September « 2009 « Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Archive for September, 2009

Rabbinical Assembly to Goldstone and His Report: Shana Tova, You Self-Hating Jew

Saturday, September 19th, 2009

Rabbi Brant Rosen posts a mass e mail sent to U.S. Conservative rabbis by the Rabbinical Assembly advising them on the “proper” Jewish response to the UN human rights report which blasts Israel for war crimes against the Gazan people. The formula adopted by the rabbis seems to be: when facing possibly immoral behavior by Israel start singing Hatikvah furiously to drone out the accusation. So in this way, Jewish nationalism trumps morality. Now here I always thought rabbis were supposed to be the Jewish arbiters of moral behavior. Silly me. And also note how the rabbis work in Iran into the mix in order to really tug at Jewish heart-strings.

Here’s the e-mail:

Friends,

On this Rosh Hashanah our brothers and sisters in Israel face the threat of a nuclear Iran – a threat to Israel’s very existence.

Today, we Jews around the world also confront the anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment of the Goldstone report which blames Israel disproportionately for the tragic loss of human life incurred in Operation Cast Lead, which took place last winter in Gaza. This unbalanced United Nations sponsored report portends serious consequences for Israel and the Jewish people.

On this holy day, which is not only Rosh Hashanah, but also Shabbat, the Shofar is silent in the face of this spurious report, the world is far too silent.

Today the state of Israel needs us to be the kol shofar, the voice of the shofar!

We ask you to write to our governmental leaders and call upon them to condemn the Goldstone report and to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran.

While the shofar is silent today, all Conservative rabbis, cantors and congregations have been asked to sing Hatikvah at this moment in the service.

We rise in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Israel.

Rabbi Rosen provides the most apt Jewish response to such utter nonsense which could have been, and probably was produced by some Israel lobby group like the Conference of Presidents. He calls the Israel-worship of the statement, idolatry:

What troubles me most about this suggestion is how profoundly it flies in the face of the very meaning of the festival itself. On Rosh Hashanah, we affirm Malchuyot – God’s sovereignty over the universe. Rosh Hashanah is the only time of the year that Jews are commanded to bow all the way to the ground and pledge our allegiance to God and God alone. We acknowledge that our ultimate fealty lies…beyond any mortal ruler, any government, any earthly power.

Beyond the political arguments over such a statement, it strikes me as something approaching idolatry.

I was in shul today but attended the family service and so did not hear whether my congregation prayed at the altar of Israel or God. But I pray my rabbi did not succumb to the siren call of those who circle the Jewish wagons at the first hint of criticism of Israeli policy or behavior. Rabbinic statements like this one are an attempt to hijack our religion for the purpose of bolstering narrow Jewish nationalism. Now, to be clear, I have no problem with Jewish nationalism that understands its rightful place within the sphere of Jewish identity. I have no problem with Jewish nationalism that is PART of that identity. But I object strenuously to Jewish nationalism that subsumes it entirely. That is what the Rabbinical Assembly has done in this statement. And as a Conservative Jew I object to it strenuously and urge any and all rabbis or synagogue lay leaders reading this to do so as well.

Israel is part of us. But it is not all of us. Israel should be in service to the Jewish idea, but never the be-all and end-all. Let us not be idolators who worship solely at the altar of Israel.

Tags: anti semitism, anti-Arab, east-jerusalem, rabbi, United Nations
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace | 36 Comments »

Bronner Fetes Tel Aviv’s 100th Anniversary

Saturday, September 19th, 2009

Ethan Bronner has a bit of a problem in his latest piece for the N.Y. Times about Tel Aviv’s 100th birthday celebration. He knows there has been too much water under the bridge regarding the controversy over this event for him to write an urban hagiography. So he acknowledges the controversy, but still attempts to get in all the typically sunny travelogue items that are requisite for such stories:

It is no surprise that Tel Aviv is marking its 100th birthday by inviting artists to raise uncomfortable questions about its history and identity — the first Hebrew city, the one that arose out of the emptiness of the sand dunes as an escape from the cramped and tension-filled alleyways of the next-door Arab port of Jaffa.

Ah yes, here we have once again that old chestnut about Tel Aviv arising from a void (tohu va-vohu), those proverbial desert sand dunes. And note that the sunny, western orientation of Tel Aviv is in direct opposition to the dark, crowded, alienness of Arab Jaffa.

In this passage too, Bronner highlights Tel Aviv’s claim to be an oasis of calm and liberal European values a million psychic miles away from the dart fetid struggle actually raging on its doorstep:

Tel Aviv is, in fact, the most politically liberal city in Israel and offers a sharp contrast to the spirit of religious conservatism that informs Jerusalem. It votes to the left and looks to Europe. Many inhabitants yearn for nothing more than to live the life of a hot Mediterranean city, to be, say, the Barcelona of the Middle East and forget the conflict a dozen miles away.

And to a large extent, they succeed. That means that as it observes its centennial, Tel Aviv tends to be engaged in a debate not so much about its past as about its future. Amid the rush to settle here in the heart of the country’s economic and cultural hub, many question the move to build up with luxury condominiums and office buildings. A band of residents see such development as a threat to the city’s affordability and basic feel.

Instead of engaging with this conflict in any way, both Bronner and Tel Avivians struggle with the mighty questions of real estate speculation and sustainable growth (sometimes on the backs of those poor Jaffans sitting so inconveniently on valuable development properties).

The best antidote to this airy superficiality is this incisive analysis of Tel Aviv’s real history by Gabriel Ash. Here he quotes Sharon Rotbard’s seminal book on Tel Aviv history, White City, Black City:

Tel Aviv was not born from the sand. It was born in Jaffa. Yet, its attitude to Jaffa reminds one of the Christian attitude to Judaism, including contradictory violent elements of birth and matricide…, erasure and masking, guilt and exculpation. From the moment the first Jewish neighborhood Neve Tzedek was born from the womb of the “Bride of the Sea,” in the [1890s], Tel-Aviv never ceased to flee from Jaffa and to persecute Jaffa. The war of [creating a] “white city”…is the war of Tel-Aviv against Jaffa….to create that Tel-Aviv of street and grocery shop and invent the normality of a house, a courtyard and a staircase, Tel-Aviv eradicated a whole [urban] space. It conquered Jaffa and her daughters, emptied them of their residents, eradicated neighborhoods, villages, roads and landscapes, destroyed places, houses, streets, public monuments…In doing so, Tel-Aviv erased the memory of Jaffa.

The war did not end with the 1948 conquest and exile of the residents. It continues to this very day. Although Jaffa is a dead city, Tel-Aviv still tortures her corpse…From its inception as a city separate from Jaffa, and in its cultural, ethnic and now historical construction as a “white city,” Tel-Aviv constituted itself through its opposition to Jaffa, as separation from Jaffa, as the dialectical negation of Jaffa. For Jaffa, this dialectic relation was no less fateful. While Tel-Aviv built and wrote itself, it also destroyed and erased Jaffa, fashioning it as its own negation – a city of the night, neglected, criminal, dirty, derelict, and black. (p.126 )

Ash continues with this concluding statement in his appraisal of the truth significance of the 100th anniversary “party:”

What is the meaning of 1909 as the date of the “beginning” of Tel Aviv? What exactly was born in 1909? Was it the point of departure of the urban habitat that is today Tel-Aviv-Yafo? No, since Jaffa has always been there, and Jaffa has been included in Tel-Aviv-Yafo. The history of urbanism in the area does not start in 1909. Was it the beginning of Jewish habitation? No. Leaving aside why a “diverse” modern city should be celebrated based on a single ethnic identity, Jews have always been residents of Jaffa. Was it then the first organized Jewish settlement in the area? No. Neve Tzedek was established in 1887 by Palestinian Jews from Jaffa. Kerem Hateimanim was established in 1905. Jews from Jaffa and from Yemen established Jewish neighborhoods near Jaffa because Jaffa was overcrowded. These Jewish suburbs of Jaffa were incorporated later into Tel-Aviv and allowed to become derelict slums as symbolic punishment for their guilty proximity to Jaffa…1909 is an arbitrary date, chosen…mostly because of the convenient existence of a commemorative photograph of the land raffle for the establishment of the neighborhood Ahuzat-Bait. What distinguishes this neighborhood, not only from Jaffa and the Palestinian villages but also from the older Jewish neighborhoods, is that it was established by white European Jews. It is on the basis of this distinction that the history of Tel-Aviv was written and transformed into a myth of a city created on sands, separate from the natives, and therefore paradoxically pure and innocent of the bloody history of apartheid…

Tel-Aviv is innocent because it is a pure European city! Events celebrating the 1909 birth of Tel-Aviv are thus not only inappropriate homage…They are not only attempts to white wash the massacre of Gaza…By celebrating Tel-Aviv, and especially by claiming the right to separate the city from the conflict and thus confirm its image of innocence and “diversity”, Western curators are able to pay homage to colonialism…

Bronner is precisely the type of “western curator” Ash may’ve had in mind when he wrote this. Of course, I don’t think Bronner is aware of any of this. Or if he is he dismisses it with a sharp wave of the hand as ideological histrionics. What he does not understand is that until he can absorb Ash’s and Rotbard’s point of view into his narrative, he cannot properly apprehend the subject before him. It remains a light and airy thing lacking in historical knowledge and social nuance.

1909 is a convenient fiction adopted by Tel Aviv’s white Israelis and now embraced by the country’s foreign ministry in its campaign to prettify Israel’s image via homages like the one at the Toronto Film Festival. And just as the Tel Aviv celebration at TIFF masks Israel’s crimes in Gaza, it also masks the city’s real, complex and troubled history.

Tags: tel aviv
Posted in Mideast Peace | 11 Comments »

Israel’s Counter-Attack on Goldstone Report

Friday, September 18th, 2009

Israel's online media assault on Goldstone report

The Israeli foreign ministry is hauling out all the guns to counter-attack against the Goldstone UN report, which determined that both the IDF and Palestinians militants committed war crimes during the Gaza war. How do I know this? In a very direct, personal fashion. I noticed in the past hour or so a new Google ad being served in my sidebar:

Gaza.
Hamas.
Conflict.

Facts!
Click here

Israel's anti-Goldstone hasbara

Notice there is no mention of the word ‘Israel.’ This is of course done deliberately because they seek to pull in as many viewers as possible and adding the word Israel would drive away potential viewers from one camp or another. Only when you click on the ad does it take you to the Israeli foreign ministry’s Gaza fact sheet page (imagine the temerity of the Israeli foreign ministry labelling their information “facts??), whose headline lays its cards on the table and speaks truthfully for once:

Gaza Facts–the Israeli Perspective

The hasbara attack machine is in high gear. I imagine you’ll be seeing full page ads in the N.Y. Times, op eds by the usual suspects (Abe Foxman, etc.), and hearing many lies from what Daniel Levy calls “the smear industry.” I imagine that right now as we speak Gerald Steinberg and Danny Ayalon are desperately seeking to expose a nasty Goldstone hobby. Perhaps (like Marc Garlasco) he collects historical artifacts of the Boer War, bespeaking a sympathy for pro-Nazi Afrikaners?

The truth of the matter is that Israel gradually, inch by inch, is losing the propaganda war. Yes, it has an effective hasbara apparatus that has kept the opposition at bay for years. But the sheer accumulated weight of Israel’s brutal violations of morality and law are sinking its case before the international community. When Bibi comes to New York for the UN General Assembly meeting he’ll be greeted with the same nose-holding as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Muamar Khadafi. Well, not by Malcolm Hoenlein, Marty Peretz or Norman Podhoretz, that’s for sure. They’ll welcome Bibi with open arms. The rest of us will hold our noses.

Tags: goldstone report, hasbara, israeli foreign ministry
Posted in Humor, Mideast Peace | 7 Comments »

Who By Fire?

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

It seems only too appropriate as we near Rosh Hashana tonight (Friday night) and contemplate the past and coming year, that we consider Leonard Cohen’s version of the U’Netaneh Tokef prayer which he calls, Who by Fire? Considering last year’s war on Gaza and the possibility of an Israel-Iran conflagration this year, “fire” seems an entirely apt element for us to consider:

And who by fire, who by water,
Who in the sunshine, who in the night time,
Who by high ordeal, who by common trial,
Who in your merry merry month of May,
Who by very slow decay,
And who shall I say is calling?

And who in her lonely slip, who by barbiturate,
Who in these realms of love, who by something blunt,
And who by avalanche, who by powder,
Who for his greed, who for his hunger,
And who shall I say is calling?

And who by brave assent, who by accident,
Who in solitude, who in this mirror,
Who by his lady’s command, who by his own hand,
Who in mortal chains, who in power,
And who shall I say is calling

Thanks to Rabbi Brant Rosen for coming up with this brilliant video of Cohen performing the song live TV in 1989. The performance has an absolutely scorching solo by Sonny Rollins (alav ha-shalom) on sax which opens and closes the song (the closing solo is the real scorcher). This is righteous music, Jewish soul music.

Unless you are of a certain age, Story of Issac may be less well known to you. It is one of his earlier ones (it’s on Songs from a Room, which came out in 1969 during the height of the Vietnam war) and recounts the story of the Akedah as only Leonard Cohen can. Since we read the Akedah as the Torah reading for the second day of Rosh Hashana, I thought it appropriate to dig up the above video.

These are the critical lyrics sung with great passion and moral conviction:

You who build these altars now
To sacrifice these children,
You must not do it anymore.
A scheme is not a vision
And you never have been tempted
By a demon or a god.
You who stand above them now,
Your hatchets blunt and bloody,
You were not there before,
When I lay upon a mountain
And my fathers hand was trembling
With the beauty of the word.

And if you call me brother now,
Forgive me if I inquire,
Just according to whose plan?
When it all comes down to dust
I will kill you if I must,
I will help you if I can.
When it all comes down to dust
I will help you if I must,
I will kill you if I can.
And mercy on our uniform,
Man of peace or man of war,
The peacock spreads his fan.

When I was a UCLA grad student in the late 1970s and helping produce a campus Jewish culture festival, I approached Cohen’s manager as I thought he would be a perfect choice to do a concert for the festival. But then I heard he was actually a practicing Buddhist. At any rate, he was somewhere off living on a mountain in Greece at the time and the concert never happened.

Cohen has gotten himself into hot water by planning to perform at a concert in Israel in violation of the cultural boycott. He tried to make amends by offering a concert in Ramallah, but the Palestinians weren’t buying and it was cancelled. He decided to go ahead with the Israeli concert and donate the proceeds to Amnesty. But when Palestinians protested this move, that group backed out. So Cohen is in the unlikely position of wanting to support Israel-Palestine peace financially in order to soothe his guilty conscience. But no one will have his lucre.

Leonard Cohen has always been an artist who stood, sometimes awkwardly, sometimes gracefully, on the cusp of political consciousness and personal, spiritual (almost mystical) introspection. It is one of the most compelling aspects of his songwriting and persona. You can even hear this in the lyrics of Who by Fire and Story of Isaac, in which he comments knowingly and wryly on humanity’s moral failings.

But the problem with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that it is far too gross and in your face for the likes of Cohen. His medium is subtle, knowing lyrics and he is the coolest of the cool. Unfortunately, when two peoples war for as long as Israelis and Palestinians have–there is no longer any subtlety. It’s all death, all blood.

Cohen is not an artist who feels comfortable choosing sides. His outlook is far too diffuse for that. He doesn’t want to be pigeon-holed as being pro or anti-anything except humanity in general terms. Yes, this is frustrating for those fighting a political battle to the death. But Cohen chooses not to join the fight. He observes it as an artist.

In all this I’m trying to give my impression of what may be at work in his mind. I am not justifying or defending. But despite any criticism that may be leveled, it doesn’t lessen him, in my view, as a seminal performer who embodies a powerful Jewish ethos in his lyrics.

So to Leonard Cohen and all my readers: Shana tovah u’metukah. A good and sweet New Year and may the peacock spread his fan.

Tags: bible, human-rights, tel aviv, west-bank
Posted in Film-TV-Media, Folk & World Music, Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace | 7 Comments »

American Radical: the Trials of Norman Finkelstein

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

The new documentary about Norman Finkelstein has premiered in Chicago and will be available shortly for screenings, purchase and rental. It premiered at the Chicago Underground Film Festival this past weekend. Colleges, universities and other organizations can purchase an Institutional DVD copy (sold with non-paying public performance rights) on Arab Film’s website here. Home Video DVD copies will be for sale in early 2010.

The blurb for the film says:

American Radical is the probing documentary portrait of American academic and activist Norman Finkelstein. A devoted son of Holocaust survivors, ardent critic of Israeli and US Mid-East policies, and author of six provocative books, Finkelstein has been at the center of many intractable controversies.Called a lunatic and a self-hating Jew by some and an inspirational, street-fighting revolutionary by others, Finkelstein is a deeply polarizing figure whose struggles arise from core questions about freedom, identity and nationhood. Following him as he presents his message to audiences around the globe, the film provides an intimate portrait of the man behind the controversy, giving voice to Finkelstein’s critics as well as his supporters.

…When Noam Chomsky first suggested to David Ridgen that he work with Finkelstein on a film project, Ridgen quickly became attracted to the idea. Having always been interested in individuals who take bold action, he knew that Finkelstein would make an ideal documentary subject, and he began working on AMERICAN RADICAL in 1997. Director Nicolas Rossier, who had begun putting together his own film about Finkelstein in 2001, joined forces with Ridgen in 2007 and the two have collaborated on AMERICAN RADICAL ever since. Says Rossier, “Some have accused Finkelstein of being a Holocaust denier in order to delegitimize his arguments. We would not have made a film on Finkelstein if we had any doubts on this matter. Norman Finkelstein is wired entirely through the prism of the Holocaust. His apartment is plastered with photos of relatives who were killed in the Nazi death camps.”

…According to John Sinno of Typecast Films, “(the film) not only examines some of the emotional and intellectual underpinnings that have made Professor Finkelstein an uncompromising and controversial figure, but it also provides glimpses of a private and sometimes vulnerable side to Finkelstein that is not experienced by attending his public appearances.”

Those who’ve followed the story of Finkelstein’s ejection from DePaul University for having the temerity to cross swords with Alan Dershowitz; and Finkelstein’s imprisonment by Israel after he attempted to visit his best friend in the West Bank–will be an excited at the prospect of this film, as I am. And before all the haters sharpen their knives, let’s make clear that I am not a whole-hearted supporter or admirer of Norman Finkelstein. But I believe he represents a legitimate, acute voice that needs to be heard concerning the issues that are close to his heart. I don’t see him as always right. But he’s always someone with whose ideas we should grapple.

Tags: norman-finkelstein
Posted in Film-TV-Media, Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | Comments Off

Barak: Nuclear Iran No Existential Threat to Israel

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

Wonders never cease. Ehud Barak, Israeli defense minister, gave a Rosh Hashana interview to Yediot Achronot in which he took a major detour off the government reservation. He said, according to the N.Y. Times report, even if Iran gained nuclear weapons it would not be an existential threat to Israel:

A nuclear-armed Iran would not be capable of destroying Israel, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Thursday in remarks that departed from long-running Israeli arguments about the threat posed by its foe.”Right now, Iran does not have a bomb. Even if it did, this would not make it a threat to Israel’s existence. Israel can lay waste to Iran,” Barak said in a transcript of a newspaper interview obtained by Reuters before publication Friday.

…”I don’t think we are on the brink of a new Holocaust.”

…”Now is the time for a diplomatic effort and toughened-up sanctions.”

It goes without saying that this negates Bibi “1938″ Netanyahu’s repeated claims that a nuclear Iran means a future Holocaust, or Shimon Peres’s far-fetched claim that an Iranian bomb would be a “flying Holocaust.” But even more oddly, Barak’s interview directly contradicts his own past statements (and headlines) on the matter:

* Ehud Barak warns Iran of possible Israeli strike on nuclear

* “A nuclear Iran is without a doubt the main threat to world order and may lead to mass nuclear proliferation in the entire Middle East. Iran may become an existential threat to Israel.”

* “Should Iran obtain nuclear weapons, the sense of security among elements that are affiliated with (the Islamic Republic) will increase immensely, and this will lead to the collapse of the non-proliferation regime and the struggle against nuclear armament in the region.”

* “Firm and forceful sanctions need to be imposed on the Iranian regime, and there needs to be willingness to consider other options…

*Barak: Iran is a threat to entire world

Frankly, I don’t know what to make of this. Barak is deliberately sticking a finger in Bibi’s eye. Perhaps he’s currying favor with the Americans who certainly want to cool down the temperature in the Middle East and have just announced the start of diplomatic talks with Iran. Perhaps he merely wants to set himself and Labor apart from the Likud position on Iran (though this seems unlikely since the government has ginned up so much fear of Iran that most Israelis quake with fear and rage at the mere mention of the name Ahmadinejad. Perhaps (has v’halila) he’s saying something he actually believes or some combination of all of the above. But anyone who follows Barak knows that he almost never says what he really believes. Or if he does, he’s said so many contradictory things on every issue that no one can tell what he really believes. If it’s possible, he’s even more of a cynical opportunist than Bibi. With the two of them, the leopard CAN actually change his spots…repeatedly.

Yediot asked Bibi for his reply to Barak’s interview and it too was a stunner:

“I know that we see eye to eye on this challenge”…

Media analysts and my friend Sol Sable all believe that Barak’s statements are a portent of a sea change in Israeli policy. Sol quotes from Israel’s Inyan Merkazi:

“Barak’s admission represents a turning point in Israel’s official stance. For the first time, it is public admitting that it has accepted the new and irreversible reality that Iran will possess a nuclear capacity. The powers that be in Israel understand that without the assent and cooperation of the United States Israel does not have a military option. On one hand an aerial bombardment will not solve the problem, on the other hand it would place Israel in a double jeopardy.

“Unlike Iraq’s weak-kneed response in 1981 when its reactor was bombed, Iran will respond militarily and powerfully. In addition the world at large will not accept such an attack and will not go to the order of the day [battle stations]. Israel was warned during the Bush era not to launch unnecessary adventures and the situation is even more complicated in the Obama era.”

I’d like to believe this is the case. Israel’s government has been known at times, though rarely, to have the capacity to be pragmatic. Perhaps realists within the governing coalition have decided to give Obama a few months to pursue the negotiation route assuming that when it fails they can return to a military option.

But my gut tells me that an entire government doesn’t spend millions of man-hours and treasure over months and years, doggedly pursuing such a hardline position on Iran, only to give it up at the first mention of negotiations from Barack Obama. There has to be something more to it.

Tags: bibi netanyahu, ehud-barak, iran-nuclear-program
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 5 Comments »

Jewish Forward on Goldstone Gaza Report, BDS

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

The Forward publishes several magnificent articles in its current issue. The first is an important interview with Richard Goldstone, who directed the UN Human Rights Council report on the Gaza war, which recommended that war crimes charges against both Israel and Hamas be referred to the International Criminal Court. The story is a perfect antidote to the poison being spread about both Goldstone and the report by the Israeli foreign ministry and right-wing pro-Israel blogosphere. In it, the South African jurist talks about his deep personal and family commitment to Israel.

The article fairly notes that while Goldstone took on a mandate to investigate the crimes of both sides in the Gaza war, it remains to be seen how a UN Council, known in the past for pro-Palestinian partisanship will deal with his report. One hopes that the Council will refer the entire report to the Security Council for deliberation. Anything less may harm the credibility of the document.

Gal Beckerman also wrote a masterful account of the growing impact of the BDS movement on the debate around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is an article that was crying out to be written given the increasing level of success of this human rights effort. It’s critically important it was publised in a Jewish media source like The Forward.

The reporter nicely summarizes the recent string of BDS victories and also notes the concerns even some progressives have about the amorphousness of the political agenda of the international effort:

The BDS movement is highly decentralized, with each group in the coalition allowed to choose its own targets as it sees fit. It has no articulated political vision. such as a one- or two-state solution to the conflict. The principles that guide the movement — as set out in a call for boycott, divestment and sanctions issued in June 2005 by a wide group of Palestinian civil society organizations — demand instead that Israel adhere to international and human rights law. The amorphous structure and broad goals appear to be responsible for many of the group’s appeal.

In a debate here with Alex Stein, who claimed BDS was anti-Zionist, I noted the studied unwillingness of the group’s mission statement to take a firm position on the issue. I think this is one of the strengths of Jewish Voice for Peace as well. The refusal to lay out a political solution to the overall conflict doesn’t mean, as enemies would claim, that these groups are obfuscating their more radical principles. Rather, it means they are trying to bring as many activists together around basic core principles.

Omar Barghouti, leader of BDS movement

Here, Omar Barghouti, one of the Palestinian leaders of BDS, expands upon the strategy:

…The BDS movement “does not adopt a particular political solution to the colonial conflict.” The main strategy, he wrote, “is based on the principle that human rights and international law must be upheld and respected no matter what the political solution may be. This was key to securing a near consensus in Palestinian civil society and a wide network of support around the world, including the Western mainstream.”

The exclusive focus on rights rather than on a political prescription for the conflict brings together both those who want to target Israel’s existence as a whole and those—mostly American activists—who stick to the more narrow issue of the occupation and settlement activity.

As far as Barghouti is concerned, BDS is a “comprehensive boycott of Israel, including all its products, academic and cultural institutions, etc.” But he understands “the tactical needs of our partners to carry out a selective boycott of settlement products, say, or military suppliers of the Israeli occupation army as the easiest way to rally support around as a black-and-white violation of international law and basic human rights.”

I was slightly concerned about the middle paragraph since it seems to imply there are those in the movement who wish, to use that tired pro-Israel locution, to “destroy Israel.” But I’m very leery, on such sensitive subjects, to trust a reporter who paraphrases the views of a subject. I’d prefer to see this in Barghouti’s own words before I’d trust that Beckerman got it right.

Barghouti, by the way, is a grad student at Tel Aviv University. He recently wrote his Masters thesis on BDS and there was a huge uproar on campus. To his credit, the University president refused to cave in to pressure and ensured that Barghouti was not ejected from his program. Unfortunately, Neve Gordon did not receive the same support from his University’s president when he published his piece endorsing BDS.

Tags: bds, human-rights, israeli war crimes, jewish-forward, neve-gordon
Posted in Mideast Peace | 21 Comments »

War Crimes Charges Open Israel to Universal Jurisdiction

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

I’m still trying to plumb the meaning the Goldstone report. The Media Line has an interesting story interviewing Israeli legal experts who are critical of it about the potentially “dangerous” implications for Israel:

The…report…called on Israel to launch “genuine, impartial and independent” investigations into possible war crimes. Should Israel fail to do so, Goldstone recommended that Israel face the International Criminal Court and that individual countries use “universal jurisdiction” to prosecute perpetrators of war crimes.

Such a call could have extraordinary consequences both for Israeli military commanders and the country’s image as a whole.

“If European states allow unfettered universal jurisdiction, then it will be very difficult for Israelis of any kind to travel,” Dr Avi Bell, a professor in international law and the laws of war at Bar Ilan University told The Media Line. “If universal jurisdiction is open all over Europe, it’s going to be a very bad outcome for Israel, as plaintiffs can bring universal jurisdiction suits against Israelis to any sympathetic judge they like.”

Dr Bell said that the report’s potential consequences should be understood from two perspectives.

“On a technical level this will have no impact,” he said. “The commission made all sorts of recommendations which it had no authority to make and there is nothing in the UN security council’s charter or the International Criminal Court’s charter that indicates an obligation to listen to this commission.”

“On a political level though, it’s potentially disastrous,” he warned. “This report is designed to create fuel and ammunition for the UN’s diplomatic campaign against Israel and for a global legal campaign against Israel, including lawsuits by individual states.”

…”The International Criminal Court is more difficult to predict,” he added. “It’s really up to the judgment of the prosecutor and it’s a political decision more than a legal one. He’s under a lot of pressure to throw the Arabs a bone after indicting Sudanese President Bashir. This could make for an ideal bone.”

Another legal scholar noted the unlikeliness of the prospect of ICC jurisdiction:

“The prosecutor at the International Criminal Court will have to determine whether or not they have jurisdiction.”

“The International Criminal Court only has jurisdiction if the citizens they want to put on trial are from countries that are party to the International Criminal Court, if the crime took place in a country which is party to the International Criminal Court or if the Security Council refers the case to them,” he explained. “But Israel is not a party to the ICC, and there is no legal country Palestine, and the US has veto power in the Security Council. So it’s highly doubtful that will ever happen.”

I think the jurisdiction issue is not as clear cut as he’s making it out to be. But if the U.S. has veto power to stop the referral it will undoubtedly use it. What may be interesting is whether Obama will want to barter with the Israelis in return for the veto in order to get something useful for the peace effort (do I hear “settlement freeze” anyone?).

I do not know whether the report minus the ICC referral gives Europeans standing to file claims in European courts under the rubric of universal jurisdiction.

The Jerusalem Post carries an interesting interview today with Richard Goldstone’s daughter in which she speaks in a heartfelt way about his Jewish and Zionist (yes, Zionist) background:

“He is a Zionist,” she added. “My dad loves Israel and it wasn’t easy for him to see and hear what happened. I think he heard and saw things he didn’t expect to see and hear, and I am 100 percent sure he [conducted the investigation] in the hope that the Israelis would come to cooperate, and he wanted to help find a long-term solution for the State of Israel.”

Nicole, who lived in Israel for six months, said that the country “is the most important thing in my life, my heart is there…. I love Israel more than my family and friends and anything else.”

So much for the IFA and pro-Israel smear industry tarring him with the anti-Israel brush. The latest such is by Danny Ayalon likening the report to the UN “Zionism is Racism” resolution. Not to mention that Goldstone was chief prosecutor for the UN International Criminal Tribunals on Yugloslavia and Rwanda and chaired the International Inquiry on Kosovo. Hard to impeach his impartiality and probity, but it won’t stop them from trying. Maybe he has a Garlasco-like hobby and collects Boer War memorabilia (for any smearmongers out there, that’s a joke)?

Tags: human-rights, international law, israeli war crimes
Posted in Mideast Peace | 21 Comments »