Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Archive for September, 2011

Bibi: Tom Friedman and Bill Clinton, Great Satans

Saturday, September 24th, 2011

As I mentioned in an earlier post today, Mahmoud Abbas spoke of Palestine’s campaign for statehood as a Palestinian Spring.  Bibi responded that it might result in an Iranian winter.  But I see Bibi’s trip as the winter of his discontent, or perhaps the September of his discontent.

Barak Ravid covers Bibi’s New York UN residency (Hebrew) and notes the poor prime minister’s anger at Tom Friedman, that otherwise impeccable servant of Israel’s interests, who wrote a double-barrel blast of a column lambasting Bibi and calling him the worst, most incompetent prime minister in Israel’s history.  In Bibi’s eyes that makes Tom the Great Satan, perhaps even greater than Ahmadinejad.  Ravid says that this passage in Bibi’s speech was an implicit swipe at Friedman:

Better a bad press than a good eulogy, and better still would be a fair press whose sense of history extends beyond breakfast, and which recognizes Israel’s legitimate security concerns.

Imagine the ungratefulness of Tom Friedman not understanding that Israel’s security needs as defined by the Likud, trump regional peace and stability.  All this attention from Bibi is unfortunate in a way since it will likely further inflate Friedman’s rather large ego to know a prime minister took out after him in a speech before the entire UN.

And Bibi has other nemeses as well such as Bill Clinton, who threw a decent sized bucket of cold water on Bibi in the former president’s remarks which also placed blame for the current logjam squarely on Bibi.  It gives you a measure of Bibi that, according to Ravid, he demanded that his staff call the White House and request a demur from the Obama administration regarding Clinton’s remarks.  Can you imagine the leader of a foreign country insisting that a sitting president criticize a past president.  The guys has balls.  When such a rebuff wasn’t forthcoming, Bibi contacted reporters in his entourage and gave them the White House spokesperson’s phone number and asked them to call for a comment.

Ravid describes the reception of Netanyahu’s UN speech as a sorry affair.  Many of the delegates had left and the minutes-long applause that greeted Abu Mazen’s speech was withheld from the Israeli leader.  The only applause he received was mainly from his own delegation and other Jews who were in the hall at the time.  Ravid even says of Bibi: he refused to ask himself why it is that people throughout the world don’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth.  After comparing the warmth and effusiveness of the reception that greeted Abbas and the coldness that Bibi experienced, Ravid closes by saying:

For anyone who had any further doubt: this [Abbas' reception] is how a political tsunami looks and that [Bibi's] is how international isolation feels.

Der Dersh, Bibi’s Brain Regarding Israel-U.S. Relations

Friday, September 23rd, 2011
alan dershowitz

A wan-looking Alan Dershowitz near UN earlier today (Mondoweiss)

Anyone think Alan Dershowitz is lookin’ might peaked, a bit white around the gills perhaps?  Anything wrong, Alan?  Israel’s increasingly isolated status on the world stage couldn’t be bringin’ ya down, could it?  I read that Dershowitz is one of Israel’s most critical advisors regarding relations with the U.S.  In fact, Bibi offered him Israel’s UN ambassadorship a few months ago.  Wonder why Dersh turned it down?  I would think standing up before the UN and telling off all those friggin’ anti-Semit’n would’ve tickled his fancy.

So no surprise that this portrait from a Mondoweiss photo montage finds him near the UN earlier today.  He’s probably pumping talking points to Bibi as he’s speaking on the UN rostrum.  Didn’t seem to help much though.

Middle East Quartet, Toothless Tiger

Friday, September 23rd, 2011
quartet

Mideast Quartet: Tweedle Dum, Tweedle Dumber, Tweedle Dumbest...(AP)

Haaretz reportsthat the Quartet tiger opened its mouth to roar…and a yawn was all that came out.  Obama, Clinton, Blair, and the NY Times trumpeted the expected contribution the four eminences would shortly be making to Middle East by announcing bridging proposals and reopening of negotiations between the parties.  Today, the rubber hit the road and here’s what Haaretz reported:

The “Quartet” of Middle East mediators proposed on Friday that Israel and the Palestinians should meet within one month to agree an agenda for new peace talks with a goal of a deal by the end of 2012.

In a statement, the Quartet — the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia — said it wanted to see comprehensive proposals within three months on territory and security, and substantial progress within six months.

The brief statement represents a much more limited attempt to restart peace talks than Quartet envoys had once envisioned, and made no proposals to bridge core issues dividing the two sides such as borders, the status of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees and the future of Jewish settlements.

The EU’s Ashton, speaking to reporters as the statement was issued, said both the Israelis and the Palestinians were aware of “elements” in the new proposal, but indicated it was not certain that they would sign up for new talks.

Tony Blair came forth with this gem:

Quartet representative and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair added that the statement presents a clear set of steps.

A “clear set of steps?”  Signifying what?  What has the Quartet offered the Palestinians to come back to negotiations?  Why should they?  This is worse than useless.  They have no ideas on which the four can agree so they express their solemn wish that Israel and the Palestinians will come together to talk.  That’s nice.  That & a coupla bucks will buy you a latte.  Better to dissolve the group if that’s the best they can do.

Settlers Burn Palestinian Fields: ‘In Blood and Fire Shall Judea Rise’

Friday, September 23rd, 2011

'In blood, fire and pogroms shall Judea rise again'

It’s fall harvest time in Palestine, which means its the season of pogroms, hooliganism and arson for Israel’s radical settlers who take delight in destroying everything Palestinian they can get their hands on.  But after all, they’re only upholding the old Beitar slogan:

In blood and fire Judea fell; in blood and fire shall Judea rise.

Today, fields were burned in Deir Jarir outside Ramallah.  I guess they’re only realizing an ancient Zionist dream, eh?

If God destroyed Judea in blood and fire does he really command that rebuilding Judea means burning and killing Palestinian farmers, shepherds and civilians?

H/t SSeham.

Palestine Spring, Bibi’s Winter of Discontent

Friday, September 23rd, 2011

Mahmoud Abbas delivered his UN speech today to rapturous applause from the assembled delegates.  Bibi Netanyahu–not so much.

In one especially telling passage he likened the Palestinian demand for statehood to the Arab Spring, calling it the Palestinian Spring.  But Bibi warns in his speech that it could turn into an Iranian winter (a nuclear winter, of course).  But it is Bibi who’s suffering through winter, a winter of the world’s discontent with Israel’s intransigence.

Didi Remez offers a scan from Maariv which notes Bibi is using his tried and true method of advancing Israel’s interests on the world stage: bribery.  Just as he bribed Romania and Bulgaria to vote No on statehood by offering 1,000 Israeli work permits to each, he’s offer “foreign and military aid” to Portugal, Nigeria, and Gabon to secure their No votes.  There’s nothing like a country that argues its case solely based on merit, is there?

bibi netanyahu 2011 un speech

Bibi's UN sophistries

Bibi’s speech (full text) was full of his usual sour-dourness.  Imagine he flies all the way to New York to address the General Assembly and all he can muster is dark imprecations about the UN being a “place of darkness” for Israel and ” a theater of the absurd.”  Of course, he’s referring largely to the Zionism is Racism resolution which harkens back to the dark ages of the 1970s.  No one appears to have told Bibi that times have changed and that in today’s world Israel is rightly condemned not for Zionism, but for killing civilians and other acts which many consider violations of international law.

Among Bibi’s many sins of omission and commission are this conflation of the PA and Hamas:

President Abbas just said on this podium that the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yeah, hopes, dreams and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya, and from elsewhere.

In fact, the PA has performed diligently in guaranteeing security in the West Bank and for Israel as well.  No missiles are launched from Fatah territory into Israel.  Yet somehow this good is transformed into bad and Fatah and Hamas are conflated as if they are one and the same.  In fact, Israel has refused to encourage any political process by which the PA might be governed democractically by either Fatah or Hamas.  In effect, Bibi has only himself to blame.

Someone he also counted up Hamas’ missile inventory and discovered that all “10,000″ Grad rockets have an Iranian imprint on them.  Curiously, not even his own intelligence agencies have made such a vague, unproven claim.

Bibi begins his speech on a note of sheer chutzpah claiming to reach out his hand in peace to every state which Israel has affronted through war and acts of violence including Turkey, Syria, and last but not least the Palestinians.  It reminds me of that old saying: you can’t piss on my back and tell me it’s rain.  That’s pretty much what Bibi’s doing here.

He is the ultimate chutzpan (someone showing chutzpah), saying he’s willing to go anywhere to negotiate peace with the Palestinians, even willing to meet Abbas right there in New York at the UN.  If that’s so then why did Avigdor Lieberman, Yuli Edelstein and Ron Prosor make such an ostentatious point of exiting the hall during Abbas’ speech (Hebrew here)?  And believe me, such senior officials don’t decide on their own to take such a flagrant and public action.  Their boss, the prime minister, surely knew what they planned to do and approved it.  And if he didn’t then he’s a leader who doesn’t know how to control his subordinates.

Both Bibi and Barack said in their speeches that peace cannot be won through UN resolutions.  They conveniently forget that national independence can indeed be won through such resolutions, which was how Israel won its recognition as a new state in 1947.

Israel’s PM raises the specter of “militant Islam,” that bogeyman so useful to Islamophobes and radical right-wing Israelis everywhere.  When the odds are against you you can always pull out the specter of bin Laden to shock and frighten your audience.  There is yet another noxious element to the abuse of this trope: it confuses the Palestinian struggle for nationhood with a religious holy war.  There is no religious war between Israel and Palestine.  There is a war for national independence and rights, which is not the same thing.  To claim anything else is a lie.  But a lie that is convenient to all the radical Judeans (settlers) who envision a final Gog and Magog between the religious forces of Good and Evil.

I wouldn’t mind Bibi likening “militant Islam” to a noxious reptile if he’d also do the same for militant Judaism (in the form of the settler movement):

[Our] critics continue to press Israel to make far-reaching concessions…They praise those who unwittingly feed the insatiable crocodile of militant Islam…They cast as enemies of peace those of us who insist that we must first erect a sturdy barrier to keep the crocodile out, or at the very least jam an iron bar between its gaping jaws.

As Yousef Munayyer points out, if Palestinians likened the settlers to reptiles, the latter would be the first to shrey about anti-Semitism.  Yet somehow, Bibi gets a pass.  Bibi I’ll make you a deal: you call the settlers creeping insects, crawling reptiles or other noxious treif animals and I’ll be OK with all the crocodile stuff.  Deal?

Here, Israel’s leader adds further insult to injury:

Militant Islam has already taken over Lebanon and Gaza.

This of course presumes that Hezbollah rules Lebanon, which is not the case.  Hezbollah may have veto power over the current government, but that’s not the same as ruling.  Lebanon is far too complicated a country politically and ethnically for Hezbollah or Islamism to prevail there.

Here Bibi again posits an imaginary militant Islam tearing up peace treaties:

It’s determined to tear apart the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan.

If those peace treaties are torn up it will only be Israel’s fault because it didn’t resolve the underlying conflict with all the frontline Arab states.  No one, as far as I know has said a word about tearing up the treaty with Jordan.  Again, this is Bibi’s delusion.

Here, Netanyahu attempts to rewrite history:

In 2000 Israel made a sweeping peace offer that met virtually all of the Palestinian demands. Arafat rejected it.

Easy for Bibi to talk about Camp David when he himself opposed, and has opposed virtually every major peace effort.  And easy for him to call it a sweeping offer when he wasn’t the Palestinian leader being asked to accept half a loaf.  The Camp David offer was simply not enough territory for Arafat to be able to accept it, and even senior U.S. negotiators like Aaron David Miller have conceded this in books they’ve written.

Bibi further advances the preposterous argument that the West Bank promises to become a terror state with missiles smuggled into the Hebron Hills to rain down on Israelis living below.  And he has the chutzpah to call this scenario “very real.”  The only thing raining down on the Hebron Hills are the bullets and blows of far-right settlers beating up Palestinian farmers and shepherds and burning their fields.

In a further insult to injury, Bibi adds another canard to the list of infractions in his speech.  He advances the lie that the PA’s UN observer called for Palestine to be “Judenrein.”  This is a flat-out lie.  What the ambassador did say was that he envisioned something that virtually every major Israeli center-right politician has said hundreds of times over–that the two peoples should be separated from each other for their own security.  He said nothing about no Jews being allowed within Palestine, but rather that the two states should be separated.  In fact, Palestinians leaders and even some religious settlers envision a future in which Jews may live within Palestine as long as they take Palestinian citizenship and accept Palestinian sovereignty.  I only wish Israel’s leaders would do the same for Palestinian refugees seeking to return to their historic homeland.

One of the most incredible fictions Netanyahu advances is the notion that his historic claim to the land is confirmed by the fact that he can read his family name in historic Israelite inscriptions:

In my office in Jerusalem, there’s a — there’s an ancient seal. It’s a signet ring of a Jewish official from the time of the Bible. The seal was found right next to the Western Wall, and it dates back 2,700 years, to the time of King Hezekiah. Now, there’s a name of the Jewish official inscribed on the ring in Hebrew. His name was Netanyahu. That’s my last name. My first name, Benjamin, dates back a thousand years earlier to Benjamin — Binyamin — the son of Jacob, who was also known as Israel. Jacob and his 12 sons roamed these same hills of Judea and Sumeria [sic] 4,000 years ago, and there’s been a continuous Jewish presence in the land ever since.

His Diaspora family name was not Netanyahu, but Miliekovski.  In other words, national identity isn’t just inherited.  It isn’t based on fact or history alone.  It can also be a construct.  There’s nothing wrong with that as the Palestinians to an extent have done just the same.  But what IS wrong with this process is if you confuse historical fact with your own personal definitions or aspirations.  Bibi’s claim to the land is a Zionist construct which he and others fill with meaning.  It is created or willed, not God-given and certainly not solely determined by history.

Bibi’s sophistries continue with this one:

So let’s meet here today in the United Nations. Who’s there to stop us? What is there to stop us? If we genuinely want peace, what is there to stop us from meeting today and beginning peace negotiations?

What’s to stop you, Bibi?  How about thousands of Israeli troops maintaining a massive Occupation along with 500,000 Israeli settlers displacing the former Palestinian landowners and residents of that land?  How about that?  This situation reminds me of the midrash of God holding Mt. Sinai over the heads of the Israelites and offering them the Torah and asking whether they accept it.  They had little choice, did they?  Well, Abbas is saying that Palestinians have free will and they won’t be railroaded by superior power into a sham deal.

Bibi asks this interesting question about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Can you imagine that man who ranted here yesterday — can you imagine him armed with nuclear weapons?

A fair question perhaps.  But can the world imagine Bibi Netanyahu armed with 400 nuclear weapons?  Why is a single Iranian weapon more dangerous than Israel’s 400?  And does the world truly believe that Ahmadinejad is any less a radical troglodyte for his country’s interests than Bibi is for his?

Another telling passage from his speech:

Millions of Arabs have taken to the streets to replace tyranny with liberty, and no one would benefit more than Israel if those committed to freedom and peace would prevail.

This of course is a delusion.  Israel doesn’t welcome the Arab Spring.  It’s petrified of it.  What Israel wants is an Arab Spring that continues Israeli hegemony over the region and its interests there.  This will not happen.  So Bibi here is spouting pure sophistry.

What this speech proves more than anything else is that peace is impossible given the current Israeli leadership.  There is nothing but deafness on that side.  So if Obama, the UN, the Europeans, the Quartet want peace they must bring it themselves by imposing a settlement.  But the first step in doing this is throwing a bucket of cold water in Bibi’s face, and recognizing a Palestinian state will do that.

70% of Israelis Endorse UN Acceptance of Palestinian State

Friday, September 23rd, 2011

The Truman Institute at the Hebrew University has done a poll of Israeli and Palestinian opinion about the PA’s UN bid for statehood.  Remarkably, the poll finds nearly 70% of Israelis prepared to accept a Palestinian state through a UN vote.  This despite the opposition of their own prime minister.  Does Barack Obama know that a plurality of Americans and majority of Israelis support a plan he rejects?  This shows how completely out of touch both Netanyahu and Obama are, and how isolated they are in their own arms.

And hey, you didn’t read this in Haaretz.  You read it in the Jerusalem Post, no less!

80% of Palestinians support the statehood bid.  This compares to a BBC poll which found roughly twice as many people in the 19 countries polled supported statehood as opposed it (roughly 49% to 21%).  In other words, MORE Israelis support statehood than any of the 19 countries polled by the BBC.

Let’s be clear about what this is and what it isn’t.  It doesn’t mean that 70% of Israelis WANT a Palestinian state.  God forbid!  It means that Israelis (as opposed to their far-right government) are pragmatic enough to realize that if the UN endorses statehood that Israel better just learn to live with it and make the best of it.  And you know what?  I’ll take that.  Of course, it would be better for Israelis to willingly accept such a state.  But any way they conceive of their acceptance is good enough for me.

Obama as Captain America, Saving Day for Israel

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011
Barack Obama as Zionist Captain America

Barack Obama as Captain Israel, striking a blow for Bibi, Occupation, and the status quo (Maariv)

A Maariv cartoonist captures the shame of Barack Obama’s UN performance, at which he stood tall for Israel, even taller than Bibi Netanyahu.  In fact, Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea called the U.S. president “Israel’s ambassador to the UN.”

This, of course, is welcome news in an Israel used to international isolation and opprobrium.  What no one’s apparently told Maariv’s readers and all Israelis is that Obama’s speech fell flat with everyone outside of Avigdor Lieberman and Aipac.  What Israelis should be doing is not celebrating the sycophancy of Barack Obama, but the fact that his speech dropped like a lead balloon outside of the narrow pro-Israel circles in which it was heralded.

The Hebrew caption reads:

Barack Strikes (or “Barak’s Blow”)

It was supposed to be one of the most difficult weeks in the history of the State.  A signpost toward national decline and an unprecedented developing international isolation.  Then Barack Obama saved the day.

H/t Didi Remez.

Quartet at Loggerheads Over Disagreement on Peace Negotiations

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011

Whatever you may say about the Palestinian plan to apply for statehood at the UN, you must concede it has overturned just about everyone’s apple cart of consensus and expectations.  Apparently, it has caused a deep rift within the Quartet itself.  That body arrogated to itself the responsibility for encouraging both sides to return to the negotiating table.  During better days, the members seemed to be generally on the same page, though their individual national interests and agenda diverged greatly.  But with the Palestine’s aggressive campaign this week, those diverging interests have been highlighted.  Indeed, according to a NY Times report, the Quartet is on the verge of total disarray, with the Russians presumably taking a very different approach than Europeans and the U.S.:

Representatives of the so-called quartet — the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia — were still trying late Thursday to reach an agreement on a statement about moving peace negotiations forward, intended to counterbalance the controversial proposal for United Nations membership that Mr. Abbas has vowed to present. The future of the Quartet could be at risk, some diplomats suggested, with the Americans and the Europeans, close to an agreement, ready to abandon the other two members and issue a statement by themselves.

I hope the Russians hold fast.  I’m deeply suspicious of any statement supported by the U.S. or even the Europeans, who seem much more attuned to the needs of this Israeli government than those of the Palestinians.

There simply can be no agreement unless all parties hammer Netanyahu hard for his intransigence and foot-dragging.  Right now, none of the parties seems prepared to do that.  So getting both sides back to the table is a pipe dream, Quartet or no Quartet.

The U.S., its allies, and the NY Times have developed a narrative which labels the Palestinians as obstacles to a peace settlement.  They call Mahmoud Abbas “Hamlet” for his supposed dithering in the face of the “blandishments” offered to him in return for Palestinians’ acquiescence in a peace deal.  The latest volley, is a shameful op-ed by Ehud Olmert (he of the Slimfast boxes full of cash transferred to him during his stay at posh Manhattan hotels, compliments of his Diet King friend, S. Daniel Abraham) in which he claims he offered Abbas a state with territory “equivalent” to the size of pre-67 West Bank and Gaza.  This is the “deal” that Olmert and the Times views as too good to refuse, which Abbas somehow refused (imagine the ungratefulness).  What Olmert left out, and you can fill in by reading the Palestine Papers, is that the disgraced former prime minister’s offer (no mention of the serial bribery charges against Olmert in the credits for his NY Times op-ed) included a measly 5,000 refugees allowed to return to Israel, out of 400,000 who might reasonably be expected to wish to do so according to the Geneva Accords.  These 5,000 would return not on the basis of any legitimate claim under international law, but “on a humanitarian basis,” whatever that means.  Not to mention that Olmert’s territorial offer wasn’t even equal to what was offered to Arafat in Camp David.

Whatever failings the Palestinians and their leaders may have, it is not them that is the obstacle.  Offer them something real, something legitimate and they will respond.  Offering them gornisht as has so far been the case, and you will merit a blank stare (something like the one on Abbas’s face as he listened to Obama’s abominable UN speech yesterday), and rightfully so.

Even Bill Clinton, who deserves some measure of blame for the failure of past peace initiatives, has gotten religion.  At his Global Initiative today in New York, he placed blame solely on Netanyahu.  The ex-president’s perspective is interesting:

“The Israelis always wanted two things that, once it turned out they had…didn’t seem so appealing to Mr. Netanyahu,” Clinton said, adding that Israel wanted “to believe they had a partner for peace in a Palestinian government, and there’s no question — and the Netanyahu government has said — that this is the finest Palestinian government they’ve ever had in the West Bank.”

Furthermore…Israel was also on the verge of being recognized by the Arabs, adding that the “king of Saudi Arabia started lining up all the Arab countries to say to the Israelis, ‘if you work it out with the Palestinians … we will give you immediately not only recognition but a political, economic, and security partnership.”

This is huge…. It’s a heck of a deal,” Clinton said, adding: “That’s what happened. Every American needs to know this. That’s how we got to where we are.”

“The real cynics believe that the Netanyahu’s government’s continued call for negotiations…and such means that he’s just not going to give up the West Bank,” he added.

Though Bill Clinton’s shepherding of the Middle East peace process was far from perfect, Obama and the NY Times editorial writers should pay a lot closer attention to Bill Clinton’s views than those of Dennis Ross.  This mess is Bibi’s, with Ross as his enabler.  Unfortunately, the two have dragged the current U.S. president into the mess as well.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE