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 ‘human-rights’

Israel Human Rights Lawyer: IDF Commander Soils Memory of Jawaher Rahme

Thursday, January 5th, 2012
jawaher abu rahme

Jawaher Abu Rahme, killed by IDF December 31, 2010 (Haaretz)

On the one year anniversary of the death of non-violent Bilin protester Jawaher Abu Rahme, her family’s Israeli human rights lawyer, Michael Sfard, reminds us of the nasty conspiracy by senior IDF commander, Maj. Gen. Avi Mizrahi, with the Israeli media to rob Abu Rahme in death of her dignity through outright lies. These lies were dutifully disseminated by reporters and right-wing hasbara blogs like Muqata, Israellycool (yes, our old friend David Lange again), and Jonathan Hoffman at the Jewish Chronicle, who claimed in blaring headlines that the Palestinian non-violent movement had created a “blood libel” against the IDF. Virtually every claim of the IDF and their media whores was disproven. Yet no newspaper except Haaretz published anything close to the truth, nor did anyone publish a correction or retraction.

Thanks to Oren Persico at 7th Eye for publishing Sfard’s J’Accuse against Mizrahi. I should point out that the publication, showing an abundance of caution, refused to name the IDF liar (though Sfard did in his remarks). But it didn’t need to, because Yossi Gurvitz did so last year in +972. Sfard’s comments are expanded upon in Blood Libel in Bilin, a full-length investigation (summary here) prepared by the NGO Keshev. It recounts the entire media coverage of the tragedy and tells a particularly ugly story. To be fair, the report singles the Palestinian media out for criticism as well. But given that the killing was perpetrated by Israel and its media is much larger and has more resources, Israel’s media is far more culpable.

This is the schandeh of which Gen. Mizrahi is guilty: he told the Israeli media that Abu Rahme wasn’t at the demonstration at all and therefore couldn’t have died of tear gas inhalation. He told them that the activists delayed getting her to the hospital, which caused her death. He told them the hospital committed medical negligence by treating her for the wrong condition thereby causing her death. He said that the drugs she was given during treatment indicated she had cancer rather than gas toxicity and died of cancer instead of asphyxiation.

All these things were lies. Disgusting lies for which Mizrahi and no one in the IDF has paid a price. But Mizrahi isn’t the only bald-faced liar. Last year, I wrote a post noting that Brig. Gen. Nitzan Alon also joined in the lie-fest echoing his colleague. In fact, Alon is such a good liar he was promoted to assume Mizrahi’s former position. On a further note, Mizrahi’s troops also murdered a Palestinian grandpa in his bed just before Abu Rachme’s killing. The troops had broken into an apartment on the wrong floor and killed the 65-year-old innocent man as he lay sleeping, while they held a gun to the head of his poor wife as she sat in another room. All this is proof positive that in addition to merit, the IDF rewards its commanders for deceit, subterfuge, fakery, murder, and dishonoring the memory of their Palestinian victims. It makes me ashamed. Damn ashamed.

The Israeli military prosecutor is “investigating” the case and there will be a Supreme Court hearing in July. Without this, the army would undoubtedly sweep yet another negligent homicide under the rug. For those who object to the term “homicide” they’ll recall an IDF study from 2002 which noted that CS gas in strong enough concentrations could kill a human being, which is precisely what happened.

Another word about the role played by David Lange in this matter. He and his fellow Hasbara media mavens were willing co-conspirators with the IDF in spreading its lies. They were hoaxed, but willingly so. And they in turn perpetrated the hoax on their readers, and they too may’ve been willingly hoaxed. I don’t mind that Lange hoaxed me into exposing a fraudulent identity he’d created for himself. All that was hurt was my pride. But through his fraud in this instance he dragged Jawaher Abu Rahme’s reputation in death through the mud. That is a far worse crime. Lange will never apologize. He doesn’t have it in him. Not least because Abu Rahme, as a Palestinian isn’t fully human to him. She is the enemy and therefore anything she does, including dying, is a personal affront to Israel and its army. An affront that’s worth lying about to “expose.”

Finally, we should note that the very same CS tear gas and the projectiles that deliver them continue causing death to Palestinian protesters including one that happened last month. The fact that the IDF uses munitions and crowd control devices that kill not just once but repeatedly, makes the entire army guilty of violations of international law. These deaths are no longer accidents or unfortunate mistakes. They are, at the very least negligent homicide and at worst murder. Take your pick.

Amos Schocken: Israel ‘Apartheid Regime,’ ‘Jewish Lobby Addicted’ to Settlement Ideology

Saturday, November 26th, 2011
amos schocken

Haaretz publisher, Amos Schocken

Amos Schocken published an eye-opening, remarkably candid op-ed  (and Hebrew) in Haaretz about the extent of the catastrophe that Israel currently faces, which includes a raft of repressive bills and laws threatening everything from freedom of speech to freedom of the press to academic freedom to minority Arab rights.  We’re used to the agonizing of liberal Zionists who decry the obvious but always seem to stop short of acknowledging just how bad things are, and how radical the solution needs to be.  Schocken, to his credit, faces things I’ve never heard a liberal Zionist face, and calls a spade a spade in his article.  The “Jewish lobby” and even the Supreme Court come in for their share of criticism.

He begins with a 1993 speech by Yitzhak Rabin to the Knesset, in which he warns of the dangers of Iran seeking a nuclear weapon.  But unlike Netanyahu, who uses this possibility to spook the nation into submission to authoritarianism, in much the same way Bush-Cheney did in the aftermath of 9/11, Rabin tells Israel that we must seize on Iran’s pursuit in order to pursue peace:

The possibility that someday Iran might have nuclear weapons must worry us, and is one of the reasons why we must exploit this window of opportunity and progress toward peace.

What a difference a day and a prime minister make, don’t they?  Bibi the manipulator, the exploiter of national insecurity in order to bring a nationalist settler state; Rabin a wise warrior who knew the horrors of war well enough to know that peace was preferable to a nuclear arms race.  But, Schocken continues, Rabin’s way as represented by the Oslo accord was overwhelmed by the settler enterprise, one of whose acolytes assassinated him.

Though liberal Zionists like Gershom Gorenberg and many other Haaretz columnists have decried the settler enterprise for decades, few have been willing to acknowledge the rot it has caused inside Israel.  Few have been willing to go so far as to acknowledge it is likely to destroy nation.  For the conventional liberal Zionist, Israel can be saved by degrees, by small improvements, by nibbling around the edges of injustice.  Schocken seems beyond this.

To his credit, Schocken doesn’t flinch from seeing that mess Israel is in and calling it what it is.  Here are some memorable passages:

According to the Gush Emunim ideology, Israel is for Jews.  Not just the Palestinians of the Territories are irrelevant, but Palestinian citizens of Israel too are subject to the same oppression and denial of their citizenship.  This is a strategy involving seizure of territory and apartheid.

…This ideology sees in the creation of an Israeli apartheid regime something that is necessary to realizing its goals.  It has no problem with using illegal, even criminal acts because its sacred mission is seen as above the law and having no real relation to the laws of Israel.  Rather, it depends on a perverted interpretation of Judaism.

…This ideology has achieved some of its greatest successes in the U.S…Whether this is due to the enormous numbers of Christian evangelicals, or the problematic relationship between Islam and the west, or the Jewish lobby’s addiction to Gush Emunim, the results are clear: it may no longer even be possible for a U.S. president to pursue an activist agenda against Israeli apartheid.

Paragraphs like the last one will make Bill Daroff howl, as well they should.  Because Daroff is not Israel’s friend.  He is the settlers’ friend.  And we, like this wise newspaperman, must make a distinction.  We must tell the world, Jewish and non-Jewish, that there are Jews who have Israel’s long-term interest at heart, and those who will hasten its demise.  The “Jewish lobby” is in the latter category.  Everyone must know this.  We must not allow them to represent us or speak for us.  We must stop StandWithUs and The Israel Project (and sometimes even J Street) and their like to suck the oxygen out of the Israel debate.  We must tell them that they have no monopoly on either power or (self-) righteousness.

Schocken proceeds to link the lawlessness of “Israeli apartheid” to an upsurge in authoritarianism:

It cannot permit opposition or criticism.  It must eliminate the latter and frustrate any effort to restrain its actions…Any actions which are illegal must be made legal by rewriting the law or by reinterpreting existing law so that what was illegal is now redefined as legal.  Similar things happened before in other times and places [a distinct reference to Nazi Germany].

In such a historical context, we see bills against human rights NGOs, against the press and free speech, and an anti-boycott law which seeks to prevent anyone from dealing with Israeli apartheid in the same way the world dealt with South African apartheid.

Even the Israeli Supreme Court, the crown jewel in the apparatus of liberal Zionism comes in for harsh criticism:

It permitted the settler enterprise and essentially served as a partner to it.

But now, Haaretz’s publisher says, the Court has proven an impediment and must be eliminated as an obstacle to the triumph of this authoritarian regime.  Because the Court has refused to permit settlements on privately owned Palestinian land (i.e. land theft), the Court must be ‘packed’ with judges who themselves live on such land and who will recognize that there can be no such concept as privately owned Palestinian land, because this is Jewish land given to this people by divine decree.  Schocken notes the similarity in this theological approach between Gush Emunim and radical Islamists like Hamas (though I believe Hamas has shown far more flexibility in adapting its ideology than settlerism has).

Schocken closes by raising some deeply troubling questions:

Can there be any future for such an Israel?  Even beyond the question of whether Jewish morality and experience permits such a situation, it puts Israel into an inherently unstable, dangerous position.  It puts Israel into the predicament of living with, by, and under the sword.  Whether the sword is a third Intifada, overthrow of the Egyptian peace accord, or an Iranian nuclear weapon.  This Yitzhak Rabin understood [and Bibi does not].

I think we have to begin to use the F-word though the Israeli publisher doesn’t: we are seeing an incipient Israeli fascism.  Perhaps not yet full-blown fascism.  But like a cancer it begins with one cell and spreads to an entire organ and eventually infects the entire organism.  I don’t know whether this illness is terminal.  But it could very well be.  Temporizing no longer works.  Only a radical transformation can.  One that stamps out setttlerism as a viable political force.  One that embraces whole-heartedly democracy over Jewish triumphalism.  Note I did not say “Judaism,” as religion will play an important role in any future role.  But it will never, if Israel is to survive, give members of one religion the right to deprive members of another of their legitimate rights as citizens.

Israeli MK Ahmed Tibi Criticizes Jesse Jackson Jr’s Participation in Aipac Junket

Friday, August 26th, 2011

J Street and pro-Israel blogger apologist Adam Holland have savagely attacked me for my criticism of Jesse Jackson’s Jerusalem Post op-ed, in which he ignorantly claimed Palestinians refused to adopt non-violence in their campaign for statehood.  Jackson and five other members of the Congressional Black Caucus also joined an Aipac junket along with fully one-fifth of the House of Representatives.

If J Street and Holland were the only sources you read, and you hadn’t actually read what I wrote (as Jeremy Ben Ami certainly has not), you might agree that my criticism was “disgusting, racist and crazy.”

But along comes Israeli Palestinian MK and deputy Knessest speaker, Ahmed Tibi, writing in Salon, virtually echoing everything I’ve written.  I dare Jeremy Ben Ami to call Ahmed Tibi “disgusting, crazy and racist.”  I double dare him.  Here is what Tibi had to say about the perfidy of Jesse Jackson Jr. in abandoning the values of human rights held dear by his father and Martin Luther King:

 The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a leader in the anti-apartheid movement, certainly would not have taken a propaganda junket to legitimize whites-only neighborhoods.

Yet his son, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., has visited here, where ethnic-religious discrimination is written into law. I dare say, Jackson heard very little about the more than 35 laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel. I doubt Israeli officials volunteered information about the new legislation passed by the Knesset that subjects anyone who calls for a boycott of companies colonizing the West Bank and East Jerusalem to financial damages.

As a member of Israel’s large Palestinian national minority, I find Jackson’s participation, along with five other members of the Black Caucus especially disappointing.

I…expect Jackson and the other members of the caucus (other than Rep. Allen West, advocate of torturing Arabs) to reject colonization and racial discrimination. Their complacency in the face of modern-day colonization and their adoption of hard-line AIPAC positions stand in stark contrast to the beliefs of many Americans I have met who believe wholeheartedly that it is wrong for Israel to discriminate against Palestinians.

I pointedly asked in my earlier post, how many Israeli Palestinians Jackson and the other members of the Aipac delegation would be meeting.  Tibi read my mind:

The visitors will be meeting with opposition parties in the Jewish state, but none of them — not a single one — is scheduled to meet with Palestinian members of the Knesset even though our existence is often highlighted when Israel’s defenders seek to refute charges that Israel is an apartheid state.

Gee, why would Aipac not want U.S. Congress members, including members of the CBC, to meet with their Israeli Palestinian counterparts?  And why wouldn’t Jackson and his fellow CBC members have asked for such a meeting?

This is what Ahmed Tibi humbly asks of future visiting delegations, words that almost could’ve come right out of the post I wrote, so savagely attacked by those liberal champions of civil rights at J Street:

…At this point all I ask [is] if congressional representatives are going to visit my country they should strive to get a full view and not simply disregard the rampant discrimination Israel practices against its Palestinian minority and against the Palestinians of the occupied territories. They should visit Jerusalem on those days when Palestinian men under 50 are prohibited from praying at the al-Aqsa mosque. I could take them personally to my hometown and the neighboring Jewish community where they will see the discriminatory infrastructure gap that saddles Palestinian children with disadvantages that nearby Jewish children never face.

What we need from the members of Congress, and especially the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, are public statements from our American visitors expressing grave reservations about Israel’s oppressive treatment of Palestinians in the territories and Israel.

I’ve been advised such words would be political suicide. If true, if speaking for equality and non-discrimination is now political suicide, then America’s problems are even bigger than the recent debt debacle fomented by many of the Republican representatives now visiting Israel.

In fact, I’d like to know if J Street junkets (yes, the lib Zionsts have their own junkets which may be why they didn’t like me criticizing Aipac’s) visit with MK Tibi or any of the other Israeli Palestinian MKs.

Oh and by the way, I wrote an e mail directly to Jeremy last night demanding to know how such schlock could appear on J Street’s twitter feed.  No answer.  Funny thing is that a local J Street organizer swore to me that if a J Street staffer published that tweet they should be “disciplined.”  Guess who’s not being disciplined?  How does that local J Street organizer justify involvement with such an organization?

By the way, J Street has its own lib fat cats supporting its waffling, pro-Israel agenda to the tune of millions of dollars.  It would be nice if my readers would do the same to support the stands I take on behalf of reason, sanity and justice.  Hit that Paypal button, please.

The ‘Herem’ of Judge Goldstone

Sunday, April 10th, 2011
richard goldstone

Richard Goldstone: the Haggadah's 'Wicked Son'

Last year, Judge Richard Goldstone revealed that he would not attend his grandson’s South African bar mitzvah because pro-Israel community leaders had let it be known that they would picket the synagogue during the celebration and generally make his life miserable.  There was a general uproar over this threatening behavior with a number of South African Jews (though not the community’s top leaders) criticizing it in the media including the New York Times.  A short time later, Goldstone announced that he would attend the festivities after all and it appeared that the community had backed down and that the judge’s honor had been vindicated.

What we didn’t realize, and which The Forward recently reported, is that there seems to have been a secret quid pro quo by which the community demanded that it meet with Goldstone privately as the price for quiet during the bar mitzvah celebration.  Judge Goldstone attended a community pow-wow with rabbis and the communal political leadership.  Until now, no one knew what was discussed and what was said to Goldstone.  Now, I can report on at least one of the speeches he was forced to endure.  It is a masterpiece of Jewish guilt.  Baruch Spinoza was subjected to no less during the proceedings of the Amsterdam Jewish community which led to his excommunication (herem).  In fact, the source who provided it to me called it a piece psychological manipulation, in other words part of a communal propaganda offensive designed to intimidate Goldstone into the position he recently adopted in his Washington Post op-ed, in which he uncharacteristically withdrew several key claims of the UN report which he helped author.  The performance in that piece was dreary beyond belief and has to be a low in an otherwise distinguished legal career.

Perhaps the most radical philosophical turnaround in the op-ed is that before, he emphatically rejected the notion that the IDF and State could adequately and fairly investigate their own possible misdeeds.  Now, he claims that Israel has done precisely that.  And makes this claim in the face of evidence which shows that the investigations have been half-hearted and resulted in no significant meting out of punishment or even discipline.

No one can say whether there was an explicit quid pro quo involved in his penning this column.  But it can be no accident that Israel’s Interior Minister, Eli Yishai, has invited Goldstone for a triumphal return to Israel and that the latter has accepted.  It may also not be an accident that he published his apologia in one of Israel’s favorite American newspapers, one which consistently, forcefully advocates Israel’s interests in its editorial pages.

Here is the address of a South African Sephardic rabbi, Laurence (Doron) Perez, to Goldstone during the May, 2010 meeting:

Justice Goldstone -

I am sure that you have had the opportunity many times both as a father and grandfather to be present with your family at the Pesach Seder. I am also sure that you are familiar with the basic narrative of the Haggadah which, as we know, describes the story of Jewish slavery, freedom and redemption. I would like to draw your attention to the famous paragraph about the four sons – the wise one, the wayward [ed. a deliberate distortion of the Hebrew, in which he is called "the wicked son"] one, the simple one and the one who does not know how to ask.  I would like to reflect for a moment on the narrative regarding the wayward son which I believe to be relevant to our discussion today.

The Haggadah states as follows

“The wayward son asks – What is this service to you? (Exodus 12;26). By saying “you” he excludes himself. And since he excludes himself from the peoplehood of Israel (KIal Yisrael), he has denied a fundamental principle of our faith (Kofer be-Ikar). You in turn should blunt his teeth (give a sharp and blunt answer) and say to him – because of what Hashem did for me when I left Egypt, I do this  (Exodus 13;8) – implying for me but not for him.  If he (the wayward son) had been there (in Egypt), he would not have been redeemed?”

This paragraph is most telling as to who the wayward Jewish son is and, further, what our response to him should be. The Haggadah describes the wayward son as the one who sets himself apart from Jewish peoplehood and places himself outside the mainstream Jewish community. His question “what is this service to you” implies that the service does not obligate him in any way. Issues of Jewish identity: – our collective fate, destiny and responsibilities are seen as something which have no bearing on his world view. So much so, that the Haggadah uses the sharp terminology since he has excluded himself from the Jewish people, he has denied a fundamental tenet of Jewish faith.

Again, as I wrote above, the rabbi is essentially warning Goldstone that his participation in the Gaza war investigation and the findings he endorsed in it, have caused him to be driven him from the Tabernacle, leaving him to wander in the desert bereft of his fellow Jews.  They in turn told him that due to his abandonment of them, they have ostracized him.

The rabbi continues in a vein that accuses Goldstone of concern only for the suffering of the Palestinian people and of his disregard for the suffering of Israelis that led up to Operation Cast Lead.  Perez tells Goldstone that when Jewish suffering conflicts with Palestinian suffering there is only ONE legitimate choice:

Remarkably, what emanates so succinctly from the Haggadah is the supreme importance of Jewish peoplehood. The community ethic is a core component of Jewish identity. One cannot call oneself a good Jew if one distances oneself from the lot of one’s People and community.

This explains a bewildering question regarding the wayward son – why is he at the Pesach table in the first place? After all, if he is so wicked, why does he want to be part of the Jewish experience? The answer is clear – he does want to have a connection to his Judaism – but he wants this to be without any commitment to and embracing of a collective Jewish fate and destiny. But the Haggadah teaches us that he cannot claim to be a good Jew, whilst at the same time separating himself from the pain and suffering of his own People. Of course, every good Jew must be sensitive to the suffering of all human beings. All are created in the image of G-d. This is without question a core Jewish value. But how can this possibly override the suffering of his own family, community and People? Kindness and charity must never end in the home, but they must most certainly begin there! Indeed, this is a fundamental principle of Jewish faith – the inextricable link between Jewish faith and the People of Israel.

…The answer given to the wayward son in the Haggadah is also most telling. We blunt his sharp criticism by highlighting the following important point – “Had you been in Egypt you would not have been redeemed” i.e. the wayward son needs to decide what side of Jewish History he is on. If his worldview does not contain this deep sense of Jewish peoplehood, then he has missed the point of Jewish identity. Our Sages tell us that many Jews chose not to leave Egypt but rather lost themselves during the plague of darkness. These individual Jews could not come to terms with Moses’ vision of redemption from Egyptian society: to journey to the homeland of their forefathers and to exercise their divine, religious, historical and moral right to self-determination in their G-d given Land. Those who left Egypt committed to this vision of Jewish destiny. Those who chose to rather stay behind in Egypt did not accept this narrative of Jewish history.

In the following passage, Rabbi Perez goes even farther and accuses Goldstone of being almost a traitor to his race by siding with the Palestinians.  Goldstone has, in effect, turned his back on a millennium of Jewish suffering through his advocacy of the UN human rights report.  He sentences Goldstone to oblivion for his actions:

Remaining behind in Egypt and perhaps even prioritizing the suffering of the Egyptians over the tears and pain of over 100 years of slavery and death of their own People at the hand of the Egyptians sidelined them from future Jewish destiny. Instead of becoming influential protagonists of Jewish history, they became a peripheral footnote.

Below, Perez commits a major bit of intellectual mendacity by claiming that Jewish interests and universal justice are consonant when everything he has said above denies it.  Unless of course the rabbi is arguing that the rights of Palestinians, such as they are, are not covered by the terms universal justice or human rights.

In conclusion – there need not be any contradiction between striving for human rights and universal justice and at the same time being loyal to one’s Faith, People and Land. One can be a champion of human rights and at the same time believe in the unbreakable link between the Jewish faith, Land and People of Israel.

Our Rabbis taught us never to give up on any fellow Jew – even when misguided.  After all, it is his actions we assess and never the person himself. We hope and pray that you undo the unfortunate and enormous damage that your report has done to the Jewish people in general and to the State of Israel and her heroic and moral defenders in particular.

Justice Goldstone – the simple question that we all need to ask ourselves is; which side of Jewish history are we on?

What is truly tragic about Judge Goldstone’s turnaround is that he has now embraced his people, but turned his back on an entire career of advocacy on behalf of peoples afflicted by genocide and egregious violations of human and national rights.  Unlike Rabbi Perez and Judge Goldstone, I do believe that universal human rights and Jewish values are not antithetical.  And unlike them, I do not believe that Israel’s behavior in maintaining the Occupation meets standards of Jewish or universal human rights.  You can have it both ways, but only if you understand that Israeli values are not necessarily kosher Jewish values in this case.

Many of us Jews who have political, philosophical or ethical beliefs that diverge from the so-called consensus have experienced this sort of herem.  I call it the Spinoza Society to denote those honored Jews who break from the pack to stand for values that should the mainstream but often aren’t.  Unfortunately, Judge Goldstone craves the acceptance of the Jewish greybeards and mandarins.  Others of us have known what it is like to have to endure this sort of treatment in order to uphold our own Jewish values.  Thankfully, many of us haven’t felt the need to cave to the pressure.  Perhaps we have less at stake than he does.  But I’d like to think that a man as eminent as Judge Goldstone should’ve done a better job of upholding these values, even in the face of the relentless pressure he undoubtedly faced.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bibi: Abusisi is Hamas and He’s Spilling His Guts

Wednesday, March 30th, 2011


Bibi Netanyahu took the unprecedented step, one which I don’t ever recall a previous prime minister taking regarding a specific security detainee, of publicly defending Israel’s extraordinary rendition of Dirar Abusisi.  He did so deliberately according to Amir Oren in Haaretz in an interview filled with softball questions and self-serving, hasbarist answers before an international audience assembled by a Youtube program called World View.  Here is what he said about Abusisi:

Asked about a Palestinian engineer who disappeared in Ukraine and later surfaced in an Israeli jail, Netanyahu said, “He is a Hamas member, held legally in Israeli detention.” Netanyahu added, “He delivered important information,” without elaborating.

The prime minister is clearly bluffing his way through this exercise.  The only reason he’s taken this question is that he feels the need to justify the kidnapping, which no nation or international body outside Israel (and Ukraine and Jordan who are implicated as collaborators) considers justified.  There is some sort of brewing pressure against the Mossad adventure that has made him feel it necessary to explain Israel’s position, weak as it is, to the world.

Further, I believe he’s lying about Abusisi being a Hamas member and I strongly doubt the latter’s delivering any information of any value on any subject pertinent to Israel.

I’m not sure whether it’s the looming threat of formal complaints to UN bodies or Ukrainian legal action or the possibility that this will be followed by recourse to the European Court of Human Rights once Ukrainian jurisdiction is exhausted.  Whatever the reason, I think Bibi’s feeling the heat.  And the heat will only increase as the case continues.

Though the Abusisi question is being widely covered in world media, I could only find the question in the Hebrew language video above. It comes in the context of a question about what the government is doing to free Gilad Shalit. The interviewer allows Bibi to infer that the Palestinian’s kidnapping has something to do with freeing Shalit (which his attorney denied flat out yesterday). I’m guessing that Bibi’s press office deliberately translated this portion of the interview both to showcase what the government is allegedly doing on Shalit’s behalf and also to defend an act that threatens to become an increasing international liability to Israel.

ALERT: If you’re in Israel please rally on Dirar’s behalf at the Petah Tikvah regional court at 10:00AM.  Show the security apparatus that it cannot act with impunity.  It cannot violate international law and allow the rule of impunity.

Israel’s Attorney General Signals Dissatisfaction With Shabak’s Abusisi Interrogation

Friday, March 25th, 2011

Yossi Melman writes in today’s Haaretz that Attorney General Yehudah Weinstein appears dissatisfied with the results of the Shabak interrogation of Dirar Abusisi.  The reporter notes that Weinstein has told the security services to procure further evidence on eight subjects.  Given my experience following such security matters, something smells a little off about the government’s case.  It’s unusual in the Israeli legal system for a security suspect to be held longer than 30 days without filing charges.  They’ve had Abusisis for 34 days.  After that amount of time they still have eight areas in which the top government lawyer says he needs better evidence to prosecute.  What’s wrong with this picture?  The attorney general has also told Shabak that there is a wide gap between the claims levelled against the kidnapped Gaza engineer and the evidence he’s seen.  This does not sound like a happy prosecutor.

We’re talking about some of the best goons in the business here, in the Shabak.  They might be able to extract blood from a turnip or an Arab.  Yet either Dirar isn’t breaking as they anticipated or they simply have nothing against him and can’t build a credible case with what they’ve got.

To indicate just how sensitive the Shabak is to the publicity surrounding this case (and how important it is for us to do what we’re doing), Melman indicates Abusisi was introduced to the courtroom via a side entrance so the scores of journalists and photographers mingling about could not photograph him.

The Haaretz reporter also notes that for the first time the Ukrainian intelligence services have invited Veronika Abusisi to speak with them about her husband’s kidnapping.  Until now, they’ve been extremely reluctant to offer her any help whatsoever.  This would indicate that Ukraine is feeling a certain amount of pressure over the incident.

I note that Ukraine is a member of the Council of Europe and as such is bound by the following resolution which attacked the underlying premises of the Bush administration’s extraordinary rendition program.  If you change “United States of America” to “Israel” and “some Council of Europe member states” to “Ukraine,” then Abusisi’s predicament is just as relevant to this document:

The Assembly condemns the systematic exclusion of all forms of judicial protection and regrets that, by depriving hundreds of suspects of their basic rights, including the right to a fair trial, the United States has done a disservice to the cause of justice and has tarnished its own hard-won reputation as a beacon of the defence of civil liberties and human rights.

Some Council of Europe member states have knowingly colluded with the United States to carry out such unlawful operations; others have tolerated them or simply turned a blind eye. They have also gone to great lengths to ensure that such operations remained secret and protected from effective national or international scrutiny.

This collusion with the United States of America by some Council of Europe member states has taken several different forms. Having carried out a legal and factual analysis on a range of cases of alleged secret detentions and unlawful transfers, the Assembly has identified instances in which Council of Europe member states have acted in one or several of the following ways, wilfully or at least recklessly in violation of their international human rights obligations…

Secretly detaining a person on European territory for an indefinite period of time, whilst denying that person’s basic human rights and failing to ensure procedural legal guarantees such as habeas corpus;

Capturing and handing a person over to the United States whilst knowing that such a person would be unlawfully transferred into a US-administered detention facility;

Permitting the unlawful transportation of detainees on civilian aircraft carrying out rendition operations, travelling through European airspace or across European territory;

…The Assembly highlights the widespread breach of the positive obligation of all Council of Europe member states to investigate such allegations in a full and thorough manner.

The Assembly calls upon the member states of the Council of Europe to:

Ensure that unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees will not be permitted and take effective measures to prevent renditions and rendition flights through member states’ territory and airspace;

Ensure that no one is arbitrarily detained, secretly or otherwise, on a member state’s territory or any territory within the member states’ effective control;

…Ensure that all victims of rendition or secret detention have access to an effective remedy and obtain prompt and adequate reparation, including restitution, rehabilitation and fair and adequate financial compensation.

Is anyone home there, Ukraine?  You expect to host the Euro Cup next year and you can’t even abide by the basic human rights provisions of the Council of Europe.  As I wrote earlier, the nation is not yet ready for the prime time of European democracy.  Everything appears for sale there including justice.  I wonder what’s the price for a Gaza civil engineer?  Maybe a free trade agreement?  A few advanced Elbit weapons systems?

Israel Refuses to Charge AbuSisi, Extends Detention, Family to File European Court of Human Rights Complaint

Thursday, March 24th, 2011
free dirar abusisi poster

(poster-Michael Levin)

Today, the Israeli authorities held a hearing on the case of Dirar Abusisi, kidnapped by the Mossad from Ukraine last month, brought to Israel by rendition, and imprisoned there for unspecified reasons while being interrogated intensively by the Shabak.  Though Israeli media sources reported that the security services and prosecutor would announce charges against him “in the coming days,” they did not do so today.  Instead, after interrogating him for 34 consecutive days, they came to the court hearing with nothing.  Here is what his attorney, Smadar Ben Natan reports:

The state came today with a request to extend the detention in additional 8 days, this was supported by an approval of the senior state attorney, Shay Nitzan, and with the explanation that the prosecution went through the evidence material and asked for 8 additional actions in order to complete the investigation.

We argued that if the state does not have enough evidence after 34 days of interrogation, where they should have had evidence to justify the outrageous arrest even before [it occurred],  Derar should be released and returned to Ukraine. They were trying to justify the arrest by making him confess [to their] accusations.

The court allowed the detention until next Thursday.

Derar looked very tired and complained that he can’t stand it anymore and that they are just repeating the same questions over and over again, and trying to break him.


abusisi's attorneys

Abusisi's attorneys, Smadar Ben Natan on left (George Ginsburg)

Dirar has lost weight during his ordeal.  The food he is provided is unpalatable.  The questioning is abusive at the very least.

I would ask any supporter of Israel, including those who disagree with my views: what good can possibly come of an outrageous breach of human rights like this?  Is this the way you choose to allow your security services to operate?

So let’s say Dirar is the worst you can conceive.  If you want to kidnap him and render him to Israel wouldn’t you have a case against him before doing so?  In what kind of legal system do you arrest someone before having such a case built, and then attempt to figure out what to charge him with based on what he tells you during interrogation?

And let’s say he tells you something new you didn’t know during interrogation.  Surely, you can file a basic charge and then amplify it with what you learn later.  The fact that they have refused to file any charge at all is outrageous.  The fact that they come and demand an extension is equally outrageous.

I’m just attempting to understand (though it is difficult, admittedly) the thinking of the secret police and those who aid and abet them in the Israeli legal system.  Surely, this can’t be a model that any democratic country can hold up for praise.

I’ll tell you what all of this makes me believe: there is no case against Dirar.  At least nothing sufficient to the charges they’d prefer to bring.  Possibly Dirar is holding up better than they expected under the brutal forms of interrogation Shabak uses in such cases.  They may’ve expected him to give them enough to bring such charges.  At any rate, since you won’t charge him, free him.  That has to be our demand.

Even if Israel frees him and returns him to Ukraine, it can still request extradition from that country and then prosecute legally using legitimate evidence in a trial that features due process, unlike the charade currently on parade.  I’m sure Ukraine would be only too happy to oblige given their acquiescence in every Israeli depredation involving this case.

I urge the Israeli human rights community to protest outside Petah Tikvah court next Thursday to hold the security forces feet to the fire.  Demand accountability.  Deny impunity.  Smadar also told me that there was a huge press gaggle outside the courtroom and she was interviewed by CNN, which promised a story.  The Israeli press was out in full force and has finally decided it can cover a story it should’ve been aggressively pursuing a month ago.  All of this is good for Dirar.  As I’ve written here before, the security apparatus loves the dark and shuns the light.  Light sends them cowering back into the shadows.  Or at least forces a tactical retreat.

Veronika Abusisi, Dirar’s wife, who is in Ukraine, is pursuing legal remedies within that country, demanding that the government disclose what role it played in the kidnapping.  She plans to file a court case.  After the case goes through the rather discredited Ukrainian legal system, Yousef, Dirar’s brother, who is a Dutch citizen, would have recourse to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where he plans to bring a complaint against Ukraine.

The Ukranian authorities might want to consider what impact this might have on their attempts to showcase their country as a model of European openness and accountability.  I’ve mentioned the European Cup championship to be hosted by that country in 2012 and the multi-million dollar ad campaign attempting to bring hundreds of thousands of soccer tourists to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the local economy.  Trampling on the rights of foreign nationals who have come to Ukraine to apply for citizenship can’t help that process.

To rectify their misdeeds, I’d urge the Ukrainian Interior Ministry to approve Dirar’s application for citizenship and demand his return to Ukraine.  Then, as far as I’m concerned bygones can be bygones.

So far, the Ukrainian authorities haven’t acquitted themselves very well.  The Interior Ministry and security services rather lamely denied any knowledge or complicity in the kidnapping saying it was against Ukrainian law for any agent of the state to cooperate in such an action.  As if, that would prevent anyone from doing such given the right incentive, whether monetary or political.  A Ukrainian anti-immigrant crusader, Eduard Bagirov, who appears to be either an overt or covert mouthpiece of the authorities even posted the claim that Abusisi was really a Mossad double agent inside Gaza.  In order to protect him from exposure, the Mossad arranged for him to travel to Ukraine, took him, and brought him back to Israel.  A rather extraordinary level of imaginative powers is required to wrap one’s mind around that one.  But this tell you the level of desperation these people face in covering up their dirty deeds.

Please join the Facebook support group for Dirar.

Israel to Charge Abusisi ‘Within Days,’ Ukraine Denies Involvement in Kidnapping, Summons Israeli Ambassador

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011

AbuSisi children's Gaza protest against father's kidnapping, rendition to Israel, and detention (AP/Adel Hana)

Perhaps in reaction to the damaging report from the Palestine Center for Human Rights that revealed previously unknown facts about his kidnapping, Israeli authorities have leaked to the press that they expect to charge Dirar Abusisi “within days.”  If you’re a student of the ways of Israel’s security establishment, it’s very much a tit for tat routine.  If the detainee manages to strike a blow for himself in the public domain, they are ready to cut him down to size and consider it their sacred duty as part of their eternal war against sedition and Arab hatred.

I also think the Israelis realize that the longer the case is in the news, the worse it will look for them and the more explaining they will have to do.  They believe that by putting forward a narrative that portrays Abusisi as a spy, terrorist or general bad seed, that they will be able to blunt the bad press.

And bad press there is.  Yossi Melman reports in today’s Haaretz that Ukraine has finally released a public statement by its intelligence services and Interior Ministry that it had nothing to do with the kidnapping.  They rather pathetically denied that they had any knowledge of how he was kidnapped and had “more questions than answers.”  Can you imagine the top intelligence and police officials of a country claiming after a foreign national is kidnapped on their own soil that they know nothing, hear nothing, see nothing.  What are they?  Monkeys or men?

Their claim of course is very likely to be a lie.  Can they explain how two men in Ukrainian military uniforms boarded a train, kidnapped Abusisi, took him to an apartment in Kiev, then to the airport, boarded a plane and took off from Ukrainian soil?  Did Israel do all this without even a whisper of knowledge or suspicion on the part of the Ukrainians?  If so, some heads should roll.  Ukraine’s security is in the hands of men even more incompetent than anyone would’ve thought possible.

Melman explains that the Ukrainians have released the statement in an attempt to take the heat off them generated by the strong statements of Ukrainian human rights organizations and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees representative in the country.  The reporter also notes that the explanations of responsible government agencies doesn’t seem to be satisfying anyone, which is to be expected.

Melman does however get one major fact wrong.  In saying that Ukraine has not explained what it intended to do to get to the bottom of the incident, he says that country has not yet said whether it will approach Israel for an explanation.  In fact, AFP says it has done precisely that, demanding a meeting with the Israeli ambassador to Ukraine.  This of course is laughable and reminds me of one of those Marx Brothers movies in which Groucho, Lord High Mucky Muck of Fredonia, meets with his opposite number and in solemn tones says something like this: “Mr. Ambassador, what could you have been thinking?”  To which the ambassador would reply: “My dear Lord High Mucky-Muck, what could YOU have been thinking??”

They either said something like that, or more likely they met simply to get their stories straight.  Like co-conspirators they no doubt have much to hide and need to coordinate so they do as little damage to their own reputations as possible in this affair–or at least don’t do even greater violence to their already poor reputations for upholding human rights.

Melman also mischaracterizes the visit of Ukrainian Prime Minister Azarov to Israel, claiming he never addressed the incident while in the country and refused to take questions about it.  In fact, an interview with him published I believe in Haaretz asked that question to which he replied in rather mealy-mouthed fashion that it would be inconceivable for any nation to have done what was claimed on Ukrainian soil.  But he did reply.

Melman also misses an important detail in his report, in which Abusisi claimed in his PCHR interview, that the Mossad plane that rendered him to Israel touched down in a third country before it reached there, thus potentially making this case even more problematic for Israel than it would otherwise be.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE