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

Posts Tagged ‘1967-borders’

722,000 Israelis Live Beyond Green Line

Saturday, January 14th, 2012

Yisrael HaYom published today one of the more stark and telling statistics about the ‘success’ of the Occupation: in 2011, 722,000 Israelis lived beyond the Green Line, including in settlements and East Jerusalem.  This was a 5% increase over 2010.  That means that 1 in every seven Israelis lives outside of 1967 borders and explains why the country is rapidly becoming a unitary state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan.  Bibiton and the settlers themselves are overjoyed with this development because it means they can continue pursuing their Apartheid Jews-only State.

In that case, it becomes critical to begin thinking, indeed demanding that if Israel refuses to end the Occupation and cede almost all territory outside the 1967 borders to a Palestinian state, then it must accord all individuals living in “greater” Israel full citizenship and rights.  We must stop talking about this as a possibility or eventuality, but as a reality.  Israel must be given a stark choice.  Either it’s one state from river to sea in the old Jabotinskyean anthem or the Occupation must end now.

Hamas’ Meshal Affirms Support for Palestinian State Within 1967 Borders and ‘Popular Resistance’

Friday, December 23rd, 2011

abbas Meshal Cairo talks

An image that makes Israeli hardliners cringe and fear: Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Meshal making nice during Cairo unity talks

Following on a post I published here about a Wahington Post story on the “new pragmatism” of Hamas, Khaled Meshal expanded on these themes in an AP interview in which he affirmed Hamas support for a Palestinian state established through Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders. Though the Islamist movement’s chief leader refused to renounce violence as a tool in the fight for Palestinian rights, he made clear that violence was a tactical, and not a strategic choice; and that his first choice would be the types of “popular resistance” exhibited during the Arab Spring uprisings and the first Palestinian Intifada in 1987:

Popular protests have “the power of a tsunami,” Mashaal said, pointing to the recent waves of demonstrations across the Arab world.

“Now we have a common ground that we can work on — the popular resistance, which presents the power of people,” he said. The idea for the protests originated with the Palestinians themselves and the uprising they launched against Israel in 1987, he said, typified by crowds of rock-throwing Palestinian youths confronting heavily armed Israeli soldiers.

Mashaal also gave rare Hamas public support to the idea of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem.

Pointedly, Meshal, in reaffirming Hamas support for a Palestinian state, did not mention the traditional Hamas fudging tactic, offering a hudna in its struggle against Israel:

We have political differences, but the common ground is the state on the ’67 borders. Why don’t we work in this common area,” he said.

There is no magic bullet as far as Hamas is concerned. It won’t all of a sudden become a liberal social democratic movement that is to the taste of Israel, the U.S. and the western world. Nor should that be necessary to take it seriously as one of two Palestinian interlocutors that must be included in any discussions that would resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In a related matter, The NY Times’ Isabel Kershner continues to lie about Hamas’ views about Israel. This recent passage is exemplary of her sweeping distortions of the group’s position:

…Hamas, the Islamic militant group that…is sworn to Israel’s destruction.

While there is certainly no love lost between Israel and Hamas, no senior Hamas official that I know of has in the recent past (the past few years) made any such statement. And the group would certainly, from their point of view have reason to do so after Operation Cast Lead, the Mavi Marmara killings, and years of punishing siege. Though I don’t find Hamas an exemplar of democracy (nor Fatah or Israel for that matter), statements like Kershner’s and Bronner’s do a disservice to a full understanding of the nuance of the conflict.

Hamas Leader, Meshaal, Praises Abbas’ UN Bid for Statehood

Sunday, October 2nd, 2011
khaled meshaal

Khaled Meshaal, Hamas senior leader, endorses Palestinian UN statehood bid in face of opposition from Iran's Ayatollah Khameini

Hamas’s chief leader, Khaled Meshaal delivered a major address (Farsi) at a Palestine conference in Iran yesterday which shocked many by directly contradicting the view advanced by Ayatollah Khameini, who attacked the two state solution, the PLO’s support for it, and its UN bid.  Meshaal, in contrast, praised Mahmoud Abbas for his campaign for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.  Keep in mind that Meshaal said this in front of the highest leaders of Iran including Khamieni and Ahmedinejad, all of whom lined up in vehement opposition.  It took guts.

Because this is such an important statement and because it has not been reported at all in any English language site, I’m going to quote the article from the Iran’s Radio Farda (funded partially by the U.S. State Department, but whose reporting is considered reliable by Iranians I’ve consulted) in its entirety.  I thank Muhammad Sahimi for his translation from the Farsi and Golnaz Esfandiari for leading me to this source:

Khaled Meshal, head of the political office of Hamas in Syria said that the request of Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, for recognition of an independent Palestinian state and full membership in the United Nations is a courageous act that must be appreciated and supported. Meshal, who was speaking in the 5th international conference in support of Palestinian Intifada in Tehran, said regarding Abbas’ request, “We cannot deny that this action has had symbolic and moral achievements.”

Meshal expressed his position while Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected, at the same conference, Abbas’ suggestion for an independent Palestine, which recognizes partitioning of the historical Palestine. Last week, Abbas asked the UN to recognize an independent Palestine based on the pre-1967 war borders that will consist of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. An independent Palestine within this area has been agreed on internationally, but so far Israel and Palestinians have not been able to reach any agreement in their peace negotiations. The main reason for the disagreement is Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the problem of Palestinian refugees.

Regarding Mahmoud Abbas’ action at the UN, Ayatollah Khamenei said in his speech at the conference, “Our aim is freedom for [all of] Palestine, not part of it. Any plan that aims to partition Palestine must be completely rejected. The idea of two states that has been covered up with membership of the Palestinian government in the UN is nothing but acceding to the Zionists demands, meaning accepting a Zionist government in the Palestinian land.”

But, describing Abbas’ action, Khaled Meshal said that it has “isolated the Zionist regime and the United States, there is a good international consensus that has revealed the [true] ugly face of the U.S.policy and Israel’s position.” At the same time, Meshal said that the action has its limitation and should not be considered as an end by itself. He demanded to “first liberate Palestinian lands and then ask the United Nations Security Coucil for UN membership.” He also warned against some of the consequences of Abbas’ action.

The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic implicitly accused the officials of Palestine Liberation Organization of treason, but Meshal praised them. Ayatollah Khamenei said [about the officials], “Lack of religious beliefs and separation from the people gradually neutralized them [the officials] and made them ineffectual. Of course, there are also decent, motivated and brave people in the Organization but, collectively, the Organization has gone a different way [than what it should have].”

“Their deviation [from the path of resistance] hurt the cause of Palestine and it is still doing so. They, similar to some treacherous Arab governments, turned their backs to the ideals of resistance which were, and still are, the only way for Palestine salvation, and hurt not only Palestine but also themselves.”

On the other hand, Khaled Meshal praised Mahmoud Abbas for asking the UN for recognition of an independent Palestine state and membership in the UN, despite the opposition by the United States, but added, “Now what?  Will we limit ourselves to this step? Yes, brother Abu Mazen [Abbas] did not give in to the U.S. pressure and persisted in his action. His courage is praise-worthy and we appreciate and support it.”

We heard in the Israeli media and from other sources before Abbas spoke at the UN, that Hamas officials inside Gaza denounced Abbas’s approach to the UN and instead endorsed a one-state solution.  But either this reporting was wrong, or it has been superseded, and in a major way, by a more authoritative source who not only supports the independence bid, but does so strongly and firmly.  In truth, Meshaal may differ with Abbas tactically in how or when he would have made the approach to the UN.  But this statement and the fact that it was made in Iran, in the anti-Zionist heartland, is very significant.

Not to mention that it might strengthen Abbas’ statehood bid since he will have drawn Hamas, his major rival into support for the proposal.  If the Security Council truly does want to support peace and two previously warring Palestinian political groups can endorse the same proposal, there can be no doubt that a Yes vote for statehood would advance Palestinian unity and an eventual peace agreement.

Despite the fact that Radio Farda is a U.S. sponsored media outlet, there can be little doubt that this story does not advance U.S. policy which rejects the UN statehood bid.  This makes the story all the more credible.

I doubt Meshal’s words will resonate at all in the halls of power in Tel Aviv, Washington DC, and Brussels where it should (and this fact will attest to the bankruptcy of their approach to the conflict and resolving it), but let us circulate this statement as widely as possible for the sake of those in the world who are pragmatic and believe that the Palestinians, ALL of them, can eventually come to terms with an Israeli state within 1967 borders, which in turn recognizes a Palestinian state.

Keep in mind that Israel’s far right government and its water-carriers in this country talk about “Hamastan” and the fact that Iran supplies virtually all Hamas’ missiles and weapons (without offering any proof of the claim).  Now, either Meshaal is being a fool in brooking a major patron, or Iran doesn’t provide nearly the support that is claimed, or Meshaal is one brave dude.  When you add to this that Meshaal also refused to provide Bashar Al Assad with the full-throated statement of support the latter demanded to shore up his tottering regime, you have to give the Hamas leader credit for having a backbone.  Now, if only the president of a certain western nation could copy his example.

To Israel: The Palestinians are Coming! The Palestinians are Coming!

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

russians are comingApologies to all you youngsters out there who don’t remember the hilarious comedy spoof of the 1970s starring Alan Arkin and an amazing cast, The Russians are Coming! The Russian are Coming!  The plot revolved around a Russian submarine which runs aground on the New England coast, thus throwing the populace into a hysterical uproar, believing that the arrival of the sub presaged a Russian invasion of America.

nakba day golan protest

Druze protesters breach the Israeli border


Of course the recent Nakba Day protests in which thousands of Palestinians and their supporters penetrated the Israeli border from territory of five frontline nations are no comedy, unless it’s one of the darkest kinds.  The joy felt by the Druze on the Israeli side of the border when their brethren crossed a mine field and leapt over a fence to meet them, quickly turned to horror when the IDF mowed down four of their number though they were completely unarmed.  Israel has faced no consequences for its heinous overreaction.

What I wanted to get at in the reference to the movie though is the vast divide between the average Israeli Jewish response to the border violation and the response of foreigners.  For Israelis, these were looming hordes come to rape and pillage Israel.  They had to be stopped by any means necessary including lethal violence.  They had to be taught a lesson not to tinker with Israel lest they repeat these theatrics.

For the average foreign observer, the Israeli response was typically bellicose, aggressive and brutal.  It showed the obtuseness of Israel both to the injustices it has perpetrated and to the perception of its behavior on the world stage.  So in my film analogy, the Israelis were the hysterical New England residents believing their country was about the be overrun.

Returning to Nakba Day…what did Israel expect from its own counter-provocation?  The demonstrations will now take on a continuing life of their own.  The IDF responded in precisely the way the organizers of this protest would’ve expected.  And now that Israel has drawn blood, the protesters have been in effect dared to take up the challenge.  If the IDF had merely treated the border violations as a civil matter and turned the protesters away in a non-lethal manner, the protests would’ve likely petered out or taken a different form.

But now, Israel has thrown down the gauntlet.  And one thing Israel may find is that the Arab world, in the aftermath of the democratic revolutions which convulsed Arab capitals from Tunis to Damascus, is in no mood to back down in the face of bullies.  Israel may have the most powerful army in the Middle East, but what can it do against the possibility of tens of thousands or protesters piercing its borders?  Can it afford to murder hundreds as has happened in Syria?  Does it have enough political capital left in the international community to withstand the universal condemnation this would arouse?  Not to mention calls for international criminal prosecution?  Does Bibi think Barack will cheer him on as Bush did when Israel slaughtered over 1,000 Lebanese civilians in 2006?

Similarly, when Israel mowed down nine Turkish pro-Palestinian activists on the Mavi Marmara, it provoked a series of such flotillas chugging to Gaza.  Now, the Turkish foreign minister has warned Israel not to toy with Turkey by considering another military attack on a Turkish convoy planning to set sail for Gaza in June.  This could set up some sort of armed confrontation between the two former allies.  Isn’t it interesting how quickly relations and alliances shift in the Middle East?

I predict Bibi will fold in the face of the Turkish threat and these ships will reach Gaza.  Israel tends to back down when it realizes its opponent is as strong as it is.  Israel’s army and political leadership prefers to bully states and entities with weak military forces like Palestine, Syria and Lebanon.  That’s why there hasn’t been an armed confrontation with Jordan since 1967.  And conversely, it’s why it attacked the Mavi Marmara and forcibly prevents other unarmed ships from breaching the Gaza siege.  If any of these ships had a military escort, the situation would be different.

With the UN General Assembly vote looming in September, Palestinian activists will test Israel to determine how it will react to such protests.  If Israel continues to overreact and kills more activists and gets into a pissing match with Turkey, it will strengthen the movement for statehood.  This will also take the wind out of the sails of the Obama administration in its effort to carry water for Israel by vetoing the resolution in the Security Council if it makes its way there.

As Hamas, Fatah Sign Unity Pledge, Meshal Calls for Palestinian State in 1967 Borders

Wednesday, May 4th, 2011

The Israeli far-right and its supporters have just suffered another stinging blow in its campaign to smear Hamas as an Al-Qaeda clone (yes, Bibi had the chutzpah to use that no outrageous comparison today).  During the Hamas-Fatah signing ceremony for their unity deal, Hamas’ leader had this to say about his movement’s political goals:

“We will have one authority and one decision,” Mr. Meshal said from the podium. “We need to achieve the common goal: a Palestinian state with full sovereignty on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital, no settlers, and we will not give up the right of return.”

What happened to the blood-curdling calls for the elimination of Israel?  For drinking Jewish blood?  Killing Jewish babies?  Nowhere to be seen.

Even Ethan Bronner, who wrote this story, couldn’t bear losing an opportunity to quote his usual narischkeit about Hamas’ avowed goal of eliminating the Jewish state, when he wrote:

Hamas, the Islamist group that rejects Israel’s existence…

Bronner usually subtly changes the phrasing depending on context.  Note, he couldn’t very well claim as he usually does, that Hamas wishes to destroy the Jewish state, when its chief leader has just essentially said he would accept a Palestinian state in ’67 borders.  So instead, he merely claims that Hamas “rejects Israel’s existence.”  Since Meshal made no statement about Israel, Bronner’s on solid ground, at least in his view.  But the truth is that Hamas doesn’t follow the narrative Bronner and other Israelis have constructed for it.

Now we’ll hear from them that Meshal was slyly concealing his true beliefs in Israel’s demise and telling a world audience what it wanted to hear.

The truth is that Hamas, no matter what we might think of it and how much we dislike its political-theological agenda, is a pragmatic movement.  When it perceives it has something to gain in the long-term, it has shown it can moderate its political agenda.  This happened during the PA election campaign.  And it’s happening now.  Never before has Hamas been treated with respect by the Egyptian government.  Never before has the PA shown real willingness to reconcile and hold new elections.  Never before has the world been closer to declaring a Palestinian state.

This is not to say that Hamas will become a conventional Social Democratic party any time soon.  Nor that we will not read conflicting statements from its leadership on these and other subjects.  But the point is that Hamas, like any political movement, can change when it perceives it has something to gain.  As long as the international community shows Hamas that it does have something to gain, it can expect pragmatism.  But if the General Assembly refuses to recognize Palestine, or Fatah pulls a fast one, or Israel invades Gaza again, we can expect the same old rejectionist Hamas, and we’ll have only ourselves to blame for that.

Eminent Israeli Historian, Israel Prize-Winner, Calls Israeli Government ‘Anti-Zionist’

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

Yes, it took me aback too when I first read it, but the most distinguished living Israeli historian, Yehudah Bauer, says that the current Israeli government, in its attempt to maintain the Occupation and its refusal to recoginze a Palestinian state, is “anti-Zionist:”

“I am speaking from a Zionist standpoint,” Prof. Yehuda Bauer explained. “Zionism sets as its goal the preservation of a Jewish national home with a solid Jewish majority – this was the dream of people from the left, right and center of classical Zionism. But the continuation of the occupation guarantees the nullification of Zionism – that is, it rules out the possibility that the Jewish people will live in its land with a strong majority and international recognition. In my eyes, this makes [Israel's] government clearly anti-Zionist.”

Bauer said that he sees the establishment of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders as the “realization of genuine Jewish nationalism that exists in peace in the region, and within the international community.”

Bauer and 16 other Israel Prize winners will join other prominent public figures in a historic signing of a document which recognizes a Palestinian state within 1967 borders.  They will assemble on Thursday outside Independence Hall in Tel Aviv, where David Ben Gurion signed Israel’s Declaration of Independence in 1948.

I understand that there are readers who will be disappointed in Bauer’s articulation of his argument because he is clearly wedded to a Jewish majority state.  But what’s important to me is that he and a number of Israeli luminaries are willing to get off their behinds and publicly recognize a Palestinian state in 1967 borders.  To me, this is part of a rising tide of support, both international and domestic (inside Israel), calling for immediate recognition of a Palestinian state.  This undercuts the position of the current Israeli government and even the current U.S. government, which is a good thing.

EU Lays Basis for Sanctions Against Israel

Monday, January 10th, 2011

In late Apartheid-era South Africa, the momentum among the international community shifted inexorably toward toppling the discriminatory system.  Crippling sanctions took their toll on the country’s economy and psyche.  While the white regime clung desperately to power, finally a spark of realism emerged within the ruling party which allowed the rise of a leader like F.W. de Klerk, who negotiated a peaceful transition to democracy and majority rule.

In the past few months, a similar process has emerged outside Israel with multiple Latin American nations (the latest being Chile) recognizing a Palestinian state within 1967 borders. Now, Haaretz reports on a sensitive new EU report drafted by consuls general in Jerusalem and Ramallah which would lay the groundwork for a possible EU sanctions regime against Israel as long as it continues the Occupation and rejects a Palestinian state.

Among the recommendations:

1. a boycott of all Israeli products, services and businesses operating outside the Green Line including East Jerusalem

2. refusal to attend meetings with Israeli officials outside the Green Line (including East Jerusalem)

3. creating a settler black list forbidding entry to EU countries of those suspected of committing violent acts against Palestinians

4. discouraging citizens of EU countries (most likely directed at European Jews) from purchasing property in East Jerusalem

Returning to the South African analogy, the chief difference is that there seems to be no realism whatsoever within the Israeli political system nor any moderate or pragmatic leader capable of being the Israeli de Klerk.  In that event, it seems that Israel’s future is deeply clouded.  Without political leadership, and with the gathering storm of opprobrium against the Occupation and denial of Palestinian national rights, it seems something has to give.  It could be an international diktat jointly negotiated by the U.S., EU, and Quartet compelling Israel to yield.  Or it could take some other form.  But it appears more and more likely that Israel simply cannot come to terms with what it must do and that the rest of the world must help or even force Israel to get where it needs to be so that both that country and the rest of the region can find stability and peace.

U.S. Claims PA to Return to Direct Negotiations, Quartet to Reaffirm 1967 Borders, Israel Oblivious

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

If the Haaretz headline is right (which I by no means concede) and the U.S. claim that the PA is about to return to direct peace negotiations, and that the Quartet will issue a statement saying that 1967 borders are the basis for such a negotiation–are all correct…then how does that square with Israel’s virtual denial of the upcoming Quartet statement:

“Israel is not willing to agree to any preconditions from the back door via a Quartet announcement that will serve as a basis for the negotiations,” a senior official in Jerusalem said.

If you add to this Bibi Netanyahu’s recent explicit denial that 1967 borders are an acceptable precondition for Israel as covered here, how is there any basis to conduct this negotiation?  How can it succeed?  How can it end in anything but failure?  Do Barack Obama and George Mitchell know something we don’t know??

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE