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 ‘occupation’

Iran: Israel’s Concocted World Threat

Saturday, March 10th, 2012

Scott Peterson recently published a comprehensive timeline for Iran’s nuclear program that charted not so much the actual progress of Iran’s supposed quest for a weapon, but the west’s, and in particular Israel’s shifting and endless series of revelations and predictions regarding it.  Israel’s movable dates for Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon take on the character of the predictions of Nostradamus or those of Christian millennials who announce the date of the Second Coming.  Another aspect of the millennialist world view that Israel’s shreying about Iran shares is a profound, almost religious faith in the certainty, not only of the prediction, but that the cause for which these predictions are offered is something close to sacred.

For the past several years, some would go back much farther and even say decades, Israel has orchestrated an ambitious, multi-layered campaign that included diplomatic and intelligence operations along with exploitation of American Jewish pro-Israel “agents of influence” (more on that below) designed to gin up an atmosphere conducive to war.  This was the subject of the secret documents I read, provided to me by Shamai Leibowitz, which showed Israeli diplomats ghostwriting anti-Iran op-eds for U.S. newspapers (see below), then Sen. Sam Brownback reporting to Israeli diplomats on an anti-Iran conference he was organizing (here is further evidence of Brownback’s continuing shilling against Iran), a Texas Congressman meeting with a local Jewish donor and Israeli diplomat, to whom the politician reported on Congressional developments that would further isolate Iran, and a senior Senate foreign relations committee staffer being briefed by senior Israel military-intelligence figures eager to warn him about Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

iranium movie

Promotional graphic for Iranium, produced by Clarion Fund. Part of the media war-hysteria ginned up by Israel and its right-wing U.S. supporters

Sheera Frenkel provided further background to this campaign in a piece she wrote (along with two other parts in a series) for McClatchy, in which Israeli leaders admit to the existence of this coordinated effort:

[During a press briefing, Israel's] Agent 83 fingered with care his model of what a potential Iranian nuclear bomb might look like.

The agent…was showing off the model to a group of foreign reporters…the third such time he had been asked to showcase his expertise in the second half of 2009.

“…I hope it is clear that Iran is working toward building a nuclear bomb,” he told the departing reporters.

Within days, accounts of Agent 83′s story appeared in articles across the U.S. and Europe — Iran had advanced technological understanding of the workings of a nuclear weapon. It was one of dozens of “exclusives” on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, the majority of which had originated with Israeli sources.

Such access to Israeli experts for international journalists has been critical to spreading Israel’s view that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. In recent months, talk of Iran’s nuclear ambitions has fueled the Republican presidential campaign, served as the backdrop for this week’s meeting between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and earned a pledge from Obama on Sunday that the United States would resort to military means if necessary to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

Israeli officials acknowledge that the widespread acceptance in the West that Iran is on the verge of building a nuclear weapon isn’t based just on the findings of Israeli intelligence operatives, but relies in no small part on a steady media campaign that the Israelis have undertaken to persuade the world that Iran is bent on building a nuclear warhead.

“The intelligence was half the battle in convincing the world,” an Israeli Foreign Ministry official told McClatchy…”The other half was Israel’s persistent approach and attitude that this was not something the world could continue to ignore.”

The official had recently returned from a trip to Washington and marveled at how the topic has become a major one in the United States. “U.S. politicians were falling over each other to talk about Iran,” he said. “In some ways, that is a huge success for Israel.”

…Shimon Stein, a former Israeli ambassador to Germany and former head of arms control at the Foreign Ministry, said that Israel slowly developed its outreach and media efforts on Iran over more than two decades.

“We were diplomatically actively pursuing the Iranian issue for decades,” he said. But the Israeli campaign moved into the public sphere five years ago when the Israelis decided they needed public opinion to also drive Iran policy. “Now it is a new ballgame,” Stein said. “Now we added extra resources to mobilize our government and also world opinion.”

…Coordinating media coverage, such as the Agent 83 briefing on the workings of the hypothetical bomb, was critical to that effort. Often such access was timed to take place before critical events.

In the year after U.S. intelligence agencies published a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that downplayed the Iranian nuclear threat, an unprecedented number of leaks over Iran’s alleged progress on nuclear weapons was released to the press. They culminated in reports published in Israeli newspapers that Iran had secret uranium enrichment facilities. In 2009…Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy revealed a yet-undisclosed facility at Qom.

Israeli officials also said it was no coincidence that a flurry of reports on Israel’s imminent strike on Iran filled the press last fall just ahead of a report from the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Guzansky said the possible Israeli strike leaks to the media were “an important tool” for the government.

“It is psychological warfare. You leak to get the enemy or your friend to think X or Y,” he said.

Frenkel finds Israeli officials who, though they acknowledge this Israeli perception management campaign, deny that its end goal was to attack Iran.  Here’s a perfect example of such disingenuousness:

Yoel Guzansky, who headed a department that studies Iran’s nuclear weapons program in the Israeli prime minister’s office from 2005-2009 and is currently a fellow at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies said…

Israel doesn’t want it to look like it is pushing the West toward a war with Iran. There are those that said Israel pushed the U.S. towards a war with Iraq, which is untrue,” said Guzansky. “Today regarding Iran, Israel is not telling the U.S. to attack. They are saying something more nuanced…

Any Israeli with half a brain in their head (and Guzansky is a undoubtedly a very smart man) who can say this after hearing Bibi Netanyahu’s Aipac speech, is either deluding himself or deeply cynical (or both).

Frenkel points out the invaluable assistance in this campaign played by what I called above, Israeli agents of influence, American Jewish groups like The Israel Project, which have an interlocking network with the Israeli diplomatic community here, and together pump out the same coordinated message:

As Israeli diplomats were working to convince governments of the Iranian nuclear threat, other organizations, such as the Washington-based Israel Project, were pressing the Israeli position with journalists and others.

Founded in 2002, one of the Israel Project’s earliest goals was to raise awareness on Iran.

“Our work — since the beginning — has been to encourage Iran to make a choice between their nuclear program and the things they want in the world,” said Jennifer Laszlo Mirzrahi, the founder and president of the Israel Project.

The campaign has been successful, she said. “In a year like this year, nobody can get elected without having a strong Iran policy,” she said.

TIP’s Iran “specialist” is Barbara Ledeen, wife of neocon uber-hawk, Michael Ledeen.  A further example of that interlocking directorate mentioned above.

When he was privy to secret FBI wiretaps of Israeli diplomats, Leibowitz even told me that the then Israeli deputy chief of mission in Washington, Jeremy Issacharoff, arranged for the Boston Herald to publish an op-ed ghostwritten by embassy staff and published under the name of Jeff Robbins, a partner in the Boston law firm, Mintz Levin.  Issacharoff is married to TIP’s global affairs director, Laura Kam.  Mintz Levin is the firm of which Cameron Kerry, an Aipac supporter and John Kerry’s brother, has been a managing partner.  Robbins in his newspaper and law firm bio touts his human rights credentials.  It’s always best to couch attacks on Iran not in terms of promoting Israeli interests, but rather promoting non-partisan values that we all can agree on, like human rights.  To be fair, a reporter who wrote about the Leibowitz leaks questioned Robbins about the newspaper op-ed and he denied that it had been ghostwritten.  All I can say is that Israeli diplomats quoted on the wiretaps saw it otherwise.

American and Israeli media outlets have been willing participants in Israel’s campaign.  They’ve published op-eds and news reports that breathlessly predicted global annihilation at the hands of Iran and advocated a scorched earth military campaign to subdue it. Even so-called liberal media like the New York Times and Haaretz have been victimized though willingly.  Remember the Benny Morris op-ed that argued Israel might have to pre-emptively launch a nuclear strike against Iran?  Morris, I remind you, is neither an expert in Iranian affairs or Israeli nuclear strategy.  Yet that was published thanks to the considered judgement of the New York Times op ed editor.  Such collaboration is really shameful and reminds us of the black mark that paper earned for its prominently splashing the “findings” by Judy Miller of Iraqi WMD.

In this sense, American Jewish communal leaders allow themselves to become willing collaborators with Israel in advancing its goals.  These Americans don’t see anything wrong with what they’re doing, because they’ve deluded themselves into believing that Israel’s interests are the same as America’s.  M.J. Rosenberg and other Israel critics call such people “Israel Firsters.”  While I’m sympathetic to the critical impulse behind such a term, it’s slightly off-target.  As I’ve just said, these people believe they’re advancing America’s AND Israel’s best interests.  But in reality they’re advancing neither’s, since eternal enmity between Iran and the west is in no one’s interest.

The $64,000 question is: has the Israeli campaign worked?  Has it achieved whatever Israel’s objectives were and are.  To hear this Israeli journalist tell it, they have:

Sever Plocker, a columnist for…Yediot Ahronot, wrote…that the Israeli media campaign had been a success.

“It seems clearly that the Israeli campaign of last fall, through which rumors were spread of an impending Israeli attack on Iran, has achieved its goals,” he wrote. “The Western statesmen grasped at it and used it to impose the ‘crippling’ sanctions on Iran that Prime Minister Netanyahu had already demanded two years ago.”

The judgement as to the success of this campaign depends on its goal.  If the goal is neutralizing Iran as a competitive regional threat or nuclear rival to Israel, it clearly has not succeeded (at least not yet).  If the goal was, as I’ve written previously, to distract world attention from other festering aspects of the Israeli-Arab conflict, then it has had much more success.  Many observers noted that in the speeches at the recent Aipac conclave there was hardly a mention of the Palestinians, a two-state solution or any related matter.  As a sort of pressure valve to release tensions around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Iran threat is highly useful.  The Palestinian demand for justice and an independent state pales in the face of the so-called existential threat posed by Iran not just to Israel, but (at least in the Israeli narrative) the entire world.

In the end, Israel’s campaign against Iran is largely manufactured.  Yes, Iran is a coercive society whose leaders are hostile to Israel.  But no, it does not pose an existential threat to Israel or anyone else.  The west has every right to demand safeguards regarding its nuclear program.  That’s one of the reasons it’s in the NPT.  It has a right to pressure Iran into providing them.  But Iran poses no more, and likely much less of a threat to world peace than India, Pakistan or North Korea, each of whom has passed the nuclear threshold in the past two decades.  Any talk about Iran as the world’s greatest terrorist state or the mad mullahs’ intent on incinerating half the human race, themes dear to the heart of Bibi Netanyahu and the Israel war hawks, is built on sand and illusion.

Finally, Juan Cole wrote a long blog post outlining the reasons western sanctions against Iran are morally wrong and will not work.  In his piece he wrote this about Israel’s propaganda campaign:

We saw…with Iraq and now…with Iran: a weak, ramshackle, ineffectual bogeyman is set up, like Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Americans are kept talking about the “threat” emanating from that country. It isn’t a real threat. It is manufactured by the Israeli intelligence agencies and promoted by their cells in the US.

…Israeli agents of influence attempt to keep Americans talking about anything but Israel’s own ongoing crimes against humanity with regard to the Palestinians. They have special success if the US goes into full-sanction, soft war mode against another country on Israel’s behalf. Now, instead of talking about Israeli predations against the Palestinians, we are being led by the nose by AIPAC and its many media allies to obsess about Iran.

Granted this is strong stuff.  Israel’s supporters have a right to wince at a few of the terms used.  But there can be little doubt that much of the criticism rendered above is warranted by precisely the sort of campaign Frenkel and I documented in this post and her article.

What isn’t warranted is this disgusting smear by Israel’s DC journalist capo di tutti, Eli Lake, who tweeted this memorable bit of vituperation and character assassination:

To progressives who still read @jricole you are being conned by a paranoid lunatic. This is spit flecked delusion…

Lake is the prototypical example of the journalistic Israel-Firster.  If you read him, it’s sometimes hard to see any division between Israeli and U.S. interests.  When he reports on Israel, his sources are invariably Israeli intelligence officials and those peddling a similar line.  Which wouldn’t be so bad if much of the information included in his reports weren’t so far-fetched and tendentious as to beggar belief.  He’s happy to quote the conclusions of his sources and never demands any facts or proof that underlie the claims (nor does he offer any to his readers).  I’ve written before about his flagrantly bogus report on the Eilat terror attack which is a perfect example of what I’m talking about.  When it comes to Israeli intelligence sources, if you trust religiously you will be burned consistently (though admittedly not as badly as Joan of Arc).  Lake, apparently, doesn’t mind being burned since the cause of advancing Israeli (read, Likud) interests is so dear to his heart.

Paul Auster’s Moral Ambivalence on Israel

Thursday, February 9th, 2012
paul auster and david grossman

Paul Auster and David Grossman at 2010 Jerusalem Writers Festival (Yoav Ari Dudkevitch)id

In light of the argument between Tayyip Erdogan and Paul Auster about the relative freedoms of Turkey and Israel, I thought it would be instructive to quote from a Hebrew language profile of Auster published (of all places) in Yisrael HaYom.  Unfortunately, the original interview was in English but the article was published in Hebrew.  A request to the reporter for the original English materials was (of course) unanswered.  So I’ll translate back into English the portions of the interview that dealt with Auster’s views about Israel:

Auster was nine months old when the UN voted in favor of the birth of the State of Israel…The fate of European Jewry after WWII occupied his family’s attention.

“I grew up on Israel,” he says.  ”Every day I went to Hebrew School in New Jersey knowing that a large portion of my lessons would be devoted to raising funds for the young state.  We were involved in planting trees and writing pen-pal letters to people in Israel.  We felt that we were part of the State despite the fact that physically we were distant from it.  We felt, young and old, that we were helping build an idealistic new place.  We were very excited by this.”

“I said that I was raised on Israel and in a certain sense, it accompanies me my entire life.  The connection is beyond the fact that I have friends and acquaintances there.  It’s possible to deliberate forever about the elements of Zionism and its foundations, but in the period of destruction that WWII left behind in Europe,  Israel seemed a very reasonable response both in terms of the remaining Jewish refugees and the world at large.

“I admit that I have mixed feelings about the Israel of today, because Israeli society has changed.  Israel was transformed from an idealistic state to a socialist state, but to date, it is a state within which there are far too many fundamentalist religious elements.  I don’t believe the founders of Israel would’ve foreseen that the state would become one in which the subject of religion would become so fateful and essential, in the future.”

What I remember especially from your conversation with David Grossman at the 2010 Writers Festival were your memories of your last visit to Israel in 1997:

“I visited Israel only twice, in January 1997 and May 2010.  What I saw in 1997 with my own eyes was difficult.  It was only a year after the murder of Rabin.  People in the streets were still in mourning.  The feeling in the air was one of great trauma.  The prime minister then as today, was Binyamin Netanyahu, a man whose views personally I do not share.     Nevertheless, Netanyahu signed the Hebron agreement, which signified a gigantic step in the political process toward the Palestinian people.  So there was hope.  People talked about things.  Besides I remember we stayed in Jerusalem and the streets were humming on Shabbat and stores were open and full of customers.

“On my second trip, the streets were empty and closed except for a lone café that remained open.  I traveled to Tel Aviv to see a friend and when I told him about this he said in typically cynical Israeli fashion: ‘Jerusalem isn’t a city.  It’s a disease.’

“The festival in which I participated at Mishkenot Shaananim was well-organized and there seemed a true hunger in Israel for artistic life and spiritual existence.  But from a political perspective I understand that people no longer know what to think, and don’t see any hope on the horizon.  One of the writers who participated in the Festival said to me, justifiably, that the sense was that Israelis live between despair–characterizing the left side of the spectrum, and denial–characterizing the right.  With very little in between.  The denial is intolerable, it can’t survive.  The despair too doesn’t elicit any hope.  So everything is a mess.”

Auster says that more than anything, he can’t come to terms with the settlers who arrived in Israel from the U.S.

“Many of the settlers came from here, even from Brooklyn.  This is subject that concerns me a lot.  Because most of them aren’t originally Israeli, but American fanatics who live in a Wild West fantasy in which the Palestinian are the Indians.  These people don’t behave rationally and because of this the situation is quite complicated.  This sort of irrationality also characterizes American politics: people so fixed in their ideas that they can only see the world in one way and never change their minds.  You can’t have any sort of dialogue with people like this.  Therefore you can’t create any relationship with them.  It happens in Israel.  It happens in America.  And it happens in too many countries in the world.

Though Auster speaks with great warmth and sensitivity about his relationship with Israel’s greatest living novelist, David Grossman, it’s clear that he has little more than an artificial sense of what Israeli life is like.  That’s why he can mouth platitudes about Israel being a secular democracy when it’s anything but.  For that young Jewish boy helping to plant trees in the young Jewish state, Israel will always be a secular democracy.  But for real Israelis living day to day existence in a state overwhelmed by ultranationalist fervor, there is little left of secular democracy but fumes.

In my first post about the Auster-Erdogan dispute I focussed on the threats to press freedom and free speech inside Israel proper.  Anat Matar has written about the same subject from a Palestinian vantage point.

While Auster certainly wasn’t thinking of this when he spoke about Israel’s alleged free press, he should’ve because these issues in the Territories are controlled by Israel and are a reflection of Israel.  It is common for liberal Zionists like the American Jewish author to see the Occupation as something apart from Israel.  If only Israel could end the Occupation or separate from it, then all would return to normal.  What he doesn’t understand is that the Occupation IS Israel.  It isn’t apart from it.

Here is how Matar describes the problem (translation by Sol Salbe):

A close scrutiny of the reports by Reporters without Borders shows that the organisation expressed its concern at the wave of arrests of West Bank and East Jerusalem journalists. Among others, these included the arrest Isra Salhab, presenter of a TV program about Palestinian prisoners, and the extension of the detention of Walid Khaled , editor of Filisteen newspaper…

Arrests of and injuries to journalists and photographers at the weekly Friday demonstrations are a common sight…Reporters without Borders has strongly condemned the violent manner in which the Israeli forces are treating journalists. Among other things it mentions two photographers — Mahib Al-Barghouti, and Hazem Bader – who sustained injuries in the face and legs while working. Bader, an Associated Press photographer, was arrested while covering a demonstration at the village of al Tawani , when a stun grenade exploded right in front of him. He is still suffering from multiple burns. Al- Barghouti was recently wounded while covering the weekly protest in Bil’in. Two bullets penetrated his leg, when he was in a different location and at some distance from the other participants in the demonstration.

The Committee to Protect Journalists has sent a strongly worded protest letter to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu about a month ago. The note protested about Israel’s violent attitude to journalists covering the events in the West Bank. This note as well contained a great deal of facts and figures on the administrative detentions of journalists, physical assaults and the persistent harassment of journalists while they are on the job.

One could…add the arrest and imprisonment of writers – Ahmed Katamish who is under administrative detention provides one well-known example – but it is not my intention here. My aim, as noted earlier, is to endeavour to pinpoint the origin of Auster’s blindness…

The point is that Auster, like many other intellectuals in the West, ignores everything that happens outside Israel’s formal borders – as if anything related to the never-ending Occupation has no bearing on the essence of Israel identity as a liberal and enlightened country. This is exactly what is always behind those who play innocent and deny Israel’s Apartheid situation…It’s true: if you resolutely ignore what is happening in the blood-stained front yard, you can truly rejoice at the freedom that characterises what’s inside the palace, where Auster hangs around when he visits the Holy Land.

In short, the situation in Israel is grim, much grimmer than Auster acknowledges.  Instead of seeing the situation for what it really is, he wears rose-colored glasses and talks about his “mixed feelings” about Israel and the “complications” that settlers cause.  The real situation has gone far beyond the point of ambivalence and complications. Israel is in a crisis.  It’s existence is threatened.  Not from without, but from within.  Settlers aren’t just a complication, they are strangling the secular democratic state he raised money for as a child.

My feeling is that soon the State of Israel, at least as we conceived it when we were young idealistic liberal Zionists, will be doomed.  I don’t know what will replace it.  It could be something far worse.  It could be something better.  But its fate hangs in the balance.  And Auster’s moral blindness hinders, rather than helps.

Tale of Sodomy and Torture in Occupation Prison

Monday, January 23rd, 2012

Haaretz this week noted that the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel has brought suit before the Israeli Supreme Court on behalf of a Palestinian torture victim.  Two police officers allegedly brutally abused their client in a prolonged police interrogation in 2007. After arresting him early one morning near al-Izarwiya, they stripped him naked, repeatedly beat him on every part of his body, kicked him, deafened him by firing a gun next to his ear, shoved a metal key into his eye, pushed his face into a substance smelling like insecticide, urinated on his face and the rest of his body, and for the torture piece de la resistance–sodomized him not once, but twice with a blunt instrument:

W. [the victim] claims he was punched all over his body, kicked, whipped with a coil and struck with a club. Y. was put on forced leave of absence from the police after the incident. W. also alleges that pressure was applied to his eyes, his ears were tied together until he bled, and a firearm was discharged near his ears. He was then sodomized with the use of a metal pole, he claims, and screamed in pain until the abuse stopped when a third person entered the room. W. claims that Y. then led him to a restroom and urinated on W.’s face and clothing. Y. initially denied this allegation, but after he himself was detained, Y. admitted that his urine had come in contact with the detainee, by mistake, he said. Findings from a medical examination of W. conducted some time later allegedly support the contention that he was subjected to violence.

This appears to be a tactic common to such police interrogations as Doron “Captain George” Zahavi’s IDF intelligence unit used on Mustafa Dirani.  Dirani has brought suit in Israel against Zahavi supported by a former guard in the facility who confirms the victim’s claim he was sodomized. In his blog, Hani Zubeida notes that the first threat a policeman in a case which is the subject of his post issued to a Palestinian suspect was: “I’ll fuck you in the ass.”

Haaretz calls one of the officers “Y.” and another is unnamed, while it names the victim explicitly.  Imagine that a Palestinian male victim is humiliated in the most damaging way a man can be in Arab culture, and reporter, Oz Rosenberg, decides he’s going to expose the victim, but not the perpetrator.  Who deserves to suffer shame here?  The victim or the police torturers?

Court documents identify the police officers, Yaakov Cohen and Rafi Cohen (apparently unrelated).  It’s a schandeh for wrongdoers to stand behind national security considerations and be protected from public exposure.  I want the world to know what they’ve done.

Cohen already has a pretty shady police record, as noted by Haaretz:

Y. has been the subject of two prior complaints over improper use of force that were filed with the Justice Ministry unit that investigates police officers. Both prior cases were closed, but he was found guilty on eight occasions of violations of disciplinary regulations.

The victim was incarcerated for a period of time during which military judge, Moti Schiff, held a hearing to determine whether to extend his remand.  The victim told the judge he had been sexually tortured.  The judge’s response: he agreed to extend his detention, but not, of course to investigate the claims of torture.

The Israeli prosecutor investigated the case and what do you think happened?  Guilty?  Not on your life.  The investigation was closed “for lack of evidence.”  Among the many miraculous excuses offered to justify dismissal was that no other police officers heard anything amiss in the interrogation room that night. For some odd reason the prosecutor failed to respond to an appeal filed against the dismissal of the case for a year after its deadline for doing so.

It should be noted that the victim is not a security detainee.  He’s a petty criminal.  Israelis will often find a justification for the use of torture in pursuit of terror suspects.  But this is a perfect example of the slippery slope down which you slide once you allow torture in any circumstance, even the most exigent.  From there, torture becomes standard practice in any case, even the most trivial.

There is also an Israeli rightist common theme running through reports like this–the need to bring sexual humiliation on Palestinian victims and their supporters.  I’ve noted many times here the use of rhetoric published by commenters here and elsewhere online, which includes references to homosexual acts and the like.  I’ve also reported here about incidents like the sexual abuse perpetrated at Anatot against female peace activists.  A number of the perpetrators also were off-duty police officers and all were settlers.  It should be noted the sodomy torture occurred in the Maaleh Adumim police station, part of an East Jerusalem settlement.

Occupation corrupts and absolute Occupation corrupts absolutely.

Republican National Committee Endorses Elimination of Palestine from Middle East

Friday, January 20th, 2012

Not only does Newt Gingrich believe there’s no such thing as a Palestinian people, the Republican National Committee does as well.  That mean that 20 years of bipartisan agreement between political parties and the foreign policy of presidents both Republican and Democratic, has been overturned by a resolution passed by the RNC last week.  Mitchell Plitnick reports that a nice, blond-haired white Christian Republican lady from South Carolina has dipped her toe in the deep waters of U.S. Middle East policy and suddenly become expert enough at it to topple long-term consensus.  Here’s what Cindy Costa came up with as the Party’s new approach:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of this body support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others; and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.

You’ll notice a number of things about this piece of pro-Israel brilliance: Palestine?  Nowhere to be found.  Two states?  Ditto.  Occupation? Ditto.  Mitchell is right in noting that it essentially posits a one-state solution.  The only thing it doesn’t do is decide what to do with the millions of Palestinians living in what used to be known, before the Republicans did away with it, the Occupied Territories.  Do you expel them outright or merely force them to live in an apartheid state?

Now that the Republicans have endorsed the one-state solution, maybe we should all stop pining for the days of two-states and start devising what sort of Israel should exist in the context of this “united Israel.”  Certainly not the one Mrs. Costa imagines, in which there either are no Palestinians or they exist somewhere at the margins of society.  No, all Palestinians must be given full equality, rights and citizenship within this grand unitary state of Israel.  We also must face the prospect that these Palestinian Arabs will likely outnumber Jews within a relatively short period of time.  They might indeed eventually assume political control in a coalition with or even without Jewish support.

The rights of the minority will be protected in that event by a constitution (hopefully), so Jews needn’t worry about their rights being trampled as Jews did to Palestinians when the former were in the majority.  Thus we have to put it to the Netanyahus and RNCs of the world: what type of Israel do you want?  One that eventually will have a Palestinian majority?  Or one that will exist alongside Palestine and possibly have the opportunity to retain a Jewish majority for a much longer period of time (I’m articulating this according to their perspective and values)?

The wording of the full resolution, which can be read at Plitnick’s blog, is a paean to Christian Zionist theology, waxing eloquent about Israel’s God-given right to all the territory granted to Abraham in the Bible.  It even quotes Scripture to seal the deal.  The only thing it doesn’t do is specify how many Jews will be killed before the Rapture in order to ensure the Second Coming of Jesus Christ back to the Holy Land.

Santorum: West Bank Residents All ‘Israeli,’ No Such Thing as Palestinian; Arabs Attacked Israel ‘Aggressively’ in 1967

Thursday, January 5th, 2012

Rick Santorum gave several Iowa audiences last week a wow of a tutorial on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (here is the NYT’s take). Among the other fairy tales he spun, was that all the residents of the West Bank are “Israeli.” Those who call themselves Palestinian aren’t, because there is no such thing; and Israel “owns” the land by dint of war and conquest.

This, of course flies in the face of current Israeli and U.S. policy which recognizes, at least nominally, a future Palestinian state.  Not to mention that it creates a wee, small problem of what to do with the non-Palestinian (under his terms) “Israelis” who don’t consider themselves Israeli.  What would you do?  Consign them to be perpetual invible people in this Greater Jewish State?  Expel them?  You certainly couldn’t treat them as “Israeli” as Santorum infers, since that would confer citizenship on them and an eventual non-Jewish majority inside Israel.  You could conceivably have two categories of “Israeli.”  The “good” Jewish ones, and the less good non-Jewish ones.  The latter presumably would have a status inferior to citizenship, perhaps akin to that of a South African bantustan.  Or you could just send ‘em packing back to wherever the hell they came from (destination TBD).

Santorum also appears to create a new category under international law, “ownership by conquest.”  According to him, any nation that conquers any territory of another is entitled to ownership through war.  In this fashion, he likens Israeli “ownership” of the West Bank to the U.S. conquest of Mexican territory in the 19th century.  According to his claim, if we wouldn’t return Texas to Mexico why should Israel return the West Bank?

It almost goes without saying that Santorum is endorsing a one-state solution, in which Israel would be the only state between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, and Palestinians would disenfranchised and/or stateless.

An equally interesting part of Santorum’s historical framework for understanding Israel’s relationship with the Arabs is the false notion that Israel was attacked “aggressively” by “the Jordanians” in 1967 (he’s confusing the 1967 War with the 1948 War, but no matter, what’s a small historical error among friends?).  That of course makes Israel’s subsequent conquest and “acquisition” of the West Bank legitimate, since Israel merely defended itself and only expanded its territory to create more defensible borders.

Apparently the new presidential flavor of the month hasn’t considered Hitler’s similar “acquisition” of Poland, Austria, France, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Belgium, Norway and half of the Soviet Union during WWII.  I suppose by his logic we had no business fighting a war to undo that territorial conquest.

Those who are gluttons for punishment or more Santorum nuttery, may watch yet another video manifestation of his historical inerrancy here.

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.

Whorin’ and Schnorrin’ Jesse Jackson Jr.-Style

Thursday, August 18th, 2011

I’ve been keepin’ a list and checkin’ it twice to find out whose been especially naughty in joining the Aipac junket to Israel.  81 Congress members participated, marking the participation of an unprecedented 20% of the entire body in a single month’s worth of trips to the Holyland.

With the help of readers and other activists I’ve now identified 52 junket-goers with another 29 left to go.  If you know of any new names please add them in the thread below.

Tonight, I especially wanted to focus on participation of the Congressional Black Caucus in the trip.  At least six members went including Jesse Jackson Jr.  One of them, Hank Johnson, ran against and defeated one of Aipac’s nemeses, Cynthia McKinney, largely with the help of funds from pro-Israel Jewish donors.  You can be damn sure the only reason these people are on this trip is because they lust for the campaign cash that will be coming their way from donors affiliated with Aipac.

Jesse Jackson Jr. is richly repaying the $8,000 Aipac invested in his trip with this fawning pro-Israel op-ed published in today’s Jerusalem Post.  It’s so fulsome in its praise of the Jewish state that one even questions whether it could’ve been drafted for him by an Aipac staffer.  I note that Jackson eschews terms like “junket” to describe his Israel visit.  It was, instead, a “fact-finding trip.”  I can tell him a few facts he missed: he never visited Gaza or spoke with anyone from Hamas.  I seriously doubt he met with any Israeli-Palestinians either; or any leaders of the J14 social justice movement which has swept Israeli society of late.  Can you imagine the son of one of America’s greatest civil rights leaders visits Israel and misses out on that country’s foremost social justice movement?  How could Jackson let that happen?

The gist of the JPost piece is that the only way for the Palestinians to gain true success in their quest for justice is to swear off violence and embrace non-violence.  Which is all well and good if you’re fighting for civil rights in Alabama in 1967, since the only weapons used against you were German shepherds and fire hoses (with the rare assassination thrown in for purposes of intimidation).  Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson’s dad never had to face F-16 jets and Apache attack helicopters in their day.  If they had, I’d guess they’d have had to adopt a different set of tactics to gain their freedom.

Jackson Jr. argues that the Palestinian aim of bringing its call for statehood to the United Nations will not only fail due to a U.S. veto (a particularly wrong-headed conclusion on his part), it will lead to violence, which can only harm the Palestinian cause.  A funny thing though–I never heard Jesse Jackson offer any help, support or advice to the Palestinians before he took this little junket on Aipac’s dime.

Astonishingly, Jackson levels his gunsite at one of Fatah’s most significant leaders, Marwan Barghouti, singling him out for criticism because he has warned the U.S. it will be making a big mistake if it rejects Palestinian statehood (and we should keep in mind that a two-state solution is a centerpiece of U.S. policy).  Further, Barghouti has the ultimate chutzpah of co-opting the rhetoric of the U.S. civil rights movement in calling for a “million man march” by Palestinians and their supporters against Israel after statehood is rejected.

Here is Jackson maligning the Fatah leader’s credibility in particularly hollow terms:

Does a convicted terrorist who has used violence in the past, and has not ruled out its use in the future, really have the moral authority and credibility to advocate a nonviolent march and be believable?

Jesse Jackson Jr. is certainly not an ironist.  Were he, he’d notice that Marwan Barghouti is in a prison cell much like the one Martin Luther King sat in in Birmingham in 1962.  And just as MLK and Jackson’s father faced persecution by the FBI and other bastions of white power in the south, so Palestinian leaders like Barghouti suffer fates even harsher.  Besides, what does a Black politician from Chicago know about Palestine or Palestinians?  The answer: he knows what he’s told to know.  And you know who tells him what he knows?  His rich pro-Israel Jewish friends in Chicago who are filling his campaign coffers.

An even deeper irony is this passage from the Black Congressmember’s op-ed, quoting one of Israel’s true heroes of the civil rights struggle:

…According to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the PA is preparing for unprecedented “bloodshed on a scale we haven’t yet seen.”

Since when does Jesse Jackson Jr. quote the Israeli equivalent of David Duke with a straight face?  Does anyone find this as repulsive as I do?  Not to mention, how the hell does Avigdor Lieberman know what will happen in September?  How does he know whether the Palestinians will storm the Qalandiya checkpoint as he foretells?

The writer heralds the courage of Bibi Netanyahu’s going to extra mile for peace in this ‘touching’ passage:

In our meeting with Netanyahu – and remembering the risk for peace that Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin took, that Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat took – I asked him what he was willing to risk for peace. He said it would make his security very uncomfortable, but that he was willing to go to Ramallah to talk with Abbas.

What was Bibi willing to risk for peace?  Return to 67 borders?  Sharing Jerusalem?  Right of Return?  Nah.  He was willing to take a ride to Ramallah to chew the fat with his good friend Mahmoud.  That’s it.  And Jackson believes this is–what?  Serious?  Apparently so, as he calls Bibi’s willingness to talk a “nonviolent step for peace.”

The sheer ignorance of the following passage will certainly drive Palestinian human rights activists around the bend:

…If the Palestinians abandoned violence, launched a nonviolent active resistance movement and established a demonstrated history of nonviolent struggle against their occupation, it would inevitability change the view of the Palestinian struggle in the court of world opinion, strengthen the cause of Palestinian statehood and speed up the day of its realization…

If they abandoned violence?  What does he think the average Palestinian is doing?  Sitting in his basement making IEDs?  Has Jackson ever heard of Bilin?  Why didn’t he take a trip to join their non-violent struggle against Israel’s Separation Wall?  Where is this champion of human rights and dignity when you need him?  Sitting in a fancy Tel Aviv conference room getting snowed by Bibi, that’s where.

When I read the phrase “speed up the day of its realization” it recalled the gradualists of the civil rights eras who urged Blacks to go slow, wait patiently for their betters to straighten things out on their behalf.  Did Jesse Jackson Sr. or MLK stand for such bulls(^t?  No, they rejected it out of hand.  Yet Jesse Jackson Jr. gives Palestinians precisely such advice, and with a straight face.

Can you tell me where in this statement is there any recognition of the furious onslaught of the Israeli military machine against Palestinians:

Clearly the historical and ongoing bad experiences of African Americans in the US, and the past experiences and continuing occupation of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza by Israel, are both wrong, but the path of hate, terrorism, rockets, missiles and even throwing rocks in hatred is not the path to a lasting peace or greater justice, or the path to statehood in the relatively near future.

Where is there any demand that the Israelis do anything for peace, let alone adopt non-violence?  Can Jackson point me to a single statement he made asking the IDF to forswear its weapons of violence and hate used every day against Palestinians, many of them civilians?

All I can say is:  Jesse Jackson Jr., you are an embarrassment to every principle held dear by your people for the past 60 years of struggle for human dignity.  You are an example of the barrenness and bankruptcy of the leaders like you who’ve abandoned the dream in return for Aipac lucre.  What do you stand for?  How can you be so abysmally ignorant of the Palestinian cause and write such Aipac-scripted junk?

The following is the most up to date list I have of those participating in Aipac’s Israel junket:

Mo Brooks R-5 AL
Eric Cantor R-7 VA
Russ Carnahan D-3 MO
Tim Scott R-1 SC
Gus Bilirakis R-9 FL
Dennis A. Ross R-12 FL
Steve Chabot R-1 OH (went last month)
David Cicilline D-1 RI
Jeff Duncan R-3 SC
Stephen Fincher R-8 TN
Erik Paulsen R-MN
J Randy Forbes R-VA
Yvette Clarke D-11 NY
Mark Critz D- 12 PA
Scott DesJarlais R- 4 TN
Chuck Fleischman R-3 TN
John Garamendi D-10 CA
Ron Kind D-3 WI
Kay Granger R-12 TX
Michael Grimm NY-13
Janice Hahn D-36 CA
Jaime Herrera Buetler R-3 WA
Mazie Hirono D- 2 HI (unconfirmed)
Steny Hoyer D-5 MD
Jesse Jackson Jr. D-2 IL
Patrick Meehan D-7 PA
Kevin McCarthy CA-22
Gwen Moore D-4 WI
Bill Owens D-23 NY
Steven Palazzo R-4 MS
Ed Perlmutter D-7 CO
Tom Price R-6 GA
Peter Roskam R-6 IL
Loretta Sanchez D-47 CA
David Schweikert R-5 AZ
Adam Smith D-9 WA
Steve Southerland R-2 FLA
Betty Sutton D-13 OH
Scott Tipton R-3 CO
Allen West R-22 FL
Frederica Wilson D-17 FL
Kevin Yoder R-3 KS
Kathy Castor D-11 FL
Terri Sewell D-7 AL (not confirmed)
Anne Marie Buerkle R-25 NY
Judy Chu D-32 CA
Hank Johnson D-4 GA
Bob Dold R-10 IL (unconfirmed)
Blake Farenthold R-27 TX
Mike Fitzpatrick R-8 PA
Tom Reed R-29 NY
Kevin McCarthy R-22 CA

More IDF Lies about Bilin Abu Rahme Killing

Thursday, January 20th, 2011
jawaher abu rahme killed by idf

Jawaher Abu Rahme's mother holding picture of daughter killed by IDF (Gil Yochanan)

After trying four or five previous sets of lies to absolve themselves of responsibility for killing Jawaher Abu Rahme during a weekly Bilin demonstration a few weeks ago, the IDF now has a story and they’re sticking to it.  It appears that despite the fact that the army’s own doctors warned in 2004 that the U.S.-manufactured CS gas could be lethal if inhaled at a high-enough exposure, it wasn’t CS that killed her, but incompetent medical treatment.

Yes, a woman stricken at a Bilin demonstration where CS gas is used every week, taken by an ambulance driver to whom she said that she’d inhaled tear gas, to a hospital which regularly treats such victims, instead of treating her for CS, treated her instead for phosphorous fertilizer and nerve gas poisoning.

According to the IDF anonymous (naturally) source, Jawaher inhaled only an infinitessimal amount of gas because she wasn’t even at the demonstration.  Of course the IDF hasn’t thought to explain if she’d inhaled only a minimal amount of CS, why would she need to call an ambulance and be taken to the hospital?

C’mon, this doesn’t even pass the smell test.  Why would a Palestinian hospital treat a patient for nerve gas when the IDF doesn’t use nerve gas against demonstrators?  These people are shameful, an embarrassment to humanity.  They smear the memory of a poor, dead girl whose brother they’ve already killed in cold blood.  Have they no shame, at long last have they no shame?

Read this for more background on the tragedy and a refutation of the IDF’s tissue of deceit.