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’

Obama as Captain America, Saving Day for Israel

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011
Barack Obama as Zionist Captain America

Barack Obama as Captain Israel, striking a blow for Bibi, Occupation, and the status quo (Maariv)

A Maariv cartoonist captures the shame of Barack Obama’s UN performance, at which he stood tall for Israel, even taller than Bibi Netanyahu.  In fact, Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea called the U.S. president “Israel’s ambassador to the UN.”

This, of course, is welcome news in an Israel used to international isolation and opprobrium.  What no one’s apparently told Maariv’s readers and all Israelis is that Obama’s speech fell flat with everyone outside of Avigdor Lieberman and Aipac.  What Israelis should be doing is not celebrating the sycophancy of Barack Obama, but the fact that his speech dropped like a lead balloon outside of the narrow pro-Israel circles in which it was heralded.

The Hebrew caption reads:

Barack Strikes (or “Barak’s Blow”)

It was supposed to be one of the most difficult weeks in the history of the State.  A signpost toward national decline and an unprecedented developing international isolation.  Then Barack Obama saved the day.

H/t Didi Remez.

Obama: Dead Wrong on Palestine

Wednesday, September 21st, 2011
mahmoud abbas

'Omigod, did Obama really just say that???'

Pres. Obama went before the UN today and delivered possibly the least credible, most irrelevant, and downright disappointing speeches of his career.  A career which has seen its share of stunningly wonderful, eloquent ones.  It is yet a another mark of how completely lost his presidency has become.

The major contention of this speech was that statehood would not come for the Palestinians at the UN, but rather must come through direct negotiations between the parties.  He’s got it precisely wrong.  Israel has guaranteed that negotiations between it and the Palestinians, even with U.S. mediation, cannot work and will never work.

France, in the form of Pres. Sarkozy, has it more or less right.  The two parties must be given strict time tables and even parameters for negotiation and told that if they fail the UN will recognize a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders.  And that if Israel refuses to accept the outcome it will be subject to UN sanctions.

At this point, this is the only language Israel can understand.  I hate to express things this baldly since I am a supporter of Israel.  But supporting a country means leading it away from the precipice when necessary.

Speaking of precipices, Obama ought to take a very close look at the staff who’ve served him so poorly on this one.  Why, in heaven’s name did it even come to this?  If you have nothing to contribute on the subject, why even intervene in the way he has?  He hasn’t just wasted his political capital, he expended it unnecessarily in opposition to his own interests.  If Dennis Ross was the champion of this strategy it’s about time to do some housecleaning.  Several pundits have begun to call for Obama to rid himself of advisors like William Daley.  But he ought to take a look at Ross as well, who’s led him in a political Valley of the Shadow of Death.  Can a president countenance retaining advisors who lead him into irrelevancy on the world stage?

This comment by a NY Times reader was telling:

If the message is that the only way for the Palestinians to find peace is by declining to stand up for themselves, constantly backing down in the face of aggression, and capitulating to their enemies at every turn, I can’t imagine a better messenger to deliver that message than a man who lives it every day, President Barack Obama.

Sarkozy’s speech,which really wasn’t radical at all, appeared so, in juxtaposition to the stale irrelevancies of Obama’s.  Sarkozy too was capitalizing on the decline in Obama’s stature on the world stage.  He was telling the U.S. president: if you can’t lead, get out of the way.

Obama can expect many more such challenges if his rhetoric continues falling as flat as it has.  Further, Obama is not only falling flat, but he’s actually betraying the progressive expectations many of us had for him.  That means he’s going to retain all his Republican enemies, plus he will anger his former supporters who expected so much more of him.  Obama right now suffers from the worst of both worlds.  I fear that the upcoming elections may repudiate both him and all Democratic Congressional candidates.

Can any U.S. president not realize when he’s embraced warmly by Bibi Netanyahu, as he was in the latter’s UN speech, that he’s in big trouble?

BBC Poll: 45% of Americans Support Palestinian State

Sunday, September 18th, 2011

recognition of palestineDespite the drumbeat of negativity heard virtually every day in the American media from the Obama-Clinton-Ross crowd, Americans support by a strong plurality independence for Palestine.  A BBC global poll of 19 countries including the U.S. found that overall 49% backed statehood and 21% opposed.  In the U.S. it was 45% for and 36% against.   In France, Germany and Britain, support was over 50% and opposition ranged from 20-28%.  Overall, 30% of all respondents said either their country should abstain or could not give a definitive answer.  Unfortunately, one country missing from the poll appears to be Israel.  I’d love to know the numbers for Israel (though they would certainly be negative, but I wonder how negative).

But hey, whoever said anything about democracy influencing world diplomacy?  As far as the U.S. is concerned democracy is for chumps, especially when the power brokers get to work divvying up slices of the pie–or in Palestine’s case, withholding them.

Visit the Palestine194 website.

U.S. ‘Ideas’ to Resolve Israel-Palestine Negotiation Impasse, Same-Old, Same-Old

Saturday, September 17th, 2011

This week’s Israel-Palestine quiz:

Who was recently referred to as sometimes sounding like “an Israeli diplomat?” a.Dennis Ross b. Barack Obama c. Tony Blair d. Danny Ayalon or e. all of the above?  For the answer, read on…

Today’s NY Times reports a strong statement by Nabil Shaath defending the PA’s decision to take its statehood campaign to the UN Security Council.  But what especially struck me about Shaath’s statement was his stinging dismissal of David Hale and Dennis Ross’ intervention on behalf of the Netanyahu government (yes, you heard me right–read farther below):

Mr. Shaath was blunt in his dismissal of the elements of a statement presented to Mr. Abbas on Thursday by Dennis B. Ross and David M. Hale, two senior American officials. Tony Blair, the former British prime minister and Quartet representative, has been the central player in drafting the statement. Quartet envoys were due to meet in New York on Sunday.

Mr. Shaath said the statement “violated six parameters of the peace process,” including accepting Israeli settlement growth, calling Israel a “Jewish state,” pre-empting discussion of a right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel, and rejecting efforts to unify rival Palestinian factions: Fatah, which dominates the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas, which rules in Gaza.

In other words, all that the pro-Israel flacks in the Obama administration could come up with was a vague commitment to do something on behalf of Palestinian interests in return for the PA giving up almost all of its key national interests in the negotiations.  It would accept Israel as a Jewish state, renounce the Right of Return, and renounce any effort to reconcile with Hamas.  And this is a serious proposal, how?  What this proposal does is advance Israel’s narrow interests in maintaining the status quo.  It gives Palestine nothing.  That’s why Shaath made this telling comment about Tony Blair, one of Ross’ partners in crime in this little caper:

Mr. Shaath said that when he himself saw the Quartet statement proposal: “I gulped. This was the statement that was supposed to persuade President Abbas not to go? Mr. Blair doesn’t sound like a neutral interlocutor. He sounds like an Israeli diplomat sometimes.”

Why not?  Blair was Bush’s poodle, why not be Bibi’s as well?  More likely though, Blair is doing Obama’s bidding in hopes of some prestigious international post as befits His Eminence.

Henry Siegman adds his voice to the debate with another sharp rebuke of Obama policy:

America has absurd[ly] insisted…most recently [via] President Obama on September 12 — that a Palestinian state can be achieved only as a result of an agreement between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. Surely President Obama must know that left to their own devices, Netanyahu and Abbas will never reach a two state agreement, and that the only purpose a resumed “peace process” would serve is to continue to provide a cover for further Israeli land grabs in the West Bank.

The U.S. might have persuaded President Abbas to abandon the U.N. initiative in favor of resumed negotiations had it reassured him that if the Netanyahu/Lieberman government does not offer them a peace plan within a reasonable period of time based on the 1967 borders, agreed-upon equal territorial swaps and the sharing of Jerusalem, the U.S. would itself present such a plan to the Security Council.

Unfortunately the U.S. lacked the political courage to do so. Instead of enabling President Abbas to withdraw his U.N. initiative by providing him with a justification for such a move, the U.S. has sought to intimidate Palestinian leadership into changing course by threatening to exercise its veto in the Security Council and ending America’s financial support for the Palestinian Authority. Leaving aside the perverseness of this threatened “punishment” — which will not only end Israeli-Palestinian security collaboration but will increase the likelihood of a third Intifada — when has an American president recently threatened an Israeli government with any kind of punishment for their rejection of U.S. advice, even when Israeli actions have been in clear violation of international law?

If anyone can get access to the original proposal submitted by Hale and Ross to Abbas, I’d love to publicize it here.

On a related note, Haaretz reports that the Israeli government may institute emergency laws which would compromise the rights of detainees in anticipation of supposed riots which Israel anticipates in response to the Palestinian failure in the UN:

According to the plan, the police will be authorized to detain any suspect for up to nine hours instead of three hours, as currently stipulated by the law. This will allow the police sufficient time to investigate the role of the suspect in any disturbance, and is based on the assumption that there will be large numbers of suspects held.

Another assumption is that it will be necessary to create large and isolated holding areas where the police can evaluate whether a person in custody will be arrested or released.

One proposal would allow police to use force against those being detained – and not only against those being arrested, as they are now authorized to do.

While currently the law mandates that a person arrested must be brought before the court in 24 hours from the time of arrest, the proposed regulations would allow the police to extend that to 48 hours.

This would mean that for two full days there would be no judicial supervision of the police actions or decision to arrest.

That change would also harm the right of a person arrested to meet with an attorney without delay. The Supreme Court has recognized this obligation by the investigating authorities, and ruled that it is possible to disqualify admissions by suspects if the prisoner had no access to a lawyer.

Another chapter in the document proposes certain circumstances under which a minor, suspected of having taken part in protests, could be brought before a judge within 48 hours – instead of the current 12-hour limit.

Israeli criticism of the plan doesn’t revolve around violation of rights of Palestinians, but rather the rights of Jewish criminal suspects in unrelated cases which also could be trampled.  Ehud Barak said that the Palestinian UN statehood campaign was a “train wreck.”  Little did he know that it would also be a train wreck for Israeli democracy.

Abbas Going for Gold

Friday, September 16th, 2011
abbas statehood

Mahmoud Abbas announced Palestine will apply for full UN membership (Tara Todras Whitehill/AP)

In an uncharacteristically bold move for an otherwise grey figure, Mahmoud Abbas announced today that he would move for Palestine’s full membership in the United Nations with a vote in the Security Council.  This poses a huge headache for the Obama administration, whose torn and tattered Mideast policy is coming under increasing scorn from Arab nations and those of the rest of the world as well.  No doubt, the U.S. will veto a resolution in support of a proposition (an independent Palestinian state) it otherwise supports.  Added to an earlier veto of a a resolution opposing Israeli settlements (another policy is ostensibly supports), the U.S. response is certain, but ultimately futile.

Abbas’ move for full membership indicates his judgment that Obama’s (and by extension, Israel’s) position is becoming increasing untenable.  The tide is turning.  The American boat has missed the turning of the tide and is stuck on a sandbar.

Yesterday, I wrote a post analyzing the shibboleths of the anti-statehood camp (i.e. U.S. and Israeli diplomats) and one of them was the supposed certainty of Palestinian violence in the wake of frustrated expectations.  Here’s a perfect example of this nonsense from none other than Ethan Bronner and his sidekick, Isabel Kershner.  Note here the mysterious, unsourced but always useful reportorial “some,” which through overuse has become accepted wisdom:

Some fear that Mr. Abbas’s move will raise expectations among his people, with nothing changing for them on the ground. Combined with alarmed reactions from Israeli settlers, violent showdowns could erupt.

Who is ‘some?’  Is ‘some’ a real source or a made-up concept in the minds of Bronner and his U.S. and Israeli sources?  And if so, by what evidence do they posit that there will be violence?  And has their track record in predicting other events been good enough to trust this lame prognostication?  ”Nothing changing for them on the ground?  Nothing’s changed on the ground for the past 20 years, why would they expect anything different on the ground.  Where things will change is the Palestinian’s ability to mount offenses on the world stage against Israeli attacks on civilians, settlements, Occupation, etc.

Note as well, that Bronner credits the possibility for settler violence, but not the likelihood for IDF and Border Police violence, which is actually as concerning or even more so given the heightened lethality of the weapons at their disposal.  Further, you’d think that the IDF and police could handle settler violence and provocation and repress it if necessary.  The fact that Bronner worries that settlers could ignite a contagion indicates less than full faith in the abilities of Israeli authorities to contain violence from their side.

No mention, of course, that the leader of the national Palestinian non-violent protests will be Abu Rachme, who has led the Bilin anti-Wall protests for several years.  This movement has historically embraced non-violence, and therefore it will take a huge amount of provocation from the Israeli side to create serious violent disturbances.

I should add that Republican threats to turn off the spigot of U.S. to Palestine should it go forward with the UN vote will not only fail to achieve its desired objective (whatever that is), but it will further isolate the U.S.  There will be other countries, no doubt, eager to fill the vacuum that we leave in Palestine.  Perhaps Iran, Turkey, any number of states whom we’d be better off preventing from pursuing their interests in this matter (at least from the U.S. perspective).  We give them a golden opportunity.  So thanks Republicans for doing what you think is a favor for Israel, but which only harms it in the long run.

Bibi to Support Palestinian General Assembly Bid…With Major Caveat

Thursday, September 15th, 2011

Haaretz reports the confusing news that the EU’s foreign minister has devised an entirely new UN sub-state category and proposes that the General Assembly approve an upgrade of Palestinian status to such a rank.  This would preclude Palestine from bringing claims before the International Criminal Court.  As you can imagine, Bibi Netanyahu loves the idea and the Palestinians hate it (though Ynetnews argues, fatuously I believe, that the Palestinians are seriously considering the proposal).

One purpose of the proposal, whether intended or not, is to divide the 27 EU member votes and thus fragment support for Palestine’s GA proposal. I doubt this will work.  In fact, Haaretz notes that a number of EU states have derided Catherine Ashton Taylor for her proposal, saying she did so on her own initiative without consulting them.  So I think this is yet another “flyer” born out of U.S.-Israel desperation that the GA vote will bring Palestine into the UN as a nonvoting member state.  This would enable it to call Israel to account for its policies in clear violation of international law including settlements, Operations Cast Lead, the first Lebanon war, the assassination of Salah Shehadeh, etc.  Obama and Netanyahu are scared shitless that the day after this vote the ICC will have to hang a symbolic shingle outside its front door saying: “Welcome Palestine: Open for Business.”

Haaretz also notes that Bibi will indeed go to the UN and address it on the same day the Palestinians will bring their proposal to the body. It seems a fool’s errand and destined to re-emphasize the isolation of Israel on this issue.  But let it not be said that Bibi is afraid of entering the lion’s den.  Though I think that discretion should be the better part of valor in cases like this; and discretion is one quality he lacks.

Haaretz also reports the astonishing news that the Ministry of Yvet (aka the ministry of foreign affairs) summoned five EU ambassadors and explicitly directed their countries to vote against Palestinian statehood in the UN:

…The Israeli officials…said: “What we expect from your countries is simply to vote against any resolution.”

Only in Israel would they tell diplomats of countries that can eat Israel for breakfast what their foreign policy must be regarding Palestine. The funny thing is that one of them, Germany, is known to be sympathetic to Israel’s position. But with chutzpah like this there’s liable to be a backlash, with Israel even losing the Holocaust-induced guilty sympathy of that nation.

Striking Down Shibboleths as UN Statehood Vote Nears

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

There are a number of shibboleths U.S. and Israeli officials repeat endlessly as if doing so might make them come true.  This one is from Hillary Clinton:

 “The only way of getting a lasting solution is through direct negotiations between the parties, and the route to that lies in Jerusalem and Ramallah, not in New York.”

But is there any truth in this claim?  What has direct negotiation achieved for the Palestinians in the past decade or more?  Nothing.  Why does Clinton have any confidence that a Palestinian return to negotiations would achieve anything for them?  She offers no evidence to support this claim.  Why?  Because of Bibi Netanyahu (and before him Ehud Olmert).  Israel simply isn’t prepared to negotiate in good faith.  Sure Israel will negotiate on its terms and possibly agree to a sham (for the Palestinians) settlement that gave it virtually all it sought and the Palestinians virtually nothing.  That’s what was proposed during the Olmert years as shown by the Palestine Papers published by Al Jazeera.

Another shibboleth, this one articulated by former IDF chief of staff and Kadima MK, Shaul Mofaz:

…The EU should not back a Palestinian unilateral declaration of state as this would only engender “another round of violence.”

The argument–and an incredibly condescending one it is, as it presumes Israel and the west can divine Palestinian motivations–is that Palestinian hope will expand at the prospect of statehood granted by the UN.  But when such hopes are dashed and Palestinians see how little it has actually achieved for them, they will turn to a third Intifada out of frustration.  This in turn will bring waves of strikes and violence which Israel will be forced to crush with force, thus setting the peace process back even farther than it was before the statehood bid began.

The fallacy of this claim is that no one knows, and certainly not U.S. and Israeli policymakers who’ve proven they are the most tone-deaf in understanding Palestinian interests, what the outcome of the statehood bid will be, and how it will impact public opinion in Palestine.  Most Palestinians are exceedingly pragmatic and patient.  They understand that their leadership cannot deliver full statehood on a silver platter all at once.  I seriously doubt there will be such mass uprisings when so-called despair sets in.

On the other hand, there is a party which would gain immensely if there was such violence: Israel, and specifically its far right government.  They want no settlement with the Palestinians and violence plays into their hands.  If there is no such violence it would not at all be above Israel to provoke it.  Targeted assassinations in the West Bank or Gaza, bombing of Gaza tunnels and killing workers inside them, all of these would ratchet up tensions to the boiling point and set off the sort of mass violence the U.S. and Israel feign they fear.  The fact that the IDF has stockpiled weapons and sanctioned vigilante patrols for “self-defense” is also deeply alarming.  The Israeli media is also replete with IDF announcements that it is readying military units for service should there be an uprising.  This is also adding tinder to the situation, for where soldiers sit idle, there will be generals seeking a reason to fight.

Israel has done this before.  This was how the first and second Intifadas began: one with Ariel Sharon traipsing through the sacred grounds of the Temple Mount; and the IDF southern commander Tzvika Fogel attesting that the army played its part in provoking the second Intifada.  And of course, Operation Cast Lead was preceded by Israel breaking the Gaza ceasefire by bombing the Egypt tunnels and killing a number of Hamas activists in the process.  Of course, it takes two to tango and the Palestinians play along with retaliatory missiles, etc.  But as Israel is far stronger militarily, the onus lies on it when it comes to provocation.

In truth, I worry that the violence will arise from the Israeli side.  Either it will react to a Bilin-type peaceful protest with massive force as it did along the Lebanon and Syrian borders.  Or it will provoke such violence with the type of provocation I outlined above.  Either way, this is what could light the tinderbox.  We could see scores, if not hundreds dead.  Israel would look upon the Palestinian dead in mock horror and say: “Look what they made us do to them.”  Then the world might blame the statehood bid for the violence.  This is for Bibi a notion devoutly to be wished for.

The problem with this scenario is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no longer easily managed by Israel with its U.S. handlers.  Now, all the countries liberated by the Arab Spring will be watching.  And especially Turkey will be watching.  Its leader has signaled it will no longer be business as usual and that his nation sees a vested interest in settling this conflict.  So if Israel wants to go about killing Palestinians, it will no longer face a few hundred Qassam missiles in reply.  Instead, it will face a nation whose population, military and economy is many times larger than Israel.

This is a new ballgame for Israel.  It’s always succeeded, with a few exceptions, in dividing and conquering its Arab enemies.  And there has never been any Arab-Muslim power that was decidedly stronger than Israel.  Those days are rapidly coming to an end.  The only question is whether Israel will recognize this, trim its sails, and avoid a confrontation; or whether it will have to be taught a lesson before it recognizes the new limitations.

Of course, I’m outlining what I think the new realities are.  It remains to be seen how this will play out.  Some or most of what I foresee could happen.  Or it could happen differently.  But I doubt it will happen much differently.

What is truly annoying about the role the U.S. is playing in all this is that serves as the stereo speakers and amplifier of Israel’s far-right government.  In not a single way is Obama’s “policy” out of sync with the Netanyahu government.  We know Obama hates this guy’s guts.  We know Obama supports a two state solution.  We know Obama opposes settlements.  But alas, we also know that Obama doesn’t have the guts for a fight.  So instead he runs along in the shadow of big brother, Bibi.  It’s shameful when you think of it.  A major failure of will.  And all to get re-elected.  In order to serve a second term, in which he will squander his possibilities as he squandered them in his first term.