Muslim and Jewish Women in Nazareth

'We can live in peace'...John Lennon (photo: Dafna Tal)

Mahzor

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 ‘zionism’

Hagee Funds Israeli Nationalist Group Attacking NIF and Hazan

Monday, February 1st, 2010

If You Will It--the Zionist nationalist nightmare

Didi Remez brings word today that the Israeli far-right nationalist group Im Tirtzu, which began a scurrilous campaign against Israeli NGO support for the Goldstone Report, receives major funding ($100,000) from Chrisitian Zionist John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel.  Didi translates an article by Danit Gottfried (Hebrew) from Walla, the popular Israeli internet news portal, which notes:

…An investigation by Walla! found that some of the funding for Im Tirtzu itself comes from parties that are not regarded with fondness or agreement by the Jewish public. Donors to the movement include the Christian American lobby CUFI – Christians United for Israel, headed by evangelist preacher John Hagee. The organization’s website specifies the sum it gave Im Tirtzu — $100,000.Hagee was in the headlines in 2008 during the US presidential campaign, when a recording circulated in which he claimed that “Hitler was fulfilling God’s will, to return the Jews to the land of Israel according to the biblical prophecy.” Right after the radical comment, Republican presidential contender John McCain had to repudiate Hagee’s public support. Additionally, in his book “Who Is a Jew?” Hagee claims that “Hitler was half Jewish, from the descendents of Esau,” and that “the Holocaust happened because the Jews rebelled and denied the real God.” He claimed that “Jewish rebelliousness is the reason for the anti-Semitism and persecution they suffered over the years.”

About the economic crisis that hit the US and the world in 2008, Hagee said that “the U.S. Federal Reserve is under the control of a few shareholders, including the Jewish Rothschild family.” He added that “the Rothschild family is part of an extensive economic conspiracy by strong shareholders who reside in Europe.” Hagee is considered a controversial and extreme figure among the Jewish communities in America, after he called the Reform Jews “poisoned” and “spiritually blind.”

Im Tirtzu's tax-deductible donations via Central Fund for Israel pass-through

Didi also informs me that American Jewish tax-deductible support for Im Tirzu comes via the Central Fund for Israel, one of the largest of the U.S. charitable funds supporting extremist settler groups and the Israeli far right nationalist community.  Yet another example of why the IRS must review these groups’ non-profit status for their attempts to criminalize the legitimate role of Israeli human rights NGOs within Israeli democracy.

Folks, I know we thought the Bush regime launched an all assault on civil liberties over the past eight years, but think of it: they never threatened to criminalize the activities of the ACLU.  They never attempted to bankrupt it or put it out of business.  That’s what the Shin Bet, Israeli government and Im Tirzu would do if they had their druthers.  Bush-Cheney didn’t send right-wing hooligans to demonstrate outside the private home of the ACLU’s national board chairman.  They didn’t publish ads with the board chair’s image and a claim that he or she is a traitor to this country.

A few months ago, a distinguished Hebrew University professor opened his apartment door to a bomb blast that could have killed him.  The bomb was planted by Jack Teitel, according to Israeli authorities.  If Teitel could, from his prison cell, he’d give a thumbs up to those who are maligning Naomi Hazan and NIF.  Who knows, the next Jack Teitel may be lurking in the crowd outside her home.

The alliance between anti-Semite Hagee and anti-democracy Im Tirtzu is an unholy one.  Let’s not let them live it down.

An earlier part of the Israeli far rights anti-NGO campaign involved an attack on EU funding sources for some of the human rights groups.  Anti-democratic thugs like Avigdor Lieberman bellowed about foreigners interfering in Israel’s sovereign internal affairs.  The clear notion was that pro-democratic NGOs were a foreign graft on the Israeli root stock and further that they were anti-democratic because they opposed the policy of a democratically elected Israeli government.  If Lieberman has the right to make such odious complaints about foreign funding, then we have even more right to question why Im Tirzu accepts anti-Semitic blood money from John Hagee.

More on Ben Caspit, the sleazy Maariv journalist who’s served as the conduit for these attacks on NIF:

Caspit called Goldstone “a despicable liar who stood at the head of a lethal and well greased anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic propaganda machine.” When Caspit was asked by Walla! News whether he knew about Hagee’s contribution to Im Tirtzu, he replied that he [refuses interviews with] Walla!

Im Tirzu deflected criticism of its acceptance of funding from CUFI with a counterattack of its own:

“Our movement is supported by Zionists who hold Israel as a Jewish state dear, including CUFI…

Another question that will also be answered soon is who finances it and what are the interests behind their donations, and we need to say no more.”

Well, I’m going to make a gift right now to NIF and I urge you to do so too.  Let ‘em question my credentials as a Jew and supporter of Israel (not THEIR Israel).  Even if you don’t necessarily agree with my views on this particular issue, I hope you’ll understand that this is an all-out assault on free speech and democratic values and must be answered with the full weight of our outrage and support for Israeli democracy.  By the way, this is precisely the kind of attack that the neocon Jewish right launched against J Street when the former cried that the group was accepting funding from notorious Arabs and other enemies of the state of Israel.  It didn’t work against J Street here and it won’t work against NIF there.

Just as on Hanukah we say “a great miracle happened there,” let’s remind the right wing Jewish demagogues that we have the miracle of democracy in the American Jewish community (here) and in Israel (there) and we won’t let the merchants of hate destroy either one.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Moral Politics TV Interview on Iran, the Holocaust and Modern Zionism

Sunday, January 24th, 2010


Bill Alford, host of the Seattle community-access show, Moral Politics, invited me for my second session. We did a follow-up show on the Iran-Israel conference I organized here in Seattle last month. The themes were the danger of military attack by Israel or the U.S. against Iran; the nature of contemporary Zionism and the impact of Jacobtinsky; the impact of the Holocaust on Israel’s approach to conflicts with its Arab neighbors. We covered the Times of London story claiming Iran was developing a nuclear trigger and the report that the alleged Iranian document on which the report was based was a forgery (just as the Niger yellow cake report was proven to be fake).

I’m pretty self-critical generally, but I was really happy with how this interview came out and hope you’ll be able to spend a half-hour watching. I’d also appreciate your spreading the word about this video so that others will watch it as well.

My next show with Bill will deal with the Naveed Haq murder trial here in Seattle and the guilty verdict which will send him to prison for life.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Rabbi Donniel Hartman: Israel Must Not Demand Arabs Citizens Embrace Jewish State

Thursday, December 13th, 2007


Rabbi Donniel Hartman has written a remarkable essay in Haaretz on the nature of Israel as a Jewish state. Not only does he show extraordinary empathy toward Israel’s Arab minority in rejecting the notion that they must accept Israel’s Jewish nature; he also shows great courage as a Jewish spiritual leader in warning Israeli Jews that there must be limits to what they can expect of their Arab fellow citizens. He also reminds them that much more is expected of Jews in fully integrating Arabs into Israeli society:

If the peace process has any goal, it is to create here, between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, two national entities. It is to forego any fantasy of a single binational state and to make room for two independent nations – each with its own aspirations – that covet the same land yet represent distinct legitimate national identities. The process of peace negotiations requires that each side relinquish its claims to the whole land and be willing to live with only part of the geographical space which it claims as its own. Once a territorial compromise is in place, each of these two peoples must recognize the other as a legitimate sovereign national entity; anything less fails to fulfill the essential aspiration of the peace process.

The Israeli demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state seems therefore, at first glance, not only reasonable but also an essential part of the peace process. This demand, however, is a mistake based on a superficial understanding of the complexity of the modern State of Israel. While most Jews – but not all – clearly define Israel as a Jewish state, not every Israeli does. To ask a Muslim or Christian who is an Israeli citizen to regard himself as a citizen of a Jewish state is to expect him to declare himself a perennial outsider within his own country.

But as with any progressive debate on this issue, one quickly becomes enmeshed in a thicket of seeming contradictions as noted in this paragraph:

It is perfectly legitimate, and even crucial, that Israeli Jews define Israel as a Jewish state. In the Jewish understanding of the rebirth of the State of Israel, we have returned to the Land of Israel to create a sovereign Jewish state; in our understanding, the Jewish national narrative is of necessity the majority narrative here. But to assume non-Jews – equal citizens of the State of Israel by virtue of the democratic principles at the basis of Israel’s self-understanding – feel the same way as Jews is not only unreasonable, it is nonsensical.

If I understand Hartman correctly, he seems to contradict himself in that he embraces a majority Jewish state of Israel; but also embraces a State in which Arabs will not feel like outsiders. How do you reconcile that contradiction and still retain a single state?

Hartman continues:

To expect that a non-Jew will accept a Jewish national identity is to fail to recognize the complexity of the multicultural reality that is the modern State of Israel. We have made this mistake since 1948; while witnesses to the growth of the Palestinian minority in our midst, we have failed to come up with a category to accommodate their distinct Israeli identity. In relegating them to the status of perennial strangers in a Jewish state, we make it supremely difficult for this people to feel a duty of loyalty to Israel or any sense of equality living in it.

We Israeli Jews have to understand that Israel, as a Jewish and democratic state with both Jewish and non-Jewish citizens, must have multiple narratives that inform its national identity. There must be a Jewish narrative and a broader Israeli narrative that creates a collective space with bonds of loyalty toward citizens of the State of Israel who are either non-Jews or for whom the state’s Jewishness is not the central feature of their national self-understanding.

I find it interesting that Hartman proposes a “broader Israeli narrative” that would incorporate Arabs into a collective national space, but he isn’t willing to concede them a full-blown Israeli Arab narrative that would be comparable to the Jewish one. It seems to me that if one embraces an Israel that is a Jewish state you must also concede the possibility that for Arabs a vague “broader Israeli identity” will seem a watered down version of Israeliness.

The following passage is a very important rejoinder to Zionist Jews who cry that anything less than Jewish supremacism within Israel means the death knell for Israel as a Jewish state. In fact, this may be the most important passage in a very important essay:

The impoverished condition of the current political discussion on this issue assumes that anyone who relinquishes an exclusive claim to a Jewish narrative is a post or anti-Zionist. Many Jews fear that by surrendering the exclusivity of the Jewish claim to Israel they facilitate the destruction of the Jewish state. This, I believe, is a mistake. Multicultural states, of which Israel is but one example, require multiple national narratives to enable their different populations to participate. It does not require particular cultures to forfeit their own national self-understanding, but to give up the claim to define others’ collective identity. Only when Israel has such parallel narratives will a non-Jewish Israeli feel fully at home in this country.

But here Hartman again creates a problem for himself in insisting that Israel Arabs relinquish any national aspirations within Israel itself:

With respect to the peace negotiations now underway, it is both unnecessary and unreasonable to require the Palestinian people to accept Israel as a Jewish state. It is critical that they recognize Israel as an independent state against which they have no territorial demands or aspirations. Palestinians – both those living inside and outside Israel – must recognize that their national aspirations are fulfilled exclusively in the confines of the new state of Palestine, while Israel is the national home for Jews – and Palestinians – who want to live in the State of Israel.

I don’t see it that way. Clearly, refugees from pre-1948 Israel DO have legitimate territorial claims. They were either forcibly expelled or frightened into leaving their homes. You can’t by dictat tell them their new home is Palestine. You have to engage in a negotiation in which you attempt to resolve their claim in a way that satisfies each side at least minimally. This may mean that the claims are resolved through financial compensation.

But I believe, along with the Geneva Initiative, that there must be at least a symbolic resettlement of Israeli Arab refugees within Israeli itself. This is important not only for the refugees themselves. It is important for Israeli to accept the crime done to these former residents of Israel by allowing some of them to return.

I also believe that Hartman is giving short shrift to the Israeli Arab narrative and that it cannot be satisfied by mere lip service to an overarching Israeli narrative that transcends the Jewishness of the majority. Without creating a second nation within Israel, Arabs must somehow feel that their narrative, religion, rights, language and cultural expression are equal to those of Jews. Part of this should also entail that both sides renounce a full Right of Return for Diaspora Jews and Arab refugees. These two principles which undergird both Jewish and Palestinian nationalisms should be renegotiated so that they are no longer absolute concepts but rather ones that are tempered by reality. This new reality would be based on a compromise in which Israel embraces equally its Jewish and Arab citizens while telling them that there are limits to their national expressions.

CNN Covers American Jewish Debate Over Israel, Dershowitz Claims No Israel Critics Called ‘Anti-Semitic’

Monday, March 5th, 2007

Thanks to Muzzlewatch for pointing out this excellent piece of journalism from CNN (video) covering the raging debate within our community about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Frank Sesno does a terrific job of laying out the general contours of the debate including Jimmy Carter’s book and the AJC smear of liberal Jewish critics of Israeli policy. One word of warning though: Paul Zahn follows the piece with a long debate between two of our greatest blowhards, Alan Dershowitz and Michael Lerner. I should quickly add that while there are things I don’t like about Michael Lerner, I find his politics often agreeable to my own, including during this debate. He set out the progressive Jewish agenda pretty well.

But Dershowitz, what can you say about him? He comes up with the entirely fatuous claim that no critic of Israel has ever been called “anti-Semitic.” What he means to say is that no “legitimate” critic of Israel has ever been called anti-Semitic. Because, of course, many, many have been called anti-Semitic who criticized Israel. But even if we add the word “legitimate,” Dershowitz’s claim would be entirely fallacious. The Big D. even claims that he’s offered a reward to anyone who can provide that any American Jewish leader has called any critic of Israel anti-Semitic. What planet is the guy living on? The AJC report by Alvin Rosenfeld notes critics like Tony Kushner, Tony Judt and Adrienne Rich as anti-Semitic, when their only crime is not to share Rosenfeld’s belief in Zionism as the only legitimate expression of Jewish identity. I want to make clear that I don’t share their view and consider myself a progressive Zionist. But by God, I won’t let these distinguished artists be tarred and feathered as anti-Semites merely because they don’t conform to some narrow definition of Jewish identity.

Grossman at Rabin Memorial: ‘Think How Close We Are to Losing All We Have Created Here’

Sunday, November 5th, 2006
rabin rally100,000 attend 11th memorial rally for Yitzchak Rabin (credit: Baz Ratner/AP)

As my friend from Lawrence of Cyberia wrote to me tonight, David Grossman’s keynote address to the 100,000 who attended Yitzchak Rabin’s 11th annual memorial, was heartbreakingly beautiful. It was soulful in a way Israel has become no longer capable of being. It was angry in the way a Biblical prophet could be. It was classical Zionism, a vision of the Jewish people as beacon of hope and morality in a trouble world. Here’s what Diane wrote:

This speech made me cry when I read it. My 10 yr old came in to ask when I was going to make dinner, and was very concerned to find me crying at the computer!

That’s the way I felt about it. It didn’t make me cry, though perhaps that’s because the conflict has left me bereft of emotions human beings can usually muster for the tragedies which afflict them. I wish I could’ve cried.

But anyway, that’s beside the point. This speech was worth crying over. It was masterful in every way. Note as you read it that Grossman adopts the brilliant conceit of imagining an Ehud Olmert who is a decent, caring leader and human being. An Olmert who is confused, but welcomes the thoughts of an avid Zionist thinker like Grossman. And the latter gives Olmert the benefit of his considerable wisdom in envisioning a creative, even brilliant set of tactics that could conceivably break Israel out of the death grip it’s maintaining on the Palestinians and vice versa. In reality, Grossman and all of us know that Olmert has not a whit of courage or vision in him; that he will pay no attention to Grossman’s ideas; that the killing will continue unabated. But the key is that Grossman tried to treat him with human decency. The fact that Olmert will repay him with utter silence will only redound to the latter’s eternal shame in Israeli political history.

grossman at rabin rallyDavid Grossman speaks to rally with Rabin backdrop (credit: Dan Keinan)

I didn’t agree with everything he said–especially about Hamas and its Islam. While I am suspicous of Hamas as most, I do not see Hamas as nearly as much of an impediment to peace as Olmert and his government. The key question is not Hamas recalcitrance or belligerence. The key question is: is there a will to peace on both sides? If there is, these obstacles can be overcome. If there is not, then it is useless and we (Israel) are doomed. But my quarrels with Grossman on this are really minor quibbles that in no way detract from the historic and memorable nature of his speech.

I spent hours translating this speech only to have Diane provide me a Haaretz link to a translation of the entire speech. I even asked a Haaretz writer to check whether they’d be publishing one. When he responded “No” I thought I had a green light to do my own. Apparently, when readers began requesting a translation someone at the paper thought better of not doing one. So with apologies to Haaretz, I quote the entire speech (with several minor editing changes):

The annual memorial ceremony for Yitzhak Rabin is the moment when we pause for a while to remember Rabin the man, the leader. And we also take a look at ourselves, at Israeli society, its leadership, the national mood, the state of the peace process, at ourselves as individuals in the face of national events.

It is not easy to take a look at ourselves this year. There was a war, and Israel flexed its massive military muscle, but also exposed Israel’s fragility. We discovered that our military might ultimately cannot be the only guarantee of our existence. Primarily, we have found that the crisis Israel is experiencing is far deeper than we had feared, in almost every way.

I am speaking here tonight as a person whose love for the land is overwhelming and complex, and yet it is unequivocal, and as one whose continuous covenant with the land has turned his personal calamity into a covenant of blood.

I am totally secular, and yet in my eyes the establishment and the very existence of the State of Israel is a miracle of sorts that happened to us as a nation – a political, national, human miracle.

I do not forget this for a single moment. Even when many things in the reality of our lives enrage and depress me, even when the miracle is broken down to routine and wretchedness, to corruption and cynicism, even when reality seems like nothing but a poor parody of this miracle, I always remember. And with these feelings, I address you tonight.

ehud olmert caricatureEhud Olmert (cartoon: Ben Heine)

“Behold land, for we hath squandered,” wrote the poet Saul Tchernikovsky in Tel Aviv in 1938. He lamented the burial of our young again and again in the soil of the Land of Israel. The death of young people is a horrible, ghastly waste.

But no less dreadful is the sense that for many years, the State of Israel has been squandering, not only the lives of its sons, but also its miracle; that grand and rare opportunity that history bestowed upon it, the opportunity to establish here a state that is efficient, democratic, which abides by Jewish and universal values; a state that would be a national home and haven, but not only a haven, also a place that would offer a new meaning to Jewish existence; a state that holds as an integral and essential part of its Jewish identity and its Jewish ethos, the observance of full equality and respect for its non-Jewish citizens.

Look at what befell us. Look what befell the young, bold, passionate country we had here, and how, as if it had undergone a quickened aging process, Israel lurched from infancy and youth to a perpetual state of gripe, weakness and sourness.

How did this happen? When did we lose even the hope that we would eventually be able to live a different, better life? Moreover, how do we continue to watch from the side as though hypnotized by the insanity, rudeness, violence and racism that has overtaken our home?

And I ask you: How could it be that a people with such powers of creativity, renewal and vivacity as ours, a people that knew how to rise from the ashes time and again, finds itself today, despite its great military might, at such a state of laxity and inanity, a state where it is the victim once more, but this time its own victim, of its anxieties, its short-sightedness.

One of the most difficult outcomes of the recent war is the heightened realization that at this time there is no king in Israel, that our leadership is hollow. Our military and political leadership is hollow. I am not even talking about the obvious blunders in running the war, of the collapse of the home front, nor of the large-scale and small-time corruption.

I am talking about the fact that the people leading Israel today are unable to tie Israelis to their identity. Certainly not with the healthy, vitalizing and productive areas of this identity, with those areas of identity and memory and fundamental values that would give us hope and strength, that would be the antidote to the waning of mutual trust, of the bonds to the land, that would give some meaning to the exhausting and despairing struggle for existence.

The fundamental characteristics of the current Israeli leadership are primarily anxiety and intimidation, of the charade of power, the wink of the dirty deal, of selling out our most prized possessions. In this sense they are not true leaders, certainly they are not the leaders of a people in such a complicated position that has lost the way it so desperately needs. Sometimes it seems that the sound box [ed. I would translate this as "echo chamber"] of their self-importance, of their memories of history, of their vision, of what they really care for, exist only in the miniscule space between two headlines of a newspaper or between two investigations by the attorney general.

Look at those who lead us. Not all of them, of course, but many among them. Behold their petrified, suspicious, sweaty conduct. The conduct of advocates and scoundrels. It is preposterous to expect to hear wisdom emerge from them, that some vision or even just an original, truly creative, bold and ingenuous idea would emanate from them.

When was the last time a prime minister formulated or took a step that could open up a new horizon for Israelis, for a better future? When did he initiate a social or cultural or ideological move, instead of merely reacting feverishly to moves forced upon him by others?

Mister Prime Minister, I am not saying these words out of feelings of rage or revenge. I have waited long enough to avoid responding on impulse. You will not be able to dismiss my words tonight by saying a grieving man cannot be judged. Certainly I am grieving, but I am more pained than angry. This country and what you and your friends are doing to it pains me.

Trust me, your success is important to me, because the future of all of us depends on our ability to act. Yitzhak Rabin took the road of peace with the Palestinians, not because he possessed great affection for them or their leaders. Even then, as you recall, common belief was that we had no partner and we had nothing to discuss with them.

Rabin decided to act, because he discerned very wisely that Israeli society would not be able to sustain itself endlessly in a state of an unresolved conflict. He realized long before many others that life in a climate of violence, occupation, terror, anxiety and hopelessness, extracts a price Israel cannot afford. This is all relevant today, even more so. We will soon talk about the partner that we do or do not have, but before that, let us take a look at ourselves.

We have been living in this struggle for more than 100 years. We, the citizens of this conflict, have been born into war and raised in it, and in a certain sense indoctrinated by it. Maybe this is why we sometimes think that this madness in which we live for over 100 years is the only real thing, the only life for us, and that we do not have the option or even the right to aspire for a different life.

By our sword we shall live and by our sword we shall die and the sword shall devour forever. Maybe this would explain the indifference with which we accept the utter failure of the peace process, a failure that has lasted for years and claims more and more victims.

This could explain also the lack of reaction by most of us to the harsh blow to democracy caused by the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as a senior minister with the support of the Labor Party – the appointment of a habitual pyromaniac as director of the nation’s firefighters.

And these are partly the cause of Israel’s quick descent into the heartless, essentially brutal treatment of its poor and suffering. This indifference to the fate of the hungry, the elderly, the sick and the disabled, all those who are weak, this equanimity of the State of Israel in the face of human trafficking or the appalling employment conditions of our foreign workers, which border on slavery, to the deeply ingrained institutionalized racism against the Arab minority.

When this takes place here so naturally, without shock, without protest, as though it were obvious, that we would never be able to get the wheel back on track, when all of this takes place, I begin to fear that even if peace were to arrive tomorrow, and even if we ever regained some normalcy, we may have lost our chance for full recovery.

The calamity that struck my family and myself with the falling of our son, Uri, does not grant me any additional rights in the public discourse, but I believe that the experience of facing death and the loss brings with it a sobriety and lucidity, at least regarding the distinction between the important and the unimportant, between the attainable and the unattainable.

Any reasonable person in Israel, and I will say in Palestine too, knows exactly the outline of a possible solution to the conflict between the two peoples. Any reasonable person here and over there knows deep in their heart the difference between dreams and the heart’s desire, between what is possible and what is not possible by the conclusion of negotiations. Anyone who does not know, who refuses to acknowledge this, is already not a partner, be he Jew or Arab, is entrapped in his hermetic fanaticism, and is therefore not a partner.

Let us take a look at those who are meant to be our partners. The Palestinians have elected Hamas to lead them, Hamas who refuses to negotiate with us, refuses even to recognize us. What can be done in such a position? Keep strangling them more and more, keep mowing down hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza, most of whom are innocent civilians like us? Kill them and get killed for all eternity?

Turn to the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert, address them over the heads of Hamas, appeal to their moderates, those who like you and I oppose Hamas and its ways, turn to the Palestinian people, speak to their deep grief and wounds, acknowledge their ongoing suffering.

Nothing would be taken away from you or Israel’s standing in future negotiations. Our hearts will only open up to one another slightly, and this has a tremendous power, the power of a force majeur. The power of simple human compassion, particularly in this a state of deadlock and dread. Just once, look at them not through the sights of a gun, and not behind a closed roadblock. You will see there a people that is tortured no less than us. An oppressed, occupied people bereft of hope.

Certainly, the Palestinians are also to blame for the impasse, certainly they played their role in the failure of the peace process. But take a look at them from a different perspective, not only at the radicals in their midst, not only at those who share interests with our own radicals. Take a look at the overwhelming majority of this miserable people, whose fate is entangled with our own, whether we like it or not.

Go to the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert, do not search all the time for reasons for not to talk to them. You backed down on the unilateral convergence, and that’s a good thing, but do not leave a vacuum. It will be occupied instantly with violence, destruction. Talk to them, make them an offer their moderates can accept. They argue far more than we are shown in the media. Make them an offer so that they are forced to choose whether they accept it, or whether they prefer to remain hostage to fanatical Islam.

Approach them with the bravest and most serious plan Israel can offer. With the offer that any reasonable Palestinian and Israeli knows is the boundary of their refusal and our concession. There is no time. Should you delay, in a short while we will look back with longing at the amateur Palestinian terror. We will hit our heads and yell at our failure to exercise all of our mental flexibility, all of the Israeli ingenuity to uproot our enemies from their self-entrapment. We have no choice and they have no choice. And a peace of no choice should be approached with the same determination and creativity as one approaches a war of no choice. And those who believe we do have a choice, or that time is on our side do not comprehend the deeply dangerous processes already in motion.

Maybe, Mr. Prime Minister, you need to be reminded, that if an Arab leader is sending a peace signal, be it the slightest and most hesitant, you must accept it, you must test immediately its sincerity and seriousness. You do not have the moral right not to respond.

You owe it to those whom you would ask to sacrifice their lives should another war break out. Therefore, if President Assad says that Syria wants peace, even if you don’t believe him, and we are all suspicious of him, you must offer to meet him that same day.

Don’t wait a single day. When you launched the last war you did not even wait one hour. You charged with full force, with the complete arsenal, with the full power of destruction. Why, when a glimmer of peace surfaces, must you reject it immediately, dissolve it? What have you got to lose? Are you suspicious of it? Go and offer him such terms that would expose his schemes. Offer him a peace process that would last over several years, and only at its conclusion, and provided he meets all the conditions and restrictions, will he get back the Golan. Commit him to a prolonged process, act so that his people also become aware of this possibility. Help the moderates, who must exist there as well. Try to shape reality. Not only serve as its collaborator. This is what you were elected to do.

Certainly, not all depends on our actions. There are major powers active in our region and in the world. Some, like Iran, like radical Islam, seek our doom and despite that, so much depends on what we do, on what we become.

Disagreements today between right and left are not that significant. The vast majority of Israel’s citizens understand this already, and know what the outline for the resolution of the conflict would look like. Most of us understand, therefore, that the land would be divided, that a Palestinian state would be established.

Why, then, do we keep exhausting ourselves with the internal bickering that has gone on for 40 years? Why does our political leadership continue to reflect the position of the radicals and not that held by the majority of the public? It is better to reach national consensus before circumstances or God forbid another war force us to reach it. If we do it, we would save ourselves years of decline and error, years when we will cry time and again: “Behold land, for we hath squandered.”

From where I stand right now, I beseech, I call on all those who listen, the young who came back from the war, who know they are the ones to be called upon to pay the price of the next war, on citizens, Jew and Arab, people on the right and the left, the secular, the religious, stop for a moment, take a look into the abyss. Think of how close we are to losing all that we have created here. Ask yourselves if this is not the time to get a grip, to break free of this paralysis, to finally claim the lives we deserve to live.

David Horowitz’ Terror Offensive Against Progressive Academics

Wednesday, May 17th, 2006
Campus support for terrorism book jacketJoel Beinin in the ‘pantheon’ of campus terrorism with Rachel Corrie and Sami al-Arian (photo: Rick E. Martin/SJ Mercury News)

David Horowitz has never been known for his deft touch in the rough and tumble of intellectual and political debate. In other words, the guy’s a hatchet man out for the blood of the academic left. Horowitz reserves an especially fond place in his heart for those he deems enemies of Israel. Further, he reserves the choicest of choice places for Jewish critics of Israel. That’s why he chose to steal a picture of Stanford Middle East studies professor Joel Beinin and slap it on his hatchet job of a book, Campus Support for Terrorism.

In the process of publishing his pamphlet, he appropriated an image of Beinin without seeking permission from its owner. After Beinin saw his picture displayed as a leader of campus terror he contacted the photographer who owned it. The latter promptly assigned the image to Beinin which allowed him to sue Horowitz for copyright infringement. In case any of my readers believe this is a relatively minor matter not worthy of legal proceedings, I must say that at least twice people have appropriated pictures of me from this blog and used them at other websites to heap abuse upon me for my political views. In both cases, the images were removed. But in one of those cases I had to retain a copyright attorney to threaten the blogger’s publisher with a Digital Millennium Copyright infringement. And this cost me money, time and aggravation. So I know precisely what Beinin is going through and I’m with him 100% in this battle against gnaivishe (“thieving”) tabloid ideologues like Horowitz.

Here’s Horowitz’ pathetic response quoted in the NY Times:

[Horowitz] asserted that revised covers of the pamphlet in subsequent printings would not have the photograph.

But the picture, Mr. Horowitz said, is beside the point, adding, “The leftists claim to be concerned about the chilling of free speech, but think nothing of using the courts to chill speech.”

As for his first point, it is beside the point. The damage has been done to Beinin’s reputation. Subsequent printings which omit the offending photo cannot undue that damage. So Davey still has a little old problem that won’t go away just because he says he’s going to play nice in the future.

And don’t you just love Horowitz’s whining about violation of his own free speech rights via the lawsuit. Of course, the lawsuit has nothing to do with free speech. Horowitz is entitled to say any damn thing he wanted about Beinin (and he has I’m sure and probably mostly lies or distortions). But he’s not entitled to use an image owned by someone else without the owners permission if the owner objects to his use.

In a San Jose Mercury News article Horowitz attempts an alternate defense:

I didn’t say he was a terrorist. I said he supported terrorism,”

The Struggle for Sovereignty: Palestine and Israel, 1993-2005 (Stanford Studies in Middle Eastern and Islamic Societies and Cultures)
Big deal. Big difference! You see, in Horowitz’s alleged mind Beinin “supports terrorism” because he’s critical of Zionism and Israeli policies against the Palestinians. Beinin counts himself as an anti-Zionist, which I am not. But it’s a goddamn shame to let David Horowitz call Beinin a supporter of terrorism merely because he’s critical of Israel. I consider myself a progressive Zionist, but I am also critical of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. No doubt Horowitz would call me names as well. But neither Beinin, myself nor anyone else deserves such a base smear for having principled differences with Israel.

This exchange is also instructive:

“I consider Beinin to be a supporter of terrorism,” Horowitz said. “I know that he supports the Palestinian Liberation Organization. I am going to guess that he supports the Palestinian Authority, which is Hamas.”

Beinin responded: “As usual, Horowitz is either flat out wrong or makes arguments from innuendo. I have never said that I support the PLO or any of its constituent organizations. I have argued that the U.S. and Israel ought to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, not because I support it but because it is the pragmatic way to make progress toward peace. I definitely do not support Hamas.”

And lest you dismiss Horowitz as a right-wing nutjob, consider this from the Mercury News story:

A nationally known writer and Republican firebrand, center president Horowitz is said to have the ear of Bush adviser Karl Rove and others in the White House.

Since Horowitz is a braggart and publicity hound who may’ve been the source of the information included in this quotation, we might doubt this statement. But it’s certainly possible or even likely that it’s true.

Finally, if Horowitz can accuse Beinin of being a campus terrorist I think it’s only fair that we accuse Horowitz of being an ideological terrorist. If the damn shoe fits let him wear it.

Hardline Pro-Israel Groups Demand Brandeis Rescind Tony Kushner Honorary Degree

Monday, May 8th, 2006
tony kushnerTony Kushner: a Jewish David Duke?? (photo: Performlink.com)

Let it not be said that we Jews don’t have the same types of bilious and vengeful folk who are also known to frequent the evangelical movement. The James Dobsons and Pat Robertsons of the Jewish world are channeled by Mort Klein, eternal president of the Zionist Organization of America. Klein firmly believes that any Jew who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic. And so, his attack against Brandeis University for awarding an honorary doctorate to Tony Kushner. Kushner’s sin? Previous statements he’s made about Israel which Klein deems beyond the pale. Here’s how The Forward characterizes the brouhaha:

Klein and his group, the Zionist Organization of America, are waging a campaign to get the university to reverse its decision to grant an honorary degree to Kushner, author of the Tony Award-winning “Angels in America.” The ZOA, which claims Brandeis as a past honorary president and has named its top award after him, is circulating a collection of quotes from Kushner in an effort to make its case.

Kushner, co-author of Steven Spielberg’s screenplay for “Munich,” came under fire last year from some in the Jewish world who felt that the film drew a moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorists and Mossad assassins.

“It is outrageous that such a pro-Israel university — named after one of the greatest Zionists of the 20th century — would consider giving an award to such a vocal critic of Israel,” Klein told the Forward. “It’s as if Howard University chose to honor David Duke.

The ZOA quotes Kushner as saying Israel was founded amid “ethnic cleansing” and that the creation of the Jewish state was “a mistake.” In speaking with the Forward this week, Kushner did not deny his earlier comments. However, he said that extremists” who would wish to “excommunicate” him for his stance toward Israel were taking him out of context.

Kushner portrayed the controversy as an attempt to marginalize those Jews who speak out against Israeli policies. “The biggest lie that is being promulgated is that I represent a tiny fringe viewpoint,” Kushner told the Forward. “But in my doubts and reservations and anguish about the situation in the Middle East, I am but one of an enormous number in the Jewish community.”

Mort Klein is a spewer of hate. Hate for some of his fellow Jews who question Israeli policy. And certainly hate for Muslims, and even moreso Palestinians who inconveniently interpose themselves between Israel and its dream of territorial dominance of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan (or to some–the Nile and the Euphrates). Klein’s clairvoyant claim to know the views of a long-dead American Jewish jurist (Justice Brandeis) in this matter are ludicrous. As Kushner says, Brandeis originally made a name for himself as the lawyer who took on the cause of sweatshop labor in the wake of the devastating Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. The beloved Brandeis understood the plight of the oppressed and worked tirelessly to ameliorate such societal injustice. I have little doubt were he alive today that he would support Tony Kushner’s call for a two-state solution. Louis Brandeis, were he alive, would no more fraternize with Mort Klein than Abe Lincoln would sit down for a beer with Pat Robertson.

Now, Charles Jacob, another Jewish demagogue who runs the David Project, infamous for raking Columbia Mideast Studies faculty over the coals for their alleged anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism, enters the fray:

“At a time when the Jewish people around the world are being defamed through attacks on Israel, this is no time for a Jewish institution to honor someone who is placing world Jewry in peril.”

So far, I’m pleased to say that Brandeis hasn’t budged from its position supporting Kushner and its award of the honorary degree to him.
Wrestling with Zion: Progressive Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Should anyone want to know what Kushner really feels about Israel, Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they have only to read this letter he wrote to Brandeis president, Yehuda Reinharz, about the controversy:

I love Israel, but as a great fan of pluralist secular democracy, I don’t have faith in nationalist or tribalist solutions for the problems of oppressed and persecuted minorities; I have great faith…in a steadfast, absolute refusal to conflate government with religious principle or ethnic identity. I love Israel, but I am neither a Zionist nor an anti-Zionist; I’m a Diasporan Jew who isn’t willing to say that the history and culture of the Diaspora was merely a long prelude of weakness and misery leading to the founding of a Jewish state and the invention of Jewish military power – I think there are other kinds of power, there’s an alternative history of power to which Jews have made important contributions. Though I think nationalist solutions to the problems of oppressed minorities are usually mistakes, I love Israel, I am moved and excited by its culture, its meaning in Jewish history, but I’m critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people, I’m opposed to the occupation, the settlements, the barrier wall, and attacks on civilians, whether the civilians are Palestinian or Israeli. I love and admire the Palestinians but I believe that in the midst of their suffering some Palestinians have made their own terrible mistakes. I tend to believe that people make mistakes because of their suffering rather than some inherent evil. Threading through all of this error and anger, on the Israeli and Palestinian sides, I see histories of persecution, injustice and suffering in collision. Though I don’t believe in nationalist solutions to the problems of minorities, I want a two-state solution to the crisis in the middle east through courageous, honest peace talks supported by the international community…

In every interview and essay on the subject I’ve declared that Israel’s existence must be defended, its borders secure and its people safe. I believe that by criticizing a country’s policies you strengthen rather than weaken it, and in patriotism as in human relationships, uncritical adoration is idolatry, not love. And idolatry is forbidden by the Second Commandment.

As Kushner says, these are complicated thoughts not conducive to being understood in sound bites. Mort Klein thinks and talks in sound bites. Most demagogues do. But we shouldn’t be fooled by the outrageous slurs flung by the Klein crowd. Tony Kushner deserves his honorary doctorate and I applaud Brandeis for awarding it to him. Here is President Reinharz’ explanation of why the University chose to honor Kushner:

Over the years, Brandeis has honored hundreds of men and women of distinction whose personal views, I am sure, span the full spectrum of political discourse, and the University applies no litmus test requiring honorary degree recipients to hold particular views on Israel or topics of current political debate.

Mr. Kushner is not being honored because he is a Jew, and he is not being honored for his political opinions. Brandeis is honoring him for his extraordinary achievements as one of this generation’s foremost playwrights, whose work is recognized in the arts and also addresses Brandeis’s commitment to social justice.

To read an entirely wrong-headed critique of Brandeis’ decision to award the degree to Kushner, see Eugene Volokh’s blog. One of the points he takes issues with is Reinharz’ contention that the award was appropriate because of the University’s and Kushner’s commitment to “social justice.”

I’ve been appalled for some time that Brandeis…now includes a “commitment to social justice” in its mission statement. When I was a student there, its much more appropriate motto was (and probably still officially is) “truth even unto its innermost parts.” But a precommitment to some particular notion of “social justice” [update: itself an ideologically charged term; why not just "justice"?] can obviously interfere with the pursuit of truth, and a university’s mission should be the pursuit of truth, not furtherance of ideology.

Some mighty dry casuistry if you ask me. And since when is the pursuit of social justice “furtherance of ideology?” Only in the small-minded world of Eugene Volokh who, I’m sorry to say is a graduate of that august institution.

Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg is Dead

Tuesday, April 18th, 2006
arthur hertzbergRabbi Arthur Hertzberg (photo: Central Scholarship Bureau)

Arthur Hertzberg was probably the greatest scholar of Zionism in this country. His writing and lecturing influenced virtually all other Jewish scholars writing on subjects like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israeli society and Zionism itself. Hertzberg was a commanding presence, a persuasive speaker (I heard numerous lectures by him), and supremely articulate in expressing his views. And while he was influential, he never seemed to compromise his highly independent views to achieve this status.
The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader
Hertzberg did not “toe the line” in terms of embracing mainstream pro-Israel views as do most American Jewish leaders. While an ardent Zionist, he was always a dove on the Mideast conflict. He never accepted Israel’s views on its conduct unless his own examination persuaded him that they were right. He always questioned prevailing wisdom. I saw him as a breath of fresh air both in the academy and in the rabbinate which was so often made up of “yes men” acceding to the norm of Jewish opinion.

This is how the NY Times began its obituary:

Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, a provocative scholar of Judaism whose contrarian religious and political views and dedication to civil rights found prolific expression in books, articles and essays, died yesterday. He was 84 and lived in Englewood, N.J…

Rabbi Hertzberg seemed to savor taking on partisans from opposite sides of the same issue. After Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War of 1967, for example, he rankled many Jews by proposing the creation of a Palestinian state. Yet when the Rev. Daniel J. Berrigan, the Jesuit antiwar activist, accused Israel of “militarism” and “domestic repressions” of Palestinians, saying they echoed those of the Nazis, Rabbi Hertzberg condemned him for “simplistic moralizing.”

The Fate of Zionism : A Secular Future for Israel & Palestine
And to find an example of a Jewish leader who profoundly misstates Hertzberg’s legacy we have no further to look than the American Jewish Congress. This is a group that Hertzberg once led proudly, but which alas has veered away from its previous ethical and political commitments in a much more conservative direction. That is evident from the timorousness of this evaluation of Hertzberg’s contribution:

Marc D. Stern, who is assistant executive director of the American [Jewish Congress] organization today, said Rabbi Hertzberg “reveled in his iconoclasm.”

“There’s no question he was a man who created debate, in a healthy sense,” Mr. Stern said. “He was sufficiently independent that he did not need other people’s approval before he would take a position. Yet one of the dangers of being an independent thinker is you develop the habit of being counter-cultural.”

Can someone explain to me what this guy is trying to say? All I can say is “Ooooh!” poor Rabbi Hertzberg was “counter-cultural.” What is that anyway and why is it something to be embarrassed about??

The good rabbi also had a terrific take on the Holocaust megalith that seemed to overwhelm American Judaism and become its sole reason for existence. He was one of the early few who warned that formulating a religious identity primarily based on a single catastrophic historical event was an awfully thin reed:

Rabbi Hertzberg even tweaked those whose programs for fortifying Jewish identity were grounded in Israel and the Holocaust. He called the Holocaust Museum in Washington “the national cathedral of American Jewry’s Jewishness.” As someone whose European relatives had died at the Nazis’ hands, he said he was trying to make the point that Jewish leaders needed to find more cerebral and spiritual programs for retaining the allegiance of believers. He urged Jews not to become reclusive and insular in the aftermath of the Holocaust but to open themselves to the pain of others.

The Times adds this cogent evaluation of Hertzberg’s role as public intellectual within the Jewish community:

Rabbi Hertzberg was a compactly built man who spoke in stately sentences but who also flashed an impish, sometimes self-deprecating wit. He was unusual in combining a quiet life of scholarship with an outspoken advocacy of the causes he held dear, finding platforms in the American and World Jewish Congresses of the 70’s and 80’s. But Mr. Stern said that Rabbi Hertzberg would probably not have succeeded in the organizational world of the 21st century, which requires the leaders of these groups to show more political finesse in what they say. Rabbi Hertzberg could not resist the arena of combat. He once said, “A rabbi should be where the real issues of society are, not where the safe platitudes are to be preached.”

Actually, I’d argue that Stern’s “put down” of Hertzberg’s outspokenness says nothing about Hertzberg’s deficiencies but speaks reams about the impoverishment of today’s American Jewish leaders. They have little to say that’s new, creative or interesting. They parrot old ideas or repackage them in new ribbons and pass them off as new. They toe the party line especially about Israel. Mostly they posit fantasies of Jewish life and belief that have little or no bearing on how Jews really live and what they really believe. Otherwise, how can we explain that our leaders have radically more conservative views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the Jews they allegedly lead? This fact would bring a sad twinkle to the eye of the mischievous Rabbi who understood such ironies supremely well.

Zichron tzadik l’vracha (“May his saintly memory be for a blessing”).