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 May, 2011

Derfner to Join New Blog Debating Left Zionism

Tuesday, May 10th, 2011

Larry Derfner and I are about to embark on a new blog (not replacing Tikun Olam in case any of you are worrying–or hoping!) in which we will debate from a left-Zionist perspective the Israeli-Arab conflict.  Larry is one of the few remaining progressive commentators at Jerusalem Post and has written very courageously in an Israeli context about the evils of Israeli policy concerning Occupation and the wrongheadedness of Israel’s approach to Palestinian people.  He made aliyah a few decades ago and, unlike me, made the commitment to live the Zionist dream in Israel.  Though he has seen the dream sour, he still maintains a strong commitment to Israel and trying to be a voice of sanity in the English language media there.

There is a difference in our voices and that is where we hope the richness of a possible debate/dialogue will make itself felt.  Though Larry calls himself a post-Zionist, I think he retains some of vestiges of the attitudes and approaches of liberal Zionism.  Or that he’s to my right on some aspects of the Israel debate while still remaining progressive.  I too was raised as a liberal Zionist.  Though I now call myself a progressive Zionist, I’m probably to Larry’s left on a number of these issues (though I too like the term post-Zionist).  While Larry and I are probably both critical of the Israeli left and liberal Zionism, we think there is much that may be gained by turning over these issues to ensure that the left stays relevant to Israel and Israel stays relevant to the world (both phenomena that seem increasingly unlikely).  We also hope to debate issues from a left point of view to determine whether there is a way that this perspective can reach outside itself to impact the broader debate and dialogue.

I’m not just thinking here of the debate within Israel or the Jewish community.  I’m also thinking of the growing number of progressive non-Jews who understand the centrality of the resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict to overall stability in the region and to world peace.  How will such readers react to the clash of our ideas.

I’m flattered that Larry thinks that despite my sharp debating style in the comment threads here, that I’m a principled, decent representative of my brand of political discourse.  We hope to incorporate that principle in our new blog.  It will be a strong, sharp debate, but one between two individuals who respect each other even when they disagree.  I should also note here that this is my own articulation of our joint project and Larry may describe himself or our project differently.

We have general ideas of subjects we’d like to debate: some historical questions like Nakba/1948; the Jewish nature of the State vs. democracy; Right of Return vs. Law of Return.  We’ll probably take one idea or issue (or perhaps two) every week and write a post about it and then allow readers to weigh in.  In this way, we hope it will become a running diary of our concerns and interests.

Larry and I have come up with scores of possible blog titles, but none of us yet are sold on any of them.  I invite you readers to contribute your own ideas if you have them for such a title (jokes are allowed–but no snark please).  Titles should try to incorporate the fact that the blog will be a debate between two writers on the left of the Israeli spectrum who are arguing about the fate of Israel.

Irrelevance of J Street

Tuesday, May 10th, 2011

jeremy ben ami

Jeremy Ben Ami: losing political relevance

The Yom Kippur liturgy talks about the two goats which marked the Yom Kippur holiday in ancient times.  One goat was sacrificed on the temple altar and the other goat carried the sins of Israel symbolically on its back and was sent out into the wilderness of Azazel.  So the children of Israel purified themselves by ridding themselves of their collective sins.  J Street, it seems to me, increasingly has taken upon itself the sins of liberal Zionism and wanders ever farther afield into political Azazel.

Jeremy Ben Ami was interviewed by Reuters about his views of Bibi Netanyahu’s upcoming visit and speech to the U.S. Congress, and the upcoming General Assembly meeting at which the PA will lobby for the recognition of a Palestinian state.  Ben-Ami’s views continue to show why my past fervor for J Street has been considerably dimmed.  J Street, like the Israeli and U.S. governments, takes a dim view of Palestinian statehood.  They’re in favor of it theoretically, you understand.  Just not in practice. So when a real chance to declare a Palestinian state comes along, its thumbs down.

So what is Ben Ami’s antidote to a General Assembly-recognized Palestinian state?

…The only way to effectively delay the plan and reduce tensions stoked by surrounding Arab uprisings was for Netanyahu to chart a clear path to a two-state deal.

…”We are urging, from our perspective, that the prime minister’s initiative should be a serious plan…”

Ben-Ami said Netanyahu ought to present a deal along lines agreed in past years of negotiations, including proposed land swaps in exchange for settlement blocs Israel would keep.

“Put a proposal on the table that meets a bar of credibility, not a provisional state on 30 or 40 percent of the land, but a real state, and let them decide if they’re serious about peace or not,” Ben-Ami said.

That’s all well and good.  But really, Jeremy, how likely is it that Bibi is going to present anything like what you suggest?  Can we get real here?  Pretending that Bibi is a statesman or has even a minute possibility of being one is a total waste of everyone’s time.  Would you like to believe that Bibi could do such a thing?  Do you want to believe that Israel could be a serious, responsible partner for peace?  Sure, we all do.  But the difference between what J Street wants Bibi to be and what he is is so great that mouthing platitudes as Ben-Ami has done, makes himself and whatever movement or constituency he represents look foolish and ineffectual.

Right now, there is only one serious game in town: the General Assembly proposal and the Fatah-Hamas unity deal.  Yes, it may break down.  But if you compare what Abbas has on the table with what Bibi has on the table, there’s no comparison.  The first offer bears hope, the second bears nothing.

The J Street leaders finally words on the Palestinian proposals once again shows his Pollyanna qualities in stark outline:

Ben-Ami said UN endorsement of a Palestinian state without Israeli agreement on borders could engender violence as the conflict continues.

“Frustration will be higher,” Ben-Ami said. Such sentiment “leads to explosions and all you need is one match on the tinder and we’re very worried about what that leads to.”

You mean creating a Palestinian state would add yet another match on the tinder than the ones Israel has thrown repeatedly over the past few decades?  I also find it interesting that a constructive Palestinian approach that doesn’t call for killing anyone or stealing anyone’s land is labelled by Ben Ami as incendiary; but an Israeli approach that offers nothing but more blood and more conflagration is somehow different and less worthy of condemnation.

Get real, Jeremy.  You’re so divorced from any conceivable reality it makes you and J Street into almost a laughingstock.  You may retain your donors and your constituency, but you’ve lost all political relevance.  Which isn’t surprising considering that your sponsors in the Obama administration have lost theirs as well as far as Israel-Palestine policy is concerned.

Jews and Muslims, Confronting Islamophobia, Finding Common Cause

Sunday, May 8th, 2011

This is a talk I delivered at the Confronting Islamophobia: I am My Brother’s Keeper conference on Saturday at St. Mark’s Cathedral here in Seattle.  I’m grateful to the organizing committee for inviting me to speak.  I’m delighted to report that the event was very well attended.  Last night, the St. Mark’s main sactuary was full with I estimate about 800 or more in attendance to hear Imam Faisal Rauf.  There were TV crews there last night and today.  The Seattle Times ran a front page story and both Steve Scher and Dave Ross interviewed Imam Rauf on radio.  Congratulations to the steering committee which did yeoman work planning a massive enterprise very successfully.

*  *  *

 


In conceiving this conference, the organizers knew in theory they were going to be addressing an important issue in American life.  But events since we first began organizing it have proven just how fortuitous our choice of topics has been. American Islamophobes like Rep. Peter King, and Pamela Geller and David Yerushalmi have turned up the heat and volume on this debate and placed into even starker relief the necessity of having a rational, tolerant discussion of the role of Islam and American Muslims in the life of this nation.

Here’s what we can’t do: we can’t score political points, we can’t try to win elections, we can’t single out our fellow citizens as terrorists merely because of their religious beliefs.  We can’t demonize all American Muslims for the beliefs of a handful of hating extremists among them.  Anyone who does this must be held up for the bigot he or she is. In the light of the American assassination of Osama bin Laden, this becomes an even more urgent task.  No matter how many times a president says that he isn’t seeking to tar an entire religion with a broad brush merely because of the acts of one adherent or one Islamist terror group, it doesn’t mean the rest of us have gotten the message.  In fact, yesterday a pilot on a Delta Airlines flight out of Memphis refused to take off until two imams were removed from the plane.  Apparently, their dress so spooked him that he must’ve believed he had Osama’s cousins flying with him.

Whatever we may’ve thought of the Bin Laden killing, Barack Obama now has an opportunity to head off the bigots in the Republican Party and Tea Party movement who will try to make hay from this.  Clearly, it’s going to be a tough election for Republicans.  A major issue of national security has practically been foreclosed to them.  When a Party becomes desperate it seeks the weakest link to attack.  Unfortunately, some in this country see American Muslims as this weak link. They will tar and feather them. 

Remember the smears against Obama during the presidential election, which still cause a majority of Republicans in this country to believe that he is Muslim?  Look to the political right to exploit fear of Islam and make hay in the 2012 elections.  It may be used in the presidential election and it may be used in other federal or state elections.  We must be alert to fight back against such bigotry.  That’s why it’s important for non-Muslims, specifically Jews because of our complicated, fraught relationship, to step up and say we will not stand for it.

I wanted to speak about a few specific events that have occurred here in Seattle and in other places that might instruct us about the problems we face as Jews and Muslims in overcoming our suspicions and conflict.

Naveed Haq

In 2006, a mentally-ill Pakistani-American named Naveed Haq forced his way into the Seattle Jewish federation building and proceeded to shoot at the staff killing one woman and seriously injuring five.  In his twisted mind, he equated Jews in Seattle with the acts of Israel committed in Lebanon during the 2006 war.  This was an act of hatred and violence unprecedented in Seattle’s Jewish community.  It shook many people to the core.  Thankfully, the strident ideologues in the community representing groups like Stand With Us, didn’t set the tone for the response.

But the best that can be said, is that the community’s response wasn’t worse than it might otherwise have been.  The first jury to hear the case couldn’t agree on a sentence and there was a mistrial.  The prosecution announced it was retrying the case.  It insisted on trying Haq for first degree murder despite his documented history of mental illness going back ten years.  The district attorney attempted to argue that this deranged individual knew right from wrong and rationally planned his acts of violence.  All this, despite the fact that he was a deeply confused, disoriented, alienated and sick man.

One of the federation victims even said to the press that the most important aspect of this case was not religious hatred or anti-Semitism, but rather the fact that it was so incredibly easy for such a disturbed individual to procure a gun. The prosecution refused to consider a sentence to a mental asylum.  All this in large part, because the Jewish communal leadership would not settle for anything less than prison and punishment.  Sadly, the Jews of Seattle lacked the capacity to understand that–despite the fact that Haq, in his delusional state, blamed American Jews for Lebanon’s suffering–he was a sick man, and not an Islamist radical.  For Seattle Jews, this was a hate crime, not a crime committed by someone who was mentally ill.  And this, I think, is the tragedy that is beyond the actual tragedy of the shootings.  American Jews had a chance to understand the difference between anti-Semitism and mental illness and they chose to see themselves as victims of a Muslim extremist, rather than a man who himself was a victim of his own demons.

Naveed Haq was not Osama bin Laden.  If anything, he was Arthur Bremer.  Men whose delusions and twisted imaginations combined all sorts of hatred and set them on a homicidal rampage.  Naveed Haq needed treatment, not punishment.  Besides, life in a mental asylum for violent felons wouldn’t have been a vacation.

Southern Poverty Law Center

When Brenda Bentz was considering which speakers to invite for this conference, she had no lack of Muslims with deep expertise on these subjects.  But we wanted non-Muslim experts on racial hatred to speak as well.  So Brenda invited Mark Potok, the chief researcher of the Southern Poverty Law Center to address us.  Both Brenda and I were impressed that SPLC had recently added to its national list of prominent hate groups several Islamophobic organizations like Pam Geller’s Stop the Islamization of America and the Jewish Task Force, a successor to the Jewish Defense League.  And Mark wanted to come.

It seemed that SPLC might be ready to branch out from its bread and butter reliance on white supremacist groups to include far-right anti-Muslim scapegoat groups as well.  However, Brenda and a number of us were disappointed when Potok and SPLC’s president informed us that because CAIR was a co-sponsor of the conference, SPLC couldn’t participate. Though I don’t know a whole lot about SPLC’s internal structure and politics, you can be sure that there are many liberal Jews among its major donors.  The group’s president, Richard Cohen, seems concerned among other things about preserving his six-figure paycheck by not rocking the boat in any substantial way.  Even liberal Jews get spooked by spurious charges that CAIR supports Hamas and Islamist terror.  It probably won’t even help much that CAIR publicly approved of the death of Osama bin Laden.  Some people are just too frightened to give up those fears.

Apparently, the campaign of demonization by the likes of Peter King and Frank Gaffney prevented even a group like SPLC from associating itself, in even the most distant way, with a mainstream Muslim entity like CAIR.  This is what hate, fear and ignorance does to us, folks.  It twists our judgment, prevents us from trusting our instincts.  It turns us away from alliances we should be making with like-minded individuals and groups to advance our respective goals. I don’t know whether my primary emotion should be anger or disappointment regarding SPLC.  Mostly I just feel sorry for their caution and ultimately cowardice.  Groups like this who refuse to address the most divisive issues of the day out of such fear, either are, or will shortly be irrelevant to the concerns of most Americans.  If we want to make a difference as a religious community or as NGOs, we have to take a stand, even if we risk alienating those sitting on the fence.

Mosque-Synagogue Twinning

Now, I want to tell you about another small local tragedy with which I was intimately involved.  The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding was founded by New York Rabbi Marc Schneier.  It organizes a mosque-synagogue Twinning project each year that is devoted to education around the issues of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.  Several years ago, I spent months with my friend, Jeff Siddiqui, desperately searching for two such partners here in Seattle.  We had a very hard time of it, frankly.  This was just after the Haq shooting and memories may’ve been tender on both sides.

At my synagogue, Congregation Beth Sholom, our rabbi enthusiastically agreed to participate.  She delegated me to search for a local Muslim partner. With Jeff’s help I identified MAPS as our Muslim partner.  I had a wonderful meeting with several mosque members and we mapped out what I thought would be a warm, stimulating series of programs for both communities.  We’d go to MAPS and they would come to us.  We’d pray there and they would pray with us, much like Imam Rauf did so movingly here in Church yesterday night.  Our rabbi would address them and their imam would address us, each from our respective religious altars.

Then I reported back to the rabbi.  In the meantime, the Stand With Us members of the congregation had pressured her into backing off on her commitment.  She apologetically told me the time wasn’t quite right to do this.  She didn’t know how she could’ve possibly agreed to an imam speaking from the bima of the synagogue.  It just couldn’t be done, she told me.  She needed at most another month to bring the shul’s membership and leadership around.  She promised the idea for the program would not die and that she was committed to making it happen.

It never did.  And my relationship with this rabbi has never been the same nor will it likely ever be.

The issue of Muslim-Jewish relations is too important to allow our leaders to fumble their commitments to it.  There are other communal leaders who try to mollify both sides.  Two years ago, the rabbi at Temple De Hirsh Sinai sponsored a highly-partisan Jewish federation program at which representatives of Aipac and the Israeli consul general for the Pacific NW spoke about the dangers posed by Iran to the Middle East and the entire world.  They claimed it was seeking to develop nuclear weapons and that it supported terrorism, among other things.  The fact that Israel had nuclear weapons and engaged in wars against its neighbors was not considered relevant to the discussion.  After the program ended I asked the rabbi how he could allow his temple to a venue for such partisan propaganda. 

Unfortunately, this escalated into a heated discussion during which he affirmed that he was in favor of regime change in Iran. This same rabbi invited Prof. John Esposito, a colleague of Prof. Haddad’s, to speak a few days from now at his temple about the role and history of Islam in America.  There is a major disconnect among some Jews regarding relations with Muslims and Islam.  Like Rabbi Weiner, they seem to think they can compartmentalize Islam into good guys and bad.  That they can demonize bad Muslims in Iran while embracing good ones here at home. I am not arguing that the Iranian regime is worthy of anyone’s support.  But I am arguing that rhetoric which accuses the Iranian regime of being mass murderers and supports its violent overthrow, while ignoring the negative role that Israel often plays, is not conducive to constructive dialogue with any Muslim, whether Iranian or American.

Peter King Hearings

After 9/11, the Republican Party discovered there was gold in them thar’ hills of Islamophobia and Muslim-bashing.  It was joined in this by a group I call Jewish neocons, whose hatred of Islam is bound up with a devotion to a far-right brand of Israeli nationalism which embraces the settler movement.  That is how Peter King and Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy created a match made in heaven.  With the new Republican majority in the House, King became chair of the Committee on Homeland Security.  Looking for an issue to call his own, and hailing from a state with a substantial Jewish population, he made common cause with Gaffney over the alleged issue of Sharia law and the alleged plot by Muslims to take over the U.S. government and replace it with one governed by Sharia.

King’s hearings were originally conceived very much in the mold of Gaffney’s histrionics which warn of the Muslim menace to American life as we know it.  But due to critical media coverage and criticism from fellow members of Congress, King presented a still offensive, but watered-down version in his hearings last month.

Anti-Sharia Movement

Gaffney is joined in his anti-sharia jihad by Jewish far-right figures like David Yerushalmi.  The latter, who is a devout Orthodox Jewish attorney and supporter of the settler movement in Israel, is Gaffney’s chief legal counsel.  Mother Jones has profiled the Yerushalmi-Gaffney national campaign to write anti-sharia sentiment into state law.  Such provisions have either passed, or are being seriously discussed in 11 states.  Yerushalmi is the author of such bills and paid handsome consulting fees no doubt for his “expertise,” and much sought after on the Tea Party circuit.

I’m pleased to tell you that the organized Jewish community is beginning to wake up to the perils of the anti-Sharia movement because it could hit Jews where they live.  Just as Muslims conform their religious lives to Sharia so observant Jews conform theirs to halacha.  Just as Sharia may be applied to normally civil functions like marriage, divorce and estate planning; so too Jews often use halacha in place of civil code in these important life milestones.  If state laws criminalize the application of Sharia to civil matters then there is no reason this wouldn’t happen to halacha as well.

I’m pleased to tell you that last month in St. Louis, the ACLU and Jewish Community Relations Council joined together to denounce publicly the effort to ban Sharia under Missouri state law.

I want to tell you something that may be a bit cynical.  In truth, I don’t think most observant Jews would normally care to make common cause with American Muslims on this issue.  But it’s the beauty of the American system that you must create political coalitions if you wish for your own communal, religious or ethnic interests to be addressed.  In our system, if you try to go it alone you won’t go far.  That encourages groups to look beyond their own narrow interests and consider the interests of other groups when they overlap yours.  It is this making of alliances, as opposed to confining oneself to a separatist ghetto, that makes this country great.

The Yerushalmis and Gaffneys favor an atomized America in which every individual or group is out for its own good and some mythical Judeo-Christian majority can impose its own will on the rest of us. That’s not my America and I know it’s not yours either. Yerushalmi’s views are so far to the right that Mother Jones, the Jewish Forward and I in my blog have called him different variations of the phrase “Jewish white supremacist.”  Hard to believe that there can be such a person or thing, given Jewish history in the last century.  But I’m sorry to say that there can be and is.

Yerushalmi didn’t take kindly to my critique of his political views.  He threatened to sue me for libel in Arizona, where he resides, making himself right at home with the anti-immigrant movement that presides in that state.  I, of course, had to scurry to find pro bono counsel to represent me in what I feared could be a long costly case.

But in a bit of providence, the Anti-Defamation League came out with a public statement denouncing Yerushalmi and likening his views to the white-supremacist New World Order.  I’m guessing that the anti-Muslim attorney decided that now might not be the right time to sue someone for calling him a white supremacist.  He withdrew his threat.

Yerushalmi also crusaded against the Khalil Gibran Academy in New York City and its Muslim principal, Debbie Almontaser, eventually getting her fired.  He sued her for libel too and she won at both the lower court and appeals court level.  She also won a substantial settlement from the City of New York for wrongful termination.

Ground Zero Mosque

Yerushalmi has also made common cause with Pamela Geller, author of the Atlas Shrugged blog, and the chief instigator of the campaign against what she branded the ‘Ground Zero mosque,’ an institution with which our keynote speaker, Imam Faisal Rauf, was intimately involved for some time. I watched the Jewish-led campaign against the mosque– conveniently timed during the 2010 Congressional election campaign–with horror. The arguments against it made no sense whatsoever.  They were clearly fueled by fear and ignorance.  They mixed up the tragedy perpetrated by Al Qaeda against this country on 9/11 with an entirely separate matter of building a Muslim house of worship.  In the minds of the hysterics, there was no difference between the two. This is a profoundly un-American attitude. 

One the hallmarks of America’s greatness is our tolerance toward religions.  Our Founding Fathers wisely chose not to create a national religion and this in turn enabled America to become a powerful engine of democracy, which could incorporate hundreds of ethnic groups and their respective religions into a single whole.  In diversity there is strength.  Alternatively, you’ll remember that slogan on our dollar bills: e pluribus unum (“out of many, one”).

But contrary to Yerushalmi and Geller, I don’t believe we become one by denying our difference, by papering them over or by forcing those who are different to conform to some artificial notion of what is properly American.  We gain the strength to be united by coming together over our shared interests and by respecting our differences.  That’s the beauty of America.

The opponents of the Park51 mosque lost sight of an American trademark: religious freedom.  In this country, you can worship your God and your religion as you please.  You can build a house of worship where you want and how you want as long as you obey zoning codes. America doesn’t police religions as other countries do.  We don’t tell people where they can build a church, synagogue or mosque.  We don’t interfere in their religious teachings.  We don’t demonize them because their religion is different from ours. The movement led by Pam Geller, David Yerushalmi and Frank Gaffney which seeks to criminalize being a Muslim is profoundly offensive to American values.  I’m proud to say this as an American and as a Jew.

Meir Dagan: Israel Attack on Iran ‘Stupidest Thing I’ve Ever Heard’

Saturday, May 7th, 2011

OK, Meirke.  We get the message.  Former Mossad director, Meir Dagan, who was unceremoniously booted from his job by Bibi Netanyahu a few months ago, continues to exact his revenge.  This time, he’s weighed in on the notion that Israel should attack Iran (English here) to prevent it from gaining nuclear weapons:

“It’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.”

Dagan said that the problem regarding this [attacking Iran] isn’t related to his doubt in the abilities of the Israeli Air Force, but rather because of the great doubt whether it could perform the job to its completion and attain all its objectives.  When asked what would happen after such an attack, Dagan continued: “There will be war with Iran.  This is one of the things we know how to start, but not how to end.”  He noted that Iran could be expected to fire its missiles into Israel for many months afterwards. It could be expected to engage Hezbollah with its tens of thousands of Grad rockets and hundreds of long distance SCUDs.  Iran can also engage Hamas on its behalf and Syria might join the war.

While Dagan stated that Israel must not accept a nuclear Iran, he said an attack on its reactors would be foolhardy idea with little likelihood of success.

Dagan believes that the fall of Bashar Assad would be good for Israel because it would diminish the weapons supply to Hezbollah and weaken the influence of Iran.

Bibi, needless to say, is pissed.  He let it be known through an anonymous security source that during Dagan’s tenure as Mossad chief the prime minister strongly criticized Dagan’s opposition to an Iran attack.

And just to demonstrate that an intelligence chief can be smart on one issue and a dolt on another, Dagan downplayed the significance of the revolts sweeping the Arab world:

“There is no tsunami of change sweeping the Arab world.”  Dagan denied that what occurred in Egypt was an “internet revolution,” because the majority of Egyptians don’t own computers.

This has to be one of the dumbest things a former Mossad director has ever said.  Does this guy not realize that the vast majority of Egyptians were actually NOT in Tahrir Square, in fact that vast majority of Egyptians are too poor not only to own a computer, but to own a home or car or perhaps even the makings of their next meal.  But many of those who were in the Square were indeed wired.  That a revolution may sweep a country and all its citizens, but that such an event begins with a small cadre and then, yes like a tsunami, it sweeps everyone up in its wake.

Dagan continued sharing his wisdom:

What happened in Egypt wasn’t a revolution but a change of leadership.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.   Meir Dagan, former chief intelligence officer of the Israel, can’t register what is happening before his very eyes.  Either that or he doesn’t want to understand what’s happening.  Nor does he want to understand the repercussions that this has already had among the Palestinians and the fact that the wave could sweep Israeli within it as well.  Welcome to a new world, Mr. Dagan, in which Israel may no longer be a dominant player, in which the Arab states may rise to take a more prominent role in the region and in determining its fate.

This could, if there were any realists in Israel, make them understand that in the long-term Israel must find a way to fit in.  This should induce a certain amount of humility.  ”Should” though, is a far cry from what is happening or likely to happen into the foreseeable future.

Does Delta Airlines Endorse Racial Profiling Against Muslims?

Saturday, May 7th, 2011
imams ejected from airplane

Masadur Rahman and Mohamed Zaghloul interviewed after being ejected from flight for their 'Arab garb' (KCNC)

Yesterday, a pilot for a Delta Airlines feeder flight in Memphis threw two Muslim clerics off his plane saying that some passengers “might” be uncomfortable with them aboard.  Their crime?  They wore “Arab garb.”  That’s the sole criteria used by this pilot to determine it was too dangerous to fly with them:

Two Muslim religious leaders say they were removed from a plane in Memphis on Friday and were told the pilot refused to fly with them aboard. One of the imams, Masudur Rahman, said they had cleared security but were asked to leave their Delta Connection flight to Charlotte, N.C. A Transportation Security Administration spokesman confirmed the incident and said it was not initiated by that agency. Delta Air Lines said the flight was operated by Atlantic Southeast Airlines, which said the inicident is being investigatd. Mr. Rahman said they were told that the pilot refused to accept them because some passengers could be uncomfortable. Mr. Rahman said that he was wearing traditional Indian clothing and that his companion, Mohamed Zaghloul of the Islamic Association of Greater Memphis, wore Arab garb.

I understand a pilot has complete discretion to decide who flies with him and doesn’t have to explain his reasons.  But an airline shouldn’t have to explain firing this dude either.  And if they don’t I think a boycott against Delta Airlines and Atlantic Southeast Airlines is in order.  Against Delta till it cancels its contract with Atlantic Southeast and against the latter for employing this Neanderthal.

If anyone can get me the e mail address for Delta’s and Atlantic Southeast’s CEOs I’d be happy to post them here. Thanks to the reader who researched info about Atlantic Southeast:

Brad Holt, President and Chief Operating Officer
Atlantic Southeast Airlines
A-Tech Center
990 Toffie Terrace
Atlanta, GA 30354-1363

Telephone: 404-856-1000
Corporate Fax: 404-856-1203

Customer Relations: 404-856-1433
Customer Relations Fax: 404-856-1403

I wish I could say this is the first instance of being guilty of flying while Arab, but alas it isn’t.

 

Hamas’ Meshal Offers New Pragmatism, Renounces Violence (For Now)

Saturday, May 7th, 2011

khaled meshal

Khaled Meshal discusses Palestinian unity agreement and Hamas approach toward resisting Occupation (David Degner/WSJ)

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Hamas’ Khaled Meshal offered a newly pragmatic, consensus-driven Hamas approach to its Fatah collaborators and to Israel.  Of course, the proof is in the pudding in these situations and we’ve seen Hamas’ pragmatism wax and wane with the political winds.  But given the overall mood-music in the Arab world and the upcoming campaign for Palestinian statehood at the General Assembly in September, Hamas’ initiative appears promising to say the least.  As others have noted, I’m guessing that Hamas’ increasingly unstable home in Damascus is also forcing it to look outward for friends and allies in places (Ramallah, Washington, Cairo, Brussels) it hadn’t considered.

Here are some of the chief excerpts from Meshal’s remarks:

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said his movement will make decisions about how to wage its struggle with Israel, including if and when to use violence, in consensus with more moderate Palestinian factions.

“How to manage the resistance, what’s the best way to achieve our goals, when to escalate and when to cease fire, now we have to agree on all those decisions as Palestinians,” said Mr. Meshaal in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in Cairo.

…The Hamas leader’s comments…suggested a power-sharing agreement signed Wednesday between his militant party and the more moderate Fatah party could significantly change the Palestinian approach toward the peace process.

Mr. Meshaal said that decisions on “negotiations with Israel, domestic governance, foreign affairs, domestic security and resistance and other field activities” against Israel, would all be reached in consensus between Palestinian factions.

If Mr. Meshaal follows through on his pledge, it would mean that Hamas would no longer attack Israel without the agreement of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah leader, who has long opposed violence.

Aides to Mr. Abbas said that in closed-door negotiations in Cairo ahead of the signing of the Egypt-brokered reconciliation agreement, Mr. Meshaal said his movement was prepared to adopt a strategy of nonviolent resistance, at least for the time being. “They accept nonviolent resistance. That’s what Meshaal said in closed meetings,” said Nabil Shath, a senior aide to Mr. Abbas who was present in those meetings. “He said ‘we cannot do violence and you do nonviolence. It does not work out.’ “

It’s important to point out that for Hamas (and unlike Fatah), violent resistance and non-violent resistance are strategies and not ends in themselves.  Meshal is clearly saying that for now, it’s most promising for us to turn away from violence, since that is most likely to secure our goals for Palestinian statehood.  But he’s also clearly saying that if non-violence and this current round of peacemaking and nation-building fails, that the movement could very well turn back to violence.

Of course, this will make Bibi and the pro-Israelists howl.  They’ll wag their fingers saying: “You see.  We told you you can’t trust them.  They’re only turning to non-violence out of cynical motives and they’ll return to violence the first chance they get.”  This of course gets things all wrong.  The point is that if non violence gets them where they want to be, then there will be no need for violence.

What Meshal is really saying is that if Fatah honors its commitments, there are free and fair elections, and the General Assembly approves a Palestinian state, then Hamas will have no reason to turn to violence.  To me, this is a patently self-evident pragmatic approach.  Even former Mossad directors like Ephraim Halevy understand it too.  But not the Bibistas.

Pres. Obama has to decide whether he’s going to be a Bibista or whether he’s going to get on the right side of the Arab Spring.  The U.S. is still insisting that Hamas completely renounce violence as a condition of being considered a partner in peace negotiations.  But that’s simply not going to play in Gaza.  And there is no reason it has to.  What Meshal is telling Washington is: “if you produce for us, we’ll be good boys.  If you don’t, we won’t.”  That is the best Obama’s going to get.  If he demands more, then he will end up being bitterly disappointed and we’ll end up with more misery, more wars, and more terror.

Hamas is currently showing pragmatic realism.  Bibi is showing the same old losing cards.  And Obama’s showing nothing.  Where are you, Mr. President?  Stop basking in the glow of being Osama-killer and get down to brass tacks.  Show some leadership.  If he allows the mid-term elections to dictate the same-old, same-old approach to Hamas for fear of appearing soft on terror and hostile to a Likudist Israeli government, he’ll have lost yet another opportunity to play a leadership role in making peace.

CUNY Trustee Chair Confirms Kushner to Receive Honorary Degree

Friday, May 6th, 2011
benno schmidt

Benno Schmidt: CUNY board to do right thing (finally) by Kushner

The NY Times reports as of an hour ago, that Dr. Benno Schmidt, chair of the CUNY board of trustees, is moving to reinstate Tony Kushner’s honorary degree. In the story, Schmidt acknowledges that a wrong was done to Kushner, that the board made a “mistake of principle,” and that he’s trying to right it.  Thank God for common sense and decency.  The executive committee will meet on Monday in special session to deliberate on the matter and it is anticipated a grave injustice will be rectified.

Schmidt today released the type of statement he should’ve written days ago, but better late than never.  In it he wrote:

“…It is not right for the board to consider politics in connection with the award of honorary degrees except in extreme cases not presented by the facts here,” he wrote. “The proposed honorary degree for Mr. Kushner would recognize him for his extraordinary talent and contribution to the American theater. Like other honorary degrees, it is not intended to reflect approval or disapproval for political views not relevant to the field for which the recipient is being honored.”

I presume Wiesenfeld isn’t a member of the executive committee and thus won’t be able to poison the well and the playwright’s candidacy, as he did before the entire board.  The Times article makes clear that the motion now would need four votes to pass and that at least four executive committee members already voted in favor at the earlier meeting.  So Kushner as good as has his degree.

This will, of course, not humble Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, who is a boor, ignoramus and bully of the first order.  He sees it as his prerogative to act like a bull in a china shop when it comes to debate about Israel.  There is only one way to deal with such people.  Someone higher up the food chain needs to step in and remove him from his position of influence.  Yes, it will mean crossing someone politically because bullies like Wiesenfeld always have their own friends in high places.  But you’d think George Pataki’s political fixer would’ve passed his shelf life by now and would no longer have the political muscle to ensure his dominance in such positions and situations.  Again, I think the mayor and governor, along with Dr. Schmidt need to step up and do the right thing.

Jeffrey Wiesenfeld has every right to his opinions.  But should he be expressing them on behalf of the students, faculty, trustees, and alumni of CUNY?  Or just as a private citizen?

Mazel tov, Tony.  You earned it!

 

Wiesenfeld Calls Kushner ‘Kapo,’ ‘Jewish Anti-Semite’

Friday, May 6th, 2011

UPDATE: The NY Times reports that Dr. Benno Schmidt, chair of the CUNY board of trustees, is moving to reinstate Tony Kushner’s honorary degree. In the story, Schmidt acknowledges that a wrong was done to Kushner, that the board made a “mistake of principle,” and that he’s trying to right it.  Thank God for common sense and decency.  The executive committee will meet on Monday in special session to deliberate on the matter and it is anticipated a grave injustice will be rectified.  I presume Wiesenfeld isn’t a member of the executive committee and thus won’t be able to poison the well and the playwright’s candidacy, as he did before the entire board.

Jeffrey Goldberg, in the true spirit of “if you give a man enough rope, he’ll hang himself,” has a long, illuminating interview with Jeffrey Wiesenfeld in The Atlantic.  Now that Tony Kushner has exposed as a lie the CUNY trustee’s charge that the playwright supports an Israel boycott, Wiesenfeld has only one of his original smears against Kushner up his sleeve: the Nakba as ethnic cleansing.

Almost all my readers know the facts that nearly 1-million Israeli Palestinians were expelled (mostly forcibly) from their homes inside Israel before, during and after the 1948 war.  Most people know that the Israeli New Historians, including Benny Morris, in fact documented this act of ethnic cleansing.  Without their intensive historical research into Israeli archival sources on the subject, the charge would only rest on the claims of the victims themselves, and thus be less solid than it is.

So in the spirit of giving everyone, including Jewish idiots, a fair deal, let’s listen to the bubbe meisehs that Wiesenfeld spins in his interview:

Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, the bomb-throwing CUNY trustee who has blocked John Jay College from awarding the playwright Tony Kushner an honorary degree, told me…that, as the child of Holocaust survivors, he has no choice but to call out Kushner for making the “blood-libel charge” that Israel has engaged in ethnic-cleansing.

“My mother would call Tony Kushner a kapo,” he said in a telephone conversation earlier this morning. “Kapos” were Jews who worked for the Germans in concentration camps. “If I’m confronted by anti-Semitism in my face, I’m going to call it out.” I asked him if he had any doubt Kushner was an anti-Semite. He said: “Anyone who accuses the Jews of ethnic-cleansing is participating in a blood libel, so yes, he’s a Jewish anti-Semite.”

…”Ethnic-cleansing is a blood libel. You’ve crossed the line if you’ve said that. It’s Darfur, Bosnia, Nazi Germany. If you say the Jewish people engaged in ethnic cleansing, then you put them in the class of the Nazis.”

…”The Jews never did this on a systematic basis. The Jews don’t plan genocide. If there was ethnic-cleansing, how come there are more than a million Arab citizens of Israel today?”

At the end of the interview, Wiesenfeld graciously offers to support Tony Kushner’s honorary degree if he would come before the board (a right that was not accorded to him before Wiesenfeld slashed and burned his candidacy for the degree in the first place) and apologize for all the bad, bad things he’s said about Israel in the past.  Imagine, it’s CUNY’s board that should be apologizing to Kushner for their stupidity, but Wiesenfeld somehow gets it all backwards.

If I were Mike Bloomberg and Andy Cuomo I’d be saying right about now in a paraphrase of Henry II: “Will someone not rid me of this troublesome knucklehead.”

In a separate Times interview, Wiesenfeld makes even more damaging claims that Palestinians are not human because they “worship death.”  Being the Jewish ignoramus that he is, he’s unaware of the holy martyrdoms throughout Jewish history beginning with Masada, the Roman executions of the Rabbi Akiva and the nine other saintly rabbis, the deaths of tens of thousands during the Crusades which were likened to the sacrifice of Isaac and clearly seen in terms of martyrdom, followed by the deaths of Jews on the auto da fe during the Spanish Inquisition.  In the Israeli context, Michael Dorfman reminded me on Facebook, that Josef Trumpeldor apocryphally said before his own martyrdom at Tel Hai: “it is good to die for one’s country.”  To this day, IDF ceremonies for new recruits canonize the Masada martyrdom with the slogan: “Masada will not fall again.”  Baruch Kimmerling has written definitively on the cult of martyrdom in the latter-day Israeli context.

I have an unwritten rule of thumb in dealing with the ahistorical nonsense spewed by people like Wiesenfeld: whatever smears they level against the Palestinians are vices that also characterize Jews.  In other words, no one is solely guilty here.  We all have sins and weaknessnesses.  It is the hubris that your side is all good and the other side is all bad that gets us into profound trouble when dealing with complex historical claims of both Israelis and Palestinians.  Instead of hubris, what we really and desperately need is humility.  The concept that we may not know everything, that our enemy may have a legitimate claim we weren’t aware of.  And that we may be able to convince him or her of a legitimate claim we may have as well.

This is the problem when you give an ignoramus power.  He uses it to bully those who are smarter, better read, more articulate and more learned than he.  His actions thus pollute the political discourse in a community because they aren’t based on real ideas, but rather on half-baked notions having little to do with reality.

Let’s take the idea that his mother, a Holocaust survivor, would call Kushner a “Kapo.”  Without knowing his mother, I’m willing to bet that as a survivor she would do nothing of the sort.  She, unlike her son, likely met real Kapos and knew the horror of what they did and the genuine suffering they caused.  She likely would never call someone a Kapo for merely being a critic of Israeli policies.  I have met many Holocaust survivors and I have never heard a single one use the term in any other way than to refer to that specific historical period.  The notion of exploiting it in a contemporary context having nothing to do with the Holocaust comes from the pro-Israel far-right and the Kahanist crowd, which has always been obsessed with linking Israel to the Holocaust and claiming that those who oppose Israel will cause a new Holocaust.

So Wiesenfeld is exploiting the sacred imagery of the Holocaust and Jewish suffering in a contemporary context in which it does not belong.  He abuses the term “Kapo” to score cheap political points against those who legitimately raise their voices out of concern that Israel’s policies are taking it down the wrong road.  There is a term in Hebrew for what Wiesenfeld is: am ha’aretz.  An ignorant, ahistorical, Kahanist, lying boor.

If this troubles you half as much as it does me, go to Jerry Haber’s blog and post a version of his letter to the CUNY trustees, whose e mail addresses he provides.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE