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 ‘conscientious objector’

Bibi Set to Name Amidror National Security Advisor

Friday, March 4th, 2011
yaakov amidror

National security advisor candidate, Yaakov Amidror (Maya Levin/JINI

No sooner did the Bibi-Yvet show give us the public defenestration of Uzi Arad, whose appointment to be Israel’s next ambassador to Britain was confirmed and rejected all in leaked news stories within a single week, than Bibi has given us an even better show.  While Arad was the real thing, a genuine Mossad spy who’d run spies and been instrumental in the Rosen-Aipac spy episode, Amidror seems a parody of Dr. Strangelove; a Maj. Gen. who’s never had a field command, and who sees the troops as little more than ideological cannon fodder.

Peace Now’s Ori Nir calls him an “ultra-hawk” and “National-Religious icon.”  It’s hard to believe that anyone can be worse than Arad, but Amidror really and undoubtedly is:

Amidror…told a conference last year that soldiers should kill anyone who gets in the way of completing their mission – and that soldiers who refuse to attack should be shot, too.

“A soldier who won’t attack when they tell him ‘forward’ because he says, ‘Two soldiers to my right and two to my left have been killed, so I won’t move’ – any normal military system should put a bullet in his head, and a liberal system should put him in jail,” Amidror said, speaking at a conference organized by the Israel Democracy Institute on “National Values in the Israel Defense Forces.”

“The education we give soldiers is an education of risking or being willing to sacrifice one’s life … of knowing that some of the soldiers won’t return, but still, everyone goes. And anyone who doesn’t go should get a bullet in the head or be in jail.”

…When journalist Haim Yavin, a fellow panelist, noted the army’s orders during the first Lebanon war were to “fight carefully,” Amidror responded: “That’s a totally illegal order. What should be said is ‘kill more of the bastards on the other side, so that we’ll win.’ Period.”

He also criticized the IDF code of ethics drafted by Prof. Asa Kasher. “I said this should remain unwritten, so there wouldn’t be anything written, as [then] it would become technical,” Amidror said.

…Yesterday Amidror…told Haaretz that in some countries soldiers who won’t attack are executed…

This guy would’ve been right at home at the Wansee Conference.  You’ll recall that’s where the Nazis devised the Final Solution, while writing down almost none of their plans because they were wise enough to understand that if they did and anyone found out about it they’d be in mighty hot water.  To be clear, I’m not accusing Amidror of planning a genocide against anyone (expect perhaps Arabs or Palestinians if given half a chance).  But I’m noting an absolute similarity of thought and mindset.

As Bibi prepares for his ersatz peace offensive, let the world keep in mind that his incoming top security advisor said the following about the peace process:

Earlier this month, Amidror wrote that “negotiations with the Palestinians and even an agreement with the Palestinians (…) will not benefit Israel in any way…

Ori also notes the ultra-hawk’s “vicious attacks on the New Israel Fund.”  He has derided the Obama administration’s “naive” policies.  Politically, he was the public face of the far-right religious, Jewish Home party.  He’s not just a settler, but a supporter of the most radical and messianic among them.  He believes, in other words, that Israeli sovereignty over the entire greater Land of Israel will hasten the coming of the messiah.

Amidror espouses a stridently anti-Arab strategic doctrine which attributes annihilationist views to all Muslism and Arabs.  Further, his own views are completely out of touch with the developments of the Arab democratic revolutions sweeping the Middle East:

His approach to Israel’s national security attributes little value to political accords between Israel and its neighbors. In Amidror’s view, Israel’s chief national security asset in its relations with its neighbors is deterrence…Amidror wrote that…the Arab world “does not accept the very presence of a sovereign and independent Jewish state in the heart of the Middle East and will do its best to annihilate it.” Any other basic assumption, Amidror wrote, is “self deception.” Amidror repeated…that Israel’s goal should not be to change the minds and hearts of its Arab neighbors – such attempts would be in vain – but to deter them by force. “The processes taking place in the Middle East are leading it toward becoming more fundamentalist, less tolerant and less democratic.”

…[In his recent essay] The Chief Lesson – Security is Preferable to Peace…Amidror argues that because Israel lives “on the edge of a volcano,” it must always be ready for the worse. “The main lesson is that we must emphasize Israel’s security needs and its ability to defend itself over any other requirement, including the lofty dream to reach political agreements [with its neighbors].

This guy is a troglodyte.  A Curtis LeMay.  A Gen. Jack D. Ripper.  Is this what Israel and the Middle East needs right now?  An ideological flamethrower who wants to cast oil on the fire that is the Israeli-Arab conflict?

Clearly, it seems that Amidror’s appointment is meant to be red meat to those coalition partners farther to his right (yes, there are, I know it’s hard to believe).  Perhaps Bibi means for the arm-chair general to be little more than a figure-head with no influence over policy.  But the guy scares me and should scare anyone who has even a scintilla of faith that the conflict can and should be settled sometime by someone.

The Fruits of War are Death

Saturday, November 28th, 2009

Tonight, I heard a riveting piece of documentary radio journalism, Boots on the Ground (part 5, Coming Home), the story of those who come home from our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Some return alive and some dead.  The segment I heard portrayed the work of an officer who informs families that their loved one has died in combat.

During the Vietnam war I was a conscientious objector, not because I was a pacifist and opposed all wars, though I certainly knew I opposed the Vietnam war and most other wars.  Documentaries like this one are almost enough to turn one into an absolute pacifist.  How can you confront these losses and the unending pain they inflict on those left behind?  Not to mention that loss of whatever the victim might have contributed to society had they lived.  Is this a price worth paying?

The author of Final Salute describes one particular family to whom this officer had to give the bad news:

A widow, Melissa Gibbens continues to celebrate her dead husband’s birthday.  He has two little boys–one little boy that never got to see him.  And so on his birthday they’ll blow up helium balloons and write messages to him on the balloons and then go outside and release them.  I asked what they were doing and the younger son said: “We’re sending the balloons to heaven.”

The stories, they do never end.  When Melissa told her son that his dad was dead he said: “Well, where is he?”  She said: “Well, he’s in heaven.”  He said: “Well, am I gonna be there?”  She said: “Yeah, but it’s gonna be a long time from now.”  And he asked his mom: “When I get to heaven can I still be 5 years old so I can dad can put me on his shoulders in the park?”

I’m crying as I write this. I can barely see the screen to type these words. What war is worth this? It is a crime to have robbed this boy of his father, to have taken from him this ordinary dream that every child should be able to realize.

The only war I could possibly justify is one fought in the most extreme of circumstances when there is no other choice between liberty and death for our nation.  And the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are certainly not such wars. And if you ever read anything written in anger here at the injustice of such conflicts, I hope readers opposed to my views will remember this post and this radio documentary before you judge me for intemperateness or whatever other charge you might wish to lay at my doorstep.

It is ironic, but somehow fitting that this show be broadcast on Thanksgiving weekend when we are giving thanks for the things we have. It is also important precisely at this time that we remember those who have given up something precious that they can never get back.

Listen to the podcast of the radio program here.

Could Army Have Offered Hassan Way Out Short of Deployment?

Saturday, November 14th, 2009

In my first reporting on the Ft. Hood shooting I noted how counter-productive the Army’s regulations seemed in this particular case in which you had an officer desperate to leave the service but who couldn’t because of the service’s financial commitment to him.

NPR’s Liz Halloran has taken up a similar angle in a report on the use of conscientious objector status in similar situations.  Apparently, Maj. Hassan contacted the Center on Conscience and War to ask whether the Army might honor such an application from him.  The answer was negative for reasons explained in the NPR report.  But what I found especially interesting was the Center director’s comment on the damage that was done in Ft. Hood because the service did not have a means to respond to this particular individual’s religious needs and convictions:

McNeil argues that if Hasan’s concerns about fighting Muslims had allowed him a different path in the military — even short of a conscientious discharge — last week’s events may have been avoided.”If he had been told that they were going to put a mark on his record, and keep him from advancing but never deploy him, they would have had an extremely well-trained psychiatrist still working for them,” she says, “and they wouldn’t have a bunch of dead bodies in Fort Hood.”

New Profile Threat to Israeli Militarist Consensus

Friday, May 29th, 2009

Recently, I met with an Israeli peace activist here in Seattle who shared with me his perspective on the role of the intelligence services within Israeli society. As an example of the noxiousness of their impact, he pointed to the recent arrest of the leadership of the New Profile movement by the Shin Bet. New Profile is a feminist anti-militarist group with encourages young people to resist conscription.

Given the importance of military service to Israel both from a security stand point as well as for social cohesion, any organized effort to resist such conformity would be seen in the most severe light by hardline security hawks. This explains why the Shin Bet came down so hard on virtually the entire national leadership of the group:

On 26 April, a day before Israel’s Memorial Day, Israeli police produced an absurd piece of political theatre – as Dimi Reider first reported here last Thursday. As if facing down dangerous organised criminals, they raided the homes of six activists in different parts of Israel, who were then detained for interrogation. Exploiting the emotions roused on a day of mourning for military dead, the police action singled out and branded anti-military activists as outside the legitimate Israeli community.

At the time of writing, police have summoned 10 additional activists for interrogation. The activists targeted are members of New Profile, a feminist movement working for over a decade to reverse the militarisation of state and society in Israel.

The truth of the matter is that Israeli society, and especially Israeli youth, are gradually casting off previous cultural and social norms.  Service in the IDF, once expected of all except yeshiva students, is no longer a sine qua non of Israeliness.  Throngs of young Israelis seek ways to avoid service.  Some leave the country if they can.  Some seek to game the system.  Others resist more forcefully and publicly.

Those who refuse have many motivations.  Some simply don’t want to be put in harm’s way.  Some object to the Occupation and refuse to participate in a system that perpetuates it.  Some motives are pure, some are less so.  But the truth of the matter is that the system is gradually breaking down.  It’s like Humpty Dumpty sitting on that wall.  When he falls, no amount of Shin Bet repair is going to put him back together again:

For years now, the army has regularly been exempting tens of thousands from service without difficulty…Their worry today is rather the popular vote of no-confidence in their easy use of the lives of soldiers – an anger no longer limited to alienated, impoverished parts of society but spreading deep into the middle class as well.

The growing legitimisation of the draft resisters in the Israeli mainstream is also evidence of the weakening of the hold fear has on our society. Those in power…are struggling to keep in place this longstanding means of obscuring political corruption and of feeding the notion of “national unity” in the form of “the people’s army”.

In her Comment is Free post, Rela Mazali, a co-founder of New Profile correctly notes that the group is merely a convenient whipping boy for the military-intelligence establishment:

According to Ha’aretz, the criminal investigation of New Profile is motivated by “growing concern at the defence establishment of a growing trend of draft evasion”. It is not New Profile that is worrying them, we are just an easy scapegoat through which they hope to sow fear and intimidate future draft dodgers.

My lunch companion told me that groups like New Profile are routinely infiltrated by the Shin Bet.  Especially if the group is seen as effective in promoting its goals as New Profile undoubtedly is.  You can bet that someone informed on all the leaders who were arrested.  I don’t know this for a fact.  But any spook worth his salt would say that NOT to infiltrate New Profile would be a dereliction of duty for the Israeli intelligence apparatus.  That’s how warped their thinking is.  A group of pacifist women are a threat to the state.  Imagine.

And what do the Israeli powers-that-be really fear?  Not just an attempt to break down the consensus regarding military service, important as that is; they also fear New Profile’s ultimate goal which is to struggle for a truly democratic civil society that will be fully inclusive of Jews and Arabs.  This scares the pants off them.  For them, this is the same as attempting to destroy the State of Israel as they know it.  Of course, it is nothing of the sort.  But the very idea that New Profile suggests an Israel based on different principles than those endorsed by the political/military/intelligence elite is deeply threatening.

I remember how the U.S. establishment reacted during the Vietnam War to draft resistance and other forms of civil disobedience and unrest.  Fists and billy clubs flew, shots were fired, young people died in places like Kent State and Orangeburg.  It was a frightening time.  The powers that be refused to concede to any young person the right to refuse to obey.  My hope is that just as this country absorbed some of the positive lessons offered by anti-war activists here, so too Israel will come to understand that New Profile and groups like it have valuable insights to offer that will make Israel a more just, more democratic, more peaceful society.  Amen.

Jonathan Ben Artzi: Israeli Supreme Court Grants Victory to Draft Resister

Friday, October 19th, 2007
jonathan ben artziBen Artzi outside the military court (Matania Ben Artzi)

Jonathan’s dad just wrote me some dramatic new details of his recent victory in the Israeli Supreme Court against IDF attempts to imprison him for his pacifist refusal to serve in the army. Jonathan fought this case over eight years and served a total of 18 months in grimy military prisons for his beliefs.

After four trips to the Supreme Court which continually sent the case back to military courts, the Court finally accepted jurisdiction in January, 2007 and then-president Barak issued an immediate stay of punishment. In May, 2007 it agreed to hear the case scheduling an August hearing date. In the interim, the new president Beinish attempted to negotiate with the IDF asking it to rescind the imprisonment portion of the judgment. The army refused and a new hearing was held on September 10th. The justices took the unusual step of summoning the chief military prosecutor to argue the case. On his appearance there, he agreed to drop the punishment.



So Jonathan has essentially won everything he asked for with the exception that he has not convinced the IDF to add a conscientious objector status as a legitimate military exemption. Nevertheless, Jonathan’s example will serve as encouragement to others facing the difficult choices he did over the past eight years. Most military forces of democratic countries throughout the world recognize conscientious objection as a legitimate option for those who refuse to engage in violence and provide alternate civilian service. Israel’s army does not do this. It maintains authority even of those conscripts who refuse its authority. In this case, all the IDF would’ve had to have done was arrange for a civilian organization or non profit to provide an alternate form of service for him. They refused. Hence the 18 months of prison time.

Matania Artzi, Jonathan’s dad, describes his disappointment in the U.S. media’s coverage of his son’s case:

…During this [eight year] period, Yoni’s story was on the front pages of all major European newspapers (with particular coverage in the Guardian and Le Monde, but also Le Figaro, Frankfurter Algemeine, El Pais…). HOWEVER, all three major US papers (NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post) never published a WORD about the story (and the refusal movement in general). This is in spite of the fact that we had personal contacts with all their correspondents in Israel, who were well aware of this story (especially James Bennet of NYT). So much for “all the news that’s fit…”.

I’m heartily surprised that no major news outlet anywhere in the world as far as I can tell has covered the latest developments of Jonathan’s story. Neither has The Forward, Haaretz (English language site), or JTA. I’m trying to rectify that though The Forward just rejected my query about an op ed on the subject.

Haaretz Insists on No Holds Barred Debate Over Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, What About U.S. Media?

Thursday, October 18th, 2007

Jonathan Ben Artzi’s parents, who’ve been supporting his ultimately successful campaign for conscientious objector status related to his military conscription sent me an interesting lecture Amos Schocken, publisher of Haaretz, delivered at the University of Missouri school of journalism. In the interview, Schocken uses Jonathan’s case to make a very important point about the critical importance of covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as broadly and diversely as possible.

In reading the publisher’s ideas I come to realize just why it is that the Israeli media are so much better at covering this story than U.S. media. The former, when they do their job right (and they don’t always do so) have a no holds barred attitude. Let the chips fall where they may. If the IDF screws up we’re going to report it (at least if the military censor allows them to). If an MK says something especially boneheaded or racist–let the readers know about it.

In America, journalistic criteria are different. First, you have the issue of determining whether stories from Israel are newsworthy in a U.S. context. Second, you have a sensitivity or fear depending on how you view it of hitting too hard and insulting your Jewish readers. For example, no U.S. mainstream media that I know of have reported on Ben Artzi’s story (while the Guardian and Telegraph have reported the story in England). I think the editors are thinking that if the idea of refusing military service is that controversial in Israel we’re not going to touch it. By the way, I include American Jewish media like JTA in this group of The Timid as well.

Luckily, that’s not Amos Schocken’s approach:

About two weeks ago we received an e-mail from a couple. After many years of loyally subscribing to Ha’aretz, they wrote, “we have decided to cancel our subscription. Since the beginning of the Intifada, we have suffered almost daily from reading reports and articles by Gideon Levy, Amira Hass and Akiva Eldar. But we stayed with you. Lately, however, Ha’aretz has espoused a policy of supporting refusal to serve in the Army. This reached its climax in a report about the Ben-Artzi family in last week’s magazine. We think the refusal to serve in the Army, and the resonance and support that Ha’aretz gives it, undermines the essence of the existence of Israel. As parents of three children who serve in the Army…and who perform their duty out of feeling of loyalty and responsibility, we deem refusal to serve an illegitimate and immoral way to express a political position, and we refuse to be partners with an irresponsible newspaper that supports such phenomena.”

I replied to their letter. “How can you conclude that Ha’aretz supports refusal to serve in the army,” I asked. “The opposite is in fact the case. When the issue of refusal to serve came to the forefront of public debate, and advertisements signed by reserve officers and soldiers appeared in the press advocating refusal, Ha’aretz published an editorial specifically rejecting organized or mass refusal as a legitimate or feasible course of action in a democracy. Not only did we publish such an editorial, but five of our leading commentators wrote signed articles dealing with this issue. Four of them rejected refusal to serve, and only one (by Gideon Levy) supported such a course of action.”

But, I continued in my letter to the couple, the story of those who refuse to serve is one that should be reported, and should be part of public debate. “I see no way not to write about the interesting story of the Ben-Artzi family, really the salt of the earth in this country, and about the refusal of one of its young members to serve in the Army.”

So much for the exchange of letters.

Yonatan Ben-Artzi is a boy of 18, the age when all Israeli boys go for compulsory military service of three years. He announced his refusal to be drafted on the grounds of pacifism. Instead of being drafted he was to be sent to military prison.

Who are the Ben-Artzis? Yonatan’s father, Matanya Ben Artzi, is a professor of mathematics and physics. He served in the Israeli Army, as did his three other children, the elder sister and brothers of Yonatan. He worked for 12 years at Rafael, the government authority responsible for developing sophisticated armaments for the Israeli Army. He did post-doctoral work at Northwestern University in Chicago. Yonatan’ mother did her masters degree in the study of religions at Northwestern.

Matanya Ben-Artzi rejected the vision of Greater Israel right after the Six Day War. In 1980, when called for reserve military service, he refused to serve in the occupied territories and was tried, but was not sent to prison.

Matanya Ben-Artzi has a brother, Haggai. Haggai lives in Beit-El, a Jewish settlement in the West Bank, in the occupied territories. Once, in the early eighties, Matanya went by bus to visit his brother. As the bus drove along, Palestinians threw stones at it, and there was some commotion. Arriving at the settlement, he asked his brother why the people there didn’t travel in buses with shatter-proofed windows. The answer was: Out of principle, we travel the same way people do in Tel-Aviv, but we react differently. The reaction was revenge, taken on Palestinian villages in the neighbourhood. The next day Matanya read in the papers that the settlers had destroyed Palestinian cars and other property. He told his brother he would not visit him again, as he did not want to be an accomplice to all that. He has not gone there since.

Why do I tell you all this? I do not tell you this just because a Ha’aretz story about a young boy’s refusal to serve in the Israeli Army, and about the support he gets from his parents, caused a subscriber of many years standing, whose children do serve in the army, to cancel his subscription. Nor do I tell you this because Matanya and Haggai Ben-Artzi have a sister, Sara Netanyahu, who is the wife of Israel’s former prime-minister and would-be future prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which fact of course raises the question of what does the ex-prime-minister think of his nephew’s refusal to serve his country.

I tell you this because this is Israel. Sometimes in one family you have extreme political differences, and the situation of war over the past two years in Israel has led people to take very determined and sometimes very extreme positions.

If we only had American newspapers who were willing to go where others fear to tread, then we’d have the hard-hitting, diverse coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that we deserve. Instead of fear, temporizing and censorship of the debate–we’d have a no-holds barred debate.

Jonathan Ben Artzi, Israeli Prisoner of Conscience, Victorious Against IDF

Wednesday, October 17th, 2007
Jonathan Ben Artzi free from army service

For eight years, Jonathan Ben Artzi, nephew of Bibi Netanyahu, has battled the IDF, refusing to serve in the army. He is a conscientious objector recognized by Amnesty International. However, the Israeli army refuses to recognize pacifism as a legitimate category for exemption from service. It saw his refusal as a deliberate flouting of its authority over all Israeli youth who are required to serve a 3-year term in the army. Those officers who sentenced Ben Artzi to eight months in military prison believed that his unpunished refusal might encourage others to follow him. Though why the brass believe anyone in their right mind would chose to emulate a boy who gave eight months of his life to prison and eight years to fighting this case–is beyond me.


Ben Artzi’s case got as high as the Israeli Supreme Court, which actually ruled on elements of it four different times over the eight years. In the final hearing, it made its squeamishness known about sentencing Ben Artzi to further prison time. The IDF got the message and settled the case on terms highly favorable to Ben Artzi. His parents, who supported him during his entire legal campaign, circulated these messages to his supporters:

Dear Friends,

Yoni’s legal battle is over! Those of you who wish to get more details–we’ll be happy to provide (the final agreement is being translated to English). However, at this point we choose to forward Yoni’s own words.

We are very very grateful for your help, support and moral encouragement,

Ofra and Matania Ben-Artzi.

Victory in court

Dear Friends,

After Supreme Court judges Beinish, Levi and Meltzer expressed their discomfort with having to send me to prison now, 8 years after the whole saga began, the military was forced into an agreement with us, in which they admit defeat: the agreement states that I will not have to serve any time in prison, only having two months of probation, and that I remain loyal to my pacifist views. This is a major blow to a prosecution that started this whole thing with a goal of sending me (like the five[other refusers]) to at least one year in prison.

Thanks to all those who have supported me throughout these years – it was an invaluable help!

Yoni

Ben Artzi’s case is important not only because of his refusal to serve, which is a deeply stigmatized view within Israeli society. It is also important because 50% of Israeli youth find other means of refusing to serve. As Colin Urquart’s Guardian article notes, this is called “grey resistance,” because these individuals disguise their refusal in more socially acceptable grounds including psychiatric deferments or leaving the country. The rate of refusal is ever increasing which indicates a growing recognition among the young that military service is no longer the vaunted national ideal it once was. Israel’s 40 Occupation of the Palestinian people and its disastrous war in Lebanon have caused the young to lose their appetite for the ‘glory’ of fulfilling their duty to their country.

All those who find themselves unsympathetic to Ben Artzi should consider that he is no shirker. Besides the fact that his father’s sister is married to Bibi Netanyahu, a number of his close relatives have died or been severely wounded serving the country going all the way back the War of Independence. Netanyahu freely accepts an obligation to do alternative service under civilian auspices. But he will not accept the IDF’s authority over him.

Currently, he is a grad student in mathematics at Brown University.

For more background on Ben Artzi’s case read:

Netanyahu nephew faces jail as army refusenik
I Realized the Stupidity of It (interview)

Thanks to Cecilie Surasky of Muzzlewatch for forwarding the family e mail to me.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE