Tariq Ramadan's campaign to undo yet another travesty of the Bush era (Graham Morrison/NYT)
The ACLU and Tariq Ramadan won a major legal victory in their campaign to allow Ramadan entry to the U.S., where he had been appointed a tenured professor at Notre Dame University. The Bush administration argued successfully that it was entitled to bar Ramadan because he had given a donation to a Muslim charity which funneled some of the funds to Hamas. The government’s argument was that Hamas was a designated terror organization and Ramadan’s support marked him as a supporter of terror. The Muslim spiritual leader argued that Hamas was not yet an official terror group when he made his donation and he had no idea that his gift would be transferred from the charity to Hamas.
The federal court ruled that Ramadan had the right to an opportunity to explain the circumstances of his gift in an attempt to satisfy the government’s concerns. It sent the case back to the lower court for rehearing on this issue.
The ACLU is hoping the Obama administration will reopen the entire case and find a way to permit Ramadan entry to the U.S. In addition, scores of other foreign academics have been excluded for ideological reasons. In one case I wrote about here an Anglo-Indian musicologist was denied entry for no discernible reason, since she had no political or ideological affiliations.
Though this ruling does not fully resolve the issue, it at least provides a way to undo the harm of the Bush era Islamophobic/xenophobic approach to intellectual exchange.
Ramadan told the N.Y. Times about the work he hopes to do here in the U.S. when he is allowed entry:
Professor Ramadan, who in the past had frequently visited the United States, lecturing and attending conferences, said he was eager to “engage once again with Americans in the kinds of face-to-face exchanges” which were “crucial to bridging cultural divides.”
“I hope to be able to come back to the States and resume my work with scholars,” he said later by phone. “This is what I want.”
I would urge you to e mail Attorney General Eric Holder and tell him you don’t find Tariq Ramadan a danger to this country and that you welcome hearing what he has to say here.
An article in a Silicon Valley newspaper misleadingly heralds an agreement between Steve Jobs and the town of Woodside that supposedly guarantees the preservation of Jackling House, a historic California home he owns in that town. It was originally built for copper baron Daniel Jackling, who, like Jobs, made a fortune in a new technology of his day, providing the copper for electric wiring. Jackling commissioned George Washington Smith, who later created the Spanish Revival look of Santa Barbara, to build his dream palace.
For several years, Gordon Smythe, a technology entrepreneur, has offered to preserve Jackling House and Jobs has refused because he preferred tearing it down in order to build Mr. Blandings dream house on the six acre property.
After a historic preservation group, Uphold Our Heritage, organized to block Jobs’ plans and won a victory in State Superior Court, Jobs attempted to appeal to the State Supreme Court. But he also allowed his lawyer to reopen talks with Smythe. It appears that they’ve come to an agreement and that was what the town council approved.
What does this agreement actually do? Does it preserve Jackling House? Not really. Uphold Our Heritage has engaged experts who’ve told them relocation of the House would cost approximately $4-million excluding the purchase of a new piece of property. Jobs has always refused to pony up this money. And in this agreement he offers $600,000 for Smythe to take it off his hands. The problem is that Smythe does not yet have a property to which to move the House, nor does he have the funds for the actual relocation.
In the interim, he plans to store the House in pieces. When and if he does restore it in a new location, he’s specified that he will only rebuild the original portion of the House built in 1925, but will not restore a 1931 addition.
So we really have a half-assed resolution of the issue. This is why Uphold Our Heritage will go before Judge Weiner in August to present its position on the agreement. The group hasn’t yet determined what that position will be, but if it does oppose the deal and the judge finds in UOH’s favor, then it’ll be back to the drawing board. And it will mean the continuation of Jobs’ painful neglect of the home which has turned it into a boarded-up relic.
Typically, Jobs’ attorney has placed blame on the preservation group if it derails any agreement with Smythe, claiming that it stands in the way of restoration of the House. When it comes to people like Steve Jobs, it’s always the other guy’s fault. Never his own. Given his billions, shelling out $4 million to save this House is a pittance. But he just won’t do it on principle.
Given Jobs’ history of high-handed, opaque behavior as a corporate CEO in which he attempted to conceal backdated stock options and refused to tell his shareholders that he’d undergone a liver transplant (until he had no choice), it’s not surprising that he’s willing to see a beautiful example of California historic architecture go to ruin in a fit of personal pique.
New Haven's firefighters bear witness to their white maleness (Brian Smialowski/NYT)
If ever a picture told a story of 1,000 words it’s this one. The reporters are dutifully working behind the firefighters to parse the meaning of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, when they story is right there in front of them in all its starched white male glory.
The Latina federal judge finds in New Haven’s favor when the city is troubled that not a single African-American passed the promotion exam. Only white males passed and were eligible to be promoted. Imagine the chutzpah of Sotomayor being troubled by that outcome. Troubled by the fact that no African-American would be promoted in the city’s fire department. Troubled by the fact that the fire department officer corps would trend white while the city was largely minority.
And these white males dressed in their starched, pressed uniforms want the world to know that Sonia Sotomayor had the temerity to stand in their white male way. Imagine. Let the world pay attention to the injustice of it all, they seem to be saying.
Well, bollocks to that, I say. White males don’t own this country and they shouldn’t own the officer corps of New Haven’s fire department. I don’t think their interests will be significantly harmed if one or two African Americans are promoted each year.
Who brought these guys to the hearing? White male Republican senators of course. This is the way the Republican party is going to win back control of Congress. By parading a bunch of white guys for whom the world should feel sorry. Gimme a break. Nice try fellas. But you’re only fooling yourselves if you think this is a strategy for recovery.
Today, I’ll review the two more of 30 testimonies in the Breaking the Silence report released earlier this week. The report details egregious violations of the law of war and even IDF regulations by soldiers during the January Gaza war.
Testimony 2 begins with the informant acknowledging that he had no idea what the strategic purpose of his actions in Gaza were. He links this to the ignorance that the Israeli populace as a whole had regarding the goals of the war. And for the first time, a soldier confirms what M.J. Rosenberg claimed to me at the time–that the IDF intended to fully occupy Gaza but later changed its mind:
What was the purpose?
We were not told. I don’t know what the objective of the war was. Different things were said, aimed more at what needs to be done concretely – they were said in retrospect, that’s how I feel.
Were you not told what the objective was, at your briefing?
No way, what do you mean? The same way the broader Israeli public was not informed.
…[Our tactical goal was] A separation of Gaza City from the refugee camps and the prevention of weapons, ammunition and reinforcements from reaching Gaza City, which – at the time – I think the army planned to occupy. In fact this did not take place.
Please watch the above video interview with an Israeli armored corps veteran speaking about how the normal IDF rules of engagement were completely suspended during this war. Essentially, every Gazan was the enemy. No civilian was innocent. This is how 1,400 Gazans died. This is how an elderly man is murdered by a sniper bullet even though his entire unit knows both before and after that an innocent man has been killled. Because there was no restraint. No bounds. Fire early. Fire late. Fire at shadows. Fire at anything that moves. Civilian, fighter–they’re all the same.
What is this if not a war crime?
In the following passage, the soldier decribes the wanton destruction of Palestinian homes not for strategic or military purpose, but merely to teach the supposed Hamas supporters a lesson. A second reason was to lay the groundwork for a future Gaza war (“the day after”):
[In] The neighborhood – first of all we saw lots of destroyed houses. This does not mean there were no houses still standing. There were, but next to them were ruins, and with time more and more ruins, and even the houses still standing, most of them kept getting shelled here and there. The explanation we got was that when the regular soldiers went in, they knew which houses were belonged to Hamas activists and which did not. A Hamas activist’s house usually got shelled once or twice just to make sure…
..The idea of demolishing houses or razing the neighborhood is twofold: on the one hand there’s the
operational necessity, that’s what we heard all the time. I recall having constantly heard this over our radio. The idea that we are not to jeopardize Israeli soldiers by entering a house where we don’t know what’s in it…
The other…part of the concept of razing was what the Israeli army calls ‘the day after’ consideration. Obviously this campaign would end at some point, clearly there was no intention to come back and take over the Gaza Strip, it was obvious we’d leave eventually. The question was in what condition we’d leave the area, whether more exposed, a state that would afford us better firing and observation conditions, and far greater control. This was the principle behind all that razing, namely razing for our benefit.
What was the exact wording at the preliminary briefing?
“The day after.” Razing was done with the day after our leaving in mind, that we would want this ability, outright, this field of vision and range of fire.
What is important about this passage is the concession from the IDF that it does not believe peace is possible with Hamas and that it is preparing for the war next time. And the IDF’s convenience is far more important to the Israeli army than the personal property of a few thousand Gaza civilians. So if an orchard or neighborhood stands in the way that might provide cover for a potential Gaza militant in some future battle, then away with it–it’s gone. It’s as simple as that.
If you were an Israeli and your side was the weaker and a Palestinian army did this to an entire neighborhood in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, what emotion do you think would be coursing through your veins and brain??
Testimony 3 recounts the murder of a Palestinian civilian hiding with his family in his home. Under Israeli rules of engagement firing into a civilian residence without knowing whether there were civilians inside was perfectly acceptable. It wouldn’t be in most other armies in the world (perhaps with the exception of the Russian army in Chechnya or the Sri Lankan army fighting among Tamil civilians). But once again, Israel has the most moral army in the world:
We entered a yard and out of sheer fear the family was waiting in an exposed spot – a father, grandfather, young mother and babies. As we were coming in, the commander was firing a volley, and mistakenly killed an innocent.
What exactly happened?
We got to the house. It was surrounded by a yard, a fence. After the gate is broken in, he goes in with live fire. Several bullets, not a full burst…
The family was hiding from the bombings. They were under the stairs and that happened to be just in front of the door and when he went in and fired, he didn’t see who he was firing at. So he happened to kill an elderly guy…
And even for this individual soldier who may be a decent person, see what this war did:
He died on the spot?
I don’t know. When I think back, it really seems insane that I don’t know. It hurts to admit it, but… not that I didn’t care. I did keep this in my mind and intended to write the battalion commander about it but I just didn’t have the time. Too bad I didn’t, come to think of it.
Hannah Arendt talked of the banality of the evil. Well, incidents like this are the banality of an evil war. You murder a civilian and forget what you’ve done. In fact, forget there’s a human being there at all. He’s just a dead body like any horse, pig or chicken you might kill with a bullet to the brain. And you leave his corpse there to rot. What are you going to do? Call the Hamas Red Crescent to come and collect it? Give it a decent burial? Not your job.
The soldier continues with a damning indictment of his unit’s actions in Gaza:
What did you intend to write?
That things are happening in his battalion of which he has no idea. Without actually naming anyone. I’m against informing on people. But if I look at it from the side, there are people who deserve to go to jail.
I have no doubt that there were and are people who deserve to go to jail. But the plain fact of the matter is that neither this probably otherwise conscientious soldier had neither the time, energy or inclination to do anything about it. Ditto the Israeli people as a whole who are simply too absorbed in more important matters to give a damn about what was done in their name in Gaza.
I’ve just received Breaking the Silence’s new blockbuster report (pdf) of eyewitness testimonies by IDF veterans of the Gaza war. The Israeli human rights NGO documents IDF activities in the Occupied Territories through engagement with soldiers themselves and taking their testimony of first hand experiences in the field.
The stories in the Operation Cast Lead report portray potential war crimes committed by Israeli troops during the operation. I should add that these charges, though they come from new sources, are not in themselves new as Haaretz, the Guardian and several human rights groups have outlined very similar charges based on IDF and Gaza human sources.
But because the IDF brass and political echelon persist in their fictions about the IDF being the most moral army in the world and the operation upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct, it’s important to highlight this startling new material. Because the report is long, quite detailed and shocking in its content, I propose doing a series in which I’ll highlight some of the main findings with some of my own commentary.
The introduction outlines the major charges of the document:
These testimonies describe use of the ‘Neighbor Procedure’ [IDF euphemism for human shields]and of white phosphorus ammunition in densely inhabited neighborhoods, massive destruction of buildings unrelated to any direct threat to Israeli forces, and permissive rules of engagement that led to the killing of innocents. We also hear from the soldiers about the general atmosphere that accompanied the fighting, and of harsh statements made by junior and senior officers that attest to the ongoing moral deterioration of the society and the army.
…The testimonies of the soldiers in this collection expose that the massive and unprecedented blow to the infrastructure and civilians of the Gaza strip [was] a direct result of IDF policy, and especially of the rules of engagement, and a cultivation of the notion among soldiers that the reality of war requires them to shoot and not to ask questions.
…Those who break their silence in this publication describe in their testimonies how actions defined as anomalous yesterday become the norms of tomorrow, and how the emissaries of Israeli society continue, along with entire the military system, to slide together down the moral slippery slope. This is an urgent call to Israeli society and its leaders to sober up and investigate anew the results of our actions.
The first interviewee describes intense combat during the first week of the campaign in which the IDF used Gaza civilians as human shields to cover their entry into houses potentially occupied by fighters. Before doing so, I wanted to mention that the Israeli Supreme Court has specifically forbidden the common IDF practice of using Palestinian civilians as human shields:
It was the first week of the war, fighting was intense, there were explosive charges to expose…armed men inside houses…They really moved slowly. Close in on each house. The method used has a new name now _ no longer ‘neighbor procedure.’ Now people are called ‘Johnnie.’ They’re Palestinian civilians, and they’re called Johnnies…To every house we close in on, we send the neighbor in, ‘the Johnnie,’ and if there are armed men inside, we start, like working the ‘pressure cooker’ in the West Bank.
…Essentially the point was to get them out alive, go in, to catch the armed men…In one case, our men tried to get them to come out [using the human shield], then they [the IDF] opened fire, fired some anti-tank missiles at the house and at some point brought in a D-9, bulldozer, and combat helicopters. There were three armed men inside. The helicopters fired anti-tank missiles and again the neighbor was sent in.
At first he told them that nothing had happened to them yet, they were still in there. Again helicopters were summoned and fired…The neighbor was sent in once again. He said that two were dead and one was still alive, so a D-9 was brought in and started demolishing the house over him until the neighbor went in, the last armed man came out and was caught and passed on to the Shabak…
In the next passage, the same soldier describes a story told to him by his commander describing human shields forced to smash holes in houses into which the IDF sought to gain entry:
The commanders…talked about things that bothered them. They said that civilians were used to a greater extent than just sending them into houses. For example, some of them were made to smash walls with 5 kilo sledgehammers. There was a wall around a yard where the force didn’t want to use the gate, it needed an alternative opening for fear of booby-traps or any other device. So the “Johnnies” themselves were required to bang open another hole with a sledgehammer.
The interviewee then mentions an interview Haaretz reporter Amira Hass conducted with the very same Gazan who had broken into the home, thus confirming the story from both the Israeli and Palestinian sides.
Then the IDF veteran describes an even more disturbing use of human shields:
Sometimes the force would enter while placing rifle barrels on a civilian’s shoulder, advancing into a house and using him as a human shield. Commanders said these were the instructions and we had to do it.
When asked about the Army’s official response to the prior accusations published in Haaretz about IDF abuses, the soldier scoffs:
It was ludicrous to…hear the response of the army spokesperson that the matter was investigated and there are no testimonies on the ground and that the Israeli army is a moral army. It raises doubts about the army spokesperson’s responses in general when you know for a fact that these things actually did take place
There may have been, but they actually volunteered so that their houses would not be destroyed.
The officers were acting in what they thought were according to the spirit of the law.
Some officers don’t yet get the meaning of the prohibition of human shields.
In the case of the Palestinians who were given sledgehammers to break down the walls, the IDF again said that the Palestinians volunteered to do it themselves, so as to minimize the damage.
One wonders whether the IDF also claims the human shield “volunteered” to have an IDF rifle over his shoulder as he entered a neighbor’s flat possibly containing armed Hamas fighters.
What disturbs me greatly, beyond the clear ethical and international law violations regarding use of human shields is the fact that the Israeli Supreme Court has explicitly prohibited the practice. In this as in many other situations, the IDF simply ignores rulings it doesn’t like. Those of my readers who wish to brag about Israeli “democracy” should remember that democracy only goes so far in Israel.
To be clear, this report covers only the first of thirty soldier testimonies. To be continued…
Poor Mort Klein must be foaming at the mouth. Used to being routinely invited to high level White House briefings under previous presidents, Pres. Obama left him out in the cold yesterday when he met with leaders of 14 Jewish groups. The last time Obama staffers met with a similar group they did include Klein, who fulminated about his extremist pro-Israel agenda. Apparently, he wore out his welcome and may not see the inside of the White House for some time.
Malcolm Hoenlein WAS invited to the meeting and attempted to fill Klein’s shoes with his negativity, none of which Pres. Obama was having. Malcolm ought to watch out–he may be the leader left off the list for the next meeting.
Mr Obama yesterday held his first meeting with US Jewish leaders – a meeting that marked a possible changing of the guard of Jewish leadership in the US.
Groups which under George W. Bush enjoyed good access to the White House – including the Lubavitch movement and the Zionist Organisation of America – were not included on the keenly contested list, while more liberal groups such as Americans for Peace Now and the newly formed J Street Lobby met Mr Obama.
This could be one of the reasons why the ZOA’s Lori Lowenthal Marcus is creating a new right-wing group that plans to shadow (read, “smear”) J Street. Even she sees the handwriting on the political wall. The jealousy is palpable.
For those of you keeping score at home: Lubavitch and ZOA–out. Peace Now, J Street, Israel Policy Forum–in.
It looks like Jeremy Ben Ami may have a wanted poster in his future. The rightist pro-Israel truth squads are on his trail. They’ve practically placed a bounty on his head though they haven’t gone so far as to say: Wanted Dead or Alive!
Those idle pranksters Allyson Rowen Taylor (formerly associate director of Stand With Us) and Lori Lowenthal Marcus (one of Mort Klein’s ZOA acolytes) have announced to the world (or no one in particular) that they’re so jealous of J Street’s enormous success (and attendance yesterday at a White House meeting with Pres. Obama) that they’re forming a shadow group to hector J Street. Their group is going to be called Z Street for reasons no one understands and about which no one cares. The headline of their public announcement read: “Z Street is launched, Will end J Street Treason.”
When J Street holds its first big national conference in October, Allyson and will be there on a street corner in D.C. with her fellow screaming harpies telling the world of J Street’s treason against the Jewish people. This “treason” meme is interesting. Readers of my blog will note that Allyson’s bosom buddy is Rachel Neuwirth. The latter’s website asserts that (presumably) the founders of J Street, yours truly, and Israeli Jewish peace activists would be prosecuted at Nuremberg-like tribunals for crimes against the Jewish people:
It is the radical Jewish left that contributed to the immense moral and political corruption that pervades the Israeli government…The destructive influence of this Jewish “fifth column” has caused hundreds of thousands of patriotic Israelis, who had their fill of this corruption, to emigrate to other countries.
These individuals have long forfeited their claim to be considered legitimately Jewish and to live freely in the Jewish State of Israel…These Jewish “fifth columnists” are consciously malevolent and know full well what they are doing. They should each stand trial before a Nuremberg-style tribunal on the charge of perpetrating war crimes against the Jewish people and for crimes against humanity. Those found guilty should be given a near-term date to emigrate voluntarily, forfeiting only their real property, or face physical expulsion minus all their assets. This would be extremely lenient considering that many victims of their treasonous actions have been killed and wounded. Just as they vigorously supported the expulsion of Jews from Gaza, even under brutal conditions, in the name of peace and security, they cannot now object to their own removal, also, in the name of peace and security.
So I guess we should ask Allyson whether she has that in mind for poor Jeremy. Maybe he should move his assets to an offshore account just in case Allyson and the Jewish Furies come after him.
And just in case you doubt Allyson’s bona fides as a pro-Israel activist, she was the one responsible for Urban Outfitters pulling those pro-terrorist keffiyehs from its catalogue a few years ago. A few choice words from her gets corporate CEOs who are in bed with terrorists to sit up and take notice. So, Jeremy beware. She slays dragons!
But let’s get to the core of Z Street’s “mission,” such as it is:
“No more appeasement, no more negotiating with terrorists, no more enabling cowards who fear offending more than they fear another Holocaust.”
With enemies like this, J Street comes out smelling like a rose.
And these people are nothing if not grandiose:
Operating under the aegis of Taylor’s non-profit organization “People Against Hate Speech,” Z STREET has obtained permits for a huge rally in front of the White House on October 27th – the same week that the rabidly anti-Zionist J Street holds its first annual meeting in the nation’s capital.
If I were J Street I’d be quaking in my boots at the expectation of hordes of pro-Israel ranters running through the halls of the conference venue shouting about treason, appeasement and causing “another Holocaust.”
And just in case you ever doubted the need for yet another rightist pro-Israeli propaganda group (Stand With Us wasn’t enough, Allyson?), here’s proof aplenty:
There are many who ignore global threats to Israel’s existence, including the threatened dismemberment of Israel by her domestic and foreign enemies; Z STREET will become a leading-edge organization for educating and informing all Americans about the need for, and the facts that support, the Zionist mandate.
I’d link to Z Street’s website but the thought of sending even one reader their way is too much to bear.
I’ve been waiting years for this to happen. Barack Obama for the first time in his administration met with the leaders of fourteen Jewish organizations including Peace Now, J Street and Israeli Policy Forum in order to reassure American Jewish leaders that his settlement freeze policy was ultimately “good for Israel.” When it came time to take questions, the most hostile ones came from Malcolm Hoenlein, resident nyetnik of the Conference of Presidents. Here’s how the N.Y. Times described the encounter:
…Some of the toughest questioning of Mr. Obama came from Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations…Mr. Hoenlein told the president that diplomatic progress in the Middle East has traditionally occurred when there is “no light” between the positions of the United States and Israel. But Mr. Obama pushed back, citing the administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
“He said, ‘I disagree,’ ‘’ said Marla Gilson, director of the Washington action office of Hadassah, the women’s Zionist organization. “He said, ‘For eight years, there was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished.’
For far too long Hoenlein’s narischkeit has passed for commonly accepted pro-Israel wisdom in our community. Finally, finally a president is pushing back. Malcom Hoenlein no longer owns the discourse. There Shehecheyanu prayer says: “Thank God who has kept me alive and allowed me to reach this day.” Amen to that.
It’s interesting that Haaretz reporter Barak Ravid’s report of the meeting listed the attendees and included no mention of the Jewish peace groups I listed above. This speaks volumes for certain elements of the establishment Jewish press (or at least reporters like Ravid) who haven’t yet rolled over and heard the news that the old days of hard-right pro-Israel groups representing the “entire” Jewish people are over. There are a few new kids on the block. Obama himself knows and understands this, which is why he invited them. Some journalists are slow to catch on.
.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
