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 ‘brad burston’

Haaretz’s Burston: Pain of the Liberal Zionist

Saturday, February 20th, 2010

Brad Burston's Zionist crisis of conscience (Jews for Justice for Palestinians)

I empathize with Brad Burston.  I feel his pain.  The current rightist government is driving him to despair as a liberal Zionist.  It is destroying his dream of an Israel that is good and moral and at peace with itself and its neighbors.  I think I have long since lost some of the hopes and dreams Burston had (though my pain at times is no less than Burston’s).  I still consider myself a Zionist, but I would guess that our conceptions of it would be different.

Which is the reason why Burston’s dilemma compels me.  He’s still in territory I left some time ago.  But the very fact that he occupies ground that many Israelis do occupy means he is a bellweather of sorts for the liberal-left Zionist.  If Burston is facing a crisis of conscience, that is an important indication of a chink in the armor of the latter-day Zionism and its liberal supporters.

Avrum Burg went through such a crisis several years ago, abandoned liberal Zionism and Zionism in general, and emigrated from Israel to France and as a result opted out, to an extent, of this political debate.  It will be interesting to see whether, like Burg, Burston will have the courage of his conviction, and whether he will move to a more radical position or remain in his liberal Zionist mode.

Since he’s such a powerful writer when his passion is engaged, I enjoy quoting him at length.  Before I do though, I’m troubled by his juxtaposition of the supposed far-left anti-Zionist position with his own.  There are anti-Zionist who truly hate Israel, but there are anti-Zionists who do not and they’re not treated fairly by Burston’s formulation.  With that caveat, read on:

At times like these, I envy the people who passionately, frankly, with all their hearts, despise Israel.

Hate Israel enough, and the Jewish state’s failings and blunders, its self-satisfied blindness and its resultant self-destructive policies, cause not pain, but delight.

Hate Israel enough, and you’re spared all inclination to try to fix what’s wrong, to work to set it right. On the contrary, hate Israel enough, and you may come to believe not only that the country deserves to be punished to the point of replacement by a different state – Israel may well do the job all by itself.

This is one of those times.

I have made my peace with the fact that this is not the same country I moved to, so long ago. I learned when I first came, that Israel was not the country I’d thought I was moving to.

But this is different. This time is a test for every Israeli, and so far, we are failing.

There was once a time when Israel longed to be a member in good standing of the community of nations. There was a time when one of its fondest goals was to end its status as a nation in quarantine, boycotted, unrecognized, unwanted, kept firmly at arm’s length.

No longer. Without asking its people, without a second thought, Israel, at its highest level, has taken an executive decision. Unable to beat the forces who want to see Israel as one of the world’s primary pariah states, it has resolved to join them.

Determined to take our fate into its own hands. Israel, at its highest level, has decided that the job of delegitimizing the Jewish state must not be left to foreigners and amateurs. Showing itself desperate to be a pariah state, Israel will now get it done on its own.

What the far-left from Britain to Berkeley has been unable to bring off – a sense among Israel’s allies that Israel has become a heartless, morally heedless aggressor state worthy of sanction and shunning – the far-right in Israel’s own government, and in particular, its Foreign Ministry, seems determined to inculcate to the full.

We should have known that something like the Dubai assassination debacle was going to happen. The process of de-legitimizing Israel from within was going too slowly.

It was not enough choose a pathetic side issue, a Turkish television show with anti-Israel scenes, as grounds to humiliate with infantile malice the highly respected ambassador of Turkey – a nation whose relationship with Israel, though troubled, remains crucial from every strategic and diplomatic standpoint…

Referring to the bellicose, confessed and convicted disgrace who is his foreign minister and superior, Ayalon told Channel Two, “His policy is proving to be effective. We will not allow a situation where every country will kick us. If there will be an attack [even if verbal or cultural] on Israel, we will leave all options open, including the expulsion of ambassadors.

It wasn’t enough to threaten our relations with the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Austria and the whole of the European Union, as well as the emirates and other moderate Muslim states, by apparently violating the basic conventions of all civilized states in the Dubai murder.

It was necessary to stage a quick follow-up, for the sake of balance, perhaps, in going after our relations with Israel’s indispensable ally. In a gratuitous move breathtaking in its haughtiness, its ignorance of and disrespect for the United States and the American Jewish community, the Foreign Ministry – spearhead of Israel’s campaign against boycotts abroad – elected this week to boycott a meeting with five U.S. Congressmen visiting Israel.

Why? The representatives were visiting under the auspices of J Street. J Street, in the ministry’s eyes, is guilty of the crime of explicitly calling itself pro-Israel, while not agreeing wholeheartedly with everything the government of Israel says and does.

I have come to envy the people who hate Israel. They’ve got every reason to smile.

…No one can defend this anymore. There’s too much that looks bad, and much too much of it is true.

Like so many of Israel’s recent actions, the motives for the Dubai assassination are debatable. The negative impact is inarguable.

…My wife, who cares about this country as deeply as anyone, was singing this morning, but with a smile I have come to recognize as a sign of pain. ” … And they call the state Pariah.”

All those years of isolation, of quarantine, are coming home to haunt us. Now it turns out that the contempt for the rest of the world that it bred in Israeli Jews, extended to contempt for immigrant Jews as well.

The response of many Israelis to what appears to be officially sanctioned theft, exploitation, and ruin of the identities of immigrants to Israel, was terrifying in its good humor, with morning talk-show hosts making fun of their Hebrew, even as they made light of their plight.

…This is what I have learned about the government of this place, and many of the voters who put it there. Intelligent people who are too smart to be able to see themselves clearly, render themselves stupid.

And countries which cannot bear to look, even if they have good reasons, render themselves dangerous – first of all, to themselves.

This is not the country I first came to. But I still care about it, even if I know it may care much less than I would like, about me.

I have come to envy the people who hate Israel, because they cannot feel the tragedy in the phenomenal possibility, the depth and breadth of humanity that is going to waste here…

There is so much right about this analysis and it is so heartfelt and powerful that it is hard to find fault with it.  If I would criticize Burston’s position at all, he places the blame for his disillusion almost wholly on the current Likudist government. He’ll find no disagreement from me on that.  However, by implication he seems to be saying that a different Israeli government with a different set of parties in power might do better or differently.  I find this highly doubtful.  With the current set of parties and leaders, none have the capacity to lead Israel out of the wasteland in which it finds itself.

This nation is hopelessly lost in the wilderness like the Israelites led by Moses who wandered for forty years till they entered the land of Israel.  Latter-day Israel too has wandered for more than 40 years in the wilderness of Occupation.  They have no leader of the quality of Moses to lead them out of oblivion.  There is no Israeli de Klerk  (or Palestinian Mandela for that matter).  That is why I have come to despair of the ability of Israel unaided to correct its errors and put itself on the right track.  If this conflict is ever to be resolved it will only come from the forceful intervention of outside forces like the U.S., EU, UN and/or NATO.

I wish Brad Burston well and hope he will follow the logic of his own despair to some other place than the Sinai of liberal Zionism.  It will be a hard, painful journey.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Burston on Gaza War as Root of All Israeli Evil

Sunday, February 14th, 2010

Brad Burston, Haaretz’s columnist can be a helluva fine writer.  I’ve written at least one laudatory post about him.  After doing so, I read pieces by Burston which seemed almost to be written by a different person.  They were churlish pieces attacking Israel’s Jewish critics.  I chalked it up to a journalist feeling that it was his duty to show he could criticize both the right and left.  I thought I would never find a reason to write about his work again, till tonight.

Burston has written one of the most powerful, cogent and hard-hitting critiques–not only of the Gaza war, but of the current mess in which Israel finds itself in–I’ve ever read.  Seemingly every Israeli NGO or peace activist is under savage attack.  At the present moment, Israel faces a civil liberties crisis as dire as the U.S. faced during the McCarthy era.  The New Israel Fund, a classical Zionist NGO if there ever was one, is under mortal threat.  Its leader, Naomi Hazan has been publicly and graphically attacked in terms that would’ve made Goebbels proud.  Richard Goldstone has been called a traitor to his people.  Alan Dershowitz as much as put a price on his head.  Jewish women have been arrested for trying to leyn Torah at the Wall.

So it is like a balm in Gilead to read such graceful, soaring language from Burston:

This is about fear of the dark. Of the monstrous. In this case, the terror of finally uncovering what we ourselves are really made of.

This is about the lengths we will go, and the depths, in order to protect what we so desperately need to believe about ourselves. This is about how many others we will need to blame, vilify, assault, scapegoat and smear, before we actually take one wholly honest long look in the mirror.

This is about the war we made in Gaza, and what it did to Israel. This is about how Israel’s conduct of the war has done more damage to the Jewish state than all the thousands and thousands of Palestinian rockets and mortar shells put together. It has been a year and more since a truce was called in Gaza, and – thanks in no small part to Israel’s freely admitted policy of hamstringing and stonewalling UN investigators – the world is still at war with Israel.

The result is only now becoming felt. In a thousand ways, in new ways every single day, we have brought the war home.

Israel’s battle plan, which effectively called for bludgeoning Hamas and the whole of Gaza into a state of shock, had the further effect, intentional or not, of inducing shock in Israel itself.

Here Burston presents a daring thesis for an Israeli audience–that Goldstone was right:

In some cases, shock expresses itself in combativeness. A lashing out even at those who are trying to help.

In our state of shock, we were unable to see that Richard Goldstone was trying to save us. And that the Goldstone Report is exactly what Israel needs. We fought him every step of the way, convincing ourselves – just as in Gaza – that the unfolding catastrophe was the best of the available scenarios.

Had Israel cooperated with the panel, it might have begun to learn how to prevent another war like this one, and how to fight future wars entirely differently. Only now, with the shock beginning to subside, have Israeli military and legal officials begun publicly to concede that battling the Goldstone panel was a colossal blunder.

Burston here also propounds an unpopular idea in Israeli circles, that the Gaza siege is as much a blunder as the war itself was.  And this argument segues into the most important point of his column–that the war has led inexorably to the current attack on Israeli democracy and the peace movement:

And it is this Israeli government, in continuing its siege of Gaza, in denying Gazans access to concrete and other materials needed to rebuild homes destroyed by Israeli fire during Cast Lead, that lends further credence to the Goldstone Report’s suspicions that Israel’s policy has been and continues to be one of collective punishment of a civilian population.

Despite the nightmarish numbers of civilians killed in Gaza, the right has argued again and again that the problem with the war was that it was not pursued aggressively enough. Now, at home, they are getting their way. Finally, the war is being pressed to the full – with peace activists and human rights workers as the primary targets.

The Dahiya Doctrine of overkill and unimaginable, unremitting force, is being applied against the elements of Israeli society most strongly defending democracy and elemental rights. Finally, the war at home is being run the way the right wants. No holds barred. A fresh new onslaught on democracy every single day.

And if his thundering column had ended with the following passage I would’ve called it a masterwork of decency and humanity:

The Goldstone Report is, indeed, deeply flawed. But it is exactly what Israel needs. A deeply flawed report for a deeply flawed country. A country which will not, and cannot, begin to heal itself, repair itself, right itself, unless it faces with honesty and courage the issues and allegations raised by the report.

As long as Israel ducks the report, and keeps buried the whole truth about Cast Lead, it will not recover from this state of shock. Israel will be more vulnerable than ever to destruction from within.

But alas, he didn’t.  And this goes to my criticism of Burston, where he seems to lose the courage of his convictions and lapses into standard anti-Palestinian rhetoric:

Gaza, ruled by a Hamas which wants to see Israel exterminated – and which has only grown richer, better armed, and more popular as a result of the Israeli embargo – will continue to hold the whole of Israel in a crippling, withering, ultimately destructive state of siege.

The notion that Hamas wants Israel exterminated is a beloved trope of the very Israeli right Burston has spent this entire column deriding.  I have no problem with criticizing Hamas.  But if you want to do that you have a responsibility to do it accurately and precisely.  And this anti-Hamas slur is neither accurate nor fair.  But I do very much like Burston’s closing image of a Hamas which, by the very nature of Israel’s siege of Gaza, holds Israel under siege as well.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Gaza, Meretz and the Bankruptcy of Israeli Politics

Thursday, December 25th, 2008

In case you didn’t know, Meretz’s call for a military strike against Gaza reminds us we’re in the middle of an election campaign.  It also reminds us of the utter bankruptcy of the national political process.  If you speak forthrightly about what must be done for peace, you lose votes.  If you pander to nationalist-security sentiment, you may not gain votes (especially if you’re Meretz), but you won’t lose them.

Every reasonable person both inside and outside Israel knows what will stop the rain of Qassams descending on southern Israel.  Hamas has told them what it wants: lifting the siege.  If Israel agrees to end its depraved policy of suffocating Gaza, then Hamas would renew the tahdiya and there would be, if not peace, at least calm.  In the long term of course, Israel would have to negotiate at least indirectly with Hamas for longer-term & more comprehensive peace agreements.

Hamas, of course, rejected renewal of the ceasefire on Israeli terms, which essentially gave Israel peace and Gaza ongoing misery.  The rocket barrage unleashed since the end of the ceasefire is unpardonable, especially since the longer it lasts the more likely it will lead to the death of an Israeli civilian.  But if Israel listened to reason and common sense, it would realize the siege hasn’t worked and won’t work (not to mention that it is morally indefensible and a violation of international law); and would lift it.  Then there would be no missile barrage, hence no military incursion.

An indication of the delusional thinking affecting Israeli politicians is this statement:

Chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Tzahi Hanegbi [said]…”If the Qassam [rocket] fire does not stop, the Israel Defense Forces will fight you with the same might with which it fought Hezbollah during the Second Lebanon War,” said Hanegbi (Kadima), speaking to Army Radio.

Hanegbi is under the illusion that threatening Hamas with what Israel served up to Hezbollah is a deterrent.  Someone ought to tell him the news: the IDF failed in Lebanon just as it will fail in Gaza.  The only people the IDF frightens is unarmed civilians.

It is, of course, politically bankrupt for Meretz to call for an incursion.  It signals that even the left has lost its bearings in Israeli politics.  If you can’t speak plainly and clearly and find a place in the political process, what is that process worth?  The process has led to disaster after disaster.  The coming operation, if it does not end with the deaths of Israeli soldiers and Gaza civilians, certainly will do absolutely nothing to end the Qassam barrages.  They may stop for a day or a week.  But they will resume as they always have after this type of military action.  It will be the same old cycle of misery and failure into which Hamas and Israel have sunk themselves.

While I find myself sometimes in strong disagreement with Brad Burston, he’s hit the nail on the head in this week’s Haaretz column, with his own characterization of this imminent offensive, Can the First Gaza War Be Stopped Before It Starts?

He quotes Brig. Gen. Shmuel Zakai, former IDF Gaza commander, with some sensible ideas about ending the Qassam fire. The fact that they are sensible means, ipso facto that there will never receive serious consideration by the Israeli powers-that-be:

The state of Israel must understand that Hamas rule in Gaza is a fact, and it is with that government that we must reach a situation of calm.”

Israel must also understand that Hamas is a pragmatic organization, Zakai continues. “The moment that the organization understands that Qassam fire is contrary to its interests, it will stop the fire.

“We need to work in an integrated manner. The situation is a complex one…”An integrated approach, on the one hand, includes demonstration of military might…and on the other hand, also using a carrot, to cause Hamas to understand that refraining from firing exactly serves their interests.

In Zakai’s view, Israel’s central error during the tahadiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce that formally ended on Friday, was failing to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip.

He believes that Hamas would have – and still would – accept a bargain in which Hamas…would halt the fire in exchange for easing of the many ways in which Israeli policies have kept a choke hold on the economy of the Strip.

“…The carrot is improvement of the economic situation in the Gaza Strip. You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and to expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing. That’s something that’s simply unrealistic.”

In the end, Israel must realize that “we can’t impose regimes on the Palestinians. We can’t cause the Palestinians [to decide] who will rule over them. Hamas took over the Gaza Strip. This is a fact. I do not believe that the state of Israel should cause another ruler to come to power in Gaza borne on the bayonets of the IDF.

“It’s just like after the disengagement. We left Gaza and we thought that with that troubles were over. Did we really think that a million and a half people living in that kind of poverty were going to mount the rooftops and begin singing the Beitar hymn? That is illogical.”

Failing the Lynch Test, Proudly

Saturday, July 5th, 2008

In May, Akiva Eldar wrote in The Nation about a felicitous encounter he had with an Egyptian cab driver who picked him up in New York City.  The man followed Eldar’s reporting religiously and praised it effusively. In the course of the article, Eldar notes an important column that Israel’s most popular daily columnist wrote criticizing Haaretz’s commentators for their attitude toward Palestinian terror:

…Nahum Barnea wrote in November 2000 (in a publication of the Israel Democracy Institute) that “there are Israeli reporters who do not pass the ‘lynch test.’” These, he wrote, are journalists who could not bring themselves to criticize the Arabs even when two Israelis were savagely murdered by a mob in Ramallah. Barnea…went on to argue that our [the journalists'] support for the Palestinian position is absolute. He concluded, “They have a mission.” I was honored to be mentioned as one of those journalists, alongside my fine colleagues Gideon Levy and Amira Hass.

I admit to being guilty as charged.

Me too. You see, I resent the fact that there is a “test” that you must pass in order to be considered truly supportive of Israel when it suffers a terror attack; that you must be prepared to bray for blood vengeance or else be insufficiently patriotic or pro-Israel or whatever term you’d like to use. Similarly, I’d like to think, in fact I know, there are Palestinians who don’t scream for vengeance whenever the Baruch Goldsteins, Natan-Zadas, or the IDF perpetrates a ritual act of bloodletting. There must be those on both sides who understand that the acts of individual terrorists do not mean that an entire people have hatred of the other inscribed in their DNA; or even that the horrific acts of a national army represents a destiny of perpetual war for both peoples.

The genesis of this post was entirely contrary to most posts based on ideas contributed by readers. This one came from an especially hateful and annoying one, Bill Pearlman, who wrote in reply to my last post about the bulldozer terror attack in Jerusalem:

…You should check out the lynch test has [sic] spelled out by Nahum Barnea. Sombody [sic] with way more reason to be bitter than you. You fail miserably…

Since I’d never heard of the “lynch test” it set me to Googling which turned up Akiva Eldar’s sterling piece from The Nation. Without Pearlman’s ankle-biting comment, I wouldn’t have learned that I proudly failed Nahum Barnea’s test, which insists that all red-blooded Israel supporters must hate ALL the enemy when a SINGLE one commits an act of blood lust.

Haaretz’s Brad Burston has definitely passed the lynch test with this churlish, obtuse rant:

The attack came after the latest in a series of attempts by groups in the States, some of them atheist/anarchist, some of them Muslim, some of them Jewish, to lobby Prostestant churches and respected universities to divest from Caterpillar, because the IDF uses its bulldozers to demolish Palestinian homes.

I would like to hear them now. Just once. I would like them to divest from terrorism. Not understand it as the natural outgrowth of the crimes of occupation. For once, I would like my sisters and brothers on the left to be every bit as hard on their comrades the Palestinians for taking a bulldozer and crushing Jews, as they are on Israel for bulldozing homes.

Why would anyone on the left or otherwise NOT understand terror as a “natural outgrowth of the crimes of Occupation?”  In the Israeli context terror and Occupation walk hand in hand.  What Burston does not understand is that believing this does not condone terror.  It does not say Palestinian terror is justified.  It merely says that such terror is not an evil without cause.  This is what Burston refuses to concede.

He continues:

…What’s a decent person supposed to think?

That it’s all right to launch rockets against residential areas during a cease-fire, because the occupation is still going on? That it’s all right to crush Jewish civilians, because the occupation has not been halted and settlers continue to build homes?

…What’s a decent person to think when the man who drove the bulldozer was himself the father of two, a construction worker from East Jerusalem, whose desire to kill Jews – and, in so doing, further soil and damage the cause and name of Palestine – was greater than his feeling for the mother who had to throw her baby from a car to save it?

What is astonishing about this monologue is that Burston refuses to understand the suffering the Occupation inflicts on the Palestinians.  Does he believe that the Palestinians must simply acquiesce to that suffering; or perhaps protest it by writing letters to the prime minister?  If the Occupation brings deadly violence to the everyday lives of Palestinians, does Burston think that the same will not happen to Israelis?  What specifically indemnifies Israelis from feeling any pain when their army inflicts pain on another people?

What is astonishing about the following passage is that from the rampage of a single troubled Palestinian, Burston has extrapolated the innate hatred of the entire Palestinian people for Jews from time immemorial:

I, for one, would like to ask for proof of what it is that Palestinians really want. I no longer believe that it’s as simple as wanting statehood.

This is what I don’t yet want to admit: that for all these years…what a critical mass of Palestinians want most, perhaps even more than statehood, may be as simple as the vile thrill of vengeance, as straightforward as nothing more than seeing Jews dead and gone.

Here Burston has become entirely unmoored.  He has used the beserk ramapage of a single troubled Palestinian and extrapolated from it an innate hatred of the entire Palestinian people for Jews.  This is without doubt racism of the most pernicious sort.  Yes, Burston and all Israelis have the right to feel anger for this attack.  But their anger should be directed at the individual and not the individual’s nation.  Once again, Burston is engaging in the politically bankrupt act of assigning collective guilt.

Let me be clear about what I am not saying: I am not saying that such acts of terror on both sides should not be condemned when they occur. That should go without saying. Terror does not bring peace closer. It only leads to more terror. That is why violence of any kind is reprehensible.  It is why I am in favor of bringing both sides before the bar of international justice for their heinous acts.

But if there is going to be violence–and of that we can be sure given that we’re talking about one of the more blood-soaked regions of the world these days–we must not fall into traps set for us by false allegiance to a set of prejudices that make the enemy out to be demons and us out to be superior to them.