Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Foreign Press Rents Tel Aviv Rooftops to Cover Iran War

February 7th, 2012
israelis watch gaza war

Israeli Haredim enjoying view from Israel during Operation Cast Lead

You remember the descriptions of the First Battle of Bull Run when all of Washington’s high society rode out in their fine carriages and horses to picnic under the shady trees and watch their Union boys send the Yankees packing?  Did they get the shock of their lives when the Rebel musket balls whizzed over their heads and the Union soldiers ran for their lives from the field?  Or similarly, the Israelis in southern Israel who took lawn chairs out to watch the IDF smash Gaza to smithereens in 2009?  Here’s a picture of another group of expectant, thrilled Israelis watching the action.

That’s what the foreign press corps appears to be doing now in Tel Aviv in preparation for an attack on Iran.  They’re renting the right to put film crews and reporters on the city’s rooftops (Hebrew) during the upcoming war in order to cover the anticipated Iranian counterattack.  That way they can get great photo ops and pictures of missiles wreaking havoc on the city. What a story!  What a feast for the eyes!  Other news organizations like CBS, Fox News, and NBC are sending their senior producers to Israel to scope out the place in case they have to send in the big boys–the news anchors and senior correspondents (especially since no one can report from Teheran!).

We can’t wait!  I don’t know why I should have to point out that this is irony.  But there are some right-wingers who have neither a sense of irony nor humor.  So it’s for them I guess.

Former Senior U.S. Diplomats Propose Solution to Iran-American Conflict, Former Mossad Chief Says Toppling Syria Might End Iran Nuke Threat

February 7th, 2012

Despite the beating drums of war on its news pages from David Sanger and others, the Times published an intelligent, pragmatic outline of a possible agreement between Iran and the U.S., written by two senior diplomats of past Republican administrations, Tom Pickering and Bill Luers.  Here’s the heart of it:

 …The United States would agree to full recognition and respect for the Islamic Republic, and Iran would agree to regional cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both sides would agree to address the full range of bilateral disputes.

The International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council could accept an Iranian civil nuclear program in return for Iran’s agreeing to grant inspectors full access to that program to assure that Iran did not build a nuclear weapon. Once international agencies had full access to Iran’s nuclear program, there could be a progressive reduction of the Security Council’s sanctions that are now in effect. Iran would agree to cease making threats against Israel, and the United States would agree to support efforts toward achieving a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

It would be important to make arrangements for Israel’s security; the exact shape of those measures would have to be worked out in the negotiations. An agreement in which there would be full access to Iran’s nuclear program, with a monitored limitation of 5 percent enrichment, would offer Israel additional reasons for confidence in the deal.

Both sides would agree to cooperate in reducing the influence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan; in combating drug trafficking; and in keeping open the routes through which energy flows to the world from the Persian Gulf. Both sides would agree that while wide differences between the two nations remained, those differences must be resolved peacefully.

I’m not sure the 5% enrichment limitation is acceptable since it will hardly allow Iran to develop a civilian nuclear program.  But possibly no enrichment beyond 20% might work.  Also, the U.S. will have to promise to bring Israel into the NPT and to lobby intensively for a Middle East nuclear free zone.  Only the U.S. can compel Israel to do this.  Otherwise, it won’t happen.  Those are big stumbling blocks.

What the proposal doesn’t mention, and which could be a critical long-term component in any resolution, is solving the Israel-Palestine issue.  Even if the U.S. and Iran agree to a settlement between themselves, a festering Israel-Palestine conflict will maintain a high level of tension in the region.

The op-ed uses the example of Nixon and Mao’s rapprochement as a parallel to the current situation between Iran and the U.S.  But the former diplomats note this important distinction between the two eras and situations:

The China analogy for American-Iranian relations falls short in some areas. The most important is that Mao was ready for an American approach, while Iran’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is not. Instead, he is convinced that the United States will not work with Iran until his regime is gone.

For Iran’s leadership, the notion that the United States is bent on overthrowing its rulers is rooted in historical experience: the United States did overthrow Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, supported the Shah afterward, supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran in the 1980s, and now backs increasing efforts to weaken and isolate Iran.

Reducing the malign influence of this legacy on the thinking of Ayatollah Khamenei will be essential to achieving any deal. Simply “keeping the door open to diplomacy” will not be sufficient. So the Iranian leader must be approached directly, but discreetly, by someone he trusts who conveys assurances from President Obama that covert operations and public pressure have been demonstrably reduced. The interlocutor might be a leader from a country in the region, enlisted when the American president felt the time was right.

Ayatollah Khamenei will have to be convinced by actions, not just messages. Just as Nixon halted covert action in Tibet before approaching China, a similar signal will be needed with Iran.

There is no guarantee that diplomacy will succeed. But that is also true of war. And only diplomacy can offer Iran’s current rulers a stake in building a secure future without a nuclear bomb. Only diplomacy can achieve America’s major objectives while avoiding the mistakes committed in Iraq or Vietnam.

After so much blather and delusional thinking from so many U.S. (I especially “like” Niall Ferguson’s call for a new “Six Day War” against Iran which would involve “creative destruction,” which is turn is reminiscent of that other infamously delusional phrase crafted by Condi Rice during the 2006 Lebanon war, which she called the “birth pangs of a new Middle East”), and particularly Israeli politicians and analysts, it’s finally welcome to hear clear thinking and realism.  Though I am afraid that the conflict has gone beyond such pragmatic approaches.  I fear that both sides are on the road to war and nothing can stop it.  Though I hope I’m wrong.

Another issue that complicates the Pickering-Luers proposal is that the U.S. would essentially have to turn its back on Israeli hysteria about Iran.  It would have to drop its participation in the Israeli covert ops campaign against Iran.  It would have to firmly tell Israel the war scenario has come to the end of the road.  We will also have to demand that Israel join NPT and that it confront world pressure for a nuclear free Middle East.  Israel wouldn’t have to necessarily accede to this immediately.  But it will not be able to dawdle forever as it has regarding solving the Palestine issue.  I just don’t see Obama having either the will or the muscle to pull this off.  If it were Nixon and Kissinger–maybe.  Or Clinton–maybe.  But Obama? He doesn’t have it in him.  Again, may I be proven wrong.

In a somewhat related development, Efraim Halevy, the former Mossad chief touts a Pax Israelitus which envisions toppling the Syrian regime, icing Iran out, replacing Assad with a compliant, pro-western (i.e. pro-Israel) puppet.  Of course, he only says some of those things.  But he means all of them.  Halevy has a grand vision that foresees a new Syria cutting Iran’s arms lifeline leading to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.  This is turn will somehow force Iran to end its nuclear program and even topple the Ayatollahs.

Though I usually find Halevy eminently pragmatic, here he’s drunk the typical Israeli Koolaid, which usually involves elaborate fantasies of skullduggery and manipulation that turns the world from hostile to friendly to Israeli interests.  Returning to the Pickering-Luers thesis, there is only one way to create a stable Middle East.  That is negotiations among equals and with full consideration of the interests of all parties.

What Halevy is proposing is more of the same contrived realpolitik which has meant rivers of blood running for decades.  Instead, all parties including Israel, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and others need to sit and figure out how to give each party something of what they want to satisfy its most critical needs.  For Syria, that will mean a new government that is independent and not dominated by the U.S., the west or Israel.  One hopes such an independent Syria will pursue a course that favors neither Iran nor Israel unduly, but approaches each for what it can offer Syria.

This sort of new Syrian government would focus on improving its domestic economy and improving people’s lives rather than dabbling in regional power politics as it does now with Iran and Lebanon.  In turn, this would mean Israel would have to reign in its own impulse to dabble in the double game of spycraft and covert war against its neighbors.  Territorial disputes would be resolved by Israel returning the Golan and Shebaa Farms to their rightful owners.  In turn, Syria and Lebanon would recognize Israel and normalize relations.  This of course would help sideline or defang Hezbollah.

But none of this can happen through Halevy’s machinations.  It can only happen by negotiations in good faith, something Israel clearly isn’t prepared to do (yet).

Jewish Forward Attack on Penn BDS Neglects Iarael Lobby’s Restraint on Free Press

February 7th, 2012

This past week, Penn students held a three day conference on the BDS movement. The conference had been preceded by coverage from the local Jewish community pro-Israel newspaper and the Penn student newspaper which was not only antagonistic and unbalanced, but specifically, a professor penned an op Ed accusing BDS supporters of being “kapos.”

Not surprisingly, the BDS event organizers were a tad sensitive about who would be reporting from these media outlets. They ultimately decided to refuse access to the event for the Exponent’s reporter and a far-right pro-Israel filmmaker. Personally, I think they made a mistake. I would’ve negotiated with the Exponent for an op ed by a Penn faculty member who supported BDS in return for allowing a hostile reporter to have access. If the newspaper refused, then let them slam BDS while you point out how unfair they were in refusing to allow you to present your point of view in the newspaper.

It should e noted that The Exponent’s former editor, Jonathan Tobin, now graces the editorial masthead at Commentary. So the Exponent is certainly no exemplar of diversity on the question of coverage related to Israel or BDS.

Jane Eisner, the Forward’s managing editor decided to pile on, writing an editorial criticizing the decision to bar the reporter, as an infringement on free speech. This is wrong for all sorts of reasons. One, because the pro-Israel media has a monopoly on access to the mainstream community through it’s media outlets. That means that they present their slanted version of BDS to their readers without allowing the BDS movement to portray itself in their pages. If anyone is repressing free speech and the diversity of debate it is the Exponent and Forward.

But even more important is the fact that the Israel Lobby routinely restricts media access to reporters it doesn’t like at events they host. Aipac provided press credentials to The Guardian’s Chris McGreal to cover it’s 2007 national conference. When McGreal arrived to pick up his credentials and registration packet, he was not only denied access, but Josh Block, Aipac’s then PR capo di tutti, had the reporter frog-marched out of the hall escorted by security guards. I reported this story in my blog at the time and in the Guardian’s Comment is Free. But The Forward never took up the matter. Somehow, when the BDS movement stifles the press it’s newsworthy, but when Josh Block and Aipac do it they get a pass.

Further, if Jane Eisner wants to talk about freedom of speech in the media, she should look in the mirror. I, for example am blackballed from appearing there. How do I know? Let’s just say a little birdie told me. My crime? Criticizing The Forward’s decision to take Republican Jewish Coalition ads in 2008 which accused Barack Obama of being racist. You see some journalists can be very thin skinned about criticism. Which is ironic because those same editors refuse to allow activists to be equally thin-skinned about critical coverage.

Mao, who himself didn’t brook much dissent, said “let a thousand flowers bloom.”. Why can’t we in the Jewish community do at least as well?

Abbas to Head Fatah-Hamas Unity Government Till Planned Elections

February 7th, 2012
meshal abbas meeting

Khaled Meshal and Mahmoud Abbas meet in Qatar

Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Meshal have reached an agreement that would provide for Abbas to head a Palestinian unity caretaker government until elections, which would happen sometime in the coming months.  The deal comes on the heels of the abject failure of four rounds of Jordanian sponsored peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians in which the Israeli side offered a deal for a Palestinian state that essentially followed the contours of the Separation Wall.

Israeli reaction was swift, negative and predictable:

…Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warn[ed] Mr. Abbas that he could have peace with Israel or unity with Hamas, but not both.

Actually, the truth is Abbas could have peace with Israel if he accepted a neutered Palestine and permanent divorce from Gaza, the other half of the Palestinian nation.  What sort of peace would that be?

This Israeli formulation too drives me crazy:

Mr. Netanyahu disagrees that Hamas is changing. He noted in his statement on Monday that until Hamas recognizes Israel, abandons violence and accepts previous agreements with Israel signed by the Palestinian Authority — the three conditions that the United States and the European Union demand of Hamas, which has rejected them — it remains a renegade that must be shunned.

I would suggest a corollary set of Palestinian demands: until Israel recognizes a Palestinian state, abandons violence against Palestinians, and accepts previous peace deals (Oslo, Road Map, etc.) that it signed with the PA–then it remains a renegade that must be shunned.

Congress has boxed the Obama administration into a corner by mandating that any Palestinian government including Hamas within it, must be defunded.  That would remove $450-million of the $1 billion Palestine receives in foreign funding.  But given the expanding role that Qatar is taking in bringing the Palestinians together and possibly becoming the  new home in exile of Hamas, U.S. aid may no longer even be necessary.  Idiots like Gary Ackerman and the rest of the Lobby boys in Congress who devised this brilliant piece of legislation, should think about what it will be like to have the U.S. entirely cut out of having any influence with the Palestinians.  That’s what will happen if we cut the Palestinians loose.

It won’t hurt the Palestinians since they may have alternate sources of Arab funding.  But it will hurt the Israelis because they will continue their own obdurate ways as international pressure mounts against them.  Pretty soon, the only ally Israel will have left is the U.S., which will veto all necessary Security Council resolutions criticizing Israel.  But in the long-term, Israel cannot sustain this status quo.  The future will be grim.

Rabbi Joseph Lukinsky, May His Memory Be for a Blessing

February 6th, 2012
joseph lukinsky

Rabbi Joseph Lukinsky z"l

I’ve been rummaging through the attic of my life for a media project I’m involved with.  A cousin just found a picture of my father, smiling, handsome and so full of young promise, at age 23 in 1948.  When my partner in this project asked who she could speak with about me in Israel, I naturally thought of Rabbi Joe Lukinsky.  He’d been my teacher in 1969, when I attended the Camp Ramah program in Nyack, NY.  Later, he’d been my teacher when I studied in Israel on a junior year abroad program at the Hebrew University.

With deep sadness, I discovered that Rabbi Lukinsky died of cancer in 2009 at age 78.  In Jewish tradition, when such a man dies you say: zichron tzadik livracha (“may the memory of this righteous one be for a blessing”).  Joe truly was a tzadik, a saint.  Of course, that is a huge weight to place on anyone.  But you could place it lightly on his shoulders because he was such a modest self-effacing man.  He didn’t win you over by erudition or intellectual presence or spellbinding preacherly oratory.  He won you over with a smile, with his charm, with his love of humanity.

Joe went through the 60s, the era of long-hair, psychedelia and relevance as the straightest of  straight arrows.  He sported a crew cut and always informally dressed in short sleeves, which revealed those muscular arms that could hit home runs over rooftops.  He looked like a Marine Corps drill sergeant, albeit a very gentle one.   I remember a twinkle in his eyes and a ready smile that at times turned into a hearty laugh.

I was a troubled 17-year-old from a dysfunctional family when I met him at Nyack in 1969.  Back then, the world appeared to be coming to an end.  The Vietnam war raged, campuses burned, Martin Luther King had died a few months earlier.  I was a rebellious teenager who dared Judaism to be relevant to my world.  I didn’t see how it could be.

Camp Ramah was known for its rigorous Judaic curriculum including courses on Tanach, Midrash, Jewish philosophy, and liturgy.  Until this summer, frankly, I’d found these classes to be wanting.  So when they laid out the Jewish curriculum for that summer and asked us to choose our classes, nothing inspired me.  As I recall it, Joe was the educational director.  He met with me and asked what I was choosing.  I told him nothing appealed to me.  I’m certain I was probably quite morose in the way only teenagers can be.

But Joe did something both brilliant and devious at the same time.  He threw the question of what I would study back and me and said: “If you could study about any subject, what would it be?”  I must’ve thought it was a trick question.  How could I study any subject I wanted when I was seemingly bound by the courses offered which I’d already told him didn’t appeal to me?

Two years before, the 1967 War had happened.  It had a big impact on many American Jews of the time.  It must’ve disturbed me in some profound way because I told Joe that I’d study about Israel and the impact of the Six Day War on Zionism.  He said: “Great.  Why don’t you make your own course.  I’ll work with you to develop a reading list, we’ll meet to discuss what you’re reading and you’ll write a paper at the end of the summer.”  I probably thought the idea was a bit nuts at the time.  How could I create my own course?  But by God, that’s what we did.  That’s how I first learned about Martin Buber, Judah Magnes and Brit Shalom.  That’s when I first read Arthur Hertzberg‘s The Zionist Idea.  That’s when I first became a thinking Zionist.  By that I mean the critical Zionist I am today.

You have no idea what this did to the self-esteem of a troubled young boy.  It taught me that I had ideas of value.  It taught me how to take on a big topic, research it carefully, and come up with a coherent, articulate critique into which I could put all of my intellectual self.  This was huge.

Joe knew far more about this subject than I, and he suggested that I send my final paper to Prof. Ernst Simon, one of the few surviving member of the original Brit Shalom circle.  I was a 17-year-old pisher.  What did I know?  I thought it was an odd idea for me to be sending my work to an eminent 80-year-old retired professor who’d stood at the brink of the Zionist era.  But that was the power and brilliance of Joe.  He looked at you with that magnetic smile and chuckle of his and said: “Why not?”

I remember that my paper warned of the dangers that the Occupied Territories posed to Israel.  I discussed the likelihood of Israel turning into an apartheid state.  South Africa was in the air in those days and I compared Israel to that country’s systematic discrimination against its black majority.  It was probably also a bit of chutzpah for this teenager to tell someone like Ernst Simon that Israel was like one of the world’s pariah states.  I remember that Simon actually did me the favor of replying.  As I remember it, his reply was gracious, revealing none of the sense of chutzpah that he might’ve felt for the sharpness of my ideas and expression.

In 1972, I finally got to Israel and studied in the Hebrew University’s special program for Jewish educators.  It was my first academic year in Israel.  My first experience studying in Hebrew.  It was intense, it was challenging.  Joe Lukinsky was himself on a sabbatical year from his teaching at the Jewish Theological Seminary and was one of the faculty for the Hebrew University program.  I wrote another challenging paper for him that time as well.  It was the first time I addressed the conflict between Israel and Diaspora under the terms of classical Zionism.  I suggested that the standard approach of Zionist thought, which demeaned the galut and treated it as a phenomenon that would wither away as Israel assumed its rightful and primary place in Jewish life, was absolutely wrong.

Instead of Israel being primary and Diaspora being secondary, I suggest a co-equal relationship between the two: that the Diaspora would never die as long as Jews lived.  I said that the Diaspora enriched Jewish identity as much as Israel did, and that the two should have a complementary relationship.  This was the first time I grappled with the idea of Diasporism.  In my paper, I also rejected the secularist notion that the Diaspora was primary to Jewish life, and that Israel was alien.  I think it was all pretty radical for its day.  But it was the beauty of Joe Lukinsky that he didn’t care where your ideas took you as long as you arrived at them honestly and with real intellectual rigor.

Joe Lukinsky was one of my Jewish mentors.  He encouraged me to bring out of myself things I didn’t even know I had, things I didn’t even know I was capable of.  This is a gift, a gift beyond measure.  I wouldn’t be who or what I am today without him.  Thank you, Joe.

Now a few words about his life.  As a teenager, he was a powerful baseball player who could hit the ball a mile.  He was offered a tryout with the Chicago Cubs and could’ve played minor-league ball.  But he didn’t.  When he married Betty in the 1950s they were struck by tragedy.  Those were the days before genetic testing, when Tay Sachs was a dreaded word in Jewish families.  They had at least one child who died of this fatal condition.  I can remember someone telling me of the tragedy of having a healthy, beautiful newborn baby, who withered away before their very eyes after a few years.  Two of their other children died at an early age.  As an obituary I read, said about him: he led a Job-like life full of immense tragedy.

But you never felt that from Joe.  He was all heart, all warmth, all soul.  So my partner won’t get to meet one of the truly great American rabbis.  Won’t get to interview him and hear stories of what I was like as a sullen teenager.  What a loss.  To her, to me, to us all.  May his memory be for a blessing.

Widening Regional Escalation Anticipated After Israeli Attack on Iran

February 5th, 2012

Several interesting developments concerning the simmering war between Israel and Iran.  The website of the Iranian Majlis published a report (in Farsi) by the director of an official government think tank that advocates Iranian attacks against Israeli sites.  The author argues that Israel’s sustained attacks within Iran demand a response.  An Israeli TV news report says (in Hebrew) that the Iranian website calls for a “pre-emptive” attack on Israel, and not one that is purely in response to an Israeli first strike.  Though it is reflective of the Israel’s narrow thinking that they would call such an Iranian strike “pre-emptive,” when Israel has already attacked Iran.  One of the specific sites indicated for targeting was Sdot Micha, Israel’s secret missile base and home of its Jericho intercontinental missile arsenal.

You’ll recall that an Israeli source told me that a drone crashed into that base, which may’ve been tied to Iran and/or Hezbollah origins.  Whether or not this story was true, the new report from Iran indicates that the country’s leadership very much has this sort of strike in its mind and would be interested in responding to Israel’s numerous domestic attacks against Iranian bases and nuclear scientists.

A Western diplomat based in Pakistan has added a new wrinkle to the Israel war scenario.  He says a new player should be considered as a protagonist if Israel strikes:

A European diplomat based in Pakistan, permitted to speak only under condition of anonymity, said that if Israel attacks, Islamabad will have no choice but to support any Iranian retaliation. That raises the specter of putting a nuclear-armed Pakistan at odds with Israel, widely believed to have its own significant nuclear arsenal.

I personally think it’s unlikely Pakistan officially would join the fight on Iran’s side.  But it wouldn’t have to to weigh in on the subject.  Pakistanis already detest the U.S. for assassinating Osama bin Laden and our serial drone attacks which violate national sovereignty.  When Ayatollah Khomeini announced a fatwa against Salman Rushdie in 1989, the first nation which took up the call wasn’t Iran, but Pakistan.  It’s likely that Iran will activate its influence inside Afghanistan to make our lives miserable there should it be attacked by Israel.  With the Pakistani Taliban joining in the fight and attacking U.S. assets wherever they find them, it could make our presence in large portions of the region almost impossible to sustain.

Not to mention, while Iran doesn’t yet have a nuke, Pakistan does. While it likely would not use its nukes to defend Iran, just the fact that it has them automatically makes the calculations a lot more complex.

In the current climate, it’s hard to know what information is credible and what is based on exaggeration.  We need to weigh that in evaluating the value of the reports above.  But even if we downgrade some or all of it, in its entirety is signals an escalation in the thinking of Arab-Muslim elements in the region.  Many among them are already thinking about making Israel and the U.S. pay the price for attacking if they do.

Israeli strategic thinking on this subject remains mired in self-delusion:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak claimed during a high-profile security conference that there is a “wide global understanding” that military action may be needed.

“There is no argument about the intolerable danger a nuclear Iran (would pose) to the future of the Middle East, the security of Israel and to the economic and security stability of the entire world,” Barak said.

The opposite is the case.  There is a wide global understanding that military actions would be a very bad idea.  And there certainly is a strong argument against the idea that a nuclear Iran would pose a danger to world stability.  In fact, the only people who believe this are some of Israel’s top leaders, Islamophobes around the world, and neocons in the U.S. and Israel.  It’s interesting how Barak attempts to parlay that rather narrow body of opinion into an overwhelming world consensus.

IDF Torturer Doron Zahavi Wants to Sodomize Arabs and Get Medal for It

February 5th, 2012
doron zahavi

Doron Zahavi, pixellated (Eli Attias)

Doron Zahavi, who still can be called only “Captain George” in the Israeli media, has gone public with his grievance against the IDF, which employed him to torture kidnapped Arabs who were thought to have intelligence about affairs in Lebanon or Syria, specifically Israeli prisoners of war. Among those he worked his wonders on was Mustafa Dirani, who was thought to have specific knowledge of the whereabouts of Ron Arad. Yossi Gurvitz reports ( in Hebrew) that Zahavi ordered one of his subordinates to undress and rape Dirani. Another Zahavi subordinate, who blew the whistle on the whole military torture complex he ran, says his commander sodomized Dirani with a nightstick.

The brave torturer has the effrontery to claim that the anal lacerations Dirani suffered were due to “constipation,” for which they gave him a laxative that caused him to soil himself.  The victim says he was forced to wear a diaper constantly even when it contained excrement.  And such treatment, as Gurvitz confirms and as I’ve reported here previously is SOP for the Israeli torture apparatus.

There are those who applaud the Israeli Supreme Court for outlawing torture in a landmark ruling.  But unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, the Israeli rulings appear to be only advisory and not declarative.  The security apparatus feels emboldened to act as it wishes, court ruling or no.  That’s why IDF Gen. Yair Naveh ordered Palestinian militants murdered in cold blood though they were unarmed, in direct violation of a Supreme Court ruling.  Note, that the brave justices, when offered an opportunity to review Naveh’s brazen violation of their ruling, refused to do so, in characteristically timid fashion.

mustafa dirani

Israeli prison guard offering Mustafa Dirani a hearty 'a votre sante' on his release from prison (Life)

Gurvitz notes that, like the CIA tapes of waterboarding of Al Qaeda suspects which were erased, the Dirani interrogation tapes mysteriously disappeared.  They must’ve thought where there’s no smoke there can be no fire.  If the tapes had survived the fire might have burned not just Zahavi and his boss, but a very senior IDF commander, Amos Gilad.  That’s pretty high up the food chain.  Zahavi claims Gilad was watching the interrogations in real-time.

Despite the destruction of key evidence, the IDF didn’t bargain for a disgruntled subordinate stricken by conscience for the horrible things he did there, would spill the beans and expose the whole sordid mess publicly.  That whistleblower himself has been threatened with state prosecution for perpetrating some of the alleged crimes of which he charges Zahavi.  The Israeli motto seems to be: let no good deed go unpunished.

On the strength of this claim and the notoriety that derived from it, Zahavi’s notorious Unit 504 was disbanded (only to re-emerge in recent months in all its former glory), Dirani was freed, and the IDF officer was cashiered. Though he resurfaced as the Israeli police’s chief anti-Arab enforcer for East Jerusalem. He has the title of “liaison” to the Palestinian community. But Jouad Siam knows first hand what that means. Zahavi threatened to destroy the home of the Silwan activist and to destroy the community organization he founded if he refused to inform on his fellow Palestinians.

Dirani is now suing the Israeli government for the abuse he suffered and the Israeli Supreme Court ruled the trial may go forward. Zahavi too is suing the government because it didn’t give him a medal for the dirty work he did on its behalf. He wants a tidy sum in return for keeping his mouth shut. He even says he’d take a job in Alaska (I didn’t know there were any IDF outposts there or any torture victims for him to work on) if they’d at least treated him with the respect he deserved. This reminds me of a Martin Scorsese mafia pic in which the disaffected made-guy goes to the don and whines about being cut out of the spoils and not getting what he has coming to him. Usually the guy is offed in the next reel, though I’m not sure the IDF has gotten to the point where it gets rid of its own rotten apples in that fashion.

Lest you doubt he is a rotten apple, take a peek at this:

“If this goes to court, what I told you today is just the teaser,” he threatens, “Trust me – no one really wants me to climb up to the stand. If I have to stand there and speak of Dirani, you’ll find out I have plenty more to say about how the apparatus acts when it needs to hide all sorts of things […] and everyone is a liar, which is why the country is where it is today, no deterrence, nothing. And in the end? I’m the apparatus’ scapegoat.”

If he doesn’t get the Israel Prize for torture he’s going to sing all day on the stand and tell the world how dirty the IDF and security apparatus is.  Now, this could be the disgruntled ravings of an extortionist who’s bluffing; or this guy has the goods and he’s willing to tell the world just how vile and dirty the entire Israeli security system is.  I’d say the truth is somewhere in between.  My guess is that while he does have plenty of dirt, that he’s more interested in upping the price for his silence than telling all the dirty little secrets.  He’s too much a company man and probably too much a blowhard and coward to really tell it all.  But that’s just a guess.

Gurvitz’s closing paragraph is poignant and compelling:

The Dirani-George case, had it been treated properly, may have become the 300 Line affair of the 504 unit. This did not happen, simply because the public does not wish to know. In 2012 Israel (as in 1994 Israel, as in 1984 Israel) the idea that every person – even Dirani, even George – is a human being, which must not be deprived by reducing him to quivering piece of meat, lying in its own excrement, is still a radical one.

I would only add that the only reason the 300 Line affair was exposed was that a senior IDF commander was accused of a crime he didn’t commit and while the entire government apparatus closed ranks behind the lying scumbag of a Shin Bet chief who perpetrated the coverup, the military officer wouldn’t go quietly.  Also, there were a few brave media outlets which defied censorship and reported the scandal.  In the Zahavi case there are no IDF sacrificial lambs, nor is there a brave media ready to defy the censor and spill the beans.  But Gurvitz’s main claim is correct: the Israeli public doesn’t give a crap about the suffering of an Arab.  Let Dirani rot in hell would be the prevailing wisdom.

I noticed something very peculiar about Yossi’s post when it was republished at 972 Magazine.  The link to my own post which exposed the name of Doron Zahavi, which Yossi graciously included in his own blog post, was gone once it was republished at 972.  It’s fairly easy to figure out why.  The 972 editor who republished made a judgement that merely by linking to my post they might bring the wrath of the Israeli security services on them.

Now, to be clear, it is not illegal (yet) in Israel to link to a foreign source which exposes the identity of an Israeli security officer.  In fact, Zahavi is no longer in the IDF and so isn’t even protected by the traditional proffer of anonymity offered to military and intelligence officers in the media.  But 972 figured self-censorship was the better part of valor.  It’s what I call pre-emptive self-censorship.  Linking to my blog may not be illegal yet, but let’s err on the side of caution and not give the security goons an excuse to go after us.  I understand the dangers faced by the dissenting media inside Israel.  But still, if they don’t have courage, who will?  So I think it was essentially a cowardly act.

Yossi’s act of linking to me was brave such principled blogging is why he’s been interrogated by the police for his blog.  As for 972?  Not so much.

If anyone has a photo of the real Captain George, please let me know.  He deserves to have his name and image up in lights.

Let’s add to this an only tangentially related matter that another 972 writer, Dimi Reider took a nasty potshot at me that was riddled with inaccuracies in his own 972 column.  When I asked Noam Sheizaf for the right of reply in a 972 post he never answered.  So much for progressive solidarity and fairness.

UPDATE: Noam Sheizaf and Dimi Reider have replied to my criticisms above: Sheizaf says the link to my Doron Zahavi post was replaced when it was republished at 972 through an “innocent mistake” that will be corrected.  I made the assumptions I did above based on what I saw on the website.  In response to his question why I didn’t bother to contact him directly before speaking publicly about it, I reminded him of his lack of response to my last message.  We’re all human beings and base our judgments and responses on how others treat us.  Sheizaf apparently feels I’ve gored his and 972′s ox, but doesn’t seem to understand that others may feel their own ox has been gored as well.

There is another possible explanation for the disappearance of that link.  That is that Yossi republished the article with the link and someone else removed it.  Possibly someone motivated by pique at my strong response to Dimi Reider’s post.  If that’s the case, then the motives are even pettier than the reason I ascribed above.

Reider says one of my main criticisms of the innacuracy of his characterization of my claims about the drone strike resulted from a “typo” on his part.

Is Israel’s Iranophobia Virus Contagious?

February 4th, 2012
iran revolutionary guard

Coming soon to a synagogue or embassy near you...the IRG bogeyman (AFP/Getty)

ABC News today publishes a leaked (from whom?) memo drafted by Israeli intelligence sources warning of terror threats against Israeli government sites in this country and American Jewish communal facilities from the dreaded “Iran menace.”  If you heard this story on the TV news it would sound persuasive, until you began to examine the assumptions behind it.  It begins by declaring the alleged assassination plot against the Saudi ambassador as a given.  This passage quotes a federal official mouthing the Israeli line:

“The thwarted assassination plot of a Saudi official in Washington, D.C., a couple of months ago was an important data point,” added the official, “in that it showed at least parts of the Iranian establishment were aware of the intended event and were not concerned about inevitable collateral damage to U.S. citizens had they carried out an assassination plot on American soil.”

“That was an eye opener, showing that they did not care about any collateral damage,” the federal official said.

Note the vagueness of “parts of the Iranian establishment were aware of the…event.”  This doesn’t even place direct blame for the alleged plot on Iranian leaders themselves.  It only says they were aware of it and didn’t object.  What’s also ironic about this is that I haven’t seen any U.S. expression of concern for those Iranians murdered as “collateral damage” from Mossad and MEK terror attacks inside Iran. Perhaps when we do then we can expect Iranians to care about collateral damage to citizens in this country from acts of terror no one has even been able to prove were planned.

So from a single alleged planned act of terror, Israel and U.S. intelligence operatives have spun a narrative of ongoing threat from the Iranians.  They could strike anywhere at any time.  They’re out there, out to get us: New York City, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago.  Wherever there are Jews there is danger.  We have to be vigilant.  Because they hate us.  They all hate us.  We have to put the threat of terror in the front of our minds.  We have to become paranoid, as paranoid as the Israeli and U.S. intelligence officials are postulated this nightmare scenario:

Israeli facilities in North America — and around the world — are on high alert, according to an internal security document obtained by ABC News that predicted the threat from Iran against Jewish targets will increase.

“We predict that the threat on our sites around the world will increase … on both our guarded sites and ‘soft’ sites,” stated a letter circulated by the head of security for the Consul General for the Mid-Atlantic States. Guarded sites refers to government facilities like embassies and consulates, while ‘soft sites’ means Jewish synagogues, and schools, as well as community centers like the one hit by a terrorist bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed 85 people.

The head of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, told an audience at a closed forum in Tel Aviv recently that Iran is trying to hit Israeli targets…

Local and regional law enforcement and intelligence officials in U.S. and Canadian cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Toronto have been monitoring the situation closely for several weeks, and have stepped up patrols at Israeli government locations and Jewish cultural and religious institutions. They have issued awareness bulletins reminding officers to stay vigilant.

Federal officials in those cities told ABC News that they have also increased their efforts to watch for any threat stream pointing to an imminent attack on either Israeli facilities, Jewish cultural or religious institutions or other “soft targets.”

So because some mid-level Israeli security operative spins a tale of dread, every American Jew must start looking under his bed for hidden Iranian agents out to get him (or her). If you parse this carefully, there is absolutely no proven threat mentioned, no chatter in the terror networks, no identifiable enemy operatives. Just a load of paranoia from a bunch of spooks telling us the Iranian bogeymen are out there, somewhere, waiting, just waiting. For what?

So you want proof that there’s a threat? Here it is:

“In the past few weeks, there has been an escalation in threats against Israeli and Jewish targets around the world,” one regional document noted. “Open source has reported many demonstrations against Israel are expected to be concentrated on Israeli embassies and consulates. Such demonstrations have occurred internationally as well as domestically. These demonstrations could potentially turn violent at local synagogues, restaurants, the Israeli Embassy and other Israeli sites. … Law enforcement should be vigilant when making periodic checks at all Jewish facilities.

So get this: the “threat” is from protesters at Israeli embassies and consulates.  Why?  How?  Doesn’t say.  Are there Iranian agents who’ve infiltrated these protests?  And what protests?  I haven’t heard of any to speak of.  Are Iranians demonstrating at Israeli embassies over threats against Iran?  Hadn’t heard of that.  But the end result here is Israel is setting the stage for its own attack on Iran leading to such protests by Iranians and others who oppose violence, and these protesters will be seen as potential terrorist saboteurs out to get Israelis or any American Jew they can find.

What the hell will the Israelis do with all the American Jews who will be out there on the picket lines?  Perhaps we’ll be double agents betraying our people and nation by siding with the enemy.  It would suit the absurdist ultranationalist narrative represented by Netanyahu and the Israeli war party.  I’ve got news for them.  They can attempt to insinuate their own fears into American society and use us for their own interests in ginning up hate against Iran.  But I’m not buying it.  I’m not going to be party to the epidemic of war fever they’re trying to inject into the body politic.  I’m going to stay calm and rational.  If they want to cry wolf, let them.  The rest of us will be here to point out the hysteria and unfounded claims of Bibi’s hawkmeisters.

There’s another delightful (in a twisted sort of way) irony in the following:

…The Israeli bulletin warned that Israel’s own passports might be used by terrorists intent on carrying out a plot.

Now isn’t that cute.  Israeli caused a massive international scandal by cloning passports of its own citizens for use by the Dubai assassins who murdered Mahmoud al-Mabouh.  The Mossad violated the sovereignty of its own allies in the process.  Now they have the chutzpah to tell us that they accuse Iran of planning to do the same thing.  As if there’s no justice in that, and the whole world should be shocked, I say shocked that Iran might do to Israelis what Israel itself did to them by putting them in harm’s way.

Here’s the final coup de grâce of this charade:

…We operate according to the information that Iran and Hezbollah are working hard and with great intensity to release a ‘quality’ attack against Israeli/Jewish sites around the world.

Don’t you just love the use of that word “quality?”  It made me want to throw up.  Of course Iran may be “working hard” to attack Israel and its interests.  If enemy leaders and generals threatened your country virtually every day with violent attack, you’d plan the same thing as a response to an attack.  Aside from the purported Saudi assassination plot, Iran has shown no willingness to engage in any act of terror against Israeli or Jewish interests.  And I predict they likely will not do so until and unless Israel attacks.  But I invite Israeli intelligence officials to offer real evidence, instead of rumor-and fear-mongering.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE