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 ‘palestinian statehood’

France, Britain, Columbia, Bosnia to Abstain on Palestinian Statehood Vote

Saturday, November 5th, 2011

Most people concerned with the UN Secuity Council’s upcoming vote on Palestinian statehood have been focussing on the number 9.  Nine votes are required to pass a resolution and if it receives that many, a member may then veto the resolution.  Apparently, if Palestine fails to secure the nine votes (which would be followed by a U.S. veto), it is unlikely the General Assembly would then take up the matter.  This is what the U.S. hopes as it wishes to avoid the embarrassing phenomenon of vetoing a resolution supporting a policy it purports to support (Palestinian statehood).  With the statehood bid supposedly dead, the Obama administration would breathe a sigh of relief that it, and its ally Israel, had dodged a bullet.

But there is another eventuality few have considered and which could be almost as embarrassing.  Until now, the U.S. seemed assured of getting the No votes of its traditional allies on the Council, France, German and Britain.  But France has announced it will abstain and a BBC foreign editor tweeted yesterday night and the Telegraph reported that the UK will also abstain.  According to the latter, Colombia, another traditional U.S. ally will also abstain.  It appears likely that Bosnia too will abstain.  That means that Palestine will likely get 8 Yes votes and the U.S. will have a total of only three No votes.  In other words, only two other nations on the Council will likely join us in casting our vote.  I’d say that’s pretty damn pathetic.

The question now is whether German will as well.  If it does, it leaves the U.S. practically alone on the Council in voting No.  It will still mean the vote will likely fail, but it will be tremendously embarrassing that we couldn’t even carry our allies with us on this one.  If you are German, please urge your government to either vote Yes or at the least abstain.  In my view, an abstention is a tacit vote in opposition to the U.S. campaign against a Palestinian state.  Eight votes in favor and three opposed should tell the U.S. something and be yet another nail in the coffin of our bankrupt foreign policy regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict.

State Department Flack Tacitly Concedes U.S. Opposition to Palestinian UNESCO Membership Stems From Protecting Israel

Monday, October 31st, 2011

IMPORTANT: I urge all my readers to make as generous a gift as you can to UNESCO to express your disgust with Obama administration policy toward the organization.  Support UNESCO when Obama deserts it.  I must say the organization makes it difficult to contribute.  You can only donate to three specific programs at this link and you have to register to do so.  I’ve found links to specific programs (and the children’s program here) within UNESCO to which you may donate.  But I haven’t found any way to do so directly to the overall organization.  If any readers know how to do this please let me know.

Reporter Matt Lee sticks it to State Department spokesflack Victoria Nuland (who is married to neocon analyst Robert Kagan) as she argues that U.S. opposition to the Palestinian bid for UNESCO membership and our immediate defunding of that body arises from our concern for a “rise in tension” it would cause.  After Lee repeatedly asks her what “tension” the vote creates except Israeli anger, she ends the interchange charging him with mounting a “polemic.”  In other words, she has just tacitly conceded that the only reason we oppose UNESCO membership is because it pisses off the Israelis.

Once or twice during the questioning a frozen smile creeps across her face–or I should say flickers on her lips.  It’s not really a facial smile, but rather an almost involuntary grimace that mimics a smile.  Really scary.  A mirror into the mind–though a jumbled, obtuse one it must be.

Among the other sophistries she tried to pass off were a claim that the membership bid would deflect from the goal of creating a Palestinian state; that the U.S. continues to support creating such a state; and that it continues to support UNESCO.

Of course, if you continue as a member of such a body after turning off 22% of its budget, you’re not going to be considered a member in good standing and your influence will decline dramatically.  This of course will hurt U.S. interests and the greater values that we’re promoting by belonging.  To say you support an organization after shutting off the spigot is a mite hypocritical.

Important to note that all the U.S. could muster in the vote was 12 other countries opposing the membership bid.  Twelve.  Over 100 countries defied us and Israel.  As Matt Lee says in the video, this should be telling us something.  100 other countries think the main tension caused in this conflict is by Israel, not Palestine.  Twelve agree with us.

Also, the U.S. claim that it supports a Palestinian state when it has now taken three decisively hostile votes against such a state within the UN framework (veto of the anti-settlement resolution, threatening a veto of a Security Council statehood resolution, and defunding UNESCO) are dramatic contradictions of our statements.  I’ve always believed that to know a politician’s true values you watch the way he votes, not what he says.  The same is true in international affairs.  We’ve flown our true colors today despite the white lies offered by Victoria Nuland.

U.S. policy is seriously off-track.  It is totally skewed toward Israel at a time when the rest of the world is moving in a diametrically opposite direction.  Though Obama has prided himself on a return to multilateralism in the aftermath of the fiasco of Bush era foreign policy, we are moving precisely in the direction of unilateralism in our relations with the Palestinians and Arab states supporting it.  We’ve seen the disaster that is unilateralism.  How can we return to it?  This is becoming a slow motion train wreck.  You see the train coming.  You see the eyes of the engineer and the brake handle right in front of him which he can’t or won’t grasp.  What’s going wrong?  Can’t he see disaster ahead?

Now the fun begins in earnest.  The Congressional chicken hawks will be screaming for us to cut off the PA and Israel will be considering sanctions as well.  Guys, I’ve got a few brief words for you: IT WON’T WORK!  Palestine has been financially destitute before.  Sure, it will hurt.  But the truth is that Israel has stifled the Palestinian economy, which might stand on its own without Israeli interference.  So the blame has always been upon Israel for a relatively stagnant economy.  The blame will still be on Israel, and now the U.S., when they shut off the tap.  Let’s be sure to show the world the pictures of the babies doing without medical care and proper nutrition from this anticipated aid cutoff.  Let’s show the world pictures of former UNESCO programs cancelled or curtailed due to U.S. obtuseness in enforcing a 20 year old law which violates stated U.S. policy recognizing a two state solution.

Will U.S. Destroy UNESCO to Stop Palestinian State?

Sunday, October 23rd, 2011

unescoPalestine, UNESCO, and the U.S. are on a collision course.  It will be instructive to see which one blinks first.  U.S. law calls for cutting funding for any UN body that supports a Palestinian state.  UNESCO is poised to do so this week.  If it does, the U.S. would be forced to withhold its contribution equal to 22% of the organization’s annual budget, $70-million.  Doing so would cripple it, forcing it to curtail international aid programs that support U.S. values throughout the world including in third-world countries like Afghanistan.

Who will blink?  If you believe the Obama administration, the U.S. can’t.  The law constrains it.  UNESCO could modify its proposal to accord Palestine less than full state recognition or the Palestinians could agree to accept something less.  I strongly support full recognition for Palestine as part of the a gradual process leading to international recognition.  It’s critical that UNESCO lead the way on this so that the General Assembly may follow.

The U.S. should be put to the test.  Force them to withdraw the funding and make them look like the hypocrites they are for acting in ways that directly contradict stated national policy supporting a Palestinian state.  Make Republicans in Congress pay for their intransigence in supporting this betrayal of western democratic values in the world arena.  Cut UNESCO programs temporarily if you have to.  Ask Arab states to replenish the lost funds.  I’ll do my own part with a personal donation and ask readers to do the same if the vote goes in favor of Palestine.

Maariv on Palestine Statehood Vote: “We Lost Gabon”

Saturday, October 22nd, 2011
un general assembly november 29 1947

UN General Assembly deliberates on partition plan and recognition of State of Israel, November 29, 1947

With a headline that reminded me of the old Republican 1950s smear–”Who lost China“–Maariv’s headline today (h/t Didi Remez) says:

Fear in Jerusalem: We Lost Gabon

Apparently, Gabon’s strong man refused two offers by Bibi to meet him during the last GA meetings in New York.  The African leader was miffed when he heard all the goodies Bibi had offered Nigeria for their No vote; and he saw how little Israel was offering his country.

The Maariv article does its own head count and finds that the PA is still one short of the nine votes it needs for approval.  But it’s counting Bosnia in the No category.  While I’m no expert on this, I think it makes no sense for a country that is one-third Muslim to vote against Palestine.  An abstention would be more likely.  But even with an abstention, the PA still needs those nine.  Failing that, the U.S. will breathe a sigh of relief, since it won’t have to veto the resolution, thereby betraying the utter hypocrisy of our professed policy supporting the creation of a Palestinian state.

I also think it’s tremendously symbolic that the Security Council has moved the date for consideration of the PA proposal to November 29th.  Zionist history buffs will recall this as the momentous date in 1947 when the UN voted to approve Israeli statehood.  It has been 64 years since the international body recognized Israel.  It’s about time they recognized Palestine as well.  64 years is long enough.

UN Security Council to Vote November 11th on Palestinian Statehood

Thursday, October 20th, 2011

Reuters is reporting that western diplomats say the UN Security Council will vote on November 11th on the Palestinian bid for statehood.  Tantalizingly, it says the vote is very close:

Diplomats currently expect eight council members to back the Palestinians and six to vote against or abstain. There is uncertainty over Bosnia, the three members of whose collective presidency — Muslim, Serb and Croat — disagree over which way to vote, diplomats say.

It will be terribly symbolic that the vote for statehood may be decided by a nation that was itself riven by inter-ethnic hatred and bloodshed: Bosnia.  The fact that it cannot agree on how to vote is indicative of the ongoing trauma that such strife can generate.  One wonders what sort of bribe Bibi can offer Bosnia in return for a No vote as he’s done with several other voting countries.

The recent Shalit prisoner exchange allowed the Netanyahu government and Hamas to distract the world’s attention from this Palestinian statehood bid.  But invariably, attention will be drawn back as the date approaches for the vote.  The U.S. will, of course, veto if the PA gets the nine votes necessary to approve the measure.  The veto is an obedience school prize offered by the U.S. for the far-right Netanyahu government, which opposes statehood despite the fact that its leader made a half-hearted speech several years ago endorsing the two state solution.

All this will open the door for an overwhelming vote in the General Assembly in favor of statehood, or barring that, an upgraded status which will allow Palestine to make Israel’s life much more miserable by bringing complaints before the International Criminal Court.  This is precisely the sort of reining-in that Israel detests, and which will likely moderate Israel’s behavior for the better, if not eventually lead to a peace agreement.

H/t Eyal Clyne, who notes there are 22 fateful days remaining in which to gain a recognition which has eluded Palestinians for 64 years.  The last UN vote was also in the month of November, 1947.

Hamas Leader, Meshaal, Praises Abbas’ UN Bid for Statehood

Sunday, October 2nd, 2011
khaled meshaal

Khaled Meshaal, Hamas senior leader, endorses Palestinian UN statehood bid in face of opposition from Iran's Ayatollah Khameini

Hamas’s chief leader, Khaled Meshaal delivered a major address (Farsi) at a Palestine conference in Iran yesterday which shocked many by directly contradicting the view advanced by Ayatollah Khameini, who attacked the two state solution, the PLO’s support for it, and its UN bid.  Meshaal, in contrast, praised Mahmoud Abbas for his campaign for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.  Keep in mind that Meshaal said this in front of the highest leaders of Iran including Khamieni and Ahmedinejad, all of whom lined up in vehement opposition.  It took guts.

Because this is such an important statement and because it has not been reported at all in any English language site, I’m going to quote the article from the Iran’s Radio Farda (funded partially by the U.S. State Department, but whose reporting is considered reliable by Iranians I’ve consulted) in its entirety.  I thank Muhammad Sahimi for his translation from the Farsi and Golnaz Esfandiari for leading me to this source:

Khaled Meshal, head of the political office of Hamas in Syria said that the request of Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, for recognition of an independent Palestinian state and full membership in the United Nations is a courageous act that must be appreciated and supported. Meshal, who was speaking in the 5th international conference in support of Palestinian Intifada in Tehran, said regarding Abbas’ request, “We cannot deny that this action has had symbolic and moral achievements.”

Meshal expressed his position while Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected, at the same conference, Abbas’ suggestion for an independent Palestine, which recognizes partitioning of the historical Palestine. Last week, Abbas asked the UN to recognize an independent Palestine based on the pre-1967 war borders that will consist of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. An independent Palestine within this area has been agreed on internationally, but so far Israel and Palestinians have not been able to reach any agreement in their peace negotiations. The main reason for the disagreement is Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the problem of Palestinian refugees.

Regarding Mahmoud Abbas’ action at the UN, Ayatollah Khamenei said in his speech at the conference, “Our aim is freedom for [all of] Palestine, not part of it. Any plan that aims to partition Palestine must be completely rejected. The idea of two states that has been covered up with membership of the Palestinian government in the UN is nothing but acceding to the Zionists demands, meaning accepting a Zionist government in the Palestinian land.”

But, describing Abbas’ action, Khaled Meshal said that it has “isolated the Zionist regime and the United States, there is a good international consensus that has revealed the [true] ugly face of the U.S.policy and Israel’s position.” At the same time, Meshal said that the action has its limitation and should not be considered as an end by itself. He demanded to “first liberate Palestinian lands and then ask the United Nations Security Coucil for UN membership.” He also warned against some of the consequences of Abbas’ action.

The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic implicitly accused the officials of Palestine Liberation Organization of treason, but Meshal praised them. Ayatollah Khamenei said [about the officials], “Lack of religious beliefs and separation from the people gradually neutralized them [the officials] and made them ineffectual. Of course, there are also decent, motivated and brave people in the Organization but, collectively, the Organization has gone a different way [than what it should have].”

“Their deviation [from the path of resistance] hurt the cause of Palestine and it is still doing so. They, similar to some treacherous Arab governments, turned their backs to the ideals of resistance which were, and still are, the only way for Palestine salvation, and hurt not only Palestine but also themselves.”

On the other hand, Khaled Meshal praised Mahmoud Abbas for asking the UN for recognition of an independent Palestine state and membership in the UN, despite the opposition by the United States, but added, “Now what?  Will we limit ourselves to this step? Yes, brother Abu Mazen [Abbas] did not give in to the U.S. pressure and persisted in his action. His courage is praise-worthy and we appreciate and support it.”

We heard in the Israeli media and from other sources before Abbas spoke at the UN, that Hamas officials inside Gaza denounced Abbas’s approach to the UN and instead endorsed a one-state solution.  But either this reporting was wrong, or it has been superseded, and in a major way, by a more authoritative source who not only supports the independence bid, but does so strongly and firmly.  In truth, Meshaal may differ with Abbas tactically in how or when he would have made the approach to the UN.  But this statement and the fact that it was made in Iran, in the anti-Zionist heartland, is very significant.

Not to mention that it might strengthen Abbas’ statehood bid since he will have drawn Hamas, his major rival into support for the proposal.  If the Security Council truly does want to support peace and two previously warring Palestinian political groups can endorse the same proposal, there can be no doubt that a Yes vote for statehood would advance Palestinian unity and an eventual peace agreement.

Despite the fact that Radio Farda is a U.S. sponsored media outlet, there can be little doubt that this story does not advance U.S. policy which rejects the UN statehood bid.  This makes the story all the more credible.

I doubt Meshal’s words will resonate at all in the halls of power in Tel Aviv, Washington DC, and Brussels where it should (and this fact will attest to the bankruptcy of their approach to the conflict and resolving it), but let us circulate this statement as widely as possible for the sake of those in the world who are pragmatic and believe that the Palestinians, ALL of them, can eventually come to terms with an Israeli state within 1967 borders, which in turn recognizes a Palestinian state.

Keep in mind that Israel’s far right government and its water-carriers in this country talk about “Hamastan” and the fact that Iran supplies virtually all Hamas’ missiles and weapons (without offering any proof of the claim).  Now, either Meshaal is being a fool in brooking a major patron, or Iran doesn’t provide nearly the support that is claimed, or Meshaal is one brave dude.  When you add to this that Meshaal also refused to provide Bashar Al Assad with the full-throated statement of support the latter demanded to shore up his tottering regime, you have to give the Hamas leader credit for having a backbone.  Now, if only the president of a certain western nation could copy his example.

Bibi: Tom Friedman and Bill Clinton, Great Satans

Saturday, September 24th, 2011

As I mentioned in an earlier post today, Mahmoud Abbas spoke of Palestine’s campaign for statehood as a Palestinian Spring.  Bibi responded that it might result in an Iranian winter.  But I see Bibi’s trip as the winter of his discontent, or perhaps the September of his discontent.

Barak Ravid covers Bibi’s New York UN residency (Hebrew) and notes the poor prime minister’s anger at Tom Friedman, that otherwise impeccable servant of Israel’s interests, who wrote a double-barrel blast of a column lambasting Bibi and calling him the worst, most incompetent prime minister in Israel’s history.  In Bibi’s eyes that makes Tom the Great Satan, perhaps even greater than Ahmadinejad.  Ravid says that this passage in Bibi’s speech was an implicit swipe at Friedman:

Better a bad press than a good eulogy, and better still would be a fair press whose sense of history extends beyond breakfast, and which recognizes Israel’s legitimate security concerns.

Imagine the ungratefulness of Tom Friedman not understanding that Israel’s security needs as defined by the Likud, trump regional peace and stability.  All this attention from Bibi is unfortunate in a way since it will likely further inflate Friedman’s rather large ego to know a prime minister took out after him in a speech before the entire UN.

And Bibi has other nemeses as well such as Bill Clinton, who threw a decent sized bucket of cold water on Bibi in the former president’s remarks which also placed blame for the current logjam squarely on Bibi.  It gives you a measure of Bibi that, according to Ravid, he demanded that his staff call the White House and request a demur from the Obama administration regarding Clinton’s remarks.  Can you imagine the leader of a foreign country insisting that a sitting president criticize a past president.  The guys has balls.  When such a rebuff wasn’t forthcoming, Bibi contacted reporters in his entourage and gave them the White House spokesperson’s phone number and asked them to call for a comment.

Ravid describes the reception of Netanyahu’s UN speech as a sorry affair.  Many of the delegates had left and the minutes-long applause that greeted Abu Mazen’s speech was withheld from the Israeli leader.  The only applause he received was mainly from his own delegation and other Jews who were in the hall at the time.  Ravid even says of Bibi: he refused to ask himself why it is that people throughout the world don’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth.  After comparing the warmth and effusiveness of the reception that greeted Abbas and the coldness that Bibi experienced, Ravid closes by saying:

For anyone who had any further doubt: this [Abbas' reception] is how a political tsunami looks and that [Bibi's] is how international isolation feels.

70% of Israelis Endorse UN Acceptance of Palestinian State

Friday, September 23rd, 2011

The Truman Institute at the Hebrew University has done a poll of Israeli and Palestinian opinion about the PA’s UN bid for statehood.  Remarkably, the poll finds nearly 70% of Israelis prepared to accept a Palestinian state through a UN vote.  This despite the opposition of their own prime minister.  Does Barack Obama know that a plurality of Americans and majority of Israelis support a plan he rejects?  This shows how completely out of touch both Netanyahu and Obama are, and how isolated they are in their own arms.

And hey, you didn’t read this in Haaretz.  You read it in the Jerusalem Post, no less!

80% of Palestinians support the statehood bid.  This compares to a BBC poll which found roughly twice as many people in the 19 countries polled supported statehood as opposed it (roughly 49% to 21%).  In other words, MORE Israelis support statehood than any of the 19 countries polled by the BBC.

Let’s be clear about what this is and what it isn’t.  It doesn’t mean that 70% of Israelis WANT a Palestinian state.  God forbid!  It means that Israelis (as opposed to their far-right government) are pragmatic enough to realize that if the UN endorses statehood that Israel better just learn to live with it and make the best of it.  And you know what?  I’ll take that.  Of course, it would be better for Israelis to willingly accept such a state.  But any way they conceive of their acceptance is good enough for me.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE