The Response of the Sheikh Jarrah Activists to the Elie Wiesel Letter on Jerusalem

Haaretz reported this yesterday, but I wanted to bring the full text of the Sheikh Jarrah activists's response to the Elie Wiesel letter on Jerusalem with the following comments.

First, look carefully at the signatures, and you will find some of Jerusalem 's most prominent residents, including philosopher Avishai Margalit, Jewish studies scholar Moshe Halbetal, and a whole slew of people who are liberal Zionists. Although I do not always agree with these people, and in particular, I disagreed with Halbertal over the Goldstone report, their signatures show how out of touch Wiesel is with what is going on over here.

Second, and I say this with great caution, Wiesel's ill-informed comments on Jerusalem will be seized on by others to attack his credibility as a witness. This would be most unfortunate. Wiesel has spoken eloquently on the role of the writer as witness, but his letter shows plainly how often a writer can bear testimony to fiction and myth.

Third, this letter should be published immediately in the same newspapers where Wiesel's letter was published. Every American who read that letter should read this as well. Will donors be found?

Dear Mr. Wiesel,

We write to you from Jerusalem to convey our frustration, even outrage, at your recently published letter on Jerusalem. We are Jewish Jerusalemites – residents by choice of a battered city, a city used and abused, ransacked time and again first by foreign conquerors and now by its own politicians. We cannot recognize our city in the sentimental abstraction you call by its name.

Our Jerusalem is concrete, its hills covered with limestone houses and pine trees; its streets lined with synagogues, mosques and churches. Your Jerusalem is an ideal, an object of prayers and a bearer of the collective memory of a people whose members actually bear many individual memories. Our Jerusalem is populated with people, young and old, women and men, who wish their city to be a symbol of dignity - not of hubris, inequality and discrimination. You speak of the celestial Jerusalem; we live in the earthly one.

For more than a generation now the earthly city we call home has been crumbling under the weight of its own idealization. Your letter troubles us, not simply because it is replete with factual errors and false representations, but because it upholds an attachment to some other-worldly city which purports to supersede the interests of those who live in the this-worldly one. For every Jew, you say, a visit to Jerusalem is a homecoming, yet it is our commitment that makes your homecoming possible. We prefer the hardship of realizing citizenship in this city to the convenience of merely yearning for it.

Indeed, your claim that Jerusalem is above politics is doubly outrageous. First, because contemporary Jerusalem was created by a political decision and politics alone keeps it formally unified. The tortuous municipal boundaries of today's Jerusalem were drawn by Israeli generals and politicians shortly after the 1967 war. Feigning to unify an ancient city, they created an unwieldy behemoth, encircling dozens of Palestinian villages which were never part of Jerusalem. Stretching from the outskirts of Ramallah in the north to the edge of Bethlehem in the south, the Jerusalem the Israeli government foolishly concocted is larger than Paris. Its historical core, the nexus of memories and religious significance often called "the Holy Basin", comprises a mere one percent of its area. Now they call this artificial fabrication 'Jerusalem' in order to obviate any approaching chance for peace.

Second, your attempt to keep Jerusalem above politics means divesting us of a future. For being above politics is being devoid of the power to shape the reality of one's life. As true Jerusalemites, we cannot stand by and watch our beloved city, parts of which are utterly neglected, being used as a springboard for crafty politicians and sentimental populists who claim Jerusalem is above politics and negotiation. All the while, they franticly "Judaize" Eastern Jerusalem in order to transform its geopolitics beyond recognition.

We invite you to our city to view with your own eyes the catastrophic effects of the frenzy of construction. You will witness that, contrary to some media reports, Arabs are not allowed to build their homes anywhere in Jerusalem. You discover see the gross inequality in allocation of municipal resources and services between east and west. We will take you to Sheikh Jarrah, where Palestinian families are being evicted from their homes to make room for a new Jewish neighborhood, and to Silwan, where dozens of houses face demolition because of the Jerusalem Municipality's refusal to issue building permits to Palestinians.

We, the people of Jerusalem, can no longer be sacrificed for the fantasies of those who love our city from afar. This-worldly Jerusalem must be shared by the people of the two nations residing in it. Only a shared city will live up to the prophet's vision: "Zion shall be redeemed with justice". As we chant weekly in our vigils in Sheikh Jarrah: "Nothing can be holy in an occupied city!" Respectfully,

Just Jerusalem (Sheikh Jarrah) Activists

1. Ada Bilu 2. Alon Harel 3. Amiel Vardi 4. Amit Lavi 5. Amit Miller 6. Amos Goldberg 7. Ariela Brin 8. Assaf Sharon 9. Avichay Sharon 10. Avishai Margalit 11. Avital Abudi 12. Avital Sharon 13. Avner Inbar 14. Avrum Burg 15. Barbara Spectre 16. Bernard Avishai 17. Daniella Gordon 18. Dani Schrire 19. Daniel Argo 20. Danny Felsteiner 21. Daphna Stroumsa 22. David Shulman 23. Diana Steigler 24. Dolev Rahat 25. Dorit Gat 26. Dorit Argo 27. Edna Ulman-Margalit 28. Eitan Buchvall 29. Eli Sharon 30. Freddie Rokem 31. Galit Hasan-Rokem 32. Gideon Freudenthal 33. Gil Gutglick 34. Guga Kogan 35. Guy Feldman 36. Hagit Benbaji 37. Hagit Keysar 38. Haya Ofek 39. Hillel Ben Sasson 40. Ishay Rosen-Zvi 41. Itamar Shappira 42. Jonathan Yaari 43. Judy Labensohn 44. Judy Labensohn 45. Julia Alfandari 46. Levi Spectre 47. Liran Razinsky 48. Maya Wind 49. Mical Raz 50. Michael Ritov 51. Miriam Farhi-Rodrig 52. Mirit Barashi 53. Mirit Barashi 54. Moshe Halbertal 55. Naama Baumgarten-Sharon 56. Naama Hochstein 57. Nadav Sharon 58. Neria Biala 59. Nili Sharon 60. Noa Lamm-Shalem 61. Oded Erez 62. Oded Na'aman 63. Ofer Neiman 64. Omri Metzer 65. Paul Mendes-Flohr 66. Peter Lehahn 67. Phil Spectre 68. Ra'anan Alexandrowicz 69. Ram Rahat 70. Ray Schrire 71. Reuven Kaminer 72. Roee Metzer 73. Ronen Mandelkern 74. Roni Hammerman 75. Sahar Vardi 76. Sara Benninga 77. Sharon Casper 78. Shir Aloni Yaari 79. Shir Sternberg 80. Shlomi Segall 81. Silan Dallal 82. Silvia Piterman 83. Tal Shapira 84. Tamar Lehahn 85. Tamar Rappaport 86. Uri Bitan 87. Yafa Tarlowski 88. Yaron Gal 89. Yaron Wolf 90. Yehuda Agus 91. Yonatan Haimovich 92. Yoram Gordon 93. Yotam Wolfe 94. Yuval Drier Shilo 95. Zehava Galon 96. Zeev Sternhell 97. Zvi Benninga 98. Zvi Mazeh 99. Zvi Schuldiner

13 Reasons Why Liberal Zionists Should Give Guarded Support to the BDS Movement

J-Street, the organizational voice for liberal Zionists in the US, has gone to the barricades against the Berkeley student government divestment resolution. Read here. Frankly, I was surprised by their militancy. I understand that the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel is a difficult pill to swallow for liberal Zionists (those who believe that the Israel should exist as an ethnic state of the Jewish people, yet are interested to see a Palestinian state arise). I understand the arguments against academic boycott. I also appreciate the existential fears. And I certainly accept the political pressures on organizations like J-Street.

But forget about J-Street. I am addressing this to my liberal Zionist readers – those who are pained and disillusioned by Israel’s actions, but who want to preserve what is good about the Jewish state, and to help it become a just society. You are nervous about BDS because it seems so drastic and unbalanced to you – and because you have been misinformed that is motivated by hatred for Israel.

Those Jews who have spoken in favor of BDS are mostly post-Zionists, anti-Zionists, non-Zionists, and/or known leftists. Yes, their voices are important, and I believe they have been on the correct side of history longer than I have. But I don’t need to convince them to support BDS. So why should you, as a liberal Zionist, consider supporting the Global BDS movement? Here are 13 reasons.

1. You already support two of the three central aims of the movement, which are

1. Ending Israel’s occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality;

Where you may disagree is over:

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

But note that the phrase “as stipulated in UN resolution 194” weakens the statement since even Israel never rejected 194. And even if you don’t recognize the right of return, you recognize the importance to the Palestinians of claiming that right. And haven’t you have signed petitions with which you are not in complete agreement because you beiieve in the broader goal? There are many people who agree with you here who support the tactics of BDS.

2. You don’t have to sign on to all of BDS.

You don’t like academic boycotts? Good, neither do I. You are nervous about calling for sanctions? Don’t. But what about partial divestment from companies profiting from the Occupation as a symbolic and non-violent act of protest? What about boycotting settler’s wine and other products? How can you be opposed to the Occupation and support the Occupiers.

3. You want to support non-violent Palestinian protest.

BDS is first and foremost a Palestinian action. “If only,” you have said countless times, “there were a Palestinian Gandhi or Nelson Mandella.” Well, the tactics of BDS are the tactics of Gandhi and Mandella. Even if you are apprehensive about the aims of some of the movement, don’t you understand how important it is to support non-violent protest?

4. There is no slippery slope here.

If you support BDS today, you say to yourself, what will happen when it really gets up steam – perhaps you will be hurting Israel? Yet the chances of that happening are nill, and you know it. Who has the power?

5. BDS is becoming effective as a tactic.

In the beginning it wasn’t, and this is what kept me off the BDS wagon for a long time. And I am still not entirely on it. But successes recently have been impressive, both in their own right, and as a morale booster for the Palestinians.

6. If you oppose them you stand with AIPAC and the ZOA

Sure, you may not like the rhetoric of some Palestinians and their allies. But you also don’t like some of the rhetoric of the Jewish rightwingers. So who do you stand with on this one? The human rights folks -- or AIPAC and the Zionist Organization of America? Do you really want to hear the neocons crowing over their victory as they simultaneously demonize your ilk?

7. BDS actually strengthens the hand of the pro-peace camp in Israel.

Israel is very sensitive to its public image. Whenever it is criticized, there are elements in Israeli society that point to Israel’s loss of standing and argue that only a just and peaceful solution will stop the decline. This also answers the objection that it is unfair to single out Israel. And the people who makes this argument are always singling out Israel for preferential treatment.

8. BDS does not materially hurt the average Israelis

I find it odd that many liberal Zionists who call for sanctions against Iran – a regime that is not engaged in the systematic deprivation of human rights to the extent that Israel is engaged – think that a cultural boycott or a divestment from certain American companies will hurt the average Israeli. The effect of the protest is symbolic; the message is what is important.

9. Other tactics have failed repeatedly.

If you genuinely believe in a two-state solution, wouldn’t it be good idea to see if BDS helps end the Occupation? Or are you one of those liberal Zionists who want a two-state solution In theory, but is pretty ineffectual about ending the Occupation.

10. It is important to express solidarity with, and sympathy for, the Palestinians, after all their suffering. BDS victories provides them with that.

They don’t have an army. They are not allowed by the world armed resistance. Where else, besides in some world organizations, can they score victories? I realize that this is am impure motivation, and my point is not to ask you to sacrifice your principle to make them happy. It is to stand with them not because you are convinced they are right, but you are convinced that they have been wronged.

11. You are appalled at the lies and disinformation of the anti-BDS movement.

The BDS movement does not seek to destroy the state of Israel. BDS is not even anti-Zionist. Stop listening to the Big Lies.

12. Many Jewish and Israeli human rights activists support it.

They are doing your job for you in Israel. They allow you to be hopeful about the state. Shouldn’t you be listening to therm here?

13. You are sick up to here with the news coming out daily from Israel.

Isn’t it about time you gave back a little? There are consequences for their misdeeds.

If you are unconvinced by the reasons above, but uneasy about circling the wagons with the likes of AIPAC, ZOA, Aish ha-Torah, etc. then you have another option: oppose BDS, but don’t be strident about it. Don’t rain on the Palestinian parade.

Sit on the fence and wait, if you must. But don’t fall on the side of AIPAC and ZOA.

Judge Goldstone Banned From His Grandson’s Bar Mitzvah

Words cannot express the sadness I felt in reading the post below – posted, I may add, by one of the great South African anti-apartheid and AIDS activists, Zackie Achmet.

What has happened to our people? Why are we doomed every so often to follow mindlessly the latest false messiah, perverting thereby our sense of decency, morality, and our adherence to the ideals of Torah?

As sad as I feel for Judge Goldstone and his family, I feel sadder for the "heresy" hunters and pusillanimous cowards who caved in to them.

This is a dark day for the South African synagogue, South African Jewry – and all Jews. I wait for the liberal critics of Judge Goldstone to stand up and say, "Enough" to the persecution of him and his family.

It is not clear from the article precisely what caused Judge Goldstone to decide to spare the family the uproar. Was the issue his attendance, or his receiving an honor (such as an aliyah)? There probably was no formal banning – just the insinuation that were he to attend, there would be a scene.

What is clear is that the South African Zionist Federation and the craven figure who calls himself a rabbi are the villains.

Here is the article.

http://writingrights.org/2010/04/14/breaking-news-judge-richard-goldstone-banned-from-attending-his-grandsons-barmitzvah/

Judge Goldstone has been banned by the South African Zionist Federation from attending his grandson's bar mitzvah. The Chief Rabbi a neo-conservative who has betrayed the tolerant tradition of the late former Chief Rabbi Cyril Harris has blessed this travesty.

Silencing critics of Israel's war crimes is not enough; they have to infringe Goldstone's equal right to practice his religion and his family life. Every decent person will sign a protest against this injustice. The tactics of the Israeli neo-fascists should not be allowed to dictate policy in South Africa. These were the people who supported apartheid and now they support the apartheid state of Israel.

How many people would be prepared to join legal action in the Equality Court against the South African Zionist Federation?

Zackie Achmat

THE AFTER-SHOCKS of the Goldstone Commission into the Gaza conflict continue, this time reaching into the heart of a family simcha. Mr. Justice Richard Goldstone is effectively being barred from attending his grandson's bar mitzvah, due to be held in Johannesburg early next month.

Following negotiations between the South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) and the Beth Hamedrash Hagadol in Sandton, where the event is due to take place, an agreement has been reached with the family. As a result, Justice Goldstone will not be attending the synagogue service.

Some of the role-players were tight-lipped. Avrom Krengel, chairman of the SAZF, said: "We understand there's a barmitzvah boy involved – we're very sensitive to the issues; at this stage there's nothing further to say." While Krengel said the SAZF had "interacted" on the matter with the chief rabbi, the Beth Din and others, his organisation was "coming across most forcefully because we represent Israel".

Rosh Beth Din Rabbi Moshe Kurtstag confirmed that the Beth Din had not been officially involved – though there had been "private talks" – and had not been asked by the synagogue to give a ruling on the matter. "But I know that there was a very strong feeling in the shul, a lot of anger (around the issue of Justice Goldstone attending).

"I heard also that the SAZF wanted to organise a protest outside the shul – (there were) all kinds of plans. But I think reason prevailed."

Signalling his agreement with the turn of events, Rabbi Kurtstag said he believed Justice Goldstone had done "a tremendous disservice not only to Israel but to the Jewish world. His name is used by hostile elements in the world against Israel and this can increase anti-Semitic waves.

"I understand that he is a judge, but he should have had the sense to understand that whatever he said wouldn't be good and he should have just recused himself. People have got feelings about it, they believe he put Israel in danger and they wouldn't like him to be getting honour (in synagogue).

"I think (the agreement) was quite a sensible thing to avert all this unpleasantness."

Reached in Washington where he is currently based, Justice Goldstone was reluctant to comment save to say: "In the interests of my grandson, I've decided not to attend the ceremony at the synagogue."

Mr Justice Dennis Davis said that while he respected Justice Goldstone's decision, he assumed that pressure had been brought to bear on the family. "If that assumption is correct, then it is outrageous because it seeks to place a ban on somebody participating in his grandson's barmitzvah.

"Have we now got to the point that because we don't like what somebody says or does, we place a 'cherem' on them? What right do we have to do that? I would like to add that people who are gleeful about it must remember what Pastor Niemoller said: 'Who will speak up for them when they are finally excommunicated for some misdemeanor?'"

Retired president of the Constitutional Court, Mr Justice Arthur Chaskalson said it was "disgraceful" to put pressure on a grandfather not to attend his grandson's barmitzvah.

"If it is correct that this has the blessing of the leadership of the Jewish community in South Africa, it reflects on them rather than on Justice Goldstone. They should hang their heads in shame."

 

 

Why I Was Right to Publish Secret Anat Kam Material

By Uri Blau

The telephone call I received about a month ago should not have been a surprise. "Your apartment in Tel Aviv has been broken into," the voice on the other end of the line said. "Everything's in a mess and it's not clear what has been taken."

Half an hour later, sweating in a Bangkok phone booth, mosquitoes flying around me, I spoke to the policeman who came to the apartment.

"Looks like they were looking for something," he said.

I had been told of Anat Kam's arrest earlier, in China, where I landed with my partner at the beginning of December. When I left Israel I had no reason to believe our planned trip would suddenly turn into a spy movie whose end is not clear. I certainly didn't think I'd have to stay in London and wouldn't be able to return to Tel Aviv as a journalist and a free man, only because I published reports that were not convenient to the establishment.

But the troubling information from Israel left me with no alternative.

Experiences I had read about in suspense novels have become my reality in recent months. When you're warned "they know much more than you think," and are told that your telephone line, e-mail and computer have been monitored for a long time and still are, then someone up there doesn't really understand what democracy is all about, and the importance of freedom of the press in preserving it.

When you discover that anonymous complaints about you containing a lot of detailed personal information have reached various investigation authorities, it is clear you have been marked by forces bigger and stronger than yourself. These forces won't hesitate to take steps reserved for states I don't think we want to resemble. So when they explained to me that if I return to Israel I could be silenced for ever, and that I would be charged for crimes related to espionage, I decided to fight. Sorry for the cliche, but this isn't only a war for my personal freedom but for Israel's image.

The Kafkaesque situation I found myself in forces me to return to basics. I am a journalist and my aim is to provide the reader as much information as possible and in the best way, with maximum objectivity. It's not a personal agenda, or a matter of Left or Right. In my years of work for Haaretz my name has appeared, alone and with others, above exposes dealing with public figures and institutions of all kinds, from Avigdor Lieberman, through Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak to the Peres Center for Peace. None of those exposes could have been published without the help of sources and corroborating documents.

All the exposes in military or defense matters were vetted by military censors before publication, whether regarding the time Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi was a civilian and businessman or about the IDF's priorities in tracing Gilad Shalit. Or the story about how the IDF apparently violates the High Court of Justice's instructions regarding targeted assassinations. This story showed the readers authentic documents exposing the banality of executions with no trial.

It is clear to me that these reports were not always pleasant to read - neither to their subjects nor to the reader. But it doesn't matter, because the journalist's job is not to please his reader, employer or leaders. It is to provide people with the best tools to judge and understand the goings-on around them. Every journalist knows that exposes cannot be released without evidence - but no Israeli journalist has known until now that such exposes could have him declared an enemy of the state and find himself in jail.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1161853.html

Thank you, Richard

Richard Silverstein has been getting a lot of deserved publicity lately for his blogging on the Anat Kamm (or Kam) case. Not only did he force the State of Israel to drop its request for a gag order, but it seems, from what has been published today, that he has helped indirectly in the defense of Uri Blau, the Haaretz reporter, and Anat Kamm, the whistle-blower.

How so? I will explain. But first, those of you who read Hebrew should read the excellent post by Yossi Gurvitz here.

And if you don't have the time, here are Gurvitz's main points:

1. It's not espionage. Anat Kamm has been accused of spying, no less. But Shabak Chief Yuval Diskin does not claim that the Uri Blau Haaretz articles damaged Israeli security. (He can't, can he? After all, it passed military censorship) So he can only refer to the "thousands of documents" that Kamm has confessed to stealing, and which she passed to Uri Blau (according to Diskin). And what is the argument? "Those documents are full of security and operational secrets that would endanger the lives of soldiers were they to fall into enemy hands." But they haven't fallen into enemy hands, so this is not espionage, nor is there intent. They were leaked to a journalist who has them in his possession (according to the Shabak). So whatever Kamm did, it was not espionage.

2. The Shabak's history of exaggerated accusations. Gurvitz points out that Diskin in his briefing said that the media should not compare Kamm to Tali Fahima. And why not? Because in several well-publicized cases, the Shabak and the media initially painted the accused as endangering the security of the state -- only to see that accusation wither away. Tali Fahima was accused of being an enemy agent, and planning terrorists attacks. When the trial began, the prosecution said (generously) that they would not seek the death penalty. Pretty good move, since she ended up getting a few years in jail. And let's not forget Sheikh Raad Saalah who was arrested in a big public way for contacting foreign agents, and ended up being convicted of some minor money crimes. In other words, the tactic scare the accused to death, then get a plea bargain. Gurvitz asks how credible is the charge that Blau has in his possession documents that will damage IDF soldiers, and he is refusing to return them? It seems more likely that he has potentially damaging documents to the IDF brass.

3. Discrimination based on rank. Gurvitz points out that other IDF brass have removed documents from bases, and in one case, Elazar Stern, the head of the Education Corps leaked classified documents to Yair Lapid, a columnist. Some of these people were disciplined; Stern had to pay damages to the soldier whom he had ratted on; but nobody has been brought up on charges of espionage. Many other lower ranks of soldiers have "informed" against their superiors to human rights organizations, and their military careers have ended as a result (Gurvitz did that himself during the first intifada.) But none of these were considered more than minor offenses.

So where does Silverstein's blogging come in? When asked why the Shabak decided to drop the request for the gag order now, Diskin said that negotiations with Haaretz and Blau had broken down. He did not mention anything about the worldwide publicity, and the embarrassment caused to Israel.

This indicates to me already the weakness of the "espionage" case against Kamm. After months of a house arrest (where Kam had full access to the internet, apparently) the police had still not been able to get everything they wanted from Kamm and Haaretz. By breaking the story early, Silverstein apparently broke the Shabak's ability, at least for the time being, to force Kamm into a plea bargain. They are now going to trial earlier than they wanted, if they go to trial at all. In the meantime, the gag order has turned the focus to what was leaked and not who leaked it. What the IDF didn't want was a public debate over the content of the documents.

Already, her lawyer, Eitan Lehmann, has spoken up:

"At the end of the day, we have a dangerous precedent here, whereby the handing over of material to an Israeli newspaper with the censor's approval is seen by the Prosecutor's Office as equivalent to contact with a foreign agent," Lehman said. "The very notion of presenting information to the Israeli public alone is taken as an intention to hurt national security."   "This very argument is dangerous to anyone who believes in Israeli democracy and in the freedom of the press," he said. "Anat is not part of an extremist political group of any kind…she's Israeli, Zionist, and objects to conscientious objection."

It is clear now that the purpose of the gag order was to stop public discussion so as to force Kamm and Haaretz to cut a deal with the prosecution. It had nothing to do with Israel's security.

If Anat Kamm is ultimately convicted of anything it should be of improper use of classified documents. She should then pay the penalty that a decent, liberal democratic society exacts from those who blow the whistle on governmental lies and cover-ups.

Anat Kamm. Daniel Ellsberg. Donald Woods. What do they have in common?

Invest AND Divest: Where the Liberal Zionists Get BDS Wrong -- And What Their Position Towards It Should Be

A few minutes ago I got the following appeal for funds to combat yet another movement that threatens the very existence of the Jewish State. Here was the "scare" quote:

Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions is a loose international network waging a campaign to delegitimize Israel's very existence, comprised of Arab and Islamic groups, so-called post-Zionist Jews and Israelis and elements of the radical European political left. Their call has even been adopted by some elements of the Christian Church. Using language that sounds liberal and claiming to seek justice they negate Israel's right to exist and call for a combination of actions to cripple Israel. Pretending to be rooted in the movement that ended apartheid in South Africa they oppose the two-state solution hiding their ultimate goal, the destruction of the state of Israel.

Who was behind this? ZOA? Or maybe AIPAC? Or even Hillel because of college campuses? I was aware that the Jewish Council for Public Affairs was taking aim at the BDS movement, as reported here.

But then I saw that the folks raising money were….Ameinu, which calls itself liberal and progressive! I mean these are the same guys who had a gushing interview with Sarah Beninga, one of the Sheikh Jarrah Activists here.

It's a pity they didn't ask Sarah and other Israeli activists where they stand on BDS. (Or maybe they did…)

It's also a pity that Ameinu can't raise money by talking about Sheikh Jarrah. I guess what brings in the money today is not countering Israeli injustice against the Palestinians, but saving Israel from imminent destruction

Look, there are reasonable people who oppose, on various grounds, the BDS movement. J-Street issued a sharply word-condemnation of the movement here and elsewhere. It has also has begun an innocuous campaign on campus called, "Invest, Don't Divest," which asks student to fork over two bucks (one for each of the two-states) to promote Israeli-Palestinian cooperation. It sure beats the Keren Ami money I forked over when I was in Hebrew school.

But there is a difference between opposing BDS on principled grounds and lying about it to raise money. And it's about time that both liberal Zionist orgs realize the following things about BDS:

First, BDS is a non-violent, mainly Palestinian movement. It brings together a lot of groups and is a big tent – including those who call for selective divestment from the companies that support the Occupation, or a partial boycott of Settlement products, to those who want a full-court international press against Israel. It has little real effect against an economic giant like Israel, but its symbolic importance is vital. It says that a price, even a symbolic one, must be paid for continuing injustice. And stopping injustice is its real goal, not a cover for the destruction of Israel. As the global movement website says here

BDS are the most effective non-violent, morally consistent means for achieving justice and genuine peace in the region through concerted international pressure similar to that applied on South African apartheid.

Second, while many of the BDS'ers are one-staters, many are two-staters. There is no inconsistency between calling for boycott and sanctions of Israel and being a Zionist. There is no inconsistency between divestment in some areas and investment in others. The BDS movement against South Africa did not hurt a single South African. Nor did it destroy South Africa. It set it on a progressive path. Just like Sarah Beninga and her fellow activists want to do with Israel.

Instead of demonizing the BDS movement, liberal Zionist organizations that call themselves progressive should offer reasoned and respectful arguments against it, if they like. They can stake out their opposition (both on principled grounds, and as a tactic to keep their place at the table) but they should also understand that true progressives must link arms in a broad-based coalition to focus on the real prize, which is the end of the Occupation, and the creation of just and decent societies in the Land of Israel/Palestine.

Most of all they should focus on the common enemy of the liberal Zionists and the progressive Palestinians the Status Quo-ers on the left and the right. I am convinced, for example, that on many campuses, liberal Zionists and Palestinians BDS'ers are on the same street.

And it is not J-Street.

My Favorite Israeli Blog Post Violating the Anat Kam Gag Order

Since I am having a bit of Tikun Olam envy -- it seems like everybody and his sister is sending Richard Silverstein "classified" information from Israel --- I decided to scoop him and print what has got to be the most sensational news in the case so far.

I don't know if I can mention that the post below was copied and pasted from Room 404, Ido Kenan's blog -- oops, my bad, I mean, "Pedro's blog" -- but what the heck, I am writing this in Philadelphia, which is SO far away from Israel and Dubai.

Note to Yossi from the Shabak: I live in apt. 1616, 834 Chestnut St. My zip code? Hey, you guys can look it up.

Anyway, thanks for making me laugh, Pedro. The comments are a hoot, too.

████ ████ ████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██████ (███████:█████ █████) ███ ███ █████ ████ ██████ █████ “████ ████” ███ █████ ██████ █████, ██████ ███████. █████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ███████ █████ ██████ █████. ██████ ████ ████ ██████ █████ █████ ████ ██████, ███ █████ ████ ███████ ████████ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ███████ █████ █████. ███ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ██████ ███████ ██████, ████ ██████ ███ ██████ █████, ████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ██ ██████. █████ ███ ██ “█████ ████” ██ ███ ███ ███ ██████ (███ █████ █████). • ███ █████: ███████ ███ ████ ███████ 6.04.2010 / 19:52 | בנושאים ███

Of course, the subject itself isn't funny. I haven't written about it for the same reason that other Israeli bloggers haven't written about it -- we were told that Kam or her lawyer didn't want us, too. But that appears to have been part of the government's plan to wear her down, to squelch public discussion before the trial and/or the plea bargain. Already, the strategy has been successful.

The parallels to the publication of the Pentagon Papers are real -- except that the US had then a free press. Look what Reporters Without Borders printed about Israel in their 2009 Annual Report.

Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s military offensive against the Gaza Strip, had an impact on the press. As regards its internal situation, Israel sank 47 places in the index to 93rd position. This nose-dive means it has lost its place at the head of the Middle Eastern countries, falling behind Kuwait (60th), United Arab Emirates (86th) and Lebanon (61st).

Israel has begun to use the same methods internally as it does outside its own territory. Reporters Without Borders registered five arrests of journalists, some of them completely illegal, and three cases of imprisonment. The military censorship applied to all the media is also posing a threat to journalists.

As regards its extraterritorial actions, Israel was ranked 150th. The toll of the war was very heavy. Around 20 journalists in the Gaza Strip were injured by the Israeli military forces and three were killed while covering the offensive

Israel ranks below Jordan, Lebanon, and Kuwait, in freedom of the press. Way below.

Just wait until the 2010 report.

Passover at a Time of Darkness

I have even less time to write now than I did when I wrote the below two years ago. But in the I/P conflict things rarely change and usually for the worse. Gunther Grass was right, and I only hope that more Germans draw the lesson from their history that no people has the right to be secure at the expense of another people.

More on Grass after the holiday. Let Passover start the countdown of nuclear disarmament in the Middle East -and elsewhere. No country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

I don't have time to write a proper Passover post, and I don't have the strength either. Only those who are of the "things-need-to-get-worse-in-order-to-get-better" school can take cheer this Passover. The State of Israel continues to disappoint erstwhile supporters. Liberal Zionists never expected Israel to be a Zionist utopia; they would have been happy with what the Israeli philosophy professor, Avishai Margalit, calls a 'decent society'. Israel, today, is not by any stretch of the imagination a decent society. That it contains many decent and truly good people, that many of its institutions are decent and good, provides comfort in the present and hope for the future. But, as Akiva Eldar points out in an excellent piece here, we are now suffering our own plague of darkness and hard-heartedness. And there is no end in sight.

Those Jews who suffer the most today are liberal Zionists like Eldar. For years they believed that they could wipe clean the stain of 1967 (and, with the resettlement of the refugees, of 1948), by a fair and decent compromise with the Palestinians. They believed that most Israelis were in favor of such a compromise. But at the same time they were aware that they were a dwindling breed, and as the years have gone by, they have become increasingly marginalized by the chauvinistic center, from Labor to the Likud. Most Israelis never supported a two-state solution; they simply supported getting rid of the Palestinians one way or the other. I am waiting for the liberal Zionist to realize, as I had to realize, that the problems for Israel are much deeper than land for peace, that a question mark hangs – or should hang – over the entire Zionist enterprise of creating a state against the will, and without the participation, of the natives of Palestine. Yet as long as there was hope that the Palestinians could have their own state, where they could exercise their self-determination, where they could receive the refugees, where they could build their own society with its own problems, then one could arguably defend the legitimacy of the Zionist state founded in 1948. But now that that hope has faded, what remains? What moral justification can remain for the systematic and never-ending deprivation of fundamental human rights? Only a society where Palestinians are accepted as equals; only a state which defends Jewish and Palestinians rights to self-determination will be sufficient. And how long will it take for that society to come about?

So the night is long and dark; the lights at the end of the tunnel are flashing, and the time between the flashes become longer. As many have recently pointed out, even the perennially clueless Tom Friedman, Israelis don't really care much about a just settlement with the Palestinians; they have lived very well without it, and as long as they are an economic power, who will refrain to do business with it? Demographically, politically, and, yes, Jewishly, Israel has moved to the right, but frankly, they haven't moved as much as is reported because the society always was on the right.

So what to do? Where there can be no liberation on the national front, one can only turn inward and seek personal liberation – liberation from prejudice, self-righteousness, intense tribalism, and from the insensitivity to the Palestinian, whose land we took and take, and whose aspirations we continue to deny. And to forge bonds with like-minded individuals of all types.

In that struggle for liberation from spiritual slavery, we Jews have much to learn from ourselves and our history, but also from others and their history. So tonight at your seder table (or some time over the holiday, if you don't like to let the contemporary intrude) you may want to ponder this post by my friend, Sam Bahour. Sam is a Palestinian-American businessman living in Ramallah who has taken the time to write his own interpretation of the foods of the Seder Plate. His interpretation is here; I urge you to see the original and to read the comments, which prove, by their very insensitivity, how hard our Jewish hearts have become.

 

Stamping Out (Mostly) Non-Violent Protests at Ni’lin and Bil’in.

Haaretz is reporting that the IDF has declared the West Bank villages of Bil'in and Ni'lin closed military areas for the next six months – on Fridays from 8 am to 8 pm. The purpose – to stop once and for all the protests against the expropriation of village land for the construction of the Security Barrier (a.k.a. the Land Grab Wall). The closure applies to the area between the Security Barrier and the villages.

As everybody knows, these two villages have been the scene of mass protests, mostly non-violent, occasionally rock throwing (sometimes by IDF provocateurs). The IDF has arrested the leaders, harassed the Israelis who come there, sprayed stink juice on demonstrators, shot and killed protesters – and have not been able to stop the protests.

Of course, the IDF is only carrying out the government's policy, and so ultimate responsibility lies with those rapacious government ministers who covet the expropriated lands for Jewish real estate development, etc. If Israel was really interested in security, they would build the fence within the green line, not on it or outside of it. Yet how much Jewish land has been expropriated for the Wall?

The weekly protests have also been the symbol of Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Palestinian-Foreign Human Rights activism. It made the Anarchists Against the Wall famous. And it has shown a new sort of struggle, where the Israelis are willing to play junior, subordinate roles, to the Palestinians.

By the way, the English translation of Amira Hass's piece (or, more accurately, abridged adaptation, does not yet have the official reaction of the IDF. You can read that here. But note why the villages are being declared off-limits. It has nothing to do with the villagers themselves, but rather

To prevent outside agitators from arriving at the scenes of the disturbances…the military order applies to Israeli citizens, foreigners, and Palestinians who are not residents of these villages on Fridays between 8am to 8 pm….It is to be emphasized that this does not apply to the villagers who will be allowed free movement.

It sure reminds me of when the US federal government, during the Civil Rights movement, declared the South off-limits to those outside agitators from the North who came down to protest segregation.

Or am I misremembering?

“There is a New Left in Town”

I started translating the address delivered at the Sheikh Jarrah demonstration Saturday Night by activist Sarah Beninga, but I was beaten to the punch by the Sheikh Jarrah website here. (And Didi Remez published his own translation here at his indispensable Coteret site)

The rousing speech, which does not have a single author, articulates a vision of the Israeli New Left. It will be very easy for old folks to dismiss them; in the Middle East, cynicism and a "been-there-done-that" mentality prevails. And yes, there are already important groups to which some of the Sheikh Jarrah activists belong, like Ta'ayush and others. But this manifesto captures something new, which, if it develops, will be an important moral and political force in Israel/Palestine --now and as long as the struggle lasts.

Even the consciousness, or the recognition that there is a new left, is important.

I hope that it is widely circulated throughout the world.

There is a New Left in Town

There is a New Left, and it is not a left that is content with peace talks; it is a left of struggle. There is a New Left that knows that there are things you have to fight against even when they are identified with the state and even when they are sanctioned by law. There's a New Left that knows that this struggle will not be decided on paper, but on the ground, on the hills, in the vineyards, in the olive groves. There's a New Left that is not afraid of settlers – even when they come down on us from the hills, masked and armed. This left does not succumb to political oppression by the police, nor does it care what Ma'ariv writes about it.

There is a New Left in town. This left does not want to be loved, does not dream of filling town squares and does not bask in the memories of 400,000 demonstrators. This left is a partnership of Palestinians who understand that the occupation will not be stopped by missiles and bombs, and of Israelis who understand that the Palestinian struggle is their own.

The New Left links arms with Palestinians in a cloud of tear-gas in Bili'in, and with them, bears the brunt of settler violence in the South Hebron Hills. This left stands by refugees and work immigrants in Tel-Aviv and fights the Wisconsin Project [privatized "welfare-to-work" program]. This New Left is us, all of us.

All those who came here tonight; all those who dared to cross the imaginary line separating West and East Jerusalem despite the threats and intimidation  -  we are all the New Left that is rising in Israel and Palestine. We are not fighting for a peace agreement; we are fighting for justice. But we believe that injustice is the main obstacle to peace. Until the Ghawis, the Hanouns and the El-Kurds return to their homes, there will be no peace; because peace will not take root where discrimination, oppression, and plunder exist. There is a New Left in town and this left stands with the residents of Sheikh Jarrah tonight, and it will continue standing with them until justice overcomes fanaticism.

But there is also a New Right in town. A Right filled with envy and racism that seduces the masses with its jingoistic rhetoric. The New Right has no interest in the well-being and the welfare of human beings. The New Right is only interested in a narrow ethnic and tribal loyalty a la Avigdor Liberman.  For the New Right only the Jewish poor deserve attention. And what makes someone Jewish is that they're not Arabic. The New Right has nothing to offer but never-ending war. The New Right has nothing to offer bur hate for the other: Arabs, refugees and leftists.

This New Right creates the fanatic settlers against whom we are demonstrating tonight. These settlers hate Jerusalem. They have no love for Israel and no love for humankind – they love only themselves. There are many amongst the settlers who can and should carry out a dialogue with. But the settlers in Sheikh Jarrah who sing songs of praise to Baruch Goldstein – must be defeated.

The New Right created the mayor of Jerusalem Nir Barkat. He is a technocrat who doesn't understand or care about Jerusalem. He is a mayor who uses administrative terror against the residents of East Jerusalem and neglects the residents of West Jerusalem, while mouthing empty clichés.  If Jerusalem is a powder keg, then Nir Barkat is the one who is striking the match. But Barkat doesn't scare us and neither do the settlers or Liberman.

We will continue coming to Sheikh Jarrah and everywhere that justice is crushed by the forces of occupation and oppression. Take a look around you; we are not as few as we thought we were! And we will prevail!

How Three Philosophy Students Bested the Police in the Israeli Supreme Court

The print edition of Haaretz on Friday told the fascinating tale of how three philosophy students, Asaf Sharon, Avner Inbar, and Avichai Sharon, managed to force the Jerusalem Police to allow the Sheikh Jarrah demonstration Saturday night.

Readers of the Magnes Zionist may remember two of those students, Avner Inbar and Asaf Sharon, among the signatories of the letter addressed to Prof. Moshe Halbertal criticizing his New Republic article against the Goldstone Report. Read about it here.

By the way, Prof. Halbertal was at the Sheikh Jarrah protest Saturday night, along with other members of the Old Zionist left. It wasn't his first time there, either. As Rabbi Hanina says in the Talmud,

From my teachers I learned much, from my colleagues I learned more, but most of all do I learn from my students

Here is an adaptation of the Haaretz article by Nir Hason.

How Three Philosophy Students Drove the Police Crazy

Somebody who entered the chambers of the Supreme Court yesterday was treated to a strange sight: across from three judges and the states attorney representative, all in black robes, as is customary, stood three young bearded students. The three, Asaf Sharon, Avner Inbar, and Avichai Sharon, among the central activists against the settlers in Sheikh Jarrah, were the sole authors of a petition and represented themselves in court without legal counsel. "We studied the law, the directive of the Police's Central Command, and the relevant petitions to the High Court. We followed the police's conduct, we received help from the residents, and we wrote," said Avichai Sharon."

Asaf Sharon took the role of litigator. "I felt pretty pressured. I am not accustomed to stand before judges. I never studied law. On the other hand, I felt quite certain of our claim and of its justice," Sharon said."But it was a very frustrating experience for me to see the District Commander say things that were far from the truth."

Apparently the Jerusalem Police didn't take their opponents seriously. When the petition for a demonstration was first presented to them, they refused even to consider it, saying that it was necessary for the petitioners to give a reason for the protest. When the petitioners arrived at court they were supported by people such as former Minister Yossi Sarid, the head of the Israel Civil Liberties Association, Haggai Elad, who himself was arrested at one of the demonstrations.... Avichai Sharon explained,"There is an important message that reflects the way we have organized, which is without any institutional backing. We are simply people that live in this city, who are consumed, disturbed, and worried by this story"

Sheikh Jarrah and the Birth of a Coalition

Around five thousand demonstrators protested the eviction of Arab families from their homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem and the settlement there of rightwing Jewish extremists. It was the largest Sheikh Jarrah protest and the largest joint Israeli-Palestinian protest so far.

The protest was composed of an interesting mix – Jewish leftwing activists, mostly (but not entirely) young; the Zionist left Meretz-Peace Now crowd, mostly (and entirely) old; Israeli Palestinian activists, and representatives of the evicted families. There were Israeli singers and a Palestinian hip-hop group from Shuafat. Many of the speeches were given in Arabic, both Jerusalem colloquial and standard, and judging from the crowd, more of the younger Israeli Jewish activists understood the speeches than the older generation. The “drummers” and the clowns were there in full force – these are activists who play the drum and dress up as clowns in an attempt both to lighten up the protest, and to drive home the point of non-violent protest. I also saw some familiar faces and fellow bloggers, including Rabbi Brian Walt (Didi Remez was also there, but I didn’t catch up with him.)

The speeches represented the spectrum of the new coalition – from an Israeli Palestinian actor-activist who protested the presence of an Israeli flag with the word “peace” on it, saying that there will not be peace until there is one democratic secular state, to the older generation of Peace Now activists like Daphna Golan and Mossi Raz, the latter speaking of two states. Dov Khenin of Had ash gave a rousing speech, and there were a bunch of red flags.

But in my opinion, the highlight of the night was a speech delivered by young Israeli activist, Sarah Benninga, who spoke about the New Left and the New Right. As soon as I get my hands on that, I will try to post some of it. At the end of the demonstration, three hundred activists were allowed to walk to the site of the Palestinian homes. Initially, the police had refused the protesters a permit to demonstrate near the houses, citing the usual reasons given for suppressing democratic protest in Israel (sensitive territory, friction between settlers and activists, difficulty of protecting the protesters, etc.) The court threw out all of the reasons but nevertheless did not allow the big demonstration to be held next to the houses. That was the compromise.

Haaretz published in its Friday Hebrew edition the fascinating story about how the activists beat the police in court. I will translate that in a separate post.

Saturday Night Live from Sheikh Jarrah

 

Readers of this blog have been informed of the weekly protests in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Jerusalem/Al-Quds against the eviction of Arab residents from their homes. These evictions – with the imprimatur of the "leftist, activist" Israeli High Court -- demonstrate the immorality and hypocrisy of the Israeli Jewish occupation of Jerusalem – where Jews are allowed to reclaim pre-1948 houses but Palestinians are not. The purpose of these settlements is to Judaize all of Jerusalem and to herd Palestinians into ghettoes – and, of course, to ensure that Jerusalem is cut off from the Palestinian West Bank.

These are dark times. There is no peace process, thank God: the peace process is a scam, a stalling tactic that Israel and the Palestinian Authority used to maintain the status quo. Hillary stands up and make jokes about gefilte fish while people suffer in Palestine. Why George Mitchell hasn't quit yet is a mystery to me.

"Peace, peace, and there is no peace." No, now is not the time for peace. It is the time for protest, for demonstrations, for boycott, divestment and sanctions, for delegitimizing the very regime that fosters such injustice in my name.

And let's not forget about prayer.

There are so many things to do, even for ineffectual academics like yours truly. But why go to demonstrations? Years ago, after my umpteenth Peace Now demonstration, I swore off demonstrations. I still hate those things. I hate the crowds; I feel sorry for the police; and where does it get you? But then the next demonstration rolls around, and I say to myself, I won't be there?

So come to the demonstration at Sheikh Jarrah. Forget Rabin Square in Tel-Aviv. And when you come, say hello to the old white guy with the scruffy beard (no, not Uri Avnery), wearing a cap.

Open Shuhada Street – International Action on Feb. 25

February 25 has been proclaimed Open Shuhada Street Day by international activists who wish to focus attention on the plight of Palestinians in Hebron, and in the Occupied Territories. Initiated by a group of south African activists, there will be activities around the world dramatizing the plight of the Palestinians of Hebron. Please check out their website here for more news.

What is Shuhada Street.? It is – or was – the main market and commercial section of the city of Hebron. In 1994, in response to the Barukh Goldstein massacre, the street was closed, ostensibly for the safety of the Palestinian residents. Over the next few years, the street has been closed, the businesses left to wither, and Palestinians not allowed to walk on the street. (Jews can and do.) Residents of buildings on the street cannot enter their homes from their doors, which are welded shut.

Why is the street closed? In order to create a buffer zone between the Jewish settlers in Hebron and the Palestinians. The closure has been criticized by the Israeli High Court and has destroyed countless lives, but let's face it – the people in charge in Hebron are the settlers and their allies in the military and the government.

An excellent F.A.Q. is available on the Open Shuhada Website here. You still have time to find out about activities close to you.

February 25 also happens to be this year the Fast of Esther, observed by Jews throughout the world in commemoration of the dark days that preceded the Festival of Purim and Queen Esther's fast for the Jews.

In Purim, the mood for the day is nahafokh hu, 'topsy turvy'. Unfortunately, in Hebron, and throughout the Occupied Territories, topsy turvy reigns. The oppressors are not the Persian Haman and his crowd, but the Israeli Jews. And the oppressed are not the Jews of the Persian empire, but the Palestinians of the Israeli empire.

When Queen Esther hesitated to take action on behalf of her fellow-Jews, her uncle Mordecai said, "If you keep silent now, deliverance for the Jews will come from an other place." Traditional Jews have taken the "other place" to refer to God, who is sometimes called, the Place. I believe that God will, ultimately, bring deliverance to the Palestinians from their decades of suffering. But that is not an excuse for inaction. After all, Esther acted.

The Open Shuhada website has videos of Shuhada street. But there is no substitute for seeing it with your own eyes, on a tour offered by the Children of Abraham organization.

I end this post with a statement by a Palestinian resident of Shuhada Street, who can tell you better than I can what it is to live on it.

What it means to re-open Shuhada Street..

Many people might think why do we need to have Shuhada Street open.. it's one of the most important streets in Hebron, as it connects the northern part of the city to the south. Not only this, it also connects people.. many people have lost their social life when the Street was closed, because their relatives and friends do not like to be stopped at the check-points or in the streets when they come to visit. And when they visited in the past, it used to be a walking distance, but now they need to take a detour around the city to get to the house they desire. People now think ten times when they plan a visit to house at Shuhada Street. First, they have to consider the time that they will take for the visit, and the money they will spend. Many people lost their businesses when Shuhada Street was closed and the job opportunities are less available these day than before, so they have to think money wise.

Personally, I live at Shuhada Street but I can't use my front door because I am Palestinian. My neighbours made an opening in their wall to make me a passage so that I don't become a hostage in my house. In fact I live like a prisoner in my house.. I have installed some wire fence on my balconies to be protected from the stones "gifts" that the settlers always throw at the house. Before the fence, I could not open my shutters. If by mistake I left the shutters open, I would immediately receive the "gifts" from these settlers. I still receive these "gifts" but they do not hit me like before. I collected these "gifts" and used them to decorate my garden and wrote the word "peace" in Arabic.

It's really hard to live where I am because everything is closed, I used to go shopping nearby, but now if I go shopping, I need to walk a distance and carry my shopping because I can't bring my shopping home in a car. One time I had a severe kidney pain, I could not have the ambulance in front of my door to go to the hospital. My brother's house is 2 minutes walk from Shuhada, but I need to walk about 20 minutes to get to his house.

The Israeli army and police always tell us that they are in the area for the protection of both Palestinians and Israelis, but in fact, they stormed my house 3 times in one week to check about a complaint from a soldier that some children threw stones at the street from my house, although I live only with my mother and have no children. Many times the settler children and youth threw stones at my house and I filed complaints to the soldiers and police, and they did nothing to stop it.

Opening Shuhada Street is a big need for peace and humanity.

Zleikha Muhtaseb, Principal of the al-Ibrahimiya Kindergarten
Shuhada Street

 

 

Why Bomb Iran When You Can Become Iran?

That seems to be the thinking behind the Israeli government's endorsement of legislation that will require human rights NGOs in Israel (e.g., B'Tselem, Machsomwatch, Breaking the Silence, Adalah, etc.) to publicize contributions from foreign governments, not only in an annual report (they all do that anyway), but every single time they host an event, have a meeting, publish a report, issue a news release, whether they have received outside funding for that particular occasion or not.

And what's particularly odious about the proposed legislation is that if these groups receive such funding, they groups will lose their tax status as public institutions, but will be defined as "political entities" that have to register and report to the Registrar of Political Parties.

Lest you think that I am exaggerating, I publish sections of the government-approved legislation below. And the Iran analogy is apt: the Iran regime requires all NGOs, including the civil society ones that Americans of all stripe support, to inform a government agency of every contribution they receive from foreign sources, except the United Nations. Read about it here Or read about how Egypt controls and harassess its civil society NGOs here (h/t to Dr. Marsha Cohen and Dan Sisken for these links, respectively.)

Of course, in Iran, the groups also have to ask the agency's permission to receive those grants; I expect that this will be the next step in the Israeli's governmental campaign against the human rights NGOs.

But hang on a second: What's wrong with requiring Israeli human rights organizations to report receiving money from foreign governments? In fact, why should they be allowed to receive such money at all? Isn't that gross interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state? And what's the big deal of simply announcing the truth. Transparency and full disclosure should accompany such organizations, no?

OK, so here are three answers to the stated purpose of the law, which is to balance freedom of speech with the right of the public to know who is behind these organizations.

1. The proposed law is unnecessary.

As I said above, all the voluntary organizations in Israel (amutot) are required by law to report regularly to the government. It so happens that the human rights NGOs often go beyond the requirement and publicize the sources of their funding. This is expected; you don't get money without thanking the organization or individual or government that gave you the money. The human rights organizations are, not surprisingly, proud of their work and grateful for support. Some of them are required by the donors to publicize the funding. When NGO Monitor "broke" the story this summer that the Breaking the Silence booklet of soldiers' testimonies was paid for, in part, by grants from foreign governments, they found that information printed on the first few pages of the booklet! And unlike NGO Monitor, Breaking the Silence publishes its annual financial reports on its website.

2. The proposed law is discriminatory.

The law has been crafted by right-wingers to target the human rights organizations. If your organization receives money from a Jewish gambling mogul, or from an evangelical Christian organization that looks forward to the destruction of the State of Israel when Jesus returns, you are exempt. Governments like Spain, Holland, and Great Britain, don't fund illegal settlements; they fund peace initiatives civil society initiatives, in Israel as in Iran.

3. The proposed law's real purpose is to harass, delegitimize, and dry up funding for progressive NGOs.

If the law only required disclosure on a website, that would be bad enough. But the law requires each organization to go through bureaucratic hoops repeatedly, and to proclaim something like the Surgeon General's warning every time it does anything publicly. Thus, if B'Tselem rolls out a report on settler violence, and hosts a public event to publicize the report – remember, this is the organization that works together with the Israel Defense Forces to locate Palestinian witnesses in IDF investigations -- it must begin the event by announcing that it has sometime, somewhere received money from Holland, say. And if it does not do so? According to the proposed legislation, all members of B'Tselem who were in a position to know where the money came from, and who did not do anything about it are liable to fines and up to a year in prison, "or four times the value of the consideration that was received, whichever is higher."

The analogy with the Surgeon General's warning is significant. The purpose of requiring such disclosure is not merely to satisfy the public's right to know (Who doesn't know by now that cigarette smoking causes cancer?) but to stigmatize and delegitimize cigarette smoking.

Not every government will be willing to have this publicity. Already the foreign ministry and the prime minister have tried to dissuade foreign governments from donating to such groups. And, from the government's perspective, it is understandable why. They are an embarrassment to Israel's image, and they publicize the crimes of the Occupation. These are things that the current rightwing government in Israel doesn't like. Nor does the current rightwing government in Iran.

If there is a need to inform the Israeli public about foreign funding of NGOs, or of transparency in their operations, then have a law that requires transparency of all such organizations, left, right or none of the above. As I said earlier, the human rights NGOs are among the most transparent in the country. Try tracing the funding for some of the settlers' organizations; it isn't easy.

If such a law passes, it will be not only be a black day for what is left of Israeli democracy but there will be other consequences as well. First, foreign governments that sponsor human rights and peace projects will figure out a way how to get the money to the organizations, bypassing the law. So that could make things worse for transparency. Second, I would advise the NGOs to discuss with their legal advisor whether the bill applies to them. After all, they do not view themselves as political entities, and at least some of the NGOs are not there primarily to influence domestic or foreign policy. Breaking the Silence sees its task as informational – letting the Israeli public know what happens to IDF soldiers when they are placed in Occupation situations. The group does not call to end the Occupation or to annex the West Bank and Gaza – it simply wants the Israeli public to know what price Israel is paying for the Occupation. The rightwing considers that political, fine. But will the law and the courts? Third, Israel will be placed by the EU on a list of countries that are unfriendly to human rights organizations. This, too, will have consequences

Here are some passages from the proposed legislation, with my "Perush Rashi" (commentary; my thanks to Didi Remez for providing me with a translation of the bill.) Let's start with the wide expansion of the phrase "political activity"

"political activity" – an activity intended to influence public opinion in Israel or in whatsoever entity in one of the government authorities in Israel concerning any component of internal or external policy of the State of Israel.

Perush Rashi: The expansion is deliberate in order to counter the argument that these groups are not political organization, or lobbying groups. In fact, they are not, and I think that even with the expansion, at least some of the groups could claim that they are not covered by the law.

A person or body shall not receive the financial support of a Foreign Political Entity for the purpose of financing political activity in Israel until after it has registered with the Registrar of Political Parties; for this purpose, any support that is received by anyone who finances or engages in political activity is presumed support for the purpose of financing political activity.

Perush Rashi: Now that we have expanded the meaning of political activity, we expand the meaning of what support for political activity means. So any Euro received by an group will automatically be considered political in purpose.

    The Registrar of Political Parties shall also serve as Registrar of Foreign Political Entity Support (hereinafter – the Registrar).

Perush Rashi: This is my favorite line in the bill. Since there is no government agency that supervises such bodies, the authors decided to "create" one by interpreting the Registrar of Political Parties to include the human rights NGOS. It reminds me of Firesign Theater's famous, "Department of Redundancy Department." Except that here there is no redundancy – there is an expansion to brand the human rights NGOS as political parties.

The supported entity shall file an annual balance sheet and financial statement of its income and expenditures as a supported entity in each fiscal year.  The statement shall include full particulars according to the list appearing in Section 36 of the Amutot Law, and in the Second Addendum thereto.  The supported entity shall file an annual verbatim report which will include details of the matters enumerated in the Third Addendum to the Amutot Law.

Perush Rashi: Here is where we really get to the Department of Redundancy Department. The NGOS already file an annual balance sheet, etc. with the agency governing Amutot. So what is the purpose of this filing? Harassment.

The supported entity or one acting on its behalf will clearly note this status in every document, including electronic one, which relates to political activity. The supported entity or one acting on its behalf, when presenting orally in the framework of a discussion or meeting in which there is political activity, shall note its status at the outset if the subject of the discussion or meeting has an affinity to the aims for which the support was received.

Perush Rashi: Maybe next year the government will require all members of human rights NGOs to walk around with scarlet letters or yellow stars on their t-shirts.

              A supported corporation shall not be considered a Public Institution as defined in Section 9(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance.

Perush Rashi: I.e., it will lose its former tax status, another form of harassment.

The recipient of financial support of a Foreign Political Entity in contravention of the provisions of Section 3, shall be sentenced to one year imprisonment or a fine, as stated in Section 61(a)(3) of the Penal Law, 5737-1977 or four times the value of the consideration that was received, whichever is higher. Delivery of an essentially false detail in a declaration according to Section 6 shall be punishable by three years imprisonment.

Perush Rashi: And while you're out, don't forget the pound of flesh.

Who says that Israel's government doesn't try to fit in with the other Middle East governments?

Alan Dershowitz, Richard Goldstone, Naomi Chazan, Jeremy Ben-Ami, Michael Oren, Andrew Sullivan, and Leon Wieseltier – What Does It All Mean?

What a week!

Naomi Chazan and the New Israel Fund are attacked by an Israeli right wing Zionist student group that last summer protested against professors who assigned reading material in English. And the result? Everybody that belongs to the liberal, Zionist wing rallies to the NIF's defense. With any luck, the fund will make some money from the publicity.

Richard Goldstone is called a traitor by Alan Dershowitz and his report "a crime against the Jewish people" by Elie Wiesel, icons of the Old Guard. Goldstone has been, in effect, ostracized by all segments of the Zionist consensus, left, center, and right. And for what? For criticizing the actions of the IDF in Gaza, and for doing it for the United Nations. The Zionist left calls for an independent investigation of the Gaza Op; the Zionist right pushes back.

Jeremy Ben-Ami and J-Street don't condemn Goldstone or his report. But their moderate demurral is enough for Ambassador Michael Oren to climb down the tree and hint that he will stop boycotting them, thus undercutting the Philadelphia Jews who tried to block Ben-Ami's appearance at the Penn Hillel. Ben-Ami's appearance does draw a counter-appearance by hasbara-nik Mitchel Bard, who speaks at a meeting of a bogus organization called "Z-Street." (Free Kosher sushi is offered as a draw; the previous night was the ZOA offered free kosher pizza.)

And, finally, Andrew Sullivan writes some harmless things in his blog about Jews, neocons, and Israel, that do not find favor in the eyes of Leon Wieseltier, who attacks Sullivan in The New Republic. Sullivan writes the sort of things that Gideon Levy would write on one of his more moderate days.

What does it all mean? It means that we are seeing a "paradigm shift" in the American Jewish community's attitude towards Israel. The paradigm of the '67 generation, which lived through the roller-coaster of the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, the Lebanon War, and the Intifada, and which had crystallized into two camps – the Peace Camp and the Nationalist Camp – is breaking down before our eyes, and the Gaza Op is a significant milestone in that breakdown. The Peace Camp has morphed into two uneven groups; those who have embraced the doctrine of human rights, who see Israel as inevitably and essentially morally stained because of the Occupation; and those who cling to the mantra of the 67-generation, that although the Occupation is horrible it cannot be ended until Israel's security is ensured. If you are a post WWII baby boomer, you are in the latter camp. But if you are under thirty-five and liberal, and you still even care about Israel, then chance are you are going to be with the human rights folks. And you will start raising the fundamental questions not about 67 but 47 and even 97 – i.e., 1897 and the founding of the Zionist movement.

I still remember when the only Jewish anti-Zionists were the Reform American Council for Judaism, and the Satmar Hasidim/Neture Karta. They could be tolerated because they were quaint and small in number. Now, it is becoming increasingly "bon ton" in progressive circles not to be associated with the Zionists. Because they are found, increasingly in the younger generation, only among the right and the orthodox.

And that brings us to the Nationalist Camp, which also has a similar breakdown into two uneven groups. Here, the smaller group is made up of the Old Guard of organizations like the ZOA, and even some more moderate groups that view Israel through the prism of Exodus and the Six-Day War. The New Guard is militantly Zionist, right wing, and Islamophobic. Consider student organizations like Im Tirzu in Israel and the Zionist Freedom Alliance in this country. Their militancy is inspired by Jabotinsky, and their tactics are fascist in essence.

In both cases, left and right, the Old Guard has its ties with the New Guard. The New Israel Fund supports (to some extent; let's not exaggerate) the work of the Israeli human rights NGO's. These show relentlessly that in an age where Palestinian terror is virtually dead – a stabbing here, a murderous driver there – Israeli oppression and humiliation of the Palestinians is never-ending, and more sophisticated, with every passing day.

The Old Guard, now on the right, may bemoan the loss of the consensus it once enjoyed, and wax nostalgic about the good old days when young liberal democrats actually supported Israel in the public sphere. But it can at least console itself that it has spawned a cadre of hard-core nationalists – neocon, orthodox, and Republican -- on whom it can rely.

Like the sea eroding the seashore, support for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state will continue to erode, as people see the inevitable consequences of the Occupation, and how Israel is incapable of ending it. And while the Occupation can go indefinitely, a decades-long failed peace process cannot. Sooner or later, the peace process will grind to a halt (let's hope that it is sooner rather than later.) And then the peace camp will continue to unravel, or at least to support materially the far left.

In short, things will get uglier, nastier, and more divisive in that part of the Jewish community that cares about Israel, as each iteration of the conflict brings out the worst in us. Most American Jews will have ceased to care about Israel, and the ones who do care will be deeply divided – much more so than the classical division of the Peace and Nationalist camp. And those divisions will grown deeper, with Israel being their cause.

Haaretz Falls for Gold

-- Nu, so Yankel, did you read Haaretz this morning?

-- Who reads Haaretz any morning? It's full of unsubstantiated propaganda

-- Wait a minute, that's the point. Even Haaretz today showed how the Goldstone Report was anti-Semitic.

-- Who needs Haaretz for that?

-- It wasn't Haaretz, really, it was that, nu, that think tank run by Dore Gold.

-- What did it say?

-- Well, you know the guy who was the so-called military expert on the Goldstone mission.

-- The Irish sheigitz?

-- He said that before we entered Gaza, the Hamasniks fired about two rockets on us.

-- You're kidding.

-- No, I am not. "About two rockets!"

-- That's incredible. And this is on the front page of the Haaretz website? I mean, any idiot knows that during the month before the breakdown of the cease-fire on November 4, only one rocket was fired against Israel, on October 15. One, not two.

-- What?

-- Yeah, you heard right. And while you were blabbing I read the interview with Travers, and he was referring to the month before November 4, when the hostilities began again.

-- But Haaretz says that it is referring to the month before the Gaza Operation.

-- That's because Gold misread the interview. Or maybe the guy who wrote it up. The context makes it clear he's talking about the period of the cease-fire. And anyway, any idiot knows that the rocket fire escalated incredibly during the month of November.

-- Any idiot, maybe – but what about Travers?

-- According to Travers, Israeli sources said that 125 rockets were fired during November.

-- Who told you this?

-- It's on p. 79 of the Goldstone Report, which Travers signed off on.

-- So you are telling me that a rightwing think tank misreads an interview, and Haaretz doesn't check its facts?

-- I told you – Haaretz is full of unsubstantiated propaganda.

Gaza and Goldstone Revisited

In this blog I have never given my own personal opinion of the conclusions of the Goldstone Report. So here it is, in brief.

First, I see the conclusions of the Goldstone Report, especially the notorious one about Israel's deliberately targeting the Gazans' lives, as reasonable inferences, given the testimonies that the mission heard, what they themselves saw, and the unwillingness of Israel to cooperate with the mission. I should add that the members of the Goldstone mission possess a professional expertise that all their critics so far have lacked. It is one thing for the intelligent layperson to go through a report and raise questions. It is quite another for those criticisms to be raised by people with the proper credentials, who can compare the situation in Gaza with other places, and with knowledge of the law. We have not yet heard criticisms by non-partisan experts in international humanitarian law.

For some critics, the conclusion of deliberate targeting is especially unreasonable because they accept, as a bedrock axiom, that the deliberate, planned punishing of a population is simply not what the Israel Defense Force would do. This axiom is, I believe, debatable. But the debate certainly cannot be settled simply by recourse to circumstantial evidence. We would have to have greater access to the actual planning of the Gaza Operation, for example, then we have. And it will be decades before we have that, if we ever do.

The mainstream Jewish reaction to the Goldstone Report, especially to that conclusion, has been vicious and vitriolic. I can understand why "talkbackers" and blind partisans react in that way, but I am at a loss to understand how intelligent, reasonable, people use phrases like "traitor" "evil, evil man", "crime against the Jewish people", etc. Much more reasonable is the response of such Israeli NGOs such as B'Tselem and Breaking the Silence (Yehuda Shaul), which have reservations about the deliberate, planned targeting of the civilian population, which do not see the evidence entailing this– but nonetheless are highly respectful towards the Goldstone Report, and endorse many of its other conclusions. Yet the partisans continually misrepresent the viewpoints of these NGOs as rejecting the Goldstone Report. B'Tselem, pace Ron Kampeas, does not view the Goldstone Report as "deeply flawed." The NGOs may or may not express some reservations, but they are, on the whole, supportive of the report. Even the Goldstone report talks about "possible crimes against humanity."

The real line to be drawn is not between supporters and detractors of the Goldstone Report, but between those who call for an independent investigation, thereby accepting the main recommendation of the Goldstone Report, and those who do not think that such an investigation is necessary, now that the IDF has responded to the UN. Even Alan Dershowitz, who has come in for some mighty big criticism on this blog and others, has called for an independent investigation (although I am not sure whether he still does.) If Israel decides on such an investigation, and if the government does not pack the panel with IDF-friendly voices, then it will be only thanks to the Goldstone Report and the reports of the Israeli and international NGOS.

My personal view of what happened in Gaza, on the basis of my own experience of living in Israel, and of following the news, and the reports of the NGO, is what I would call almost-Goldstone. I believe that the IDF prepared for a major operation that would not only stop the rocket fire but send a message to the Gazan population that support for Hamas is costly. This means that there was not sufficient attention paid to the principle of distinction; the rules of engagement were often not observed, and these widespread phenomena suggest, but do not indicate conclusively, a deliberate policy by the higher-ups. At best, there was gross and criminal negligence on the part of the higher ups and the commanders in the field. And, of course, there was a misunderstanding of what Israel's responsibility was towards civilians.

For example, Israel thought that by distributing leaflets, or by roof-knocking, it was discharging its obligation to warn the civilians. If, despite the warning, there were still civilians found there, that would be their responsibility. Does this constitute deliberate targeting of civilians? It doesn't have to, because one achieves the same effect no matter what the intention is – which is to teach the civilian population the lesson that they are entirely powerless, that they have no recourse but to run (to where?) And what moral distinction is there?

This gross, willful negligence, which is well-documented in the Breaking the Silence testimonies, does not amount to a planned strategy of targeting civilians. It is more like a culture of neglect, a realization that "Now we are going to show them, and we aren't going to be so particular about the rules. " I don't know at what level in the chain of command this came in. But there is sufficient and credible evidence for this culture. Of course, this does not mean that accidents didn't happen. But that raises the question whether such accidents could have been foreseen, and if so, why were those risks taken?

This is precisely why the IDF cannot investigate itself; why an independent judicial commission with subpoena powers is necessary.

If Israel could do it after Sabra and Shatila, what possible justification does it have for not doing it now?

Alan Dershowitz’ Brief Against the “Goldberg” Report

No, the headline is not an error.

I promised my readers, when I wrote my "ad hominem screed" against Prof. Alan Dershowitz's defamation of Judge Richard Goldstone (some of which, barukh ha-Shem, he subsequently retracted), that I would read the brief he submitted to the UN against the report. People say all sorts of nasty things in person (and in blogs, mea culpa), but Alan Dershowitz is a Harvard Law professor, and one assumes that he can write a good brief and make a good argument – not an argument that one need agree with, but an argument worth reading just the same.

So I sat down and read through his forty-nine page brief and found it in good part a mixture of website cherry-picking and invective. Nothing new there, we all do that. But the oddest thing about it was that when I got to the meat of the brief – the argument against the evidential methodology used by the Goldstone Panel, I found that, despite many quotations from the report, Prof. Dershowitz had not written about the Goldstone Report at all. Rather he had fashioned in his mind another report – let's call it the "Goldberg" Report – and having shaped this straw man, picked it apart.

Before I show how he fundamentally misread or misunderstood the Goldstone Report, let me give you an example of cherry-picking.

Prof. Dershowitz, like many other critics of Judge Goldstone, point out that Mary Robinson, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and former President of Ireland, refused to head the commission investigating the Gaza Op because of the mandate's bias. If Mary Robinson, "whose bias against Israel has been deep and longstanding," rejected it, then what can one say about Judge Goldstone, or, for that matter, the report? What Prof. Dershowitz does not say is that a) Judge Goldstone had the mandate changed to make it less one-sided, and b) Mary Robinson, herself, after the Goldstone report was made public, emphasized the integrity of Judge Goldstone and the importance of investigating the allegations contained therein.

I am aware that Judge Goldstone, a dedicated and unimpeachable human rights lawyer and advocate, shared similar concerns [of a biased mandate -JH] when he was initially approached. But he was able to work with the Council's president to secure an agreement he felt confident would permit the mandate to be interpreted in such a way as to allow his team to address the actions taken by both parties to the conflict.

Experts can debate whether this was in conformity with UN rules and procedures. I have no doubt that those involved were seeking a way forward that would allow for a full investigation and help overcome the political divisiveness currently undermining the Human Rights Council within the UN system.

The question now is whether governments will give Judge Goldstone's findings the serious attention they deserve, or instead fall back into an overtly political posture…For the sake of human rights and peace in the region, my hope is that the international community will bear witness to these circumstances, consider Judge Goldstone's report in its entirety and press for accountability for the most serious crimes.

It is the way of the polemicist to quote selectively from sources. No doubt Prof. Dershowitz may argue that the above citation reflects Mary Robinson's "deep and longstanding bias." But not even to tell his readers a) that Judge Goldstone attempted and succeeded to have the mandate changed, or that b) Mary Robinson endorsed a serious reading of the Goldstone Report, which she would not have done, had she considered it biased – well, that borders on deliberately concealing the truth.

Why, "deliberate"? Because we are told at the outset that Prof. Dershowitz had a research assistant, Josh Sharp, whom he thanks for providing "excellent research". It took me a few seconds to find out what Dershowitz/Sharp omitted. One could do the same thing for the human rights NGO's that Dershowitz selectively quotes.

All the above, of course, is not the heart of the brief, just the vorspiel. The heart of the brief is the attempt to refute the Goldstone Report's central conclusion: "that Israel's policy was to maximize the death of civilians" or "that the rocket attacks merely served as an excuse for the Israeli military to achieve its real purpose: namely the killing of Palestinian civilians" (p. 6) "The Goldstone Report accuses Israel of using Hamas rocket attacks against its civilians as an excuse—a cover—for a carefully planned and executed policy of deliberately targeting innocent civilians for mass murder." (p. 6)

The only problem is that nowhere in the Goldstone Report is any of these claims made! In fact, such claims are by implication rejected by one of Goldstone's Conclusions:

1681. In this respect, the operations were in furtherance of an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience and for its apparent support for Hamas, and possibly with the intent of forcing a change in such support.

This conclusion, a grave accusation in its own right, says nothing about "maximizing civilian deaths," of "mass murder", etc., nor is such nonsense anywhere in the Goldstone Report. In fact, if the purpose of Israel was to force a change in support for Hamas, why exactly would it want to perform "genocide" (another Dershowitz term), etc.?

The story that the Goldstone Report describes is an Israel that wanted to show to Hamas and to the Gazans that the price for support for Hamas would be high. Is this so unreasonable a conclusion? Israel has conducted a crippling siege against Gaza, and all sanctions – including the ones Prof. Dershowitz supports against Iran – involve the collective suffering of a population. Nowhere in the Goldstone Report is Israel accused of using the rockets as an "excuse" or "pretext" – the words are Prof. Dershowitz's own.

There is no contradiction between stopping the rocket fire and targeting the civilian population, by bombing infrastructure, loosening the rules of engagement, not providing for safe exit routes for civilians that have been warned to leave house -- if you think that this is the only way to stop the rocket fire.

But once you accept the misrepresentation of the conclusions of the Goldstone Report, it is very easy to show that none of the sources cited by the Report support that conclusion.

Thus, the so-called "Dahiya doctrine" of responding to rocket attacks with disproportionate force intended to destroy infrastructure says nothing about specifically targeting civilians for death.

Agreed. But the Goldstone never claimed that it did. According to Dershowtiz, the so-called "Dahiya doctrine" calls for the "suffering of hundreds of thousands of people" in order to achieve military aims. That is more than enough for the actual conclusions of the Goldstone Report, not the ones that Dershowitz invents.

One-by-one Dershowitz shows that the statements about "disproportionate response" made by several Israeli military and political leaders do not support a conclusion of deliberately killing civilians. One by one he tries to put the best possible construal on some of these statements. Each time when he has to deal with a particularly outrageous one, one that he cannot interpret in accordance with the international humanitarian law and the rules of war, he falls back on his straw man, Judge Goldberg. Each time he triumphantly shows that the evidence fails to support its conclusion that Israel had a deliberate policy of maximizing the deaths of civilians.

Thus, regarding the bombing of the flour factory, Prof. Dershowitz first dutifully notes that Israel has disclaimed responsibility. And then he continues:

Even if it were true that Israel sought to punish the civilian population of Gaza by attacking food and sewage facilities, it would not follow that Israel intended to kill civilians.

Where in the Goldstone Report is it claimed that the Israel deliberately attacked the flour factory in order to kill civilians? Where is it claimed that it follows from the deliberate bombing of the factory that Israeli intended to kill civilians?

More revealing is Prof. Dershowitz's continuation:

Israel acknowledged that it deliberately limits the flow of consumer goods into Gaza as part of an effort to impose sanctions on the Hamas government for its policy of targeting Israeli civilians with anti-personnel weapons. Just as American sanctions against Iran would cause the Iranian "people [to] suffer," so too do Israeli sanctions. But it is a far cry from sanctions to murder, and it is a non-sequitur to argue that the destructions of non-human civilian targets proves an intention to target human beings for death.

Note how he moves seamlessly from the deliberate wartime bombing of a flour factory to peacetime economic sanctions, as if there is no distinction between them, and as if the justification of sanctions is the same as the justification for bombing civilian food production. Statements such as these suggest that Prof. Dershowitz hasn't a clue about the laws of war, that for him, anything short of mass killings isn't so serious – which is why he has to invent the "Goldbergian" accusation of "genocide" against Israel.

I have spent much more time than I should have on this post. I devoted a lot more time and space to Prof. Moshe Halbertal's article because I thought it worthy of discussion.

But why bother to refute Prof. Dershowitz's criticisms of the "conclusions" of a non-existent Goldberg Report? The Goldstone Report speaks of "possible crimes against humanity."

 

Shabbat Shalom from a snowy Washington.