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 September, 2009

UN Report Finds Evidence of Israeli, Palestinian War Crimes, Seeks International Criminal Court Referral

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009
Richard Goldstone inspecting damage from Gaza war

Richard Goldstone inspecting damage from Gaza war (Ashraf Amra/ AP)

The respected South African jurist, Richard Goldstone, just released his long-awaited report for the UN Human Rights Council on human rights violations leading up to, and during the Gaza war. He found significant evidence of war crimes by both Israeli and Palestinian forces.  Here is how the N.Y. Times characterized the elements of the report dealing with Israel:

…Though the 575-page report condemned rocket attacks by Palestinian armed groups against Israeli civilians, it reserved its harshest language for Israel’s treatment of the civilian Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, both during the war and through the longer-term blockade of the territory.  The report called Israel’s military assault on Gaza “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.”

…The report focussed on 36 cases that it said constituted a representative sample. In 11 of these episodes, it said the Israeli military carried out direct attacks against civilians, including some in which civilians were shot “while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags.”

In all but one of these civilian attacks, the report said, “the facts indicate no justifiable military objective” for them.

The report cited other possible crimes by the Israelis, including “wantonly” destroying food production, water and sewerage facilities; striking areas, in an effort to kill a small number of combatants, where significant numbers of civilians were gathered; using Palestinians as human shields; and detaining men, women and children in sand pits. It also called Israel’s use of weapons like white phosphorus “systematically reckless,” and called for banning it in urban areas.

…The panel rejected the Israeli version of events surrounding several of the most contentious episodes of the war.

Israel’s mortar shelling near a United Nations-run school in the Jabaliya refugee camp, which was sheltering some 1,300 people, killed 35 and wounded up to 40 people, the report said.

The investigation did not exclude the possibility that Israeli forces were responding to fire from an armed Palestinian group, as Israel claimed, but said that this and similar attacks “cannot meet the test of what a reasonable commander would have determined to be an acceptable loss of civilian life for the military advantage sought.”

Israel repeatedly accused Hamas of using mosques to shelter armed men or munitions, and a report by Israel said an attack against the Maqadmah mosque in Jabaliya had killed six known militants.

But the Human Rights Council report said the attack came during evening prayers, when some 300 men and women were in the mosque, and killed 15 people. There were no secondary explosions to indicate the presence of an arms cache.

If Israel wanted to destroy a mosque suspected as an arms cache, it should have done so in the middle of the night, Mr. Goldstone said.

The report also noted that some 10 Israeli shells, including white phosphorus, hit the main Gaza City compound of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency while up to 700 civilians were sheltered there. The compound contained a huge fuel depot, but the shells kept coming, it said, though United Nations officials spoke to their Israeli military liaison repeatedly.

In another episode, the report said the destruction of a house in which nearly two dozen relatives died, appeared to be “the result of deliberate demolition and not of combat.”

Not surprisingly and quite unfortunately, Israel refused to cooperate with the inquiry and so had no opportunity to influence the outcome.  It has done its best to smear both the report and its author, a South African Jewish jurist who Israel’s supporters have called “anti-Israel.”  You will certainly see Israel use the report to brand Hamas as war criminals, while conveniently omitting how poorly it fared.

Not to be outdone in lameness, Hamas released a rather feeble defense of its actions:

In Gaza, a spokesman for Hamas said it fired the rockets at Israel to try to defend itself. “We did not intentionally target civilians,” said Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas adviser. “We were targeting military bases, but the primitive weapons make mistakes.”

Neither side’s finest hour.  Goldstone warned Israel and Hamas that if they did not carry out meaningful investigations within six months that he would recommend to the Security Council that the report be referred to the International Criminal Court for investigation for possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel is taking this possibility very seriously and Haaretz outlines how a referral might happen:

Foreign Ministry sources said Tuesday that they expect Arab states will begin to prepare a draft resolution which will call for the report to be transferred to the UN Security Council. In a worst-case scenario, the Security Council could decide to transfer the matter to the International Criminal Court. Under such circumstances, the ICC could issue international arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials who were involved in Cast Lead.

…IDF officers could be summoned by the international court and even charged.

While it remains to be seen whether the U.S. would allow the Council to make such a referral (I presume it could wield its usual veto in protecting Israel’s interests), merely bringing the matter up for discussion would be useful in shining the spotlight once again on the absolute ugliness that constituted Israel’s war on Gaza (along with Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians).

The full report is available here in pdf format.

Bibi to Hosni: ‘I’ve Got Settlements to Build’

Monday, September 14th, 2009
Bibi to Hosni: "Let's do this quickly, I have work to do." (Moshik/Maariv)

Bibi to Hosni: "Let's make this short, I'm right in the middle of a job." (Moshik/Maariv)

Bibi Netanyahu is in Egypt meeting with Hosni Mubarak.  There are myriad subjects they may be talking about including a possible imminent release of Gilad Shalit (though such imminent releases have been trumpeted scores of times before).  He may also be attempting to gin up support in the anti-Iranian Arab world for his new regime of punishing Iranian sanctions.  Or maybe he’s trying to explain to the Egyptian leader why he can’t possibly stop settlement construction on stolen (er, appropriated) Palestinian land.

The cartoon satirizes Bibi’s announcement that he won’t endorse a settlement freeze until he can complete 2,500 units under construction and 400 units for which work hasn’t even begun.  I’m sure Hosni will give him a warm hug when he hears what Bibi has to say on that matter.

In the cartoon, he’s wearing the hardhat of a construction worker taking a break from building all those new settlement units. To make the cartoon even more effective there should have been an uncompleted settlement in the background and perhaps a dark-complexioned Palestinian laborer bringing him the mortar in his lap (in a bitter irony, Palestinians provide much of the labor for the new settlements).

H/t to Sol Salbe.

Human Rights Watch Suspends Garlasco for Inconvenient Hobby

Monday, September 14th, 2009

Personally, I think the whole Garlasco affair is starting to make Human Rights Watch look like a character in opera bouffe.  Marc Garlasco, the group’s senior military analyst, the guy who visits battlefields to determine what types of atrocious munitions have been used to kill innocent civilians in pointless conflicts, collects World War II memorabilia, including badges of Nazi anti-aircraft units (in which his grandfather served).  Apparently this is enough to land you in hot water in this crazy world we live in–that is if your every move is under scrutiny by the pro-Israel smear industry in the form of NGO Monitor (with a little help from Avigdor Lieberman’s Israeli foreign ministry).

The N.Y. Times reports today that HRW has, as I expected, quivered in its boots and suspended Garlasco from his job.  I don’t really understand why you would suspend someone from his professional assignment when his only fault is having a hobby that few outsiders can comprehend as meaningful or interesting.  Garlasco has made no statement either supporting Nazism or condemning Israel or Jews.  In fact, he has harshly criticized the Nazis in the introduction to a book he wrote on collecting such historical artifacts.  The main charge, aside from the distortion (continued in the Times’ inaccurate headline, Rights Group Assailed for Analyst’s Nazi Collection) claiming he collects Nazi memorabilia, is that his hobby is somehow weird or ghoulish.

My hope is that HRW is suspending Garlasco with the intent on resolving this matter quickly and reinstating him.  The ostensible reason for suspending him is to investigate the matter more fully.  I presume someone will want to go over his 8,000 posts contributed to a few collectors discussion forums, to ensure he never said anything that might be further damaging to HRW.  Thus far, nothing I have read is in the least incriminating.

Once again I take strong issue with the role Helena Cobban has played in this matter.  As I wrote yesterday, normally I find Helena’s instincts to be impeccable on matters political and journalistic.  But not this one.  For the life of me, I don’t understand how allowing yourself to be interviewed on this matter by the N.Y. Times and speaking harshly against Garlasco sheds anything other heat on the matter, rather than light.

In addition, it seems to me that one of Helena’s main issues with Garlasco is that, as a military man, he comes from an entirely different cultural milieu than she (who is a pacifist Quaker).  But think of this–doesn’t HRW need military experts with military backgrounds and yes, perhaps odd (to us) military hobbies?  How else can it get the goods when something like the Gaza war occurs?  Are we going to send Quaker pacifists to examine shell casings and serial numbers?  I have pro-Israel readers of this blog applauding Helena for her stand.  Isn’t there something wrong with this picture??

Seattle Times Op-Ed on Settlement Freeze

Monday, September 14th, 2009

Last week, the Seattle Times published a ‘stealth’ op-ed by Nevet Basker, local board member of StandWithUs, that attacked Obama administration’s settlement freeze policy.  It essentially argued that settlements were not the problem, but that the Palestinians were the real obstacle to peace.  One of many things that was laughable about her piece was that she called herself a “moderate dove.”  If she’s a moderate dove then Bibi belongs to Meretz and political terms have lost all meaning.  That’s what I meant by using the term “stealth” above, since Basker was trying to mask her politics so that they would appear more centrist than they really are.  It was also an attempt to inveigle SWU’s political agenda into the mainstream of the Jewish community, a place it does not deserve to be.

The Times agreed to publish my own op-ed supporting the settlement freeze and it was published last night.  Given the nature of daily newspapers, I couldn’t address point by point the fallacies of Basker’s article.  Rather, I put forward a positive vision of how a peace process would proceed and what it would look like, starting with the settlement freeze.  I also emphasize that the freeze is supported by most American Jews.  The position of the Israel lobby as expressed by Basker is not.

One point I found intriguing about Basker’s op-ed which I couldn’t address in my own piece is that she’s in favor of allowing settlers to remain within the Territories after a peace agreement.  What she doesn’t clarify (naturally) is whether she accepts the principle that these 300,000 Israeli settlers would fall under Palestinian sovereignty and become citizens of the new Palestinian state.  I’m guessing she rejects this idea in which case her supposed openness to a Palestinian state is actually anything but.

Israeli Foreign Ministry Smears Human Rights Watch Analyst

Monday, September 14th, 2009

In the past few days a tempest in a teacup has been brewing regarding charges of pro-Nazi sympathy, raised by Avigdor Lieberman’s foreign ministry and amplified by the ministry’s megaphone NGO Monitor, against Marc Garlasco, Human Rights Watch’s senior military analyst.  The rap against Garlasco is that he is an avid collector of “Nazi” memorabilia.

That’s the claim. Here’s the truth: Marc Garlasco’s grandfather served in a Wehrmacht anti-aircraft unit (another relative served in a U.S. B-17 crew), hence he has an interest in the insignias or badges worn by members of these units. As such, he’s written two books aimed at collectors regarding this subject and he participates in online forums devoted to World War II memorabilia. In one posting, he’s pictured wearing a sweatshirt displaying an Iron Cross. Gerald Steinberg and his ilk are trumpeting the fact that the Iron Cross is a Nazi symbol. Not only isn’t it, it is today part of the official logo of the German army, the Bundeswehr, as you can see from this graphic on its website.

Garlasco collects other World War II memorabilia including objects representing U.S. forces.  He has never uttered a word supportive of Nazism.  In fact, the opposite.  The introduction to one of his books notes that the Nazi movement was evil and brought nothing but horror upon the world.  But all that will be forgotten as the pro-Israel far-right smear industry goes to work doing a “Freeman” on Human Rights Watch’s senior munitions expert.

Why do they hate him so?  HRW recently published a scathing report criticizing Israel’s attack on Gaza and its human rights record in general (it also criticized Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians in a separate report which you’ll hear nothing about from Steinberg).  Garlasco was a key participant in this effort.  As such it is imperative that the Israeli government impeach the reporting in any way possible.  One of the cheapest and easiest is to raise charges of sleazy associations by someone like Garlasco.  Make him look like a weirdo, pervert, neo-Nazi.  That cuts the report down to a manageable size out of which the Israelis can then make short work.

The truth of the matter is that the Israeli-Palestinian issue can be a confusing mess.  You can’t reduce it to a sound byte.  Human rights work on this issue is also incredibly complex.  Rather than addressing complicated issues or refuting claims which are rock-solid, Israel chooses to slime the messenger.  Then it doesn’t have to do any heavy lifting in addressing the substance of HRW’s claims.  This is a tried and true tactic of bigots and demagogues (including politicians like Lieberman himself).  This is the reason Marc Garlasco is being slimed.

They even have someone who is otherwise one of the most lucid of Middle East analysts, Helena Cobban, dazed in the headlights.  Helena read the NGO Monitor report on Garlasco and came away thinking he was a near neo-Nazi pervert.  I have nothing but admiration for Helena.  But on this I think she got it wrong and several of the commenters in her post thread on this subject correctly took her credulousness to task.  Clearly, as a Quaker, war and militarism disgust her.  And I respect that view.  This country and world would be much the poorer for not having the good sense of Quakerism in it.  But to penalize Marc Garlasco because he doesn’t share her pacifism or detestation of things military seems unfair.

Do I think that the Marc Garlasco affair will harm or damage HRW in its future work regarding the I-P conflict?  No.  Does Helena?  Yes.  She sits on the HRW board.  I don’t.  I’m afraid that if Helena and Gerald Steinberg have their way, HRW will part ways with Garlasco.  This will satisfy no one except perhaps Helena.  It certainly won’t satisfy Israel or the lobby.  Nor will it have much impact on the public at large for whom this will be an internal matter.

And let’s keep our eye on the ball.  The true slime is the Israeli Occupation and the mayhem inflicted by the IDF against Palestinains who resist (and also violence against innocent Israeli civilians).  Making Marc Garlasco the issue is helping the pro-Israel right do its work for it.

Let me be clear.  I don’t know Marc Garlasco or the reasons for his hobbies.  They’re certainly not hobbies I would choose.  Some of the statements he made online which Helena quotes make me wince.  But he comes out of a military background (and calls himself a “military geek”) and served in the Pentagon for eight years.  Do we wish to criminalize or even ostracize people for their personal hobbies?  Is that what it’s come to?  Let’s not be hoodwinked by this vicious smear.  Let’s consider the source.

The victim of this smear has written an explanation of his behavior that should be read by anyone who wishes to be fair (Steinberg & Lieberman: don’t bother, there isn’t any further ammunition with which to impeach him).

Leviev, Panhandling for Pennies

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

leviev buskingThis is a cartoon by Biderman, one of Israel’s pre-eminent political cartoonists.  It’s a commentary on the toll the global economic meltdown has taken on Israeli tycoons.  Pictured are Lev Leviev (playing sax) and two other industrialists who went belly up recently.  Behind the panhandlers is the phrase Klezmer in Hebrew, denoting traditional eastern European Jewish musicians who traveled from town to town eekeing out a meager living.

Leviev’s real estate subsidiary, Africa Israel, is on the verge of insolvency and the settlement builder and diamond tycoon could lose control.  It remains to be seen whether this economic implosion will hinder his firm’s major investment in propping up the settler enterprise.

H/t to Sol Salbe.

J Street Gets It Dead Wrong on Toronto Film Festival

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

tiff tel aviv city to cityI’ve been an admirer of J Street with a few exceptions since it began, and written often about its work here. But an Israeli friend has sent me a message of protest sent to J Street by a fellow Israeli peace activist. He was criticizing the Jewish peace group’s attack on Israeli filmmaker Udi Aloni and others, who asked fellow Israeli filmmakers to withdraw their films from the Toronto Film Festival because the Israeli government turned Tel Aviv’s 100th anniversary celebration into the centerpiece of this year’s artistic event. Thus the Film Festival was transformed into a venue for pro-Israel hasbara.

To give some background, after Israeli and international artists like Udi Aloni, Jane Fonda, Ken Loach, John Greyson, Danny Glover, Eve Ensler, Harry Belafonte, Julie Christie, Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Klein, John Pilger, Wallace Shawn, Alice Walker, and David Byrne discovered that the Film Festival was collaborating with the Israeli government, they criticized the Festival (read the Toronto Declaration) and urged other Israeli artists to withdraw.

To make several points clear, this was not an attempt to boycott the Festival as a whole, as it is being erroneously characterized by the pro-Israel smear industry (to use Daniel Levy’s useful term).  It is not an attempt to boycott the Israeli film industry.  It is an attempt to point out that world film festivals should not accept funding from the government of Israel to distract world opinion from its ugly Occupation and thus promote its political agenda.  This is precisely the type of targeted protest by selective artists of a specific event which I feel is warranted in pointing out the harmful ways in which Israel exploits cultural ties for political gain.

Given the above, I was stunned to read J Street’s celebratory message of support for the Festival and its vicious attack on the Israeli and other artists who protested the government’s involvement in the event:

J Street applauds the Toronto International Film Festival for choosing Tel Aviv for its inaugural City-to-City spotlight.

Israel’s growing and internationally recognized film industry, centered in Tel Aviv, is rightly a source of pride for many Israelis and Americans. Through their art, Israeli filmmakers are presenting the world with a rich picture of Israel’s complex and layered society that goes deeper than simplistic headlines.

We find protests and criticism of the Toronto International Film Festival’s decision to showcase Tel Aviv’s film industry shameful and shortsighted…

Some critics say their objection is to the Israeli government’s role in promoting the films and not the films themselves. Israel, like many other European governments, supports its film industry financially

The cause of peace will not be served by demonizing Israeli film and filmmakers as being part of the “Israeli propaganda campaign.”

We were also dismayed by the Toronto International Film Festival’s co-director’s statement that Tel Aviv is “contested ground.”

We urge those protesting Tel Aviv’s selection to reconsider their actions. We also call upon the Toronto International Film Festival to hold strong with their selection and not be drawn into a political fight.

There are two dynamics at work here. J Street is beginning to come into its own as a formidable political force in the American Jewish community. It’s first national conference will take place at the end of October and it’s being viewed as a “coming out party” for the American Jewish peace movement.  As such, it is under intense scrutiny from said smear industry and its least stumble will be examined and placed under the magnifying glass. That is why J Street has taken centrist positions of late that bring it into conflict with more progressive elements of the American Jewish community. While I am sensitive to the predicament in which J Street finds itself, I remind them that when you constantly compromise your values in order to prove your centrist bona fides to the Jewish doubters, you may not convince them and you may alienate those who’ve been with you from the beginning.

The second dynamic is that opposition to Israeli Occupation and policy since the Lebanon and Gaza wars has intensified and in a sense radicalized. Before readers start trembling in their boots, by “radicalized” I don’t mean that the peace movement has become anti-Israel or adopted positions that endorse hatred against Israel. I mean that as Israel has shifted the ground out from under us through its brutish militarism, we have been forced to examine new ideas we might hitherto not have considered as seriously as we do now.

The Global BDS movement is a case in point.  Neve Gordon’s endorsement of BDS in the L.A. Times marked the kind of sea change in the anti-Occupation movement that the Walt-Mearsheimer book did in popularizing the term, the Israeli lobby.  Along with Naomi Klein’s embrace, it forced many of us to re-consider whether this was a legitimate form of resistance to Israeli Occupation.

Also, many of us have become more sensitized to the contradiction between Israel’s joy at its independence and Palestine’s sorrow at the accompanying Nakba.  J Street’s indignation at the notion that Tel Aviv is “contested ground” is part of a refusal by Israel’s liberal supporters to acknowledge the phenomenon.  They are slow to realize that there are two legitimate narratives here and that you cannot affirm one while at the same time denying the other.  That is precisely what J Street has tried to do.

In that sense, J Street is fighting a rear guard action in defense of the indefensible.  The Israeli government must be confronted wherever in the world it attempts to advance its political agenda.  And yes, J Street, Israeli funding of a film festival IS a political act.  Israel, in the aftermath of its brutish campaigns against Lebanon and Gaza, wants nothing more than to let the world know that it is a nice, normal nation like Canada, for example.  To refuse to understand that the government’s funding of the Canadian arts event is a form of hasbara means J Street is burying its head in the sand.  And I say this not as an opponent of the group, but as a supporter who is saddened by an instance in which it has gone off the rails.  As the peace train leaves the station, the Jewish peace group runs the risk of being left behind if it refuses to recognize new realities as they develop.

An Israeli peace activist wrote this letter to J Street criticizing its statement of support:

It is legitimate to oppose cultural boycotts, but your failure to address the human tights violations associated with the history of Tel Aviv-Jaffa (mainly the ethnic cleansing of its non Jewish inhabitants, and the ongoing discrimination against the small minority who has managed to remain in the city) does not grant credibility to your initiative.

There is no need for using harsh words such as “shameful” to describe the supporters of the petition against the Tel-Aviv events at the Toronto Film Festival.  This amounts to a smear campaign.

It would have been far better for J Street to have remained silent on this issue than to have made an ill-considered public statement that does neither the Israeli artists who boycotted nor the anti-Occupation movement as a whole, justice.

Iran: About to Arrest Reformist Presidential Candidate, U.S. Agrees to Join Multi-Party Negotiations

Friday, September 11th, 2009

Developments concerning Iran in the past day are a maelstrom of intrigue combined with some genuinely positive signals.

Ayatollah Khamenei gave a fire-breathing Friday sermon denouncing Iran’s political reformists and practically promising them temporal and heavenly damnation. Clearly, he was setting the stage for a further ratcheting up of pressure on the liberal camp, which would take the confrontation between the latter and the regime loyalists into ever more dangerous territory.

Ayatollah Rafsanjani reported that an arrest warrant has been issued for Mehdi Karroubi, the second most popular reformist presidential candidate. Khamenei’s denunciation was meant as a last chance for the opposition to back down or face the clanging doors of jail cells and whatever hell awaits them there. Karroubi, for his part, had already answered the Ayatollah in a statement made a few days ago saying he was even more convinced than when he started his campaign of the rightness of the cause.

The hardliners are doling out the pressure gradually. The next stage would involve arresting Moussavi, the leading presidential reformist candidate, then Khatami, the former president, and finally Rafsanjani. One wonders whether they’re prepared to follow the logic of their actions all the way to the end, and whether Iranian will countenance such overt crushing of what little democracy there is left in the country.

So we are in for some fantastically tense times and a possible renewal of the violence which followed the June presidential election. The question will be whether the hardliners under Khamenei have the support lined up to finish off the opposition; or whether this support will crack and pragmatists will shift their support to the Moussavists.

It is hard to believe the same country also proposed that the U.S. join in a renewal of multi-party talks over issues dividing Iran from the rest of the world including nuclear weapons research. Pres. Obama today agreed to join such talks and to appoint a high level State Department representative to lead our delegation. It would be the first time in years that the U.S. and Iran met in unconditional talks and would fulfill a campaign promise Obama made which was widely ridiculed by the Republicans and neo-cons.

No doubt, the U.S. pursuit of these talks will be hectored by today’s Republicans as well. But one thing they should keep in mind (but undoubtedly won’t) is that there is much riding on these talks. This is not just grist for political posturing. We’re talking about looming military confrontation between Israel and Iran in which many lives may be lost. It is incumbent on all Americans of good will to give these talks a real chance. There will always be time if they don’t work to pursue harsher measures. But we are only given a few chances to get out of this mess without savagery and bloodshed. Playing politics at this juncture is cheap and tawdry and so Republican.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE