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 ‘isabel kershner’

Will Someone Tell the NY Times What is a ‘Mainstream Israeli?’

Thursday, March 11th, 2010
yossi klein halevi

Why does the NYT call this man 'mainstream?'

In an otherwise fairly balanced article about the growing movement of progressive Israelis against the Sheikh Jarrah evictions, Isabel Kershner writes this astonishingly ill-informed passage:

The case of Sheikh Jarrah also presents a predicament for some mainstream Israelis.

Yossi Klein Halevi, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center, a research institution in West Jerusalem, said he opposed a Jewish “right of return” to properties lost in the 1948 war. But he noted that more and more Arabs were buying apartments in the predominantly Jewish neighborhood where he lives.

“It cannot go one way in Jerusalem,” Mr. Klein Halevi said. “I am deeply torn.”

OK, let’s parse this.  First, you’ll note that Yossi Klein Halevi has become a “mainstream Israeli.”  This despite the fact that earlier in his life he was a leader of the Jewish Defense League, wrote Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist, and currently is a fellow of the Shalem Center, a Likudist think-tank funded by Sheldon Adelson and affiliated with such right-wing ideologues as Natan Sharansky.  Once again, this just shows how hopelessly biased and politically out of touch Times reporters in Israel are.  They are attuned to the group think fed to them by the government and its journalistic acolytes like Halevi.  But they cannot provide a nuanced account of many political issues.  Usually Kershner does better than Ethan Bronner.  But in this passage, she falls prey to his sloppiness.

Note also that the Shalem Center is given the honorific “research institution” without noting its Likudist orientation.

Kershner accepts at face value the preposterous claim advanced by hard-right supporters of the Palestinian evictions that Arabs can live in West Jerusalem and are buying apartments there (which is patently false).  In order to test Halevy’s claim you would have to know where he lives in Jerusalem.  If he lives within the Green Line his claim would be bogus.  If he lives beyond it there is some faint possibility that an Arab might be able to buy an apartment in a predominantly Arab Jerusalem neighborhood.  Overall, I find Halevy’s claim preposterous.

But even more than that, we’re talking about the Israeli government ‘legally’ stealing the property of Sheikh Jarrah Palestinians and replacing them with settlers who have even less claim to the property than the Palestinians.  Even if Halevy’s claim of Arabs buying apartments in Jerusalem were true, they would be BUYING them, not stealing them.  So if Halevy does believe in Israel being a democracy, any Arab should have the right to buy property anywhere in Israel including his neighborhood (in fact, they don’t).  The fact that he uses this supposed phenomenon to justify naked theft of Palestinian homes indicates how weak his attachment is to democracy when it comes to his Arab fellow citizens.

I also find it interesting that unlike most N.Y. Times reporters, Isabel Kershner’s name has no e-mail link so you cannot communicate with her directly through her published report.  It seems to me that this is a deliberate attempt to isolate this particular reporter from any readers who may wish to comment on her work.  Behavior I would expect from the Times’ Israel correspondents who prefer to maintain distance between themselves and readers.

In a separate comment on the Sheikh Jarrah protests, it’s interesting that they have re-energized the long dormant Israeli left.  Israelis liberals like David Grossman and Moshe Halbertal, who haven’t demonstrated on behalf of a Palestinian in years I imagine, are mentioned as supporters of this movement.  I know that some of my fellow progressive bloggers like Jerry Haber, Brant Rosen and Phil Weiss have been documenting the wonderful work done there.  I applaud this too.

The only reason that I’ve held back is that there is a tendency among progressives to read too much into a single political phenomenon.  We all would like to see a viable Israeli left.  But there simply isn’t one and no matter how wonderful the work supporting the Palestinian evictees is, this alone will not revive the left.  There are deep structural problems with the Israeli political system that cannot be fixed without radical change.  And Sheikh Jarrah, while it may lay the groundwork, cannot do it alone.  The left died for a reason and it will not come back to life unless it fixes or vanquishes what killed it in the first place.

Liberals like Halbertal and Grossman have a record of fleeing from solidarity movements with Palestinians at the first opportunity.  So I wonder whether, when they inevitably do, Sheikh Jarrah can maintain its momentum.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Rise of Radical Settler Movement

Friday, September 26th, 2008

Well, it only took the N.Y. TImes a whole week to acknowledge that settler assassins attempted to murder one of Israel’s most distinguished academic figures and winner of this year’s Israel Prize.  Better late than never.  But even in covering the story the reporter seems to minimize its significance:

…[It] created only a minor stir in a nation that routinely experiences violence on a much larger scale.

Another example of the sterling editorial choices made by the Times new correspondent, Ethan Bronner.  What could’ve induced Bronner to cover the bombing in a more timely fashion?  Should Zeev Sternhell have been killed to warrant coverage?  Another serious deficiency in the story was no background on Sternhell’s politics and why he would be a target for the crazies.

After getting that off my chest, let me add that Isabel Kershner, who wrote the story, actually penned a very telling and chilling piece about the rise of a new, even more violent and ideologically extreme settler youth movement in the Territories.  Those of us who go back far enough always thought the Yesha Council and the racist leaders it spawned were the devils of Israeli politics.  Who’d have thought that it could be worse?  That the next generation could be even more homicidal?

…The bombing may be the latest sign that elements of Israel’s settler movement are resorting to extremist tactics to protect their homes in the occupied West Bank against not only Palestinians, but also Jews who some settlers argue are betraying them. Radical settlers say they are determined to show that their settlements and outposts cannot be dismantled, either by law or by force.

Now…the militants seem to have spawned a broader, more defined strategy of resistance designed to intimidate the state.

This aggressive doctrine, according to Akiva HaCohen, 24, who is considered to be one of its architects, calls on settlers and their supporters to respond “whenever, wherever and however” they wish to any attempt by the Israeli Army or the police to lay a finger on property in illegally built outposts scheduled by the government for removal. In settler circles the policy is called “price tag” or “mutual concern.”

Besides exacting a price for army and police actions, the policy also encourages settlers to avenge Palestinian acts of violence by taking the law into their own hands — an approach that has the potential to set the tinderbox of the West Bank ablaze.

Hard-core right-wing settlers have responded to limited army operations in recent weeks by blocking roads, rioting spontaneously, throwing stones at Palestinian vehicles and burning Palestinian orchards and fields all over the West Bank, a territory that Israel has occupied since 1967.

…In Jewish settlements like Yitzhar, an extremist bastion on the hilltops commanding the Palestinian city of Nablus…a local war is already being waged. One Saturday in mid-September…scores of men from Yitzhar rampaged through the Palestinian village, hurling rocks and firing guns, in what the prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, described as a “pogrom.” Several Palestinians were hospitalized with gunshot wounds.

“To us, deterrence is more important than catching the specific terrorist. We’re fighting against a nation,” Mr. Ben Shochat said.

…Those on the extremist fringe — like Mr. Ben Shochat, who belong to the so-called hilltop youth — are increasingly rejecting any allegiance to the state

I was quite shocked by a N.Y. Times reporter actually using the settler name for part of the West Bank:

In Samaria, the biblical name for the northern West Bank…

Someone ought to tell Kershner that there is a political-rhetorical war going on in Israel and that she has just played, inadvertently one hopes, into the settler’s hands by adopting their name for this territory known to the vast majority of the rest of Israel and the world as the West Bank.

In the following passage the hilltop youth leader illustrates the anti-democratic, seditious nature of his enterprise:

“Amona [another forced settlement withdrawal] pretty much divided this public into two parts, the more militant activist part and the more passive part,” said Mr. HaCohen, an Orthodox hilltop youth pioneer and a founder of Shalhevet Ya. The people, he said, “have to decide whether they are on the side of the Torah or the state.”

When will the Israeli political and intelligence apparatus recognize this movement as an imminent danger not just to Israeli democracy, but to the state itself.  What would any other state do with citizens who seek to overthrow it by violent means?  And why isn’t Israel doing this?  Will we have to see a successful assassination of Zeev Sternhell before real, vigorous action is taken?

The problem is that the state is schizophrenic when it comes to this movement.  It views it with some nostalgia since at one time the settlements were viewed favorably by many Israelis.  The government is wracked by indecisiveness in the face of the enormity of the challenge presented by the Jewish terrorists.  To truly eradicate them would require not just a legal and police campaign–it would also require a real resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians.

The following passage illustrates yet again that this movement rejects the forms and authority of the Israeli state:

“To go out and assault soldiers is wrong,” said David Ha’ivri, who handles foreign relations for the Samaria council. But, he said, “It is to be expected that when force is used, there will be counterforce.”

When parsing settler statements you have to cut through the polite chatter to get to the meat of the matter.  Above, Ha-Ivri is not saying that assaulting soldiers is wrong.  He is saying that it is entirely justified when soldiers attempt to impose the state’s will on them.  That, once again, is sedition.

The state’s inadequacy in the face of such at threat is perfectly exemplified in this passage:

The army refused to comment on the effects of the price-tag doctrine, saying it was too sensitive.

When faced with the opportunity to tell the readers of the N.Y. Times what it thought of the hilltop youth and their violent extremism, the IDF punted.  How telling.  It reminds me of Yeats phrase: “The center cannot hold.”  The settlers are the rough beast slouching toward Bethlehem (or Hebron) to be born.  The beast must be slain, but there is simply not enough resolve or conviction among those in government or the military to do so.

Sometimes, one wants to throw up one’s hands and say that if Israelis cannot take their own fate into their own hands and make the bold decisions and compromises necessary to ensure their survival, then perhaps they deserve whatever fate holds in store for them.  I fear that their fate, barring the type of decisiveness I’ve called for, will not be pretty.

As a child of Rockland County, N.Y., I find it highly ironic that hilltop youth “chief ideologist” HaCohen was born and raised in Monsey, a few minutes away from the town in which I grew up.  To think that while I was growing up such hate was spawning only a few miles away…

Gaza: Truce Without Hope

Thursday, June 19th, 2008

It’s rare in the history of national conflicts that you see truces that are doomed before they are even announced. Truces where both sides denounce each other and practically predict its demise. So this truce follows the miserable history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A truce painstakingly negotiated between Israel and Hamas with Egypt as mediator. A truce which could bring peace to Sderot and Gaza. A truce which could open the border crossings and relieve the suffocation of Gaza. A truce which could free Gilad Shalit. That’s what it COULD do. What is will ACTUALLY do is probably something else entirely.

Here is retired IDF general Shlomo Brom and a Palestinian analyst uniting in their lament for the late, lamented truce that’s only just begun:

“It is a strange agreement,” said Khaled Abdel Shafi, an economist in Gaza. “Both sides are threatening each other. There is no sign of good intentions.”

In Israel, some officials suggested that the main purpose of the agreement was to give legitimacy to a future military offensive, so that Israeli leaders could claim that they had exhausted all other possibilities first.

“It could be the start of a new era, but it won’t be,” said Shlomo Brom, a retired general at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv who has long called for a dialogue with Hamas.

“Listen to their declarations,” he said. “Self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Kershner’s observation above is unfortunately right on the money. Within a month or perhaps sooner, the IDF will be rolling into Gaza to “flush out” insurgents and deal a “fatal blow” to Hamas terror. Equally unfortunate will be the disingenuous Israeli claim that they exhausted every option before resorting to force. In truth, they never gave the diplomatic option a reasonable chance and the military option is DOA.  A real diplomatic initiative would have included Gilad Shalit’s release, opening of the Gaza crossings, the freeing of Palestinian prisoners, and the inclusion of the West Bank in the ceasefire.  The Israelis were not prepared for a comprehensive ceasefire, which in turn dooms this one to the ash heap of the history of previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements.