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 April, 2010

Rabbis Chide South African Jewish Leaders, Wish Goldstone Mazel Tov on Grandson’s Bar Mitzvah

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

When I first read that the leadership of the South African Jewish community including its chief rabbi had made Judge Richard Goldstone feel unwanted among his own people on the occasion of his grandson’s bar mitzvah, I felt incensed.  It seemed as if a group of mean-spirited fellow Jews were hijacking our religion for purely partisan political purposes.  My first thought was to ask a group of religious leaders to issue a call for support for Judge Goldstone and rebuke the uncharitable, and I believe un-Jewish behavior of South African Jewry.  One of the most important values of our tradition is hachnasat orchim “welcoming guests.”  By their churlish behavior, South African Jewry’s leadership has betrayed this special Jewish precept.

Tractate Brachot contains the memorable saying: “In a place where there is no [hu]man, be one.”  In other words, where common decency and humanity (menschlichkeit) does not exist, model it for those so impoverished that they’ve forgotten how to be human.  That’s what I’m proud to say the rabbis below have done.  I’m pleased to have helped initiate this project and that Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb crafted the letter and secured signatures for it.  Yashar koach to everyone involved, signers included.

Dear Judge Goldstone,

As rabbis from diverse traditions and locations, we want to extend our warmest mazel tov to you as an elder in our community upon the Bar Mitzvah of your grandson. Bar and Bat Mitzvah is a call to conscience, a call to be responsible for the welfare of others, a call to fulfill the covenant of peace and justice articulated in our tradition.

As rabbis, we note the religious implications of the Report you authored. We are reminded of Shimon Ben Gamliel’s quote, “The world stands on three things: justice, truth, and peace as it says ‘Execute the judgment of truth, and justice and peace will be established in your gates’ (Zaccariah 8:16).” We affirm the truth of the report that bears your name.

We are deeply saddened by the controversy around the report. We affirm your findings and believe you set up an impeccable standard that presents strong evidence that during the war in Gaza Israel engaged in war crimes that revealed a pattern of continuous and systematic assault against Palestinian people and land that has very little to do with Israel’s claim of security. Your report made clear the intentional targeting of civilian infrastructures such as hospitals, schools, agricultural properties, water and sewage treatment centers and civilians themselves with deadly weapons that are illegal when used in civilian centers.

This is the ugly truth that is so hard for many Jewish people to face. Anyone who spends a day in Palestinian territories sees this truth immediately.

Judge Goldstone, we want to offer you our deepest thanks for upholding the principles of justice, compassion and truth that are the heart of Jewish religion and without which our claims to Jewishness are empty of meaning. We regret that your findings have led to controversy and caused you not to feel welcome at your own grandson’s Bar Mitzvah. We believe your report is a clarion call to Israel and the Jewish people to awaken from the slumber of denial and return to the path of peace.

This letter is endorsed by Taanit Tzedek- Jewish Fast for Gaza , Shomer Shalom Institute for Jewish Nonviolence, Tikkun and the Shalom Center.

Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, Shomer Shalom Network for Jewish Nonviolence
Rabbi Brant Rosen, Taanit Tzedek –Jewish Fast for Gaza
Rabbi Brian Walt, Taanit Tzedek –Jewish Fast for Gaza
Rabbi Haim Beliak
Rabbi Michael Lerner, Tikkun Community
Rabbi Arthur Waskow, The Shalom Center

Rabbi Rebecca Alpert
Rabbi Phyllis Berman
Rabbi Michael Feinberg
Rabbi Zev-Hayyim Feyer
Rabbi Margaret Holub
Rabbi Shai Gluskin
Rabbi Douglas Krantz
Rabbi Eyal Levinson
Rabbi Mordecai Liebling
Rabbi David Mivasair
Rabbi David Shneyer
Rabbi Laurie Zimmerman
Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill
Rabbi Erin Hirsh
Rabbi Michael Rothbaum
Rabbi Benjamin Barnett
Rabbi Julie Greenberg
Rabbi Linda Holtzman
Rabbi Ayelet S.Cohen
Rabbi Jeffrey Marker
Rabbi Nina H.Mandel
Rabbi Victor Reinstein
Rabbi Everett Gendler
Rabbi Meryl M. Crean
Rabbi Sheila Weinberg
Rabbi Pamela Frydman Baugh
Rabbi Lewis Weiss
Rabbi Shaul Magid
Rabbi Stephen Booth-Nadav
Rabbi Phillip Bentley
Rabbi Anna Boswell-Levy
Rabbi Chava Bahle

This letter is supported by Taanit Tzedek- Jewish Fast for Gaza , Shomer Shalom Institute for Jewish Nonviolence, Tikkun and the Shalom Center.

If you are a rabbi and would like to add your name to this statement, send an e-mail to Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb (rabbilynn at earthlink dot net).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Clarion Fund’s New Anti-Iran Film to Star Iranian Fraudster

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

Iranium film logoEli Clifton writes that Clarion Fund‘s new anti-Iran film is to be called (quite creatively) Iranium. I wrote about it a few weeks ago when news of it first surfaced. But now the Aish HaTorah-affiliated Clarion has a website for the film which reveals some interesting and damaging information. A review of the Interviewee page shows many of the usual pro-Israel Islamophobic neocon suspects like James Woolsey, Rachel Ehrenfeld, and Bernard Lewis. There is the requisite retired U.S. general.

Clarion lays out the purpose of the film clearly:

The film will present a wide array of options to combat the threat and will target influential U.S. interest groups and policy makers. After viewing the film, the general public will be able to understand the critical nature of the threats and encourage a movement aimed at preventing the further advancement of the Iranian regime and its nuclear arsenal.

The italicized phrase clearly delineates the goal of the producers as rolling back Iran, which could easily be construed as regime change.  This is no surprise since it is a popular theme among Jewish neocons and their allies.  It is important when the Republican Jewish Coalition begins pimping this film come the fall election campaign, spending millions of dollars on screenings at synagogues and ads in the Jewish Forward, etc. that anyone who considers writing a word about it know that there is a radical military-interventionist message inherent in this film.  And this message is heavily endorsed by Israel’s current right-wing government, which would like nothing more than to see the U.S. either attack Iran or allow Israel to do so on its behalf.

Anyone who has followed Clarion’s previous propaganda ventures, Obsession and Third Jihad, will know that their M.O. is to co-opt a “native” to denounce “radical Islam” in the case of those two films, and Iran in the case of this one.  In the former case, it was rightist Republican Arizona cardiologist Zuhdi Jasser, who performed the requisite role of Muslim-bashing.

Caspian Makan

Caspian Makan: face of a fraud

For Iranium, they have recruited a new “star” of the Green protest movement, Caspian Makan.  If you read his press clippings from publications as august as the Guardian, you’d be forgiven for thinking that this guy was Moussavi and Karroubi’s right-hand man.  Makan claims to have been Neda Soltan’s fiance (not true) and claims to have been with her in her final moments after being fatally shot during the June riots in Teheran (also untrue).  Makan will tell anyone who will listen of the terrible hardships he has suffered both as a heroic partisan of the Green movement and as a refugee who fled on an arduous trek through Kurdish Iran to Turkey and then to exile in Canada.

Last month, this impostor even got an audience (no doubt thanks to his connections with the Clarion folks–what a great coup for their film!) with Israeli President Shimon Peres.  Apparently, the president’s handlers didn’t do their due diligence on this fellow–or else they did and they found him too much of a hasbara gold mine to pass up.  You can read the propaganda clearly articulated in the Jerusalem Post’s dutiful patriotic stengography.

Iason Athanasiadis, has written the definitive expose of Makan, pointing out his tenuous relationship with facts and the truth.  Indeed, Athanasiadis published Makan’s first interview after he escaped from Iran.  As such, this journalist should be accorded some respect in light of his disavowal of the so-called Iranian dissident hero.

It is interesting that when Makan first arrived in the west he was Neda Soltan’s fiance.  Here is how he described her last day in the Guardian interview:

On the day of her death, Caspian was out with his camera in another part of the city. “I was taking pictures of the protests and the protesters that day. It was hard to take pictures as the security guards were beating up protesters. I used my mobile’s camera when I couldn’t use my big camera. It was six to seven in the evening when I started seeing people get shot and injured. I thought of Neda a lot. I was very worried for her. I wanted to call her but the mobile phone system had been disconnected and I couldn’t contact her at all. I didn’t sleep that night. The terrible scenes were going through my head. I was sitting in front of my computer, looking at the photos I had taken. Around six in the morning my mobile rang. It was Neda’s number. But it wasn’t her. It was her sister. She said, ‘Caspian, Neda is gone!’ I didn’t understand what she meant. I couldn’t believe what she was telling me.”

And here is his description of his imprisonment following her death.  Note how it sounds like it comes right from the pages of a Victorian romantic novel:

“They told me they were taking me to Evin prison. They took me to a prison cell. Neda’s grave number was 32. The grave next to that was number 34, my cell’s number. I didn’t want to come back after they took me. I wanted them to kill me as well.”

There was one small problem with all of this.  It wasn’t true, as described by the Turkey-based reporter:

Makan launched into an account of Neda’s final days that was tragic and compelling. Unfortunately, it was also full of lies. The way he told it, Neda — a very politicized young woman — begged him to sally forward into the streets with his camera and document events. He dutifully did so, snapping extraordinary images of Revolutionary Guardsmen hanging off helicopters, mercilessly shooting into the demonstrators.

“Really?” I asked. “That’s funny, I never heard even a claim of helicopter-mounted snipers.”

“Yes, yes,” Makan assured me. “I would show you the evidence but the Islamic Republic confiscated all my archives.”

With Neda dead, Makan started giving interviews to international television channels, achieving the kind of international media profile he had always sought…Clutching a lock of Neda’s hair and a few pictures he snapped of her during their two-month acquaintance, he began a morbid international tour.

His blurb at the Uranium site calls him “her close friend.”  This is closer to the truth of the matter:

Not only was Makan not Neda’s fiance when she died, they were not even romantically linked anymore. Neda left him after a row they had and Caspian was allegedly seeing another girl, with whom he was spotted attending one of the post-election protest marches..

Similarly, Athanasiadis notes that when he had first met Makan some years ago, the latter had claimed to be a photographer but none of the photographers the former queried who would know of his work had ever heard of him.  I note the Uranium site calls Makan “an Iranian documentary filmmaker.”  Dare we ask to see any of his “documentaries?”  Is there even one?

The journalist describes Makan’s harrowing tale of privation during his trek to freedom, but then notes that the smugglers who took their lives in their hands to carry him to safety couldn’t stand the sight of him.  Apparently, he had the nerve to complain about the quality of the accommodations they provided him on his journey!

If the alleged Iranian dissident had a reason for leaving Iran it doesn’t appear to be the one he claims.  Rather, he had gone from being a regime-favored landscape photographer to being out of favor:

As a landscape photographer, he had always depended on the Islamic Republic for commissions (the Ministry of Culture block-bought all 3,000 prints of his book of landscapes from the Caspian Sea, one of the regime’s method for rewarding docile artists). Now, he was out of favor and the Ministry of Culture did not return his calls. So Makan escaped to Turkey.

Makan may have a burning passion, but it is not for Iranian democracy.  Rather it appears to be a passion for the good life and the fruits of success possible in the west:

Makan’s Narcissus complex is clear from the photographs of himself that he posts on Facebook, wearing elaborate suits and ties, driving a Mercedes, or Karate Kid-like in martial arts poses…

Now, in interviews conducted inside gleaming TV studios, he looks smug as a bug in a rug in his brand new suit. Neda must be spinning in her grave.

So much for Iranium’s token Iranian.  I’d say that, in a play on the film’s title that, rather than Iran being radioactive, their Iranian hero is.  It’s somehow fitting that Clarion has turned to a charlatan for affirmation of their anti-Iranian views, since those behind this film are charlatans as well, albeit political ones.

It’s also worth noting that the anti-Muslim right seems to have a special need to embrace such quisling frauds.  Aish HaTorah, with which Clarion is closely affiliated, has adopted another alleged Muslim convert to Judaism, a former druggie calling himself “Mark” (not his original name) Halawa.  I called him the Manchurian Muslim in the post I wrote about him.  Another was Walid Shoebat, the pseudonym of a Palestinian who claimed to be a Muslim-born PLO terrorist who turned against terror, the PLO, and became a Christian evangelical.  Only problem, he was none of the things he claimed to be.

There is also another interesting character appearing in the film.  Harold Rhode is a former colleague of Doug Feith and protegé of Bernard Lewis and Richard Perle.  He worked with Feith and Perle via the infamous Pentagon Office of Net Assessment, where he was responsible for plotting U.S. military strategy in the lead-up to the Iraq war.

He reaffirmed in an interview with the Jerusalem Post the standard lies of Cheney and other neocon warriors that Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda and thought this was a more effective argument for war than Iraqi WMD (he at least was right on one of those counts).  Here is a sampling of Rhode’s sharp analysis of the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection and by extension all of Islam:

He [Saddam] was clearly involved with these bastards, with al-Qaida and all sorts of other fundamentalists who are out to destroy the West.

Why should Saddam, a secular Sunni, get involved with al-Qaida? What was his motivation?

Let’s say say that everybody here is helping everybody else. I help you in ways that are good for you, and you help me in ways that are good for me. I have a money system that can transfer things; you use it. I need weapons transferred to someone that you have connections with. I’m not your leader, you’re not my leader. It’s mutual. They’re all on the same side here… Look, there were times the KGB and the CIA were on the same side and there are times right now that this country [Israel] and Saudi Arabia are on the same side – that’s until the day Iran is taken care of and then that will end.

If he’s secular, why did he write “Allahu akhbar” in his own blood on the flag, why did he supposedly have a Koran written in his blood? Why? I don’t know what secular means. Secular is a nice Western word. The best way you can put that in Arabic is la diniyah. La means no and diniyah is the law. That means you don’t fear God, you don’t fear judgment day. That means you can kill me or I can kill you and I’m not afraid of what God will say.

I’m ashamed to say that this is a man once employed by the U.S. government as an expert on Islam and the Muslim world.  The fact that he’s starring in a new Clarion fund propaganda extravaganza doesn’t surprise me.  But that he was sitting in a Pentagon office charting U.S. war policy speaks volumes about our utter failure there during the Bush years.

Thanks to Eli Clifton for sharing his background information about Rhode.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Israeli Pop Star Joins Im Tirtzu, Accusing Peace Activists of ‘Knifing’ Israel in Back

Monday, April 19th, 2010


Im Tirtzu’s rightist onslaught against Israeli liberals continues with a new uber-maudlin flag-waver performed by Mizrahi pop star, Amir Benayoun.  Full of the nostalgic ornamented strains of solo violin and accompanied by IDF promotional stills, it accuses Israeli human rights activists of knifing Israel in the back and deserting the troops in their hour of need:

I am Your Brother

I preserve your identity
I protect your children
I put my life on the line for you
and you spit in my face

After they failed to kill me from the outside
you come and kill me from inside
I haven’t seen my mother in a month
neither my son nor my house nor my wife

I always charge forward
with my back to you
[but] you sharpen the knife
more than anything, this thought burns my soul
and you, how come you still don’t understand

I am your brother,
you are an enemy
you hate me
I love [you]
when I weep you laugh behind my back
you are killing me
why, you are my brother

I am the future
you are the past
and the present is broken between us
I go hungry for you
you gorge yourself and over-imbibe [reference to Deuteronomy 21 in which Israelite is stoned to death for such 'sins']
when my throat is dry you drink liquor
my lips are always sealed for your safety
but you deliver me to the foreigner [meaning gentiles--reference to Goldstone, NIF, Anat Kamm]

I am your brother, you act like an enemy
Why? You’re my brother

[Narrator intones prayer: He who blessed our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
May He bless the fighters of the Israel Defense Forces
Who stand guard over our land and the cities of our God
From Lebanon to the desert of Egypt
And from the Great Sea [Mediterranean] unto the approach of the Aravah
On the land, in the air, and on the sea

For it is the Lord your God who goes with you
To battle your enemies for you to save you
Now let us say: Amen

–translation assistance by Nimrod Halpern and Ofer Neiman

My Israeli friends who brought this to my attention hasten to add that Benayoun was rejected from the army because he had a drug history and criminal record. Which would make him our equivalent of Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman. Ironic that someone who never served would have the gall to attack Israeli peace activists, almost all of whom have served, many with distinction and as senior officers. How does this bozo accuse a former IDF officer of sticking a knife in his back when he had too shady a past even to be accepted into the ranks??

And Israeli commenter on the YouTube thread wrote this hilarious response:

Horst Wessel could not have written it better.

Those of you who note the knitted skullcap may realize Benyoun’s been “saved” by Chabad which, in Israel, is a particularly noxious extremist pro-settler strain of Orthodox fanaticism represented by leaders such as Dov Wolpe.

Efrat: Without Palestinians ‘Who’ll Wipe Settlers’ Asses?’

Monday, April 19th, 2010

Rabbi Doctor Shlomo Riskin's Efrat, Arab-rein on Israel Independence Day

efrat bannerWorried that the hired help might steal the silverware or take vengeance for stealing surrounding land, Rabbi Sholom Riskin’s Efrat is Arabrein on Yom HaAtzmaoot.  But on other days it appears little of any real value gets done there without them.

An Israeli reader has e-mailed me a message meant for the Efrat community, a major West Bank settlement founded by former Lincoln Square Synagogue Rabbi Doctor (his own website attaches the honorifics to him) Shlomo Riskin:

בימים שני ושלישי הקרובים (19-20/4/10)
יום הזכרון והעצמאות
לא תתאפשר כניסת פלשתינאים לאפרת

This coming Tuesday and Wednesday, Memorial and Independence Days, no Palestinians will be permitted to enter Efrat.

My correspondent’s ‘wicked’ rejoinder:

So who’s going to wipe the settlers’ asses on Independence Day?

It should be kept in mind that Efrat is a settlement known for being an especially cruel neighbor to surrounding Palestinian villages, whose misdeeds have included stealing surrounding land for its own expansion and polluting farm land with its own untreated sewage.  Perhaps Efrat’s residents think their turds are golden and have special medicinal powers that would benefit their Palestinian neighbors.  If so, that’s mighty white of ‘em.

Also, Efrat is one of the settlements which received largesse from Christian Zionist Pastor John Hagee and his pro-settler Christians United for Israel.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Wiesel: ‘If I Lie About Thee, O Jerusalem’

Sunday, April 18th, 2010

The more Elie Wiesel attempts to insert himself into the political discourse on behalf of the Netanyahu government and its intransigent positions vis a vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the more irrelevant he has become.

The Israeli Independence Day ad he and his financial sponsors bought in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and New York Times is the result of an urgent summons Wiesel received from Bibi after the latter’s first failed visit to Washington.  Bibi invited the Nobel laureate to his home and asked that he intercede on Israel’s behalf with the American president.  Wiesel agreed.  This ad is the result.  I’m estimating that the all told the ads would’ve cost close to $500,000.

wiesel and hagee

Elie Wiesel with his "rabbi," John Hagee

Given that Elie Wiesel recently agreed to address the Christians United for Israel national conference in return for a $500,000 gift, we have to wonder what favors Wiesel can expect from the Israeli prime minister.  Certainly, at the very least either the Israeli government or one of its wealthy American supporters like Ronald Lauder has paid for the ads.  If anyone sees any documentation of the financial source please let me know.

Wiesel’s text is chock full of Zionist nostalgia, falsehood and distortion.  Let us begin:

For me, the Jew that I am, Jerusalem is above politics. It is mentioned more than six hundred times in Scripture—and not a single time in the Koran.

If Jerusalem is above politics as Wiesel claims, then why does he find it necessary to get in a dig at Muslims who allegedly have no Koranic claim to Jerusalem?  What is indecent of Wiesel is to claim that he is above politics or religious disputation when the ad is embroiled in the very things he claims to eschew.

There is no more moving prayer in Jewish history than the one expressing our yearning to return to Jerusalem.

There are many moving Jewish prayers–the Hineni, El Maley Rachamim, Eyleh Ezkerah, U’Netaneh Tokef–to name but a few.  Certainly Wiesel has a right to claim that the prayer calling for our return to Jerusalem is moving.  But “no more moving prayer in Jewish history?”  This smacks of grandstanding and exploiting Judaism for political gain.

In the following passage we see Wiesel the master propagandist.  Any political movement would give its eye teeth to have him on its side:

It belongs to the Jewish people and is much more than a city, it is what binds one Jew to another in a way that remains hard to explain. When a Jew visits Jerusalem for the first time, it is not the first time; it is a homecoming. The first song I heard was my mother’s lullaby about and for Jerusalem. Its sadness and its joy are part of our collective memory.

What has Wiesel forgotten here?  That Jerusalem doesn’t “belong” to the Jewish people any more than it belongs to Christians or Muslims whose history here is just as deep.  As for Jerusalem binding one Jew to another, this is pure bravado.  For many (though not all) observant Jews, perhaps this is the case.  But the majority of Jews are not observant.  So really, Wiesel is speaking mainly for himself and a minority of observant Jerusalem-centric Jews, yet he articulates his statement as if it’s self-evident that he speaks for us all.  It’s quite brilliant, but ultimately empty rhetoric.

As for the pap about Jerusalem being a “homecoming,” there are Christians and Muslims who feel precisely the same way about the city.  Yet, Wiesel conveniently ignores their feelings.  Ultimately, the truth of the matter is that no one, aside from some Jews, will care for a vision of Jerusalem that is exclusively Jewish-dominated.  The only way Jerusalem can resonate in world consciousness is as a home (including sovereignty) for all religions who are invested here.  So once again, Wiesel’s vision is sterile and convinces no one aside from those who already are convinced.

In this passage, we once again see Wiesel’s fraudulent Zionist historiography:

…Had Jordan not joined Egypt and Syria in the war against Israel, the old city of Jerusalem would still be Arab.  Clearly, while Jews were ready to die for Jerusalem they would not kill for Jerusalem.

Wiesel of course has no way of knowing what would’ve happened if Jordan hadn’t attacked Israel in 1967.  But at any event it did, and arguing that because Jordan forced us, in his terms, to die for Jerusalem means we’re not now killing for it is preposterous.  The plain fact of of the matter is that Israel is killing not for specifically Jerusalem, but to enforce the Occupation of which Jerusalem is a part.

The plain fact of the matter is that Israel will have to give up its claim to sovereignty over all of Jerusalem if it wants a peace agreement.  Further, Wiesel’s argument that Israel must not be forced to renounce this claim will lead to more dead, both Palestinian and Israeli.  This Holocaust survivor’s God wants him to fight till the last Jew on behalf of some manufactured nostalgic Zionist vision of Jerusalem.  My God wants Jews, whether in Israel or the Diaspora, to live safe, secure and prosperous lives.  He (or She) doesn’t demand that a single Jew die on behalf of fantasies and delusions.  My God says Jews, Christians and Muslims can share Jerusalem, not under some ersatz Israeli-defined regime, but as part of a political settlement that offers sovereignty to Israelis and Palestinians over their own respective neighborhoods.

Today, for the first time in history, Jews, Christians and Muslims all may freely worship at their shrines.

While I am not a historian, neither is Wiesel, and I’d be willing to wager that the claim there has never been a historical period before this one, when all religions could worship freely in the city, is false.  But even more importantly, Muslims cannot now worship freely at their shrines because, unless they live in Jerusalem, they are forbidden from entering Jerusalem to worship.  And during tense periods, Israeli authorities only permit elderly men to worship at the Muslim holy places for fear of younger worshippers fomenting unrest.  Even if you live in Jerusalem, you may still be prevented from such worship.

Perhaps the most blatantly false and noxious claim is this one:

…Contrary to certain media reports, Jews, Christians and Muslims ARE allowed to build their homes anywhere in the city. The anguish over Jerusalem is not about real estate but about memory.

First, Muslims are not allowed to build new homes anywhere in the city, even in their own neighborhoods as they cannot obtain building permits.  Second, even if we redefine Wiesel’s claim as buying homes, Muslims cannot buy in West Jerusalem (while Jews can build their own–and/ot steal Arab–homes in East Jerusalem).  Sidra DeKoven Ezrahi, professor at the Hebrew University and, unlike Wiesel, a resident of Jerusalem, rebuts the latter’s mendacity:

I defy Mr. Wiesel to find three Muslim families in all of West Jerusalem.

And Yossi Sarid, writing in Haaretz replies thus:

Someone has deceived you, my dear friend. Not only may an Arab not build “anywhere,” but he may thank his god if he is not evicted from his home and thrown out onto the street with his family and property.

Wiesel, who one of my readers noted comes from a rightist Beitar political background, closes with a final bit of Judeocentric obtuseness:

Jerusalem must remain the world’s Jewish spiritual capital, not a symbol of anguish and bitterness, but a symbol of trust and hope.

A shared Jerusalem in no way prevents Jerusalem from remaining the world’s Jewish spiritual capital.  But the former Jabotinskyite argues falsely only an exclusive Jewish claim of sovereignty over the entire city guarantees it remaining so.  Further, Wiesel completely ignores the fact that such an exclusivist claim to Jerusalem actually makes the city into a symbol of anguish and bitterness for its Arab inhabitants (and not just them, virtually the entire Muslim world as well).  This is yet another reason that for this city to become a beacon of trust and hope it MUST be shared.

If you like Elie Wiesel, you might try to excuse this ad as an enterprise foisted on Wiesel and thereby attempt to absolve him of responsibility for the blatant propagandizing.  But if you don’t have any special feeling for him you’d be hard-pressed not to accuse him of willful and deliberate lying on behalf of a blatant Likudist political agenda.  If he was Israeli I could even forgive him that because he would be speaking as an Israeli citizen.

But he’s not.  He’s speaking as an American Jew and disputing the claims of Barack Obama to have Israel’s best interest at heart.  In a sly way, he’s trying to jawbone the administration into giving Bibi a pass on Jerusalem.  This is a pass that not only doesn’t he deserve, but given the recent bad blood between Israel and the U.S., one he’s not likely to get.  So why would the Nobel laureate be sticking his nose into such matters when no one except the Israeli rightist prime ministers and his moneyed American Jewish friends have asked him to?  I think I’ve just answered my own question.

Let’s sit back and see who writes some very big checks to Wiesel’s foundation in the coming weeks and months.

Finally, before trusting Elie Wiesel’s judgment on a subject as important as this one we should remind ourselves that the latter attempted to explain his trust in Bernie Madoff thus:

“We thought he was God, we trusted everything in his hands.”

If this Holocaust survivor could view a charlatan as God, perhaps we should be chary of imparting such trust in Wiesel himself.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Goldstone Herem Easing?

Friday, April 16th, 2010

One of the things I’ve discovered in writing this blog for seven years is that there is only one way to deal with bullies.  You have to face them down and expose them.  Most will back off.  That appears to be what may be happening in South Africa regarding the herem into which the Jewish leadership had placed Judge Richard Goldstone, who’d hoped to attend his grandson’s bar mitzvah there next month.

After threats from various uber-Zionist groups to picket the bar mitzvah service at the synagogue and tumult within the congregation, Goldstone felt he had no choice but withdraw from the event.  But now that the Jewish progressive blogosphere, the N.Y. Times (h/t to reader Robin), and even Rep. Gary Ackerman have weighed in, the bullies are retracting their claws and reconsidering their brutishness.

The chief rabbi had been involved in the original discussions about Goldstone not attending the ceremony, and presumably endorsed the community’s position.  Amazing when a N.Y. Times reporter calls how quickly one can change one’s tune, or has he?

Warren Goldstein, the chief rabbi of South Africa, said he had been involved in discussions about the possible disruptions to the ceremony…

But on Friday he issued a statement saying that he, like most involved, believed the judge should be allowed to attend: “It is simply a question of decency and compassion to the bar mitzvah boy not to ruin his day.”

zev krengel

Zev Krengel: blaming the victim

Since those who endorsed the herem did so out of a fake concern for ‘ruining the bar mitzvah boy’s day’ (with protests and the like), I have to wonder what Goldstein really means here.  What would ruin the boy’s day?  Not having his grandfather there?  Or facing the howls and whistles of the Jewish mob if his grandfather was there?

If Goldstein is backing away, not everyone is seeing the light.  Some leaders are attempting to rewrite history to absolve themselves of any responsibility or fault in this shande.  At one time, Zev Krengel, South Africa Board of Deputies chair, had called Goldstone “a traitor to his tribe.”  Open Shuhada Street notes that he also called Goldstone the worst thing to happen to Jews since the Inquisition.

Note how Krengel now blames the victim for his own exclusion from his grandson’s simcha:

It has been widely reported in the media that Judge Richard Goldstone has been barred from attending his grandson’s barmitzvah [sic] as a result of pressure from certain sectors of the Jewish leadership. While it has not been involved in this matter, the SA Jewish Board of Deputies was concerned that it would turn into a divisive issue within the Jewish community, and has therefore carefully investigated it to establish the correct facts.

What has emerged is that…at no time was Judge Goldstone prohibited from, or even requested, not to attend the barmitzvah ceremony by any organisation or individual. Rather, this was a decision voluntarily taken by the Goldstone family and the other respective parties. Certain senior Jewish communal and religious leaders were certainly involved in the discussions around the topic, but in no way did they attempt to dictate to or otherwise pressurize the family into arriving at their decision.

A character in Joan Micklin Silver’s Hester Street tells another:

“You can’t piss on my back and tell me it’s rain.”

That’s what Krengel is doing here.  The hyper-Zionists of the community threatened pickets outside their synagogue and every unpleasantness they could muster if Goldstone attended.  Yet they had nothing to do with his decision to stay away.  Have you ever heard of such hypocrisy?

Though I am not Richard Goldstone and can offer my kopek’s worth of advice uninvited, I would urge him to heed the advice of a South African Jewish friend:

Justice Arthur Chaskalson, who served with Judge Goldstone on South Africa’s Constitutional Court, said the threats “reveal a level of bigotry and intolerance meant to shut down any diversity of opinion.”

He said he hoped his friend would reconsider — and come anyway.

Judge Goldstone: face down the bullies.  Don’t give them the satisfaction.  They will likely run and hide and you will carry the day.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Obama Getting Tough on Israel or Just More Words?

Thursday, April 15th, 2010
Obama addresses nuclear security conference (AP)

Obama addresses nuclear security summit (AP)

Yesterday, the N.Y. Times published one of those tea leaf articles about presidential politics which can either be suggestive or frustrating depending on whether you believe there’s any substance to the speculations.  Pres. Obama has made two rather astonishing statements regarding Israel in the past few days which, depending on how you look at them, may indicate a new-found resolve to get tough on Israel and its prime minister Bibi Netanyahu; or it may be more high-minded bloviating along the lines of the Cairo speech, which sounded good and seemed to signify nothing.

Here’s how the Times reported it:

It was just a phrase at the end of President Obama’s news conference on Tuesday, but it was a stark reminder of a far-reaching shift in how the United States views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how aggressively it might push for a peace agreement.

When Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute was a “vital national security interest of the United States,” he was highlighting a change that has resulted from a lengthy debate among his top officials over how best to balance support for Israel against other American interests.

This shift, described by administration officials who did not want to be quoted by name when discussing internal discussions, is driving the White House’s urgency to help broker a Middle East peace deal. It increases the likelihood that Mr. Obama, frustrated by the inability of the Israelis and the Palestinians to come to terms, will offer his own proposed parameters for an eventual Palestinian state.

Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure” — drawing an explicit link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

There are two strains that I read in Barack Obama’s political approach: one is playing for time, which is mostly what he seems to have done regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict until now; and then there is keeping your eye on the prize and seeking historic change.  If Pres. Obama got frustrated enough that he proposed his own settlement parameters and he got the Quartet and EU on board, along with the Arab League, he would have a winner, regardless of Israeli government intransigence.  In fact, I believe that faced with such a wall of support an Israeli government would either acquiesce or be replaced in elections.

When I first read Steve Walt’s portrayal of General Petraeus’ Congressional testimony in which he advanced the ideas in the last paragraph of the quotation above, I knew Obama had a winner.  There is no argument stronger than a national security argument and what was so powerful and persuasive about this one was that it took the ground away from the Israel lobby.  If American boys are facing down the wrath of Islamic militants at least partially because of the latters’ frustration at the injustice of the Occupation and suffering of the Palestinian people–this is an idea that will resonate with the American people even more than the idea that Israel and the U.S. have “shared values” or Israel is “the only democracy in the Middle East.”  Body bags trump “common values”  every time.

The second titillating statement concerned the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the president urged Israel to sign it:

“Whether we’re talking about Israel or any other country, we think that becoming part of the NPT is important…”

While he hastened to add that this has been U.S. policy for decades, the truth is that no president in my lifetime (as far as I recall) has ever made mention of this issue.  The fact that Israel is a non-signatory is a major factor in Iran’s concern about its lack of a nuclear weapon.  It realizes that Israel could strike at Iran at any time using its own nukes and Iran would have little recourse.  This is a big destabilizing factor not just for Iran, but all of Israel’s neighbors who are without such weapons.  Obama’s sensitivity to this issue is a very good sign, even if there’s not much he can do about it right now.

It is, of course, no accident that Bibi Netanyahu was a no-show at the conference attended by forty-seven other countries.  He knew that Obama would likely make such a remark and couldn’t bear the idea of it.  The fact of the matter is that if Israel wishes to make a stink out of Iran’s supposed thirst for nuclear weapons, the former doesn’t exactly have the cleanest act itself.

Being someone who’s interested in “inside basball” regarding this subject, I found this sentence fascinating and I wonder who the guests referred to were:

Last week, National Security Council officials met with outside Middle East experts to discuss the Arab Israeli conflict.

My money is on Daniel Levy as a sure thing.  Not sure about Rob Malley or Dan Kurtzer but they were distinct possibilities along with Aaron David Miller.  If you know the answer, let me know.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Spanish Supreme Court Rejects Shehadeh War Crimes Jurisdiction

Thursday, April 15th, 2010
Salah Shehade

Salah Shehadeh, assassinated by IDF in 2002 (Image via Wikipedia)

The Israeli army has won a victory on behalf of impunity in its war against the Palestinian people with this week’s announcement that the Spanish High Court has rejected jurisdiction over the case of the assassination of Palestinian militant Salah Shehadeh and 18 civilians by the IDF in 2002.

After an appeal by Israeli human rights lawyer Michael Sfard to the Israeli Supreme Court, the State established the Inbar commiittee, ostensibly to investigate the incident and determine whether criminal charges were warranted. As insurance, anti-Occupation activists brought cases against the IDF principals in Britain and Spain.

Now it appears likely Gens. Doron Almog and Dan Halutz, the senior chain of command for the attack, may never be held accountable.  The Spanish court, in its decision pointed to the creation of the Inbar committee as proof that Israel itself was pursuing its own investigation.  Under international law, the nation in which the violation occurred is given first opportunity to prosecute the case.  If they don’t, then other states may take up the case.

The hypocrisy of the Spanish decision is noted by Sharon Weill’s International Journal of Criminal Justice article in which she described the members, structure and mandate of the Inbar committee:

…Following the recommendation of the HCJ [Israeli High Court of Justice], the state agreed to establish an objective and independent commission of inquiry investigating into the killing of Salah Shehadeh. The structure, nature and mandate of that commission would be entirely determined by the state: the very entity whose actions were to be investigated. On 23 January 2008, the commission was appointed by the Prime Minister: it was composed of three members, two of them former Military Generals and another a former official from the security services.

The commission was mandated to investigate the legality of the killing of Salah Shehadeh according to the same legal framework as a military inquiry….While all the procedures, testimonies and even the final report remain confidential, it is authorized to bring to the attention of the relevant authorities criminal recommendations. Later on, if theMilitary Advocate General finds that there is a basis to open a criminal investigation, he can do so only after consulting a Major General.

Brig. General (Res.) Zvi Inbar, formerly the Military Advocate General and the Knesset Legal Counsel was appointed head of the commission; with him were appointed as members of the commission Maj. General (Res.) Iztchak Eitan, formerly the head of the IDF Central Command and Mr Iztchak Dar, who formerly held a large number of operative positions in the General Security Service (GSS), amongst others as the Head of the Service’s Israeli and Foreign Interests Section.

In other words: the fix was in.  Proof of this is that since its creation in 2008 it has not actually investigated the incident, let alone made recommendations.  And as Prof. Weill points out the longer the period from the actual crime to its investigation the greater likelihood witnesses die or disappear and evidence is lost or compromised.  Given Israel’s reputation in these matters this certainly shouldn’t be suspected in this case.

The inactivity of the Committee hasn’t stopped both the Israeli and Spanish Supreme Courts from pointing to its existence as proof that Israel was dealing with the matter.  So here you see the weakness of international law, which allows accused nations like Israel to use smoke, mirrors and obfuscation to exploit loopholes.  In addition, often the legal systems of other nations which might eliminate such impunity refuse to do so out of lack of political will.

Israel, of course, takes maximum advantage of this situation.  Like many authoritarian regimes and serial human rights violators, it develops maximally bureaucratic responses to maintain the network of terror and impunity behind the Occupation.  Whether this involves appropriating (i.e. stealing) Palestinian private land to build settlements or undermining the principle of universal jurisdiction, such regimes become quite skilled at the game.

But this doesn’t mean the game is over.  It means a skirmish has been lost and activists must redouble their political and legal efforts.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE