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 July, 2010

‘Because of Their Sins We Expelled Them From Their Land’

Friday, July 9th, 2010
abu tir

Mohammed Abu Tir: refusing to 'go gently into that good night' called exile (Stoyan Nenov/Reuters)

Because of our sins we were exiled from our land.

–Jewish liturgy

I never did appreciate the theological outlook of this prayer since it seemed to blame us for our own victimization.  But I did think of it when I read Amira Hass’ latest report about the expulsion of four Hamas legislators from their Jerusalem homes for the crime of being an elected representative of their own Palestinian people in the PA.  It seems that just as we Jews were expelled from our land by our enemies, we are now returning the favor to the Palestinians.  These Palestinians have sinned by rebelling against their occupiers (“we have met the enemy and he is US”) and by golly we’ll make them suffer the same way we suffered.

Israel long ago annexed East Jerusalem and brought its residents under Israeli rule (though it did not offer them citizenship).  They were offered Israeli identity documents which offered them status that was short of citizenship but more generous than any rights offered to Palestinians of the West Bank.  Over the past years, Israel has begun to chip away at those rights by arbitrarily revoking residency for any Palestinian who leaves Israel for any length of time.  For example, Iman Jilani, the sister of the murdered Palestinian Ziad Jilani, lost her Jerusalem residency because she has lived in the United States for a number of years.

But the latest expulsions are a new chapter since Israel has never before denied residency to Palestinians who continued to live in Jerusalem.  The ostensible pretext?  By joining the PA, the four legislators were disloyal to Israel.  Hass notes the irony of punishing Jerusalemites for rebelling against their annexation and expressing a preference for Palestinian rule via the PA:

…The inhabitants of East Jerusalem did not decide to “come” to Israel; it is Israel that “came” to them.

One of the group of four, Mohammed Abu Tir, a former minister, has been rearrested for having the chutzpah to leave his ancestral home.  The other three expellees retreated to the courtyard of the East Jerusalem Red Cross where they took up residence in protest.  Unless Israel wishes to penetrate this neutral territory, we have a possible long-term standoff in the offing.

Grossman: Free Shalit, Free Israel from Its Hamas Shibboleths

Thursday, July 8th, 2010
david grossman

David Grossman (Ben Heine)

David Grossman is a perfect example of an artist who has a better political mind than the leaders of his nation.  In a column he wrote for Haaretz, he showed that he has a far more deft strategic approach than anyone in Israeli politics today.  So many of Israel’s decent politicians (Shulamit Aloni, Yossi Sarid, Avrum Burg and Yossi Beilin to name a few) have left the field to the true incompetents and worse; that it’s not hard to be head and shoulders above this lot.  As Zeev Sternhell wrote so cogently in today’s Haaretz:

Peres the deserter [of Labor], who became president…taught the average Israeli not only that politics is a realm to avoid if you want to save your soul, but that political life is nothing but a web of fraud – without ideology, principles and truth.

But Grossman’s column is truly forthright and clear-thinking.  Instead of merely negotiating for Gilad Shalit’s release, he says, let’s think bigger and try to resolve the entire Gaza mess by demanding a total end of terror (including rocket) attacks from Gaza in return for an end to the siege and the release of Shalit.  There are of course two reasons this will never happen.  First, it is entirely too candid and reasonable an assessment and Israeli politics these days shuns reason and candor like the plague.  Second, such a negotiation would involve a tacit recognition of Hamas as a legitimate representative of the Palestinians.  One of the fundamental components of Israeli policy is that Hamas may never, ever be viewed as legitimate or acceptable for any purpose.  It matters little that this belief flies in the face of Palestinian reality.  Much of Israeli policy (cf. Iran) flies in the face of reality.

Grossman notes a particularly telling result of the Mavi Marmara fiasco as representative of similar failures of Israeli policy:

For years Israel has presented an inflexible, tight-fisted and unilateral position. It has increasingly flexed its muscles and declared that it will not concede an inch until suddenly, sometimes within a day, the situation is completely reversed. The ground − or the sea − shifts under its feet, and Israel is forced to concede totally, far more than it would have conceded in negotiations ‏(and of course then it also receives a smaller return for its concessions‏).And even in the painful and frustrating issue of Gilad Shalit it looks as though things are heading that way. But maybe this time, with both sides trapped in their positions and no solution on the horizon, we will dare to expand our point of view, to release ourselves from the usual conditions and determine the momentum and its scale on our own initiative ‏(ha, a forgotten word!‏).

Here is where Grossman proves his strategic thinking by jettisoning conventional Israeli attitudes toward Hamas and posing an alternate take on what could happen if Israel pursues his course of action:

Perhaps − as in the siege of Gaza − it will turn out that for years we have been fed clichés that do not conform to all the nuances and possibilities of the situation. And perhaps it will turn out that negotiations with Hamas toward some kind of agreement will actually spur the leaders of the Palestinian Authority to hasten the peace process with Israel. And perhaps there will be a dynamic that will set into motion a process of reconciliation between the two mutually hostile parts of the Palestinian people, a process without which no stable peace agreement will be achieved, not even with PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his people.

Of course, the premise of the last sentence presumes that this is what the Netanyahu government wants–a stable peace agreement.  That is highly debatable.  Though one could say that it is likely this is what most Israelis want even if the leaders they choose do not.

In a Haaretz editorial which expanded on Grossman’s themes, the editorial writer revealed one of those rare instances in which the IDF’s senior leadership actually came up with an excellent strategic challenge which could have broken the Israel-Hamas logjam:

A few days after the [Shalit] abduction and the failure…to locate and rescue the soldier, astute voices from the top ranks of the Israel Defense Forces reached the conclusion that if Shalit was to be brought back, a new policy was necessary. These voices, which apparently reflected the position of GOC Southern Command Yoav Galant and then chief of staff Dan Halutz, sought to recognize the reality that had been created in Gaza following the Hamas victory in the PA elections four months earlier, and the establishment of the Ismail Haniyeh government (Hamas’ violent takeover of the Strip only took place in June 2007 ).

The IDF wanted to pose the following option to Hamas: Preserve your rule of power or continue your violent struggle against Israel. A proposal to seek a broad agreement on Israel-Hamas relations was drafted – which was to include a cease-fire, an end to terrorist attacks and the launching of Qassam rockets, an end to efforts to acquire more weapons for use against Israel and the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit. A report on this attitude held by the IDF, published by Haaretz, angered then-prime minister Ehud Olmert, who opposed a prisoner exchange deal. He shelved the idea and subsequently rejected similar ones raised during Operation Cast Lead.

Thank you, Ehud Olmert, who seems never to have missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Returning to Grossman’s column, here is more wisdom from Israel’s literary seer:

…For several years Israel has been trapped in a paralysis that is gradually slowing it down, to the point where anyone with eyes in his head identifies apathy and helplessness and even a dwindling of the healthy life instinct. That is the real danger to Israel, and it is far more destructive than all the dangers of Hamas.

…The traditional tendency of Israeli leaders to find reasons and excuses for inactivity, and their inability to distinguish between real and imagined problems and real and imagined dangers, cause Israel to say an absolute and sweeping “no” to all of reality, and to the very small opportunities that crop up occasionally. This stubborn refusal is already beyond our means. In simple terms of survival we cannot afford it. And what else has to happen to shake us up and lift the siege that we have been imposing on ourselves for so many years?

If only Grossman were prime minister instead of the sorry soul who currently occupies that office.  In a way, it’s the story of Zionism writ large.  It was always the deep, daring moral thinkers (Ahad Ha-Am, Buber, Magnes, Yeshaia Leibowitz), and not necessarily the political hondlers (Ben Gurion, Peres, etc.), who had the best, most sweeping vision about how to realize the Zionist dream in a way that met the “other” half way.  But these ‘luftmenschen‘ were tactically outmaneuvered by the pols, who left the former in the dust to the detriment of Israel.

So it will be again with Grossman’s wise words.  They will go forth into the ether and be absorbed by a few of us and then disappear.  They will be the still, small voice that no one particularly wants to hear.

A final word in closing.  Not everything in this essay is praiseworthy.  Like most Israeli liberals, Grossman is held back by a demonizing attitude toward Hamas and by an inability to free himself from certain immovable liberal Zionist obstacles like the Right of Return.  But I’ll take it as a bold expression of a major Israeli voice which deserves amplification.

Thanks to Jerry Haber for pointing me to Grossman’s essay.

Enhanced by Zemanta

NY Times ‘Discovers’ $200-Million American Jewish Settler Funding Network

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010

It only took them three years since bloggers like Phil Weiss and I first covered this issue and wrote about it intensively, but you’ve got to give credit to the NY Times.  They’ve finally discovered that the funding network among pro-settler American Jews who abuse U.S. tax law in order to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to Israeli settlements, poses a very serious obstacle to Israeli Palestinian peace.  Even more importantly, the Times published this piece a day before the White House meeting of Bibi Netanyahu and Barack Obama.  It gives them a little mood music, though certainly not the mood that either one of them was likely to have preferred for this meeting.

Honestly, I don’t know whether to feel proud or annoyed.  On the one hand, the Times reporters have exploited ideas and research many of us have developed painstakingly over that period of time.  And they did so without acknowledging any of the work.  It’s as if the Times has to pretend that the issue was first discovered by them.  God forbid, that they should acknowledge even peripherally that some bloggers pioneered the issue before they came along.

Because of this artificial division they created, they did not use some of the best material that’s already been published–for example, Phil Weiss’ post offering an audiotape of Women in Green’s Nadia Matar telling a Manhattan synagogue audience that she advocated assassinating Mahmoud Abbas.

I don’t mean to imply either that Phil and I were the only ones: Akiva Eldar, David Ignatius and Josh Nathan-Kazis published terrific research and reporting on the subject as well, in Haaretz, the Washington Post and Jewish Forward.  But none of this is credited.

Yitzhak Shapira, founder of Od Yosef Chai yeshiva, decreed that Palestinian children could be killed since they pose a danger to Jews. He receives tax-deductible donations from U.S. Jewish followers (Rita Castelnuovo)

I suppose I should feel vindicated that the arbiter of American journalism has finally weighed in on a subject I begged the American media to write about for the past two years at least.  Further, the fact that the Times has done so, and in a convincing and commanding way, will add infinitely more to the impact this issue will have than anything I could ever have written.  Them’s the facts.

In fact, I would expect that the IRS is holding meetings about this as I write and trying to come up with a response to the decades of laissez-faire oversight that allowed, according to the Times estimates, far-right American Jews to pump $200-million (at a minimum) into the settler enterprise in the past ten years.

My readers will note Ethan Bronner’s byline on this story.  Undoubtedly, he and his Israel-based reporters did a good deal of the legwork checking out the settlements and interviewing settler leaders like David Ha-Ivri.  But there are a few objectionable elements in this story that he clearly had a hand in introducing.  The main one is this:

Of course, groups in the pro-settler camp are not the only ones benefiting from tax breaks. For example, the Free Gaza Movement, which organized the flotilla seeking to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza, says on its Web site that supporters can make tax-deductible donations to it through the American Educational Trust, publisher of an Arab-oriented journal. Israeli civil and human rights groups like Peace Now, which are often accused of having a blatant political agenda, also benefit from tax-deductible donations.

What the hell does “having a blatant political agenda” mean??  Does Bronner, who clearly wrote this passage, equate settlement funding which supports purchase of security gear, weapons, K-9 attack dogs, etc. with supporting Israeli-Palestinian co-existence, human rights and Israeli democracy?

On the bright side, I was pleased to see in this story interviews with sources Bronner usually ignores in his Israeli reporting: Palestinians.  I’d be willing to bet that his co-writers insisted on incorporating their point of view into the story and it benefits from this.

Returning to the masterful timing of this article, the Jerusalem Post churlishly complains about B’Tselem’s report issued today which attacks the Israeli rationale for settlements by claiming that 21% of the built-up areas in settlements are on privately owned Palestinian land.  According to the Post, the human rights group deliberately (!) released the report in order to embarrass the country’s prime minister on the eve of his White House coming out ceremony.  How absolutely nasty and anti-Israel of B’Tselem!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rightist Ben Gurion Professor Derails Faculty Candidacy of Peace Activist

Monday, July 5th, 2010

Assaf Oron is a research statistician at the University of Washington.  He is also an Israeli peace and human rights activist who blogs at Daily Kos, the Villages Group, and was an IDF sarban, refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories.  Before he was named to his current academic post, he applied for a tenure track position as a statistician in Ben Gurion University’s department of industrial engineering.  He was told a year ago he was the department’s top candidate.  What he did not reckon was that his candidacy would generate a firestorm of controversy due to the machinations of a far-right member of the department nominations committee.

Prof. Israel david

Prof. Israel David publicized internal departmental deliberations to smear BGU job candidate

Prof. Israel David is an industrial engineer who teaches operations research at BGU.  He was a major in the IDF before he retired after 11 years of service, and lives in an Orthodox suburb of Tel Aviv.  He has worked for the Israeli defense industry and a significant portion of his research is funded by either the IDF or military contractors.  Prof. David’s political screeds are published regularly by  Daniel Pipes-Campus Watch-type groups in Israel called Israel Academia Monitor and Isracampus.  They take upon themselves the weighty responsibility of ridding Israeli campuses of Arab-loving, Israel-hating faculty like Dr. Oron.  David’s views are also congenial to another far-right Israeli gang which targets Israeli academics with progressive political views, Im Tirzu.

Once David caught wind of Oron’s candidacy he went into high gear.  Sitting on the department appointments committee, he lobbied his colleagues hard to deny the former the position.  In meetings, he noted Oron’s political engagements and cited them as grounds for not hiring him.  It rapidly became clear to the department chair, Dr. Gadi Rabinowitz that David was biased against the candidate and would not restrict his consideration to academic-professional criteria alone.

So Rabinowitz disbanded the appointment committee, created a new one and left David out of it.  This infuriated the latter.  He went to the media.  He placed a story in Globes, the Israeli Wall Street Journal, in September 2009 for which he was an anonymous source.  The article called Oron “a second Neve Gordon.”

This was shortly after Prof. Gordon wrote a controversial op-ed in the Los Angeles Times supporting the global BDS movement.  After the latter published his article, the University’s president publicly invited Gordon to quit his position, which he uncooperatively refused to do.   Prof. Rivka Carmi explicitly stated that academic freedom did not give a professor the right to support such an enterprise which posed a danger to the State of Israel.

Undoubtedly, Prof. David was emboldened by Carmi’s attacks on Gordon and saw an opportunity to continue the controversy by opening a second front against Oron.

But that first Globes story did not drum up the brouhaha that the engineering professor expected so he wrote his own story under his own name at the News1 site.  In it, he quoted from confidential internal committee deliberations about Dr. Oron’s record, including his political views.  Here is just a nugget:

The department chair summarized the proceedings by saying that Dr. Oron matched the position’s professional requirements but that he suffers from other “personality problems” [so reads the transcript of the meeting].  The committee asked one of the senior members of the department to take advantage of his summer sabbatical in the U.S. by speaking with Oron and asking whether he’d be willing to restrain his political activism in order to better assimilate into the department.

In most universities (though apparently not BGU), this is among the most sensitive functions that faculty members and a department can perform.  Such transcripts are treated with sensitivity and guarded jealously.  In most universities where I have studied or worked, publishing such material publicly would be grounds for disciplinary action.  Not so Ben Gurion.  Apparently there, faculty can skewer job candidates, smear their reputation, dredge up personal matters and political involvement, and use them as ground for denying someone a job.

In his article David levels a full frontal assault on the notion of confidentiality and claims that the concept violates court rulings.  I have never heard of any such ruling either here in the U.S. or Israel and I’m reasonably certain that no court has ever ruled that enforcing confidentiality in such circumstances is a violation of law.  Further, he argues that non-academic and even political considerations are rightfully within the purview of such committee discussions.   In fact, I believe that David is here daring the University to either discipline him or take legal action against him.  Which of course it would never do.  A University dean confirmed to me that no disciplinary action is contemplated against David.

I also find it astonishing that an academic department would ask a job candidate to restrain his private political statements.  What business is that of anyone either in academia or outside?  Does this department and Ben Gurion as a whole not cringe in embarrassment at the thought that such a discussion occurred during deliberations concerning the hiring of a faculty member?

The University’s response to David’s onslaught against Dr. Oron was to claim that it “does not compromise the privacy of candidates.”  Which of course ignores the fact that a duly appointed member of a University committee did just that.  At no time during any of this madness did the University or department make any attempt to reach out to Oron, explain to him what was happening, or seek to mollify his concerns about the attack on his reputation.  It never defended him personally or encouraged him in any way.

In addition, David accused the University of Washington lecturer of “disseminating hate against Israel” and comparing the IDF and its officers with Nazis.  In truth, it was IDF officers themselves who made the comparison in a 2002 Haaretz article in anticipation of Operation Defensive Shield.  They admonished the army to learn from all previous military sieges in history including, specifically the Nazi assault on the Warsaw ghetto.  Oron merely called attention to this fact in his essay.  Here is the salient passage from the Haaretz article:

…One of the Israeli officers in the territories said… it’s justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander’s obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles – even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.The officer indeed succeeded in shocking others, not least because he is not alone in taking this approach. Many of his comrades agree that in order to save Israelis now, it is right to make use of knowledge that originated in that terrible war, whose victims were their kin.

Frankly, I’ve been writing on this subject for a very long time and this article was new to me until I read the essay in which Oron quoted the article.  The idea that the army of the State of Israel should learn lessons from one of the most desperate and vicious assaults against Polish Jewry during the Holocaust era is not simply tin-earned or offensive, it is really a hillul ha-Shem, a desecration of God’s name.  Does the IDF really want to be compared to Hitler’s killing machine at the height of its vicious assault against the brave Jews of the Warsaw ghetto?

Returning to David’s accusations in his column, much like abortion and other socially conservative ideas have been exploited as wedge issues against Democrats, Israeli rightists manipulate the Holocaust as a wedge issue in an Israeli political context.  Like abortion for American conservatives, the Holocaust elicits a visceral response from Israelis.  Whenever you can tar your opponent with terms like those David exploits, you’re almost guaranteed to put him on the defensive.

Finally in his article, David excoriates Oron for supporting the military refuser movement and notes longingly that there are countries in the world (North Korea and Iran undoubtedly) where refusal to serve is punishable by death.

Then Prof. David upped the ante, suing Rabinowitz for libel for 100,000 shekels and claiming that in removing him from the appointment committee the chair had slandered his good name.  The rightist professor retained as counsel a leading far-right attorney who is also representing Im Tirzu in its libel lawsuit against an Israeli activist who created a Facebook group calling the group “fascist.”  David’s brief, all the while claiming his own reputation was damaged, slanders Oron savagely.

As part of his legal campaign, yesterday Haaretz published an op-ed by David which called BGU “Bir Gurion University,” as if the campus’ left-wing faculty wished to turn it into an Arab university.  The article was briefly available on the website’s main page, but now it’s been relegated to an inaccessible back page.  A slightly different version has also been published by Yediot Achronot.  Among the other smears David offers in Haaretz is to call a campus protest against the Gaza flotilla attack a “Nazi march.”  Finally, he accused, again without proof, the campus peace activists of calling a faculty member’s son who died a “hero’s death” in Operation Cast Lead, a “Nazi criminal.”  Even more shockingly, he calls the entire affair of Oron’s job candidacy and his own elimination from the appointment committee a “Nazi circus.”

In the year since he heard that he was the department’s top candidate, no one from the University had any contact with Oron, and certainly no one breathed a word of apology to him.  In April, no doubt goaded by Prof. David, the student body president quoted the school’s president as saying that his candidacy was dead.  Last week, on an Israeli Social Sciences listeserv, David waved this as evidence of the president’s support for his campaign.

After a year of absorbing these body blows to his reputation and not responding, Oron finally confronted his BGU nemesis on the listserv last week.  He simultaneously wrote Pres. Rivka Carmi expressing concern with the smearing of his reputation and her supposed connivance with David to undermine him.  Prof Rivka Carmi replied that she couldn’t possibly interfere with any candidate’s consideration by a department even if she wanted to do so.  She also added the rather mysterious statement that Oron’s candidacy was “no longer relevant.”

Curiously Dr. Rabinowitz, the department chair, wrote to Oron yesterday claiming that when Pres. Carmi inquired about the status of Oron’s candidacy Rabinowitz told her that he was still very much an active candidate.  The chair blames Oron’s supposed lack of communication with the department for his not getting the job, without realizing that after a candidate has been smeared it might be the responsibility of the department to contact him rather than the other way around.  I’d say the truth is that after David went on the warpath neither the University nor the department wanted to hire him and they can find many reasons in retrospect to blame the victim for not getting the job.

What is also troubling is that after all of this madness, the chair expresses disappointment that Dr. Oron addressed David’s charges against him in the Social Sciences listserv where the latter had attacked him.  It appears he would’ve preferred Oron to have remained silent and waited patiently for the school’s rejection letter.

A few days ago, Prof. David wrote triumphantly to Oron that the department had hired someone else for the job.  Which means that David has won, that academic bullying has won; that anyone at Ben Gurion who has a political vendetta against a young aspiring academic can vent their rage and frustration in the most public of settings.  They can sling mud at them, potentially harm their careers and no price will be paid.

In fact, after the University of Washington statistician defended himself on the Israeli listserv, an Israeli graduate student wrote to him that he had been denied a graduate fellowship by a Diaspora academic fund because his name appeared on the Israel Academia Monitor site.  Though I do not know for certain which group participated in the witch hunt, one of the best funded such academic programs is the American-Israeli Cooperative Exchange, whose director is former Aipac flack, Mitchell Bard.  Given Bard’s pro-Israel advocacy and ideological partisanship it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he used Isracampus, Israel Academia Monitor or NGO Monitor as arbiters of who should be denied funding for academic research.

Returning to Dr. Oron, luckily he has a good position at the University of Washington.  Despite Prof. Israel David’s best efforts, one hopes he will fail in harming Oron’s career.  But imagine the next young scholar applying for a job at BGU who has ‘questionable’ affiliations in his or her background.  If such a person has several job interviews with Israeli academic institutions, why would they want to include BGU given the treatment afforded Oron?

Ben Gurion’s president honors academic freedom in the breach when it doesn’t cost her anything.  When the chips are down, she folds like a house of cards.  For example, when BGU Prof. David Newman was attacked by a British trustee of the University, who suggested he’d be happy if Newman died because the faculty member had aired views critical of Israeli policy in a TV documentary, Carmi remained mum.  140 of Newman’s colleagues demanded that she make a statement in support of Newman.  In the face of alienating a wealthy donor, she shut up.  Perhaps as a direct result of her pusillanimousness, Newman was recently named dean of the faculty of humanities and social sciences in a vote by his peers.

Instead of leadership and conviction, Pres. Carmi tests the political winds to see which way they are blowing and follows suit.  Currently in Israel there is a savage campaign against human rights and peace NGOs.  The legal political activism of activists is under assault as never before.  Astute individuals like David and Carmi understand this.  The first exploits it and the second acquiesces to it.  Neither response does either Israeli academia or Ben Gurion proud.

On a related note, yesterday the founder of Im Tirzu published a Haaretz column, The Fight for Academic Freedom, in which he contended, much like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes in the U.S. context, that anti-Zionists have taken over Israeli campuses and that soon political correctness will prevent anyone not sharing such views from speaking their minds.  Assaf Oron’s case proves the absolute falseness of this claim.  If anything, it is the Im Tirzus and Israel Davids who are in the ascendancy on Israeli campuses, not the other way around.

Finally, what is one of the most obvious and elementary violations of both the candidate’s privacy rights  and academic due process is that the job he was applying for had absolutely no political component.  He was applying to be a statistician, not a political science or sociology professor.  As such, his personal political involvement had nothing to do with the job and should’ve been ruled treif as grounds for review or consideration.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Luntz Calls Israel’s Gaza Hasbara Lame

Monday, July 5th, 2010

Didi Remez translates a Channel 10 news report of a Frank Luntz survey leaked to the prime minister’s office about the Gaza flotilla attack.  I reported here earlier on an e mail blast disseminated by The Israel Project’s director which warned that Luntz’s survey would be disheartening to supporters of the pro-Israel advocacy group.  Channel 10 now has the goods.  Here is Remez’s summary of the results followed by excerpts of the TV news report:

  • 56% of Americans agree with the claim that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza;
  • 43% of Americans agree with the claim that people in Gaza are starving;
  • [Only] 34% of Americans support the Israeli operation against the Flotilla;
  • [Only] 20% of Americans “felt support” for Israel following announcement of easing of Gaza closure.

Criticism of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s current PR messages and Israeli PR in general comes from the international élite of media consultants and pollsters and from the mouth of Frank Luntz…He was asked by…The Israel Project to check the opinions of the American public on the messages Israel issued to the world during and after the flotilla events. The result is a harsh document that primarily criticizes the media strategy of the person considered Israel’s number one propagandist in the world, Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Netanyahu: Once again Israel faces hypocrisy and a biased rush to judgment.

Chico Menashe: Every time Israeli speakers begin with accusing the international community, writes Luntz, they lose their audience [emphasis mine]. For example, Netanyahu’s comments after the flotilla about the world hypocrisy were rejected by most of the American participants who listened to them. The findings were presented last night to senior members of Netanyahu’s Bureau. Luntz checked the opinions with focus groups…He warns of a dangerous slide in the public opinion of the only country considered pro-Israeli…The American public increasingly hesitates to accept arguments that support Israeli positions.

Ehud Barak: There is no hunger in Gaza and no humanitarian crisis.

Netanyahu: There’s no shortage of food, there’s no shortage of medicine, there’s no shortage of other goods.

Chico Menashe: Luntz says Israel must immediately stop using the argument that there is no hunger and no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. He says this fatally destroys Israel’s credibility in light of the images on the television screens. Israel must admit that there is a problem…to gain the listeners’ sympathy [emphasis mine]. Luntz finds the troubling figure that 56% of participants agree with the claim that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and no less astonishing is that 43% of participants from the American public agree with the claim that people in Gaza are starving. But even lifting the closure that was supposed to improve Israel’s image missed the opportunity, according to Luntz.

Netanyahu: Yesterday an important decision was made by the security cabinet. Its meaning is clear. On the one hand, allowing civilian goods into Gaza, and on the other hand maintaining the military blockade of Hamas.

Chico Menashe: The statement by Netanyahu’s bureau of lifting the closure missed the opportunity to gain support in international public opinion [emphasis mine]. Only 20% of the Americans polled felt support of Israel following the statement. According to Luntz, this is the summary of the flotilla damage in American public opinion: Only 34% of the American public support the Israeli operation against the flotilla, and he says that is a dangerously low percentage.

Though Luntz didn’t specifically poll on this subject, I’d imagine Americans would be equally unpersuaded by Israel’s new, more lenient rules concerning importation of items into Gaza.  As human rights activist Steffen Shwartz notes in an e mail to me: this report says nothing about exports from Gaza or movement of human beings.  If Gaza is ever to have any freedom and economic development it will need both.  Israel pointedly has not offered to liberalize measures concerning either.  Something Barack may want to discuss with Bibi tomorrow at the White House?

Similary, Turkey’s foreign minister just dropped a bombshell on the eve of Bibi’s White House love fest: Turkey threatens to cut off all diplomatic relations with Israel unless the latter agrees to apologize for the attack, compensate victims and an international investigation of the incident.

Looks like Bibi and Barack will have a few things to talk about in a few hours when they sit down together.

Enhanced by Zemanta

B’Tselem: One-Fifth of West Bank Settlement Buildings on Privately-Owned Palestinian Land

Sunday, July 4th, 2010
ariel aerial map

Aerial map of Ariel shows 35% is on Palestinian land (map credit: Peace Now)

B’Tselem will be releasing a study on Tuesday (perhaps timing it to coincide with Bibi’s meeting with Obama the same day) revealing that fully one-fifth of the built landscape in the settlements sits on privately owned Palestinian land.  The territory claimed by settlements occupies fully 42% of the entire West Bank.  The group makes this finding based on Israeli government documents from the civilian and military administrations.

Here is a translation of the press release accompanying the report:

B’Tselem publishes today a report, By Hook or By Crook, which analyzes the methods by which Israel controls the land in the West Bank for the sake of the settlements.  The report relies on official government documents, among them maps by the military and civil administration, and reports of the State Controller…

From this official documentation arises the fact that although the buildings in the settlements occupy only 1% of the West Bank, the claimed boundaries of the settlements incorporate 42% of the total land mass.  The settlement enterprise is characterized fundamentally by a cynical and even criminal exploitation of the principles of international law, local tradition, military and civilian orders,  all this in order to maximize control over the greatest amount of land to the greatest extent possible.

Israel has insisted for years that it builds settlements solely on state lands and not on private Palestinian land.  However, an overlay that compares these government maps with 2009 aerial photographs of the settlements shows that 21% of them are built on land which is recognized by the State as being in private Palestinian hands.

What this report makes crystal clear is that it would be exceedingly easy for Israel to return much of the territory of the West Bank to Palestinian control.  Only 1% of it actually contains homes and infrastructure that form the basis of the settlements.  The rest is unbuilt, but of course annexed to settlements for possible future expansion.  So the next time you hear a settler supporter bellyache about the trauma and dissension that would wrack Israeli society if it withdrew from the settlements, just remember that statistic: 1%.

Bibi is undoubtedly hoping his Tuesday White House meeting will be a love fest.  Perhaps this report will tone down the ardor somewhat.  When Pres. Obama jawbones Bibi to renew the settlement freeze beyond September, he can use these figures to bolster his argument.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wall Street Journal Notes Hamas-Hezbollah Shift Toward Non-Violent Resistance

Sunday, July 4th, 2010
palestinian non violent resistance

Palestinian non-violent resistance--speaking truth to power

Holy S*!t Batman, who’d a thunk the Wall Street Journal would write anything positive about Hamas and Hezbollah??  A report today notes a shift in tactics by Hamas and Hezbollah toward non-violent resistance in recognition of the fact that violence tends to generate sympathy for Israel and non-violence tends to generate violence by Israel–and hence sympathy for the Palestinian cause:

Hamas and Hezbollah, groups that have long battled Israel with violent tactics, have begun to embrace civil disobedience, protest marches, lawsuits and boycotts—tactics they once dismissed.

For decades, Palestinian statehood aspirations seemed to lurch between negotiations and armed resistance against Israel. But a small cadre of Palestinian activists has long argued that nonviolence, in the tradition of the American civil rights movement, would be far more effective.

Officials from Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip, point to the recent Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla, in which Israeli troops killed nine activists, as evidence there is more to gain by getting Israel to draw international condemnation through its own use of force, rather than by attacking the country.

“When we use violence, we help Israel win international support,” said Aziz Dweik, a leading Hamas lawmaker in the West Bank. “The Gaza flotilla has done more for Gaza than 10,000 rockets.”

I think this underlies a tectonic shift in if not public support, at least growing public sympathy for the cause of Palestinian statehood and disenchantment with the Occupation and Israeli policy.  Even only a few months ago you simply would not have seen such a report in WSJ.  You still won’t likely see it in the NY Times.  Certainly, no one can accuse the WSJ of going weak in the knees over the Palestinian cause.  Which makes such reporting all the more remarkable.

The WSJ notes in particular the change in Hamas’ thinking and approach:

Hamas’s turnaround has been more striking, said Mustapha Barghouti, a prominent Palestinian advocate for nonviolent resistance. “When we used to call for protests, and marches, and boycotts and anything called nonviolence, Hamas used these sexist insults against us. They described it as women’s struggle,” Mr. Barghouti said. That changed in 2008, he said, after the first aid ship successfully ran the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

“Hamas has started to appreciate just how effective this can be,” Mr. Barghouti said.

Hamas has started organizing its own peaceful marches into the Israeli-controlled buffer zone along the Gaza border and supported lawsuits against Israeli officials in European courts. Hamas says it has ramped up support for a committee dedicated to sponsoring similar protests in Gaza.

…Salah Bardawil, a Hamas lawmaker in Gaza City, says Hamas has come to appreciate the importance of international support for its legitimacy as a representative of the Palestinian people and its fight against Israeli occupation, and has adapted its tactics. Hamas hasn’t claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in years and now denounces the tactic as counterproductive. Since an Israeli military incursion into the territory in December 2008-January 2009, it has also halted rocket attacks into Israel.

Hamas used to believe [international support] was just empty words,” said Mr. Bardawil. “Today it is very interested in international delegations … and in bringing Israeli officials to justice through legal proceedings.”

These are almost precisely the same words used to describe the PLO in the period preceding 1988 when it renounced violence and recognized Israel.  While I am not claiming that the PLO’s political evolution and Hamas’ will be the same; or that they have similar political agendas–I do think that just as Fatah underwent a political transformation during this period, so Hamas has and will continue to evolve politically.  No one in their right mind would predict that Palestinian militants will turn against violence, but we just may be seeing a tipping point that augurs well on that score.  Of course, much of this depends on Israel’s actions.  Another war could throw all of these gains out the window and we shouldn’t put something like this past Bibi and the gang.  But I tend to think that events militate against a return to full-scale armed conflict and terror at least from the Palestinian side.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Mavi Marmara: the Massacre That Will Not Die

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

Mavi Marmara in Haifa harbor

A reader whose friend has a sweeping Mt. Carmel view of Haifa harbor from his/her home took this recent shot of the Mavi Marmara, which has been towed to Haifa from Ashdod, where it was originally brought after being captured by the Israeli navy.

The flotilla attack is the disaster that keeps on giving in terms of the negative fallout it provides Israel.  Haaretz reports that at the urging of Barack Obama Bibi secretly sent an Israeli minister to negotiate a resolution of the outstanding issues dividing Israel and Turkey over the massacre.  The Turks are demanding an apology (that would be the second one, since Danny Ayalon made the Turkish ambassador sit in a baby chair in order to demean him), victim’s compensation, and an end to the Gaza siege.

Turkey also seems to be ratcheting up the pressure by issuing a new threat to withdraw the right of commercial flights to pass through its airspace.  This would be a very strong slap in Israel’s face as it would have practical repercussions for Israeli flights to Europe.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman found out about the meeting and had a monumental hissy-fit declaring for all the world to see that Bibi was not nice to him and that if he didn’t shape up he might, just might, take Yisrael Beiteinu’s marbles and play elsewhere.  All just a technical error on his office’s part, explained the prime minister.  It will all be cleared up in a private meeting between the two.  However, a wounded Yvet is not taking Bibi’s calls just yet.  Make the big guy stew a little seems to be the idea.

Haaretz also reports that the IDF investigation of the attack headed by Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland may be more critical than expected.  In an Israeli context, that seems to mean very little.  But who knows, we might be surprised by the outcome.  Even in Biblical Sodom there was at least one honest man.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE