Georgina W. Bush

So, we now have an attractive, affable, young governor, who believes in the spirit of bipartisanship in the state legislature. The governor has no knowledge of, much less experience in, foreign policy, and is a religious rightwing ideologue: pro-life; supports teaching intelligent design in schools, against equal pay for women, anti-gay, a game-hunter.

In short , Sarah Palin is George W. Bush all over again.

I wonder whether Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Dick Cheny are available for more tutoring.

Four Reasons Why Israelis Don’t “Get” Obama

Over the past year, the reactions to Obama in Israel have ranged from mockery to incredulity to suspicion. The suspicion has been allayed by the candidate in recent months, and most intelligent Israelis are confident that Obama is "ok" on Israel, if a bit soft on Iran. Of course, the Israeli right is more apprehensive. Most Israelis I know don't believe he will get elected president. Just as most Israelis a six months ago didn't believe that he would win the Democratic nomination.

In fact, most Israelis I know don't understand Obama, either the man, or the phenomenon. And I am not just talking about the man-on-the –street. I am talking about people who should know better, like the Washington correspondants for Haaretz, or my university colleagues. In America, whether you are Democrat or Republican, you generally "get" what is going on with Obama. In Israel, whether you are on the left or the right, you don't.

Even American-Israeli Obama supporters, like Haaretz writer Bradley Burston, don't understand what is going on. Burston wrote a column called "What Scares Us About Obama". Burston calls himself a "foreign visitor" in American and yet his "us" turns out to be Americans. Now, certainly many Americans will not vote for Obama, and he may lose the general election. But on the day Burston wrote his piece, Obama was either tied or ahead of McCain in every national poll. So to ask the question, "Why Americans are afraid of Obama" is more than slightly bizarre. His evidence for the fear? Louisiana has voted for the winning presidential candidate for the last 36 years, and McCain is ahead in Louisiana. That race may be a factor in a deep south state like Louisiana is, apparently, not entertained by Burston.

You want evidence for fear of Obama? Try McCain's decision to tap Sarah Palin for the VP slot. That is his "Hail-Mary" play – with third and twenty-five, he uncorks the long bomb (American football talk).

But I wish to focus on Israelis, not American Jews who have moved to Israel like Burston and myself. Here are four reasons not why Israelis fear Obama – they don't – but why they don't understand him.

1. Cynicism about politics. Israeli politicians are generally so mediocre, not to mention corrupt, that it is hard for Israelis to understand why anybody would be enthuiastic about a politician. They have little faith in the Knesset, and recent leaders of the country have been plagued by financial corruption scandals. The idea of "public service " through politics is foreign to them. What they understand is service to one's "sector". So when Obama comes along, Israelis alternately blink uncomprehendingly and smirk. The last person who inspired some sort of idealistic enthusiasm– Ehud Barak in the late nineties – produced even bigger disillusionment after he was elected.

2. Religio-Racism. The Israelis are probably no more racist than other folks, but "gizanut/racism" in Israel is considered a sin only by the Left. Since Israeli Jews consider themselves (wrongly) free of racism, because they are Jews, there is no education in the schools against racism. And so what would be considered politically incorrect in the US, even by Republicans, is considered wrong only by a small section of the Israeli population. If you don't believe me, talk with Ethiopian Jews. At best, it is not considered bon ton to be biased against other Jews. As for Arabs, and I mean, Palestinian citizens of Israel, there is not even a pretence of it being politically incorrect to be prejudiced against them. Since they are Arab they are ipso facto a threat to Israeli security.

3. Ethnic-nationalism vs. civic nationalism. In American, any citizen is part of the American people, and so any citizen should be able to become President – at least, if he or she is native born. So there is something genuinely exciting when a member of a discriminated group like Obama gets nominated. But in Israel, you can be a citizen for generations, and still be excluded from the nation – since Israel is a Jewish state. A woman, a black, a Jew, may not have a good chance of becoming president – but in Israel, an Arab citizen has no chance of being prime minister or president – not only because he or she is part of a minority, but because it is a Jewish state. Were one to argue that a Jew cannot be a president because America is a Christian nation (and no doubt some would argue that), the overwhelming amount of Americans, at least leaders, would reject that.

4. The Occupation. When an African American like Obama succeeds, it reminds Israelis, especially Israeli liberals, of the moral and political deficiencies of its democracy . Israel holds 3 ½ million people under Occupation indefinitely without fundamental rights, and b) it refuses to grant a little over ¾ million non-Jewish citizens serious political power because of their ethnic origin. Since the founding of the State, only Jewish parties have been invited into the ruling coalition – since Israeli is a Jewish state. The success of Obama holds up a mirror to Israelis, and the liberal and centrists don't like how they look.

By the time the Israelis wake up, Obama will be in the White House. Once again, we will be on the wrong side of history.

Remember how we cheered Nixon months before his resignation?

Peace Now’s Semi-Annual Settlement Report

Yesterday Haaretz published a story on the semi-annual settlement report of Peace Now. Read about it here. The publication is one of those repetitive rituals that we Israeli Jews are so good at. First, there is a report that the settlement activity has doubled in the last six months, in comparison with the previous year. Then, we are told about where the new housing is being built (this year it is mostly in the Hebron and Har Hebron South area). Then, there is the ritual statement from the US about how increased settlement activity is unfortunate and harmful to the peace process (this year it was by Condi, whose tenure at the State Department rivals her tenure at Stanford for ineffectuality.) And finally, there is the reaction of the Council of Settlements of Judea and Samaria praising the settlement activity, condemning the monitoring of Peace Now as "informing", and complaining about government restrictions.

As is almost always the case Haaretz's story runs on the front page and may get an editorial the next day. Yediot Aharonot buries two paragraphs on the report and the reaction somewhere in the paper. Few notice and fewer care.

Peace Now's Settlement Watch, run first by the legendary Dror Etkes, and now by the very able Hagit Ofran, is important because it provides an accurate account of the theft of Palestinian land. Most of the housing is built within the "municipal boundaries" of the settlements, so this is considered by the Israeli government to be ok – as opposed to the illegal outposts, which is supposed to be not ok. But the whole thing is a sham because all building continues on Palestinian private and public land, since Israel has no sovereignty over the Green Line, as is well known (and, my rightwinger readers, as a general rule, if the world and its legal experts don't agree with you, you are wrong, whatever your state happens to be.)

Like everything else that is done here, Peace Now's reports are ineffectual. Israel can't stop the West Bank settlement activity. Like a heroin addict it will do anything for its addiction, even when it clearly wants to break its habit. How do you explain that Israel has not been able to remove illegal outposts, despite its repeated pledges to do so? Olmert doesn't want the outposts, but he simply is unable to move them. These settlements are arguably worse than terrorists attack – they kill generations of Palestinians by making life intolerable, and they thwart the legitimate self-determination of the Palestinian people, recognized in the same document that recognized the rights of a Jews to a Jewish state – the UN partition plan.

Peace Now can't bring peace now or tomorrow, but it provides an important service -- for posterity. The ritual does something for those who participate in it. And that is nothing to sneer at.

A Note and Request to My Readers who Receive My Posts in Their Email

The email version of my posts is generated around a day after I write it. So when I wrote in my post below that the US media had not covered the story of the boats that arrived in Gaza, that was true when I looked at Google News. Apparently I checked a bit early because there was an article later in the New York Times here, as well as in a few other papers.

The lag may have something to do with deadlines, but the fact remains that there were more pieces in the European media about the boats, and at earlier times, than in the US media. And I don't think that is explained merely by American parochialism and time-zones. US newspapers rarely write about Israeli human rights violations; occasionally you will see an article about the settlements or the security fence; less frequently, something about Gaza. In my message below I said "ask Walt and Mearsheimer" but what I really meant to say is that the the US media is anchored deeply in the Zionist consensus; on this you can see my post here.

Don't get me wrong; some of my best friends and family are political Zionists. But until people know what really goes on over here, the suffering will continue.

And now my request -- if you get my posts via email, can you just drop me a line telling me so at jeremiah.haber@gmail.com. For reasons that baffle me I cannot determine how many people subscribe via email.

Thanks.

A Gut Vokh (A Good Week) – Welcome to Gaza, S.S. Liberty and S.S. Free Gaza

Nice news greeted me when I turned on my computer as soon as Shabbat was over in Israel – the S.S. Liberty and S.S. Free Gaza made it to Gaza. Israel decided not to stop the boats, lest that attract more publicity for the voyage. For Israel's reaction, see here. For the BBC account see here

So, welcome to Gaza, activists. I hope that others take up the idea. Yours was a small symbolic gesture, but such things are meaningful, especially for the Gazans.

I note, unsurprised, that virtually none of the US media have picked up the story yet. And I don't think it is because of the Joe Biden story, either. Mind you, the initiative came from the US, and US activists were behind getting the boats. So why are stories like this ignored in the US, despite the fact that there is clear human interest of breaking the Naval blockade of Israel?

Ask Walt and Mearsheimer.

Shabbat Shalom, S. S. Free Gaza and S. S. Liberty!

Well, the gallant crew and passengers of the S.S. Free Gaza and the S.S. Liberty are headed toward the shores of Gaza. I just want to wish from Jerusalem/al-Quds, to each and every one on boat, a nesiah tovah, a bon voyage, and may your mission be accomplished speedily and safely.

And as for those Israeli sailors who have to desecrate the Sabbath to blockade a mission of hope and human rights – remember, Jewish law says that there is no "agency" for a forbidden act, and you cannot plead that you were following orders.

God speed, all, and remember – contributions to the voyage are cheerfully and gratefully accepted at

FreeGaza.org

Jerry

Meron Benvenisti’s Doom and Gloom

My favorite Israeli Cassandra, Meron Benvenisti, wrote a sobering op-ed in Haaretz today that sums up, more or less, how I feel. The two-state solution is dead; the one-state solution is not going anywhere; the status quo will continue unabated, with periods of violence alternating with periods of relative calm. The world, except for some leftists and Muslims, won't care. There will be some further erosion of Israel's "moral stature" but not enough for any real change. No boycotts, no sanctions, nothing with teeth. And 3 ½ million Palestinians within Palestine, not to mention the multitudes outside in refugee camps and with stateless status, will continue to have a quality of life far lower than their Israeli counterparts.

And what Benvenisti says, in effect, is that no matter what happens, there will be a fundamental economic inequality that ensures that the Israelis will have the upper hand. How long can the status quo continue? Indefinitely.

This explosive status quo survives due to the combination of several factors: fragmentation of the Palestinian community and incitement of the remaining fragments against each other; enlistment of the Jewish community into support for the occupation regime, which is perceived as protecting its very existence; funding of the status quo by the donor nations, which cause corruption among the Palestinian leadership; persuasion of the neighboring states to give priority to bilateral and global interests over Arab ethnic solidarity; success of the propaganda campaign known as negotiations with the Palestinians, which convinces many that the status quo is temporary and thus they can continue to amuse themselves with theoretical alternatives to the final-status arrangement; the silencing of all criticism as an expression of hatred and anti-Semitism; and psychological repugnance toward the conclusion that the status quo is durable and will not be easily changed.

Of course, Benevenisti, as is his wont, holds out a slim chance for change:

Its not nice to admit, and it is a sad forecast, but without accepting this conclusion and learning our lesson from it, change will not be possible.

I think he feels that change is possible, if one eliminates some of the above factors.

My view is as follows: there is no solution, there is no possibility of justice or peace, there is no way to make a seismic shift. In situations like this, the task of any decent man and woman is to do what they can to alleviate the suffering – to support the activists and the NGOs, to publicize the human rights violations, to talk to our family and friends and let them know what is going on. This will not end the occupation, since the occupation cannot end. But fifty or hundred years from now, our children will be able to say to their children, "Your grandparents were not silent. They tried and failed, but at least they tried."

One thing that we can talk against immediately: the so-called peace process. One of the strongest reasons for the ongoing occupation is "the success of the propaganda campaign known as negotiations with the Palestinians, which convinces many that the status quo is temporary and thus they can continue to amuse themselves with theoretical alternatives to the final-status arrangement". More Israelis, and more supporters, must be taught the lesson – there is no possible agreed upon solution, not now, not in fifty years, not in a century. Israelis and supporters must understand that their war is a permanent one, and that the injustices they commit in the name of their security are permanent. Then, and only then, can one ask the question whether the price of a Jewish state is too high. The Jews survived for two thousand years without a state. And while being a minority is not a picnic, they can be proud of what they achieved. Can't they get together and start thinking about alternatives to what a few Russian Jews came up with in 1948? "The Jewish head doesn't stop inventing things," Uri Zohar used to sing. Well, can't we start thinking outside the 1948 political Zionist box?

Here's the article from Haaretz.

Moot argument

_{By Meron Benvenisti}

Its hard to tell whether the reports that more and more Palestinians are now leaning toward a one-state solution are genuinely due to an increase in supporters of the idea, or to Israeli sensitivity. The binational bogeyman is so off-putting to Israelis that any Palestinian expression on the issue gives rise to speculation and conspiracy theories. Former Palestinian Authority prime minister Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala) is aware of this sensitivity, and exploits it every time he hits a bump in the negotiations: "If Israel continues to put up opposition, we will demand a single state for two peoples," he said recently.

Indeed, the Palestinians use the slogan "One State" to threaten Israel, and they know full well how effective that threat is. So great is the fear that the Palestinians are planning to exchange their struggle for national independence for a demand for citizenship rights in a binational state, that the very mention of this option is seen as proof of their unwillingness to reach peace. The Palestinian demand for Israel to annex the territories and extend citizenship rights to their inhabitants is considered more of a threat to Israel than the demand for an independent state, since civil equality is a universal norm and the demand for its implementation would win sweeping support in the West. And woe to the Israeli who dares to champion binationalism; he is denounced as a traitor wracked with self-hatred.

The Israeli public debate over binationalism versus a partition into two states is conducted on the theoretical, ideological and philosophical level, and in effect is put forth only as a threat to the accepted and desirable solution of partition. But that debate, which always resurfaces when frustration with the peace process intensifies, never manages to turn into a real discussion of the two alternatives and instead remains a provocative academic topic. This is not only because the binational option is viewed by most Israelis as spelling the destruction of their state, and by most Palestinians as the end of their national liberation movement. Mainly, it is because the debate over the two alternatives is a moot argument, the sole value of which is in its very existence, and whose purpose is to obscure the robust and durable nature of the status quo.

A status quo is preserved as long as the forces wishing to preserve it are stronger than those wishing to undermine it, and that is the situation today in Israel/Palestine. After more than 40 years, the Israeli governing system known as "the occupation," which ensures full control over every agent or process that jeopardizes the Jewish community's total domination and the political and material advantage that it accumulates, has become steadily more sophisticated through trial and error - without planning, but in response to the genetic code of settler society.

This status quo, which appears to be chaotic and unstable, is much sturdier than the conventional description of the situation as a temporary military occupation would indicate. The tensions and internecine confrontations that prevail in the area under Israeli control are so acute - and the power gap between the Jewish and the Arab communities so decisive - that there is no way to deal with these tensions except by means of military might.

Usually the emphasis is on the political and civil inequality and the denial of collective rights that the model of division - or, alternatively, inclusion in a binational government - is supposed to solve. But the greater, and more dangerous, inequality is the economic kind that is characteristic of the current situation and will not be reversed by either alternative: the dramatic gap in gross domestic product per capita between Palestinians and Israelis, which is 1:10 in the West Bank and and 1:20 in the Gaza Strip, as well as the enormous inequality in the use of natural resources (land, water). This gap cannot exist without the force of arms provided so effectively by the defense establishment, and even most of those who oppose the occupation are unwilling to let go of it, since that would impinge on their welfare.

This explosive status quo survives due to the combination of several factors: fragmentation of the Palestinian community and incitement of the remaining fragments against each other; enlistment of the Jewish community into support for the occupation regime, which is perceived as protecting its very existence; funding of the status quo by the donor nations, which cause corruption among the Palestinian leadership; persuasion of the neighboring states to give priority to bilateral and global interests over Arab ethnic solidarity; success of the propaganda campaign known as negotiations with the Palestinians, which convinces many that the status quo is temporary and thus they can continue to amuse themselves with theoretical alternatives to the final-status arrangement; the silencing of all criticism as an expression of hatred and anti-Semitism; and psychological repugnance toward the conclusion that the status quo is durable and will not be easily changed.

Its not nice to admit, and it is a sad forecast, but without accepting this conclusion and learning our lesson from it, change will not be possible.

The Annual "Comfort-Ye-My-People" Post

All right, it is time for the annual Shabbat Nahamu post -- the comforting thoughts for the Jewish people, and, in particular, those in Israel.

Last year I wrote:

Has Israel been built with the blood, sweat, and property of millions of innocent Palestinians? Yes it has. And it must make amends and offer restitution. But it has also been built with the blood, sweat, and energies of millions of Jews, inside and outside. And while there are many deep and structural problems with the state that was founded in 1948, there are many worse post-World Was II states than Israel, many more states that perpetuated the same crimes and worse than Israel, and yet are in much worse shape today.

Yes, things are the absolute pits here. But we can be thankful of the little things.

For example, I still love Jerusalem -- whatever is left of it after its overbuilding and its ghetto-like, apartheid wall.

I love the quiet neighborhoods [unfortunately not so quiet in Summer 2008 -- JH], the bustling areas, the amount and quality of kosher food I can eat...

Where but in Jerusalem can you go to a kosher restaurant that doesn't look irredeemably Jewish? Where the diners don't all look like they followed you out of the early minyan (prayer service) at shul?

What other Jewish community in the world gives your daughters at least two shuls in which women read from the Torah AND there is a mehitzah (partition)?

What other Jewish community in the world has Jews and Arabs working together to protest injustice and humanity?

What other Jewish community in the world has a DVD rental store like the Third Ear, where you can get alternative indie movies that show you the true face of the Occupation, as well as the complete sets of Simpsons and Seinfeld?

All this is in Israel, and in Jerusalem, the Holy City.

We Jewish people are in a spiritual malaise. Traumatized by the holocaust, supportive of a state that is still, after sixty years, foundationally racist, and yet has achieved so much....if I didn't believe in the indestructability of the Jewish people -- that the seed of Abraham will never wither away -- I would despair.

But we will prevail. With the help of people of good faith everywhere, and, desperately, with the assistance of our Palestinian brothers and sisters, we shall overcome the malaise. Justice will be served. We will learn from them and from our mistakes. It will take decades, but it will come. I am 54 years old. I compare my generation with that of the younger generation -- things are changing.

So what do I have to add this year?

Not a whole lot. The good things haven't changed; the bad things have gotten worse. But I will add one thing from the vantage point of Shabbat Nahamu 2008/5768

Time has run out on the two-state solution. It isn't going to happen. I know that the leftwing and rightwing opponents of the two-state solution have been saying this for a long time. But now the moderates are. Sari Nusseibah, the Palestinian who is the most acceptable to Israelis, and who teamed with Ami Ayyalon, threw in the towel yesterday. Read the interview here. Since the West Bank is de facto annexed to Israel, and since Gaza will always be under siege, it will shortly be time for annexation de jure with citizenship for the Palestinians. That will be the battle cry of the younger generation.

It will be a hard sell for both Palestinians and Israelis, who don't want to power-share. But Israel is intractably opposed to a Palestinian state, and has been so from day 1 of its existence. Most people who say that they favor a Palestinian state don't really mean it. And even if they do mean it, the settlers aren't going to let them do i.t So something will have to be done with millions of Palestinans who have been under Israeli control for the last 40 years without citizenship. Step One is for the PA to disband itself (a step favored by Nusseibah); step Two is for Israel to take responsibility for them again. And step three will be to agitate for annexation and citizenship for the West Bank Palestinians.

I don't say that I favor this solution. Like Nusseibeh, I like the idea of two, three, or a whole bunch of states in a federation or confederation. But it ain't going to happen. So we have to start thinking of alternatives.

What makes me optimistic is that I believe this can be done without destroying what I like about Israel now (see above). Oh, sure, there will be a regime change and changes in the fundamental character of Israel from an ethnocracy with racist laws under the veneer of a liberal democracy (a bit like Russia, which is not surprising, since Russians founded the State of Israel) into a binational, or bicultural, or just bi-state. But if naturalization is done correctly, through a process of education, and a gradual conferral of benefits for potential citizens, then there can be an Israelification of the new civilians that will include a familiarization with Jewish culture -- as well as a familiarization of Palestinian culture for the Jewish citizens.

Nothing of what I like about Israel need change in such a state -- unless the merge is bungled so that the fundamentalists (Jewish, Muslim, or Christian, they are all the same in this regard) take power. Then it will be a one-way ticket back to the US for me. The last thing I want to do is live in modern state governed by Shari'a or Torah (the medieval Hebrew translation of shari'a)

Please Help This Young Man Get to America

The boy in the picture above, proudly displaying his diploma for learning English, had his visa revoked last week by the United States, while waiting in Amman for his plane to America.

Ahmed al-Mughari (in my post a few days ago I spelled it Ma'ari, following English press accounts) studied English in Gaza for two years as part of a program administered by AmidEast, "a private, nonprofit organization with a mission of strengthening mutual understanding and cooperation between Americans and the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa." Talented students from Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, as well as Yemen, Kuwait, and Egypt, etc., are nominated when they are about 13 or 14 years old to participate. The students study about 150 hours of general English language, 40 hours academic writing, 30 hours, conversation, and 20 hours public speaking. Classes are on Fridays or during vacations, and are in addition to the students' regular schooling. Mind you, Friday is the only day off from class in the Muslim world, so this means that students give up their break from school to participate in their program, which is well-liked. Friday is, of course, the Muslim sabbath, and attending the program means, for some boys, missing their Sabbath meal with the family. But they do it because they are excited about learning English.

It is a year long program, but Ahmed was lucky and was allowed to spend a second year in the program.

When Ahmed finished his second year, he applied to AmidEast to study in America and to live with an American family. Details of the exchange program, called, YES (Youth Exchange and Study Program), can be found here.

The world pictures Gaza as a dysfunctional, overpopulated, hellhole, run by fanatical Muslim fundamentalists, with armed thugs and terrorists roaming the streets. Maybe this is too detailed a picture; most Israelis, if they think of Gaza at all, see it as a miserable place where terrorists who are trying to destroy Israel live.

That somebody like Ahmed could grow up in a place like Gaza seems incomprehensible to many Israelis. That Gaza could be home to doctors, lawyers, and university professors, seems as incomprehensible. Such is the power of prejudice and stereotypes.

Recently, I received a letter from Ahmed that I would like to share with you. I am not editing it in any way.

Dear sir

I'm very appreciated for you and your huge efforts in seeking to give me a last chance in order to come back to my program.

My name is AHMED AL MAGHARI. I'm 16 and I'm Palestinian as you know.

At first, I'm going to provide you some details about my program(YES program), YES it is abbreviation for ( Youth and Exchange Study). It's a global program for exchange students all over the world for bridging cultures and building understanding among the people in the world.

I succeed in this program believing in my self and believing a better education and a better place to live in, but unfortunately, they destroyed my only hope for a better future, however I still insist to travel in any way. In addition, this problem effected me in a very negative way, I felt that I disappointed all my friends and my family's hopes. Moreover, a lot of hard decisions that I took based on studying in America simply destroyed.

Any way, thanks a million for you and all the honest people like you and I hope that the problem will be solved in a quick way

AHMED AL MAGHARI

So what can I say to Ahmed? How can I explain to him what the Shin Bet will not explain to him – why they told the US that he is a security threat. And why did he became a security threat only after the US had granted him a visa. And what is a security threat? Does he have a relative that is suspected of being Hamas? Is there fear that he will want to revenge a martyr? Is it difficult for the Shin Bet to trump up charges – even convincingly -- against anybody they want to?

If you an American citizen, I ask you to contact your representative in Congress, or senator, and bring Ahmed's case to their attention.

You may think that this is a lousy time to do something – Congress is or will be soon in recess; the world is paying attention to Russia's invasion of Georgia and the Olympics. If one young man can't travel to America, is this such a big deal?

For me, it is an enormous deal. To save this young man's belief in himself, and in the importance of education, is to save an entire world. Keeping Ahmed in Gaza is a vindictive, spiteful act that says more about Israel's desire to save face with the US than with anybody's security.

How ashamed we all should feel.

Keep the SS Free Gaza Afloat

Many of you know that human rights activists, Israelis and Palestinians, among others, are trying to bring supplies to Gaza by boat. They have raised $300,000 so far, but the expenses (and the weak dollar) have exhausted funds. They are maxed out , and they need financial support. So if you can help, please answer their appeal by contributing at www.freegaza.org

Nine Comments on the Ninth of Av, 5768

1. Tisha B'Av. The Ninth of Av is the Jewish fast day that commemorates the catastrophes that befell the Jewish people over the centuries,especially the destruction of the first, then second temples in Jerusalem. Jews all over the world gather in synagogues to recite the scroll of Lamentations, and then to say elegies over the destruction of Jewish communities, especially in Jerusalem. The graphic description in these elegies of the suffering of innocents is heartrending. Would that we Jews, or for that matter, any people, use these descriptions to sensitive ourselves to the sufferings of other groups! We sit and wail about something that happened centuries ago, when, at the same time, innocent civilians are being killed in indiscriminate bombing in the Republic of Georgia. Can we not make the connection?

    

2. Baseless hatred and Jewish Zealotry. Two reasons are generally given in Rabbinic Judaism for the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 ce: baseless hatred among Jews, and the activity of the zealots against other Jews and the Romans. If one reads Josephus, the historian of the Jewish revolt, the emphasis is upon the latter. Josephus, though he is hardly a disinterested observer, provides the "balance and context" for the destruction of the Temple that is lacking in the rabbinic sources. In this way, and using moral standards that civilized people reject, he mitigates the Roman responsibility for the atrocities. Can he not condemn Roman atroicites yet attempt to understand them at the same time?

    

3. "Balance and context," we are often told, is what is lacking in the criticism of Israel's human rights. Granted that the Palestinians are suffering, and there are human rights violations. But haven't the Israelis suffered as well? What about the suicide bombings and the shelling of Sderot? Doesn't this one-sided criticism suggest naivité at best, and, perhaps, anti-semitism at worst? The call for "balance and context" seems reasonable, until one understands the underlying motivaton – to lessen responsibility, to shift the focus to the other side, to justify, and ultimately, to condone. We hear the same demand for "balance and context" from war criminals, dictators, and other apologists for atrocities. I once heard a professor of Serbian studies, herself a Serb, criticize the West for unfairly blaming Milosevic for atrocities. "And what about the atrocities on the other side?" she said. "What about the centuries of atrocities against the Serbian people" She was right, there had been centuries of atrocities. But in her voice I heard the voice of the Jewish supporter of Israel who attempts to mitigate crimes by pointing fingers at other Palestinians. It is natural enough; we all do it in kindergarten. We don't want to be considered bad, so we point our fingers elsewhere. Can we not grow up?

    

4. Whose Balance? Whose Context? Here are two responses to the calls for "balance and context." First, bite the bullet and say, "There is no balance. Both peoples suffer, but one people suffers much, much, more than the other. And when trying to gauge suffering, one doesn't do use a partisan measure. One looks at the total picture using measures that can be used in any conflict." Second, look at context, but not just the context that is favorable to our – or their – side. Both the suicide bombings and the shelling of Sderot have their origins no more in baseless hatred than the actions of Israel in the West Bank. They are local responses to local situations, based on broader ideologies and contexts. These should be studied and lessons should be drawn from them. If one's commitment is to human rights, you will condemn the indiscriminate shelling of Sderot as a violation of human rights, and then go on to condemn the Occupation as a more serious violation of human rights, for obvious reasons.

    

5. The Settlers Demand "Balance and Context" I heard on the radio this morning that the West Bank Settlers are demanding from B'Tselem video cameras. It seems that they want to document the Palestinians who provoke the settlers to use violence, and then who film settler violence with B'Tselem video cameras. B'Tselem's response was that it will cooperate with the settlers when their human rights are violated. More "balance and context" for their crimes.

    

6. Jewish Zealotry. The historical Zealots believed that Jewish independence from Rome trumped all other considerations, and whoever did not agree with them, Jew or non-Jew, was the enemy. With the growth of nationalism, the destruction of most of European Jewry, and the birth of the State of Israel, Jewish zealots today range from respectable spokespeople like Charles Krauthammer, Norman Podhoretz, Ruth Wisse, Yehezkel Dror, Alan Dershowitz, etc., to ROYS (Racist Orcs with Yarmulkes), like the ultra rightwing settlers in Hebron. But, in a sense, anybody who makes the existence of a state – any state – into an absolute value is a zealot. If the price for the existence of a Jewish state is the ongoing occupation and suffering of another people, then that price is too high. I am not saying that this is the price of the Jewish state. But the defenders of Israel, who try to justify the ongoing occupation with Israel's existential worries, lead me to this conclusion.

    

7. Jerusalem in Ruins. When Israeli troups occupied East Jerusalem in 1967, there were some calls to revise the traditional "Nahem" prayer, which describes a decimated city in ruins. One such prayer, by Rabbi Abraham Rosenfeld, turned the prayer into a memorial prayer for those slained and a call for the flourishing of the city. Most traditional Jews ignored such a liturgical innovation that reflected the moment. And they were right to do so. With each year, the city declines through over-development. Can anybody seriously say that the city has developed positively over the last forty years? Returning from shul today, I found on my car a pamphlet with the headline, "What is Happening on Yorde Ha-Sira Street?" The pamphlet pictured a building that had recently been constructed on the street that dwarfed the other buildings, and that was completely foreign to the Katamon architecture. "We won't let builders and the wealthy destroy the neighborhood." If you can read Hebrew, go to their website here. Every day buildings are being destroyed to make room for multistory complexes that not only replace beautiful building with ugly ones, but that increase the population density of the neighborhoods. A corrupt city management combines forces with greedy developers. The prayer to speedily rebuild Jerusalem is a curse, not a blessing, today.

    

8. Our Hurban. Among the current candidates for Israeli Prime Minister, I vote for Benjamin Netanyahu. In my opinion, Netanyahu, a paper tiger who crumpled before Clinton, will damage Israel's image internationally the most, and will be the most susceptible to American and international pressure. The worst of the crop is, needless to say, Ehud Barak. The reasons are obvious, but if you don't get it, just read Gideon Levy's perceptive op-ed to see why here. As for the other two, Mofaz is preferable to Livni – it will be more difficult to pressure an Israel led by a woman than by an obtuse general who represents all that is wrong about the IDF. But, needless to say, as candidates, they are all a hurban, a destruction.

    

9. Their Nakba. In tribute to the great Palestinian poet who died yesterday. Mahmoud Darwish, on the eve of the Ninth of Ab, I conclude with his beautiful poem:

    

In Jerusalem

In Jerusalem, and I mean within the ancient walls,
I walk from one epoch to another without a memory
to guide me. The prophets over there are sharing
the history of the holy . . . ascending to heaven
and returning less discouraged and melancholy, because love
and peace are holy and are coming to town.

I was walking down a slope and thinking to myself: How
do the narrators disagree over what light said about a stone?
Is it from a dimly lit stone that wars flare up?
I walk in my sleep. I stare in my sleep. I see
no one behind me. I see no one ahead of me.
All this light is for me. I walk. I become lighter. I fly
then I become another. Transfigured. Words
sprout like grass from Isaiah's messenger
mouth: “If you don't believe you won't believe.”

I walk as if I were another. And my wound a white
biblical rose. And my hands like two doves
on the cross hovering and carrying the earth.
I don’t walk, I fly, I become another,
transfigured. No place and no time. So who am I?
I am no I in ascension's presence. But

I think to myself: Alone, the prophet Mohammad
spoke classical Arabic. “And then what?”
Then what? A woman soldier shouted:
Is that you again? Didn’t I kill you?
I said: You killed me . . . and I forgot, like you, to die.

http://www.dhfaf.com/poetry.php?name=Poetry

Two Additional Reasons for the Academic Boycott of Israel

Meet Fidaa Abed and Ahmed Ma'ari. Abed was headed to the University of California at San Diego for a graduate degree in computer science. Ahmed is a high school student. Both won Fullbrights to study in the US. Both had their Fullbrights cancelled, then reinstated, then US visas issued, then revoked.

Now, let me get this straight. At first they weren't a security threat; they were just kept in Gaza because of Israel's stranglehold on that territory. It's called "collective punishment" – if we hurt the Gazans enough, they will rise up and throw out Hamas. Gee, that's a smart strategy. Certainly has worked.

Then, it turns out that they were a security threat, or so Israel claimed. But the US didn't consider them a security threat, saying that the evidence provided by Israel was flimsy, so they were issued student visas. Then, when Mr. Ma'ari was at Dulles airport he found out that the visa had been revoked – at least for the time being. It seems that "new information" had been provided by Israel which made the Americans think twice. So now they are investigating the "new information."

What's a better explanation for the reversal of fortune? That Mr. Abed and Mr. Ma'ari are the victims of a face-saving ploy that Israel was desparate to pull off, and that America has agreed to, for the moment. You know the drill – the US decides to let some of the Fullbright students in (to make Condi happy), and decide to keep some of that out (to make Israel happy). That resolves the diplomatic mini-crisis. On the backs of the Palestinians.

I have always held academic freedom to be important, and as I have written before,I am not a fan of academic boycotts. Academic freedom is very important to me. But it's a two-way street. If Israel continues to curtail the academic freedom of Palestinian students and faculty, especially in Gaza, why should Israeli academic institutions complain that the academic boycott undermines their academic freedom? Is the academic freedom of Israelis dearer than that of Palestinians?

Apparently so, for Haaretz reports that

Gisha, an Israeli organization aimed at protecting Palestinian freedom of movement, says the problems the Palestinian students faced are not out of the ordinary.

"In addition to the particular students who did not receive visas for technical reasons or unexplained security reasons, there are hundreds of students in the Gaza Strip who were accepted by universities abroad and have valid visas," said Gisha executive director Sari Bashi. But, she added, "Israel issues a comprehensive ban on students from Gaza going abroad, as part of its policy of collective punishment toward Gaza residents, thereby impinging on the right to education of hundreds of talented young people who want to study, develop and create a better future in our region."

Some 1,100 university students wanted to leave Gaza to study abroad last September, of whom 480 went to Egypt and from there traveled elsewhere, according to Gisha. However, Israel has not operated such trips from Gaza to Egypt since January.

That Haaretz article, by the way , was written by Barak Ravid, whose job at Haaretz includes providing a shofar for unnamed government officials who are ticked off by even mild US pressure on Israel. After years of Israel telling American Jews to shut up and just send cash, they are now trying to say that to the Americans.

The Hebron Tour -- Police Guard, Settler Harrassment

So today I went on the "official" Hebron tour, led by Breaking the Silence, the group of IDF veterans who themselves did military service in Hebron. The group has been given this tour for a few years now.

This time it was different. (See video below)

Twenty-three Israelis and a few members of the Breaking the Silence were encircled by over a hundred police and border police -- to protect them from the Hebron Jewish settlers. That works out to over six policemen per tourist. And the settlers were there, albeit not in full force. In fact, there were only about twenty of them, but their leaders had megaphones. So the planned chaos went on for two hours, as Yehuda Shaul of Breaking the Silence and the tour's participants was verbally harrassed ("Homo," "Nazi,", "You sleep with terrorists"), while the police watched and did not interfere.

Each group did what it was supposed to do. The police can now tell the High Court that it accompanied the tour, as agreed, but at an enormous cost of manpower. The Breaking the Silence folks succeeded to have at least part of their "tour". And the settlers -- well, they were there to verbally harrass, and they did a good job. No rocks, no eggs, just a lot of insults at high decibels.

Have you ever seen the footage of blacks in the US South during the 1950s entering =schools and universities under heavy police protection, as they are being taunted by the crowd? Well, that's a bit how we felt. We weren't allowed by the organizers to say anything, to respond to the harrassment, to get off a good crack or some bon mot. We were stony-faced silent.

By the way, on the bus down, we were given a balanced portrait of Hebron that stressed its importance in Jewish history, and we were told of the settlement there, and the 1929 massacres. None of the Breaking the Silence leaders called for removing the settlers. On the contrary, the guides said that the settlers had legitimate security claims in Hebron. But what has happened on the ground has gone way beyond security. It is all about making life hell for the Palestinians so they will leave the area under Israeli jurisdiction.

Many have.

The video takes around five minutes of your time. I apologize for the poor quality. It's from my camera. All the noise you hear is from the settlers.

It Wasn't Just Me

All right, so I am a bit paranoid -- I was afraid that my blog was attacked by rightwing meanies. In the two minutes I had before Shabbat, I saw that some anti-Obama sites had been locked last Spring, and that the Washington Times (not the most accurate of news sources) had reported about it.

But it is more likely that I was simply suffering along with a zillion other Blogger uses, whose blogs were locked on August 1. You can read some of the cries for help here.

End of story...for now

Unlocked by Blogger -- Keep Reading Here

Shavua Tov, a Good Week, Readers

I don't know when over Shabbat my blog was unlocked by Blogger, but everything seems ok now, for the moment.

I am still a bit shaken by what I consider to be a violation of my blogging space, and I still suspect people who are unfriendly to my blog. One of my readers suggested that the culprit was somebody who was unhappy that I called the settlement of Efrat ugly. Don't laugh. The few times I have blogged about Efrat I have received some very nasty reponses from Efratians.

And that's a shame because although none of my best friends lives in Efrat, I have very good friends who live there. I can criticize the settlement without dumping on some of the settlers there.

But maybe the whole thing had nothing to do with Efrat.

Thanks for your support!

My Trip to Hebron Yesterday

There haven't been many tours to Hebron run by Breaking the Silence or Bne Abraham lately. Sure, the High Court upheld their right to conduct tours, but trips to Hebron take place, surprisingly, in Hebron and not in a courtroom. And in Hebron the bosses are the army and the police, which have close ties to the settlers. So while the army and the police cannot officially ban the tours, they can "dry out" the groups by delaying them, or by calling for clearance, etc., etc.

I saw this in action for myself yesterday. I did not go on a tour but on a private visit arranged by the Hebron activists. We went in an Israeli taxi from Jerusalem, driven by a Palestinian cab-driver who spoke Hebrew, English, and a little Yiddish. I hadn't been in Hebron for two years, and things have changed for the worse. The road to Hebron is mostly tunnel and wall; the tunnel reminded me of the famous Agnon story, "The Tale of the Goat," in which a Jew follows a goat into a hole in Poland and emerges in the Land of Israel. Only this time I did not emerge in the Land of Israel but rather in the Land of the Settlers, the land where there are two sets of laws, roads, and lives for two sets of people. Efrat epitomizes Settler Sprawl; what was once a relatively small growth on the landscape of the Land of Israel gets bigger, uglier, and more out of place every year. And Efrat, one huge illegal outpost, now has its own illegal outposts.

The Separation Wall completely hides Beit Lechem from the view of the Israeli-only road. I must congratulate the wall designers, though; the wall (from the Jewish side) is more aesthetically pleasing than the concrete slabs one generally sees in the pictures (or the the-much photographed wall along Highway 443, where somebody actually painted a landscape without Arabs.) Of course, I couldn't see how it looked from the Palestinian side.

We emerged from the car park near the Cave of the Machpelah, when we were met by our escort, a Settler Goon named Ofer who recognized one of us as the Enemy. When he found out that we going to take a tour on foot, he attached himself to us, filming us on his video camera, talking, and in general harrassing us. Part of the parasitical nature of the Hebron Settlers is to do everything that they think the human rights activists do. You know, they will take a law suit and then submit the same one, changing the names. If the human rights activists have video cameras, they will also have a video cameras. They don't actually do anything with the videos, and I am not really sure that he turned it on. He was, afterall, a Goon.

Of course, the next thing that the Goon did was to complain to the soldiers, who asked us what we were doing there. The soldiers then asked us for identification and told us to wait, which we did. When nobody showed up, we continued our journey. Mind you, these streets are open to Jews, and we saw other Jews walking along them. But the other Jews were dressed like Haredim, and so nobody bothered to ask them for identification. I guess we looked like Israelis. (Note that in the picture below, the Palestinians have to walk on the left side of the fence. That's not apartheid; that's hafrada.)

We then made our way through the streets that have been shut down since the Goldstein massacre. The way things work in Hebron is that a Jew massacres lots of Arabs, and then the Arabs are, "for their own protection," not allowed to open their businesses near the Jews. Aaron Miller's book opens with him measuring the Shuhada Street in Hebron to see where the border will be….needless to say, all this is a buffer zone that a) makes the Arabs suffer, b) makes the Jews feel good, and c) provides the possibility for expansion.

And suffer they do. We then went to visit some Palestinian friends who told us how the latest brigade of soldiers have been harrassing them. Of course, if Israeli soldiers harrass Palestinians, they get to complain to…Israeli soldiers. (That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the suffering of Jews and Arabs in Israel – not who blows you up, but who you turn to turn in order not to be blown up.)

We then went to visit Palestinians who are living in the house that the activists helped renovate a year ago. The settlers had recently smashed windows, part of which the Palestinian occupants had filmed on their cell phone.

By the way, we were stopped several times by soldiers who wondered why we wanted to go to visit Palestinians. Once again, we were told that we could not go "for our own protection." But at least once, a higher up instructed the soldiers to escort us for our own protection (presumably from the settlers, not from the Palestinians, although I must say that because there were only a few of us, not many settlers besides the Goon even noticed us.

At the end of the trip, we went to visit some of the souvenir salespeople who have been doubly hit by the cancellation of the tours because the haredim won't by from them. But they were very friendly to us, even though, when you think about it, they have tsuris from the settlers because they are nice to the activists.

Israel Security Forces Kill Nine Year Old Palestinian Boy at Nil’in

Haaretz and Palestinian sources are reporting that Hamada Husam Musa, a nine-year old boy from the village of Nil'in, was killed by Israeli security forces during a protest at Nil'in today. The IDF said it has launched an investigation.

The protests are against the land grab wall and have been ongoing. Some rocks are thrown at these protests, and some soldiers are hurt. But some rocks are also thrown by settlers, and some soldiers are hurt – yet settlers have not been killed or shot at by security forces. This appears to have been a clear violation of even the IDF's rules of engagement.

The Anarchists Against the Wall have announced an urgent financial appeal for a legal defence fund. You can read about it here, but more importantly, you can donate here

Another Bogus Triumph of Justice

On its front page yesterday Haaretz proclaimed an apparent triumph for the cause of justice: Part of the barrier that separates the villages of Jayus and Falamah from their lands would be moved closer to the Green Line – at the cost of 50 million shekalim to the Israeli taxpayer. The original route had been planned, of course, to accommodate the expansion of the settlement Tzofim, which itself is built on Palestinian land.

It seems that IDF chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi,doesn't want to spend time, energy, and money, planning a route that may later be moved by the High Court of Justice. In this case, the new route follows the suggestions of the "dovish" Council for Peace and Security headed by Col. Shaul Arieli (ret.), who has co-authored a book on the barrier with the human rights lawyer, Michael Sfard.

A triumph for the good guys, you say? Think again.

The new barrier will be closer to the Green Line, not on the Green Line. What difference is it to the villagers of Jayus and Falamah if the barrier is moved closer to the Green Line, when they still have to go through gates and get permits to farm their lands. Maybe some villagers will benefit. But if you have lands on both sides of the barrier, and if you have to farm both lands at the same time, you still lose out – and plenty.

The decision is emblematic of the way things work here in Israel. A decision is made that involves an outrageous injustice and that causes untold suffering in the name of Israeli security. Then comes along the High Court, usually because of a suit brought when the human rights organizations are involved, and occasionally a policy is changed, with great fanfare, to something more moderate. The Alan Dershowitzes and Michael Walzers of the world are happy. But the less egregious decision still involves an outrageous injustice and causes untold suffering. Israelis pat themselves on the back and retain their self-image of being civilized – since they had the power to do worse.

Any wall, even one on the Green Line, is a lousy idea that endangers both people's security.

But I won't argue that in this post. Rather I wish to claim that the question is not, "What can the State of Israel legitimately do to Palestinians for the sake of its security?

The question is rather, "What can the State of Israel legitiimately do to any civilians, including Jews, in the name of its security?

The answer to the second question determines the answer to the first. If it is wrong to do it to a Jew (say, one that is not a citizen of Israel), it is a wrong to do it to a Palestinian.

Please read the article below or here

In one West Bank village, new barrier route won't help
By Avi Issacharoff
Farmers in the village of Jayus, in the northern West Bank, were not overjoyed over the defense establishment's reported decision to move the separation fence, thus giving the villages there easier access to their lands. "Israel's decision is a disaster for us," said Jayus farmer Sharif Khaled. Until now, Khaled would pass through the fence every morning and evening, via a special gate the Israel Defense Forces opens three times a day, in order to access his lands and greenhouses west of the fence. Advertisement   He and his wife returned home Monday at 4:30 P.M., as they have been doing since October 2003. He showed the soldiers at the gate his special IDF-issued work pass, and entered Jayus. However, even after the fence is moved, Khaled will have to go through a similar gate in the new fence, he said. Contrary to Israel's announcement that 2,600 of the village's 3,000 dunams will be east of the new fence, another 6,000 dunams of Jayus' land will remain west of it, Khaled said. "We had hoped the new fence would be on the Green Line. It will leave 6,000 dunams west of the fence and only 2,000 on our side. It will still be difficult to reach the land," he said. Khaled has 175 dunams of land west of the fence, where he grows vegetables and fruit. He must renew his permit every few months in order to access his lands. However, he fears that by the end of this month, he may not be able to do so.

 

The Brouhaha in the South African Jewish Community over the Human Rights Delegation to Israel

Last week I posted two articles on the visit of a highly respected delegation of ANC-activists, including former government officials and a Supreme Court judge, to the West Bank. Sources close to the delegation informed me that some of the delegates were not pleased with some elements of the the press coverage. But the bottom line was that they returned to Israel shocked and dismayed by the treatment of West Bank Palestinians, and that, while respectful of Israel's genunine security concerns, they questioned the proportionality and the long-term effects of its response.

What has annoyed some members of the South African Jewish community, is that liberal Jews were involved in the planning of the tour. In fact, a former member of the Zionist group Habonim-Dror, together with an Israeli IDF veteran who was a counselor at an Habonim-Dror camp, were instrumental in putting the group together. And, not surprisingly, the trip has been defended by liberal members of the South African Jewish community.

I confess that the only South African Jews I know are the ones who made aliyah to Israel. And I have been reading a bunch of emails from South African expats who consider themselves liberal, and yet are not happy to find themselves on the wrong side of the fence, so to speak…

Anyway, one piece that has annoyed some of the South Africans is the editorial yesterday by the Johannesburg Sunday Times' Editor in Chief, Mondli Makhanya, a member of the delegation, who speaks of the "permanent apartheid" separating Palestinians from Jews. Read about it here. His piece is less about the Wall than about the hatred and distrust both side feels for the other.

The South African Jewish Report has coverage of the delegation in the July 18 issue and the July 25 issue. These are pdfs and will take time to load, but they are worth reading.

The South African Jewish Report should be commended for providing a platform for readers to express their viewpoints, for and against.

Would Somebody Help Me Out Here?

I am unable to understand the logic of those Israel supporters who say that they regrettably have no choice but to accept the West Bank status quo. I am referring to those who say, "Look, we Israelis have no desire to rule over 3 ½ million Palestinians. But, unfortunately, we have no alternative but to continue the current situation that, admittedly, will make life miserable for the Palestinians and will arouse their hatred of us. They are responsible for the mess they are in. They could have had a state or something like it. Instead they sent suicide bombers. We would be crazy to unilaterally withdraw – just see what has happened in Gaza."

I am not bothered by the fact that the argument rests on the following questionable assumptions:

1. Were it not for the security issue Israelis would be willing to have a Palestinian state next to them on the Green Line.
2. The threat to Israel from the Palestinians is greater than Israel's threat to them.
3. Israel bears no responsibility for the breakdown of the Oslo Peace Process, the Intifada al-Aksa, or the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.
4. The Palestinians were offered a State at Camp David/Taba/Annapolis.
5. The Palestinians want an immediate and unilateral Israeli withdrawal.

Every one of these assumptions is debatable. I believe them to be false and that Israelis deceive themselves when they claim to accept them. But that's not what bothers me.

What bothers me is that even if we grant all these propositions, I don't see how they justify the West Bank status quo.

Even if we assume that the Palestinians were offered a state at Camp David/Taba, and that they turned it down because they want to destroy Israel, and that they have the power to destroy Israel through terrorism, and that they are responsible for the whole mess they are in – why does it follow that we have the right to conduct massive human rights offenses against them indefinitely?

One could respond that a) Palestinians have collectively forfeited their human rights or b) our human rights trump their human rights, or c) the existence of a Jewish state justifies the massive and indefinite human rights violation of another people. Any of those additional propositions would help the argument go through. But not a whole lot of Israel advocates want to be explicit about a), b), or c). Rather they minimize the human rights violations, calling them "inconveniences" or "unintended" or "regrettable" or "not our responsibility".

I don't understand these guys. Much more consistent are the rightwing Israelis who simply say that the Palestinians don't act like humans and therefore can be abused if necessary.

Why should Israel's right to exist trump the right to exist of the Palestinians, for that matter, any other alternative?

It seems to me that the only morally justifiable answer is that no matter how bad the current situation is, any other situation would be worse for both peoples. If you can show that the Israeli occupation is better for the Palestinians than their own government would then that answer have some purchase.

Has anybody seen that answer argued somewhere? I haven't.

No Judge and No Law

There is an article in Haaretz today (in Hebrew) about the findings of the Israeli human rights organization Yesh Din ("There is Law"), that less than 10% of the complaints of Palestinians against West Bank settlers result in indictments. Most of the files are closed by the police for lack of evidence, because the perpetrators are unknown, etc.

Here is the blurb concerning the report from Yesh Din's website:

Yesh Din's monitoring of the handling of investigations into offenses committed by Israeli civilians against Palestinians in the West Bank exposes that the rate of failure of the Samaria and Judea (SJ) District Police investigations is at 90%.  This and other statistics are published in a data sheet which tracks 205 investigation files opened in recent years and which have been followed closely by Yesh Din. Out of the 205 investigations opened into offenses committed against Palestinians which Yesh Din is following, police processing and prosecutorial review have concluded in 163 files. Out of those 163, only in 13 (8%) of the cases were indictments filed against defendants. One case file was lost and never investigated, and 149 (91%) investigation files were closed without filing any indictments against suspects.

   

Additional findings in the data sheet show that out of the 149 investigation files that were closed, 91 were closed on grounds of "perpetrator unknown" (61%) and 43 cases were closed on grounds of "lack of evidence" (28%).

 

To read Yesh Din's Report, please click here. From its monitoring, it seems that the police "investigations" are the stuff of farce. On rare occasions, appeals have been successful. But one can only marvel at the amount of Sysiphisian labor performed by the tiny Yesh Din organization. They work so hard in the face of such adversity.

According to Haaretz, the response of the state's attorney in charge of law enforcement in these cases was to challenge Yesh Din's statistics – not 13 but 30 indictments resulted. That means 78%, rather than 92%, of the investigation files were closed without an indictment.

Whew, now I can sleep at night….

Of course, I don't believe the state's attorney. If you read Yesh Din's report, you will see that no official statistics are kept that track complaints of offenses against Palestinians; they are mixed with settler' offenses against the police. Yesh Din documents its cases; when they have requested the state's attorney's documentation, they have been stonewalled.

On the Wild West Bank, settlers move against Palestinians with impunity. Small wonder that most Palestinians don't even bother to report complaints to the police

It would be instructive to compare these statistics with those of settler complaints against Palestinians. Are those recorded anywhere?

T

 

Selling Circumcision to Jewish Progressives

A few days ago, my newborn grandson Uri had his bris.

Circumcision is one of Judaism's oldest customs; according to the Bible, it predates the covenant at Sinai. It is also practiced in many areas around the world. It is a primitive – some would say 'barbaric' – practice. What bothers people most about circumcision in the Jewish case is that an irreversible and painful procedure of questionable medical benefit is performed on human beings without their knowledge and consent. But even if it is a relatively benign procedure, the idea of having it conducted by a mohel, and then having a party after it, while the baby is still in pain…well, you catch the difficulty. And if you don't, then go watch the Seinfeld episode where Kramer kidnaps the baby before the bris.

There is nothing liberal or progressive about male infant circumcision. And yet, when asked to say a few words at the reception, this is what I said.

Cicumcision is the only custom in Judaism where Jews are commanded to perform an action that brings pain on ourselves (According to the Torah, our children are extension of ourselves.) Of course, pain is not essential to the mitzvah; if one could circumcize without causing pain,that would be fine. Circumcision is the sign of the covenant with God, according to the Bible. But in most cases the pain will be there, and the ethical imperative against unnecessarily causing pain is the strongest argument against circumcision.

Yet circumcision can be removed from the category of unnecessarily producing pain if the pain that is produced has a humanizing effect. Not on the infant, of course, but on ourselves.

The Jew believe that circumcision is good for the infant because being part of the covenant with God is good. But no matter how good we think it is, we are or should be aware that the infant is in pain. And that should cause us pain, and cause us to want to alleviate the infant's pain – and to make us feel guilty that we were the cause of the pain, even if it's for our good.

The infant is powerless to determine his destiny. Only if the powerful are able to empathize with the pain of the powerless can that pain have meaning.

This we learn from Abram, who, according to the Midrash, was recovering from this circumcision when the three strangers arrived. Because of his own pain Abram could empathize with the pain of the strangers. And he overcame his pain by running to provide for his guests. Until that time, Abram had never helped anybody beyond the confines of his tribe – unless his own kin, like Lot, were affected. Feeding the strangers was the first selfless action he undertook. And it is not a coincidence that the selfless act followed his circumcision.

Next, Abraham negotiated with God on behalf of the people of Sodom. These were people that were alien to his tribe and to his moral code. Yet thanks, apparently, to the pain of circumcision, he could feel their pain as well.

The idea that circumcision makes one truly human is reflected in those midrashim that see it as the completion of the creation of man. It is also reflected in the commandment in Deuteronomy to circumcise one's heart – to remove the external cover that blocks our feelings of empathy for our less fortunate fellow-creatures.

The opposite of the a circumcised heart is a hardened heart – when we steel ourselves against empathizing or identifying with the less fortunate. If I had to suggest the one sin that characterizes the people Israel today it is that they have hardened their hearts against the suffering of the unfortunate, Jew and non-Jew. They just don't care; they are ready to point the blame but not to take the reponsibility. Ditto for the Palestinians.

You don't need circumcision to teach you the lesson of empathy. But if you are going to accept the covenant of circumcision, then the foreskin shouldn't be the only thing circumcised.

We should let the sensitivity to our and to our children's pain take us beyond ourselves to those other, less fortunate, ones for whose pain we are responsible.

 

Weiss and Fleshler on J-Street

I have been following with interest the exchange between Phil Weiss and Dan Fleshler on J-Street, the alternative Jewish lobby. Phil has been disappointed, though hardly surprised, by some of J-Street's positions, just as he has been disappointed, though hardly surprised, by some of Obama's statements on Israel. Phil's fate in life is to be disappointed, though hardly surprised. We are in the same club, here. From the moment I jumped on the Obama bandwagon, I had zero expectations from him on Israel-Palestine. True, the news that Rob Malley and Dan Kurtzer, were involved with Obama's policy team, was encouraging. But how far can Obama go, when he accepts, fundamentlly, the Israeli-Zionist narrative – a narrative that has been accepted by every president since Truman and Kennedy? Will J-Street go past the Zionist consensus and reach-out to Jews who are disaffected with political Zionism? Hardly.

Fleshler says that Weiss is wrong on J-Street, but Weiss didn't say he was opposed to J-Street, only that he thought that its positions weren't that far from those of AIPAC. I think he's right, but I don't mind building coalitions with the Zionist Left over such no-brainers as freezing settlements. Neither does he. And it doesn't hurt to have people to the left of J-Street pushing it a bit on the issues, just as it doesn't hurt to have people to the left of Obama pushing him a bit on the issues.

Don't get me wrong. I deeply admire anybody who spends a lot of time trying to get Israel-Palestine out of the mess it is in – if they are effective. But it seems to me that the successes of the liberal Zionists have been miminal, especially during and after the breakdown of Oslo, and they have been slow at drawing lessons from the failure of Oslo – repeating the mantra of peace will not get you very far. On engaging with the democratically-elected Hamas parliament they have been lukewarm at best. Still, the spread of liberal Zionism a la Peace Now and Brit Tzedek ve-Shalom may help provide political cover for nervous politicians (J-Street's goal) and prepare the ground for people to begin to rethink the conventional wisdom of liberal Zionism. But as long as the discourse in America is almost exclusively Zionistic, there is little hope for an even-handed approach to Israel-Palestine. Will J-Street join with AIPAC in opposing politicians like Jim Moran?

There is another important role for progressive Zionist groups, and that is to support the efforts of the human rights NGO's in Israel/Palestine. The emergence of the discourse of human rights, and international humanitarian law, is one of the most encouraging developments in sixty years of the Jewish state. (The emergence of effective spokespeople for the Palestinians is another hopeful sign.) When Dror Etkes left Peace Now's Settlement Watch for Yesh Din, the message he was sending was that there are immediate problems of human rights violation that need to be addressed and publicized. To my knowledge, the American progressive Zionists have been, on the whole, very supportive of the NGOs, from the New Israel Fund, to the smaller groups. Not all – it seems to be that Jeff Halper's Israel Committee Against House Demolitions is still outside of the Zionist consensus, but maybe I am wrong here. If Progressive Zionists join Palestinians and non-Jews in supporting the NGO's then dayyenu – it will be sufficient for us.

 

 

 

What Kristof Should Have Written

Nicholas Kristof published an op-ed in the New York Times today that sounds like it could have been an editorial for…Haaretz! Kristof attempts to answer his critics in the sort of liberal Zionist way that is no longer satisfying for me. So I thought I would follow his answers with my own.

Tough Love for Israel? By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

On his visit to the Middle East, Barack Obama gave ritual affirmations of his support for Israeli policy, but what Israel needs from America isn’t more love, but tougher love.

Particularly at a time when Israel seems to be contemplating military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, the United States would be a better friend if it said: “That’s crazy” — while also insisting on a 100 percent freeze on settlements in the West Bank and greater Jerusalem.

Granted, not everybody sees things this way, and discussions of the Middle East usually involve each side offering up its strongest arguments to wrestle with the straw men of the other side. So let me try something different.

After I wrote a column last month from Hebron in the West Bank, my blog, nytimes.com/ontheground , was flooded with counterarguments — and plenty of challenges to address them. In the interest of a civil dialogue on the Middle East, here are excerpts from some of the readers’ defenses of Israel’s conduct in the West Bank and my responses:

Jews lived in Hebron for 1,800 years continuously ... until their community was murdered in 1929 by their Arab neighbors. The Jews in Hebron today — those “settlers” — have reclaimed Jewish property. So I don’t see what makes them illegitimate or illegal. (Irving)

True, Jews have deep ties to Hebron, just as Christians do to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, but none of these bonds confer any right to live in these places or even visit them. If Israel were to bar American Christians from Jerusalem, that would not be grounds for the United States to send in paratroopers and establish settlements. And if Israel insists on controlling the West Bank, then it needs to give citizenship to Palestinians there so that they can vote just like the settlers.

Jerry’s turn: The analogy with American Christians is bizarre. What Kristof should have said is that, yes, Jews have a claim to live in Hebron. But the Palestinians have always been a majority in Hebron and in the West Bank, and they have the greater claim to sovereignty over all these areas. If the Jews want to press their claims to live under Palestinian sovereignty, that’s their business. If they are afraid they are going to be massacred, let them leave. But if they press historical claims, then the same should apply to the Palestinians going back to Palestine. (Hence, I am in favor of Jews living in Hebron, and of Palestinians returning to Palestine.)

One side is a beautiful, literate, medically and scientifically and artistically an advanced society. The other side wants to throw bombs. Why shouldn’t there be a fence? (Mileway)

So, build a fence. But construct it on the 1967 borders, not Palestinian land — and especially not where it divides Palestinian farmers from their land.

Jerry’s turn: Please, Mileway, save your racist and condescending comparisons for some colonialist “paradise” like Algiers or apartheid South Africa There have been “literate, medically and scientifically and artistically advanced societies” that committed genocide. One side throw bombs, the other side has planes that drop bombs. As for the fence, build it on the border – but not before you have made restitution for the colonialist exploitation of the Occupied Territories. When Israel withdraws it will have an ongoing and historical responsibility to help create a strong and vibrant Palestinian state.

While I do condemn this type of violence, it pales in contrast to Palestinian suicide bombers, rockets and other acts of terror against Jews. (Jay)

B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, reports that a total of 123 Israeli minors have been killed by Palestinians since the second intifada began in 2000, compared with 951 Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces.

Jerry’s turn: And, Jay, don’t play the intention game. Israel intends to beat the other side into submission. Each side blames the other side. The stronger party carries the most blame.

To withdraw from the West Bank without a partner on the Palestinian side will find Israel in the same fix it has once it withdrew from Gaza: a rain of daily rockets. Yes, the security barrier causes hardship, but terrorist attacks have almost disappeared. That means my kids can ride the bus, go to unguarded restaurants and not worry about being blown up on their way to school. Find another way to keep my kids safe, and I’ll happily tear down the barrier. (Laura)

This is the argument that I have the most trouble countering. Laura has a point: The barrier and checkpoints have reduced terrorism. But as presently implemented, they — and the settlements — also reduce the prospect of a long-term peace agreement that is the best hope for Laura’s children.

If Israel were to stop the settlements, ease the checkpoints, allow people in and out more freely, and negotiate more enthusiastically with Syria over the Golan Heights and with the Arab countries on the basis of the Saudi peace proposal, then peace might still elude the region. But Israel would at least be doing everything possible to secure its long-term future, rather than bolstering Hamas.

Jerry’s turn: Laura, I am going to be blunt – if the price for your children’s safety is the suffering of Fatima's children, of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children, then the moral answer is to come up with a solution that maximizes both sides’ children’s safety. Your children cannot be safe at the expense of their children. Your children are more important to you than theirs are to you – but your children, or my children, for that matter, are not more important than theirs are.

Neither Israel nor Zionism is worth a damn if it cannot be implemented without massive suffering on the other side. Now, I know that there are mafia-morality Jews who will say, “If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?” I fully expect most people not to care at all about the other side. Common-sense says that Laura’s first concern will be rightly with her children. That’s the same with the Serbs and the same with every group. But I can expect disinterested parties to stand up and say, “Laura, we understand why you don’t care about those folks, but you should understand why we care about them. Because their children deserve nothing less than do your children.

To paraphrase Hillel, if I are only for myself, then what the hell am I?

If there is no two-state solution, there will be a one-state solution — and given demographic trends, that will mean either the end of Israeli democracy or the end of the Jewish state. Zionists should be absolutely clamoring for a Palestinian state.

Laura is right about the need for a sensible Palestinian partner, and the failures of Palestinian leadership have been legion. At the moment, though, Israel has its most reasonable partner ever — Palestinian President Mahmud Abbes — and it is undermining him with its checkpoints and new settlement construction.

Peace-making invariably involves exasperating and intransigent antagonists and unequal steps, just as it did in the decades in which Britain struggled to end terrorism emanating from Northern Ireland. But London never ordered air strikes on Sinn Fein or walled in Catholic neighborhoods. Over time, Britain’s extraordinary restraint slowly changed attitudes so as to make the eventual peace possible.

I hope Mr. Obama, as a candidate or as a president, will be a true enough friend of Israel to say all this, warmly but firmly.

Jerry’s turn: Scripture says, “Seek and pursue peace”..but. it emphasizes “Justice, justice you shall pursue” And without a strong, vibrant, Palestinian state, and an equitable solution for all the refugees, there is no justice. Those two conditions are the sine qua non of a justifiable Jewish state.

Close Shave During the Three Weeks?

Yesterday, a few minutes before 2, I dropped a friend off on Washington St. in Jerusalem, and then headed to a meeting. Washington St. winds around the YMCA, where there is now a construction zone. As I drove on the narrow road – mine was the only car around – through the construction site, a tractor crossed my path and stopped. I squeezed behind the tractor. As I did so I thought to myself three things: "I hope he sees me, because if he goes into reverse, that's the end of the car" and "I hope that I am not p-ssing him off because he has to wait for me" and then "Hey, this is a public road, he probably expects cars."

Around five minutes later, when I was way out of the area, the same tractor went on a rampage smashing cars. (I assume that it was the same tractor because the map in Haaretz this morning had the tractor/bulldozer starting right at the place where I had squeezed by.) You can read about it here.

If you live in Jerusalem long enough, you have a "close shave" story. I have two; the last time was when I happened to get to the scene of a bus explosion before the ambulances, but after the police had blocked the street.

Well, I have no lessons to draw from this story, except, perhaps, that I should drive a bit more defensively. If the driver wanted to have backed into me, he could of.

(To my non-orthodox Jewish readers – the not-such-good-taste title of this post refers to the Jewish law of not shaving during the Three Weeks before the Ninth of Ab.)

Acts of Injustice and the Three Weeks

In the Jewish calendar we have now entered the period of the Three Weeks. This is a semi-mourning period beginning on the Seventeenth of Tamuz and that will end on the Ninth of Av, the day the Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E. (and later, the day(s) that Herod's Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E.)

As an orthodox Jew, I believe that there is a God, and that in some way there is divine providence. And my tradition teaches me that acts of injustice will not go unpunished eventually. The Three Weeks should remind of us that.

What do I mean by acts of injustice? Well, the Torah says "You shall have one law for the stranger and for the native; for I am Hashem your God." Strangers are always at a disadvantage merely by being part of the out group. Not only does the Torah forbid afflicting the stranger, but it also mandates that one law apply to both native and stranger. When we discriminate in terms of fundamental human rights, we are unjust. So how are we in Israel doing in that regard?

1. Akiva Eldar reported a few days ago in Haaretz about a Palestinian family named Khurd that is being evicted from its home in East Jerusalem. It seems that the building belonged to Jews before 1948, and when Israell took control of the area, the Jewish owners (or their agents) sued to have that ownership recognized. The court ruled in the Jewish owners' favor, but allowed the Palestinian residents to stay, provided they pay rent. They are now in default on their payments, and they will be evicted. (All this, according to the article in Haaretz. )

What gives the story its special poignancy is that the Palestinian family lived in West Jerusalem until 1948 and they owned property there. They are now being evicted from their homes to make way for Jews, but they cannot get restitution for their own property, which they left during the 1948 fighting. Some estimates say that the Palestinians owned as much as 62% of property in West Jerusalem. Even if that is an exaggeration, Palestinian ownership was considerable.

Now, I ask you – why is a Jew allowed to reclaim Jewish property in East Jerusalem whereas a Palestinian, who lived, perhaps, two blocks away from that Jew, is not allowed to reclaim Palestinian property in West Jeruasalem? If you argue that it is not the right time for Palestinians to make claims for property abandoned sixty years ago, then wouldn't it be right to postpone Jewish claims until the same right time?

But that's not the way Israel works. Because we have the power.

I learned this a while back, when I lived in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. After 1967, the Israel government threw Palestinian families out of an expanded Jewish Quarter that never existed prior to 1948, and whose legal segregation was justified by the liberal Supreme Court Chief Justice Haim Cohen. Since Jews, he wrote, were discriminated against in housing in the Old City, they could now have their special (expanded) quarter as a sort of affirmative action. The "Quarter" System was supposed to ensure that each group would have its own homogeneous quarter. Fair enough.

But then Israel turned around and let Jews reclaim Jewish property in the Muslim Quarter. Why? Because we have the power.

The Torah says "You shall have one law for the stranger and for the native; for I am Hashem your God."

Well, so much for the Torah.

2. Haaretz and Ynet published a story about the shooting of a bound Palestinian protester. By now the pattern is familiar; soldiers abuse Palestinians; nothing happens unless the abuse is caught on camera; the politicians and the military brass condemn the incident; once things quiet down, nothing is down about it. From experience we know that the IDF spokesperson routinely lies to cover its tuches.

You will ask, if abuse is routine, then why don't we hear about it more often? Three reasons: First, most Israelis are insensitive to the suffering of the Palestinians. (The same is true vice-versa. Collectively speaking, neither community could care less about the other.) So what most people consider abuse, most Israelis consider "minor inconvenience at best." Second, most people, and certainly most Jews, are moral chauvinists – they consider themselves morally superior to the other. I have yet to meet an Israeli Jew who doesn't consider himself or herself morally superior to an Arab. That is true of all cultures, but Judaism, in my opinion, suffers in a unique way from moral chauvinism.

Third, we are individualists when we come to our side and collectivists when we come to the other side. Our army is pure except for a few bad apples, we say. But the Palestinian people as a whole glorify violence, we say.

The Jerusalem Post ended its editorial on the shooting by saying that, "We must not allow Palestinians' glorification of violence to brutalize us." Hah, it that isn't the case of the pot calling the kettle black!. As if we are any different from the Palestinians or they from us. The only difference is that we have the power and they don't. So we can and do hurt more of them than they do us. That is the only difference. Oh, sure, educated people on both sides react differently from simple folks on both sides. But let's face it – if we were under occupation, and we thought that only through violence could we liberate our homeland, we would do whatever it takes.

Not a whole lot of Zionists were pacifists. What kept Ben Gurion and some Zionists in check was the pragmatic, usually displomatic consequences of the Jews' actions. I am not belittling this; pragmatism is important.

But just ask yourself, supporter of Israel, just what you would be willing to do for the survival of the Jewish State. Where would your "red line" be?

3. Speaking of moral chauvinism, there has been a lot of that lately surrounding the prisoner exchange. You know, the self-congratulatory "We-don't-dance-on-the-rooftops-we-don't-dip-our-hands-in-the-blood-of-lynch-victims we-don't-trade-in-corpses-we-don't-cause-mental-anguish-to-the-families-of-prisoners" kind of thing.

But some of those things we do, and other things that they never do we do – because we have the power to do them and they don't. How many Jews have been humiliated by Palestinians on a daily basis? When the Palestinians don't like our elected government, how long are we kept under siege? How many Israeli Jews have lived for a second, much less sixty years, subject to the total control of the Palestinians? We have almost all the cards in our hand, and yet we kidnap civillians; we barter with corpses; we detain five thousand Palestinians in jails, many of them without charge, none of them after trials in courts by a jury of their peers.

And yet, we say to ourselves, "Look at the difference between us and them. We will move heaven and earth -- we will free murderers to get back our soldiers, dead or alive. Whereas they are willing to let many of their terrorists rot in Israeli prisons rather than hand back Gilad Shalit."

But suppose that they were holding 5000 Israelis, and the only card we had was a single Palestinian soldier. Would we trade that soldier for, say, only half of ours? Would we be able to look in the eyes of the parents of the soldiers who were not released and say, "We had to be flexible"

Yes, there is a difference between us and them. The difference is that on the day we release their prisoners, we can round up more. We can squeeze them economically; we can reduce their water and electricity; we have absolute control over their lives. And they have no control, nada, over our lives.

If there is a difference, it is between us and us, and between them and them – between the us (and them) that feel it necessary to draw the line when it comes to unjust behavior, and between the us (and them) who say that en guerre comme la guerre. And, yes, where the line is drawn will be different for us and for them , because of the asymmetry of power –but there are some norms that all are bound to.

Moral chauvinists beware – you are destroying the Temple by your baseless hatred.