Muslim and Jewish Women in Nazareth

'We can live in peace'...John Lennon (photo: Dafna Tal)

Mahzor

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 ‘bds’

Jewish Forward on Goldstone Gaza Report, BDS

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

The Forward publishes several magnificent articles in its current issue. The first is an important interview with Richard Goldstone, who directed the UN Human Rights Council report on the Gaza war, which recommended that war crimes charges against both Israel and Hamas be referred to the International Criminal Court. The story is a perfect antidote to the poison being spread about both Goldstone and the report by the Israeli foreign ministry and right-wing pro-Israel blogosphere. In it, the South African jurist talks about his deep personal and family commitment to Israel.

The article fairly notes that while Goldstone took on a mandate to investigate the crimes of both sides in the Gaza war, it remains to be seen how a UN Council, known in the past for pro-Palestinian partisanship will deal with his report. One hopes that the Council will refer the entire report to the Security Council for deliberation. Anything less may harm the credibility of the document.

Gal Beckerman also wrote a masterful account of the growing impact of the BDS movement on the debate around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is an article that was crying out to be written given the increasing level of success of this human rights effort.  It’s critically important it was publised in a Jewish media source like The Forward.

The reporter nicely summarizes the recent string of BDS victories and also notes the concerns even some progressives have about the amorphousness of the political agenda of the international effort:

The BDS movement is highly decentralized, with each group in the coalition allowed to choose its own targets as it sees fit. It has no articulated political vision. such as a one- or two-state solution to the conflict. The principles that guide the movement — as set out in a call for boycott, divestment and sanctions issued in June 2005 by a wide group of Palestinian civil society organizations — demand instead that Israel adhere to international and human rights law. The amorphous structure and broad goals appear to be responsible for many of the group’s appeal.

In a debate here with Alex Stein, who claimed BDS was anti-Zionist, I noted the studied unwillingness of the group’s mission statement to take a firm position on the issue.  I think this is one of the strengths of Jewish Voice for Peace as well.  The refusal to lay out a political solution to the overall conflict doesn’t mean, as enemies would claim, that these groups are obfuscating their more radical principles.  Rather, it means they are trying to bring as many activists together around basic core principles.

Omar Barghouti, leader of BDS movement

Omar Barghouti, leader of BDS movement

Here, Omar Barghouti, one of the Palestinian leaders of BDS, expands upon the strategy:

…The BDS movement “does not adopt a particular political solution to the colonial conflict.” The main strategy, he wrote, “is based on the principle that human rights and international law must be upheld and respected no matter what the political solution may be. This was key to securing a near consensus in Palestinian civil society and a wide network of support around the world, including the Western mainstream.”

The exclusive focus on rights rather than on a political prescription for the conflict brings together both those who want to target Israel’s existence as a whole and those—mostly American activists—who stick to the more narrow issue of the occupation and settlement activity.

As far as Barghouti is concerned, BDS is a “comprehensive boycott of Israel, including all its products, academic and cultural institutions, etc.” But he understands “the tactical needs of our partners to carry out a selective boycott of settlement products, say, or military suppliers of the Israeli occupation army as the easiest way to rally support around as a black-and-white violation of international law and basic human rights.”

I was slightly concerned about the middle paragraph since it seems to imply there are those in the movement who wish, to use that tired pro-Israel locution, to “destroy Israel.”  But I’m very leery, on such sensitive subjects, to trust a reporter who paraphrases the views of a subject.  I’d prefer to see this in Barghouti’s own words before I’d trust that Beckerman got it right.

Barghouti, by the way, is a grad student at Tel Aviv University.  He recently wrote his Masters thesis on BDS and there was a huge uproar on campus.  To his credit, the University president refused to cave in to pressure and ensured that Barghouti was not ejected from his program.  Unfortunately, Neve Gordon did not receive the same support from his University’s president when he published his piece endorsing BDS.

J Street Gets It Dead Wrong on Toronto Film Festival

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

tiff tel aviv city to cityI’ve been an admirer of J Street with a few exceptions since it began, and written often about its work here. But an Israeli friend has sent me a message of protest sent to J Street by a fellow Israeli peace activist. He was criticizing the Jewish peace group’s attack on Israeli filmmaker Udi Aloni and others, who asked fellow Israeli filmmakers to withdraw their films from the Toronto Film Festival because the Israeli government turned Tel Aviv’s 100th anniversary celebration into the centerpiece of this year’s artistic event. Thus the Film Festival was transformed into a venue for pro-Israel hasbara.

To give some background, after Israeli and international artists like Udi Aloni, Jane Fonda, Ken Loach, John Greyson, Danny Glover, Eve Ensler, Harry Belafonte, Julie Christie, Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Klein, John Pilger, Wallace Shawn, Alice Walker, and David Byrne discovered that the Film Festival was collaborating with the Israeli government, they criticized the Festival (read the Toronto Declaration) and urged other Israeli artists to withdraw.

To make several points clear, this was not an attempt to boycott the Festival as a whole, as it is being erroneously characterized by the pro-Israel smear industry (to use Daniel Levy’s useful term).  It is not an attempt to boycott the Israeli film industry.  It is an attempt to point out that world film festivals should not accept funding from the government of Israel to distract world opinion from its ugly Occupation and thus promote its political agenda.  This is precisely the type of targeted protest by selective artists of a specific event which I feel is warranted in pointing out the harmful ways in which Israel exploits cultural ties for political gain.

Given the above, I was stunned to read J Street’s celebratory message of support for the Festival and its vicious attack on the Israeli and other artists who protested the government’s involvement in the event:

J Street applauds the Toronto International Film Festival for choosing Tel Aviv for its inaugural City-to-City spotlight.

Israel’s growing and internationally recognized film industry, centered in Tel Aviv, is rightly a source of pride for many Israelis and Americans. Through their art, Israeli filmmakers are presenting the world with a rich picture of Israel’s complex and layered society that goes deeper than simplistic headlines.

We find protests and criticism of the Toronto International Film Festival’s decision to showcase Tel Aviv’s film industry shameful and shortsighted…

Some critics say their objection is to the Israeli government’s role in promoting the films and not the films themselves. Israel, like many other European governments, supports its film industry financially

The cause of peace will not be served by demonizing Israeli film and filmmakers as being part of the “Israeli propaganda campaign.”

We were also dismayed by the Toronto International Film Festival’s co-director’s statement that Tel Aviv is “contested ground.”

We urge those protesting Tel Aviv’s selection to reconsider their actions. We also call upon the Toronto International Film Festival to hold strong with their selection and not be drawn into a political fight.

There are two dynamics at work here. J Street is beginning to come into its own as a formidable political force in the American Jewish community. It’s first national conference will take place at the end of October and it’s being viewed as a “coming out party” for the American Jewish peace movement.  As such, it is under intense scrutiny from said smear industry and its least stumble will be examined and placed under the magnifying glass. That is why J Street has taken centrist positions of late that bring it into conflict with more progressive elements of the American Jewish community. While I am sensitive to the predicament in which J Street finds itself, I remind them that when you constantly compromise your values in order to prove your centrist bona fides to the Jewish doubters, you may not convince them and you may alienate those who’ve been with you from the beginning.

The second dynamic is that opposition to Israeli Occupation and policy since the Lebanon and Gaza wars has intensified and in a sense radicalized. Before readers start trembling in their boots, by “radicalized” I don’t mean that the peace movement has become anti-Israel or adopted positions that endorse hatred against Israel. I mean that as Israel has shifted the ground out from under us through its brutish militarism, we have been forced to examine new ideas we might hitherto not have considered as seriously as we do now.

The Global BDS movement is a case in point.  Neve Gordon’s endorsement of BDS in the L.A. Times marked the kind of sea change in the anti-Occupation movement that the Walt-Mearsheimer book did in popularizing the term, the Israeli lobby.  Along with Naomi Klein’s embrace, it forced many of us to re-consider whether this was a legitimate form of resistance to Israeli Occupation.

Also, many of us have become more sensitized to the contradiction between Israel’s joy at its independence and Palestine’s sorrow at the accompanying Nakba.  J Street’s indignation at the notion that Tel Aviv is “contested ground” is part of a refusal by Israel’s liberal supporters to acknowledge the phenomenon.  They are slow to realize that there are two legitimate narratives here and that you cannot affirm one while at the same time denying the other.  That is precisely what J Street has tried to do.

In that sense, J Street is fighting a rear guard action in defense of the indefensible.  The Israeli government must be confronted wherever in the world it attempts to advance its political agenda.  And yes, J Street, Israeli funding of a film festival IS a political act.  Israel, in the aftermath of its brutish campaigns against Lebanon and Gaza, wants nothing more than to let the world know that it is a nice, normal nation like Canada, for example.  To refuse to understand that the government’s funding of the Canadian arts event is a form of hasbara means J Street is burying its head in the sand.  And I say this not as an opponent of the group, but as a supporter who is saddened by an instance in which it has gone off the rails.  As the peace train leaves the station, the Jewish peace group runs the risk of being left behind if it refuses to recognize new realities as they develop.

An Israeli peace activist wrote this letter to J Street criticizing its statement of support:

It is legitimate to oppose cultural boycotts, but your failure to address the human tights violations associated with the history of Tel Aviv-Jaffa (mainly the ethnic cleansing of its non Jewish inhabitants, and the ongoing discrimination against the small minority who has managed to remain in the city) does not grant credibility to your initiative.

There is no need for using harsh words such as “shameful” to describe the supporters of the petition against the Tel-Aviv events at the Toronto Film Festival.  This amounts to a smear campaign.

It would have been far better for J Street to have remained silent on this issue than to have made an ill-considered public statement that does neither the Israeli artists who boycotted nor the anti-Occupation movement as a whole, justice.

Ben Gurion University President Calls for Professor Supporting Israel Boycott to Quit

Sunday, August 23rd, 2009

The only democracy in the Middle East™ seems to honor its democratic values only in the breach.  So much for academic freedom and freedom of speech Israel-style, when it comes to the case of Prof. Neve Gordon of Ben Gurion University.  He wrote an opinion piece in the L.A. Times this week, Boycott Israel, which announced his support for the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement.  While it hasn’t stirred any revolutionary fervor on the left, Gordon has struck a nerve on the Israeli right and among its fellow travelers here in the U.S.

CAMERA, the pro-Israel advocacy group, has called for the professor (“a veteran defamer of Israel”) to be put in the stocks and flogged (not literally).  The Israeli consul in Los Angeles has slyly encouraged a fundraising boycott against Ben Gurion among U.S. Jewish donors.  Arutz Sheva (“All Settlers All the Time”) notes that MKs “across the political spectrum” (translation: from the right to the extreme right) have called for Gordon’s head on a platter.

All this has apparently made BGU’s president quake in her boots.  University presidents are notoriously squishy when it comes to maintaining any strong sense of principle in the face of public attack.  Rivka Carmi is no exception.  Realizing she can’t fire Gordon, who has tenure (and chairs his academic department), she does the next best thing by inviting the ungrateful bastard to do a Pappe-Reinhardt (they were two Israeli professor-peace activists so ostracized within their universities that they were forced to secure teaching positions in England and New York respectively).  If you don’t like it here, get the hell out, she declares.  Then BGU would be well rid of the snake in the grass nipping at its heels.

Carmi shows remarkably little understanding of the meaning of the term “academic freedom” when she lets loose this quip:

BGU President Prof. Rivka Carmi called Gordon’s views “destructive” and an “abuse [of] the freedom of speech prevailing in Israel and at BGU.

“We are shocked and outraged by [Gordon's] remarks, which are both irresponsible and morally reprehensible…

Since when is a professor publishing a legitimate point of view on a subject that falls within his academic specialty an “abuse” of free speech?  I would think she would recognize that this is precisely the epitome of it.  I also fail to see how supporting the boycott can be “morally reprehensible.”  She is again confusing a legitimate (albeit controversial) political-academic argument with morality.  This is a failing of reason on her part.  When one of her faculty publishes a political text with which she agrees and brings acclaim to BGU, then it is morally wholesome.  But when Gordon publishes a view Israeli politicians detest, then it becomes immoral, when in truth it has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

I also found oddly counter-productive, the spin of BGU’s PR flack, who seemed to exaggerate the extent of the fundraising boycott against the University:

…The backlash to Gordon’s article…had…turned into a campaign for donors to pull funding from the university and was “snowballing…”

First, there is no indication whatsoever, except in a vague statement by Israel’s consul in L.A., that anyone was contemplating withholding funds from BGU.  Second, my impression always was that public spokespeople were supposed to put an institution’s best foot forward no matter what.  This statement would appear to violate Rule #1 of flackery.

Like her boss, BGU’s spokesperson has a faulty concept of freedom of speech:

“We’re proud to have a full range of political views at the university, and I want to live in a country that protects freedom of speech, but Gordon’s remarks are beyond the pale.

Isn’t the whole point of freedom of speech that there is no such thing as “beyond the pale” unless you’re advocating killing someone or some other serious crime?  And why is advocating a targeted boycott “beyond the pale?”  Who decreed that such a view was outside the norm of polite public discourse in Israel or the world?

The Jerusalem Post article closes with this passage which is meant to criticize Gordon, but fails to hit the mark:

Multiple attempts were made to reach Gordon on Sunday, but calls by the Post were not answered and messages were not returned.

Gee, I wonder why Neve might not be interested in talking to one of Israel’s nastiest and most right-wing scandal sheets?  Could it be he was concerned they might manipulate or distort his remarks?

The Post’s editorial on the subject (yes, an Israeli newspaper devoted an entire editorial to a single op-ed published in a U.S. newspaper) is all over the map.  It calls on BGU donors not to boycott the school.  But rather urges a different response:

The most apt response would be for contributors to endow a chair in Zionist studies in Gordon’s department, and for the university to fill it with a Zionist scholar of world renown.

The placement of the adjective “Zionist” is quite instructive: not a “scholar of Zionism” but a “Zionist scholar.”  Indeed, I would say there cannot be such a thing as a Zionist scholar for this is a violation of the detachment necessary for academic studies.  Certainly there can and should be scholars of Zionism.  But someone who is a Zionist scholar has already betrayed fundamental principles.  Must someone teaching Chinese studies be Chinese?  Must someone teaching Jewish studies be Jewish?  Of course not.  In fact, any school which set out such a rule would be blasted for it.  So the Post’s calling for the appointment of a scholar who is a confirmed Zionist should make BGU into a pariah.  But given the politicization of Israeli academia it will pass unremarked by all but bleeding hearts like Gordon, a few of his academic colleagues, and this writer.