Some of you have noticed the dearth of Magnes Zionist posts lately. Between the Jewish holidays, the semester, and the election, and research, I haven't had much time. I hope I will be able to get back to 2-3 a week soon.
Thanks for the encouragement. It's been a long holiday season, and in the US it is over tomorrow night.
After Barack Obama wins the election in two weeks (assuming that planned attempts to prevent Democrats from voting aren't successful), credit will be due several people.
But a special thanks will be due to William Kristol, who, according to a must-read article by Jane Mayer in the current New Yorker, fell under Palin's spell during a cruise to Alaska last year, and lobbied mightily for her inclusion on the McCain ticket. Let's face it: the choice of Palin will be long remembered as the single most significant move that sunk McCain's boat. Palin's total ignorance of anything outside of the state of Alaska vitiated the "national security" argument against Obama, raised serious questions about McCain's judgment, and caused the most serious defection of conservative writers from the Republic ticket in years. Just read the devastating criticisms of Palin made by Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, Chris Buckley, Matthew Dowd, George F. Will, and even Charles Krauthammer. Polls show that Palin is now a liability to the ticket. What was McCain thinking? The base Palin energized would have turned out to vote against Obama even if the Anti-Christ (or Bill Clinton) were the Republican presidential nominee.
In a recent op-ed, Kristol sneered at Peggy Noonan's remark that "the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics." According to Kristol,
Politics in a democracy are always "vulgar" — since democracy is rule by the "vulgus," the common people, the crowd.
Excuse me, Bill? Read the Constitution lately? Since when has democracy in this country meant rule by the mob? Apparently, Kristol is not content to strike against the liberal media elites; he also doesn't like conservatives with brains.
Joe Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber…[is] the latest ordinary American to do a star turn in our vulgar democratic circus. He seems like a sensible man to me.
In the match between the intelligent conservatives listed above, and Samuel Wurzelbacher, an unlicensed plumber who owes back taxes and hasn't yet figured out that he would get a tax credit under Obama's economic plan, Kristol goes with the latter.
I wouldn't spend so much time on Kristol if I didn't think that his writing is indicative of a wider phenomenon. Call it the Jewish intellectual's "Fanfare for the Common Man." Ever since Russian intellectuals glorified the serfs as the true Russians, their Russia Jewish imitators glorified the simply laborers and farmers. Labor Zionism, of course, was built on this form of intellectual self-hate. In embracing the mythical "Joe the Plumber" Kristol shows that he stands with the redneck, the common man, the Real American. Kristol may not look like Rush Limbaugh, but the message is the same: Those guys are real.
Kristol wasn't the only conservative pundit smitten by Governor Palin. After the Weekly Standard's cruise set sail from Juneau, the National Review's cruise dropped its anchor. Rich Lowry, the editor, Jack Fowler, the publisher, Jay Nordlinger, a senior editor, the historian Victor Davis Hanson, and a bunch of others fell under Palin's spell. In the New Yorker article, several made remarks about Palin's good looks. (Has anybody heard of a female conservative pundit praise Palin's looks?)
In short, what we had here was a bunch of middle-aged white males going gah-gah for Sarah. And Kristol, apparently, fell for her the hardest:
The most ardent promoter, however, was Kristol, and his enthusiasm became the talk of Alaska's political circles. According to [Paulette] Simpson, Senator [Ted] Stevens told her that "Kristol was really pushing Palin" in Washington before McCain picked her. Indeed, as early as June 29th, two months before McCain chose her, Kristol predicted on "Fox News Sunday" that "McCain's going to put Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, on the ticket." He described her as "fantastic," saying that she could go one-on-one against Obama in basketball, and possibly siphon off Hillary Clinton's supporters. He pointed out that she was a "mother of five" and a reformer. "Go for the gold here with Sarah Palin," he said. The moderator, Chris Wallace, finally had to ask Kristol, "Can we please get off Sarah Palin?"
Of course, the short Jew with the statuesque shikse on his arms is a familiar image: Irving Berlin had his Ellen McKay; Henry Kissinger had his Nancy Maginnes; Woody Allen had his Diane Keaton. In his fawning over Sarah Palin, Kristol has managed combine the glorification of the real American with something akin to shikse worship.
Which just goes to show you that you can take a Jew out of Russia, but you can't take Russia out of the Jew – especially a "tough Jew" like Kristol.
Recently, I was asked to sign a petition of Jewish Studies scholars supporting of Obama. Since I am a Jewish Studies scholar, since I sign petitions, and since I support Obama, I should have agreed, right? Especially when I had just co-hosted a fundraiser for Obama (featuring Michael Chabon, Nathan Englander, and Ayelet Waldman), and I had solicited and received money from the person who asked me to sign the petition.
For those of you are interested in this petition – and the signatories -- you can read about it here.
I have signed petitions in the past calling for international intervention in Israel/Palestine, for Israel to recognize its responsibility of the Nakbah, and in support of IDF refuseniks – all using my real name and academic affiliation. But, frankly, I don't think that my being a Jewish Studies professor, or my scholarly expertise, bears much on my support of Obama. I am a liberal Democrat; ergo I support Obama. Lots of folks in the Academy are liberal Democrats. My Judaism and Jewish identity is also involved – but not qua Jewish Studies professor. So I was curious to see what all this had to do with the Jewish Studies guild.
And here is the line"
As scholars of Jewish Studies, we are concerned that distortions of Senator Obama's record and biography have caused undue anxiety among American Jews about what an Obama presidency would mean for Israel and the Jewish community.
What does the reisha (beginning) have to do with the seifa (end)? I don't feel especially concerned about this matter "as a scholar of Jewish Studies." Any decent person should be concerned about distortions. But there are quite a few rightwing Jewish Studies scholars who may be unhappy about Obama for what they consider to be good reasons. And, I know that some of the signatories – Danny Boyarin, for example – will share my real concerns about President Obama's policies towards the Israelis and Palestinians. It will be harder to oppose the policies of a misguided American liberal Democratic president than a Republican one.
Look, this is not big deal, and if I weren't so busy with other matters, I would blog about something more important. If liberal Jews in my guild want to publish a petition in support of their candidate, they can go ahead and do it. But I do not see the connection between that guild and that support. And call me old fashioned, but I would prefer that the Jewish Studies business be left out. When I say on my blog that I am a Jewish Studies professor, that is for identification purposes only.
Liberals should be prepared to be disappointed with Obama, if he gets elected president. I have it on the best of authority that even with a democratic majority in Congress he is going to stay centrist and even, gasp, conservative on some fiscal issues. I mean the best of authority. The ideologues think that, a la George W., he is sounding centrist now, but will turn ideologue later….Ain't gonna happen.
And let me tell you what the difference is – George W. came into town with some ideological principles and very little brain. He let ideologues, and his Vice-President, run the show. Obama is much more his own man, and he is a pragmatist. And for liberal ideologues, that is bad news.
As for Israel -- I have said time and time again that Obama's views are garden-variety American-liberal-Zionist. The tone will be better; the reality, however, will remain the same. I only hope that he and his advisors learn from the mistakes of the Clinton and Bush administrations. The so-called "Peace Process" serves the interest of the Israeli government, the PA, and nobody else. Let's hope that the message gets through to the Obama administration early in the game
Round-up of the good news of the week.
1. Obama's Lead Continues to Widen. In the US, one is hard-pressed to think of a genuine left-wing national politician, with the exception of a non-politician like Ralph Nader. Liberals don't get elected president in America, or haven't for a while. Jimmy Carter may now seem like a flaming liberal, but when he was president he was considered liberal-centrist. As for Bill Clinton…well, no need to go there. Was L.B.J. the last liberal president? Do I hear Vietnam, anyone?
So when the presidential candidate with the most liberal voting record in the Senate finds himself, a month before election-day, with an average 6-7 point lead in the polls, that's got to be sweet, right?
Poor William Kristol, the pointy-headed, effete Jewish neocon who envies "real Americans" like Sarah Six-Pack-Moose-Hunter-Red-Meat-Eater-Hocky-Mom Palin. Kristol has so far written three or four columns fantasizing how McCain and Palin can still win this thing. In his latest effort, he offers up two suggestions – attack Obama-Biden on ideology and go negative on character. As for ideology,
One shouldn't underestimate the ideological issue, and the potency of the fact that Obama and Biden are orthodox liberals. They're for raising taxes, federally funding abortions, naming activist judges, and losing wars. The American people may think--they do think--the country's on the wrong track, that the Bush administration has made too many mistakes and that the Republican party's no great shakes. But they haven't suddenly become liberals. And they probably aren't crazy about the prospect of a liberal administration governing unchecked, hand in hand with a liberal Congress. During the next four weeks, the McCain-Palin campaign should make this risky prospect vivid.
Uh, excuse me, but it seems to me that McCain and Palin have been shouting from the rooftops that Obama and Biden are "orthodox liberals," and that the "tax-and-spend-wave-the-white-flag" charge has failed abysmally in this election. So why does Kristol think that this strategy will suddenly work? Because he simply can't believe that real Americans are liberals. He's right; they aren't. They aren't conservatives, either. Americans didn't elect George W. because they were conservative, and they won't elect Obama because they have turned liberal. The fact is that most people are not Kristol-style ideologues. Sure, there are a bunch of those on both sides, but you can't get elected only with them. Folks believe that the country is in a mess, and that the Republicans are mostly responsible. They are willing to give the other side the chance to do better. That's what this election is about.
As for the attacks on character, that's hilarious, or should I say, Hillary-esque. Kristol writes:
Character is a legitimate issue. Obama hasn't shown much in the way of leadership or political courage, and he's consorted with dubious figures. It's fair to ask whether Barack Obama is personally trustworthy enough to be president, and the McCain campaign shouldn't be intimidated from going there.
Do I hear Mark Penn? Reprising Ayers, Wright and Co. will work for the McCain Republicans even less than it worked for Hillary Democrats. Man, that is totally old news! If the Republicans have a really good new scandal, that may be different. (Have you heard that Obama and Bin Laden have been spotted together on the same planet?)
Look, the campaign is far from over. But neither is the bad news about the economy. Where I think the Obama campaign has to hit back is over the stupid McCain-Palin claim that victory is in sight in Iraq. Sure, the levels of casualties are down; massive troop deployment does that. But as Peter Galbraith writes in the latest issue of the New York Review of Books,
Less violence, however, is not the same thing as success. The United States did not go to war in Iraq for the purpose of ending violence between contending sectarian forces. Success has to be measured against US objectives. John McCain proclaims his goal to be victory and says we are now winning in Iraq (a victory that will, of course, be lost if his allegedly pro-surrender opponent wins). He considers victory to be an Iraq that is "a democratic ally." George W. Bush has defined victory as a unified, democratic, and stable Iraq. Neither man has explained how he will transform Iraq's ruling theocrats into democrats, diminish Iran's vast influence in Baghdad, or reconcile Kurds and Sunnis to Iraq's new order. Remarkably, neither the Democrats nor the press has challenged them to do so.
(Galbraith's piece is a must-read for those who claim that the surge is working.)
2. New York Sun goes belly up. One of the nastier rightwing Jewish news rags, the New York Sun, folded last week. Barukh Dayyan Emes. Just more proof that God's special providence is at work. Read about it here.
3. Eckstein soaks the rightwing goyim for $824,000 a year. Haaretz reported that Rabbi Yehiel Eckstein, President of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, received an annual salary of $824,000 last year. Ah, plus ça change…another clever Jew knows how to make money off of the goyim. Can't wait till it hits the blogs and general media.
Before I say "Happy New Year" and "May You be Inscribed in the Book of Life for the Coming Year", I would like to make confession of a few of my blogging sins.
So here goes…
For the sin of promising posts on topics and not following through….
For the sin of dissing my critics in the posts (I cut myself a little more slack in the Comments section – sorry I am not on a higher madregah/level yet)…
For the sin of making stupid editorial errors….
For the sin of using inflammatory and provocative language when I don't need to (but, ribono shel olam, these things really hurt me )….
For the sin of not reading my fellow-traveler bloggers enough so that I end up unwittingly repeating what they write…
For the sin of repeating myself ad nauseum….
For the sin of repeating myself ad nauseum….
For the sin of too frequent posting and not frequent enough posting….
For the sin of boring posts….
For all these sins, and many more, Dear Reader, forgive me, pardon me, and atone for me.
And now on a more serious note….
The greatest sin that we as Israeli Jews have committed, and continue to commit is depriving our Palestinian brethren of their dignity, their freedom, their human rights, and their rights to national self-expression.
But another great sin – one obviously connected to the first – is our trespassing against them in the most literal sense of "encroaching on their boundaries" (hasagat gvul, in Hebrew).
We continue to steal their land by moving our markers onto it and claiming it as ours.
After the holiday, God willing, and bli neder/without making a vow, I plan to write a post about the sin of trespassing – arguably one of the most serious sins we transgress. What is the Jewish understanding of "trespassing?" What do the sources say? And how can we read those sources so that we, as human beings, and as Israeli Jews, take the words of our tradition to heart – and extend them to include our non-Jewish brothers and sisters in the basic mitzvot of all humanity?
Well, there I go again…promising posts….
I will try to keep this one.
"Happy New Year" and "May You be Inscribed in the Book of Life for the Coming Year"
The pipe-bomb that was set to kill Prof. Zeev Sternhell, Israel prize winner and authority on fascism in Europe and in Israel, was most likely set by a rightwing terrorist. That is simply because in Israel there are no leftwing terrorists. Not only does all the Jewish terrorism come from the right, so too all the hate mail, the threatening letters, the physical violence. When was the last time one of the Hebron settlers was awaken in the middle of the night by an angry leftwinger? When was the last time a rightwinger was struck or harrassed by a leftwinger?
Of course, not all rightwingers advocate violence against Jews or support terrorism. But all the Jewish terrorists come from the right side of the political spectrum.
Why is that?
Well, rightwingers will say that the leftwing does not have to engage in violence or terrorism; they support the Palestinians who do. This, of course, is a Big Lie. When the leftwingers – strictly speaking, the human rights activists, since there are very few leftwing Marxists around – condemn violations of human rights on both sides, the rightwingers reply that wittingly or unwittingly their protests encourage Arab terrorism.
Since not a single Arab terrorist has ever said that he was motivated to perpetuate acts of terror because of the incitement of leftwing Israelis and human right activists, we can only say that the claim that the leftwing plays into the hands of the terrorist is – at best – wishful thinking on the part of the right. Something to try to level a very slanted playing field.
Now, that is not to say that there are not leftwing Israelis who offer varying degrees of support to Palestinian resistance. And there are certainly people on the left (though not a whole lot – Fanon and Hondereich come to mind) who justify acts of violence against civilians by a dispossed, occupied, colonized people.
But all this is irrelevant to the point on hand, which is why actual acts of terrorism, not to mention harrassment, threatening letters, eggs thrown, etc., is virtually the exclusive territory of the rightwingers.
I think there are a few reasons for that well-known phenomenon, some obvious, some not so.
For one thing, many rightwingers are ultra-nationalists who celebrate Jewish power and the tough guy image, a la Maccabees, Betar, Kahane, etc. For them, violence and zealotry are mitzvot (see under Shimon and Levi). Anybody who doesn't agree with them, who doesn't buy into their idea of what is good for the tribe, is a traitor, a moyser/malshin/informant, a malshin, blah-blah-blah. And of course, according to Jewish law, it is a mitzvah to kill informants, to lynch them without any judicial procedure. So that takes care of one group of rightwingers.
A more interesting group – generally orthodox rabbis – feel that while, theoretically, folks like Peace Now, Breaking the Silence, Yesh Din, etc., may deserve death, it would be imprudent and impractical to take the law in one's own hand. These are the folks who called Rabin a moyser before he died, and then professed shock and dismay when somebody took them literally. Some of them are more explicit than others, and some of them are profoundly sincere in their expressions of dismay.
The attempted assasination of Zev Sternhell is the latest in a string of attacks by rightwing elements against the left, ranging from personal harrassment (obscene phone calls, vicious talkbalks) to organizational harrassment (the Hebron settler thugs who harrass the tours of Breaking the Silence), to threats and physical attacks.
But your garden-variety ultra-nationalist celebration of power, typical of fascist movements, combined with the few scattered Jewish motifs in this direction, explains only some of the phenomenon.
For when you get down to it, the rightwing in Israel is not exactly a threatened minority; on the contrary, it ahs the upper hand. The settlers were moved from Gaza, but that was in order for Israel tighten its grip on the West Bank, or so thought Ariel Sharon. The settlements thrive; the outposts multiply; barukh ha-shem, things are going well, the settler leaders say. So why now, all of a sudden, do presumably rightwing terrorists try to blow up a professor who said – over five years ago -- that the Palestinians were unwise to attack over the Green Line?
I think the answer is twofold: a) the settler-extremists feel threatened by the negative media exposure and the minor judicial setbacks they have received; and b) they feel that their greater aspirations have been slown down by the exposure. While they really have no reason to feel threatened – the government will never move them – the settlers and their supporters don't like negative press, and certainly don't like criticism. Rabbi Israel Rosen, a prominent leader of the settlers, already said that Peace Now's Settlement Watch are made up of moyserim. So even though Peace Now's Settlement Watch is almost entirely ineffectual, and the settlers know that, the extremists feel…offended by it. And they are used to getting their way.
Similarly in Hebron. The settlers don't understand why the State allows a leftwing group like Breaking the Silence anywhere near Hebron – I mean, shouldn't the settlers call the shots? So their verbal and physical harrassment of the group is not so much because they feel genuinely threatened, as because they feel offended. If anything has been threatened, it is their masculinity.
When you are used to getting your own way, even minor things seem to be threats.
After all, the groups that lash out against the left are almost always pampered by the government. So for them, losing even minor publicity or legal battles is a terrible blow to their ego.
Kinda like the bully Biff in the Back to the Future movies. He may terrorize the school, but he is sensitive to even the slightest challenge to his authority.
As for the pious exclamations of the Defense Minister Ehud Barak that such things will not be tolerated – the best take on this is by Breaking the Silence's Mikhael Manekin, writing in Ynet here.
To save you from double-clicking, you can read it below.
Barak, just do your job
Barak knows far-right violence isn't new; he just needs to do something about it
Michael Manekin
To the honorable Defense Minister, Ehud Barak:
I was surprised to hear your response to the pipe bomb placed outside the home of Professor Ze'ev Sternhell. You said you would not allow any element within Israeli society to harass people who express their opinions.
Your position is clear, and I assume that most members of Israeli society, both on the Right and Left, would agree with you. Yet in your capacity as defense minister, who has been serving for two years now, you are not merely another concerned citizen. The incident that took place is under your direct responsibility; and it is most certainly not a unique or new act.
As defense minister, you're not supposed to be surprised. The organization I'm active in, Breaking the Silence, has been holding tours in Hebron for years, and we have been harassed by settlers for a long time now.
Hebron, as you know, is the lab where far rightists test the limits of the Israeli government's tolerance. The Jewish terrorism originating in the town, terror that is directed mostly at Palestinians, is known to all. We too, Israelis calling for the law to be enforced, have suffered the abuse of this group. The hurling of eggs and stones, shouts, swearwords, threats, and even physical violence have become a part of our tour routine. The police do not arrest the rioters. It is easier for them to remove us from town.
Recently the police canceled yet another planned tour. The reason: Police officials claim that they are concerned for our safety and fear that radical settlers are coming to the city from all across the territories. The police fear these settlers because they do not have the tools to deal with them. You, Mr. Barak, are not providing them with those tools.
Hebron is not the only focal point, as you know. In the past year we have witnessed many incidents in the south Mount Hebron area, in the Yitzhar region, and elsewhere. Violence is no longer directed only at Palestinians, or even leftists, but rather, also at soldiers and police officers.
In recent weeks we saw soldiers and a military outpost being attacked. Soldiers and police officers are scared to approach some Jewish communities. All the talk about the deterioration of the rule of law in the territories has become banal.
"We won't let any element within Israeli society to harass others," you say resolutely, Defense Minister Barak. Yet you've let those things happen from your first day on the job. Instead of making declarations, you should face the public and say: "On this front, I failed."
Yet more importantly, you must act. After all, any Israeli who has been following the events of the recent year knows that the deterioration has merely started. The explosive device directed at Professor Sternhell is not a new incident; it's merely closer to your home.
No need to be shocked; just do your job.
Michael Mankin is a Breaking the Silence activist
Naheel Abu Rideh, 21
Philosophers will argue whether there is a significant ethical difference between killing and letting die. Apparently, there is a significant difference for Israelis between killing a Jewish baby and letting a Palestinian baby die. The penalty for the former is life imprisonment (if the killer manages to get a trial) and blowing up the home of the family. The penalty for the latter is a two week prison sentence.
That's the way it is in Sodom -- I mean, the West Bank -- today.
B'Tselem is reporting that yet another Palestinian baby was born dead at a checkpoint because the mother was not allowed to go through by the soldiers. I have lost count of the dead babies; you can find the number somewhere on the B'Tselem website here.
I remember when this sort of thing was big news. Now, it doesn't even make the Israeli papers. I reproduce here the testimony of the mother, Naheel Abu Rideh, from the B'Tselem website.
I married Muaiad Abu-Rideh two years ago, and had a baby girl, Shadah, a year ago. She was born in my seventh month of pregnancy but is fine now. Seven months ago, I became pregnant again. Last Thursday [4 September], I had sharp stomach pains and I started to bleed badly. Around 7:00 P.M. I went to Dr. Fathi ‘Odeh in Jawarish, because our village doesn’t have any specialist physicians. He gave me medication and told me I’d be all right, but I didn't feel any improvement and the pains even got worse. Around midnight, I couldn’t bear the pain any more. I woke my husband and asked him to take me to the hospital. When he saw how much I was suffering, he called to get his brother ‘Udai, who lives in the center of the village, to drive us in his car. ‘Udai arrived, with my mother-in-law, in a couple of minutes. My husband picked me up and carried me to the car. I was in so much pain, I couldn’t walk. We started on our way to the hospital in Nablus at about 12:50 A.M. At the Za’tara checkpoint, we told the soldiers I was pregnant and had to get to the hospital, and they let us cross without a problem. When we got to the Huwara checkpoint, the soldiers didn’t let us pass. They said we didn't have a permit to cross by car. We told them my brother has a permit to cross the Ma’ale Efraim checkpoint because he works at settlements in the Jordan Valley, but that didn’t help. The pain got worse. I felt as if I was going to give birth any moment. Now and then, the soldiers came over to the car and looked at me lying in the back seat. I was really worried about the fetus, and couldn’t stop thinking that I’d have to give birth in the car while the soldiers watched. I kept screaming and crying and calling for help. I don’t know how much time passed, but suddenly I felt the fetus coming out. I shouted to my mother-in-law and to ‘UdaI, who were outside the car: “I think he’s coming out!” I took off my clothes. I was afraid they’d see me naked and that something would happen to the fetus. My mother-in-law shouted: “Yes, here’s his head, he’s coming out.” I asked her to pull him, and she said, “Breathe! Push!” I felt as the baby move, as if he was calling for help and asking us to help him come out. My mother-in-law covered me with my clothes. I shouted to my husband, ”The baby is out!” He shouted to the soldiers something in Hebrew that I didn't understand. I don’t remember exactly what happened then, but when the medics arrived, they picked me up with the car seat and put me in the ambulance. I didn’t feel the baby moving any more and realized he was dead. The medics took away the dead baby and took me to the hospital. My husband and mother-in-law came with me in the ambulance. At the hospital, the doctors operated on me to clean my uterus. They discharged me the next day. It hurts me a lot when I remember how the baby moved inside me and what happened to him. What did he do wrong? I also gave birth to my daughter in my seventh month, and now she is healthy. This poor baby died because there wasn’t anybody to help me deliver him. Naheel 'Awni 'Abd a-Rahim Abu Rideh, 21, married with one child, is a homemaker and a resident of Qusra in Nablus District. Her testimony was given to Salma a-Deba'i on 8 September 2008 at the witness's home.
YNET is reporting that, for the first time, a group of the ultraorthodox, anti-Zionist Neturei Karta, joined Palestinian and Jewish protestors at Ni'alin. Read about it here.
Welcome! Every little bit helps!
Of course, cynics will say that this is just a ploy to advance an anti-Zionist agenda and that ultraorthodox Jews are not known as champions of human rights. Well, there's truth in that. But the anti-Zionist ultraorthodox have often used arguments that speak of justice and peace with the Palestininians -- if not always for love of Jacob, then for hatred of Esau, i.e., the Zionists. And the respect has been reciprocated.
What is new, as far as I know, is that the Neturei Karta have generally avoided participating in demonstrations organized by secular leftists. Of course, here they were invited by the Palestinians. But I certainly wish I had been in Ni'alin to stand shoulder to shoulder with the men in black!
Soldiers fired tear-gas and rubber bullets, no stink bombs.Seven protestors were arrested
In a related story, Neturei Karta have criticized the IDF for conducting ethnic cleansing in Gaza. According to YNET's Neta Sela,Neturei Karta, "Anti-Zionist Orthodox faction denounces military operations in Strip as 'ferocious, bloodthirsty acts of ethnic cleansing', say they fail to understand why world powers 'allow Zionists to commit such crimes against Palestinians'" This is printed on the web in a box with the heading "Propaganda". Good to know that there is an independent press in Israel.
I never had much reason to dislike John McCain; on the contrary, his character seemed admirable in many respects (especially in comparison to the current president).
But the Obama sex-ed ad that he approved is pure slime. Through its lies and innuendoes, the McCain campaign has done something I didn't think possible; it has sunk lower than Karl Rove.
I don't really want to talk about the ad itself. What is more interesting to me is that the conservatives who are defending the ad – such as the National Review's Jim Garaghty -- do so in violation of their own conservative principles. Garaghty picks up the bill and interprets it in such a way as to make the McCain campaign's reading plausible. In other words, he interprets the text to suit his purpose.
What's wrong with that? Well, conservatives tell us that we are not supposed to do that when we look interpret a law. What we are supposed to do is try to determine the original intent of the legislators by appealing to the circumstances of the legislation, and what the framers intended. And when you do that, it is simply outrageous to suggest that any of the legislators intended to teach about sexually transmitted diseases to kindergarten, where there is not a scrap of evidence to suggest that this was their intent, and the law itself speaks about "age and developmental appropriateness".
A bill can be worded poorly, and those who support the bill on the floor of a legislature (but not those who support it in committee) bear responsibility for that. But given the circumstances of the bill, it is most reasonable to interpret it as saying that wherever there is a comprehensive sex ed program, attention must be paid to the question of sexually-transmitted diseases. It does not mandate teaching sex ed to anybody grade, much less kindergarten. "K-12" is mentioned as a synonym of "any grade" or "without exception".
But conservatives like Garaghty apparently like to play fast and loose with principle.
Bill Buckley would have wept.
God bless Juan Cole, who pointed out the similarities between Sarah Palin and Islamic fundamentalists when it comes to their religious views. I may add, to Jewish fundamentalists as well. There is very little difference between fundamentalists of the three religions, and I should know, since I am a moderate fundamentalist, myself.
John McCain never had my vote, but he did have my respect , until this week, when he lost it. The repackaging of John McCain as the agent of change in Washington, the outsider who will take on the special interests, would be amusing if more people could see it for what it is: a Big Lie that is intended to pull the wool over the electorate's eye. Will McCain change the policies of the last eight years? Will McCain changes his own policies? He has already said that he won't. The issue is not whether he will take on Republicans; the issue is whether he will take on the Republican philosophy and ideology that has failed.
The power of teshuvah is great – provided that one recognizes one's sin, makes public confession, and resolves not to do it again. Instead, McCain is throwing dust in the electorate's eyes by talking "change" but meaning something else. And so far, enough of the American public is buying it.
Anyway, here is Juan Cole's post from Salon
Sept. 9, 2008 | John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.
McCain pledged to work for peace based on "the transformative ideals on which we were founded." Tolerance and democracy require freedom of speech and the press, but while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin inquired of the local librarian how to go about banning books that some of her constituents thought contained inappropriate language. She tried to fire the librarian for defying her. Book banning is common to fundamentalisms around the world, and the mind-set Palin displayed did not differ from that of the Hamas minister of education in the Palestinian government who banned a book of Palestinian folk tales for its sexually explicit language. In contrast, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it."
Palin argued when running for governor that creationism should be taught in public schools, at taxpayers' expense, alongside real science. Antipathy to Darwin for providing an alternative to the creation stories of the Bible and the Quran has also become a feature of Muslim fundamentalism. Saudi Arabia prohibits the study, even in universities, of evolution, Freud and Marx. Malaysia has banned a translation of "The Origin of the Species." Likewise, fundamentalists in Turkey have pressured the government to teach creationism in the public schools. McCain has praised Turkey as an anchor of democracy in the region, but Turkey's secular traditions are under severe pressure from fundamentalists in that country. McCain does them no favors by choosing a running mate who wishes to destroy the First Amendment's establishment clause, which forbids the state to give official support to any particular theology. Turkish religious activists would thereby be enabled to cite an American precedent for their own quest to put religion back at the center of Ankara's public and foreign policies.
The GOP vice-presidential pick holds that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest or severe birth defects, making an exception only if the life of the mother is in danger. She calls abortion an "atrocity" and pledges to reshape the judiciary to fight it. Ironically, Palin's views on the matter are to the right of those in the Muslim country of Tunisia, which allows abortion in the first trimester for a wide range of reasons. Classical Muslim jurisprudents differed among one another on the issue of abortion, but many permitted it before the "quickening" of the fetus, i.e. until the end of the fourth month. Contemporary Muslim fundamentalists, however, generally oppose abortion.
Palin's stance is even stricter than that of the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In 2005, the legislature in Tehran attempted to amend the country's antiabortion statute to permit an abortion up to four months in case of a birth defect. The conservative clerical Guardianship Council, which functions as a sort of theocratic senate, however, rejected the change. Iran's law on abortion is therefore virtually identical to the one that Palin would like to see imposed on American women, and the rationale in both cases is the same, a literalist religious impulse that resists any compromise with the realities of biology and of women's lives. Saudi Arabia's restrictive law on abortion likewise disallows it in the case or rape or incest, or of fetal impairment, which is also Gov. Palin's position.
Theocrats confuse God's will with their own mortal policies. Just as Muslim fundamentalists believe that God has given them the vast oil and gas resources in their regions, so Palin asks church workers in Alaska to pray for a $30 billion pipeline in the state because "God's will has to get done." Likewise, Palin maintained that her task as governor would be impeded "if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God." Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei of Iran expresses much the same sentiment when he says "the only way to attain prosperity and progress is to rely on Islam."
Not only does Palin not believe global warming is "man-made," she favors massive new drilling to spew more carbon into the atmosphere. Both as a fatalist who has surrendered to God's inscrutable will and as a politician from an oil-rich region, she thereby echoes Saudi Arabia. Riyadh has been found to have exercised inappropriate influence in watering down a report in 2007 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Neither Christians nor Muslims necessarily share the beliefs detailed above. Many believers in both traditions uphold freedom of speech and the press. Indeed, in a recent poll, over 90 percent of Egyptians and Iranians said that they would build freedom of expression into any constitution they designed. Many believers find ways of reconciling the scientific theory of evolution with faith in God, not finding it necessary to believe that the world was created suddenly only 6,000 ago. Some medieval Muslim thinkers asserted that the world had existed from eternity, and others spoke of cycles of hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Mystical Muslim poets spoke of humankind traversing the stages of mineral, plant and animal. Modern Islamic fundamentalists have attempted to narrow this great, diverse tradition.
The classical Islamic legal tradition generally permitted, while frowning on, contraception and abortion, and complete opposition to them is mostly a feature of modern fundamentalist thinking. Many believers in both Islam and Christianity would see it as hubris to tie God to specific government policies or to a particular political party. As for global warming, green theology, in which Christians and Muslims appeal to Scripture in fighting global warming, is an increasing tendency in both traditions.
Palin has a right to her religious beliefs, as do fundamentalist Muslims who agree with her on so many issues of social policy. None of them has a right, however, to impose their beliefs on others by capturing and deploying the executive power of the state. The most noxious belief that Palin shares with Muslim fundamentalists is her conviction that faith is not a private affair of individuals but rather a moral imperative that believers should import into statecraft wherever they have the opportunity to do so. That is the point of her pledge to shape the judiciary. Such a theocratic impulse is incompatible with the Founding Fathers' commitment to tolerance and democracy, which is why they forbade the government to "establish" or officially support any particular religion or denomination.
McCain once excoriated the Rev. Jerry Falwell and his ilk as "agents of intolerance." That he took such a position gave his opposition to similar intolerance in Islam credibility. In light of his more recent disgraceful kowtowing to the Christian right, McCain's animus against fundamentalist Muslims no longer looks consistent. It looks bigoted and invidious. You can't say you are waging a war on religious extremism if you are trying to put a religious extremist a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Richard Silverstein gets it right (as usual) when he writes that the issue of Bristol Palin's pregnancy is a personal one and not politically relevant. But he also adds that Palin's cavalier dismissal of it is jarring, given her religious values. Is premarital sex right or wrong? It is wrong, according to the religious conservatives, and so it has to be condemned. You don't have to throw stones, but you have to get across the message that it is unacceptable, that such behavior is inexcusable.
Instead, what we hear from the Palin apologists is that "all families have problems," and that Americans can relate to Sarah Palin's problems.
Well, guess what, Palinites: most American families – certainly most religiously conservative American families – don't have pregnant daughters, or sons who have fathered children out of wedlock. To condemn the phenomenon in others, while excusing it in yourself, or in somebody you support politically, is hypocritical. I have yet to hear a single Palin supporter say that what Bristol Palin did was wrong. They are quick to forgive because they are on this particular's hockey mom's team.
So should it surprise anybody that Palin's boy friend – the "presumptive fiance," (are they engaged?) -- is right out there in front waving to the crowd and greeting John McCain. Even the teenage father from the movie Juno acted with greater tact.
Look, not everybody has to be a social conservative, but if you are, then at least practice what you preach. The fact that mainstream orthodox Jews, including haredi Jews, are supporting Palin without a murmer about her daughter's pritzus (loose behavior) shows their deep hypocrisy (or religious bigotry, if they think that this is what goyim do)
And, while we are on the subject, I must say that I was heartened by the consistency of conservative radio-show host, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who expressed her "extreme disappointment" in the choice of Palin as the VP. Why? Because, as a mother of small children, Palin should be home with the kids, or if she has to work, she should pick a job which allows her maximum time with the kids. This is especially true when one of the children has Down syndrome, and the other one is pregnant. Is that sexist? You bet! But sexism is part of the social conservative gig, is it not? As Schlessinger says,
I'm stunned - couldn't the Republican Party find one competent female with adult children to run for Vice President with McCain? I realize his advisors probably didn't want a "mature" woman, as the Democrats keep harping on his age. But really, what kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down Syndrome, and then goes back to the job of Governor within days of the birth?
I am haunted by the family pictures of the Palins during political photo-ops, showing the eldest daughter, now pregnant with her own child, cuddling the family's newborn. When Mom and Dad both work full-time (no matter how many folks get involved with the children), it becomes a somewhat chaotic situation. Certainly, if a child becomes ill and is rushed to the hospital, and you're on the hotline with both Israel and Iran as nuclear tempers are flaring, where's your attention going to be? Where should your attention be? Well, once you put your hand on the Bible and make that oath, your attention has to be with the government of the United States of America.
Parents should be available first and foremost for their children. In many cases, the most available parent will be the mother, but it could be the father; that depends on the situation. What Dr. Laura does not get its that women today, like men, often need to have fulfilling careers for their own well-being.. For many people, not pursuing a career is not an option; it's a necessity, and not just for economic reasons, but for reasons of personal happiness. It may be that Sarah Palin would be a miserable meanie were she to leave her day job and be a stay-at-home mom. But let her articulate a justification for staying away from her children.
"Country First" is not that justification.
Sarah Palin is very busy. Tuesday she cancelled all her appointments to get prepped by the McCain staff, and to prepare for her big speech Wednesday night. Well, almost all her appoinments. She found time to meet with the most powerful lobby in America, apparently .
I am referring to AIPAC, of course.
This item caught my eye from Bloomberg:
"Palin, who has been criticized by Democrats for her lack of foreign policy experience, yesterday skipped a scheduled appearance with an anti-abortion group, meeting instead with leaders of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee at her Minneapolis hotel."
So that is where she starts her foreign policy tutelage? With the Israel Lobby? What does meeting with AIPAC, a domestic lobby, have to do with foreign policy experience?
You know the answer. It has everything to do with domestic politics. I could just hear Joe Lieberman saying to her, "Sarah, you have the anti-abortion vote sewn up; it's more important for you to go for the Jews."
Amazing. So many people working so hard to love Israel…to death
The way things stand now – and I am writing this before her speech – the Palin choice has damaged McCain. Sure, it has "energized the base" but their energy can't match the Democratic energy. The true believers are not what McCain needs; he needs the moderates and the independents. And they are not wowed – yet – by Palin. Trudy Rubin last week in Commentary wrote a piece entitled, "Where's the Obama Bounce." Well, the last three polls have been giving him a nice bounce – as much as 8 points lead, in the daily Gallup poll, the first time he hit 50. OK, that will probably change after the convention. But the short-term Palin effect has been negative. We will see how things play out in the days and weeks ahead.
And speaking of speeches, Lieberman's convention speech was horrible – a disconnected, rambling affair delivered without much enthusiasm. After all, who is Joe Lieberman? The consummate Washington insider who had his moment of glory when he criticized Bill Clinton, then was tapped by Gore in order to add balance to the ticket. If Obama wins, he is a toasted bagel. But even if he loses, it's hard to see what Lieberman can do in a McCain administration. Secretary of Defence? Leon Wieselthier noted drily that this may not be such a good idea if we are going to get involved in the Middle East. Secretary of State? Somewhat of a demotion for a powerful senator. Even if Obama loses, the Democrats are going to win big in Congress. So that makes him a toasted bagel again.
Having said that, it's hard not to like Joe Lieberman. I can't forgive him for betraying his party, and for letting a unsophisticated view of the world cloud his judgment. But on a personal level, he is a likeable guy.
As for Sarah Palin, I will let you know when she shows up in shul with Lieberman and Mukasey.
So, we now have an attractive, affable, young governor, who believes in the spirit of bipartisanship in the state legislature. The governor has no knowledge of, much less experience in, foreign policy, and is a religious rightwing ideologue: pro-life; supports teaching intelligent design in schools, against equal pay for women, anti-gay, a game-hunter.
In short , Sarah Palin is George W. Bush all over again.
I wonder whether Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Dick Cheny are available for more tutoring.
Over the past year, the reactions to Obama in Israel have ranged from mockery to incredulity to suspicion. The suspicion has been allayed by the candidate in recent months, and most intelligent Israelis are confident that Obama is "ok" on Israel, if a bit soft on Iran. Of course, the Israeli right is more apprehensive. Most Israelis I know don't believe he will get elected president. Just as most Israelis a six months ago didn't believe that he would win the Democratic nomination.
In fact, most Israelis I know don't understand Obama, either the man, or the phenomenon. And I am not just talking about the man-on-the –street. I am talking about people who should know better, like the Washington correspondants for Haaretz, or my university colleagues. In America, whether you are Democrat or Republican, you generally "get" what is going on with Obama. In Israel, whether you are on the left or the right, you don't.
Even American-Israeli Obama supporters, like Haaretz writer Bradley Burston, don't understand what is going on. Burston wrote a column called "What Scares Us About Obama". Burston calls himself a "foreign visitor" in American and yet his "us" turns out to be Americans. Now, certainly many Americans will not vote for Obama, and he may lose the general election. But on the day Burston wrote his piece, Obama was either tied or ahead of McCain in every national poll. So to ask the question, "Why Americans are afraid of Obama" is more than slightly bizarre. His evidence for the fear? Louisiana has voted for the winning presidential candidate for the last 36 years, and McCain is ahead in Louisiana. That race may be a factor in a deep south state like Louisiana is, apparently, not entertained by Burston.
You want evidence for fear of Obama? Try McCain's decision to tap Sarah Palin for the VP slot. That is his "Hail-Mary" play – with third and twenty-five, he uncorks the long bomb (American football talk).
But I wish to focus on Israelis, not American Jews who have moved to Israel like Burston and myself. Here are four reasons not why Israelis fear Obama – they don't – but why they don't understand him.
1. Cynicism about politics. Israeli politicians are generally so mediocre, not to mention corrupt, that it is hard for Israelis to understand why anybody would be enthuiastic about a politician. They have little faith in the Knesset, and recent leaders of the country have been plagued by financial corruption scandals. The idea of "public service " through politics is foreign to them. What they understand is service to one's "sector". So when Obama comes along, Israelis alternately blink uncomprehendingly and smirk. The last person who inspired some sort of idealistic enthusiasm– Ehud Barak in the late nineties – produced even bigger disillusionment after he was elected.
2. Religio-Racism. The Israelis are probably no more racist than other folks, but "gizanut/racism" in Israel is considered a sin only by the Left. Since Israeli Jews consider themselves (wrongly) free of racism, because they are Jews, there is no education in the schools against racism. And so what would be considered politically incorrect in the US, even by Republicans, is considered wrong only by a small section of the Israeli population. If you don't believe me, talk with Ethiopian Jews. At best, it is not considered bon ton to be biased against other Jews. As for Arabs, and I mean, Palestinian citizens of Israel, there is not even a pretence of it being politically incorrect to be prejudiced against them. Since they are Arab they are ipso facto a threat to Israeli security.
3. Ethnic-nationalism vs. civic nationalism. In American, any citizen is part of the American people, and so any citizen should be able to become President – at least, if he or she is native born. So there is something genuinely exciting when a member of a discriminated group like Obama gets nominated. But in Israel, you can be a citizen for generations, and still be excluded from the nation – since Israel is a Jewish state. A woman, a black, a Jew, may not have a good chance of becoming president – but in Israel, an Arab citizen has no chance of being prime minister or president – not only because he or she is part of a minority, but because it is a Jewish state. Were one to argue that a Jew cannot be a president because America is a Christian nation (and no doubt some would argue that), the overwhelming amount of Americans, at least leaders, would reject that.
4. The Occupation. When an African American like Obama succeeds, it reminds Israelis, especially Israeli liberals, of the moral and political deficiencies of its democracy . Israel holds 3 ½ million people under Occupation indefinitely without fundamental rights, and b) it refuses to grant a little over ¾ million non-Jewish citizens serious political power because of their ethnic origin. Since the founding of the State, only Jewish parties have been invited into the ruling coalition – since Israeli is a Jewish state. The success of Obama holds up a mirror to Israelis, and the liberal and centrists don't like how they look.
By the time the Israelis wake up, Obama will be in the White House. Once again, we will be on the wrong side of history.
Remember how we cheered Nixon months before his resignation?
Yesterday Haaretz published a story on the semi-annual settlement report of Peace Now. Read about it here. The publication is one of those repetitive rituals that we Israeli Jews are so good at. First, there is a report that the settlement activity has doubled in the last six months, in comparison with the previous year. Then, we are told about where the new housing is being built (this year it is mostly in the Hebron and Har Hebron South area). Then, there is the ritual statement from the US about how increased settlement activity is unfortunate and harmful to the peace process (this year it was by Condi, whose tenure at the State Department rivals her tenure at Stanford for ineffectuality.) And finally, there is the reaction of the Council of Settlements of Judea and Samaria praising the settlement activity, condemning the monitoring of Peace Now as "informing", and complaining about government restrictions.
As is almost always the case Haaretz's story runs on the front page and may get an editorial the next day. Yediot Aharonot buries two paragraphs on the report and the reaction somewhere in the paper. Few notice and fewer care.
Peace Now's Settlement Watch, run first by the legendary Dror Etkes, and now by the very able Hagit Ofran, is important because it provides an accurate account of the theft of Palestinian land. Most of the housing is built within the "municipal boundaries" of the settlements, so this is considered by the Israeli government to be ok – as opposed to the illegal outposts, which is supposed to be not ok. But the whole thing is a sham because all building continues on Palestinian private and public land, since Israel has no sovereignty over the Green Line, as is well known (and, my rightwinger readers, as a general rule, if the world and its legal experts don't agree with you, you are wrong, whatever your state happens to be.)
Like everything else that is done here, Peace Now's reports are ineffectual. Israel can't stop the West Bank settlement activity. Like a heroin addict it will do anything for its addiction, even when it clearly wants to break its habit. How do you explain that Israel has not been able to remove illegal outposts, despite its repeated pledges to do so? Olmert doesn't want the outposts, but he simply is unable to move them. These settlements are arguably worse than terrorists attack – they kill generations of Palestinians by making life intolerable, and they thwart the legitimate self-determination of the Palestinian people, recognized in the same document that recognized the rights of a Jews to a Jewish state – the UN partition plan.
Peace Now can't bring peace now or tomorrow, but it provides an important service -- for posterity. The ritual does something for those who participate in it. And that is nothing to sneer at.
Nice news greeted me when I turned on my computer as soon as Shabbat was over in Israel – the S.S. Liberty and S.S. Free Gaza made it to Gaza. Israel decided not to stop the boats, lest that attract more publicity for the voyage. For Israel's reaction, see here. For the BBC account see here
So, welcome to Gaza, activists. I hope that others take up the idea. Yours was a small symbolic gesture, but such things are meaningful, especially for the Gazans.
I note, unsurprised, that virtually none of the US media have picked up the story yet. And I don't think it is because of the Joe Biden story, either. Mind you, the initiative came from the US, and US activists were behind getting the boats. So why are stories like this ignored in the US, despite the fact that there is clear human interest of breaking the Naval blockade of Israel?
Ask Walt and Mearsheimer.
Well, the gallant crew and passengers of the S.S. Free Gaza and the S.S. Liberty are headed toward the shores of Gaza. I just want to wish from Jerusalem/al-Quds, to each and every one on boat, a nesiah tovah, a bon voyage, and may your mission be accomplished speedily and safely.
And as for those Israeli sailors who have to desecrate the Sabbath to blockade a mission of hope and human rights – remember, Jewish law says that there is no "agency" for a forbidden act, and you cannot plead that you were following orders.
God speed, all, and remember – contributions to the voyage are cheerfully and gratefully accepted at
FreeGaza.org
Jerry
My favorite Israeli Cassandra, Meron Benvenisti, wrote a sobering op-ed in Haaretz today that sums up, more or less, how I feel. The two-state solution is dead; the one-state solution is not going anywhere; the status quo will continue unabated, with periods of violence alternating with periods of relative calm. The world, except for some leftists and Muslims, won't care. There will be some further erosion of Israel's "moral stature" but not enough for any real change. No boycotts, no sanctions, nothing with teeth. And 3 ½ million Palestinians within Palestine, not to mention the multitudes outside in refugee camps and with stateless status, will continue to have a quality of life far lower than their Israeli counterparts.
And what Benvenisti says, in effect, is that no matter what happens, there will be a fundamental economic inequality that ensures that the Israelis will have the upper hand. How long can the status quo continue? Indefinitely.
This explosive status quo survives due to the combination of several factors: fragmentation of the Palestinian community and incitement of the remaining fragments against each other; enlistment of the Jewish community into support for the occupation regime, which is perceived as protecting its very existence; funding of the status quo by the donor nations, which cause corruption among the Palestinian leadership; persuasion of the neighboring states to give priority to bilateral and global interests over Arab ethnic solidarity; success of the propaganda campaign known as negotiations with the Palestinians, which convinces many that the status quo is temporary and thus they can continue to amuse themselves with theoretical alternatives to the final-status arrangement; the silencing of all criticism as an expression of hatred and anti-Semitism; and psychological repugnance toward the conclusion that the status quo is durable and will not be easily changed.
Of course, Benevenisti, as is his wont, holds out a slim chance for change:
Its not nice to admit, and it is a sad forecast, but without accepting this conclusion and learning our lesson from it, change will not be possible.
I think he feels that change is possible, if one eliminates some of the above factors.
My view is as follows: there is no solution, there is no possibility of justice or peace, there is no way to make a seismic shift. In situations like this, the task of any decent man and woman is to do what they can to alleviate the suffering – to support the activists and the NGOs, to publicize the human rights violations, to talk to our family and friends and let them know what is going on. This will not end the occupation, since the occupation cannot end. But fifty or hundred years from now, our children will be able to say to their children, "Your grandparents were not silent. They tried and failed, but at least they tried."
One thing that we can talk against immediately: the so-called peace process. One of the strongest reasons for the ongoing occupation is "the success of the propaganda campaign known as negotiations with the Palestinians, which convinces many that the status quo is temporary and thus they can continue to amuse themselves with theoretical alternatives to the final-status arrangement". More Israelis, and more supporters, must be taught the lesson – there is no possible agreed upon solution, not now, not in fifty years, not in a century. Israelis and supporters must understand that their war is a permanent one, and that the injustices they commit in the name of their security are permanent. Then, and only then, can one ask the question whether the price of a Jewish state is too high. The Jews survived for two thousand years without a state. And while being a minority is not a picnic, they can be proud of what they achieved. Can't they get together and start thinking about alternatives to what a few Russian Jews came up with in 1948? "The Jewish head doesn't stop inventing things," Uri Zohar used to sing. Well, can't we start thinking outside the 1948 political Zionist box?
Here's the article from Haaretz.
Moot argument
By Meron Benvenisti
Its hard to tell whether the reports that more and more Palestinians are now leaning toward a one-state solution are genuinely due to an increase in supporters of the idea, or to Israeli sensitivity. The binational bogeyman is so off-putting to Israelis that any Palestinian expression on the issue gives rise to speculation and conspiracy theories. Former Palestinian Authority prime minister Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala) is aware of this sensitivity, and exploits it every time he hits a bump in the negotiations: "If Israel continues to put up opposition, we will demand a single state for two peoples," he said recently.
Indeed, the Palestinians use the slogan "One State" to threaten Israel, and they know full well how effective that threat is. So great is the fear that the Palestinians are planning to exchange their struggle for national independence for a demand for citizenship rights in a binational state, that the very mention of this option is seen as proof of their unwillingness to reach peace. The Palestinian demand for Israel to annex the territories and extend citizenship rights to their inhabitants is considered more of a threat to Israel than the demand for an independent state, since civil equality is a universal norm and the demand for its implementation would win sweeping support in the West. And woe to the Israeli who dares to champion binationalism; he is denounced as a traitor wracked with self-hatred.
The Israeli public debate over binationalism versus a partition into two states is conducted on the theoretical, ideological and philosophical level, and in effect is put forth only as a threat to the accepted and desirable solution of partition. But that debate, which always resurfaces when frustration with the peace process intensifies, never manages to turn into a real discussion of the two alternatives and instead remains a provocative academic topic. This is not only because the binational option is viewed by most Israelis as spelling the destruction of their state, and by most Palestinians as the end of their national liberation movement. Mainly, it is because the debate over the two alternatives is a moot argument, the sole value of which is in its very existence, and whose purpose is to obscure the robust and durable nature of the status quo.
A status quo is preserved as long as the forces wishing to preserve it are stronger than those wishing to undermine it, and that is the situation today in Israel/Palestine. After more than 40 years, the Israeli governing system known as "the occupation," which ensures full control over every agent or process that jeopardizes the Jewish community's total domination and the political and material advantage that it accumulates, has become steadily more sophisticated through trial and error - without planning, but in response to the genetic code of settler society.
This status quo, which appears to be chaotic and unstable, is much sturdier than the conventional description of the situation as a temporary military occupation would indicate. The tensions and internecine confrontations that prevail in the area under Israeli control are so acute - and the power gap between the Jewish and the Arab communities so decisive - that there is no way to deal with these tensions except by means of military might.
Usually the emphasis is on the political and civil inequality and the denial of collective rights that the model of division - or, alternatively, inclusion in a binational government - is supposed to solve. But the greater, and more dangerous, inequality is the economic kind that is characteristic of the current situation and will not be reversed by either alternative: the dramatic gap in gross domestic product per capita between Palestinians and Israelis, which is 1:10 in the West Bank and and 1:20 in the Gaza Strip, as well as the enormous inequality in the use of natural resources (land, water). This gap cannot exist without the force of arms provided so effectively by the defense establishment, and even most of those who oppose the occupation are unwilling to let go of it, since that would impinge on their welfare.
This explosive status quo survives due to the combination of several factors: fragmentation of the Palestinian community and incitement of the remaining fragments against each other; enlistment of the Jewish community into support for the occupation regime, which is perceived as protecting its very existence; funding of the status quo by the donor nations, which cause corruption among the Palestinian leadership; persuasion of the neighboring states to give priority to bilateral and global interests over Arab ethnic solidarity; success of the propaganda campaign known as negotiations with the Palestinians, which convinces many that the status quo is temporary and thus they can continue to amuse themselves with theoretical alternatives to the final-status arrangement; the silencing of all criticism as an expression of hatred and anti-Semitism; and psychological repugnance toward the conclusion that the status quo is durable and will not be easily changed.
Its not nice to admit, and it is a sad forecast, but without accepting this conclusion and learning our lesson from it, change will not be possible.
Has Israel been built with the blood, sweat, and property of millions of innocent Palestinians? Yes it has. And it must make amends and offer restitution. But it has also been built with the blood, sweat, and energies of millions of Jews, inside and outside. And while there are many deep and structural problems with the state that was founded in 1948, there are many worse post-World Was II states than Israel, many more states that perpetuated the same crimes and worse than Israel, and yet are in much worse shape today. Yes, things are the absolute pits here. But we can be thankful of the little things. For example, I still love Jerusalem -- whatever is left of it after its overbuilding and its ghetto-like, apartheid wall. I love the quiet neighborhoods [unfortunately not so quiet in Summer 2008 -- JH], the bustling areas, the amount and quality of kosher food I can eat... Where but in Jerusalem can you go to a kosher restaurant that doesn't look irredeemably Jewish? Where the diners don't all look like they followed you out of the early minyan (prayer service) at shul? What other Jewish community in the world gives your daughters at least two shuls in which women read from the Torah AND there is a mehitzah (partition)? What other Jewish community in the world has Jews and Arabs working together to protest injustice and humanity? What other Jewish community in the world has a DVD rental store like the Third Ear, where you can get alternative indie movies that show you the true face of the Occupation, as well as the complete sets of Simpsons and Seinfeld? All this is in Israel, and in Jerusalem, the Holy City. We Jewish people are in a spiritual malaise. Traumatized by the holocaust, supportive of a state that is still, after sixty years, foundationally racist, and yet has achieved so much....if I didn't believe in the indestructability of the Jewish people -- that the seed of Abraham will never wither away -- I would despair. But we will prevail. With the help of people of good faith everywhere, and, desperately, with the assistance of our Palestinian brothers and sisters, we shall overcome the malaise. Justice will be served. We will learn from them and from our mistakes. It will take decades, but it will come. I am 54 years old. I compare my generation with that of the younger generation -- things are changing.So what do I have to add this year? Not a whole lot. The good things haven't changed; the bad things have gotten worse. But I will add one thing from the vantage point of Shabbat Nahamu 2008/5768 Time has run out on the two-state solution. It isn't going to happen. I know that the leftwing and rightwing opponents of the two-state solution have been saying this for a long time. But now the moderates are. Sari Nusseibah, the Palestinian who is the most acceptable to Israelis, and who teamed with Ami Ayyalon, threw in the towel yesterday. Read the interview here. Since the West Bank is de facto annexed to Israel, and since Gaza will always be under siege, it will shortly be time for annexation de jure with citizenship for the Palestinians. That will be the battle cry of the younger generation. It will be a hard sell for both Palestinians and Israelis, who don't want to power-share. But Israel is intractably opposed to a Palestinian state, and has been so from day 1 of its existence. Most people who say that they favor a Palestinian state don't really mean it. And even if they do mean it, the settlers aren't going to let them do i.t So something will have to be done with millions of Palestinans who have been under Israeli control for the last 40 years without citizenship. Step One is for the PA to disband itself (a step favored by Nusseibah); step Two is for Israel to take responsibility for them again. And step three will be to agitate for annexation and citizenship for the West Bank Palestinians. I don't say that I favor this solution. Like Nusseibeh, I like the idea of two, three, or a whole bunch of states in a federation or confederation. But it ain't going to happen. So we have to start thinking of alternatives. What makes me optimistic is that I believe this can be done without destroying what I like about Israel now (see above). Oh, sure, there will be a regime change and changes in the fundamental character of Israel from an ethnocracy with racist laws under the veneer of a liberal democracy (a bit like Russia, which is not surprising, since Russians founded the State of Israel) into a binational, or bicultural, or just bi-state. But if naturalization is done correctly, through a process of education, and a gradual conferral of benefits for potential citizens, then there can be an Israelification of the new civilians that will include a familiarization with Jewish culture -- as well as a familiarization of Palestinian culture for the Jewish citizens. Nothing of what I like about Israel need change in such a state -- unless the merge is bungled so that the fundamentalists (Jewish, Muslim, or Christian, they are all the same in this regard) take power. Then it will be a one-way ticket back to the US for me. The last thing I want to do is live in modern state governed by Shari'a or Torah (the medieval Hebrew translation of shari'a)
