The selective application of law in Israel continues to astound even the most jaundiced observers of Israel’s ongoing Occupation.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

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

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: > >

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. > >

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

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.”

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)

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Axelrod,

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 ​

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

“It’s the Wild West”

June 4, 2009

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.”

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.

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”.

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.