1,000 Brandeis Students and Faculty Call on Brandeis Hillel to Reconsider Its Herem Against Jewish Voice for Peace – and Hillel Continues To Say “Nyet”

On Monday night, the Jewish Voice for Peace at Brandeis presented the Brandeis Hillel Student Board with a petition with a thousand signatures calling on Hillel to reconsider its refusal to allow JVP be a member group. The Hillel Student board, predictably, said that it would not reconsider.

According to Fiona Lockyer,

Hillel President Andrea Wexler '11 said that Hillel is "not constitutionally subject to appeal by petition, which means that while [JVP is] welcome to appeal, ... we would need to see a different constitution which would be more in-line with our views," and she did not ask for a revote from the Hillel e-board.

"You are always welcome in our meetings, you are welcome to resubmit your constitution, you are welcome to appeal, but our constitution stands. We have already voted on it ... and thus we will not reconsider," Wexler said. "We don't see JVP as falling under our mission statement."

Or as the New York Post headline writer would say, "Brandeis Hillel to Jewish Voice of Peace Students: Drop Dead."

Among the strange things cited, the following takes the cake::

Hillel Education Coordinator Hannah Pollack '13 said, "If you want to define [Hillel] as the Jewish community, that would mean that any of the Jews on campus that don't associate themselves with us are not part of the Jewish community. There's Chabad on campus, there's lots of Jews that just choose ... not to be a part of us. You're not being excluded by the Jewish community by not being under the Hillel umbrella.

She has a point. You can join a heretical messianic cult like Chabad and not be under the Hillel umbrella. Or you can be one of the thousands of Jews who couldn't give a darn about Hillel or Judaism, the great disaffected. Hillel never cares about engagement, does it? Doesn't fall within their mission, according to Ms. Pollack. Jews doing Jewish? Jews engaged with their tradition? At Hillel? Hah!

But Brandeis Hillel's website announces:

Hillel is the nerve center of that Jewish community, and its mission is to promote individual student growth as well as enrich the life of the campus as a whole. Hillel at Brandeis supports over 20 student clubs, performing arts groups, and special project committees each year!

So while you can be a Jewish group at Brandeis (say, Jews for Jesus, or the Zionist Freedom Alliance), you can't be within the nerve center of the Jewish community if Ms.Pollack and her ilk have their way.

I, for one, would like to know what other Jewish groups has Brandeis Hillel's executive board rejected?

Hillel Campus Relations Coordinator Erica Shaps '13 expressed a desire for co-sponsored activities between Hillel and JVP and said that the debate "presents us with the unique opportunity to show the world what discourse and dialogue on a college campus looks like and to say that it's complicated."

Please let me know, Ms. Shaps, when Hillel reaches out to JVP and offers to co-sponsor activities. I will be the first to blog about that. Because you see, that is completely against the Hillel National Guidelines, which state:

Hillel will not partner with, house, or host organizations, groups, or speakers that as a matter of policy or practice,,, Support boycott of, divestment from, or sanctions against the State of Israel.

JVP supports a boycott of settlers' goods and the artists' refusal to appear over the Green Line. And yet Ms. Shaps, to her credit, expresses a desire to co-sponsor activities. Figure that out

Until that time, my advice to Brandeis JVP is simple: Get organized politically, and make sure that you have strong representation on the next Hillel executive board. If the board is elected – frankly, I don't know that it s – make sure to get those who voted in favor of excluding kicked off the board.

Of course, the good news is that all this publicity has provided new members and new allies for Brandeis Jewish Voice for Peace at Brandeis – and made Brandeis Hillel look like a reactionary and close-minded institution, run by AIPAC.

Stop It Right Now!

(I wrote the below eight hours ago, way before the bus bombing. I will say something about that tomorrow. The only intelligent thing to say is: this is what happens when you have idiots running the show.)

I don't care who started it; the deadly escalation between Hamas and Israel has to stop right now.

It is immaterial to me that Israel has been ratcheting up the violence, or reacting disproportionately and recklessly to the Kassam and Grad missile firings. It is immaterial to me that when a rogue group from Gaza fired a missle in February, Southern Command overreacted, attacking a Hamas training camp and killing a senior commander. It is immaterial to me that Israel has a checklist of targets that it has been compiling for a long time and is seizing the opportunity of the rocket firings to go down the list, such as bombing smuggling tunnels. Reprisals? Hardly.

When you have two rightwing governments kowtowing to their respective military wings – in other words, when you have bad boys with deadly toys –you have a recipe for trouble. And while the world is watching Japan and Libya, Israel's Knesset can pass discriminatory laws under the cover of grad missles fired by the gang who can't shoot straight (thank God. I wish our only missles were grads and kassams.)

I hold Hamas mostly responsible for waking the sleeping giant. Do they really think the world cares when innocent people in Gaza die after they fire Kassam rockets? After they were criticized by Human Rights Watch for hassling the Unity Marchers, do they think that their popularity will swell?

Sometimes I think that Hamas needs Israel to reinforce its victimhood and Israel needs Hamas to reinforce its victimhoood -- and that we are all caught in the crossfire. Israel is behaving more badly than is Hamas? So what! They should both be sent to the corners while we figure out what can be done to lift the siege on Gaza, unify the Palestinian people, and forge a strong and united front that demands liberation.

Please read Amira Hass giving it to Hamas here.

And please read Alex Fishman giving it to Israel below (hat tip to D. R. )

Unwise response

Analysis, Alex Fishman, Yediot, March 23 2010

Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz declared yesterday that Israel did not want an escalation in the Gaza Strip, but the activity of the Southern Command projects the exact opposite message. We are conducting ourselves like an elephant in a china shop. Shooting and apologizing.

Yesterday, even the prime minister was compelled to apologize for the accidental killing of citizens in Gaza. We don't want an escalation so badly that for a week, the border has been heating up—and as of last night, the Gaza periphery communities were put on defensive alert. So what should we believe, the statements or the actions on the ground?

Yesterday, the Southern Command committed errors of judgment. Both in the decision to use an inaccurate weapon like mortars in a populated area, and in the way these mortars were used. Similar errors were made in the past when artillery fire was employed as responsive fire near civilians -- and all the lessons learned appear in the command books. Now, after we have apologized, we must prepare for the possibility that at the next stage, Hamas will not fire in response volleys of mortars at the Gaza perimeter, but rather volleys of Grad rockets deep into Israel. This in turn will require the IDF to ratchet up its response another notch. They are contemptible—and we are playing into their hands. Yes, it has been a while since we appeared in the headlines as a global problem. The eyes of the world are on other crises, they have off our back for a while -- and we are bored outside the limelight. Besides, the army has apparently decided, in advance of the festival that international organizations are preparing for us with regard to Gaza to mark the anniversary of the Mavi Marmara -- to contribute a few more unnecessary images for the delegitimization of Israel.

Both the IDF General Staff and the Southern Command knew full well that after the murder in Itamar, Hamas prepared for an aggressive Israeli action, which in its view was supposed to blow off steam for the Israeli public. And indeed, since the murder in Itamar, Israel has been doing everything possible to confirm Hamas's paranoia. Despite the fact that we understand that Hamas is waiting for a military operation, the Southern Command decides that this is the best timing to deal with Hamas's lack of control over the marginal organizations that are firing at Israel.

Yesterday evening the IDF carried out a targeted killing. A targeted killing is not just another stage in an uncontrolled deterioration. This is clear testimony to a planned escalation. Where the army insists on being right at all costs, the political echelon should play the part of the wise man.

(historical h/t to Max B)

How the Proposed Anti-Boycott Law is Virtually Unenforceable

I got around to reading the latest version of the proposed law purporting to make Israelis who call for a boycott on Israel liable to civil suits. When the bill first was proposed, I wrote a post called, "Don't Buy Golan Wines – And Sue Me." Now that it is Purim afternoon in Jerusalem, when many Jews are so drunk that they don't know the difference between blessing Mordecai and cursing Zev Elkin (the M.K. who proposed the bill), it's time to look at the clauses of the law that deal with the strictures on individuals. Here is the latest version:

In this law, "boycotting the state of Israel" is defined as intentionally refraining from economic, cultural, or academic ties with a person, or other party, only because of his connection to the State of Israel, one of its institutions, or territory under its control, whose intention is to harm economically, culturally, or academically.

One who knowingly publishes a public appeal to boycott the State of Israel, and according to the content of the appeal, and the circumstances in which it is published, there is a reasonable possibility that the appeal will lead to the aforementioned boycott, and the person who publishes it is aware of the this possibility, commits a civil injustice and the directives of the criminal law [new formulation] will apply to him.

And what are the directives? The violator will be liable to a suit for damages (including punitive damages) from the individuals and bodies affected.

Now at first glance, this sounds scary. Even if I sign a petition calling for a boycott, something can happen to me.

In fact, the law is riddled with holes so wide that an Israeli who publicly supports the international BDS movement could drive a Caterpillar bulldozer through it.

For example, say I call for a boycott of Golan wines on my blog. Or I start a petition on the web. Not only does there have to be a probability that my call will be answered in such numbers that it will have an affect on Golan wines, the companies affected will have to show that specific clients who would otherwise have bought Golan wines have now decided not to buy aforementioned wines because of my public appeal. How else can a court decide whether such an effect is likely or reasonable. Oy, if I only had such power!

Another example: An Israeli BDS group appeals to Elvis Costello to cancel a concert here. Say that the organizer of the concert decides to sue the group (hardly likely; think of the implications for business). What would a court do if Costello says that his cancellation was not a direct result of the appeal to boycott. How long would the trial drag on?

Another example: Artists publish an advert saying that they will not appear in the Occupied Territories. Such an example would not be covered by this law, which penalizes the parties that call for a boycott, not the boycotters.

Another example:A university professor in Israel, or a group of professors, calls for an academic boycott of Israeli universities. This has happened in the past and will happen in the future. Does anybody think that the universities will sue their faculty for damages? And how will they be able to prove it? Indeed, how they will be able to prove that the appeal has a reasonable chance of succeeding?

In short, the topsy-turvy (English for nahafokh hu) beauty of the law is that it will be virtually impossible to enforce, and yet its very presence will cause real damage to Israel's image.

Is Zev Elkin employed by the Global BDS movement?

Selling Purim to Progessives

This is the third year I've run this post. Sorry, but I have to watch the Adventures of Robin Hood before I go hear the megillah being read. Hope it helps.

However you look at it, the holiday is not exactly a favorite among Jewish progressives. The Megillah/Scroll of Esther celebrates a victory of the Jews over Haman, his sons, and a whole bunch of people inside and outside the Persian capital of Shushan who had it in for the Jews. OK, so the Jews did not take spoils, certainly an advance over today's IDF (which explicitly prohibits taking spoils, and has prosecuted a few soldiers for it, but where taking "souvenirs" is widespread, if I can believe the reports of soldiers in my family and in the group "Breaking the Silence")

Ah, but let's leave the IDF out of this one, shall we?

It's not just the Scroll of Esther that discomfits progressives; it's the Amalek thing; it's the Barukh Goldstein thing; it's the Hanan Porat "Purim Sameah" ("Happy Purim") thing (That's what the Gush Emunim leader allegedly said when he heard about the Goldstein massacre, though he claims that he was not celebrating Goldstein, but urging people to continue with the holiday, despite the horrible thing that had happened.) It's the primitive customs associated with reading the megillah, like making deafening noise when the villain Haman's name is mentioned, or getting stone drunk.

The stone-drunk business reminds me of a story. Once my family was invited to the Ner Israel Yeshiva in Baltimore for the festive meal on Purim. I thought, well, what could possibly go wrong? It's a happy holiday, and the yeshiva students at least know what they are doing. Well, when my children saw drunken yeshiva students vomiting on the lawn outside the yeshiva, my only consolation was that wouldn't want to go back and enroll in the joint. And they didn't, although they did go to some modern orthodox Israeli yeshivot.

All I know is that Maimonides, not exactly a liberal, would be aghast at how the holiday has been turned -- by some -- into a drunken orgy of Jewish ethnic particularism.

So...here's my attempt to sell Purim to progressives a bit late for this year, but not for next year, or the year after that.

Consider the following:

The Scroll of Esther is not history. I mean, there probably never was an Esther or a Mordecai or Haman. The story of Purim is part of the Jewish collective memory, which means that it never happened. So don't worry about innocents being killed, because according to the story, no innocents were killed. According to the story, all of them were implicitly guilty, including the sons of Haman. Is that a primitive, tribalistic morality? Of course. But it helps a bit to realize that we are in the realm of fantasy. I can't shed tears over the death of Orcs either.

Once the book is understood as a fable written two thousand years ago, there are two possible ways of responding to it: by reading it literally as representing a morality that gets a B-(after all, Haman is indeed a villain that turns a personal slight into a call for genocide), or by reading into it, against the grain of the story, our own moral imperatives. I adopt both readings, but I prefer the latter. For one thing, I am doing what my medieval Jewish culture heroes, the rationalist philosophers, always did -- providing non-literal interpretations of scripture that were in tune with their own views.

James Kugel has argued pursuasively that if you detach the Bible from its classical interpreters -- which is what Protestant Judaism and modern Biblical criticism attempts to do -- then the book you are left with is pretty mediocre as literature, and only partly agreeable as ethics. The Bible has always undergone a process of interpretation, of mediation, because none of the classic readers could relate to it as a document produced in a certain time and place.

So for me to relate to the Scroll of Esther, and to the Purim holiday in general, I emphasize (and distort) those points that are congenial to my ethics and worldview, and just forget about the rest. I don't drink on Purim; if I am really feeling frum/religious, I will have a shot of scotch before I go to bed, whereupon I will not be able to distinguish between "Cursed be Haman" and "Blessed be Mordecai". I will have a good time with my grandchildren, and pick a prayer service where there is a lot of decorum and the scroll is read in a respectful manner, without all the lunacy of the vulgar plebs (amkha, in Hebrew).

And, of course, I will overeat, give baked goods that my friends will regift and throw away, and distribute a modest amount of charity. (Note to me: why did Peter Singer have to make me feel guilty in a down year?)

I will read the story of Esther as a fictional fantasy about how my people, through political wisdom and without religious fanaticism, or the help of a Deus ex machina, triumphed over the enemies who wished to destroy us because we were different from them. And that is a message which I will apply not only to my people, but to all beleaguered peoples who are in danger of having their identity and culture -- and physical welfare-- destroyed by bad people in power, in the name of culture and ethnic homogeneity.

Because if what Haman wished to do to the Jews was wrong, then it is also wrong when anybody wishes to do this to any group.

Selling Purim to Progressives Redux

Hi, it's Purim here in Shushan – oops, I mean it's about to be Shushan Purim here in Jerusalem – and once again, I am out to defend Purim with my fellow progressives. But first a few stories.

A colleague at the university, a Jewish liberal-hawk-neocon turned Islamophobe, came rushing to my Jewish studies colleague and blurted out, "Have you ever read the Qur'an?" My colleague said he had read some of it. The Islamophobe then said, "Do you have any idea how heartless Allah is? I mean, he actually wipes out all of humanity with a flood!"

True story.

Another colleague, an atheist and a card carrying clergyman in the Universal Life Church (don't ask; so am I) told me he is upset with "Old Testament Morality". Actually, were he to read the New Testament, he would be just as upset. He doesn't think much of Biblical morality at all.

Can you blame him?

Two classes of people should be warned before reading scripture. The non religiously-observant and the very religiously-observant. Those are the groups who take what the text says literally. I don't mind the non religiously-observant reading the text; what harm can it do anybody? But I would ban all religious fundamentalists from reading the Bible. They take the word of God too literally, especially when it gives them license to be immoral.

Some people I know have given up on Purim. Henry Norr (whom I don't know, but I hope to meet one day) wrote this post about the Book of Esther on Mondoweiss

Progressive Jews often claim that Zionism, or at least its cruder and more violent expressions, contradict the real essence of Judaism, which they believe lies in the prophets' cries for justice or in the modern tradition of social activism among some Jews. But Purim is a good occasion to remind ourselves that there's another, darker side - a history of tribalistic violence - that's at least as deeply rooted in our traditions.

There is a dark side of all religion, just as there is a dark side of most ideologies. And, indeed, we deny the dark side at our peril. But there is also a danger of taking texts that are thousands of years old too literally. Is their morality ours? In many respects, no. Neither, for that matter, is the morality of much classical literature. All texts are to be filtered through our God-given intellect, and our God-given morality (read "evolutionally-developed" if God-talk bothers you.)

Fortunately, there is a long tradition in Judaism of reinterpreting the texts in light of both intellect and morality (and social customs, etc.) Like Catholicism, and unlike Protestantism, traditional Jews have their text mediated by…tradition. And, believe you me, nothing is sacred when it comes to interpreting sacred texts. Did you know that the book of Esther is a philosophical allegory?

I have to go now. I am watching with my grandchildren The Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn. For those who may not remember, it is about how a rebel named Robin Hood fights the injustice of an oppressive occupier Prince John, who preaches ethnic superiority against the natives. Sounds familiar? When Lady Marian, a Norman raised to be prejudiced against Saxons, asks him, "What's your reward?" Robin replies, "You just don't understand" She looks at him and says, "I think I begin to understand now," and he replies, "That's reward enough for me."

That's what the ganze Megillah is about. It's about fighting injustice and group hatred. At the end of the Megillah, the bad guys get it. Since this is an ancient tale, where family is considered to be an extension of the individual, the "bad guys" include Haman's family and a lot of others. But no innocents according to the views of the ancients are killed. Just like the end of the Adventures of Robin Hood. Only bad guys die.

No, it's not the most lofty morality. But it's a step in the right direction. The challenge is to teach that part and not the others.

If you haven't read the next post already, please do.

 

Condemnation II

There is a well-known midrash that Pharoah, at the time of the enslavement of Israel, would bathe in the blood of Israelite children to cure himself of leprosy. The image is foul and disgusting, but it does teach us that people do foul and disgusting things to further their selfish aims. A leper is an outcast from society -- but can outcasts purify themselves by such foul methods?

I am reminded of that midrash when I read that the government of Israel has decided to improve its standing in the world by distributing gruesome photos of the Itamar murders to win some hasbara points. What do these murders, as condemnable as they are, say about the fundamental situation on the ground that we didn’t know already?

At the height of the Second Intifada, I was sent emails containing gruesome pictures of Arab children who were butchered by Israeli bombs, and others containing gruesome pictures of Israeli Jewish children who were blown up by Arab suicide bombers. I made a collection of both pictures, and sent them to both groups of people – with the request to stop using these horrible incidents to win political points.

The funeral of the Fogel family members, which was covered live, on the radio, was replete with speeches demonizing Palestinians (not just the group that carried out the murders) and calling for the appropriate Zionist response, the code-word for settlement, which itself is a form of terrorism. One speech, however, took a different tack – it was delivered by Motti Fogel, the brother of Udi Fogel, who was murdered:

Motti Fogel, brother of Udi Fogel, eulogized his younger brother but warned that his death cannot be used as a tool in a national struggle.

"All of the slogans we hear are trying to efface the simple fact that you're dead, and nothing can efface that. This funeral has to be a private affair," Fogel said, adding: "A man dies to himself, to his children. Udi, you are no a national event. You're horrible death mustn't make your life into a tool."

There is no symmetry between the Palestinians, the occupied, and the Israelis, the occupiers. Now that the "price tag" revenge actions have commenced, those charged with defending the Palestinians -- the Israel Defense Forces -- are incapable of doing their duty. Here, too, is another dishonoring of the memory of the Fogel family. Demonization dishonors; revenge killings and destruction of property dishonor; making political and hasbara hay dishonors; building settlements on Palestinian land dishonors. I wasn’t happy when I got gruesome pictures; I certainly am not happy when Israel dances on the blood, to use the Hebrew expression, in order to win points and to provide cover for building settlements. That is to be condemned especially because it is the work of the government.

And one final word….when I was growing up, I was taught that what was particularly horrific about the Nazi extermination of the Jews was its cold, methodical, bureaucratic approach. The Jews were not even considered worthy to be killed out of hatred or passion; they were just bugs to be exterminated.

Now, I am being told that brutally killing a baby by knife is more barbaric than bombing houses with civilians, where the killing is not deliberate (excuse me, does the IDF drop bombs accidentally?)

Both claims are morally irrelevant. This kind of moral one-upmanship is repulsive. The bottom line: We kill their civilians and they kill ours.

There are, however, two fundamental differences. First, we kill a lot more of theirs than they do of ours. And second, only one people subjugates another. I divide my moral universe into those who condemn the killing of civilians – whomever they may be – and those who don’t, whoever they may be. And those who condemn the subjugation of one people by another.

And please read Yossi Gurevitz’s post here.

Condemnation

The murders at Itamar are just that -- murders. All decent people condemn them, or should condemn them. They are not to be condemned because Jews were murdered, or because settlers were murdered, but because human beings were murdered.

What does this say about the Palestinian struggle? After all, the al-Akseh brigade has taken responsibility. Well, my answer is simple – insofar as murder is murder is murder, it says nothing. If you are asking me, "What are the consequences in the bigger scheme of things," my answer is, probably, none. There have been murders in the past, and there will be murders, I fear, in the future. Were a thousand Palestinians murdered or a thousand Israelis Jews murdered, I would say the same thing. When Whites were murdered in South Africa during the apartheid era – and after apartheid was over, I condemned those murders. Being part of a persecuted minority doesn't give you the right to kill civilians

That those murdered were settlers means nothing to me. I believe that the settlement enterprise is criminal, and that the settlements have destroyed the lives of innocent people. Settlements are, in that sense, terrorism.. But nobody forfeits his right to life, even if he lives in a battle zone, and even if he is part of a criminal enterprise.

As for the method of the murder, stabbings, etc., I see no difference between wielding a knife to kill a baby and dropping a bomb to kill a baby. One is as inhuman as another.

How To End the Brandeis Hillel Brouhaha

Phil Weiss published parts of the rejection letter that Jewish Voice for Peace received from the Brandeis Hillel student board. A careful reading of that letter shows something quite remarkable – the student board appears to be quite uncomfortable with its own decision. Instead of giving its own justification for the rejection, the letter refers several times to the International Hillel’s guidelines, as if to say, “What can we do? Our hands are tied.” The same almost legalistic language appears in BIPAC’s (Brandeis’s student AIPAC, a political student organization at Brandies’ Hillel) letter, which I have seen. One of Phil’s readers suggested that Brandeis Hillel should cut its ties with International Hilllel.

1) Whooa there, folks. Brandeis Hilllel has no legal ties to International Hilllel. In fact, all Hillels are administered locally and are autonomous organizations. Of course, they can apply to International Hillel for some grants, and professional training. But Hillels hire and fire locally, and they set policy – locally.

2) And here is something else interesting. It took quite a long time for the Brandeis Hillel student board to come to its decision. The meeting ended on Monday night, and the JVP students were only informed of the decision Tuesday afternoon. Why did it take so long for Brandeis Hillel to come to its decision? The letter was carefully worded. What phone calls were conducted between International Hillel and Brandeis Hillel? Was Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt, who made such a good imporession at the J Street Conference, involved?

3) International Hilllel’s recently published guidelines on Hillel’s involvement with Israel are just that – guidelines. They are not binding on any local Hillel. A Hillel director recently told me, “This is my Hillel; nobody tells me what to do.”

By promulgating such guidelines, International Hillel thought it would provide cover for local Hillels. Instead, it has placed Hillel student boards in the uncomfortable and untenable position of rejecting their classmates. They may hide under International Hillel’s apron springs. But at the same time they hurt their fellow students.

Was this necessary? When Richard Joel, now President of Yeshiva University, was head of International Hillel, the divestent movement started up on campus. Joel did not have to deal with JVP. But he had the diplomatic skills to avoid the gaffes and adverse publicity that the current International Hillel administration lacks.

Folks, it’s time for both sides to seek a reasonable compromise. The guidelines should be recognized as guidelines that are not binding, and JVP should be admitted at Brandeis Hillel, perhaps initially on a trial basis. In return,JVP student groups should be prepared to abide by the only guideline that makes sense -- the civility guideline. That should be the price of admission.

This is the Jewish Group that Brandeis Hillel Rejected

Here is the opening statement made by Jewish Voice for Peace in its bid to be recognized as a Jewish group under Hillel auspices. I think it is as important document because it shows the sort of group that has no place at the Hillel communal table. Let us not forget that Hillel was never intended to be the Zionist Organization of America. It was intended to be a place for Jewish students to interact with other Jewish students in a Jewish environment. At some point, however – was it when the former head of the Israel Coalition Campus became the Executive Director? – the mission changed. Hillel was also to serve as a center for political advocacy for Israel. As support for Israel has become more and more controversial, Hillel has decided to cut its ties with Jewish organizations that are Jewishly committed but that do not toe the party line.

I ask all my readers, Jewish and non-Jewish, whether the following statement reads like an illegitimate Jewish group. Because in rejecting the Jewish Voice for Peace, Brandeis Hillel has staked out what is legitimate and illegitimate in Jewish belief. Maimonides wrote a credo with thirteen principles. Hillel replaced that with one: Support Israel.

We are Jewish Voice for Peace and we are coming to Hillel tonight to become part of Brandeis Hillel, as full and equal members of the organized Jewish community. 

Motivated by our Jewish values and our belief in Ahavat Yisrael, we advocate for a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. We believe that both peoples have a right to safety, security, human rights and full self-determination. We fully support the right of the Jewish and Palestinian people to live in their historic homeland.  We believe in the principle of non-violent peacemaking, and to that end we oppose terrorism and military force as strategies to accomplish political goals. 

The mission statement of the Brandeis Hillel constitution reads: "We… affirm the necessity of a pluralistic Jewish community on campus, with partisanship to none." In line with this, Jewish Voice for Peace strives for a pluralistic, welcoming, and inclusive Jewish community. We offer Brandeis' Jewish community an outlet for political views and ideologies that fall beyond the mainstream, and we allow students to grow intellectually by having an opportunity to expand and develop  their beliefs. JVP, like Hillel, pursues the Jewish values of tzedek and tikkun olam: we want to heal Israel's many wounds left by internal conflict and unnecessary violence while longing for justice and peace in the area.

There is an old joke about a man stranded on a desert island. When he is rescued years and years later, he shows his rescuers the two synagogues he constructed. "Why two?" They ask. "This is the synagogue I pray in," he says, "and this is the synagogue you wouldn't catch me dead in!" Internal divisions within the Jewish community have always existed. Jewish communal organizations should exist in order to foster healthy dialogue between these assorted political opinions. Excluding us from Hillel would serve to increase polarization, while bringing us in would allow for increased learning and co-operation among the Jewish community.

"National Hillel declares that it "is steadfastly committed to the support of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state," We, too, support a democratic state in Eretz Yisrael based on Jewish values." We urge you to ask any questions so we may clear up misconceptions. Today, you as a Hillel board will make a powerful statement.  You can reject Jewish Voice for Peace, and indicate to the Brandeis community that Hillel is an exclusive institution, and that only those who fall in line politically are welcome. Or you can accept us, and signal to the world that Hillel is the true umbrella organization for the whole Jewish community; a pluralistic community, with partisanship to none.

Brandeis J Street U Does the Right Thing

While I am still waiting for Brandeis JVP to get me their press release after Hillel rejected their bid to be recognized as a Hillel student group, I thought I would publish Brandeis J Street U's statement.

Just as Hillel provides a home for Jewish student groups without consideration to their denomination, it should also be a place where Jewish student groups of all political persuasions are welcomed and engaged. While J Street U and JVP strongly disagree about many issues related to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the BDS movement, we nonetheless believe that they should be a part of the Jewish communal conversation.Fostering the open and vigorous exchange of ideas is a fundamental Jewish and American value that has generated volumes of human ingenuity, and has kept our religion alive and thriving over the millennia. Furthermore, we believe it would be the greatest testament to Hillel's strength if it brought all Jewish organizations-- from JVP to ZOA and everything in

between--into conversation with one another, because doing so would highlight Hillel's ability to be a great unifying factor in an ever-fractious American Jewish community.

 

--J Street U Brandeis

 

It is nice to know that there are tzadikim bi-Sdom like J Street U. (Full disclosure: I am the J Street U faculty advisor at my university.) But I still thinkthat it would be better that organized Jewish activity in favor of Israel not take place at Hillel since Israel is now a catalyst for division and polarization on campus.

Brandeis Hillel Should Exclude Israel And Not Jewish Students From Its Tent

(NB: This is the first part of a two-part post.  Please read the second post later, which will include the statement of the JVP students who were told by the Brandeis Hillel student board that their organization is not wanted at Hillel)

To tell you the truth, I thought it would go the other way. When I read the elegant and respectful statement of the student members of Brandeis U Jewish Voice for Peace (see next post), I actually thought – optimist that I am -- that they would be accepted. I was even prepared to write a post congratulating the Brandeis Hillel student board for doing the right thing, despite the pressures of International Hillel, which issued a lamentable series of guidelines that its brand of Israel-advocacy a litmus test for political student  groups under the Hillel rubric.

Well, the student board at Brandeis Hillel didn't do the right thing. They rejected the JVP bid for membership as a student group – because JVP's politics on Israel are not in line with Hillel's politics.

According to reliable sources, the student board argued that National Hillel has issued guidelines that only allows "pro-Israel" groups within Hillel. And even though JVP sees itself as pro-Israel, the Hillel board reserves the right to check its "tzizis" and to determine who is pro-Israel and who is not. In other words, Hillel as an organization has declared that only groups that it considers pro-Israel can apply. Were a Hillel to say that J Street is not pro-Israel, then that alone would be reason to exclude it.

How Jewish is that?

The board effectively said to JVP, "Even though we recognize that you express your Judaism politically, and even though we admit other Jewish political groups here, your vision of Judaism and your political vision of Israel has no place in Hillel. Unless you say the magic words ,"Jewish and democratic" and mean by them what we say you should mean, your organization is treif (unkosher).

(Note to J Street U at Brandeis – if you bring the Sheikh Jarrah solidarity movement to Brandeis, a movement that has been supported by David Grossman, Paul Mendes Flohr, James Kugel, and Moshe Halbertal, but which was lately labeled as "anti-Zionist" by the Jewish Agency – your group may be kicked out of Brandeis Hillel – maybe not by this board, but by the next.)

What clinched the rejection was that JVP supports a boycott of settlers' products. So were the likes of Theodore Bikel, A. B. Yehoshua, David Grossman, and a host of the best and brightest Israelis – who support the artistic boycott of the settlers – to come to Hillel, they would not be allowed to form as a student group in Hillel – because their public endorsement of a partial boycott is not pro-Israel enough.

But hang on – surely an organization has the right to determine who is recognized and supported by that group! Since Hillel defines itself as Zionist politically why blame the student board at Hillel for doing nothing more than following their announced policy?

Well, first of all, I don't blame the student board. And anyway, who am I to throw stones? After all, I come from Israel, where Reform and Conservative Jews are allowed to practice their religion – as long as they don't go anywhere near the "historical home" of the Jewish people – the Western Wall, where their groups are not welcome (Of course, they are welcome to go there as individuals.)  And doesn't Israel have a right to define itself as a state that will not recognize Reform and Conservative religious ceremonies? How can I blame Hillel when it only follows in the best Israeli traditions of fostering Jewish pluralism?

Of course, Hillel can exclude any Jewish group it wants. Legally, it can draw up guidelines that exclude J Street U and include Zionist Freedom Alliance and Kahane Lives (both good Zionist organizations, by Hillel's standards; none of the guidelines says anything about racism. How many times have I heard orthodox Jews sing at Hillel "La'asot nekamah ba-goyim" (To take vengeance on the goyyim).  Nothing wrong with that according to the  Hillel guidelines)

But how Jewish is it to say to a group of young Jews,"We won't give you funds to buy sodas and popcorn for a meeting about challenging Israel's policies on the West Bank.  It is not just that we don't agree with you; we don't think your position is a legitimate position for Jews at the home for the Jews on campus – although, of course, we will defend to the death your right to that position."

Again, I don't really blame Brandeis Hillel's Student Board, any more than I blame National Hillel. We Jews live in a dark age – where ideological conformity on Israel counts more than observance of commandments, or love of fellow Jews. Perhaps it is best that the JVP students were turned down.Maybe it's time for a truly inclusive Jewish home on campus that makes ahavat Yisrael/love of Israel the litmus test for Jews and not ahavat medinat Yisrael/the love of the State of Israel  – according to Big Brother's determination of what that is.

After all, most Jews on campus don't bother with Hillel anyway. In many schools, it has become a refuge for the orthodox kids. Most Jewish students don't care about doing Jewish. The problem with the Jewish Voice for Peace students is that they do. And Hillel has shut the door on their Jewish identity.

It doesn't have to be this way. Hillel doesn't have to be "pro-Israel." It could be pro-Jewish and leave Israeli politics to the student groups outside Hillel.

 Maybe it's time for a Beit Shammai, which is truly inclusive of Jewish groups doing Jewish.

When the Interventionists Hear Voices

Charles Krauthammer, like Joan of Arc , hears voices -- only the voices he hears from "around the world, from Europe to America to Libya are calling for U.S. intervention to help bring down Moammar Gadhafi." Yet, also like Joan of Arc, he seems to be the only one hearing those voices. Who, besides the folks who brought us Iraq 2, the liberal-hawk-neocon-usual suspects, has called for unilateral US intervention?

At best, you have John Kerry calling for putting potholes in airport runways. Kerry would not have the US attack Libya's airforce unless it was used for massacring civilians. I haven't heard the Libyan people ask for Uncle Sam to start the bombing campaign. They're not stupid; they saw how the United States destroyed Iraq in order to make it safe for democracy, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and US soldiers, sending the middle class into exile, and then propping up a pro-Western authoritarian ruler that replaced another authoritarian ruler not to its liking. As for Pakistan and Afghanistan – well, I am not one to cite Tom Friedman, but he has a valid point when he writes, "What are we doing spending $110 billion this year supporting corrupt and unpopular regimes in Afghanistan and Pakistan that are almost identical to the governments we're applauding the Arab people for overthrowing?"

Those "voices from around the world" may indeed be calling for intervention, but not for unilateral intervention led by the US and some of its allies, but for international intervention. And last I heard, the US did not go to war against Saddam Hussein in order to stop him from mass killing his own civilians. When that happened we did nothing, and when he couldn't do it again, we went in to get rid of him.

But even if you are a liberal interventionist, when do you decide when to intervene? When civilians are being massacred in a bombing that is called disproportionate by the United Nations? I may be deaf, but I didn't hear any of the neocon hawk voices call for US intervention when Israel killed over 1400 civilians in Gaza, the vast majority of them non-combatants. Where was the call for a no-fly zone then? I didn't hear a peep from Messrs.' Krauthammer and friends at the outset of the Second Intifada, when the IDF killed 275 unarmed protesters, while suffering minimal (yet regrettable) losses. I didn't hear Mr. Krauthammer praise the Mitchell Committee report calling on the Government of Israel to "ensure that the IDF adopt and enforce policies and procedures. encouraging non-lethal responses to unarmed demonstrators, with a view to minimizing casualties and friction between the two communities" and "adopt tactics of crowd-control that minimize the potential for deaths and casualties, including the withdrawal of metal-cored rubber rounds from general use. "

And please don't respond that there is a fundamental difference between the cases; the Arab governments are going after their own citizens, whereas Israel is in a never-ending conflict with another…what? Because if there is a distinction, it is to the disadvantage of Israel. Israel has been oppressing the Palestinians under occupation for over forty years. They have much fewer rights than do the Libyans, Tunisians, Jordanians because they are being ruled not only by an authoritarian regime but one which sees them as aliens who can be dispossessed at will – something that no Arab under the most authoritarian regime feels.

This inconsistency shows that liberal interventionists are highly selective in their moral outrage, and that they suffer from a "Saving-Private-Ryan" complex – they will intervene to save people with whom they identify, people on their side. But if the civilians happen to be on other the side of their tribal divide, they become silent.

I don't hear their voices.

To BDS or not to BDS? If You’re a Liberal Zionist, Try TBDS

I had the privilege of meeting Rebecca Vilkomerson, director of Jewish Voice for Peace, in Jerusalem a few months ago. At the time I was deeply pessimistic about the future. After months of reading Haaretz's print edition, of seeing a society I once fell in love with sink deeper and deeper into a moral morass, I was amazed to find her upbeat. "Every one here seems so pessimistic," she said. "Things are looking much better in America." What she meant was that that the direct action program that JVP and others have been engaging in was beginning to show results – the solid support for Israel's policies of hafrada and expropriation was not only crumbling, but fundamental questions about Zionism were being asked by the younger generation of those who care about their Judaism, and even about the millions of Jews living in Israel.

That feeling of upbeatness spilled over to the recently concluded J Street Conference. Actually, there were two J Street Conferences: the one for the old guard of liberal Zionists, those who actually are interested to hear what failed negotiators like Dennis Ross and Ron Pundak have to say; and the other for, well, "Beinart's army" – the Jews who would be perfectly happy to see Jewish self-determination fulfilled in an Israeli-Palestinian entity or entities that replace the Jewish ethnocracy founded hastily, and with so much injustice, in 1948. These Jews want to see the end of the regime of ethnic privilege, to quote Asaf Sharon, of the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity movement. (For a sense of that upbeatness, you won't find a better report than Phil Weiss's here. If there were a National Jewish Award for optimism, it should rightly go to Phil and to Mondoweiss.)

The question of questions is..how do we get there? There is no single answer and there is no single way. But we won't get anywhere without building coalitions. So once again, I am writing to my liberal Zionist friends to endorse the Global BDS Solidarity Movement.

I am not asking liberal Zionists to support boycott, divestment, and sanctions in all cases. Let them target the boycotts, sanctions, and divestment, depending upon what they think will work, and what they think is right. Targeted BDS, or TBDS, has already been adopted by many Jewish progressives, including two of the three speakers who opposed BDS at the J-Street Conference session on that topic. But many have been hesitant to call what they advocate "BDS" because they don't want to be tarred with the "deligitimization brush", or because they are liberal Zionists who are concerned about their coalition partners.

When Bernard Avishai finds nothing wrong in boycotting settler's products, why call that TBDS? Well, for better or for worse, the BDS label is now a worldwide trademark, and it is a rallying point for groups opposed to ethnic injustice against Palestinians. At J- Street, the question, "Do you support BDS?" popped up all over the place. And why? Because people want Israel to understand that there are consequences for their actions, that the world won't accept what they do in silence. The Global BDS movement is not merely against the Occupation, but also against ethnic discrimination against Palestinians within Israel, and against those who are barred from returning to their homes. Global BDS is at its core an anti ethnic-discrimination movement. And the common denominator for all the progressive movements on Israel should be just that – opposing ethnic discrimination.

Actually, I would prefer another trademark besides BDS, one that articulates a vision for a decent, if not just society for Palestinians and Israelis. Perhaps that trademark will emerge, perhaps BDS will lead to it. But in the meantime, supporters of TBDS or of BDS should work together, and not against each other, in trying to advance the vision via non-violent platforms like BDS.

Were a colleague to ask me whether he should accept an invitation to go to Israel to speak, I would say to him, "Go to Israel; deliver your speech; but please, go to Hebron, Bil'in, Taybeh, or Sheikh Jarrah. See with your own eyes; become a witness. Return and get active." Some one else may say to the same colleague, "Don't go to Israel; let them understand by your absence your disapproval of their policies." Let my colleague make her decision, but she should also know that both her colleagues are on the same side – and that our disagreement is tactical. (I happen to support the international artistic boycott of Israel proper; at least I do at the time of writing today.)

At the moment, BDS is largely symbolic – it doesn't really hurt Israel's economy to the detriment of Israeli citizens. (Would that other sanctions be so considerate of civilians) But it does say to the world, Israel is not a normal state; its actions are reprehensible, and there will be consequences.

Liberal Zionist Jews who care deeply about Israelis should ask themselves, What do I do when a beloved relative's addiction has caused him to become violent and abusive? Should I talk with him and try to mend his ways? Should I go to the authorities, thereby shaming him and risking our relationship? Or should I just try to forget about it, and hope for the best?

When somebody reports an abusive family member to the police, she is not delegitimizing him or demonizing him. She is protecting the lives of those around him, and of himself.

Its time for an intervention.

Some Thoughts from the J Street Conference

I didn't attend the plenary sessions at the J Street conference in DC; the last people I wanted to hear from were Kadima MKs and Dennis Ross (though I did hear some of the panel discussion afterwards. I never knew that Bernard Avishai was a kohen.) If Jeremy Ben Ami wants to tell the Israel press that J Street is Kadima, that's his business. As for the people in the plenary sessions I would be interested in hearing, I can get that on their website.

No, I came to talk with the old and the young, and not with the middle generation, my generation, on which I have virtually given up hope. I went to a session on the New Left in Israel and was treated to a ½ generational debate between Hagit Ofran of Peace Now's Settlement Watch, and Oded Naaman and Asaf Sharon of Breaking the Silence and the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement. Hagit supported translating the activists message into a program that more mainstream Israelis could buy into; Oded and Asaf were more interested in education over the long-haul, through doing what their organizations are doing – and for direct action on the ground.

The session on the campus climate for Israel was a big surprise to me. I thought that the International Hillel representative, Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt, would be there to defend the guidelines that International Hillel drew up to exclude Jewish Voice for Peace, and other organizations to the left of J Street. Instead, she clearly displayed her personal discomfort with the guidelines, as did the other panelists on the dais, with the exception of Rabbi Lisa Goldstein, herself a Hillel Director. She explained that Hillel has to exclude groups whose presence are campus are polarizing, like Jewish groups that are racist or those that support BDS. It was not that she wished to equate racism with adopting BDS as a tactic for furthering justice; she simply felt that Hillel should be a space where Jews can feel comfortable without this polarization. Hillel is not just about Israel, she said; it is about shabbat dinners; social action, etc. Of course, one could counter that if the Hillel community doesn't want polarization, it should simply exclude Israel from its space. If Israel is polarizing the Jewish community on campus, let the Zionist activity go on elsewhere in the campus, and let Hillel focus on matters related to Judaism, learning, social action, etc.

Not one of the questioners in the q & a accepted Rabbi Goldstein's position. After all, this was J Street, and J Street – especially J Street U -- has not endorsed Hillel's "McCarthyite guidelines," to quote one of the questioners. My position was summed up best by Aliyah Donsky, a first year Princeton student who had opposed the Princeton Hillel Director's decision to interfere in the Sabra Humus referendum held earlier this year (The director urged Jewish students to vote down a referendum calling for an alternative to Sabra Humus). Aliyah thought that Hillel was a space where all Jews should be welcome – without having to leave their political opinions and activities at the door.

I missed the BDS panel with Rebecca Vilkomerson, director of JVP, but I urge you to read her statement at Max Blumenthal's blog here.

And one more thing: I had a nice chat with Leonard – Leibel - Fein, that grand old liberal Jew, whose life reads like a history of the "Jews for a just peace" movement. Those of us who are over 50 and still have our memories, would do well to remind the J Street U generation that J Street was not created ex nihilo, and that progressive Jews – and progressive Jewish critics of Israel like Leibel -- have a long and distinguished history. The young people who form "Beinart's army" (yes, J Street U sold a t-shirt with that slogan!) – can still learn a lot from their elders – and from their elders' mistakes, of course.

Note to JBA: It would be a good idea to have a session next year honoring some of those progressive Jewish "lions in winter."

How the NGO Transparency Bill Covers Up Its Supporters’ True Intentions

Now that the bill mandating Israeli NGOs to publicize donations received from foreign governmental entities has passed, it is time to look at the motives and the intentions of those who supported it – and these are anything but transparent.

The "transparency" campaign has been waged by the rightwing NGO Monitor ever since "Breaking the Silence" published its Gaza testimonies, and NGO Monitor's director, Prof. Gerald Steinberg, read the group's open acknowledgement to its European donors. NGO Monitor never investigated nor uncovered a single "hidden" donation to any of the NGOs the bill covers; what the organization learned is there for anybody to see. Prof. Steinberg has recently claimed that "In theory, Israeli NGOs should be covered by the existing reporting requirements for non-profits, but in practice, many political advocacy groups have found ways to avoid such transparency by registering under different frameworks, or avoiding any Israeli oversight mechanism." No names of groups are mentioned; if there are such groups, what does that have to do with the other groups – the ones he doesn't like – who have all registered as non-profits? Why should they suffer for the sins of the non-transparent groups? That is the sort of smoke-screen argument for which NGO Monitor is justly famous.

Still, one could think that it is not enough for Israeli NGOs to publish acknowledgements that are only noticed by a group like NGO Monitor; these acknowledgements should be larger or more available to the public. But isn't that the job of a group like NGO Monitor – to publicize those NGOs whose activities it doesn't like? Does a democratic society need anything more than that in terms of transparency?

And here we come back to the absurd claim that the present law is based on the "Foreign Agent Registration Act". There is no resemblance at all between the two, as I noted in my previous post. FARA requires that agents representing the interests, usually commercial, of foreign governments, institutions, political parties, and individuals, register with the US Government. Those agents are usually lobbying, public relations, or law firms . For example, a public relations firm registered when it was hired by the Israel Ministry of Tourism; a lobbying firm registered when it was hired by the the World Zionist Organization to influence members of the legislative and the executive branches to effect an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code. I can guarantee you that more Israelis know about the European funding of human rights NGOs than Americans know about the lobbying efforts of the World Zionist Organization. And if one looks at the list of foreign agents registered in FARA, I couldn't find a single NGO.

I imagine that Prof. Steinberg knows all this, just as he knows that the claim that the bill is based on FARA is not to be taken seriously. He knows that the issue is not one of "transparency" and never has been. No, the purpose of the transparency bill is to delegitimize the NGOs, by tarring them with the brush of "representatives of foreign governments". These are not "human rights NGOs" or even groups with a political agenda; these are political lobbyists for foreign powers – hence, the comparison to FARA. That also explains why, unlike FARA, the Israeli law requires NGOs not only to report to the government but to publicize on their own websites and in their literature the sources of their funding – to uncover their "shame", as it were. Indeed, the original bill would force them to announce at every event what the source of funding for that event was. Like the Surgeon General's warning, the announcement requirement is to deter and to stigmatize. What does this have to do with FARA?

And here we arrive at the dishonesty of those behind the campaign. I do not doubt Prof. Steinberg's sincerity when he writes "Europe tries to interfere with and manipulate the legitimate outcome of Israeli elections." If so, then why allow the NGOS to apply for foreign governmental grants? Wouldn't it be better simply to outlaw contributions from foreign governments, if they constitute such an anti-democratic interference? If these organizations are hurting Israel, and are doing so with foreign governmental money, why not go the route of India's Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, which empowers the government to determine which contributions can be accepted and which cannot by NGOs?

Outlawing such grants may be too much even for the current rightwing government, and it would certainly hurt Israel's image abroad. By focusing on the bogus issue of transparency, NGO Monitor and the Knesset can avoid discussing the real issue that should be discussed: the propriety of soliciting money from foreign governments, individuals, organizations, A first stab at that discussion was attempted in today's Haaretz by settler leader, Israel Harel, who chastised the NGOs for seeking foreign assistance, which offended his patriotism. Coming from Harel, one of the architects of the settlement enterprise, which has received tens of millions of dollars from foreign sources – sources that are completely opaque to the Israeli public – that may seem ridiculous. But his point is legitimate and the question is worth debating. A true democracy would open that debate, a debate that would encompass all sectors. The reason why Israel does not conduct such a debate is because it prefers to hide its true intentions, to trick itself into believing that it is no worse than the United States or other democracies. But trust me -- when this watered-down bill fails to deliver the goods, FARA will give way to FCRA

In short, as in every case when it acts improperly, Israel has to engage in massive self-deception and false analogies with decent countries with which it likes to compare itself.

Hence, the lack of "transparency" of the motives of those behind the bill – even to themselves.

 

The Knesset Passes Human Rights NGO Harassment Bill

When an Israeli newspaper last Fall published a list of Bibi Netanyahu's potential list of donors for the 2007 elections, which included certified strident rightwingers like Kenneth S. Abramowitz, the Prime Minister's office responded that "Netanyahu makes his decisions in accordance with what is good for the State, not according to the opinions of donors, as important as they may be". Fair enough – when it comes to the Right. But when it comes to the Left, apparently not.

Israel is now the first "Western" government to require of NGOs that receive human rights funding from "foreign governmental entities" to report and publicize the funding in addition to the reports they already submit as non-profit organizations. There is no other comparable legislation in the Western world, although authoritarian regimes (see under Egypt), and recently India, have passed similar legislation.

As for India,

Following concerns raised by right wing groups and law enforcement agencies that civil society was exposing human rights violations by state agencies to the international community, the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) was passed in August 2010. Among other things, the law allows for broad executive discretion to designate organizations as being of a 'political nature' and thereby prevent them from accessing funding from abroad.

Sound familiar? Israel is not there yet, but is on the way.

Apologists for Israel like Noah Pollak are making an absurd comparison between the Israeli law and the US Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires agents for foreign governments to register with the US. An "agent of a foreign principal" is defined under the act as someone who:

1. Engages in political activities for or in the interests of a foreign principal;
2. Acts in a public relations capacity for a foreign principal;
3. Solicits or dispenses any thing of value within the United States for a foreign principal;
4. Represents the interests of a foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government.^[

 

None of this is remotely relevant to the Israeli NGOs, which are not lobbying or acting on behalf of political interests of England, Holland, etc., -- unless you define human rights activity as the political interests of these states.

But FARA is highly relevant to Israel lobbyists like Noah Pollak.

Pollak and others of his ilk believe that ultra-right wing Israeli organizations that violate human rights law and US policy can receive anonymous donations from gambling moguls and Christian evangelicals who are praying for Armageddon and the mass conversion of the Jews. But Israeli NGOs that uncover injustice and the violation of human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories, like the Association of Civil Rights in Israel and B'Tselem, should walk around with signs saying, "Brought to You by the European Union," – even though they already acknowledge external support in their publications, on their websites, and, of course, already report all their contributions.

h/t to Matt Duss

US Joins Security Council In Condemning Israeli Settlements as Illegal – in 1969

In 1969, the United States voted with the rest of the Security Council to condemn Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and plans to build Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. The Security Council "urgently calls once more upon Israel to rescind forthwith all measure taken by it which may tend to change the status of the City of Jerusalem." And it explicitly mentioned expropriation of land.

Several days earlier, the US ambassador the United Nations had said in a speech to the UN:

The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the 1967 war, like all other areas occupied by Israel, is occupied territory and hence subject to the provisions of international law governing the rights and obligations of an occupying Power. Among the provision of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in law or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation. I regret to say that the actions by Israel in the occupied portion of Jerusalem present a different picture, one which gives understandable concern that the eventual disposition of East Jerusalem may be prejudiced, and that the private rights and activities of the population are already being affected and altered. (Cited in Separate and Unequal: The Inside Story of Israeli Rule in East Jerusalem, by Amir S. Cheshin, Bil Hutman, and Avi Melamed (Cambridge: Harvard, 1999), pp. 46-7.

I should point out that this statement was made before a single Jewish settlement had been built outside of Jerusalem. The censure was in reaction to Israel construction of Jewish settlements over the Green Line in East Jerusalem – settlements that are now the "neighborhoods" of Ramot Eshkol and Ma'a lot dafna, East Talpiyot and Neveh Ya'akov.

Over the last 43 years, UN ambassadors and consuls have fumed and chastised, but there have been zero consequences for Israel. Now there are close to half a million Jews living over the Green Line, with hundreds of thousands of dunams confiscated and expropriated, and the lives of many Palestinians a living hell, as they see their lands, resources, freedom of movement become increasingly restricted.

And the United States has the sheer chutzpah to say that the question of settlements is a matter of the (non-existent) peace negotiations, and not one of international law.

Thank You, Mr. President

Thank you, Mr. President, for vetoing the UN Security Counsel Resolution condemning the Israeli settlements as illegal.

Thank you for making America the only country in the world to support Israel on this matter.

Thank you for contradicting long-standing US policy on the settlements.

Thank you for not abstaining on this vote – which is what the US has done in the past.

Thank you for talking the talk on settlements but not walking the walk.

Thank you for allowing Israel to say, as it always does, "We and the US have disagreements on various items, but our bond is strong."

Thank you for doing nothing about the biggest settlement activity within East Jerusalem in over forty-three years.

Thank you for undermining the PA and Abu Mazen.

Thank you for showing the Palestinian people how much – or how little – you can be relied upon.

Thank you for holding the Palestinians hostage to a non-existent (fortunately) peace process.

Thank you for allowing Israel to kill any chance of a two-state solution.

Thank you for making the United States irrelevant in the Middle East.

And Shabbat Shalom from your neighbor up 16^th Street.

On The Curse of “Balance”

There have been two events advertised in the Jewish community that would have allowed some non-consensus speakers to speak – provided there was consensus balance.

Peter Beinart gave the Amos Perlmutter Memorial Lecture and Calvin Goldscheider, a highly respected demographer and scholar-in-residence at the American University Israel Studies Center, responded. For an account of the evening see Louise Ross's piece at Mondoweiss. I know Cal Goldscheider, so I was not surprised to learn that the evening was scholarly and dignified; from the little I know of his views from personal conversation, I would describe Goldscheider as a liberal Zionist of the old school (like Arthur Hertzberg, not at all hesitant about criticizing Israel), so that the space between the two was generational rather than ideological. But that, too, is space. Beinart's generation (and younger) are either becoming polarized on or disaffected from Israel. The "middle" is shrinking. And I suppose that Goldscheider, after agreeing with some points in Beinart's thesis, presented a picture that would be much more favorable to the continuance of that comfortable middle.

In short, no debate between left and right; rather, a matchup of non-consensus and consensus. For – and here's the point – I doubt that Beinart could have given his talk without a consensus respondent for balance. When David Makovsky of WINEP gave the first Amos Permutter lecture in 2006, there was no respondent, nor no deed for one. Makovsky is about as consensus and non-provocative as you can get. No need for "balance" there.

The second event was cancelled when the "balance" couldn't show up. The 92^nd Street Y was going to sponsor an event called, "Faces of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Loss and Forgiveness" with Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish and Laura Blumenfeld. I read about it also on Mondoweiss. Here was how it was announced:

In 2009, Palestinian doctor and Israeli television personality Izzeldin Abuelaish lost three of his daughters during a Gaza raid. In 1986, a Palestinian terrorist shot author Laura Blumenfeld's father. Abuelaish and Blumenfeld discuss with ABC News' Christiane Amanpour how—despite such personal tragedy on both sides of the conflict—we can find common ground and political solutions.

Note that despite an attempted symmetry of suffering and loss, the formulations are quite different. Blumenfeld's father is shot be a Palestinian terrorist. Abublaish's daughters are lost during a raid. Whose raid? We are not told that Israeli tanks shot the shells that killed the girls in their bedroom. And why not? Isn't it obvious?

No matter. When Blumenfeld cancelled, and nobody else suitable on the Jewish side could be found (are there no members of the Bereaved Parents Circle available? ), the event was cancelled. And, brother, I don't blame the 92^nd Street Y caving in on that one. It must have been hard enough to get a Palestinian victim on the platform in the first place, much less after if he had been the only person on the platform.

The irony is, of course, that Dr. Abuelaish is precisely the sort of Palestinian that Jews like to hear; no matter how much he has suffered from the Israelis, he refuses to hate them.

This business of "balance" is a curse. But it could be worse. There are times when balance is considered itself imbalanced.

Take, for example, last year's panel at Brandeis with Judge Goldstone and Ambassador Dore Gold. Goldstone was introduced by Daniel Terris, the Director of Brandeis's International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life and Gold by S. Ilan Troen, the Director of the Israel Studies Center. Terris said a few words about international human rights law and then introduced Judge Goldstone. Troen, by contrast, devoted most of his time not to introducing Ambassador Gold but to attacking the Goldstone report, highlighting its unfavorable reception in the US. He came across as Gold's debating partner – a gross violation of academic practice and civility. In order to get Goldstone at Brandeis, you needed Gold, and Troen – not to mention President Reinharz – all defenders of Israel – to provide balance.

Or how about the panel on BDS at the upcoming J Street conference, where Rebecca Vilkomerson of JVP will be presenting the case for BDS. Kudos to J Street for its liberalness. But Vilkomerson is speaking on a panel with three other speakers opposing BDS. So the rightwing will focus on Vilkomerson's appearance, whereas the left will focus on the imbalance of the panel.

And who is left in the "middle"?

Taglit/Birthright Israel to J Street U: Drop Dead

Taglit/Birthright Israel's relentless march to the right continues. First, it axed a planned Birthright trip co-organized by J Street U to Israel. Now it has launched a website for young adults called Take Back Zionism, whose "partners" include nobody to the left of Ameinu, formerly the Labor Zionist Alliance. So J Street and J Street U (formerly, the Union of Progressive Zionists) are excluded.

Oh, I suppose one of its partners, Ameinu is progressive Zionist….but let's face it, how many young people affiliate with Ameinu and not with J Street U? For that matter, how many young people have heard of Ameinu? I don't mean to diss that organization (I do that here), which has come out on behalf of the Sheikh Jarrah activists, and against some recent Knesset decisions. But why are they partnering with an initiative that doesn't include J Street or J Street U? Is there a real split among progressive Zionists here?

On the disallowal of the Birthright J Street U trip there is a balanced article here. The official reason given by Birthright? J Street has a political agenda, and it does not fund trips that are organized by groups with political agendas. (AIPAC has a political agenda, but AIPAC is kosher for Birthright, since it supports any Israeli government, no matter what shade of rightwing nationalist it may be, from the extreme right of Avigdor Lieberman to the moderate right of Tzipi Livni.)

But what if J Street U doesn't actually sponsor the trip, but a trip is organized for progressive Jewish youth? Here is the response of Jacob Dallal, Birthright spokesperson:

"There have been trips around social justice in Israel," [Dallal] said. "Those trips have been vetted. If the trip provider said, 'We want to do a thing on social justice,' we could have judged it on its merits, but that never took place."

One wonders whether Birthright considers Israeli activists on the West Bank, or the struggle of its Palestinian citizens for equality to be considered "social justice"? I imagine that as long as "social justice" stays within the Jewish consensus – a trip to Neve Shalom, a visit to a clinic for Ethiopian Jews, etc. – that's all right with Birthright.

As for Take Back Zionism -- the drab, alte kakke-looking website has old content paid for by old Zionists in an effort to attract the Rachel Maddow crowd. All right, maybe I am a wee unkind. But take a look at its partners, which include, "Artists 4 Israel" (countering the artistic boycott), Friends of the IDF, The David Project, Standwithus, ZOA, NGO Monitor, Hasbara Fellowships, etc., etc, and you will see how heavily weighted this group is to the right, the Ameinu fig leaf notwithstanding.

I suppose that Take Back Zionism is a way to prolong that Birthright afterglow. But if it wants to appeal to young Jewish progressives on the Upper West Side, it should be talking with J Street U.

When I asked why J Street did not appear as a partner, and why Zionism was limited to the conventional statist kind, I received this reply:

We are not limiting Zionism at all, in fact, the point is to expand Zionism and move it away from the narrow connotation it currently holds in contemporary discourse

There are a number of reasons why J Street is not on this list- first and foremost, they do not have a young leadership group or 'next generation' activity in NYC- you will find that our partner organizations have a way for alumni to actually engage and become involved.

If there are opportunities for young adult engagement in the NY metro area with J Street that you have heard of, please do let us know.

Well, it's nice to know that NGO Monitor has a young leadership group in NYC, and that it numbers more than the young adults affiliated with J Street…If you believe the above, I have a bridge to sell you….

By the way, J Street does have a young professionals network in NYC, and it is putting on an event this week. See here.

Look, I will take back some of my criticism of the site when J Street is included. (Needless to say, Martin Buber and Judah Magnes are not in the pantheon of Zionists there, but the official version of Zionism excluded them long ago, and Americans can't be blamed for that.) But I have a feeling that Take Back Zionism is being disingenuous here.

And I am sure Kenneth Bob can explain to his rank-and-file why Ameinu is kosher as a partner for Take Back Zionism, whereas J Street, on whose advisory board he sits, is treif.

Shabbat Shalom, Asmaa and Mizrayim

The above video was made by Asmaa Mahfouz on January 18, 2011

Liberating the Egyptians and Softening Our Hardened Hearts

Israelis, and Jews worldwide, have mixed feelings about the Egyptian revolution. From a tribal perspective – and, sadly, that's the dominant perspective among Jews with whom I associate – there is the fear of the impact of the revolution on Israel. Would the new Egyptian regime, assuming one comes into being, keep the peace with Israel? Would the Muslim Brotherhood gain the upper hand? Would the border with Gaza stay sealed? Is this good for Hamas? Is it good for Israel?

From a moral perspective, however – and, fortunately, that's the dominant perspective among the e-crowd, Jewish and non-Jewish, with whom I associate – supporting the Egyptian revolution is a no-brainer. On the one hand we have a regime that has only become more authoritarian in recent years, and, on the other, non-violent protesters from all walks of life who are struggling to be free. How can any decent human being not be thrilled by the prospect of this liberation? And how can Jews, who themselves came into being as nation in the furnace of Egyptian bondage, not identify with the Egyptian struggle for freedom?

In fact, I would argue that the ambivalence that some Jews are feeling can itself be turned into an argument against a Jewish state. For if the price to pay for a Jewish state is acquiescing in tyranny and injustice for reasons of realpolitik – as Israel did with apartheid South Africa – then arguably that price is too high, especially if you feel, as I do, that there are alternatives to a Jewish state for the survival and thriving of the Jewish people and its heritage.

Of course, I understand the counterargument – that the world is full of messy compromises and strange bedfellows, and that one's national security is paramount. I understand the necessity of the United States' alliance with Stalin during World War II. And it would be foolish not to support Israel's peace treaty with Egypt. But, to quote Avishai Margalit, there are compromises, and there are rotten compromises. An alliance in which Israel supplies nuclear knowledge and armaments to a rogue state that oppresses its people like South Africa is a rotten compromise. Not to support the Egyptian revolution for fear that it may turn out bad for Israel (and what that means is subject to debate) is shortsighted politically and unjustifiable morally. And both are cardinal sins for Jews.

Some Jews and Israelis who support the Egyptian revolution are still apprehensive. After all, there is that perennial bogeyman, Islamism, which may rear its head. Isn't it preferable for Israelis to have as neighbor an authoritarian regime that supports, or at least does not actively oppose its interests, then a regime where Islamic movements like Hizbollah and Hamas are represented? With monarchs and tyrants one can come to terms. But what if the Arab public is opposed to the existence of Israel? Why should Israelis support democratization of their enemies?

To which I reply: the Jews should have thought of that before they established the state of Israel. If they could not establish a state that would be able to live in peace with its Arab neighbors, but decided to press on with an "Iron Wall" mentality, then they are reaping what they sowed. But the premise itself is flawed. Were Israel to make peace with the Palestinian – within the framework of one state, two states, or a federation, in which the Palestinians had freedom and self-determination along with the Israelis, and the refugees would be given the choice to return or not, the vast majority of Arabs would be willing to accept that – not perhaps, as the most desirable outcome, but as something that could be tolerated for the foreseeable future. Just as I would not ban religious Jewish political parties in Israel from participating democratically, although they are territorial maximalists, so neither would I exclude religious Muslim parties, even though, as an orthodox Jew, I am personally unhappy with religious political parties and have never voted for one. (For insight into the intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood, see Helena Cobban's 2007 interview in Foreign Policy here.)

The revolution in Egypt is already a victory for that growing force in society, "civil society." The protesters have been called the generation of Facebook and Twitter. But let's not forget that they are primarily the generation of human rights discourse. Yizhak Laor is dead wrong when he writes that the Left in Egypt "has drowned in European subsidies to tens of separate NGOS for human rights, whose siginficance has not been one of change but rather of a disciplined preservation of the status quo." This may be the view of a Tel-Aviv armchair revolutionary, but someone who knows Egypt a lot better than Laor and me has told me that "the indigenous Egyptian human rights NGOs and the international HR NGO's have all made in invaluable contribution;" In particular, the Egyptian Organization of Human Rights and the Cairo-based Arab Organization of Human Rights, have defended political prisoners and helped create a discourse of human rights that is at the center of the Egyptian revolution. Of course, that revolution is greater than any particular organization.

Indeed, Civil Society, rather than the Muslim Brotherhood or the opposition parties, is the motivating force behind the Egyptian revolution, at least for now. And that bodes ill for repressive governments, including the governments of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. After all, Hamas and the PA tried to suppress protests in favor of the revolutionaries; Israel continues to harass human rights NGOs. It is the civil society movement that is shaking the ground on which authoritarian governments stand.

When Settlers Kill Palestinians

This morning (EST) the news item came down that a settler had shot dead a Palestinian who had gone to work in his fields. By evening, the news item had changed: an Israeli police investigation, based on a security video and further questioning of the Palestinians who changed their story, found that the Palestinian was part of a group that had thrown rocks at the settler, who then shot back "in self-defense" after he first shot in the air. The settlers and the rightwing started to crow about how another "blood libel" had been disproved. See here

Perhaps. But let's change the story a bit. A settler is shot to death by a Palestinian gunman in Area A , which is under Palestinian sovereignty. Palestinian police investigating the event find that the settler had thrown rocks at the Palestinian, who defended himself and shot the settler – out of self-defense. Case is closed; the Palestinian shooter suffers no serious consequences.

Would the settler's family be satisfied that a proper investigation had been carried out? Would they accept the word of the Palestinian police that justice had been done?

Of course they wouldn't, and neither would the Israeli government. Because, as everybody knows, the Palestinian police have no jurisdiction over Israelis who are in Area A. Neither can they investigate, nor can Palestinian judges try Israelis. When a Palestinian kills an Israeli the Israeli security forces investigates and tries his case. When an Israeli kills a Palestinian, the Israeli police investigates and an Israeli court tries the case. In the above scenario, Israel would simply send it troops and apprehend or kill the wanted Palestinian.

That is the fundamental inequity in all these stories. Only one side has the power; only one side controls the narrative; only one side investigates, tries, convicts, and sentences the other. When Israelis are injured, they have at their disposal police, army, and other security forces. When Palestinians are injured they have at their disposal the same police, army, and security forces , i.e., the Israeli one.

Small wonder that Lt. Col. Omri Burberg, who was convicted for ordering a subordinate to shoot rubber bullets at a bound Palestinian protester in Ni'ilin, was "punished" today with the equivalent of a faint slap on the wrist, not even a potch on the tush. He will not be discharged from the army; he will not go to jail; he will not even be barred from promotion in the future (after a year or ).

 

 

US Urges Freedom and Democracy in Egypt – As Long as It is Good for Israel

"Is it good for the Jews?" has been asked by Jews whenever they learned of a significant event outside their neighborhood. In the last few decades the question has been transformed into, "Is it good for Israel?" It doesn't bother me so much when Israelis and their supporters ask the question. But when the United States government sees everything through the prism of "Is it good for Israel?" then you know that something is deeply askew.

In the last few days, Representative Ilana Ros-Lehtinen, who is not herself Israeli or Jewish, has objected to the US "paying one fifth of the bills for the UN's anti- Israel activities, including the UN Human Rights Council, a rogues' gallery dominated by human rights violators who use it to ignore real abuses and instead attack democratic Israel relentlessly." (from the Jerusalem Post) . In other words, if the UN does something Israel doesn't like, we stop payment.

But the most extraordinary statement came from State Department spokesperson, P. J. Crowley. In an interview with Shihab Rattansi, when questioned why the US doesn't take a stronger line with Mubarak, who is cracking down on protesters, Crowley says:

We respect what Egypt contributes to the region. It is a stabilizing force, it has made its own peace with Israel and is pursuing normal relations with Israel. We think that's important. We think that's a model the region should adopt, broadly speaking. At the same time we recognize that Egypt, Tunisia, other countries, do need to reform.

According to Crowley, Egypt's virtues seems to a) it is a stabilizing force and b) it's good for Israel.

So despite the fact that the US wants democracy and liberalism in the Arab world, it wants it if the Arabs elect governments congenial with its – oops, I mean, Israel's – interests.

There is a strong parallel between Washington's "tough talk" on Arab democracy and its "harsh criticism" of Israeli settlements. Clinton and Obama will make a few speeches, offer some carrots for change, but will never come down hard on its client states. Remember that the US gives 1.3 billion dollars of aid to Egypt and more billions of dollars of aid to Israel. They may not be happy with their respective governments, but they aren't going to unduly ruffle any feathers, even though the US taxpayers have a stake in the outcome. As long as the opposition in Egypt is Islamist the US may be able to get away with its double game.

But when the US supports protests in Iran and only gives lip service to the protests in in Egypt, even though both sets of protesters are protesting authoritarian regimes, the US earns itself the contempt of the protesters, and of the Arab world.

And of decent folks everywhere.

h/t to a few friends who follow these things more carefully that I do, especially Helena Cobban, who has an important analysis here

And an important interview with Egypt-expert Joel Beinin that explains US's interests in Egypt, see here

Abu Ala’s Generous Offer – and Tzipi Livni’s Refusal to Make a Counter-Offer

The leaks of the Palestine Papers, now being published by Al-Jazeera and the Guardian, are important on many levels and for many reasons. But after reading some of the documents, what strikes me most is the tone of condescension in the Israeli negotiators, up to Tzipi Livni – condescension, sarcasm, and the feeling of having all the time in the world. (Livni opens a meeting in which the Palestinians present their detailed proposal for Jerusalem by saying, "Based on what I have heard in the trilateral meeting with Condoleeza Rice, I believe that your offer will not be exciting.") Part of this may be to the inexperience of the Israeli negotiators, who have changed repeatedly since 2000 (well, not so repeatedly; there were virtually no negotiations when Sharon was Prime Minister.) On the Palestinian side you have men like Saeb Erekat and Ahmad Qurei, who have been involved with negotations with Israelis since the 1980's, at least. But most of it stems from the fact that Israel thinks it holds all the cards and knows that it is under no pressure to give an inch. Abu Ala' in effect gave Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert Yerushalayim on a silver platter. And according to these documents, anyway, the Israelis did not even make a counter-offer.

What also strikes me is the complete absence of Israeli give-and-take at all. In any serious negotiation, there is some sort of give-and-take that brings on an agreement. But in this negotiation, there is no Israeli give, partly because of the imbalance of power and partly because the two sides are not negotiating over the same thing. For the Israelis, Jerusalem and the surrounding settlements, as defined by Israel are not negotiable. Period. What they seem to be willing to negotiate is a handful of Arabs living within East Jerusalem having citizenship in the Palestinian state. But from a territorial view, what determines Israel's starting point is "facts on the ground". The only border Israel is willing to consider is the "border" that it has consistently moved over the last forty three years. The Palestinians, on the other hand, and like the rest of the world, still refer to the 1967 border. The Israeli negotiators consistently refuse to allow even negotiations on the basis of the pre-1967 border. It simply does not exist in their head. What the Israelis want to do is to be "creative", to have a "new approach," not to rely on any international law, to create a "soft language".

The same is true of the general negotiations over borders. In fact, the Israelis explicitly say that they don't want to think of this negotiation as a give and take. Here is an excerpt from 12 March, 2008, the first meeting on territory.

Udi Dekel:     We don't see the 1967 border as a reference, first because we don't even know exactly where the line is.

Saeb Arekat:      We have all the maps that were signed by you.

UD:     But that wasn't exactly the line on the ground.

SA:      If not the 1967 line, then what is your reference?

UD:     We said already, the situation on the ground.

SA:      The wall?

UD:     The security fence is not a border.  Unfortunately, it is needed for security.  Every week we intercept 3 to 4 suicide bombers.  As we've said before, the fence is not a border and can be moved like we did with Lebanon. [ Comment by Jerry: This standard Israeli line was belied by the government lawyers' testimony before the Supreme Court in the Bil'in case, where they said that Israel would indeed claim the area up to the fence in subsequent negotiations.].

Nizar Farsakh:      What is your frame of reference?

UD:     We're talking about blocs of settlements—not far in the West Bank, but close to the area we are talking about—are to be part of Israel. In Oslo we used the West Bank outline map.

DT:      It is the West Bank outline map, in which under our law Israeli military law is applied.

SA:      This is your law.  In our law, the line is 1967.

DT:      Based on which maps?  There is no…

SA:      This is the standard we've worked from, from Oslo to Taba… we are not going to discuss any other line.  If we're going to waste time this is something else.

UD:     This is your opinion, but not our opinion.  It is very difficult to locate the exact line of the situation that existed on 4 June 1967.  It's not the same line.  But for us, the baseline we use is the outline of the West Bank.  It may be close, but it's not the same line.  You mentioned the NML—you can't say this is "occupied".

SA:      It doesn't belong to you either.  The Jordan army was there at least in some places, but the Israeli army was not anywhere (in the NML).

UD:     This is our line. We have proof that the area was split and we consider it part of Israel

NF:      This was a gentlemen's agreement that was not signed whereby the farmers from each side cultivate up to the middle of the NML, but then a dispute erupted in 1964 whereby this arrangement was dismissed.

UD:     We do not agree.

NF:      OK, then we agree to disagree.

Khalid Elgindy:      There are two practical problems with your approach.  How can we start from realities on the ground when the situation on the ground keeps changing, even as we speak. Second, how can we identify which areas in Israel would be swapped in exchange for what is being taken in the West Bank if we don't have a reference line?

UD:     We are not speaking in the same dimension.  We are not speaking about "giving" and "taking"… we are taking about realities.  Our goal is to create a better situation for Palestinians, as well as for Israelis.

….

UD:     We didn't take anything from you.  No Palestinian state existed before.  When you say 1967, it's not something we can recognize. First, it's not a border.  Second, we don't know exactly where it is.  So we have to forget those things.  It doesn't help to talk about what we "take" or "give".  Also, percentages don't help.  But if we agree on a border then we can move forward

NF:      We're disagreeing over approach.  I still fail to see how this is so.  Yes, the exact 1967 line is hard to know but there are ways to deal with this. With Jordan you had that problem because of the vague definition of the boundary in Wadi Araba (where it said the middle of the wadi) and you split the difference between your interpretation and the Jordanian one.  We can deal with any discrepancies between your interpretation and ours.  But need some sort of starting point.

KE:      The entire international community does not accept Israeli sovereignty in any of the territory occupied in 1967. You are asking us to accept what the whole world is refusing to accept.  This is not logical.

UD:     The international community is not relevant here. We are not agreeing with them; we are agreeing with you on the border between us.  And there  wasn't a border.  All the maps we agreed upon are based on that line ["WB outline"].

KE:      But even your line is based on the 1967 line.  If we compare your line to 1967 line we'll find that it coincides everywhere except the Latrun NML and Jerusalem.  You mentioned UNSC Res. 242, which itself means the 1967 line.

UD:     You know the wording of 242 so… Maybe we can start by identifying differences between our West Bank outline and what you call 1967.

SA:      We have maps and you have maps, but if you want an international commission to judge where the line is, this is a waste of time.

UD:     We want to reach an agreement between us.  We don't need the international community to tell us what to do.

SA:      We cannot take the line you created.

UD:     It's not created, it is used in our agreements with you in Oslo.  It's based on this line ["WB outline"]

NF:      The Interim Agreement has no line. It just shows Areas A and B.

UD:     But the percentage of the areas are calculated according to that line.

NF:      That still does not mean that we accept that line.  [Jerry's Comment: In fact, the Israeli line could not have been accepted by the PA because that would have ipso facto meant reinquishing claims to East Jerusalem. So an Israeli line that was given status as an interim line, much to the detriment of the Palestinians, was now being claimed as the base line on which negotations for final borders would be made.] I can draw 100 different lines and still get the same areas; that is not a standard.

UD:     Let's check the line you have and what we have.  If it's 90% the same, we can work on the rest… 

SA:      but we used this line in Camp David and Taba, so why restart the discussion?

UD:     I'm trying to change the language between us, to create a soft language between us.  We don't want to fight over symbols; we'd like to create a new approach.  If we use symbols, it will be very difficult for you, and for us.  We'd like to have a new approach—not looking at maps signed by Moshe Dayan and Jordanians in the 1950s.

SA:      We also want to be creative and have an open mind to make an agreement acceptable.  But you cannot impose on me facts on the ground that you created and say this is the starting point.  These facts on the ground caused lots of problems for us.  We want to be creative

 

h/t to Matt Duss for pointing me to this document.