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 ‘lebanon-war’

Lebanon 1982-Gaza 2008

Tuesday, December 30th, 2008
Gaza father and son mourn death of five daughters in Israeli bombing (Mohammed Salem/Reuters)

Gaza father and son mourn death of five daughters in Israeli bombing (Mohammed Salem/Reuters)

It’s deja vu all over again.

The following is an important historical tract written by one of Israel’s pre-eminent loving critics. I have changed a few words in italics to allow you to understand how clearly it deals with the current situation. See if you can figure out who wrote it:

It makes no sense to argue that the Palestinians fighting Israeli invaders in Gaza are terrorists. Yet it’s clear that even if we accept they are terrorists . . . the military suppression of 10,000 guerillas (or terrorists) who arose from the heart of a population of 1.5 million Palestinians will give us at most a tenuous five-year interlude, until the next generation of guerillas (or terrorists) is ready to resume the armed struggle. History tells us that the new wave of fighters will be more radical, better trained and more desperate.

Many of us, surely a majority of the Israelis, want the Palestinians to vanish physically from this region, want them banished from our presence. Nothing assuages our anguish better than to repeat [this] list to ourselves:

The crimes of humanity against the Jews.
The crimes of the Palestinians against Israelis.

When I have finished drawing up all these lists, I weigh and reweigh them . . . but once again the Palestinian emerges, each time a stronger and more defined outline.

We were told that Hamas would be destroyed, that terrorism would disappear, that the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza would submit passively to our authority…

…[Instead] we have returned to the ghetto . . . where survival meant knowing that the other hated us, meant defeating the other. Why has Israel, which was created to forget the ghetto, recreated it? And why is it that we have locked ourselves into a ghetto once again, waiting for the rich uncle from America to help us endure?

Yet if we add up all the triumphs of all the wars, including the present one, we’ll understand that in order to achieve that definitive security we so anxiously desire, we shall have to go halfway down the road that separates us from the Palestinians . . . we will be forced to employ our power to guarantee his security, without which we cannot guarantee our own.

…What keeps us fighting is not a war but a conflict over equal rights. A peace agreement won’t be enough. We’ll have to resolve the conflict over equal rights. And Israel has the strength to accomplish this.

…The plans of those whom we have attacked with such effectiveness and success during the entire week are never mentioned, nor what are the real threats (if any) to us. In this vast haze, they are the terrorists and we are left with the impression that each bomb hurled against Gaza lands on the head of some terrorist without ever affecting the daily routine of hundreds of thousands of the city’s inhabitants. Later, when we learn through the foreign press that almost 100 civilians were killed in the bombing raids, we are told that the terrorists sought refuge among them.

Who gave us the right to decide that those civilians must die because they did not know how or could not escape from the terrorists in time? Where did we get such omnipotence?

…[Regarding the Israeli criticism that Palestinian terrorists fight amidst the civilian population] In 1947, the terrorist Menachem Begin blew up the British officers’ club, killing 13 persons . . . Begin’s terrorists cached their weapons and grenades in schools, synagogues, under the beds of children. When a British patrol arrived unexpectedly at the home of a friend of mine who was a member of a terrorist group, he hid his pistol under the skirt of his aged grandmother.

From now on our tragedy will be inseparable from that of the Palestinian…Abba Eban writes:

“There is a new vocabulary with special verbs: to pound, to crush, to liquidate, to cleanse, to fumigate . . . It is hard to say what the effects of this lexicon will be as it resounds in an endless and squalid rhythm from one day to the next. Not one word of humility, compassion or restraint has come to the Israeli government in many weeks: nothing but the rhetoric of self-assertion, the hubris that the Greeks saw as the gravest danger to a man’s fate.

These weeks have been a dark age in the moral history of the Jewish people.”

The peace movement has lost a historic opportunity. A first step towards our own salvation would be assuming responsibility for what we have done in Gaza. I see no mechanism of conscience for the Israeli people other than the act of repairing what we have destroyed.

In Israel many people complain that this drama was exaggerated throughout the entire world. On the contrary, we should worry about its lack of impact . . . Amsterdam, New York, Rome, Paris and London peace militants should have tried to break the Israeli Navy’s blockade of Gaza, should have allowed their boats to be sunk by Israeli cannons. They should have proclaimed: “We’re all Palestinians.”

Thank you to Maher Mughrabi for once again pointing me to the wisdom of Jacobo Timerman, in this case written about the first Lebanon war in 1982 in The Longest War. How sad that they still ring as true as the moment they were written. How sad that nothing has changed, that Israelis–their generals and politicians–continue to suffer the same delusions. That the killing goes on unabated. Nothing is learned. Mistakes repeated.

As far as I’m concerned the Israeli-Arab conflict is Groundhog Day without the epiphany that finally allows Bill Murray to liberate himself from the slavery of repeating the mistakes of his life endlessly. In the film, Murray comes to understand that love, humility and appreciation for human frailty are the forces which free him from his shackles. Israel has not learned this lesson and I’m not sure it ever will. Which is why, like Sisyphus, it keeps rolling that boulder back uphill only to have it fall back down just before it reaches the top.

UN Demands $1-Billion for Israeli Damage During Lebanon War

Monday, September 8th, 2008
Before and After images of Beirut coastline documenting extent of oil spill (NASA Observatory)

Before and After images of Beirut coastline documenting extent of oil spill (NASA Observatory)

The chickens are finally coming home to roost.  After a failed war that ended up killing 1,000 Lebanese and 150 Israelis and caused billions in damage to both Israel and especially Lebanon, a partial bill has been presented to Israel by the UN:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will demand that Israel pay Lebanon $1 billion in compensation over damages caused during the Jewish state’s 2006 war against Hizbullah, Lebanese media reported Saturday.

According to the report the sum, based on World Bank appraisals, is aimed at covering the environmental and material damages caused by the Second Lebanon War to neighboring countries as well.

The fundamental part of the compensation demanded is for the damage caused to the Lebanese coast due to an oil spill following an Israeli bombing of a southern Beirut power plant, which the Lebanese said had caused “an ecological disaster.”

According to the report, Ban plans to submit a report to the United Nations General Assembly at the end of the month, stating that damage Israel caused to the oil reservoir polluted Lebanon’s coast, and that the pollution spread to neighboring countries, especially Syria.

…The oil spill, which was defined the greatest natural disaster in Lebanon’s history, took place after Israel Air Force planes hit a power plant and caused some 110,000 oil barrels to leak into the Mediterranean Sea.

The report said that the UN wants Israel to compensate the countries harmed by the oil spill and restore the environmental situation along the Lebanon coast.

By way of comparison, the Exxon Valdez disaster spilled 250,000 barrels of oil. The UN has basically called Israel the Joseph Hazelwood of the Mediterranean, with the only difference being the skipper of that boat didn’t set out to cause an environmental disaster while Israel arguably did. Or at the very least didn’t give a fig if it happened.

I’m pleased that an international body like the General Assembly will take up this matter. One can argue from the left or right whether Israel deserves to be brought up on war crimes charges for its behavior in Lebanon. But it’s much harder to make this particular claim into a political one. The damage was done and it is quantifiable. The author of the damage is not in doubt. The only item at issue is whether Israel can be made to own responsibility for this environmental crime.

Interestingly–and speaking of the Exxon Valdez–Richard Steiner, University of Alaska professor and environmental conservation specialist, makes a strong case that the Jiyeh bombing WAS a violation of the laws of war. But one needn’t even go this far in order to assign culpability to Israel for the disaster. Prof. Steiner also published an extensive report on the oil spill for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

I say this monetary claim is a good thing because the Israeli people need to know that war waged in their name which ravages an entire region will have a price not just in human life, but in cold, hard cash. And if Israel does not pay, then it will face the opprobrium of the international community not just for its military actions, but for the ecological disaster it caused.

If one thinks back, the last Middle Eastern leader to cause such an environmental disaster was Saddam, who blew up Kuwait’s oil wells. Does Israel want to be thought of in the same breath with him?

NOTE: I subsequently found a far more comprehensive and well-reported article on this at The National.

‘My First War,’ New Israeli Documentary on Lebanon War

Sunday, April 20th, 2008

It’s sometimes interesting to trace finding material for a blog like this. And in the geographic permutations you get a sense of how blogging has revolutionized the dissemination of information. I noticed in my blog stats that the Lebanese blog, UrShalim had linked to my post about Fadel Shana, the Reuters cameraman killed recently by an Israeli tank shell. On the same page as my post, Bashir had linked to a post from another Lebanese blog, YaLibnan, which republished a Washington Post story about a new Israeli documentary, My First War, portraying an Israeli reservist’s dispiriting account of his service during the 2006 Lebanon war.

So we went halfway around the world to find a story published practically in my own backyard. Amazing, but of course so par for the course that almost no bloggers would find it worth noting.

The Post recounted the story of one of the first Israeli documentaries about the Lebanon War written by a reservist grunt who happened to own a film production company:

Soon after war unexpectedly broke out on the border between Israel and Lebanon in the summer of 2006, Yariv Mozer, then a 28-year-old Israeli reservist, was called up to the front. With him, he took his rifle and his video camera…

Mozer, who owns a production company in civilian life and is a munitions officer in the reserves, said he did not originally intend to make a movie when he was called up. The camera was intended more for his own peace of mind, allowing him “to separate myself from the reality of war.”

But little did Mozer realize having his camera would engage him with that reality far more than he ever could’ve realized:

As rockets rained down from Hezbollah guerrillas and as Israeli tanks furiously shot back into the distant hills, Mozer kept the camera tied around his neck with a shoelace.

He videotaped as his fellow troops scurried for cover from incoming fire, as ambulances bearing the wounded raced to the hospital, and as disenchantment grew over a misguided battle plan that left the soldiers feeling, as one tells Mozer’s camera, like “somebody fooled us.”

The result, a documentary that previewed this month, is offering Israel an unusual chance to remember a war that it would rather forget.

And that is precisely what Mozer hopes his film will not let the nation do:

…Mozer and his fellow troops received conflicting orders, inadequate protections and an inscrutable strategy. The goal was to stop the rockets, but Hezbollah’s Katyushas continued to streak across the sky throughout the war’s 33 days. Soldiers slept in the open in orchards that could turn at a moment’s notice into fields of fire. Units were ordered into Lebanon, then hastily pulled back when they encountered the enemy.

While the war was ostensibly launched to save the lives of two Israeli soldiers who had been seized by Hezbollah, the troops that Mozer encountered expressed deep hurt at the lack of care that the military’s leadership seemed to show for their lives.

“Somebody sent soldiers to die,” a weary Capt. Reuven Saadon tells Mozer from the front seat of an armored Humvee as he drives back from Lebanon. “That is the clearest thing I can say.”

The film will no doubt drive pro-Israel apologists for the war to distraction since it recounts the experience of someone who lived through it first-hand. Such documentary evidence is hard to argue with–though no doubt they will.

Hezbollah Assassination Theories: Curiouser and Curiouser

Saturday, February 16th, 2008

Considering that Hassan Nasrallah just yesterday inveighed mightily against Israel for killing Imad Mugniyah and practically threatened doom on world Jewry, I don’t know what to make of this Haaretz story:

Syrian investigators probing the assassination of Hezbollah terror chief Imad Mughniyah suspect that “official security organizations operating in Arab nations” may have been involved in the incident, Hezbollah-affiliated Lebanese newspaper “Al-Akhbar” reported Saturday.

…”Al Akhbar” reported that several of the suspects arrested in connection to the killing were not civilians. On Friday, a Lebanese source said that the majority of the suspects detained by Syria in connection to the assassination were Palestinians.

Which Arab nations do the Syrians think would participate in such a killing? Lebanon possibly, which was part of the theory I advanced a few days ago in a post. The fact that some suspects detained were Palestinian is also strange and tantalizing. Is this a red herring? Why would any Palestinians, whose cause Mugniyah had served earlier in his career, wish him dead? Unless perhaps they are referring to Palestinians living in Lebanon, which might make more sense. Though I always thought of such Palestinians as being roughly allied with Hezbollah rather than opposed to it.

Why Leila Abu-Saba Will Not Mourn George Habash’s Death

Sunday, January 27th, 2008

Leila Abu-Saba is the extraordinary Lebanese-American blogger at Dove’s Eye View. I know her only through her blog and our various e-mail exchanges. But I feel we are brother and sister at heart.

Tonight, she has outdone herself with her anti-eulogy for George Habash. From my slight acquaintance with ancient Greek via the UC Berkeley summer language program, I can tell you a eulogy is a “good word” for the dead. Leila has no good word to say about Habash (which is why I call hers an anti-eulogy) except when she speaks about the beginning of his PFLP movement. But her words about Habash’s impact on the Lebanese civil war and subsequent Palestinian terror are profound, true, and only won through immense personal family suffering.

Leila’s Christian grandmother was murdered by Palestinian and Lebanese leftist militia during the 1985 sacking of her village in the civil war. Largely (though not wholly) as a result of this personal trauma, Leila has turned away from force and violence as solutions to the conflict besetting the Middle East. To paraphrase Paul Simon: Here’s to you, Leila Abu-Saba.

Yossi Sarid: ‘Israel Worried About Obama’

Sunday, January 13th, 2008

Haaretz features an interesting column by Yossi Sarid praising the U.S. primary system and elections. It’s an unlikely perspective considering how bizarre and exhausting it must seem to most foreign observers. But there is one particular point of Sarid’s essay–in which our primaries and the rise of Barack Obama encourage Sarid, because they provide for an injection of new political blood. Sarid, of course, is interested in Obama’s early opposition to the Iraq war and parallels this with the sad fact that no Israeli politician had the guts or gumption to do the same with the Lebanon war:

Nice things are happening now in America. While the election campaign is only just beginning and the fate of the candidates has yet to be determined, it has nonetheless been demonstrated: Timely opposition to war, and not merely in the shape of pitiable wisdom after the fact, is not a necessary and sufficient condition for defeat at the ballot box. Obama, for example, did not wait for the degeneration of the war in Iraq to reject it in principle. Therefore, it is not necessary to spring to attention and sing the national anthem the moment a Bush or an Olmert decides to wage a forbidden war. It is definitely possible to exercise responsible and independent judgment, and the general public is likely to absorb and ultimately reward this.

It is not yet clear whether Obama’s candidacy will come to full fruition, even though it has already produced early fruits. But the alarm bells are already ringing in Jerusalem: “Israel is worried about Obama.” The media reports: “Senior government officials in Israel fear his meteoric rise.” And the main reasons for this concern, it is reported, are Obama’s support for dialogue with Iran and his weak connections with the Jewish lobby in Washington.

Don’t worry. Anyone who is elected in America will maintain the friendship with Israel and treat it as an ally. But it would be a welcome change for the friendship not to be a blind one, and for the alliance not to lead to a mishap. It is worthwhile conducting talks with Iran, just as much as it is worthwhile conducting talks with Syria, just as it was worthwhile talking with Libya and North Korea. And it is not worthwhile dancing like a trained bear on every issue according to the tune of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) or the evangelical pastors.

If any Israeli politician is so obtuse as to worry about Barack Obama’s fealty to Israel they needn’t worry. But I think they worry about something else–that Obama will be his own man. He will do his own thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not necessarily be led by the nose by AIPAC or by an Israeli PM. There will be no plane rides over the Green Line like the one Ariel Sharon used to bamboozle George Bush into supporting Sharon’s view of Israel’s security interests. And thank God for that.

I don’t want to make the mistake of claiming that an Obama presidency would provide the break that many of us hope for from the conventions of past history in Israel-U.S. relations. He’s a politician after all and has many interest groups to satisfy not the least of which are American Jews and their conservative leaders. But I think things would be different from the recent past. I believe Obama as president would combine elements of Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush in his willingness to exert pressure on both sides for concessions. If he finds that negotiations with Iran or Syria are in the U.S.’s best interests, he will pursue them and not be constrained by ideological myopia as Bush has been. And this is what has the Israelis nervous.

Juan Cole Wins Brass Crescent Award for Best Non-Muslim Blog

Sunday, December 16th, 2007

Mazel tov to Juan Cole whose Informed Comment won the Brass Crescent Award for Best Non-Muslim Blog. The Brass Crescent competition acknowledges Muslim blogs. Juan has certainly done a great deal to improve the understanding of Islam and and the Muslim world in the blogosphere and beyond, especially through his dogged coverage of the Iraq war and U.S. Middle East policy.

Lisa Goldman won honorable mention in this category, which is a pity.

She recently wrote a Haaretz column about the police investigation of her trips to Lebanon to report there for Israeli TV. Lebanese journalists have been terribly angry at her reporting. The Daily Star attacked her use of a Canadian passport to enter the country and claimed that she endangered any Lebanese who had any contact with her or was interviewed by her during her stay. Nicholas Noe, publisher of the respected MideastWire news service, which is based in Beirut, wrote this to me:

…She put all of us at risk here, which was selfish and unethical… also her reporting was just plain bad, inaccurate etc – as were her subsequent denials, clarifications etc.

Although she does not seem to understand it, there is a war going on – and her government is very much involved as are people and groups here – which is why, perhaps, she is being prosecuted in her country. Indeed, if nothing else, she willfully put the state of Israel at risk.

On an even more basic level though, her risk-taking failed to produce good journalism. If it had, then maybe, maybe even the journalistic community here could at least think her effort was for a greater good. But it wasn’t. For some weak “reporting,” she endangered other peoples’ lives.

Unlike Nicholas, I do not approve of her prosecution by Israeli police. And I admit to not fully understanding all the arcane intricacies of internal Lebanese politics. I can see that she would’ve put people at risk of being seen as Israeli dupes if they participated in any way with her reporting. And such people, in a volatile political environment, could end up threatened or even dead. I can also see that if, God forbid, a militant group HAD kidnapped her we could’ve had another Alan Johnston situation. That indeed would’ve been horrible for Goldman, for Israel and for journalism.

I think the main point Nicholas raises which I agree with is the insipidness of her Lebanon reporting. If you’re going to take a risk, why not do so in a good cause? Say something important. Make some groundbreaking observations or analysis. She did none of this. She wasted whatever opportunity she had to be an Uri Avnery, a bold, iconoclastic journalistic presence challenging both Israeli and Arab political shibboleths. In fact, this was one of her arguments justifying the value of her reporting to the Israeli viewing public:

“Given that so many Israelis expressed pleasant surprise at seeing Beirut as a beautiful, cosmopolitan city rather than a war zone, it is obvious that we are not obtaining an accurate picture of life in Lebanon.”

You mean it took the intrepid Lisa Goldman to make Israelis realize that Beirut is a “beautiful, cosmopolitan city??” If so, then Israelis haven’t been let in a secret that the rest of the world has known for decades. But I doubt most Israelis are as insipid and ignorant about the region they live in as she implies that they are.

And for this she gets a Brass Crescent Honorable Mention and can brag that the Muslim blog world values her blogging?

Congratulations also to Raising Yousuf for winning a Brass Crescent Award in a separate category. Her blog, based in Gaza is always interesting.

Israeli Minister to Winograd Commission: Israel Expected World Community to Force War’s End

Saturday, July 14th, 2007

Former Israeli cabinet minister Ophir Pines-Paz testified to the Winograd Commission investigating Israel’s failure in the Lebanon war, about the leadership’s attitudes and expectations going into the war. If one didn’t know what actually happened during this war, one would react in reading Pines-Paz’s testimony with utter disbelief. Is it possible that an entire cabinet can approve a war without believing they are doing so? Is it possible a cabinet can initiate hostilities without taking any responsibility for doing so or for ending them? Is it possible a nation can initiate a war and expect the rest of the world will force it to end–and then to decide it must force the world to force it to end the war by using tactics so outrageous that the world would react in horror? All this and more is possible according to Pines-Paz:

Former Minister of Science, Culture and Sports MK Ophir Pines-Paz (Labor) told the Winograd Committee the cabinet did not discuss a diplomatic end-point for the Second Lebanon War, as it expected international pressure to force Israel to finish it within a few days, the Committee reported Monday.

“The leading diplomatic sources… gave us a working premise that we didn’t have much time to work with, and that we needed to act until we would be stopped – but then no one stopped us. This is what happened. Not only did no one stop us, they encouraged us, and we let this go to our heads,” the former minister said.

Pines emphasized that Israel was dragged into a war without actually deciding to enter one.

“I learnt of the Israel Defense Forces plans for the war from the media,” he also testified.

At a certain point the cabinet came to the view that they would have to “force the world to force us [to stop the fighting],” so Israel needed to hit hard in order to bring international pressure upon itself, Pines said…

The ministers were asked to approve a “meaningful, but limited [operation]. But absolutely not a war, and in no way a comprehensive, large-scale campaign,” Pines said.

One thing this proves is that certainly all the Labor ministers and perhaps the Kadima ministers as well were “had” by Olmert and Halutz. The cabinet played no oversight role whatsoever in any significant military decision. I find it incredible that a minister would leave a meeting not understanding he’d just approved a war.

Given this treatment, how Labor can continue to play footsy with Kadima by participating in the governing coalition is beyond belief. Certainly Labor is too weak to win an election and Barak’s refusal to bolt is based on a survival instinct. But at what cost in moral probity? Well, talking about morality is useless since Labor has long lost sight of such matters.

Can you imagine a government so paralyzed that once it starts a war it cannot stop it on its own initiative? If Pines-Paz is to be believed, Israel determined that the only way it could stop the war was by getting its allies to force it to end. Is it possible that an entire nation can be like a deer caught in the headlights, immobile and incapable of taking action on its own behalf? Of course, in Iraq we see an example of a president and Administration betraying such inertness. But at least there is a Congress willing to step in and replace Bush’s faulty judgment with its own, thus eventually bringing that war to a close. But Israel, to its detriment, has no such checks and balances. And in Lebanon it, and the Lebanese themselves, paid a terrible price for this.

What is, of course, deeply ironic about this is that Pines-Paz is one of the good guys. He resigned his portfolio rather than continue sitting in such a bankrupt government. He’s willing to tell Israelis, even if it makes him look bad, that Emperor Olmert has no clothes. But will any good come of it? Will anyone learn any lesson from it? Sorry to say, but that is doubtful.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE