster. Israel is becoming an economic liability.

BDS can be applied selectively

I tend to agree with critics of BDS that it’s basically a poor replacement for US pressure on Israel. But what kind of pressure could be applied – and what grassroots efforts would convince the US government to translate public sentiment into political action? Largely due to AIPAC, Christian Evangelicals, and other Jewish organizations’ stranglehold on the discourse, the average citizen’s more moderate views generally go unheeded by his congressman.

Administrations come and go, going through the motions of proximity talks and shuttle diplomacy, but it is increasingly a heartless, unconvincing performance. BDS is a real way that individuals can move the Israel-Palestine issue forward. While the BDS movement may prefer to see their whole program implemented, we are free to select those tactics we are comfortable with. Here are my preferences:

West Bank settlements

The most effective pressure on Israel to end the Occupation and vacate illegal settlements would be withdrawing its $3.15 billion a year military subsidy. If this does not work, it’s money well saved – especially since Israel just joined the OECD, an exclusive club for the wealthiest nations. But if Americans still want to reward Israel’s bad behavior, these funds could be placed in escrow to assist the eventual evacuation of settlements rather than to subsidize them.

Temporarily cutting joint economic and energy development projects, suspending the 1985 free trade agreement with Israel, and making it known that we will no longer be a rubber-stamp for Israel at the UN would also go a long way toward resolving this issue. The United States keeps timidly pleading with Israel to simply freeze settlements, not evacuate them, and is generally rewarded with the diplomatic version of an obscene gesture by Israel. Using leverage with demands, rather than useless pleading, is a language Israel will finally understand.

I oppose a cultural boycott of Israel because I am opposed to the suppression of ideas by anyone. Avigdor Lieberman should have an opportunity to make his views public so that Americans can actually hear what spews out of his mouth. The same applies to athletic, artistic, academic, or any other human boycott. Despite Israel’s own use of collective punishment in the West Bank and Gaza, racist visa policies toward Arab Americans, and harassment of NGOs and critics, no individual Israeli should have to answer for people’s displeasure with his government, even if he supports its views. Here I agree with the critics.

I have no such ethical qualms about an economic boycott. But consumer boycotts of non-military Israeli products are economically meaningless. Most of the economic value Israel receives from the United States is in joint military projects and outright gifts, such as the recent Iron Dome giveaway, and this could be best addressed by sanctions.

Boycotts of Israel’s non-military products are economically meaningless for another reason: Americans have not been known to deprive themselves of consumer goods for political principles for roughly 40 years. And that’s the problem with tactics – they depend on the times and the situation. Resurrecting anti-Apartheid economic tactics, despite all the “existential” warnings from the Reut Institute and others, will probably be ineffectual today.

One of the attacks on BDS is that it targets only Israel, but it’s hardly the case. Foreign and multinational corporations producing particularly repugnant products, such as the militarized Caterpillar and Volvo tractors used to crush Palestinian homes (and occasionally people), have more often been the target of boycotts and divestment. Motorola has been a target because of products used for monitoring the “separation wall” and on civilians in Gaza. The list of targeted companies includes almost every global defense corporation from Boeing to Raytheon.

While an individual consumer may find it impossible to avoid the Motorola cell phone that comes with his phone plan, divestment is a more powerful tool. Investors have every right to eliminate tobacco, nuclear, or Occupation-related industries from their portfolio.

Don’t write off BDS

Boycott poster

There are many Jews who, despite the conflation of BDS with anti-Semitism, “existential” threats, “blood libels,” and other forms of rhetorical hysteria, simply want the Occupation to end. We see BDS as a less-than-ideal grassroots tactic in the absence of any real political will to create Two States. Whatever your flavor of Zionism (or not), a Jewish rebirth in Israel should not mean the demise of Palestinians or their hopes self-determination.

BDS should not be regarded just as a monolithic movement but as a non-violent toolkit for registering our individual and collective rejection of Israel’s Occupation. You don’t need either the BDS movement itself or Jewish defense organizations to tell you which elements you can or can’t use. Moral foreign policy would be ideal, sanctions would be great, divestments are your own concern, and the jury’s out on the effectiveness or appropriateness of economic and cultural boycotts.

But let your own conscience be your guide. Don’t write off BDS.

Добро пожаловать в Советский Союз

(Welcome to the Soviet Union)

Noam Chomsky

Today Israel barred Noam Chomsky from entering the West Bank. Chomsky was to have given a talk at Bir Zeit University in Ramallah.

Chomsky attempted to cross into Palestine at the Allenby Bridge, directly into the Occupied Territories, and his speech would not have posed a security risk to Israel.

Barring foreign nationals from Palestinian territory is one more method of denying Palestinian sovereignty. It is also a way of punishing critics of Israel, even while it violates international human rights agreements. It is a way of collectively punishing Palestinians for their resistance to the Occupation. And, importantly, it is another nail in the coffin for Israeli democracy. Like the former Soviet Union, Israel is rapidly becoming a nation that can’t take any sort of criticism – whether from liberal Jews or American politicians who perform obeisance at AIPAC conventions.

Entry Denied!

Israel has limited entry to the Occupied Territories to non-governmental organizations, intellectuals with critiques of the Israeli state and, amusingly, this week deported a Spanish clown who was going to perform in Ramallah, on the grounds that the clown was a terrorist.

In 2008, Ha’aretz reported that the number of people denied entry to Israel had risen by 61%. Krista Johnson, an employee of an NGO, was denied entry to Israel after attending a Sabeel conference in Boston (suggesting that the Shi Bet is spying on American here in the US). A Druze family was denied re-entry into Israel after making a condolence call to family in Syria. Kate Maynard, a British human rights lawyer, was denied entry to Israel in 2005. Recently, Jared Malsin, an American Jew who had been hired by the Palestinian news service Maan to produce English-language news, was arrested, imprisoned and deported. Israel has regularly turned away physicians attempting to enter Gaza to provide medical care. One American Jewish critic of Israel, Norman Finkelstein, has been banned for ten years from entering Israel.

If you are an Arab-American, travel is even more difficult. Last year an American law student from Harvard was deported because she was conducting research on Bedouin land claims.

What does the United States Department of State have to say about all this? > “Palestinian-Americans Must Enter Through Allenby.  For some time, the government of Israel has not permitted Americans with Palestinian nationality (or even, in some cases, the claim to it) to enter Israel via Ben Gurion Airport.  Many are sent back to the U.S. upon arrival, though some are permitted in, but told they cannot depart Israel via Ben Gurion without special permission (which is rarely granted).”

In other words, we know our own citizens are being racially profiled but we aren’t going to do anything about it.

Free Soviet Jewry

This reminds me of the Cold War decades when one of the things which upset Americans most about the Soviet Union was the tight control of cultural visas. Or that American Jews were routinely arrested or banned from the Soviet Union for attempting to free or organize Soviet Jews.

Of course, for Palestinians themselves, deportation is nothing new. During the Nakba roughly 800,000 Palestinians were expelled and not permitted to re-enter Israel. In 1967 another quarter of a million Palestinians were expelled. Since 2002 Israel has deported “undesirables” from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip, truly making Gaza a gulag.

Fortress Israel

While the word continues to look away from these violations of human rights, many Israelis and a growing number of American and European Jews are becoming concerned by the erosion of any last pretense of democracy. Deportations and expulsions may have served the Soviet Union for some time, but eventually the contradictions of that system collapsed it. Creating “Fortress Israel” may play to the most extreme elements in Israeli and American Jewish society, but ultimately it is a prescription for self-destruction.

Pull the plug on military aid to Israel

Today President Obama just handed Israel another $205 million gift of American taxpayer money. Beyond the $3+ billion the United States gives Israel annually without question or oversight, this extra gift is intended to subsidize an Israeli missile defense system called “Iron Dome” built entirely by Rafael Advanced Systems, one of Israel’s larger defense contractors.

This little present comes immediately on the heels of Israel’s acceptance into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – a club for the 31 richest nations in the world.

Aside from the many questions raised after Israel’s slaughter of civilians in Lebanon and Gaza, its refusal to stop building illegal settlements, the demolition of Arab homes in East Jerusalem, and its open hostility to American efforts to restart peace talks, this no-strings-attached gift begs an additional question – why are we giving an ostensibly rich nation our money?

Most taxpayers may not realize it, but American costs of subsidizing Israel’s military are enormous. Massachusetts taxpayers alone will spend $870 million over the next 8 years on military aid to Israel. Our neighbors in Rhode Island will have $130 million diverted to Israel – enough to pay for health care for 10% of the state.

Here in Massachusetts the money siphoned off taxpayers could provide 10,000 families with housing grants each year, job training for almost 15,000 unemployed workers, could fund early education for 26,000 children, or primary health care for 721,000 citizens. Why are the Tea Party patriots not in revolt over this?

In a time of extreme economic distress, this spending is simply reckless. And it does nothing to ensure Israel’s long-term security. Only by pressuring Israel to go back to honestly-brokered talks with the Palestinians will that nation ever become more secure.

In squandering American tax money to subsidize an Israeli defense boondoggle, we are throwing away any leverage on Israel to solve this issue once and for all. Instead, we are signaling to the Palestinians and Israel’s Arab neighbors that the United States has no intention of being honest peace brokers. Next to Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan, our ongoing military support of Israel and its occupation of Palestinians is (and is rightly seen as) a third war.

But, worst of all, we are stealing money from our own citizens. If American taxpayers begrudge arts programs in the schools, satellite library locations and wonder where all their tax money is going, here’s a good place to start tightening the belt. Tell your congressman it’s time to pull the plug on military aid to Israel. For that matter, we could stand to reign in our own “defense” spending.

Justice, Israeli style

The selective application of law in Israel continues to astound even the most jaundiced observers of Israel’s ongoing Occupation.

Israeli smoke grenades

Abdallah Abu Rahmah, a school teacher and coordinator of the Bil’in Popular Committee Against the Wall, was indicted in an Israeli military court on December 22 on charges of incitement and arms possession. The specifics? That Abu Rahmah had collected used tear gas canisters shot at demonstrators in Bil’in by the army and made a peace sign out of them.

Abu Rahmah with Jimmy Carter

Abu Rahmah, pictured here on the right at the grave of a protester who was killed by a rubber bullet, is one of a number of members of a non-violent organization that has dedicated itself to publicizing its fight with Israel over a piece of the Israeli “separation wall” which even Israel’s supreme court has ruled is illegally separating the village from its olive trees.

Tear gas grenades are everywhere

I visited the village last Summer and the number of tear gas canisters littering the area is shocking. Children find all kinds of Israeli projectiles: tear gas canisters, grenades, and rubber bullets.

Rubber bullets can kill

During our visit, we were shown a few of the thousands of rounds that have been directed at people waving flags and protesting on the other side of a barbed-wire fence.

If appropriate indictments were made, it would be against the government for using armaments of this type against people who have expressly chosen non-violence and public relations over armed resistance.

Qassams into Ploughshares

Not lost on one of my traveling companions, Abu Rahmah’s peace sculpture was no different in concept than one we encountered on a kibbutz two miles from Gaza, where residents had welded Qassam rockets onto a plough and made a menorah out of it. I used the image in my Chanukah card this year.

It remains to be seen if the welder at the kibbutz will face similar charges.

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.

On 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.

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.

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.

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.

Get used to the sound of “The Iran War”

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.”

“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.”

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.

Denying what others clearly see

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.

This was published in the Standard Times on September 21, 2009
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/20090921/opinion/909210306

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

American UN Ambassador Slams Goldstone Report

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.

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.

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

All Right! Now we’ve got something to repent!

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

The Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Assistance Act

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.

Democrats ready to scratch Israel’s itchy trigger finger

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

If the United States were Israel…

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.

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.

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

Israel restricts US travel to/within Israel and the West Bank

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. > > https://jru.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

Should “Nazi Analogies” be banned?

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.

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.

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.”

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 products 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.

This was published in the Standard Times on July 23, 2009
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/20090723/opinion/907230329
(link may be broken)

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.

Stoughton – No Place for Hate?

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.

On the Obama Cairo Speech

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

No thanks, I’ll see for myself

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_image027

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.

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.

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

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.

Let’s not change the subject

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.

340x

The 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_cartoon

The 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.

Durban II – U.S. did the right thing

Friends of Israel have been a little touchy about the upcoming UN Review Conference on racism” nicknamed “Durban II”), 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.

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.

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.

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.

Stoughton Jews embrace Dutch racist Geert Wilders

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:

plugin:youtube

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.

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: a “form of government which defers not to civil development of law, but to an interpretation of the will of a God as set out in religious scripture and authorities.” 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.

This was published in the Standard Times on February 17, 2009
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/20090217/opinion/902170339

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

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.

This was published in the Standard Times on January 30, 2009
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20090130/opinion/901300324

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.

Good fences make good neighbors

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.

This was published in the Standard Times on September 2, 2004
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/09-04/09-02-04/a14op280.htm
(link may be broken)

By emulating Israel, U.S. emulates its woes

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.

This was published in the Standard Times on May 21, 2004
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-04/05-21-04/a14op267.htm
(link may be broken)