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

Archive for June, 2009

Fired by Yad Vashem for Comparing Nakba to Holocaust, Guide Provides Alternative Israeli Tours

Wednesday, June 10th, 2009

Last April, I covered the shocking story (How is Our Holocaust Different from All Other Holocausts) of the Israeli docent fired by Yad Vashem for telling a group of visiting settler school children that the Nakba is similar to the Holocaust.  That didn’t go over well either with the audience or the administrators of the museum, who disingenuously claimed that the Museum does not mix history with politics.  The docent was unceremoniously canned.

A few days ago a friend of Itamar Shapira, the fired docent, published a comment here and I suggested that he contact me so I can offer his guiding services to any of my readers who might be on their way to Israel or the Occupied Territories.

Here is what Itamar wrote to me about his approach:

I…heard that you…published my story of being sacked [from] my job as a guide [at the] Yad Vashem museum and appreciate your will to promote these critical thoughts of our way of remembering the Holocaust.

As a guide in Yad VaShem I was of course mostly guiding about the Shoa itself, but I saw it as a must to make my audience think in a critical way about the whole process…; and look for activism [and] thoughts within ourselves concerning the world we live in now-a-days. I believe that the commemoration of the Holocaust should be [expanded] to activism against racism, war, national-self-pity, discrimination and so on. In order to do so, I think we can use the memory of the Holocaust to help us understand the Palestinian trauma, our connection to it as Israelis, and [to] create a way of reconciliation between the peoples.

Today I guide privately in Yad Vahem, and give tours as a tour guide in Israel in general, and in Jerusalem particularly; Jewish settlements, “the separation wall” east-Jerusalem and normal tourism as well.

I recommend Itamar’s services and he can be reached via e mail or phone 054-8087440.

Iran: Triumph of the Moderate Voice

Tuesday, June 9th, 2009

The N.Y. Times reports that Iran’s leading moderate presidential candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, leads the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmedinejad by 54-39%. This news has got to make Bibi Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence deeply unhappy. As Daniel Pipes recently revealed, he prefers an Ahmadinejad victory. The pro-war camp consisting of neocon Jews, the Israel lobby, and Israel’s Likud rightist bloc needs the most extreme leadership possible. It is far easier to demonize a Holocaust denier than a president who might actually engage in serious negotiations with the Obama administration over Iran’s nuclear program and normalizing U.S.-Iran relations.

What could happen if Moussavi wins? First, Israel’s rush to war will be stymied if not brought to an absolute standstill. The U.S. government will want to give the new Iranian administration time to articulate a new position regarding Obama’s outreach efforts in his Cairo speech and elsewhere. The best laid plans of Israel’s intelligence apparatus will be waylaid.

That is why the Israeli foreign ministry announced a new campaign to discredit the presidential elections saying that Iran is not “a western democracy” (!). Mock hangings and other gruesomeness are planned by hardcore pro-Israel forces outside Iranian embassies and consulates. All to prove that Iran is a backward, brutal regime unworthy of being included within the family of nations.  There is talk that Israel is also desperately trying to persuade women’s and gay rights groups that they should join a “human rights” coalition to demonize Iran.

Of course, this will not work, as much of Israel’s machinations do not. Iran’s democracy is certainly far from perfect. But compared to Saudi Arabia or Egypt, a few of our closer Middle East allies, Iran is a democratic paradise.  Moussavi will be no friend to Israel or perhaps even the U.S., but he is not Ahmadinejad and that’s a vast improvement.  The moderate candidate could even surprise many by being the pragmatic president that this moment in time calls for.

Yesterday’s victory of the Lebanese March 14th anti-Syria coalition may also bode well for the Obama administration. If the U.S. can warm ties with Syria, and persuade Israel to resume negotiations with it, then it might be easier to include Lebanon in an eventual peace deal. It would be a mistake to exclude Hezbollah from a possible peace process.  But its defeat in this election diminished (hopefully) its ability to act as a spoiler, especially if its patron, Syria, gets on board.

Bibi Netanyahu’s jumped the shark.  Barack stole a march on him in his Cairo speech allowing political momentum to flow the U.S. president’s way.  Now Bibi’s trying to gain some equilibrium by announcing his own “major address” to the Israeli public which will supposedly lay out his “plan” to address the settlement freeze and other demands from U.S. negotiators.  Anyone who has a realistic (that is, cynical) perspective on Israeli politics knows what’s coming.  More meaningless platitudes, empty words, hollow phrases, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.  Bibi’s trying to create some space for himself politically.  But there simply is none for his bankrupt perspective.  But why don’t we give him a chance to make a bollocks of it and see what happens?

More Jewish Monsters Among Us

Tuesday, June 9th, 2009

Feeling The Hate In Jerusalem — The Censored Video from Max Blumenthal on Vimeo.


Max Blumenthal’s recent street video, Feeling the Hate in Jerusalem, has generated lots of heat from center-right pundits like Ron Kampeas of JTA and Jeffrey Goldberg. I think it’s safe to say they consider it cheap-shot, ambush journalism slightly higher in ambition than TMZ’s stakeout and harassment of Hollywood celebrities in order to catch them in embarrassing moments.

There is perhaps an element of truth in this. Blumenthal and Joseph Dana, with whom he produced the video, picked young, drunk, hate-filled American Jews who were ripe for satirizing, ready for a fall. I think Blumenthal knew what he was getting and was just as happy to allow these Jewish boors to implicate themselves in their own sleaziness. It would perhaps have been more enlightening to invite these same individuals to talk to when they weren’t inebriated and could sustain more than a few words without an expletive. But I have little doubt that the sentiments wouldn’t have been almost the same, though perhaps cleaned up a bit.

This video, however, is what it is and there is nothing wrong–contrary to Kampeas’ and Goldberg’s contentions–with it. Claiming that interviewing geshikert Jews is somehow unfair to them is bogus. These kids hold virtually the same views stoned or sober. To argue differently is to be divorced from reality. Anyone who reads this blog knows that such racism and hate lurks not just under the surface, but right out in the open within Israel and in certain pockets of right-wing pro-Israel American Jewry. Read the vile genocidal words of Chabad Rabbi Manis Friedman published in Moment Magazine. Read the warning of a Yeshiva University dean that Ehud Olmert should be hung if he gives up an inch of Jerusalem in a future negotiation. Read racist IDF t-shirts boasting of raping Ismail Haniye and shooting young Gaza children. Remember the hooligan pogroms by extremist Jewish settlers in Hebron in which a Palestinian family was almost burned to death in their home.

This is not a bad dream. This is not something that can be dismissed with a wave of the hand. This is not a few bad apples. This is a seam that runs right through the bedrock that is modern Israel and American Jewry. The challenge I have to the Kampeases and Goldbergs of the Jewish world is: what are you going to do about this? Are you doing to dismiss it as testosterone-infused teen-aged horseplay; or are you going to engage in combat with this infected stream of nationalist Zionist thought?

Huffington Post has already given Blumenthal its answer. After he uploaded the video to its site, the editors took it down claiming it had no news value. Similarly, HuffPost refused to publish the post I wrote for them about the IDF racist T-shirt episode. It seems that for some liberal political websites posting material that is too embarrassing for Israel is treif, even if it is Israelis or Jews themselves who are doing the embarrassing.

Here are a few of the more articulate passages of the video worth considering:

Interviewee: I think it’s really fucked up that he’s going to all the Arab states and not coming to Israel. Oh, he’s a Muslim for sure. And who even knows if he was born in the United States. We haven’t seen his birth certificate yet. Bullshit. He’s not from the U.S. He’s like a terrorist. What is he doing for this country so far? Nothing. And I’m a political science major so I know my shit.

Interviewer: Do you know who Benjamin Netanyahu is?

Interviewee: No. Is he the Israel prime minister or something? I don’t know who he is. Who’s Benjamin Yahoo?

Interviewee 2: You’re all about talking to the Arabs, going to Cairo, making a speech to the Muslim world, trying to get them to love you. What about the Jews, man? What are we, chopped liver? You don’t care about us? Are we nothing to you? Do we matter? Do you care if we get driven into the sea? Do you care if we get nuked? Are we even on your–do you even care about us?

My grandmother was in Auschwitz, Obama. We’re not gonna take any Nazi bullshit. Listen man, my grandma’s number was 1268493. I remember her number on her arm, dude. And listen, Never Again will we deal with this. Never again. Bring it on, motherfuckers.

Jim Crow, Israel-Style

Monday, June 8th, 2009

The “only democracy in the Middle East”™ is looking a little peaked these days as racism rears its ugly head in Rishon LeZion, which has a sizable population of Ethiopian Jews.  There are ten local ganim that enroll young children ages 4-6, the problem being that the “white” Jews want nothing to do with classes that contain Ethiopian children.  So reports Maariv:

Because of the refusal of native Israeli parents to enroll their children in schools containing Ethiopians, there are three schools containing only Ethiopian children and in the remaining seven are only children of “Israeli” parents.

A municipal official notes that the native Israeli parents engage in various forms of subterfuge to “work” the system: they submit false addresses and enroll in religious, or even special education schools “just so they will not study with Ethiopians.”

What is tragic about this situation is that the community as a whole suffers from long years of neglect and abject poverty.  All the families suffer from this, not just the Ethiopians.  So it’s hard to see just what the natives are protecting themselves from, since they are in as bad a situation as those they seek to avoid.

The town’s mayor says:

To my regret the Israeli public is not mature enough to accept the other.  People adopt stereotypes which cause Ethiopian children to be ostracized from society.

A senior town official calls this a “pedagogical disaster” because it means the Ethiopian children will have no experience of a “sabra” culture until they reach first grade.  Their identity till then will be precisely the same as their parents.  They reach elementary school speaking Hebrew poorly if at all and are ill-suited to learn to read or write either.

The municipality intends to break this cycle next year by encouraging Ethiopian parents to register their children at pre-schools outside their neighborhood to circumvent the segregation issue.

H/t to Sol Salbe.

Yediot Achronot Fires Columnist B. Michael

Monday, June 8th, 2009

Yediot Achronot, Israel’s largest circulation daily newspaper, fired this week one of the nation’s most popular progressive columnists, B. Michael (Michael Berizon).  The writer is known for his satiric attacks on Israeli politicians and the Occupation.  Considering his left-wing politics, it is interesting that he is also a religious Jew.

After writing for Yediot for 15 years, an editor told Michael that it would like to retain him, but only if he took a 50% pay cut.  He refused.  The two sides could never come to terms.  His last column originally contained the following farewell to his readers, but editors cut it from the final published column:

Epilogue:

This is my last article in this newspaper.  I have been fired. Good-bye.

The Israeli blog, 7th Eye, notes that while economic reasons were given for his dismissal, many believe his political views contributed as well.  The blog quotes a knowledgeable source who says:

My sense is that he wasn’t compatible with someone there or that he pissed someone off.  There were those who warned him that he was playing with fire.  But he replied that this was part of the job.

To give you a taste of the journalist’s work, here is a passage from a column he wrote during the Gaza war denouncing it passionately:

There it is again, the cyclical “déjà vu war.” That same ceremonial bloodshed that again is being poured into the hot lava that has been leading the entire region to misery for dozens of years now.

To be honest, one is fatigued by the need to divide the seventh day of the Six-Day War into “operations,” “wars,” “battles,” “operations,” and “campaigns.” All of them constitute one ongoing war; one great butcher shop. The war of occupier against occupied, and the war of the occupied against the occupier.

And again we hear all the great words about courage, surprise, sophistication, and success. Yet the nature of the “surprise” we delivered against Hamas isn’t quite clear. I mean, did the group fail to deploy its airplanes? Did it fail to advance its armored corps…? Did it fail to deploy its Patriot missile batteries?

Moreover, and there is no need to deny this, there is not too much glory and valor involved in flying over a giant prison and firing at its people using helicopters and fighter jets. So far we have seen sophistication and success mostly in the excited commentary of dozens of generals (res.) who again enjoy the limelight. As always.

The loss of a writer of such humanity and such acute judgment from Israel’s largest daily is a deep one.  I hope that he ends up with a assignment that will give him similar scope for his writing talents.  Readers wishing to protest Yediot’s decision may write to Erella Retzine.

Obama’s Cairo Speech: One for the Ages

Thursday, June 4th, 2009

Barack Obama’s Cairo speech was one for the ages.  Some of you will doubt me and that’s fine.  But I’ll explain why I say this below.

I was listening to Warren Olney’s To the Point this morning which featured Fawas Gerges’ eloquent and wise evaluation of Barack Obama’s Cairo speech.  In short, Gerges was wowed by it.  Here are just two of the points he noted as  significant.  First, there was not a single reference to the word “terror” or the phrase “war on terror.”  Second, Obama was the first president to use the word “Palestine” in a speech.

Now, there may be some out there who are not believers when it comes to Obama.  They may say that this is all words and only deeds matter.  And they would be right.  But in all my decades of life I’ve come to understand that words lead to deeds.  Words come first.  Without them there can be no action.  So the fact that the president has done a 180 degree u-turn from Bush national security rhetoric and the fact that Obama acknowledged the name of a future Palestinian state is very significant.  It’s so significant that there are some very nervous Israeli politicians in Jerusalem right about now.  It’s so significant that there is a settler extremist group which began a publicity campaign calling Obama anti-Semitic and picturing him in a Nazi uniform.

This simple phrase is almost revolutionary in terms of the awareness of most Americans and Muslims:

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America.

After all the demonization during the election campaign of Obama’s Islamic family background and charges that he is a Muslim, he still comes right back with the notion that Islam is an intrinsic part of the American fabric.  It is as if to say: the fearmongers and racists can say what they will, but as president I will reflect an America that is inclusive, tolerant and just.  Imagine that!

In the following passage, Obama wisely addresses decades of empty rhetoric and missed opportunities in America’s Mideast policy.  And he does so in a way that affirms that he will break with the past.  Yes, even this is just words.  But these are words from a president who aims not to be like all the rest who failed in so many attempts:

…Recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

One of the wonderful things about this speech is that it encompassed so many problems, so many conflicts, so much human history.  Yet it did so without becoming platitudinous.  Many of Obama’s words, which weren’t specifically about the Israeli-Arab conflict, nevertheless were evoked by them.  It is as if the speaker was addressing an audience at Cairo University while also looking over their heads at an Israeli audience on the distant horizon.

Here the 42 year-old Israeli Occupation and even Biblical history comes to mind:

…Human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership…

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely.

Here again Obama could have been talking about the decades of winking and nodding American administrations did with regard to Israeli behavior that was deleterious to a healthy peace process:

…Change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors.

The president did, of course, directly address the I-P conflict.  He did so in words from an American leader that have never been as eloquent or empathic regarding Palestinian suffering (while of course not losing sight of Jewish suffering):

…It is…undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

And I have rarely heard an American president, in words addressed to violent Palestinian factions, speak more persuasively about the dead-end that is political terrorism:

…Violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Obama even had a constructive word for Hamas, which is routinely demonized by Israeli leaders:

Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Despite the fact that he made a glancing comment about Hamas, it is significant because I don’t believe that any U.S. president has ever before conceded that Hamas has a following among Palestinians.  Yes, this is a fact widely understood by all Palestinians and others around the world.  But we must start where American policy IS.  And it is not in a place that has ever been able to acknowledge Hamas as a legitimate player in the political process.  Obama’s comment shows that, as in George Harrison’s song,  “the ice is slowly melting.”

Similarly, no president has ever acknowledged as fully as this the suffering caused by the Gaza siege:

…Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Fawas Gerges notes that even Hamas has responded affirmatively to the speech calling it an opportunity to turn the page on relations between the U.S. and the Palestinians.

Turning to U.S. policy toward Iraq, Obama made this extraordinarily bold statement sure to unhinge Dick Cheney and the neocons:

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world…

9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals.

Words like these will begin a war between the current administration and the neocons.  They will not take kindly to having their “legacy” tarnished by such (necessary) historical revisionism.  If we thought the Republicans were obsessed with destroying Bill Clinton, I fear we ain’t seen nothin’ yet to compare with their animus toward the current president.

Speaking on Iran, I can’t recall any previous president acknowledging that the CIA overthrew Iran’s democratic government in 1953.  Yet Obama does so clearly here:

In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government.

If there are any moderates in Iran who hold any sway in making its policy toward the U.S. they ought to read this passage very carefully.  If they refuse to meet Obama halfway they may never find another president as willing and able to go the other half way and meet somewhere in the middle.

In addressing the issue of democracy, Obama came down clearly against Arab autocrats like his host, Hosni Mubarak, who has held power for 27 years.  It is quite remarkable that without naming him, the president spoke out so vociferouly on behalf of values that would make Mubarak and other Arab leaders cringe.  Equally astonishing is that sitting in the front row of the Egyptian audience were Mubarak’s son and future leader, Ayman Nour (Egypt’s most prominent and assaulted dissident), and the wife of exiled dissident, Saed Ibrahim.  At what other time, could three such individuals sit together and listen to such words of political wisdom?

And Obama did so without any of the condescension or noblesse oblige that Bush mustered when he spoke on the same subject.  In fact, in his speech he made a sharp contrast from the Bush legacy by affirming that the U.S. has principles and that it aspires to other nations sharing them, but that it will never impose those principles on another nation.  This is a radical, and welcome shift from the past eight years.

Obama turned his closing remarks back to religion and the commonality it conveys to humanity.  While the entire speech is elegant and concise, this passage particularly rings out with poetry:

There is…one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn’t new; that isn’t black or white or brown; that isn’t Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It’s a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It’s a faith in other people, and it’s what brought me here today.

The Rabbi Who Lied Through His Teeth

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

UPDATE: A reader points out to me that it may be possible that the Star Tribune didn’t actually interview Friedman for its story, but rather construed from his statement of clarification that he was claiming Moment’s editors asked him a different question than the one published in the original article.  If the newspaper did misconstrue Friedman, then it would mean Friedman was not lying, but rather he was someone who foolishly and inexplicably decided to answer a question he wasn’t asked.  I suppose on the scale of things it’s marginally better to be a fool than a liar.

Thou shalt not bear false witness.
–Exodus 20:16

I always thought that rabbis should be moral exemplars for their congregants and fellow Jews.  But it’s possible that Chabad rabbis receive different training on this subject.  Rabbi Manis Friedman and his Chabad colleagues are backpedaling as fast as their feet can carry them from his odious statement in Moment Magazine which advocates Arab genocide.

I posted yesterday about a “clarification” issued yesterday by the infinitely empathetic JTA in which Friedman said he’d been misunderstood and really intended his statement as a response to how Israel should treat Arabs during a time of war (as if genocide during a time of war was somehow more acceptable than during a time of peace).

But Hussam Ayloush points me to a new story in the Minneapolis Star Tribune in which Friedman makes a statement which I’m virtually certain is a flat out lie.  And if it isn’t he should easily be able to prove it:

The headline over the [Moment] statements says: “How should Jews treat their Arab neighbors?” Friedman insisted that the question presented to him was: “How should we act, in a time of war, when our neighbors attack us, using their women, children and religious holy places as shields?

So to any Friedman supporters out there reading this, I’d ask in all honesty can you believe him?  And if you do, will you write to him and ask him to produce the original statement that was submitted to him by the editors.  I’d be more than willing to withdraw my claim of mendacity if Friedman can produce evidence to support his claim.  Until then, he’s a bald-faced liar and a moral exemplar of everything that Chabad is, and that rabbis shouldn’t be.

One of the good rabbi’s apologists publishes in a comment here his full, meretricious statement about this incident.  It only serves to prove further that he’s being entirely insincere.  You’ll notice that he now says he believes that a “neighbor of the Jewish people” (for all you keeping score at home, that’s a Palestinian, but Friedman simply cannot utter the name) is created in the image of God and should be treated with respect.  What’s curious about this is that he could’ve written that for Moment and didn’t.  Instead he spewed the hateful bile he did.  Why should anyone accept his clarification now as sincere given that it comes only after he’s been seared by criticism?

Since When is Demanding a Settlement Freeze ‘Hardline?’

Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009

JTA has been publishing press releases from the Israel lobby for so long it simply has no clue how to cover the Obama administration’s new approach to Israel.  When you read the following passage from Eric Fingerhut, note that despite the fact that Israel’s settlement policy violates international law and U.S. policy, not to mention the views of most American Jews, it is Obama’s policy that is “hardline:”

Even as it publicly stakes out a hard-line position against Israeli settlement expansion, the Obama administration is avoiding serious criticism from most U.S. Jewish groups and pro-Israel Democratic lawmakers.

The rest of his article is actually quite interesting, as it notes that many of the typical Israel lobby groups are like a deer caught in the headlights when it comes to responding to the bulldozer that is the Obama administration when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  These are some tough, mean sonsobitches and if they’re at a loss (momentarily no doubt) it’s a damn good thing for the good guys.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE