Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

The NJDC just e mailed me one of their periodic alerts. This one announced that Ira Forman, the group’s executive director, had attacked a Jimmy Carter USA Today column about Ehud Olmert’s West Bank “realignment” plan. Forman himself had penned his own objections in a column in Washington Jewish Week.

I am a good Jewish Democrat who often finds myself in agreement with the work of the NJDC. But Ira Forman’s column is so wrong-headed and so ignores the facts of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I could not allow it to go uncontested.

First, Forman gets really exercised by Carter’s statement:

[Olmert's] plan, as described during the recent Israeli election and the formation of a new governing coalition, would take about half of the Palestinian West Bank and encapsulate the urban areas within a huge concrete wall and the more rural parts of Palestine within a high fence.

He counters:

[Carter] describes Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s unilateral withdrawal plan as one “which would take about half of the Palestinian West Bank and encapsulates the urban areas within a huge concrete wall … .”

Where does he get this stuff? Olmert’s government has not produced any definitive unilateral withdrawal plan. However, every report of possible plans assumes that if there continues to be no Palestinian peace partner, then Israel will withdraw its population behind the security fence — taking in about 8 percent of the West Bank.

While Israel may only be retaining 8% of Palestinian territory for its settlements–with the Maaleh Adumim project & by retaining control of the Jordan Valley the actual amount of territory that is rendered inaccessible to the Palestinians is much greater than that 8%. I don’t know whether Carter’s 50% figure is correct, but I have no doubt that it is a realistic one.

Forman continues his diatribe against Carter’s comments about the nature of the Separation Wall:

it is astonishingly disingenuous to talk about concrete wall encapsulating Palestinian urban areas. Of the seven cities that the Palestinian Authority lists as having more than 100,000 people, only in Jerusalem will concrete barriers run through the middle of urbanized land.

Even in Jerusalem, it is misleading to say that the fence “encapsulates” the urban population. He further claims that the Olmert plan “would effectively divide it [the West Bank] into three portions.” This echoes the Palestinian Authority’s rhetoric about bantustans. While the convergence plan envisions creating strips of land that reach into the West Bank in a few areas, a review of the security fence maps belies charges of chopping the area up into three separate portions.

A combination of the Separation Wall running through the middle of East Jerusalem (Abu Dis) and the Maaleh Adumim project will effectively wall off the 250,000 Palestinians living in East Jerusalem from the West Bank. The majority of Israeli analysts, journalists and politicians accept this formulation. A reading of any number of posts on this subject in this blog will take you to some of their views. Yet Forman is so blinded by his slavish adherence to Olmert’s vision that he must deny reality readily accepted by knowledgeable Israelis.

Why Forman’s miserable pilpul/casuistry over the word “encapsulate?” The exclusion barrier is a structure that imprisons the Palestinians. Let me ask Forman this: has he ever visited a Palestinian village next to the wall? He brings Dem bigwigs on Israel tours all the time. Have they ever once visited with common Palestinian folk affected by the Wall. If not, how in heaven’s name does he know what that experience is like and whether “encapsulated” is the proper word to describe it?

Unbelievably, Forman denies the internationally accepted norm of the Green Line. Like other hardline pro-Israel ideologues he must argue that the Green Line is a fiction that was never embraced by Israel or the international community. His argument has the ring of many other circular arguments which divorce themselves from reality. The Green Line IS universally accepted. It is the 1967 border. It will be the basis for any final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians (though the final border may diverge from it slightly by mutual agreement). Arguing otherwise as Forman does is a useless exercise in blowing smoke.

Second, regarding Palestinian willingness to negotiate: Abbas has continually spoken of his willingness to enter into final status negotiations with Israel. Only Olmert refuses to do so citing the demand that Hamas meet preconditions before he will negotiate with Abbas.

Now let’s talk about the Road Map. Forman reminds us:

Has President Carter totally forgotten that a central requirement of the Phase I portion of the road map is that the P.A. bring a halt to violence, terrorism and incitement?

But what he and other hardline pro-Israel folk always neglect to add is that the Road Map was a MUTUAL document that called for simultaneous actions by both sides. And while the Palestinians were supposed to stop terror Israel was supposed to stop new settlement activity. Israel has not done so and new building is happening in the West Bank as I write this. Why does Forman believe that only the Palestinians are subject to the provisions of the Road Map while Israel isn’t?

While Forman fulminates on Carter’s perfidy toward Israel, events on the ground both in Palestine and Israel will render the former’s views completely obsolescent. In the coming months, possibly in a year, Israel will be negotiating with Abbas and Hamas. In the end, Israel’s Exclusion Wall will be dismantled in whole or in part. The final border will run very close to the Green Line with only a few diversions to incorporate those settlement blocs which both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators designate as Israeli territory (in exchange for Negev territory per Clinton’s Camp David proposals). All argument to the contrary is mere hackery and a distraction from reality.

In fact, one wonders why the NJDC and Aipac’s views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are more hardline than those of the Bush Administration? Hell, they’re even more hardline than some ministers in the current Israeli government. Now, why might that be?

As a Jewish liberal Democrat, I can see that the NJDC does not represent me when it comes to Israel. I’m much more comfortable with Brit Tzedek, the Israel Policy Forum and American Friends of Peace Now. That NJDC appears to be in the pocket of Aipac irks me no end.

I value Jimmy Carter’s contribution to the Israel-Palestine discussion. NJDC should too. President Carter has done more to advance the cause of Israeli-Arab peace than most Americans. What has Ira Forman done on that score? I wonder why Aipac & NJDC both detest him so & what this says about relations between these two ostensibly independent groups?

tags 1967-borders, aipac, american-israel-public-affairs-committee, east-jerusalem, green-line, ira-forman, national-jewish-democratic-council, Olmerts-realignment-plan, palestinians, separation-barrier

Robert Rosenberg reports this interesting Israeli television interview with a former spymaster regarding what Israel’s position toward Hamas should be:

There are cracks in the Israeli establishment regarding how to deal with Hamas — former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, for example, is arguing that Israel should judge Hamas by its deeds and not its rhetoric, and notes that so far, Hamas has indeed kept a ceasefire against Israel that has lasted more than a year.

Speaking to Channel One last night, he pointed out that it is mistaken to consider Hamas and even Hizbollah as part of the al Qaida network, since they are very territorial in outlook. Indeed, Hamas explicitly rejected expressions of support from bin Ladin, while Hizbollah, he says, appears on its way to being disarmed by political forces in Lebanon, which is going through a democratization process. Not that they are not implacable enemies, but ‘in the Middle East,’ said the man who served five Israeli prime ministers in the leading intelligence role, ‘the evil can become saints and the saints can become evil.’ In other words, he explained, ‘noting is permanent.’

Haaretz also publishes an AP story which characterizes Halevy as saying:

Israel should try to negotiate a long-term truce with Hamas…

“I think that now is not the right time for a permanent status agreement since it’s not possible because of the great hatred between the sides,” Halevy said.

“But if Hamas wants … a long-term armistice, there is a meeting between the (desire of) the two sides.”

Such an understanding could be the basis for future negotiations on interim borders between the two entities, Halevy said.

Just as in 1972, when it was illegal for Israelis to speak or negotiate with the PLO, I demonstrated in Jerusalem on behalf of just such an eventuality–so I predict that in a matter of months, perhaps a year, an Israeli government will be negotiating with Hamas. It’s not a question of if, but when.

tags ephraim-halevy, israeli-policy-toward-hamas, mossad

In Britain, the two major academic professional groups have been debating Israeli boycott resolutions for the past few months. One group, the Association of University Teachers, passed a pro-boycott resolution a few months ago only to rescind it a few weeks later. This week, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, the largest faculty group voted to endorse a boycott.

I wasn’t going to write about this issue since I’m strongly ambivalent about it. But my brother and I had a spirited argument about it today. He teaches chemistry at Willamette University and usually our Mideast politics are pretty similar. That was what surprised me about his reaction. I thought he’d also be ambivalent. But he wasn’t. He was dead set against it. In fact, his first response to me was that he wasn’t surprised since he thought British academics tended to be anti-Semitic. I thought that a rather wild and unfounded charge. And so our colloquy ensued.

Given this debate, I decided that I should cover this issue. If it got Todd and me so worked up it’s probably worth discussing at greater length.

The NY Times‘ coverage said that the resolution:

called for the organization’s members “to consider their own responsibility for ensuring equity and nondiscrimination in contacts with Israeli educational institutions or individuals,” said Trevor Phillips, an association spokesman.

The text of the resolution noted “continuing Israeli apartheid policies, including construction of the exclusion wall and discriminatory educational practices,” and it urged the association’s members to “consider the appropriateness of a boycott of those that do not publicly dissociate themselves from such policies.”

The resolution’s thrust is to encourage individual academics in Britain to sever professional contact with their counterparts in Israel.

The resolution was “advisory” rather than mandatory, Mr. Phillips said in a telephone interview.

While I feel generally supportive of the Presbyterian Church’s campaign for selective divestment of company’s benefiting from the Israeli Occupation, I’m a bit more ambivalent about an educational boycott since academic freedom holds a spot near and dear to my heart (I spent ten years pursuing undergraduate and graduate studies at several universities, one of which was the Hebrew University).

Reading the portions of the resolution quoted by the Times, resolution supporters’ rhetoric smacks too much of political correctness. It also has the ring of anti-Zionism in it. I think it’s extremely difficult to tar the entire academic spectrum in Israel with a single brush. There are those who adamantly oppose the Occupation and those who favor it. I’d feel far more comfortable if resolution supporters would single out specific researchers or academic programs for sanction based on specific research or projects which have had deleterious impact on Palestinians.

For example, a sociologist, sociologist or anthropologist whose research is used to advance the goals of the Occupation deserves being boycotted. Military researchers whose inventions and technology promote IDF repression of the Palestinian populace would also be another valid target. But how can you assume that an entire nation’s academic community is guilty unless proven innocent?

I’m also a bit uncomfortable with the idea that Israeli professors must publicly proclaim their opposition to Occupation in order to be welcomed back into the British academic community. Wouldn’t it be better to single out the worst offenders within Israeli academe for opprobrium and to single out those whose research has promoted opposition to the Occupation for special praise?

All that being said, I DO feel that Israeli academic institutions have had an entirely too cozy relationship with the Israeli establishment, the government and the IDF. Israeli academics readily and willingly allow their research to be utilized to oppress the Palestinians (I’m thinking here of technical and military research). I personally would welcome Israeli faculty who would publicly voice their opposition to the Occupation if they haven’t already done so. I would welcome those who would consider how their particular research might promote the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace. Many Israelis already cooperate with Palestinian colleagues on joint research. I’d like to see this trend encouraged and expanded. There should be many opportunities for those in the humanities, social sciences and hard sciences to explore research that opposes the degradation of the Palestinian people. And conversely, there must be opportunities to pursue research that articulates values that will be needed for two warring peoples to live in peace. A literature professor might teach a comparative course on developments in Israeli and Palestinian fiction. A sociologist or anthropologist could do field work in Palestinian villages or better yet, could study say, poverty within Israeli and Palestinian societies. Agricultural scientists could devise research that will jointly and mutually benefit farmers on both sides of the divide. These are but a few ideas spun off the top of my head.

Of course, it’s probable that similar research already takes place and I applaud that. But I’m sure there are many faculty members who’ve not done as much as they could in this regard. If the threat of a boycott gives them a kick in the pants and makes them realize that there is an entirely new potential field of research just outside their doorstep, then kol hakavod.

There is one constant here that must never be forgotten and in this I agree with the British boycott forces: the Occupation is out and out evil. It is time for everyone in Israel to stand up and be counted including the academic elite. You can’t stand by and claim that academic freedom provides you cover for your indifference or outright hostility. Indifference in the face of evil perpetuates an immoral system. It’s high time for Israelis to get off the fence and be counted.

Inside Higher Ed also has an informative article on this subject.

tags Association-of-University-Teachers, british-academic-boycott-of-israel, israeli-occupation, National-Association-of-Teachers-in-Further-and-Higher-, new-york-times

Bruce Springsteen has improbably embraced anti-piracy technology by releasing his current Seeger Sessions using the DualDisc format. DualDisc provides a CD on one side and a DVD on the other. It prevents some listeners (though not all judging from the Google discussion groups I’ve been reading on this subject) from listening to the CD on a computer (you can listen to it in DVD format but again you can’t rip the DVD). Though the promotional flyer with the recording doesn’t mention this, one of the purposes of DualDisc is to prevent ripping the CD. Another feature of DualDisc is the special DVD visual/graphic features you can add that complement the audio recording.

I found this background information about DualDisc at the alt.music.mp3 discussion group:

DualDisc is a copy protected format. As such, it’s a newly developed combination of CD and DVD (each on one side of the same disc). The fact that it is not strictly a Compact Disc when interpreting the standard gives them a convenient excuse for adding the copy protection as well while avoiding the negative attention it might have drawn:

1. There’s a warning saying that not all audio players will play CD side
- They say it’s because the combo disc is thicker than a CD
- In fact it’s because CD side contains copy control technology

2. The DualDisc CD side can only contain 60 minutes of audio
- They say it’s because of limitations in manufacturing process
- In fact ~200MB is needed for the copy control technology

Of course, the consumer is free to decide if the price of having to use the copy control technology outweighs the fact that the DVD side can contain truly nice and high quality extras.

Essentially, Bruce is bribing you with the bonus of a 30-minute DVD of rehearsals for making of the record and hoping you won’t notice the draconian technology he’s added which renders it inoperable to some of those who wish to rip it. I’m sorry to say I just bought this CD at Costco. But I’d recommend that others who wish to listen to it on their PCs or Macs should verify before purchasing that they’ll be able to do so.

I should add that there are ways to rip the DVD but they require some pretty specific technical skills. There is one method mentioned in the post I’ve linked to here.

tags anti-piracy-technology, bruce-springsteen, cd, dualdisc, dvd, seeger-sessions

I’m delighted to report that Washington State Republicans are working assiduously to ensure their continuing irrelevance to the citizens of this great state. Coming oh so close to taking the last governor’s race must’ve scared them into realizing how close they came to relevance. This most recent move came during the State Republican convention at which delegates voted for a resolution declaring that children of immigrants born in this country should not be entitled to citizenship. It’s quite a remarkable statement by our open-hearted Republicans. First, it violates the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution. Second, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the state of Washington since the state has no say in determining who becomes a U.S. citizen. Let’s hear it for gratuitousness.

And this quotation from the State party chair confirms that party leaders have taken leave of their senses:

…State Republican Party Chairwoman Diane Tebelius said she believes the party’s position reflects how Washington voters feel.

If you read the fine print here you’ll notice she didn’t say HOW MANY Washington voters feel this way. Aside from the delegates who voted for this dumb resolution, if there are more than 10,000 in the rest of the state who agree I’d be surprised. So OK, maybe I’m being generous in thinking that there are only 10,000 Know Nothing nativists in our state. Maybe there are 100,000. If even 10% or 20% of the state feels this way I’d be shocked.

In fact, a recent poll shows Washington State voters favor by a large majority allowing long-term immigrants to become citizens:

A recent poll by Seattle pollster Stuart Elway found that most Washington voters felt that illegal immigrants should be allowed to become citizens.

About 67 percent of Washington voters said immigrants who have lived here a number of years should be allowed to apply for legal status and eventually become citizens if they meet conditions such as paying a fine and back taxes.

If they favor this position they certainly would favor allowing children of said immigrants to become citizens. So much for Tebelius’ ability to ‘take the pulse’ of the Washington voter.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not the person to tell State Republicans how stupid they’re being. Let ‘em figure it out for themselves. But if they continue along this path they may eventually win a governor’s race somewhere along about the year 2100 or so.

And here’s some more sterling reasoning from a State party delegate supporting the proposal:

Delegates arguing in favor of the move complained about the cost to hospitals where illegal immigrants have their children. “Once they have babies, they can get on welfare and all sorts of stuff,” said one delegate supporting the proposal.

As a Democrat, when I read stories like this one in the papers I get all warm and fuzzy inside. While they’re at it, I’d suggest that the Republicans also try bringing the Minutemen to Washington. It’ll go over really big too.

tags immigration, know-nothings, nativism, u.s.-citizenship, washington-state-republicans

Tonight KBCS broadcast Peter Graff's The Old Country, one of the station's finest world music programs. Peter asked Richard Isaac to spin his Israeli disks for the hour and he brought in some extraordinary music. I pride myself on knowing something about contemporary Israeli music, but Richard's collection is quite superior to mine. Isaac devoted an entire section of his show to Israeli peace music. There isn't as much of it as we'd all like to see, but it exists and what there is of it is quite vital. I've written before here about David Broza's astonishing B'Libi. Isaac introduced me to yet another ...

As I read the NY Times headline, Gonzales Said He Would Quit in Raid Dispute, I heard the virtual sound of hundreds of thousands of liberal bloggers laughing. You've got to be kidding, I said to myself. These suckers think a threat like this will make anyone back down? Who the hell cares whether they stay or leave? What, they think they're doing their jobs so well that George Bush and House members should bow down and salute them? I hope Bush and Congress call these suckers bluff. Let 'em go. Who needs 'em? What has Gonzales done for this country except draw it deeper into the morass of governmental criminality and unconstitutional ...

Some major developments on the Palestinian side of the Mideast conflict. Mahmoud Abbas, in a move that has managed to shock both Hamas, Israel and the U.S., called on Hamas to accept the Hadarim peace proposal formulated largely by Marwan Barghouti and his fellow prisoners in Israeli jails (including many Hamas prisoners). The Hadarim proposal in turn is closely modeled on the 2002 Saudi/Arab League peace initiative which Israel never seriously entertained at the time. It calls for Israel to return to 1967 borders in return for full recognition of it by all Arab states. It also calls for a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and for a "just solution to the Palestinian ...

If you're sick and tired of a dithering U.S. Mideast policy; if you're sick of ceding American Jewry's voice on the Israel-Palestine conflict to groups like Aipac; if you want to see bold initiatives for peace--consider joining Brit Tzedek's National Advocacy Days in Washington, DC on June 18-20th. You will be educated by talks from former Clinton Administration officials involved in the Camp David negotiations, Congressmembers and their senior staff, and fellow progressive Jewish DC organization staff. You will be addressed by Rep. Betty McCollum, who faced down Aipac after she was recently was accused of "supporting terrorism" for her vote opposing the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. Finally, you will spend an entire day ...

The brave Congressional 'nays' on HR 4681 I've written quite a lot here about my differences with Aipac. One of my bones of contention with them is that they play for keeps and they play dirty. It's hard-ball all the way and if you're not sufficiently pro-Israel--watch out. Now The Forward provides us with a perfect example of Aipac's worst 'take no prisoners' style. Many of you know that the House recently passed the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act (HR 4681), a horrible wrap on the knuckles to both the Bush Administration and Hamas to guarantee that the former never backslides on its opposition to negotiating with the ...