Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Thanks to Magnes Zionist for this alternately horrifying and fascinating post about the ways in which Occupation bureaucrats manipulate and exploit Israeli law to further the ends of subjugating the Palestinian people. He ends his post with an amazing Times of London obituary of Plia Albeck, who was Israel’s chief government lawyer dealing with settlements and land issues in the Territories. If Raul Hilberg were to have spent his life documenting the Occupation instead of the Holocaust, Plia Albeck is the type of person he would’ve studied. She in effect made the Occupation’s trains run on time. If there was a need for a new settlement she came up with ways to take Palestinian land and magically transform it into abandoned land and thereby, presto change-o into State land:

PLIA ALBECK, an ultra-Orthodox Jew and key legal adviser to the Israeli Government, was the self-styled “mother” of more than 100 settlements on the occupied West Bank.

A legendary figure among the settlers, she would tour the rocky region, captured by Israel in 1967, by helicopter or Jeep, identifying areas to be designated state property for conversion into Jewish settlements.

“When I visited them I always felt like they were my children,” she once said. “There were more than a hundred settlements that were built because of my legal opinion.”

…Albeck, as head of the Civil Department of the State Attorney’s Office, determined that 1.5 million dunums, or 26 per cent of the land in the region, was state land that could be used for building settlements.

She thus became the legal architect of Israel’s massive settlement programme under the prime ministers Menahem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir in the 1980s. At her peak Albeck, rather than the Attorney-General, signed the documents that determined whether land was privately owned or could be taken over by the Government.

…During the 24 years she ran her department, she bore responsibility for the legal handling of land in the West Bank and provided the legal justification for the creation of settlements.

Albeck never considered the Green Line to be a legitimate territorial boundary and always granted the State peremptory power to appropriate whatever land it deemed necessary:

She began with the premise that any land that Israel takes is state land, and that the burden of proof is on the Palestinians to prove that it is theirs. Asked in an interview last year whether she had personally agreed with the policy she had executed, she replied: “If I had disagreed I couldn’t have carried it out. I never considered the Green Line sacred. It does not appear in the Bible. For the Arabs Jaffa and Haifa are just as sacred as Nablus and Tulkarm.”

Albeck, who was considered a brilliant law student, was expert at ferreting out useful legal stratagems that advanced the State’s interests, while clinging to the fig leaf of the letter of the law:

Albeck, who served with the ministry for 35 years, became a leading expert on the problems of purchasing land in Judaea, Samaria and Gaza. She utilised a legal mechanism relying on land once held by the Ottoman Empire to define many areas of the territories as state land.

The civil administration, under her guidance, conducted a survey of all the land in the West Bank that was cultivated and land that was not. Any land that had not been cultivated for ten years, or had been abandoned for three, was considered to be ownerless and therefore belonged to the State. Albeck saw herself as protecting the rights of Palestinian farmers, while at the same time furthering the Zionist enterprise by allowing the Government to build Jewish settlements.

Albeck’s undoing came at the hands of a Labor Party justice minister who objected to her claim that an MK proposing a bill to aid Arab victims of Jewish terror was being disloyal to Israel:

In 1993 the Labour Party Justice Minister David Libai dismissed her after she gave her professional opinion regarding a Private Member’s Bill, submitted by Haim Oron, calling for compensation for Arab victims of Jewish terrorism. “It is hard to get the impression from Mr Oron’s letter,” she wrote, “that the state of Israel is not precious to him and that he does not understand that as a Knesset member he is obliged to be loyal to the state of Israel.”

This is the story that caught Jerry Haber’s attention and in truth it would’ve made the great satirist Jonathan Swift, author of A Modest Proposal, blush with its sheer satanic brilliance:

On another occasion moderate Israeli opinion was shocked when Albeck advised the Tel Aviv district attorney’s office on how to respond to a Palestinian who sued for damages in 1991 after his wife was shot dead by an Israeli border policeman. Albeck said: “The appellant only gained from his wife’s death. When she was alive, he had to support her, but now he is freed from this obligation, so he has no claim.”

This is monstrous nature of the Occupation. Someone like Albeck undoubtedly slept well at night knowing she’d done well by her fellow Israelis in furthering the interests of the Occupation. She no doubt passed into the Next Life certain she would be sitting among the Righteous. But to quote a Lyle Lovett song: “Maybe God will forgive you, but I won’t.”

Finally, Jerry quotes this equally shocking report by Meron Rapaport about an IDF officer testifying against a Palestinian civilian incapacitated in an IDF shooting:

…At a court hearing on the compensation due a Palestinian injured by [IDF] gunfire during the first intifada [an] “expert witness,”…Moshe Elad, colonel (res.) and a former senior official…in the territories…testify[ied] on whether it was necessary to authorize someone to help the wounded Palestinian, Azem Daher…with his daily needs. Attorney Aharon Landgerten, representing the state, invited Elad to testify although he isn’t an expert on the Middle East or social work, and the last time he visited Jenin [where the victim lives] was a decade ago.

After you read this statement from Elad, you’ll perhaps understand why the IDF fails so miserably in its efforts to “pacify” (or even understand) the Palestinian population:

Elad was vociferous in his opposition to allowing someone to assist Daher. Elad maintains that “on the basis of his many years working in the territories” he has learned that “the code of behavior forbids” allowing a stranger, who is not a family member into the house as a caregiver because this “contravenes the norms of Islam.” He also said that when Palestinian men and women work as caregivers in homes for the elderly or in rehabilitation centers, they do this without their communities knowing about it.

…”A strange man, who would be in the home of the Daher family, will be immediately suspected of contact with a woman who is not his wife,” Elad writes. On the other hand, a woman who works in the family’s home may lose her chance to marry and may even “endanger her life because she may be accused of violating family honor.”

…Though he admitted not have been in Jenin since 1998, he insisted that he has “never seen a woman wearing pants in Jenin.”

Admitting that he is not an expert on the Koran, Elad said that his statements on the ban on strange men in the house is based on “religious rulings of Muslim scholars as far back as the 16th century…”

Dr. Mahajna [the victim's expert witness] challenged Elad’s conclusions, saying that in Palestinian society in the West Bank it is perfectly acceptable to have strangers as caregivers for the handicapped in private homes. For his part, Abu Hussein presented the court with statistics from the National Insurance Institute which shows that the law on nursing is applied within Muslim communities in Israel with nearly the same frequency as in Jewish communities.

Isn’t it interesting that Elad believes that current Palestinian social norms are governed by “religious rulings of Muslim scholars” going back as far as the 16th century. Did Elad bother to ask the victim whether his own beliefs and practices are governed by such rulings and how can he be sure that any caregiver who might be hired would be so constrained?

Jerry also notes that Elad apparently ignores the thousands of non-Muslims foreign workers perfectly willing to serve as nurses both in Israel or the Territories.

Is this the best that the Israeli government can do in attempting to abscond from its moral and legal obligations to the innocents it maims and kills in the Territories?

IDF-operated Caterpillar armored tractor bears down on lone Palestinian protester (credit: Stop U.S. Military Aid to Israel)

British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks is in the midst of a major row with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury over the Church of England’s vote to consider divesting its stock in the Caterpillar company. The U.S. heavy equipment manufacturer makes earth moving equipment used extensively by the Israeli army to destroy Palestinian homes. In an attempt to express its opposition to such degrading Israeli policies, the Church has voted to study the issue of divesting the company from its portfolio. One should also note that an IDF-operated Caterpillar tractor killed International Solidarity Movement activist, Rachel Corrie (who lived in nearby Olympia, WA).

I have to say that I’m uncomfortable about proposals for outright boycotts of Israel. But this action is morally and economically different. It singles out a specific U.S. company and sends a message that the world community disapproves of Israeli actions that involve collective punishment such as demolishing Palestinian homes (which are illegal under international law). Besides, such divestment does not directly affect Israel at all. If anything, it only effects the U.S. company.

Frankly, I’m not even sure how much impact such divestment will have overall. But it is a statement and such statements are useful. U.S. companies whose products are primarily used in Israel to produce suffering for Palestinian civilians should come under some form of sanction. Notice I said products which cause suffering to civilians. I have no problem with companies which provide products aiding directly in Israel’s defense from terror attacks (in other words those used in a defensive mode).

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks plays the ‘anti-Semitism’ card? (photo: BBC)

The Guardian describes Sacks’ position:

Dr Sacks called into question the Jewish community’s links with the church. In today’s Jewish Chronicle, he says: “The church has chosen to take a stand on the politics of the Middle East over which it has no influence…

The Jewish community in Britain has contributed immensely to national life, yet after 350 years we still feel at risk.

The vote of the synod … was ill-judged even on its own terms. The immediate result will be to reduce the church’s ability to act as a force for peace between Israel and the Palestinians for as long as the decision remains in force … The timing could not have been more inappropriate. [Israel] needs support not vilification.”

The italicized passage is yet another feeble attempt to play the ‘anti-Semitism’ card when someone criticizes Israel. Why should British Jewry feel under threat because a Church divests its stock in a company? Why should the Jews of Britain feel under threat because the Church criticizes Israeli policy toward the Palestinians? Has the Church rejected Israel’s right to exist? Has the Church stated that it’s primary sympathy in the Mideast conflict lies with the Palestinians? Emphatically not. So why do Jews need to feel threatened when they hear Israeli criticized especially in such a relatively mild way?

And if Rabbi Sacks believes that the Church’s action will have no influence over Israel’s actions why is he worried about it at all? Does he really believe that divestment will bring the anti-Semites out of the woodwork and make it open season on British Jews? Will divestment somehow encourage terrorism against British Jews? If he really believes this, then he’s being overly melodramatic.

The Guardian notes that it too was the target of Rabbi Sacks’ ire:

The article also accuses the Guardian of increasing the British Jewish community’s sense of vulnerability after last week’s publication of two lengthy articles by its Jerusalem correspondent Chris McGreal that drew comparisons between Israel’s treatment of Palestinians with the apartheid policy in South Africa. A delegation from the Board of Deputies of British Jews met the editor Alan Rusbridger to express concern that the articles would increase anti-semitic attacks….

Responding to the Chief Rabbi, the Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, said: “We published two pieces by Chris McGreal, which quoted many Israeli and South African Jews with differing viewpoints about a question which is hardly new. We have also published several commentaries and letters rejecting the comparison. I have not come across anyone who considered this was an illegitimate subject for a newspaper to address.”

To me, this is yet another example of the tremendous defensiveness of some Jews in the face of criticism of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. Here in the U.S. CAMERA and other such right-wing groups routinely call the New York Times, National Public Radio, and other national media ‘anti-Israel’ for offenses similar to the ones outlined above. The media are not anti-Israel because they report that Israel’s policies are criticized. They are not anti-Israel when they report on the ravages of the Occupation. They are doing their job. Just as the media are not anti-Palestinian when they report on Israeli victims of terror. They’re just doing their job.

We Jews seem to want a pliant press that praises Israel and denounces the Palestinians. We seem to believe that this is the only correct and moral position that any self-respecting media outlet could take. The myopia of this view never ceases to amaze me.

Bradley Burston writes convincingly in today’s Haaretz that Hamas‘ strongest and most convincing supporter in the upcoming Palestinian elections is Israel itself:

If it appears…that Israel is Hamas’ campaign manager in next week’s elections for the Palestinian parliament, few would argue - especially in Hamas.

And Israel’s campaign strategy, thus far, has worked like magic.

Everything Israel does…only bolsters the credibility of Hamas…

If Israel actually wanted Hamas to win, it couldn’t have helped it more.

Months ago, Israel declared with unequivocal conviction that if Hamas candidates were on the ballot, the election would not take place.

This granted Hamas renewed and authoritative recognition for its status as a continued bona fide arch-enemy of Israel. It served as an updated certificate of Kashrut to Hamas…

Israeli officials made it clear that Hamas candidates, even if they were on the ballot, would not be allowed to campaign.

It became clear at once, however, that there was no need for Hamas candidates to campaign. All they had to do was to wait for IDF troops and Israel Police to come arrest them - and in front of news cameras.

You couldn’t have prayed for a better campaign. Instant visibility, immediate name recognition,…high-profile resistance to occupation. Total credibility.

Everything Israel did, from assassinating Hamas suspects at a time when Hamas was…observing an Egypt-brokered period of relative calm, to issuing dire warnings of what might happen if Hamas were to achieve 30, 40, or even 51 percent of the vote, served to fuel the Hamas juggernaut.

Even the widely photographed masked youths throwing rocks at IDF soldiers in the Hebron market - who, while they resemble Hamas activists, turn out to be Jewish - may give a bit of a boost to Hamas. As carried on Arab satellite news stations, the images play on Palestinian hatred of settlers, Palestinian fears of domination and defilement of holy sites they share with Jews, and the Palestinian sense that even if soldiers and police beat, choke, wrestle and threaten Jewish demonstrators, they do not gun them down [ed., as they do Palestinian demonstrators].

All of this is well-argued and persuasive. But I’d like to take Burston’s analysis even farther: why isn’t it possible that Israel, in a most cynical sense, actually WOULD welcome Hamas doing well or even winning the elections? Think about it. There may be Israeli policymakers who believe such a victory would lessen the need for Israel to engage with the Palestinians in any sort of negotiations. Should Hamas become the dominant political force in Palestinian politics, then even George Bush would stop demanding that Israel negotiate in good faith (as Condi Rice did regarding the Gaza crossing) and perhaps even lessen his opposition to Maaleh Adumim-type encroachments of Palestinian territory.

Further, there is a decent chance that a Hamas victory would exacerbate the chaos and violence stalking the streets of Palestine today. Typical of this attitude is LGF’s Palestinian Civil War Watch, a hopeful title if you know anything about the anti-Arab dyspeptic views of this blog. If Israeli leaders DO want a Hamas victory, they do so because they realize that a nation at war with itself will wage less effective war against its enemy (Israel). Instead of recruiting suicide bombers for Tel Aviv, Netanya, Jerusalem and Petach Tikva, Hamas and Fatah will be saving those explosives for their internal enemies. I’d call this view the Apocalyptic Hope–that if Palestinians turn their land into a boiling cauldron then Israel will somehow benefit.

But like much of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians (if indeed this IS something they believe), it will not work. Just because your neighboring enemy descends into seething civil war doesn’t mean you will escape scot free. Did it ever occur to Israeli leaders that the warring factions may turn to terrorism against Israel with a vengeance in order to prove their bona fides internally as resistance fighters? Palestinian chaos cannot help but severely impact Israel. In fact, Israel already faces severe and serious social problems of its ownranging from political corruption to one of the highest income gaps in the western world between rich and poor (thanks to Bibi’s Thatcherite economic policies). Do you seriously mean to tell me that with Israel’s own problems of crime, social decay, lawlessness and economic/religious/ethnic conflict that seeing your neighbor self-immolating will help your own society?

I have no smoking gun saying my suggestions here are true and that people like Ehud Olmert and Dov Weisglass are implementing policies that will deliberately advance Hamas. But given the detestable cynicism Weisglass expressed concerning Israel’s “defanging” of American opposition to its Palestinian policies, I wouldn’t put it past the scoundrel to harbor similarly cynical ideas about Hamas’ “helpful” role in “defanging” Palestinian lethality against Israel.

And to those interested in learning about the collusion between Israel and Hamas from its inception, Burston makes another valuable contribution to the debate in a discussion of the latter’s early history:

it was the diligent efforts of a generation of Israeli military and political officials that fostered the rise of Hamas in the first place. In the 1970s and 80s, the Civil Administration and the Shin Bet aided the Hamas precursor the Muslim Brotherhood as a hoped-for apolitical counterweight to the radical Popular Front, Democratic Front, and the militias and terror operatives of Arafat’s Fatah.

Ray Hanania has also written a well-researched 2002 article on this subject, Sharon and Likud nurtured rise of Hamas and benefit from its terrorism
.

As I’ve written here, the first Israeli attempt to create a political alternative to Fatah was the Village Leagues, a group of village quislings meant to divide Palestinian opinion and weaken opposition to the Occupation. When this attempt failed due to its obvious brazen opportunism and lack of sophistication, it turned to the Brotherhood as a more homegrown religious opposition to Fatah’s secular nationalism. And Hamas has succeeded beyond Israel’s wildest dreams. And it has only itself to blame. Just as the U.S. has only itself to blame for funding and training Afghan mujahadeen fighting against the Russians, who in turn have turned their guns against us there and in Iraq. You reap what you sow.

And if Israel hopes to sow internal Palestinian chaos with a Hamas victory, it may reap a whirlwind of escalating violence within its own borders as well.