Cal Tzedek

On the Right of Return and Sloppy Activism

2006-07-16T00:57:00.000-07:00

This weekend I volunteered to present at a workshop at the Al Awda convention on behalf of Berkeley SJP. The topic was Student Activism. I always look forward to any opportunity I might have to lead an activism workshop at a conference, because I think student activism is usually rife with problems, and I'll always welcome a forum in which to address those problems. I'm tired of sloppy rhetoric substituting for a clear presentation of the facts, which speak for themselves in making very clear the following: 1). Israel's occupation of the 1967 territories involves a tremendous amount of structural and physical violence against the Palestinians, is indistinguishable from classical colonialism, and is predicated on a negation of Palestinian civil and human rights. 2). The right of return is a sacred, universal human right, which applies to all people, including Palestinians. 3). These rights will not come into fruition without substantial institutional pressure on the Israeli government to recognize them.

So, an organization like Al Awda is important to have. But frankly, I am disappointed in the Al-Awda convention, and there are many ways in which I feel the manner in which it was conducted can ultimately be a liability for a successful Right of Return campaign.

First of all, it is not my place to tell other activists whether they should recognize Israel's "right" to exist. But I see NO legitimate reason to put "Israel" in quotation marks, as is the case throughout the Al-Awda points of unity. Is this morally wrong? I don't think so. But I think it's flat-out stupid. It makes Right of Return activists look like crazy ideologues. Edward Said often wrote about how pointless it is to deny that Israel does exist, aside from questions about the justness of its creation, or whether it would always exist. Yes, the problematic nature of Israel began well before 1967. But is referring to "Israel" THAT much different than referring to "Palestine"? To me, this is the grown-up version of the sloppy activism employed by too many students.

Secondly, one of the presentations made references to the genocide being committed against the Palestinians. If the purpose of calling it a genocide is to create a sense of urgency, then I suppose that's one way of going about things. But the simple fact is that most people disagree with that classification, including me. I see no reason to employ that term when names already exist for the assorted crimes Israel has committed against Palestinians over several decades. (Crime A) + (Crime B) + (Crime C) = (Crime A + Crime B + Crime C). It does not equal (Crime Genocide). And I imagine a good number of serious human rights activists and advocates --who would unequivocally support the right of displaced people to return to their homeland-- would find this rhetoric outrageous.

Third, an argument was made about Zionism that I felt was pointless and obfuscatory. The presenter argued that Zionism is anti-Semitic; on the one hand, because Palestinians and Arab Jews --whom it places at varying disadvantages-- are Semitic, and on the other hand because it co-opts Jewish identity. If this is the presenter's only idea for how to demonstrate that opposition to Zionism is not anti-Semitic, then he is not focusing on actual issues, and instead is culling obscure arguments in lieu of a perfectly valid one: Opposition to Zionism is not anti-Semitic because Zionism is a political ideology which has historically projected bad consequences onto many people, and problematic political ideologies are open to criticism and even rejection without reflecting on whatever ethnic or religious group those who have supported the movement --for whatever reasons-- traditionally come from. Why couldn't the presenter say something like that? Was he hoping to convince a Jew who opposes the right of return to start supporting it because Zionism is "anti-Semitic?" Al-Awda generally makes very clear that it is not in the business of reasoning with anti-return folks, so that can't be it. So as long as the main goal is preaching to the converted, is there really any need to convince anyone attending in good faith --Jewish or otherwise-- why Zionism is "bad" and why anti-Zionism is "not bad"? The whole thing seemed vacuous.

These are just examples of what I feel is a current of irresponsible rhetoric that can only be damaging in the long term. I have no intention of painting the entire conference as an exercise in intellectual bankruptcy, but I'm also very impatient with the types of arguments and language that are more a staple of grandstanding than they are of political action.

I am told, interestingly enough, that Al-Awda Wisconsin, whose effective political campaigns I discussed during the workshop, is not affiliated with "national" Al-Awda. My support lies with the Wisconsin Al-Awda and all of the independent SJP's which live by their principles. An activist from a chapter other than Berkeley said something during the workshop that was entirely inappropriate, and he was rebuked by another activist, and his claim was also implicitly rejected by an academic. These things are incredibly frustrating to the point where all I can trust is Berkeley SJP. I can't always influence the type of discourse that defines organizations based elsewhere, although I'm always hopeful that presenting at conferences might have some impact. Nonetheless, I will be more careful in the future about whom I piggyback off of. I met lots of wonderful individuals at the conference, but ultimately, Al-Awda --for reasons ENTIRELY unrelated to its position on the Right of Return-- is not a group that I feel acts in accordance with my vision of how Berkeley SJP should act. I am not a part of Al-Awda and will take part in activism --against the occupation and in support of return-- through other channels.

-Ehud

Lee Kaplan Caught in a Lie

2006-02-02T19:55:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: For the latest on Lee Kaplan, click here.

Lee Kaplan, one of FrontPageMag's star reporters, is perhaps the most prolific writer in the nation on the subject of the International Solidarity Movement and the Palestine Solidarity Movement. His exposes on the ISM training sessions and the PSM conferences have earned him accolades by the Internet's motley crew of Islamophobes, pro-war activists, and "former" Muslims who have renounced their evil ways. Ironically, his in-your-face-style has largely failed to capture the imagination of the mainstream pro-Israel movement, which also tends to disagree with the PSM and ISM.

But Kaplan's noble crusade against advocates for Palestinian rights turns out to involve some pretty sleazy tactics. Who knew!?

I was reading some back-and-forth between "Defender of Western Civilization" Bill Levinson and Nadeem Muaddi, a Christian Palestinian, and an organizer of the upcoming Fifth National Student Conference of the Palestine Solidarity Movement, to be held at Georgetown University.

It seems as though Muaddi wrote a book review of "Witnessing for Peace" by Bishop Munib Younan back in July. His review is titled "A Call for Christian Martyrdom." "Martyrdom" is a highly charged word in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Those of you who are interested in Muaddi's views on martyrdom, and the role of Christians in such, read his article. But let me point out two things before re-introducing Levinson and Kaplan.

First of all, Muaddi writes:

Living in a region of the world where occupation, oppression, apartheid, and suicide bombings have become the unfortunate norm, Bishop Younan’s claim that the “theology of martyria” is a “concept misunderstood” is not only refreshing, but long overdue.

Muaddi equates suicide bombings with occupation, oppression, and apartheid. He calls all four of them "unfortunate." Perhaps "unfortunate" is an understatement, but by regarding them all in the same vein, he makes clear his opposition to suicide attacks.

He then writes:

Muslim fundamentalists have mistakenly “tied” the concept of “martyrdom to death”.

So he sets parameters for what he does and does not consider "martyrdom" worth advocating. Any sort of "cult of death" is not on his agenda.

Bill Levinson, either mistakenly alarmed by what he perceived as a call for Christians to kill and die, or else simply eager to discredit pro-Palestinian activists by any means necessary, cooked up a little expose on Muaddi. Israpundit, which is hosting this article, is gracious enough to provide space for discussion. The first comment, available on the same page, is Muaddi's response. He informs Levinson that he is seeking damages for libel, since Levinson appears to be deliberately misrepresenting Muaddi's views. Muaddi closes with this:

Your actions are not only morally reprehensible, but illegal. You will be hearing from my attorney soon.

Springing to Muaddi's defense is a commenter using the name Chaim:

Is this guy for real? Bill, what level of education have you reached? Read the guy's article; nowhere can you infer that he's trying to recruit Christian martyrs at this conference. That's just assinine to suggest that, and Israpundit how dare you post such garbage.

Then, in defense of Levinson, we get Abu Abubu, who says:

I honestly doubt that Chaim is real. It's probably Muuadi under a Jewish name. Levinson's article hit the nail on the head, though.

So then, Levinson directs us here, where he says he responds to Muaddi's "insults and threats."

Muaddi responds again. Then Abu Abubu:

You have to excuse Nadeem. His referring to Bill Levinson as "little Billy" is classic in Arab culture. He has to belittle Bill as a man and talk to him as if a boy in order for Nadeem to dissemble his endorsement for terrorism properly and to cover his lies. (. . .)

As an Arab myself, I know you Nadeem: Kus Eumek. You are dissembling to destroy Jews and to dismantle Israel, the best friend the Palestinians ever had. (. . .)

Again, a dare: Write a public article and say you condemn any manner of suicide bombing, shooting , knifing, rock throwing against the people of Israel as a solution to the conflict. No conditions. Noo euphemsisms like "legitimate resistance."

You won't do this, because you use Arabic-style rhetoric referring to murder as "resistance" and "right of return" as dismantling Israel. And it kills you when one of your own like me points it out.

We can now surmise a number of things about Abu Abubu:

-He is an Arab.

-He is frustrated by Arabs who use Jewish names so as to pretend that any Jews other than crazy and stupid ones sympathize with Palestinian grievances.

-He is frustrated with Arabs in general, who either are anti-Semitic, or supporters of terrorism, or both. But not him. In fact, not only does he oppose anti-Semitism, he opposes all opposition to Israel, since Israel is "the best friend the Palestinians ever had." And he's in a position to know all of this, because he is an Arab.

The claim that Israel is "the best friend the Palestinians ever had" seemed familar to me. Then I remembered where I had read something similar: on this very blog. In the very first comment under "Lee Kaplan Responds," someone who is "not Lee Kaplan," but speaking on his behalf, says:

I know Mr. Kaplan. Rather than being a lackey of his, let me say he is a better friend to the Palestinian people than you are, as he exposes the lies and propaganda the thieves and murderers of the PLO use to still try to destroy Israel and prevent any settlement.

I admit that this is a bit of a stretch, since the phrases in question differ quite a bit, and since this friend of Lee Kaplan doesn't claim to be anyone other than Abu Abubu.

But still, this seemed like a red flag, so I took a closer look at Abu Abubu's postings.

Israpundit, I found out, moderates posts from first-time commenters, presumably to filter out spam. In order to determine whether a person is leaving his or her first comment, the site requires commenters to leave an e-mail address. So many things online require an e-mail address that it helps to have multiple addresses, so that our personal or business mailboxes are not overrun with stuff we don't want, be it spam, listserv stuff, or hate mail. The minute I ran my cursor over Abu Abubu's name, the e-mail address listed with it jumped at me. I had seen something very similar to it before.

The e-mail address is TheHussar@netzero.net. A google search of that address brings up this page. It seems as though Abu Abubu was not thinking back five years when he used that as his throwaway address. Way near the bottom of the page, on June 28, 2001, the guest book is signed as follows:

Name: Lee Kaplan
E-mail address: thehussar@netzero.net
Where you reside (City/State/Country) : :California
Ancestor/Family a member of 11th Kentucky Cavalry CSA?:Not Sure
How did you like this website?:neat
Other Comments: Was wondering if this unit carried henry rifles
Thursday, June 28th 2001 - 09:08:41 AM.

I do not believe Mr. Kaplan is an Arab. He has gone "undercover" as a Pakistani before, an act which witnesses have compared with black face. If, Mr. Kaplan is of Mizrahi origin and considers himself an Arab, I will gladly apologize to him and retract this post. Otherwise, I would like to point out that misrepresenting oneself on the internet is not "going undercover." It is lying.

UPDATE: Lee Kaplan will be on The O'Reilly Factor on Thursday, February 9th, to discuss the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM), the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and his "new" website, stoptheISM.com. For the time being, Mr. Kaplan denies that he is Abu Abubu, but says that Mr. Abubu's comments are "well written." He says that "one of the [multiple] Arabs who works for stoptheISM.com" must have written the messages under an old account of his which, he claims, is now one of "many" e-mail addresses collectively used by stoptheISM.com. When pressed for more information about who used the address that Kaplan was using since before the ISM itself was created, he declined.

-Ehud

"Hamas Elected to Power" is an anagram of "Mashed Potato Eel Crew"

2006-01-30T02:32:00.000-08:00

Here are my thoughts on the Palestinian elections.

1. I respect the will of the Palestinian people who elected Hamas. I am not a hypocrite who champions democracy until people I don't like are elected. Hamas is, more or less, the governing body of the Palestinians and it must be respected as such by the world, including Israel.

2. I believe that people voted for Hamas for many reasons. Some voted for Hamas because they support its religious ideology. Some politically unsophisticated people might have voted for it solely because they like its violence, which they see as the only solution even when such violence fails to be part of a comprehensive, coherent strategy. Some voted for it because they might not necessarily like violence, but they recognize that violence has its place in overall liberation movements, and thus are rewarding Hamas for its more militant (and effective) fight against occupation. But I think these preceeding reasons aren't THAT significant, because I think most people voted for Hamas because a). it takes care of Palestinians, particularly poor Palestinians and b). they hate Fatah which a). has neither successfully worked with nor opposed Israel in a way which improves life for Palestinians and b). has stolen lots of money and acted undemocratically. Expect a LOT of misrepresentation of the Palestinian majority in the coming months, both from the Israeli government, and from right-wing talk show hosts and columnists here. Expect lots of demonization of Palestinians in the weeks to come. If you can stomach a sample of what's to come, just look at Frontpagemag.com (that's what Lee Kaplan writes for).

3. I do not like Hamas. Hamas has done much more than any other Palestinian organization to help ordinary Palestinians in every aspect of their lives, and so people who reduce it simply to a "terrorist group" are simplistic fools. And its terrorism is not necessarily the reason I object to Hamas (see point 4). I object to Hamas because it is a right-wing theocratic group. I do not like the idea of a theocratic Palestine any more than I like the idea of a theocratic Israel, a theocratic Iran, a theocratic Saudi Arabia, or our increasingly theocratic United States. Already today, Hamas has announced it plans to separate boys and girls into separate schools. On the other hand, it has said that alcohol will not be banned, and hijabs will not be mandated, so they are aware of the the limited extent to which their success was an endorsement of their theocratic intentions. I in no way equate Hamas with Al Qaeda or the Taliban, nor even with Iran or Saudia Arabia (but I do fear that, under certain circumstances, Hamas could lead in the direction of the latter two). But I simply cannot support any group which is right wing. There are many, many left wing Palestinian parties which also oppose both Israel's oppression and Fatah's corruption. Mustafa Barghouti, for instance, has a principled but secular party which is forming an opposition to both Hamas and Fatah, but which is still small, and which has not yet had time to establish the charity networks and stuff that have made Hamas so popular. I would be quite delighted if these left wing groups grow in popularity and replace control by Hamas, Fatah, AND Israel.

4. I do not support the suicide bombings, for reasons I don't think I need to explain, nor do I support any attacks on any civilians anywhere by anyone for any reason. But the fact that Hamas has committed suicide bombings has very little to do with why I don't like it. Terrorism is a political tool, certainly an immoral one, but the fact is that, if it is part of a comprehensive strategy, it sometimes works. I don't know if it has worked for Palestinians; ten years from now, we will have some clarity in terms of how much the Gaza withdrawal was influenced by a terrorist campaign and how much it was influenced by demographic concerns. State terrorism (or, for those who object to that term but nonetheless are honest in classifying the home "clearing operations" and helicopter attacks as what they are, collective punishment aimed at civilians) has NOT worked for Israel and has consistently made its citizens less safe. But people who believe that Hamas being in power will result in "a new wave of terror" are missing an important point: Hamas has really not committed much terrorism for over a year. The vast majority of attacks inside Israel have been by Islamic Jihad or by Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade. The first group is not a legitimate political party at all, and basically just commits indiscriminate violence with only a vague notion that this will help liberate Palestine. The second group is affiliated with Fatah. Now, Fatah dudes at the top condemn attacks on civilians, so AAMB attacks indicate that Fatah cannot control its own people, even if its leadership adheres to a ceasefire. Hamas clearly CAN control its own people and HAS adhered to the ceasefire, and has said it intends to CONTINUE adhering to the ceasefire, and I have EVERY reason to believe that it WILL adhere to the ceasefire if Israel doesn't start assassinating its members. The Palestinians who voted for Hamas but do not agree with suicide bombings recognized when they voted that Hamas has adhered to a cease fire for over a year and will probably continue to do so. So the upcoming demonization of the Palestinian people at large ignores this fact so that all Palestinians can be painted as bloodthirsty animals. IF Israel respects the terms of a cease fire, then, at least in the short run, the safety of its civilians has likely just improved. In the long run, of course, it will only improve if Israel respects the rights, needs, and claims of Palestinians and negotiates with them in good faith as equals.

5. The IF two sentences above was a big IF. I unfortunately expect Israel to continue with the arbitrary detentions, closures, shellings, missile attacks, beatings, home demolitions, and land seizures. So most likely, life will continue to be bad for Palestinians, and innocent Israelis will have to pay a price too. Any pessimism I have about a ceasefire, though, is NOT the result of this election. Like I said, a mutually honored ceasefire with Hamas will be stronger now than every before.

6. I have no idea if this is an integral part of Hamas ideology now adays, but the Hamas charter also includes anti-Jewish themes and language. I'm not talking about its rejection or non-recognition of the State of Israel, but rather its distortion of certain Islamic texts to demonize Jews and their religion. I do not think that any significant number of Palestinians voted for Hamas because they have inherently anti-Jewish beliefs. I do think that lots of Palestinians have anti-Jewish sentiment which comes from only encountering Jews who are occupation soldiers or settlers. This is the type of sentiment that goes away when you realize that there are Jews and Israelis who support the Palestinians and risk alot to work with the Palestinians as equals in opposing the occupation and other forms of discrimination and violence. In fact, I was once told that Palestinians who are jailed in Israel might increase their animosity to Israel and its zionist institutions, but lose their animosity to Jews, because in jail they meet just regular jews (criminals, but still just regular people) who do not fit the soldier/settler mould. Those who complain about anti-Jewish sentiment among Palestinians but who belittle the refuseniks, or the Israeli activists who stand in front of homes that are going to be bulldozed, or the human rights monitors of B'Tselem who investigate why Palestinians REALLY are killed, or the Jewish academics around the world who,whether or not they agree with divestiture or boycott campaigns, at least acknowledge them as well intentioned ALTERNATIVES to violence, are hypocrites. Having said that, the rhetoric used in Hamas's founding documents is a bit more disturbing than this misguided but natural reaction, and the Hamas extremists (there are also Hamas moderates who probably don't take the ideology word for word) worry me. As more Jews turn against oppression and in favor of helping the Palestinians, I have no doubt that support for this rhetoric will be restricted only to the fanatics and will be rejected by everyone else who is just really (and rightfully) pissed off. Now, the Netanyahus likes to compare Hamas to Nazis. This is absurd. Even Hamas's bizarre and offensive anti-Jewish themes most likely originated in the same type of "temporary" anti-Jewish sentiment I described above. It's just that, when it's mixed with theocratic religious ideas, it becomes creepy, and seems less likely to go away when those who buy into it realize that there are good Jews too. But this is in no way similar to the evil, genocidal, mind-numbingly racist Nazi regime. It seems that Israel's main demand re: the Hamas charter has been changing the clauses that reject recognition of Israel. I am much more concerned with the anti-Semitism, and so this is another reason I don't like Hamas.

7. I do think that until Hamas gets too cocky and starts imposing theocracy more dramatically, it will be much, much, better for Palestinians than Fatah, and for this reason, I'm happy for the Palestinians. Hamas knows how to get things done. I hope that countries don't cut aid to Palestinians based on these elections; they're setting all kinds of conditions, such that Hamas disarm and recognize Israel. I absolutely believe that Hamas should adhere to a ceasefire, but I do NOT believe that disarming itself or recognizing Israel at this point should be requirements for desparately needed aid, NOR should they be pre-requirements for talks with Israel. Anyway, if Hamas gets enough money, and if Israel doesn't seek to completely invade and destroy the territories again like it did in 2002, then I expect Palestinian life to improve.
8. I think that a lasting peace agreement CAN be reached between Israel and Hamas. Obviously, Hamas is going to push for Right of Return, since at least part of its popularity over Fatah must stem from Fatah's weak position on that issue. Now, there are two ways to have Right of Return (that is, two ways that I would find acceptable): 2 states for two peoples, but those Palestinians who want to become Israeli citizens with equal rights are allowed to do so, or 1 state for two peoples, equal rights for all. In the case of two states, Israel would almost certainly object to allowing RoR, EXCEPT that studies have shown that, at most, 300,000 Palestinians would want to go to Israel. Most would simply rather go to Palestine, as long as Israel acknowledges that it caused the refugee problem and pays compensation. So, with two states AND RoR, Israel would still remain a "Jewish state" with a solid Jewish majority and, if it started granting its Palestinian citizens legitimately equal rights, everyone would be happy. I myself have a problem with this underlying obsession with demographics, as I have explained before and will reiterate now: There is no such thing as a "demographic threat," nor a "demographic time bomb," nor the "demographic demon." There exist only demographic realities that are respected in a democracy and suppressed in a demogracy. Israel is a demogracy, and even under a two-state solution, where everyone, including refugees, is happy, Israel cannot continue to define itself by its demographics. Under this hypothetical solution, Israel would maintain a Jewish majority, but until the day that it acknowledges that IF Palestinians were to become the majority, the world will not end,then it is not a democracy, just a demogracy fomenting garden-variety racist paranoia. The One Binational State, of course, allows all refugees to return to anywhere in Israel/Palestine and allows Israelis to live anywhere in Israel/Palestine. This seems utopian to me, and is thus simultaneously more favorable and more impractical. So as someone who does not feel threatened by granting rights to Palestinian refugees, I think the first option has the potential to satisfy the most people.

But it is extremely unlikely that Israel would ever agree to this. So, that leaves us a two state solution with no right of return, or at best a symbolic, limited one. I honestly think that Israel would never allow more than 75,000 Palestinians to return, and this saddens me. So, the other option for Hamas is to push for a one state solution which, like I said, I find ideal, in a naive sort of way. But, I don't think the Hamas vision of one state is the same as my vision of one state, just as the Israeli vision of one state is not the same as my vision of one state. For most Israelis who speak of "one state," they mean one apartheid state, or one state ethnically cleansed of Palestinians. I think that one state under the complete control of Hamas would probably tolerate Jews, but I certainly don't expect it to be a good situation for them either. My one state is based on liberal secular democracy, whereas a Hamas state would be based on conservative religious democracy (or theocracy?). According to Hamas's founding documents, they want to control all of Palestine as one state. But --and many might find this surprising, but I am one hundred percent certain of it-- Hamas will ultimately settle for two states, based on the 1967 borders. Why? For the same reason Israel is now unilaterally "disengaging" from populated Palestinian territories: demographic concerns. I hate to be cynical but Hamas, like Fatah, will eventually put its own interests ahead of the refugees. Hamas wants an Islamic government. I do not believe Hamas wants to kill all the Jews, and there's no way to expel all of them, so if Hamas were really in charge of everything, it would face WAY too much opposition to an Islamic government. Hamas would ultimately rather have all of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem with a majority who support it than rule over millions more who do not. Just as Israel got out of Gaza not because the government that ordered it respects the rights and freedoms of Palestinians, but because the Palestinians there are a "demographic threat." And because Hamas is a tough negotiating partner, IF Israel sticks to negotiations and IF Israel acts in good faith, then Israel will eventually agree to cede all of the territories, divide (but probably not share) Jerusalem, stop ruling Palestinians at the barrel of a gun, and recognize Palestine. Hamas will then "reward" Israel (and screw refugees) by agreeing to a vastly limited right of return, as described above. Then most refugees will move to Palestine.
Now, considering that this might be the only acceptable outcome to both governments, refugees might have to grit their teeth and accept it. And of course, this is assuming that Hamas stays in power. Ironically, as Hamas improves things for Palestinians, other parties will probably grow, and eventually either a reformed Fatah or a left wing party will take over. But the simple fact of the matter is, Fatah is already "committed" to a two state solution and has basically already conceded to Israel's RoR demands, and the left wing parties might insist on the RoR, but will also push for two states (so, for example, if they were successful, they'd get something approaching the 300,000 refugee plan). But ultimately, it seems most likely that a two state solution without RoR will be agreed upon. In this case, I believe that Israel MUST acknowledge AND apologize AND pay reparations, and MOST Palestinians will be satisfied, as long as the Palestine they DO return to is one hundred percent free.

9. Now, consider the options described above. Because of my distaste for ethnic/religious nation-states and demogracies, I am not a liberal Zionist, but a post-Zionist. But, let me assume the perspective of a liberal Israeli Zionist (like my parents) who believes in two states, both of them free, who does not believe bombing refugee camps makes Israelis safe, who feels bad and guilty about the refugees, but who believes in the long term importance of Israel maintaining a Jewish majority, and doesn't really think of the POTENTIAL moral consequences of such without them being pointed out. So, from this perspective, I want a Palestinian party with whom I can negotiate. Because I do not believe in endless war, I'm willing to negotiate with Fatah OR with Hamas, and basically am willing to make the same concessions to either of them: withdraw from territories, take down settlements, share Jerusalem, share water; and demand the same things of either ofthem: they stop violence against Israelis, and they agree that only a few Palestinians return to Israel. This is exactly the position of Meretz. It's also the position of some disaffected former Labor members who hate the fact that Labor has moved to the right (well, it didn't move there, it's always been there, in fact it was Labor who expelled the Palestinians in 1948. So I should say that these former Labor members are starting to wake up). So, Yossi Beilin will negotiate with whomever and come up with something like The Geneva Accords. In fact, Yossi Beilin DID negotiate with the Palestinians and DID come up with the Geneva Accords, which is basically the final option discussed in section 8. He negotiated it with Fatah, under Arafat, during some of the most intense violence between 2001-2003. For Palestinians, it is an imperfect solution, because it respects Zionist sensibilities over refugee rights, but most people on all sides acknowledge --if only in private-- that ANY possible agreement is going to look very similar to this. Now, suppose I'm not a liberal Zionist, but one of these pro-Sharon "centrists" who believes in unilateral disengagement because the "demographic demon" is so evil. This is easily the majority in Israel right now. "We can't negotiate with the Palestinians, because they want only to destroy us, so we will build a wall, leave their cities, and leave them to their own devices." Alot of these people formerly did not support a Palestinian state. A lot of them still don't support a truly sovereign Palestinian state, but they don't support ruling directly over Palestinians either. So they make the West Bank into swiss cheese, where Israel is responsible where it is convenient and NOT responsible where it is not convenient. Israel keeps most of its settlements and continues to control much Palestinian movement, but does not have to think of itself as an apartheid state anymore (of course, in South Africa, they "disengaged" from the black Homelands as well, and claimed that they were independent countries and thus their residents shouldn't get a vote in South Africa, and this of course was ridiculous). Even more importantly, Israel keeps all of Jerusalem, does not even acknowledge responsibility for refugees, and can continue to unilaterally control water. So, let's compare the Centrist goals to the Liberal Zionist goals. Liberal Zionist, except for refugee issue, wants to approach Palestinians more or less as equals, with the idea being that the conflict is "solved" by figuring out how to fairly divide the land between two nations. Centrist does not approach Palestinians at all, and in fact unilateralism is clearly based on viewing them as having inferior rights, and therefore a solution need not actually include their input. Liberal Zionist believes in a two-way demogracy: Jewish demogracy and Palestinian demogracy. Liberal Zionist generally assumes everyone WANTS to live in a place where they are the majority. Centrist reserves demogracy as an inherent right for Israel, and RoR as a malicious attempt to destroy this right. Liberal Zionist wants reconcilliation, even if he does not realize that RoR would probably help this process. Centrist just doesn't want to think about Palestinians ever again. So the centrist camp MUST refuse to negotiate with any Palestinian party, or else their ideas have no validity whatsoever. So centrists refused to negotiate with Arafat, with Abbas, and will continue to refuse to negotiate with Hamas.

Now, let's consider the effects of this policy, and let's put it into historical context: before 1948, some Zionists wanted to work with Palestinians as equals to come up with some sort of peaceful way to share the land. These Zionists were marginalized by the mainstream Labor Zionists who actually founded the state. These Labor Zionists presided over the creation of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. Current historiography seems to indicate that the Arab states would have recognized and made peace with Israel if the refugees were allowed to return. But Israel could not do this, because it chose not to recognize the legitimate grievances of Palestinians. So the countries all remained at war, and the refugees could not return home. Thus, Fatah emerges, and to pressure Israel to let the refugees back, Fatah and other groups like it start committing violence against Israelis. Objectively speaking, this is not moral, but it did force Israel to abandon its complacency and always think about the displaced Palestinians in the back of its mind. This violence probably would have ended if the refugees were allowed to return, but Israel could not do that, because it could not caputilate to terrorists. Then critics of this logic would point out that these acts were political, and would stop if Israel addressed the actual grievances behind them. But Israel could not do this, because it chose not to recognize the legitimate grievances of Palestinians. So then Fatah and other groups got organized and formed the PLO. No one took them seriously at first, so they too took up terrorism. When they became big, a lot of pressure could have been put on them to negotiate with Israel, but Israel would not do this, because the demands of the PLO, while alarmingly calling for the "total liberation of Palestine," were based on legitimate grievances against Israel, which Israel chose not to ackowledge. Then in 1974, the PLO proposed a secular, democratic state for both Jews and Palestinians. But Israel would not accept this, because it would entail a return of the refugees, and Israel chose not to recognize the legitimate grievances of Palestinians. Then in 1987, ordinary Palestinians started fighting against the occupation, but Israel smashed it, because it chose not to recognize the legitimate grievances of the Palestinians. FINALLY, after six years, Israel SORT of agreed to negotiate with the PLO. So this was a breakthrough! Except that, because agreeing to negotiate with Palestinians was such a milestone for Israel, it allowed Israel to exaggerate, consciously or otherwise, the actual significance of Oslo, and basically the process was rigged so that Israel would "win" the negotiations. In effect, even the Oslo years exemplified a policy of Israeli unilateralism, because there were so many preconditions placed on Arafat that all the agreements produced then reflected Israeli interests and ignored Palestinian interests. So, in July 2000, Ehud Barak and Arafat couldn't come to an agreement on final status issues. Whether Barak made a generous offer which Arafat rejected is beside the point. Suppose it's true. Arafat DID agree to start talks again several months later, just as Sharon was assuming power. But Barak and Sharon had already decided to demonize and marginalize Arafat, because he wouldn't submit to an imposed (i.e. unilateral) peace by Israel, presented to the world as the result of a negotiation. So now they refused to negotiate with Arafat, who unofficially continued to negotiate with Yossi Beilin. Their reason for not talking to Arafat was that "he wants to destroy Israel." But, the Geneva Accord, as described above, was the product of Yossi Beilin and Fatah. At ANY point in the past three years, if Israel had called up Fatah and said "We'll sign the Geneva Accord if you do," an agreement would have been reached instantly. An imperfect agreement, but one that would satisfy the Liberal Zionist, and technically the Centrist as well, because negotiations were in fact possible and very easy. Certainly an agreement not all Palestinians would appreciate; but one which the supposedly evil Arafat would accept and enforce, if he could. He probably couldn't. But, for the centrist, who wants the PA to be a police force to protect Israelis even if it has no other power, bombing PA police stations and killing Fatah cops wasn't really a smart idea for their interests. So Israel ignores Arafat. Then people like Marwan Barghouti speak of a lasting peace with Israel, and then describe word for word something like the Geneva Plan. This does not excuse Barghouti's actions IF he is in fact guilty, but given his track record, the demonization of him as an INTRACTABLE, INHERENT terrorist rather than a person who uses terrorism to achieve goals that are ULTIMATELY in Israel's AND Palestine's interest is disingenous at worst and, at best, demonstrates a weak understanding of the role of terrorism in every single national liberation movement, including Israel's. Meanwhile, the Yossi Beilins and the other Liberal Zionists notice the rise of the suicide bombings, and are at least smart enough to see some cause-and-effect relationship between Israeli actions in the territories and terrorism in Israel. They start to warn the Centrists and the Right Wingers that Arafat should be strengthened, that if he negotiates a 2 state solution (which is in Israel's interest), then the vast majority of Palestinians will accept it and abide by it, just because of who he is. But the Centrists and Right Wingers have little interest in these unpatriotic Israelis, so they isolate Arafat. Then Arafat dies, and Mahmoud Abbas, who would agree to something even better for Israel than the Geneva Accords, takes over. So the Liberal Zionists say, "now's our chance. Things will get worse if we don't use it." But suddenly, Abbas isn't doing enough about incitement, and he's not fighting terror, and Israel's going to pull out of Gaza anyway, why bother talking to them? What is there to talk about? And the Liberal Zionists point out that it is hypocritical to expect Abbas to confront Hamas if Fatah does not have any arms. But the Centrists would not allow Fatah to import weapons, because Arabs are evil and can't be trusted with them.

And now Hamas is in power. And like I said, Hamas will ULTIMATELY agree to something like the Geneva Accord, but they're not going to hand it over on a silver platter to Israel like Arafat and Abbas would have. So we notice a pattern here. For the last six months, regardless of their political position or whether or not they recognize Palestinian rights, any Israeli with half a brain warned that if Abbas was not dealt with in good faith, and strengthened (NOT by sending him money, which is the kiss of death to know he's on the Israeli or American payroll), but by being offered a full withdrawal and other concessions, then things would get worse and worse for Israel. Any Israeli with a full brain was pushing for Israel to release Marwan Barghouti at this time last year, between when Arafat died and when Abbas was elected president. As I said the other night, Marwan Barghouti, like Hamas, could have enforced a ceasefire; Marwan Barghouti, unlike Hamas, would have agreed very quickly to something like the Geneva Accords. Marwan Barghouti, unlike Hamas, is liberal and secular. And, while I don't personally think anyone should have to do this, Marwan Barghouti, unlike Abbas, could have convinced refugees that they'd be better off going to Palestine (whether or not this is true). Since Hamas is so popular, and IF it remains popular, by caring for its people, then at the end of the day, it too, like Barghouti, will be able to convince most Palestinians to accept the terms described above. So the moral of this story is, you have to deal with whomever you can deal with and address the REAL issues (occupation and terrorism are real issues, "teaching kids peace" is not). Otherwise, things get worse. The same people who feel stupid now for having thought Marwan Barghouti was bad and now must deal with Hamas are the ones who will go on to shun Hamas and ignore the consequences of that. What's next? Islamic Jihad? Bin Laden? a straight up fascist party?

10. This is in line with the last paragraph of point 9. Just as Israel shouldn't have rejected various Palestinian political leaders who could have helped solve this bloody mess much sooner, Israel's supporters should have been alot more careful about whom they villified. Edward Said, for instance, supported the one state solution, but for ALL the right reasons. When he said he wanted peace, equality, and mutual respect between Jews and Palestinians, he meant it, and he backed that up with action. I read that he used to go to synagogues and tell Jews about the Palestinian refugees and the occupation. But he'd also go to Arab groups and tell them about the Holocaust. He was a vocal and passionate voice against anti-semitism, and particularly Holocaust denial (for the record, I think that negationism is one of the most offensive things imaginable). He also spoke out against suicide bombings and the religious fundamentalism that was embodied in Hamas. He wanted everything for Israelis that sane Israelis wanted for themselves; but he also wanted those things for his own people, including the refugees, and thus pro-Israel groups poured massive resources into discrediting this guy, a true humanist with the best intentions for all, who was was influential enough to have had an effect on the Palestinian liberation movement IF he had been strengthened, not weakened, by people who's primary interest in Israel is the security of Israelis (though not necessarily the preponderance of the Zionist institutions). A lot of fake-Liberals say, "if only the Palestinians would use non-violence, like Ghandi, I would support them." well, why don't these fake-Liberals join the Jews who go to Bi'lin and nonviolently fight the wall hand in hand with the Palestinian residents? Why do they demonize divestment campaigns, which are entirely non-violent? Why don't they champion the influential public figures like Edward Said who are guided by universalistic (rather than Palestinian particularist) principles? There have always been Palestinians who oppose Hamas, for any and sometimes all of the reasons that Israelis oppose Hamas.

11. I of course did not anticipate these results. My thoughts before the election were that I hoped either Fatah would overwhelmingly win, or that Hamas would win, but narrowly. The first choice was selfish, because it ignored how bad Fatah has been for Palestinians, so I'm glad that didn't happen. My second choice was based on my concerns that if Hamas were popular, but just barely out of power, it would try to overthrow Fatah by force, and lots of people would die. I don't know how likely that really would have been to happen, though. I'm glad that Fatah was voted out, though; but I wish the margin were smaller, so that Hamas would have less of a chance of feeling cocky as though its electorate endorses all of its views. Kind of like how Bush felt with his 2004 "mandate." And ultimately, I look forward to a lengthy peace between a strong, secular, left wing Israeli government and a strong, secular, left wing Palestinian government.

-Ehud

Cal Tzedek Enters the Twenty-First Century!

2006-01-14T19:34:00.000-08:00

I have finally managed to get an actual comments service on our humble blog. Enjoy!

-Ehud

Kadima

2005-12-11T04:44:00.000-08:00

Lest I become too complacent with the reinvented Sharon, now a man of peace, and his centrist party Kadima, he is now joined by Defense Minister and war criminal Shaul Mofaz. Mofaz believes in "the language of force" as much as Sharon ever has, but he lacks the cuddly image of the new and incredibly popular Sharon. I'm happy that Sharon has formally broken ranks with the fascist right, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking he is a now a champion of human rights in the tradition of such Jewish champions, especially if he hobnobs with folks whose primary method of defense involves "extracting a price" of 7o Palestinians per day --terrorists, or otherwise.

I have not posted in a while --none of us have. Much has happened since June. The Gaza withdrawal was technically successful, and has perhaps moved the general Israeli political spectrum slightly to the left, such that Sharon overwhelmingly beats Netanyahu and Peretz shockingly beats Peres. Islamic Jihad has not exactly helped Peretz's campaign by carrying out a suicide bombing, and at this point anything but a third term for Sharon seems incredibly unlikely.

The president of Iran is certainly a sleaze bag, and I certainly appreciate the broad rejection of his Holocaust denial and stupid, stupid threats. But an Israeli airstrike on suspected nuclear facilities seems like the precursor to a lengthy, lengthy bloodbath. If the aftermath of Iran's two instances of verbal aggression shows anything, it is that, contrary to official Israeli alarmism, IF Israel is threatened after a complete end to the occupation, the rest of the world WILL in fact stick up for it.

On the local front, activism on both sides of the aisle has been very low-key. Students for Justice in Palestine is virtually non-existant, and while the IAC seems to have put on one concert, I am not aware of any political advocacy on their part during the past semseter. In general, I think many Israel/Palestine groups are waiting out the dual elections to see what happens.

Alot of Israelis are nervous about the success of Marwan Barghouti but, even if he has blood on his hands, I would consider him much more favorable to Israel than a Hamas theocrat, and I hope those Israelis in a position to work with secularists do so, if not to effect any sort of justice, simply out of common sense and self-interest. I guess the same argument could be made about Sharon vs. Netanyahu, but then the same argument could be made about Sharon vs. Peretz, and the latter, even if he too is bad for Palestinians, at LEAST, unlike anyone from Likud or the pushovers from post-Oslo labor, he could potentially be good for poor Israelis. EVEN if Peretz is as paternalistic as Barak, at least he has the potential to focus Israel's priorities away from colonizing the West Bank, and towards addressing its actual (not "demographic") threats from within. So, while many have their reservations about Peretz, and I'm certainly nervous about romanticizing --or looking for easy answers in the form of-- anyone, I am nonetheless excited about Peretz heading Labor. I sort of see him as a Howard Dean: I don't really think his views are far enough to the left to prefer him and his party over, say, the Greens, but at LEAST, unlike John Kerry (and Shimon Peres) he seems like he would form an ACTUAL opposition to the Republican party (and the Likud party and its allies).

I hope to continue posting here a couple times a week, harkening back to this blog's glory days.

-Ehud

Shockingly, Schwarzenegger doesn't actually run UC Press

2005-06-24T23:32:00.000-07:00

Alan Dershowitz appears none too happy about the forthcoming book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History by Norman Finkelstein, which rumor has it, tears apart The Case for Israel. So what does the former ACLU advocate do? Why, writes to the governor of California and asks him to stop publication of the book of, course.

Schwarzenegger, showing unusual wisdom, declined to act. The governor's legal affairs secretary wrote Dershowitz, "You have asked for the Governor's assistance in preventing the publication of this book," but "he is not inclined to otherwise exert influence in this case because of the clear, academic freedom issue it presents." (read the whole story here )
(via http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/)

Lisa

British Civil War

2005-06-16T21:37:00.000-07:00

Some recent developments seem to have created a rift in a group of (largely Jewish) pro-Palestinian, socialist, and anti-Zionist activists in Britain.

Other bloggers --with much less tenuous connections to this situation than I-- have opined on this matter extensively. In summary, a small, uh, cabal of pseudo-intellectuals from nominally Jewish backgrounds have been steadily introducing classical anti-Semitic themes into the European socialist and pro-Palestinian movement discourses. The ringleaders are Israel Shamir, Paul Eisen, and Gilad Atzmon --an award winning Jazz saxophonist.

I'd rather not link to any of these gentlemen's writings any more than I already have in an earlier entry. Rather, I direct you to Jews Sans Frontieres where Mark Elf has registered his disgust with the SWP's decision to allow Atzmon a platform at the Marxism 2005 conference. Elf is British and close to the action, and will take part in a picket of a London bookstore where Atzmon will be speaking in advance of the conference.

This will be a showdown between the principled and unprincipled members of this movement, and I hope that the anti-racists are able to expunge the Holocaust denial, ZOG imagery, and Medievalism which these men have introduced --and which their apologists have defended-- from the movement.

One organizer of the picket also set up this petition "rejecting Eisen's and other similar arguments." I would encourage any readers who agree with the politics of these activists and who deplore racism and anti-Semitism to sign the petition.

-Ehud

New York Times article reports on secret kidnapping operations

2005-05-31T09:00:00.000-07:00

Today's New York Times has relatively substantive article on the CIA's secret kidnapping operations. The reporters here have done some good research, although one does wonder why this article didn't appear earlier, given that, as the article reports,

In the aviation industry, said Mr. Houston, who died in 1995, "everybody knows what everybody is doing, and something new coming along is immediately the focus of a thousand eyes and prying questions."

Also interesting is the shifting tone: while the headline calmly states that the CIA is "expanding terror battle under guise of charter flights," and the opening paragraph describes charter flight pilots as the "discreet bus drivers of the battle against terrorism," reading further, we learn that ""When the C.I.A. is given a task, it's usually because national policy makers don't want 'U.S. government' written all over it," said Jim Glerum, a retired C.I.A. officer ," and that "Some of the C.I.A. planes have been used for carrying out renditions, the legal term for the agency's practice of seizing terrorism suspects in one foreign country and delivering them to be detained in another, including countries that routinely engage in torture."

-Lisa

Lee Kaplan Responds

2005-05-30T21:47:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: For the latest on Lee Kaplan, read this.

Lee Kaplan, pretending to be a Lee Kaplan lackey, has responded to my last post . He will respond again to this post to clarify that he is not, in fact, Lee Kaplan. For the record, he chose Option 3.

I will actually try to address some of Mr. Kaplan's points:

I. "did you know article 7 of the PA constitution sets up "Palestine" with sharia law.and Israel [sic] as the only religion?"

This is mostly true. The article, in English, states: "The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be a major source of legislation."

As a secularist, this is certainly something I have a problem with, although I think it is misleading on Kaplan's part to imply that this is on par with the fanatical theocracies of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban. The majority of Palestinians are Muslims. Having Shari'a be a source of legislation makes some sense; having it be a major source is pushing it for me, and I do not support that. But I also do not support the stranglehold which the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel have over marriage, divorce, and immigration issues, and the lack of civil marriage in Israel is one example of Jewish law being a "major source" of Israeli law. My point is that semi-theocracies are bad, but neither Israel nor Palestine are on par with Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Kaplan also conveniently ignores the next sentence: "The civil and religious matters of the followers of monotheistic religions shall be organized in accordance with their religious teaching and their denominations, within the framework of law and in a manner that preserves the unity and independence of the Palestinian people."

In other words, there is room for negotiation on this issue, just like in Israel. Each religious community has some form of autonomy, just like in Israel. Shari'aesque law is considered appropriate for most people, but the constitution does recognize that it is not appropriate for everyone.

It is also true that Islam (not "Israel") is listed in Article 5 as being "the official religion in Palestine." But Kaplan did not mention Article 5, and here's why. It goes on to say:

"Christianity, and all other monotheistic religions, shall be equally revered and respected. The Constitution guarantees equality in rights and duties to all citizens irrespective of their religious belief."

Because Mr. Kaplan alludes to "the PA Constitution in Arabic," I looked at it in Arabic. Unfortunately, Mr. Kaplan, Article 5, in Arabic, says precisely what it says in English. I don't need the expensive translators that NEIN "consults" to justify soliciting donations to tell me that.

Does this mean that the PA has fulfilled the promises of its constitution? Hardly. The P.A. is corrupt and authoritarian, although it has fared relatively better than most other Arab countries. But Kaplan clearly wants us to believe that the Palestinians are so barbaric that they have no problem writing out their plans for despotism and signing their names to it or, better yet, writing a fake progressive constitution in English and hiding their true Arabic colors from the world.

The constitution, in fact, is rather progressive, and apart from the first sentences of Articles 5 and 7, it could be a decent constitution for the new State of Palestine. I could find no reference in it to killing Jews. Without changing the subject, Mr. Kaplan, would you like to point it out to me?

II. "Can Ehud cite any major Islamic group in the United States like CAIR, ADC, MPAC, MPCC etc. that has ever condemned terrorism and not made excuses for 9/11?"

Try this link, in which at least two of your groups are reported to condemn the attacks. By the way, the ADC is not an Islamic group, and as a distinguished journalist, you should know that the vast majority of Arab-Americans are Christians.

III. "1.7% of the West Bank is populated by Jews, why can't they keep their homes and live in a Palestinian state like Arabs live inan Israeli one?"

Here you contradict yourself, because either a). You believe that Palestinians are so brutal --as proven by their constitution-- that no Jew could ever be a Palestinian, or you believe that b). Jews can be Palestinians as long as there's a political agreement that allows them to stay. I have no problem with Jews staying in Palestine, and according to the P.A. constitution, neither would the P.A. How many Israeli settlers, though, do you honestly think want to be Palestinians, even if they are guaranteed the protection the P.A. constitution offers on paper? How many Israeli settlers do you think are willing to give up their Israeli citizenship, their privileges in Israel, to stay where they are? If you really think it's more than a handful, then I will say that yes, they should be allowed to live in Palestine, as Palestinian citizens.

You know that your1.7% is misleading. You and I both know that Area C covers 60% of the West Bank. Assuming the 1.7% of the land with settlements is incorporated into Palestine and all 200,000 West Bank Settlers become fully protected Palestinian citizens, would you be happy to transfer all of Areas A, B, and C to the Palestinian Authority?

IV. "Maybe you should go live inside Israel where Arabs have equal rights to Jews except in the imaginations of the Palestinian propaganda ministries."

Arabs have equal rights to Jews according to the Declaration of Independence, just as all Palestinians have equal rights under their constitution. Is the latter necessarily true? Probably not. But it also demonstrates that a state's core documents do not necessarily reflect the reality of its policies. Until recently, the JNF was allowed to sell its land, which is about 13 percent of Israel's "public land," to Jews only. This was just recently overturned BUT: "From now on, JNF lands will be available to Jews and non-Jews alike - though the ILA will compensate the JNF with substitute land for any plot purchased by a non-Jew."

In other words, Israel is compensating the JNF for the inconvenience of not being able to discriminate against Arabs. Does this sound like a state that protects all of its citizens equally? Did an Arab propaganda ministry make this up?

V. "I dare you to prove anything Lee Kaplan has ever written has been untrue."

In "Why You Should Not Donate Funds to Berkeley Hillel" Kaplan writes: "Tzedek is a national organization within Hillel also but was not removed."

Tzedek is NOT a national organization within Hillel. Mr. Kaplan probably assumed this because he googled "tzedek hillel" or something. There are other Hillel chapters with other subsidiary organizations called "Tzedek." They have different functions, and Cal Tzedek is not affiliated with them in any way. Nor is Tzedek affiliated with Brit Tzedek V'Shalom. "Tzedek" is a common word and can be applied to all sorts of Jewish organizations. Tzedek was founded by U.C. Berkeley Students in 2002 and has never been affiliated with any organization other than Berkeley Hillel. Had Kaplan's efforts to keep his exposes "well-researched" extended beyond a cursory Internet search, this fact would have been clear to him.

On a related note, in "Inside Duke's Hatefest," Kaplan places his ego above any semblance of actual events and describes his fantasy of the 2003-2004 year:

"When scholar Daniel Pipes came to speak at U.C. Berkeley, some students from the campus Hillel sought to disrupt his speech and had organized events critical of Israel. I joined some pro-Israel students who were concerned about these activities and expressed their concern on the Internet program, Israel National News. Instead of addressing the problem, Hillel's director ejected the pro-Israel students who had gone on the air to expose the radicals in their midst. On campuses like Berkeley, Hillel has created a monster -- a vehicle for anti-Israel activists funded by the Jewish state's most ardent supporters."

Kaplan's Fantasy Chronology:

1. Announcement of Daniel Pipes' lecture.

2. some Hillel students seeking to disrupt the speech.

3. some Hillel students organizing events critical of Israel.

4 (presumably): Daniel Pipes speeks and is disrupted, thanks to some Hillel students.

5. Lee Kaplan and concerned students address these issues on Israel National News.

6. DAFKA "ejected."

These are all belied by a perusal through DAFKA's own archives. The actual chronology is something like this.

1. Hillel and Jewish Student Union disaffilliate from DAFKA sometime in October, 2003. The reasons why are disputed by the two parties. I will take Mr. Kaplan's word on this.

2. Tzedek members organize a panel called "Meet the Jewish Left" which is held on October 30, 2003. That night, Mr. Kaplan "exposes Berkeley Hillel" on the Tovia Singer Show. Executive Director of Hillel asks Mr. Kaplan to leave the room, and they engage in a lengthy and vocal argument outside. DAFKA students were allowed to stay and politely asked questions at the end. None of them were ejected or heckled (nor had any of them attempted to dominate the question and answer session, nor had any of them been secretly recording anything).

3. Over the next couple of weeks, Mr. Kaplan and people who listened to the show continue to heckle Berkeley Hillel's Executive Director.

4. Sometime in November, the prospect of Daniel Pipes coming to Berkeley is proposed by the Israel Action Committee, although Tzedek was not aware of this until January.

5. In January of 2004, Tzedek appealed to the Jewish Student Union to withhold funds from the event and, when that failed, organized a letter to be printed in the Daily Cal which denounced the event.

6. On February 10th, 2004 Daniel Pipes came, and all sorts of craziness happened. I only know of one Hillel (and Tzedek) member who opposed the event and who did not stay outside demonstrating peacefully the whole time. He did not take part in the disruptions, nor did Tzedek encourage them. Presumably, Lee Kaplan and his concerned students were there, but I think I've made it clear by now that Kaplan's depiction of these events was entirely distorted so as to exaggerate the injustice committed against DAFKA.

In "Ford Funds the Palestinian Left," Kaplan claims that "B' tselem never addresses human rights abuses in the Palestine Authority where misogyny, religious intolerance and public murders of "collaborators" are rife." This is a convenient way to discredit out-of-hand an organization which meticulously documents evidence which contradicts the rosy picture Mr. Kaplan would like to paint about life in the Territories. But he is simply wrong here. B'tselem devotes an entire section to Palestinian attacks on Israelis and another to the death penalty in the P.A. It even has an extensive report from 1994, when most of Israel was lovey-dovey about the Oslo process, criticizing the Palestinian Authority and other political groups for their role in "the torture and killing of Palestinians suspected of collaborating with the Israeli authorities during the Intifada."

So Mr. Kaplan is, at best, far sloppier at research than he claims. The B'tselem dig, however, is particularly insiduous, and I believe it is a deliberate lie which he assumes will go unchallenged by the typical FrontPageMag reader.

I eagerly await your response Mr. Kaplan/Kaplan Fan (and to Other Lee Kaplan Fan, I appreciate your kind words. I will respond to you soon).

-Ehud

U.S. Preparing to Use "Small" Nuclear Bombs

2005-05-27T18:40:00.000-07:00

See this story in Haaretz:

"Each detonation of a bomb a few meters underground would destroy most of the buildings on the surface to a range of two kilometers. After the explosion, there would be a need to quickly evacuate civilians from an area of 100 square kilometers, to avoid the deadly effects of the radioactive fallout; buildings, agricultural crops and livestock would be affected in an area of thousands of square kilometers, and depending on wind direction and velocity, there could be a need to evacuate more people from thousands of additional square kilometers. None of this takes into account the political and psychological repercussions of using nuclear weapons for the first time in more than 60 years. The Bush administration regards all this as "limited collateral damage.""
The article concludes:
"Herein lies an inherent contradiction in the American approach that on the one hand acts with commendable determination to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms, but on the other hand, contributes toward it by adopting an irresponsible nuclear policy."

Limited collateral damage? That the administration is even contemplating the use of nuclear weapons is an outrage.

Lisa

Is DAFKA racist?

2005-05-22T23:40:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: For the latest on Lee Kaplan, read this.

Lee Kaplan is a true Renaissance man. As National Director of DAFKA, he is a brave, tells-it-like-it-is defender of my right to settle in all of the Land of Israel. In his former stint as the Coordinator for the U.C. Berkeley chapter of Students for Academic Freedom, he tirelessly defended my right to praise my government. As a front man for Stop The ISM he has significantly impeded the International Solidarity Movement by putting up a conspicuously incomplete website, promising to update it soon, then abandoning it. As a hard-hitting investigative reporter for David Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine, he holds nothing back: he has seen it all, and his writings --while scholarly-- are hardboiled and gritty in a way that can only be expected of a world-weary, no-nonsense journalist's journalist.

He now has a new job, which is front-page news on his own DAFKA site (let's remember that DAFKA still has many student members, and is most certainly not just a venue for Kaplan's self-promotion). As Director of Communications for the Northeast Intelligence Network, "Mr. Kaplan will be expanding the organization's media attention" (i.e. appearing on the Tovia Singer show every other week).

The Northeast Intelligence Network "is an anti-terrorist web site developed in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on America that will offer practical reference information, vital links, and other valuable information from an investigative perspective."

So, as a macho, no-holds-barred super agent, Lee Kaplan literally is defending my life, and for this I have immense gratitude. After all, he's in good company:

"We are not constrained by bureaucratic 'red tape' that always tends to slow things down. Although we are respectful and never try to be offensive to anyone or any group of people (except the terrorists who are trying to kill us), we do not have to worry about being 'politically correct.' "
--Answer to FAQ (by Douglas Hagmann, Director)

He goes on to demonstrate the sincerity with which he is respectful to everyone but the terrorists. In response to "Are you against Islam?" he clarifies:

"I am against anyone who flies planes into buildings and kills innocent men, women and children for their beliefs. I am against anyone who has painted targets on the backs of my family, friends, neighbors and fellow citizens and desires to kill them for their beliefs. I am also sick and tired of the sugar-coated rhetoric I hear about tolerance and political correctness, and I do NOT blame the US and our lifestyle for being attacked on 9/11. I do NOT believe we have to 'look inward' or ask ourselves 'why' we were attacked on 9/11 like some of the more visible politicians and pundits have suggested. I also DO NOT believe that the religion of Islam was 'hijacked' or 'perverted' as many in our own government have stated. If that makes me anti-Islam, then so be it."

It does make him anti-Islam, and not in the cute sense he is suggesting so as to demonstrate how Bold he is in Standing Up to the Intractable Cult of Political Correctness. This is virulently racist stuff in which he explicity rejects any distinction between "Radical Islam" and Islam, a distinction that even demagogues like Daniel Pipes pretend to make before warning us to keep an eye on that mosque around the corner, just in case.

Elsewhere, Laura Mansfield, Associate Director and Middle East "Specialist" writes: "Im still waiting for an apology from Muslims for the September 11, 2001 attacks." That "Muslims" must apologize for these "Muslim" crimes echoes the filth that Israel Shamir peddles about collective, pathological Jewish guilt for "Jewish crimes" and "Jewish racism."

Are these sentiments consistent with the principles of DAFKA? It is very clear from the site's front page that DAFKA opposes racism and fascism coming from Arab and Islamic countries; and, because the group's membership is diverse and consists of "Jews, Muslims and Christians or Secularists," it can be assumed that this disgust with racism is from a universalistic perspective. So DAFKA is an anti-racist organization. True, it links to the Kahanist Masada 2000, but that's really just because Masada 2000 is an excellent source of the information which the Oslo Criminals are trying to censor from us. Why, then, would the National Director of an anti-racist organization align himself with racists?

It's possible that Mr. Kaplan is only interested in Stopping Terror and does not agree with the views of Mr. Hagmann or Ms. Mansfield. If he were anyone else, I would assume this to be true. But by Mr. Kaplan's own rules, he needs to explicitly and publicly denounce those statements or else he AND his organization will always be associated with them. Consider his January, 2004 e-mail exchange with SF State Professor Stephen Zunes. Kaplan says to Zunes:

"From my knowledge of you, you tend to run with people who advocate dismantling Israel. For our debate, I think it only fair if you have made statements in the past in the company of such groups, or attended meetings with them where you did not condemn certain activities or positions or statements you at least clarify your position by rejecting them."

He takes it a step further:

"Surely you can write a one page letter to Yasser Arafat? If you state your position as you have stated to me, it could prevent the situation from roiling some more. I do believe you are perceived by the "other side" as being against the US and Israel. You had time to write me, so certainly this should be no burden on you unless you fear presenting your views to your public? Humor me, write the letter, one page, and copy me."

It seems to me like Mr. Kaplan has only three options given the high standards which (I assume) he holds himself to.

1. He can clearly and publicly denounce the racist comments by his colleagues, thus preserving DAFKA's impeccable anti-racist credentials while being able to continue his important anti-terror work.

2. He can avoid denouncing them which, by his own definition, proves that he shares their sentiments.

3. He can claim that the comments in question are not racist --which perhaps is a legitimate position, although it would call into question the validity of DAFKA's anti-racist principles.

Lee Kaplan reads this. I can say with zero hesitation that as a Very Important Person with a Very Big Ego, and a Very Big Grudge against us Bolshevik Tzedek Extremists, Lee Kaplan will read any of our posts that mention DAFKA. So I challenge you, Mr. Kaplan, to be consistent with your own standards and act accordingly. I would be very disappointed if you didn't, because you protect me in so many ways.

-Ehud

Is Hasbara...dishonest?!

2005-04-22T15:04:00.000-07:00

There is more to J.K's April 19th letter than meets the eye. I would not normally sit here and transcribe the text of the article which is conspicuously absent from the Daily Cal website. But this is too amazing to pass up:

Teach Kids Peace

"We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us." Golda Meir was absolutely right. Now, more than ever in the past fifty-seven years, there is an opportunity for genuine dialogue and ultimate peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

However, with that optimism comes a lingering skepticism. For years, the Palestinian leadership has been indoctrinating children to hate and instructing them towards violence. This type of exploitation has brainwashed a whole generation to hate Israel.

This hate-filled indoctrination is institutionalized and systemic. In order for genuine peace to ever emerge, the Palestinian Authority must begin to teach their children peace. With the death of former PA president Yasser Arafat, a different Palestinian leadership has laid the ground for a better future, seemingly moving in the direction of dismantling terrorist organizations and preparing the Palestinian people for peace. However, while Palestinian children are still predisposed to hate their Jewish neighbors, there are still greater goals that must be achieved.

The PA must dismantle its military-style summer camps for children --camps with the explicit aim of preparing children for battle. Agreements between governments carry little significanceif future generations are being schooled in the ways of war instead of the ways of peace.

Unfortunately, this generation of Palestinian children has been forced to endure a level of hateful propaganda, forcing them to be pawns in a corrupt game of death. Too often, we have seen children between ages 14 and 16, wearing explosive belts, walk into crowded bus stops, resturants, and malls and blow themselves up with the aim of inflicting as many casualties as possible. Just several months ago in November, a 16 year old Palestinian boy walked into a market in Jerusalem, and blew himself up, killing three Israelis and himself.

Children do not grow up wanting to be terrorists unless they are directly instructed that it is a proper way to live one's life. Currently, these youths are being taken out of their homes and their schools and brought into a world where violence instead of communication is the only means for resolution.

No set of values anywhere in the world mandates the exploitation of children for the express purpose of killing themselves in order to kill others. Human rights organizations must stand at the forefront of condemning behavior that leads directly to the murder of innocent civilians. The Palestinian Authority needs to be held accountable for promoting the use of "child soldiers," especially by the human rights organizations, but currently is not.

Yet, in this time of great potential, perhaps a new era will emerge where violence is traded for hope. Strides towards resolution are beginning, and democracy is starting to take root. Now is the time for legitimate change in the region. Now, more than ever, is the time to teach kids peace.

J.K.,
Israel Action Committee Chair
* * * * * * * * * * *
Now, I was snooping around some Hasbara websites, when I discovered a link to one called Teach Kids Peace. In their campus section, they brag that "Op-eds were printed in student newspapers at Drexel University, American University and many others." Clicking on these links reveals op-eds by Laruen Krol and Gregg Roman, respectively. Unfortunately, they are exactly alike!!! Word for word, these "op-eds" are identical!

Anyway, I had lost my copy of Tuesday's Daily Cal until today, when I got another copy directly from the office. Below I will print the Krol/Roman piece. Pay attention to the color-correspondence. I understand that this is visually unappealing and awkward, but bear with me:

There is cause for optimism for those monitoring progress in the Middle East. A new era led by a movement toward democracy is gripping the region and we should all approach this era with a profound sense of hope.

Entrenched in this optimism however, still lingers some of the skepticism of the past. Years of indoctrinating children to hate others, instructing children toward violence, and exploiting children into war has created a generation that has been brainwashed to act as a veto against any real peace. This state-sponsored, systemic indoctrination continues today and children continue to be exploited and abused into violence.

This must end. For peace to prevail the Palestinian Authority (PA) must begin to teach their children peace.

The Palestinian Authority has been rejuvenated with a leadership that seems committed to resolving the bitter feuds that have plagued their peoples for so many years. However, for this commitment to be seen as a real pledge for peace, the PA must begin dismantling its infrastructure of hate that Yasser Arafat so rigidly constructed. The PA administers military style summer camps for children with the implicit aim of preparing them for battle. Children are taught that war is the way of the future, leaving little room for ambitions of peace. While Israeli children attend summer camps that teach skills such as swimming, art, and other positive life skills, Palestinian children attending PA administered camps learn the basics of violence, hatred and combat. State sponsored military training for children is nothing less than child abuse.

No peace agreement alone will dispel the deeply entrenched hatred that has so tenaciously been programmed into these children. A generation of children have been forced to endure a level of hateful propaganda that has left them ready to fight and die, entirely unaware that they are being used as pawns in a corrupt game of death.

Too often we have seen children ranging from 14 to 16 years old strap themselves to a bomb and blow themselves up. On November 1, 2004, a 16-year-old Palestinian blew himself up in the Carmel market in Jerusalem, killing three Israelis and himself. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility. But what does it mean when a terrorist organization claims responsibility for a terrorist attack? What does it mean when the terrorist was 16 years old? It means that organizations are taking the Palestinian youth out of their homes, their schools and their nightclubs and are bringing them into a sinister, manufactured world and teaching them to kill. Unfortunately however, these terrorist organizations are neither limited to fringe groups nor sidelined by the government. The government itself promotes this behavior and acts as a resource in preparing children to pursue this activity. In fact, the web site of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, the military wing of Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party, displays pictures of children training in uniform with weapons. In most Western countries it is considered child abuse for a parent to teach their child to use a gun when he or she is five years old. Where is the condemnation when the PA commits the same abuse against an entire generation?

Between January 2002 and January 2004, there were at least eight terrorist attacks committed by children less than 18 years of age. Children do not naturally aspire to blow themselves up. This attitude is taught and learned; now is the time to stop it.

With this new hopeful era that has emerged in the region, must also come a commitment to teaching the children peace. Children are not soldiers, they are not weapons and they should be taught love and compassion, not hatred and intolerance. The world must demand an end to the exploitation and abuse of Palestinian children. The future of Middle East peace depends on it.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

So this is what Hasbara has come to: a plagiarism ring. Which is not surprising, since I do not believe "critical thinking" or "research" are what are emphasized in Hasbara seminars.

-Ehud

Indoctrination

2005-04-19T16:51:00.000-07:00

Here is my response to a letter to the Daily Cal by the head of the Israel Action Committee. He discussed incitement by the P.A. and its effects on the peace process. There are several points on which I disagree with him, and I hope the Daily Cal prints my response, although I would not count on it:

J.K.’s letter (“Teach Kids Peace,” April 19) did not appear to be in response to anything which the Daily Cal has actually printed recently. Thus, I can only assume that it is one of those periodical recitations of the standard truisms: Israelis love, Palestinians hate. Israelis are instinctively democratic, Palestinians are not. Israel has always sought peace, the Palestinians have always responded with war.

These Golda Meir Era clichés are quite soothing for those of us with something to lose in Israel (such as a sister) who might otherwise get that uncomfortable feeling that perhaps Palestinian youth have been “brainwashed” not exclusively by the PA, but by the “institutionalized and systemic” policies of Israel toward them, their families, and their property. Hasbara never fails to leave me with that warm and fuzzy feeling that those who have been so radicalized as to want to hurt my sister have undergone that process only in the last twelve years, and only because of what they have seen on television or read in a book.

It’s really quite an empowering way of looking at things! Consider the inexplicably popular FaceBook group “Responsible Parenting,” of which Mr. K. is a member. By “wondering what kind of parent allows their child to go and throw rocks at tanks,” we can take comfort in the fact that Palestinian parents don’t really care about their children’s well-being, meaning that if those children were to die it would mean less to them (and should mean less to us) than if our children were to die. Plus, we get to ignore the question of why people in tanks feel the need to fire back at children throwing rocks! It’s the best of both worlds, and the feeling of moral absolution is heavenly!

But ultimately, it reeks of the arrogance and ignorance which those who have power allow themselves to exhibit toward those who do not. Israel’s government presumes to be able to read the collective Palestinian mind, as if there were such a thing, and for rather self-serving reasons. Of Sharon’s infamous 14 Reservations to the Road Map for Peace, often described as being-security related, only the first two really deal with the violence and incitement (and the first reservation even presents Israel’s demand that “the road map will not state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians.”) The other twelve essentially exist to preserve Israel’s advantage in negotiations, on issues such as the settlements, right of return, and Jerusalem.

This is not to belittle Mr. K’s point that incitement, terrorism, and “child soldiers” are immoral phenomena, but he should look more carefully before claiming that “human rights organizations” do not condemn these things. B’Tselem has an entire section dedicated to Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians which it condemns in the strongest possible terms, along with the PA’s rather broad application of the death penalty. Amnesty International has called suicide bombings a “crime against humanity.” Human Rights Watch, in response to the horrific November bombing that Mr. K. described, states, “Palestinian armed groups should immediately end all use of children in military attacks.” If these groups focus more on Israeli policies, perhaps that’s because Israeli policies play a greater role in the conflict.

Ehud

t-shirts

2005-04-12T18:43:00.000-07:00

Apparently, someone recently came by looking for "kach t-shirts." sorry, wrong place. JVP has some nice ones though.

In other news, the American Jewish Congress has just announced that all us Jews ought to rush out and buy some Caterpillar stock. Because clearly it should be the top priority of American Jews to support an American company that provides equipment that makes Palestinian families homeless. Not.

More at Semitism.net.

-Lisa

CaterPillar of Democracy

2005-03-23T14:08:00.000-08:00

On Wednesday, Jewish Voice for Peace led about 65 mostly Jewish activists in a demonstration at San Leandro's CAT dealership. JVP's strategy is smart: they have bought up stock in Caterpillar so that they can vote in shareholder elections. Whether or not this will effect a decision by CAT to stop its sale of modified bulldozers to Israel has yet to be seen, but it definitely is getting some folks worried. More on that later. First, a rare criticism by me of the Left/Peace Camp which might not make me extremely popular:

Rachel Corrie should NOT be the symbol of the anti-house-demolition movement. She took a noble stand and paid the ultimate price. The investigation into her death was a joke, and there must be an independent investigation. Her parents are right to sue CAT, and they deserve moral support. But when demonstrators descend upon CAT dealerships, she should not be the focal point of the demonstration. The Israeli army did not "go too far" when it used a CAT D-9 to kill Ms. Corrie. They went too far in October, when they more or less arbitrarily destroyed 55 homes in Jabaliya. They went too far in May, when it was hundreds of homes in Rafah. Long before Rachel Corrie, they went too far during the Oslo years when 2200 homes were destroyed for being built in "Area C" (which was almost 60% of the West Bank).

By fixating on Rachel Corrie, activists indirectly assert that the "clearing operations" carried out during the fog of war, the thankfully discontinued non-deterrent collective punishment demolitions, the racistly selective "administrative demolitions" meant to assert that "Area A is your homeland! Why aren't you grateful?", that these demolitions are not reason enough to deplore the sale of bulldozers to Israel. We should not need a martyr to present our case with moral clarity. JVP activists acknowledged this at one point during the demonstration, and I appreciated it, but CAT knew damn well that we were there on the anniversary of Rachel's death, and that for many of us, she was our cause.

I absolutely do not want to suggest that the actual demolitions were less important to any of these activisits than was Ms. Corrie. That is not what I believe. But I think we need to present our case more effectively for others. Rachel Corrie is such an easy target for our political opponents. She burnt a (paper) American Flag! Her death was an accident, or she deliberately let herself be killed! Look at the picture, it's clearly doctored! The ISM is an anti-Semitic terrorist front group, as proven by Lee Kaplan, Investigative Reporter! And whether or not any of these rebuttals are valid, our opponents can stop listening to us once they put them forth. They need not confront the actual Israeli policies behind the home demolitions, the huge scale on which they occur, the homelessness they perpetuate, the colonial arrogance with which they are carried out. They need not look us --or more significantly, a Palestinian whose house has been arbitrarily destroyed-- in the eye and say without looking away that these actions are moral. We are setting ourselves up too easily, and allowing right-wingers to steer the debate in their direction. We are letting them distract us, waste our time with intimations that we are dishonest, that we are naive, that we have been duped or are ourselves the dupers, that we do not understand that suicide bombings are deplorable, that we foolishly feel sorry for one person who has died when so many others have also died. The next time around, we should each come armed not with pictures of Rachel Corrie, but with B'Tselem reports detailing just how "necessary" these demolitions are for the "democracy defending itself."

Having said that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with commemorating Rachel Corrie's death. I also applaud the lawsuit filed against CAT earlier this week. This, more than anything, will put pressure on CAT to change its policies. But I still maintain that this campaign would be more effective if the parallel demonstrations focused solely on house demolitions. I wish the Corries the best of luck in their suit, and hope that it results in justice both for their daughter and for all of those whose lives have been worsened by this destructive series of policies.

Now, onto at least one sign that the campaigns by JVP and other groups might be worrying the Right: a ListServ proporting to represent North American Jewish students, but which is far too reactionary to accurately do that, presents the following Action Alert:

************************
SUPPORT CATERPILLAR COMPANY’S BUSINESS WITH ISRAEL

· COUNTER THE ANTI-ISRAEL PRESSURE ON THE CATERPILLAR COMPANY

· BUY CATERPILLAR STOCK if possible

BACKGROUND

A coalition of anti-Israel groups, “Stop Caterpillar,” is zeroing in on Caterpillar to make it stop selling bulldozers to Israel. Their strategy is to target a small, specific “winnable” action and use it as a launching pad to begin boycotts of Israel by US companies. They plan to “turn the tide in pushing US corporations to stop doing business with Israel until the Occupation ends.”...

...Members of Jewish Voice for Peace and Sisters of Loretto bought Caterpillar stock, giving them the power to introduce an anti-Israel resolution at the annual Caterpillar Shareholders meeting on April 14 2004. It called for the company to investigate its business dealings with Israel, and vilified Israel in the proposal and in speeches at the meeting. This is the first time an American corporation has ever had an anti-Israel proposal. The Board of Directors unanimously recommended voting against it, arguing that they had neither the legal right nor the means to police how their equipment is used and that policies about the Middle East should be left up to government....

...Jewish Voice for Peace stockholders reintroduced the anti-Israel proposal for this year’s Shareholder’s Meeting, scheduled for April 13 2005 in Chicago and are calling for world-wide demonstration against Caterpillar for the same day. The Presbyterian Church and an array of anti-Israel groups and human rights groups support the actions. [Emphasis mine]...

...Caterpillar has firmly resisted this pressure—so far. Company spokesman Benjamin Cordani said, "What we're talking about here is a publicity campaign being taken on by a small number of persons.” Even so, some Israeli officials are concerned that the bad publicity will eventually influence the corporation [Emphasis mine]..."

The action alert then suggests several actions to take so as to "Help BALANCE the pressure they are receiving:"

1. BUY CATERPILLAR STOCK TO SUPPORT THE COMPANY AND TO VOTE AGAINST THE ANTI-ISRAEL RESOLUTIONS. LET’S GET A MASSIVE MOVEMENT OF PRO-ISRAEL SHAREHOLDERS....

2. PLAN A COUNTER-DEMONSTRATION AT A CATERPILLAR OFFICE NEAR YOU
· Carry signs that

Credit Caterpillar for helping the fight against terrorism

Thank Caterpillar for doing business with the democratic nation of Israel

Criticize anti-Israel groups that support terrorism

3. SIGN OUR DECLARATION SUPPORTING CATERPILLAR AND ISRAEL

4. WRITE CATERPILLAR’S BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO THANK THEM FOR DOING BUSINESS WITH ISRAEL AND REASSERT ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF FROM TERRORISM - This will counteract the 43,000 letters that they have received from people trying to stop Caterpillar from selling to Israel.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

So not even the organizers of this counter-action will deny that human rights groups oppose the house-demolitions and believe that Caterpillar's supplying Israel with bulldozers is irresponsible. They don't even bother to remind their on-call activists that these human rights groups are “controlled by Arab dictatorships” or “never condemn terror.” That these human rights groups would voice objection to an Israeli policy is apparently damning enough. Since the authors of this memo do not even attempt to discredit these groups by other means, they betray their reactionary attitude: criticizing Israel is wrong.

I have a question for both right wing activists and mainstream Hasbara activists. When a group says something about Israel that you believe is defamatory, is there automatically no truth to it? I’m not saying that you should not correct misinformation or argue your perspective, but do you really believe there is a conspiracy to “demonize, delegitimize, and dehumanize” Israel? Do you think that “the Left” wakes up every day and asks “how can we demonize, delegitimize, and dehumanize Israel today?”? And if this is the case, is it at all disproportionate to the campaign by Stand With Us (listed as an “encourager” of this action) to demonize, delegitimize, and dehumanize the Palestinian Authority? And if this IS an appropriate tactic, wouldn’t it also be appropriate to do the same toward Israel? Demonization, delegitimization, and dehumanization, as reprehensible as they are, serve strategic or political purposes. They are not arbitrary expressions of hatred. If you are going to call out your opponents for using them, be prepared to turn the mirror on yourselves.

I’d vote against demonizing, delegitimizing, and dehumanizing either party, but I think we need to remind ourselves that governments and militaries and corporations are always impure, that there is no such thing as “purity of arms,” and that exceptionalism in this regard is at best moral comfort food and at worst moral mythology.

One person to whom “special thanks” is directed in this action alert is Roberta Seid, “Director of Research and Education for Stand With Us.” She is ALSO one of the “historians” behind the recent study –all but ignored in Israel but lapped up by ultra-nationalist Zionist groups here—which claims that 1.4 million Palestinians do not exist. But as my main man and Haaretz columnist Akiva Eldar recently taunted: “Experts on the right say that the demographic problem is overblown. Okay, then let them annex it all.”

I do not support the Israeli Left’s idea that annexing Palestinian land is bad because demographics are a “problem,” but I’d love to see Ms. Seid squirm out of Eldar’s challenge. “Well…” I can imagine her saying. “They’re not really ours. They’re disputed.”

-Ehud

More on torture outsourcing

2005-03-06T10:08:00.000-08:00

The New York Times > Washington > Rule Change Lets C.I.A. Freely Send Suspects Abroad to Jails

Days after 9/11, President Bush signed orders permitting the CIA to send individuals to be tortured in other countries.

this is justifiable how?

2005-03-04T20:59:00.000-08:00

Lawrence of Cyberia writes about the effects of the 'permit system.'

on "dialogue"

2005-03-02T22:36:00.000-08:00

The economist Amartya Sen spoke at Berkeley today. His comments largely focused upon the problems of the construct of the 'clash of civilizations' which has become one of the dominant frames for understanding difference in the contemporary world. Among his comments was a critique of programs of "Dialogue," especially such programs that seek to attain cultural understanding between Muslims and another group. The main difficulty with such programs, as I understood his argument, was that they set up a framework for dialogue in which individuals have a place to participate only through an identity that is seen to represent a discrete and unitary 'civilization.' A somewhat similar argument is made by Sara Helman, in her article "Monologic Results of Dialogue: Jewish-Palestinian Encounter Groups as Sites of Essentialization" (Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power , 9: 327-354, 2002). Definitely food for thought.

Lisa

Assorted Self-Hatred

2005-02-11T21:14:00.000-08:00

A couple months ago, a DAFKA sympathizer commented here:

"The Germans had their "Jewish police" in the Warsaw Ghetto and thier [sic] "kapos" int he [sic]camps who gladly cooperated to control those other nasty Jews. This is Ehud and the Tzedek puppets for the Arabs."

Tzedek members and supporters have been called self-hating Jews and kapos on more than one occasion. This is generally the discourse of the right, and the majority of pro-Israel students, as much as they might have disagreed with our positions, refrained from and even repudiated such rhetoric.

Here's what I wonder: why the fixation on self-hatred? If what I say is anti-Semitic, why not call me an anti-Semite? If anything, you're doing a disservice to your cause --discrediting Jewish critics of Israel-- by explaining away our viscious Jew-hatred as some sort of inverted self-punishment.

The only reason I bring this up is because DAFKA has a current link to an article about the "Auschwitz Borders" which would threaten Israel if there were to be any sort of non-bantustan Palestinian state. DAFKA seems to love Holocaust imagery: IDF are Nazis (but only until 1942 or so), the PLO are Nazis (1942-1945), I'm a kapo, new houses within the Green Line are crematoriums, black is white, war is peace, etc. All these concepts are bungled up in a grisly view of today's world which thoroughly trivializes the actual suffering of Jews and the other Holocaust victims. (Members of the Left have been guilty of this too, and when such excesses occur they are no less offensive).

But since this discourse --which serves to justify references to Auschwitz so as to equate Israel's uncertain territorial future with the genocide against European Jewry-- is fixated on ethnic treason, it is ironic that this article is written by: Joseph Farah.

Another article by Mr. Farah, entitled "The Jews Took No One's Land" (and I appreciate this, because "The Jews," in fact, did not take anyone's land. But the I.L.A. did), begins:

"As the most visible Arab-American critic of Yasser Arafat and the phony "Palestinian" agenda, I get a lot of hate mail." So I assume DAFKA would think he was fair game for other Arabs to call a self-hating Arab, or a Mossad operative or something. But probably DAFKA does not feel that way. Anyone who would hurl those epithets, after all, Just Can't Stand that the Truth Is Getting Out!

Of course, even I think these would be grossly inappropriate, and I would implore critics of Farah's "work" to call him what he is: an anti-Palestinian bigot. He might not use cruel slurs involving sand and whatnot, but he clearly believes that Palestinians do not exist, an unmistakably racist position. In another article, Farrah "corrects" "myths" like the one about Palestinians existing:

"Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. (...) [Palestinian self-determination is] just a phony excuse for the rioting, trouble-making and land-grabbing. (...) They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough."

In other words, Palestinians do not exist and therefore are lying, uncivilized barbarians who are pathologically greedy. But I'm sure that if Farah were called out on this characterization, he would clarify that he by no means meant to suggest some sort of biological determinism...how DARE we infer that from his work! I'm sure he would explain that he was refering only to Arab leaders, who are indeed fair game for the harshest of criticisms. But that such clarifications would come out only when he is put on the defensive calls into question their sincerity.

But I should give him the benefit of the doubt, since charges of racism are quite serious indeed. Why, therefore, do I have no doubt? Because of Israel Shamir.

These men are mirror-images of each other. They are caricatures of the Arab and the Jew who use their "credentials" to demonize Arabs and Jews, respectively, for being Arabs and Jews (also respectively).

Shamir calls for "FULL EQUALITY OF NATIVE AND ADOPTIVE PALESTINIANS and
for One Man, One Vote."

And I agree. Shamir is not offensive because of this position. He is offensive because of his fixation on the unique, pathological flaws of World Jewry. He is offensive because he is anti-Semitic. Some quotes from his articles:

"Such a concentration of any minority group (be it Korean or Mormon) in the media would be perilous. However, the concentration of Jews has its specifics, for the Jews profess a different, non-Christian, or even anti-Christian faith."

Earlier in that article, though, he concentrated on "the Jewish neo-Cons." And the neo-Cons (who are not all Jewish) are a pretty rotten lot who should be subjected to the harshest of criticisms --just like the corrupt PLO, just like the despotic Arab dictators, all of which Farah will trot out once his pure contempt for Palestinians becomes too obvious. Other Shamir quotes:

"A new spectre haunts America. It enters the well-protected boardrooms of newspapers and banks, shakes the deep foundations of its towers. It is the spectre of glasnost: the dark secret of Jewish power is out."

"I do not like philo-Semites, i.e. people choosing to fight anti-Semitism, of all ills." He then complains about Abe Foxman's hypocrisy, completely ignoring the understanding among progressive Jews that what Foxman does is not fighting anti-Semitism --it is silencing his political opponents. Next, Shamir describes the ouvre of legitimately racist Jews like Daniel Pipes to prove his case that Jews opposing anti-Semitism are being disproportionately chauvinistic. Of course this is an ethnocentric phenomenon, and of course all people should fight passionately against all forms of racism. But to suggest that some aspect of self-interest is unique to Jews is ridiculous, and it's the overwhelming theme of Shamir's work.

Some articles by other writers on his site:

-Philo-Semitic Attacks On The Rise in which Joh Domingo describes "Philo-semitism" as the force behind the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. There might be something to this, considering the "love" which the Christian Right has for the Jews, but here's another way to look at it: Jews aren't necessarily doing these things, but they are being done because of Jews. No Jews, no problems. Even Hamas has suggested a greater tolerance for Jews recently. And I do not think that Joh Domingo is advocating violence, genocide, or even expulsion of Jews from any society. But he wants Jews marginalized, by any rhetorical means necessary. Consider this closing line:

"In what appears to be a fantastic delusion, judeophiles believe that hundreds of thousands of people a month were incinerated in the ovens of Auschwitz."

-Jews or Zionists? Three approaches in which Elias Davidsson concludes that

"all those who take an anti-Zionist position because they espouse principles of human dignity and equality, would do well to also reflect on the more large perspective of Jewish Power and the religious and ideological grounds for such concentration of power."

-Jewish Power in which Paul Eisen discusses Jewish Power.

Some observations about IsraelShamir.net:

-It is littered with praise for how brilliant Shamir is. You just have to look for it. Not very hard, though.

-He invokes Edward Said whenever possible, which is quite sick considering that Edward Said deplored anti-Semitsm and particularly Holocaust denial. The only thing they had in common was their vision of one democratic state, and I can't help but doubt that such is even Shamir's goal. Said was all about justice and reconciliation. Shamir is an opportunistic schmuck.

-His links include Jewish Tribal Review (labeled a "Christian site") and Overthrow.com (published by White Politics, inc.).

-He has links to mirror sites in a variety of languages: Russian, French, Norwegian, Swedish, etc...All European languages, with the exception of Arabic. No Hebrew, though.

I spent more time focusing on Shamir than on Farah, so I guess this makes me a judeophile supremacist. But my purpose in doing so was to make the case that no rhetorical postering can excuse virulent racism. Shamir is admittedly much more eloquent than Farah, and I gather that he was pretty subtle about these things until after he was called out for his rhetoric in 2001 by Hussein Ibish and Ali Abunimah (the latter of whom is the very intelligent and principled cofounder of Electronic Intifada). After their correspondence with him revealed his ugly side, he was shunned by much of the mainstream pro-Palestinian movement, and figured that he had nothing to lose.

Some conclusions:

1. Arabs are not obligated to condemn Arab atrocities. Jews are not obligated to condemn Jewish atrocities. The onus should not be on any Arab to "prove" that he does not support terror, does not hate Jews, is loyal to America, or what have you. The onus should not be on any Jew to "prove" that he does not support the Occupation, is not a Zionist, does not hate Arabs, etc. For Farah and Shamir, the burden of proof rests on each individual Arab and Jew. The positions described above are considered the default positions of the Arab and the Jew, respectively, unless he explicitly opts out to the satisfaction of Messieurs Farah and Shamir.

2. Shamir's self-glorification effectively demonstrates the inanity of the term "self-hating Jew." He clearly loves himself. He is an anti-Semite.

3. Farah's rhetoric is probably more dangerous, since it is so simplistic --and thus so effective. "Arabs = Liars = Hate America Push Jews to Sea" is the kind of thing that convinces people not to question wars against Arabs, by the United States or by Israel or by anyone else. "Talmud = Intrinsic Jewish Chauvinism = Uniquely Jewish Racism = Collective Jewish Responsibility for actions of Racist Jews" is more esoteric, and Shamir probably doesn't have the audience of Freepers and Protest Warriors and Lee Kaplans enjoyed by Farah. But both men are schmucks, and any self-respecting anti-racist would oppose both. For those of you who are liberal Jews who are on the fence about working with anti-Zionists, I would recommend Shamir as a kind of a litmus test. Anti-Zionist Jewish blogger Mark Elf, for instance, comes out strongly against the fellow, and other anti-Zionist Jews deplore his shtick but suggest that he is perhaps an agent provocateur trying to divide the pro-Palestinian movement. Maybe that's true. He's pretty over-the-top. But people who think Shamir is onto something must be challenged, and if they don't come around, you should proceed with caution.

Anyway, because Shamir is so clever, and because some people might be inclined to defend his writing contrary to all anti-racist instincts, it became clear that Tzedek needed to clarify some of its principles. The result was this:

"We will not turn a blind eye to anti-Semitism, racism, dehumanization, or ignorance. We reject broad generalizations about any group of people. We reject superficial explanations for trends within any community. We reject attempts to analyze a group of people which fail to acknowledge the complex dynamics within that group. We reject worldviews predicated on fearing other groups. We reject conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated innuendo. We condemn all forms of intolerance."

And I think that pretty much covers our bases so that it would be consistant with our principles to mobilize opposition to either man or their disciples should someone bring them to campus.

But then we'd be Self-Hating Philo-Semitic Judeophile Supremacist Kapos.

-Ehud

KA(hane)CH(ai) in Berkeley

2005-01-28T20:47:00.000-08:00

The Berkeley Daily Planet today printed a letter from a gentleman who "was intimately involved in Kach from the beginning." Kach was the Israeli political party based on the teachings of Meir Kahane, a right-wing demogogue who founded the Jewish Defense League to beat up black people in New York and who preached on the evils of Arabs and pretty much all Jews other than him.

Kach was outlawed in the 1980s by a coalition of Labor and Likud MK's. One theory is that some labor types were really disgusted by Kach's racist platform while some Likud types were either embarassed by the openness with which Kach advocated policies they might have supported, or were afraid that Kach would steal their constituency. I don't know enough about the political climate at the time, and would not be surprised if the actual motivation behind such a ban was a mixture of all of these and others.

Either way, I'm pretty sure the Daily Planet printed this to provoke a letter-war. It's provocative, of course, and I hope it will get a flood of condemnations in reply from non-Kahanist Jews and even Hasbara activists.

An excerpt:

"...it is impossible for an Arab Moslem to be a good citizen of a Jewish state, since he (erroneously) sees the state as having robbed him of his land. Allowing people to be citizens of a state when they actively wish for and support the destruction of said state is suicide. No country would allow such people to stay in their borders, yet Israel does. Kach is against this suicidal policy."

And this interesting one:

"To have an open secular democracy such as the current State of Israel purports to be, one must accept that any group of citizens may become the majority, including Arab Moslems. However, the current state has repeatedly stated that they will not accept an Arab Moslem majority. This is akin to apartheid, and is nothing less than hypocrisy."

I sincerely expect letters from all walks of Judaism condemning this Kahanist, but I'd love to see how right-wing Israel supporters respond. One gentleman of such a political persusasion frequently has his letters published in the Daily Planet. One such letter chastised "the Muslim World" for "not condemning terror." I'd like to see if he a). condemns Kach, and b). objects to the main content of the letter more than the surprising apartheid allegation.

CORRECTION: I do not believe that Kach was outlawed until 1994 or so, following Baruch Goldstein's Hebron massacre. What occurred in the 1980's was a vague law that would bar candidates running on a "racist" platform from participation in elections. This was meant to exclude Kahane himself, around 1984.

-Ehud

"JNF, treasury seek formula for continued Jews-only land sales"

2005-01-28T20:18:00.000-08:00

Oy.

Here's what we have: the Israeli government has, since 1961 (and, as an extension of land policies starting in 1948), restricted the sale of Jewish National Fund land to non-Jews. Earlier this week, Israel's attorney general rightfully ruled against this policy. This ruling gives Hasbara activists just enough time to boast that "Israel, as a democracy (which therefore has the responsibility to protect is citizens), has an independent judiciary, something which the 22 Arab countries don't have. Where else in the middle east could Arabs file grievances against the government and have their concerns addressed? Only in Israel. As a democracy, Israel has a variety of opinions, and people are free to disagree with certain policies. At the end of the day, though, Israel's democratic institutions make the right decisions." Israel's democratic institutions would be absolutely entitled to these laurels if they did not immediately seek to circumvent the "right decisions"!

And this has long been a problem. On matters which are hard to justify, Israel acts within the law--barely, and sometimes in no semblence of good faith. Thus, we get "disputed territories," an admittedly brilliant legal invention. We get the Hebron agreement ("they signed it! if they don't like it, they shouldn't have signed it!"). And we get painfully earnest analysis by cognitively dissonant Hasbara activists who will explain how such legal wrangling must be understood in context and how, in the case of this article, the controversial policies in question apply ONLY to 13 percent of Israel!

Needless to say, such justifications ignore the fundamental question of whether these policies are moral. Consider this passage from the article:

"From now on, JNF lands will be available to Jews and non-Jews alike - though the ILA will compensate the JNF with substitute land for any plot purchased by a non-Jew."

This is quite chilling. That this only applies to 13 percent of land is a non-factor. The ILA, as a government organization, should not claim to disassociate itself from the JNF and simultaneously compensate them for "any plot purchased by a non-Jew."

It should be interesting to see if this new "formula" is also challenged.

-Ehud

The Only Demogracy in the Middle East

2005-01-26T23:31:00.000-08:00

Meron Benvenisti of Haaretz brilliantly describes the moral bankruptcy behind "peace" initiatives whose primary concerns are neither peace nor justice, but rather demographics.

I believe that Israel can be democratic (it isn't really, but it can be) AND Jewish...for a few years. But, even assuming that no Palestinian refugees are resettled in Israel, eventually Israeli Arabs will approach demographic parity to Israeli Jews. To refer to this phenomenon as a "demographic threat" is reprehensible. There is no such thing as a demographic threat in a truly democratic society. There are only demographic realities, and should the state apparatus not be prepared to accept those realities, then the state is not a democracy. Seeking to control demographics --through expulsion, obviously-- but also through enticement, and even through strategic immigration laws, is inherently undemocratic, because the aim assumes a certain danger in providing equality for all groups.

I particularly enjoyed Benvenisti's explanation for the ridiculous recent "study" which claims that, Sure-Maybe-Palestinians-Exist-But-1.4 Million-of-them-Don't:

"All the excitement came about only because the right-wing circles discovered that the demographic demon had been abducted from them, and is being used by others to justify the evacuation of the Gaza Strip; and if the demon doesn't serve the purposes of the right, one has to pretend that it doesn't exist."

Needless to say, the Zionist Organization of America has a fresh copy of this report, replete with the triumphant pedantics of Morton Klein.

-Ehud

Progressive Jewish Bloggers Unite (With their friends and allies from all backgrounds)!

2005-01-08T23:36:00.000-08:00

One of the very best Jewish Peace-with-Justice Blogs on the Internet belongs to Richard Silverstein. His writings are extensive and probing, and he has been an activist in these matters for over thirty years. Silverstein also wants to unite those bloggers with a similar vision of a just peace for Israelis and Palestinians. Thus, it is with great honor that I present (and accept a link from) the Israel-Palestine Peace Blog Directory, which Silverstein set up. He is also working with Andrew Schamess of semitism.net on an online discussion forum for Israeli-Palestinian Peace activists. I look forward to this.

-Ehud

Israeli tank fire in the northern Gaza Strip on Tuesday killed seven Palestinian youths harvesting strawberries

2005-01-06T10:24:00.000-08:00

But don't worry, it's okay, really, because this was a response to fire from the Palestinian side. And that makes it all okay.
-Lisa

Danner: We Are All Torturers Now

2005-01-06T10:22:00.000-08:00

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: We Are All Torturers Now

Possibly the most interesting aspect of this piece is Danner's observation that "We have entered a new era" in the resolution of scandal and wrongdoing-- rather than come to some resolution through trials/hearings/apologies/punishments, a new paradigm of denial and willful blindness has taken hold- evidence of torture comes to light, the President states that the U.S. will not torture people, and the whole thing blows over. We really are no longer modern.

-Lisa

Gonzales hearings

2005-01-05T13:15:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow (Thursday), the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the nomination of Alberto Gonzales, author of the 'torture memos' to the position of U.S. Attorney General. While the Democrats are outnumbered in the Senate, and it's not even clear at this point whether they are planning to oppose the nomination, it seems imperative to make sure that this issue is central at the hearings. Please call your senator and express your concerns. For fellow Californians, Senator Feinstein is a member of the committee, and can be reached at (202) 224-3841.

on the pop culture front

2004-12-18T21:42:00.000-08:00

Bitch magazine's latest issue has a great little piece on the "Annals of TV Judaism," by B. Helen Carnhoops. The main concept here is the "coded Jew"- think George Costanza on Seinfeld; I mean, is that man not a walking Jewish stereotype? Yet, supposedly, not Jewish. Willow Rosenberg from Buffy is called out as one of the first "uncoded Jews" on TV- openly Jewish, yet not a stereotype. The piece also reports that

"Several network executives famously fabricated an audience-research study revealing that viewers were open to all characters save those who were Jewish, had mustaches, or were from New York" Hence the rise of "coding"-- shows get to exploit all those wacky Jewish traits, yet not have to expose their viewers to any actual (fictional) Jews.

(mustaches?)

-Lisa

I know you've heard this one before

2004-12-18T21:38:00.000-08:00

Jewschool points to a new article on the myth of Palestinian textbook incitement

Don't listen to what comes out of Sharon's mouth, pay attention to what Sharon's hands are doing

2004-12-18T21:00:00.000-08:00

The Israeli peace group Gush Shalom reminds us that a whole year has passed since Sharon announced the "disengagement plan," yet no action has been taken- no withdrawal from land, no settlers evacuated: "Again and again we have to warn: Don't listen to what comes out of Sharon's mouth, pay attention to what Sharon's hands are doing - and not doing!"

Lisa

Jayyous

2004-12-18T20:40:00.000-08:00

I don't know if you've been following what's been happening in Jayyous, a Palestinian town adjacent to an Israeli settlement and one of those divided by the separation wall-- but none of the news looks very good. It looks like those wacky folks who labeled the wall a "land grab" are being proven right. Not only has the wall cut off villagers from their lands, settlers have now been actively destroying olive trees (Olive trees!). The Other Israel suggests that settlers are planning to build an extention of their settlement on this land.

"Settlers on Thursday uprooted 117 olive trees in the Palestinian village of Jayyus, adjacent to the Zufin settlement near Qalqilyah. Villagers said dozens of settlers, some of them armed, entered the olive grove owned by village resident Mohammed Salim at 8 A.M. and started destroying it with a bulldozer"
<Settlers uproot Palestinian olive grove , by Arnon Regular, in Haaretz>

(By the way, visiting Ha'aretz's website is always interesting- I am advised to buy IDF t-shirts, join J-Date, and donate to various charities. There are also a large number of art auctions, for some reason.)

Lisa

On comparison, and the incident with the violinist

2004-11-30T20:12:00.000-08:00

"If I had not taken a vow never to compare what is happening here with what happened there, in those terrible times and places, this time I might have made the comparison. It's hard to be silent, so I will quote from Akiva Eldar's report: "As the daughter of Holocaust survivors, [Herman-Peled] was bothered more than anything else by the demand that a Palestinian play music for a Jewish soldier.""

Yossi Sarid, in Haaretz

-Lisa

Orientalism is alive and well (in case you were wondering)

2004-11-30T19:49:00.000-08:00

I am fortunate to be able to keep up with the latest in "pro-Israel" propaganda, courtesy of a family member who likes to forward such things. The latest such example, reprints an article from the Jewish World Review that reports a horrific occurrence; that a Palestinian woman was murdered by her mother after having been raped and impregnated by her brothers.

And what is the message we are to draw from this horrific event? The preface to the article, by one Naomi Ragen , informs us that this is "For all those who think that Palestinians have a "culture" that needs expression."

How disgusting would it be if someone were to comment that some of the recent atrocities committed by Israeli soldiers (e.g. mutilating dead bodies) meant that Jews do not have a culture worth expressing, or even a "culture"?

Lisa

David and Goliath

2004-11-25T22:32:00.000-08:00

Columbia University has buckled to the Goliath that is the David Project. A Haaretz article gives the details. According to the article:

"Columbia University president Lee Bollinger plans "specific steps" soon in response to allegations that professors and lecturers at the Ivy League university made vitriolic and malicious comments against Israel in classes."

"Professors" means Joseph Massad, who seems to have been the main target of " Columbia Unbecoming," a "film" "documenting" anti-Israel invective and anti-Semitism in the university's Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Culture.

Here is a Jewish Week article which seems to genuinely seek out both sides of the story, and Massad's case certainly seems stronger. The comically named Congressman Anthony Weiner would like Massad fired, reportedly based only on "word of the project." (Columbia, it is important to remember, is a Federal University, and thus is accountable to members of the House.)

And here is Massad's rebuttal. He provides a link to a book review he wrote for Israel Shahak's Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel in which he is sharply critical of perceived anti-Semitic imagery and themes within it. Though I have not read Shahak's book, I tend to think the man is a jerk, and the points Massad brings up (and surely this is why he would include such a link here) seem to confirm the sincerity with which he repudiates anti-Semitism. Furthermore, that Shahak (and the other Israel Sh--, Israel Shamir) is adored by some (NOT all) anti-Zionists makes this criticism seem more courageous and more rooted in his personal convictions than in some sort of manipulative demagoguery.

And there's the rest of his rebuttal, which is rather eloquent, at least compared to some of the shrill accusations launched at him.

Now, the truth is that I don't know Massad, I haven't seen the film in question, etc.

What I do know is that I have now had three instructors who have all had extremely damaging accusations launched at them, and that no experiences that I have had with any of them have given the slightest bit of credibility to those claims.

The nature of these claims varied. One was relatively mild and commonplace. "So and so was completely one-sided. He said that Israel was a colonial project, but never, not once, mentioned terrorism. I was personally offended by much of what he said." I wasn't. The speaker of this paraphrased quote was an AIPAC member and prominent Hasbara activist. Indeed, an incident of intimidation by some party or another was once seemingly directed at him.

When our Israeli Graduate Student Instructor got an anonymous e-mail which said "I find it odd that ONLY the Zionist got an A [on a midterm]," the Professor in question condemned it in the strongest possible language and was visibly angry and disturbed. The e-mail was extremely offensive not so much because of what it suggested about the student (and the Professor made very clear that this was the lowest form of discourse), but because it clearly made assumptions about the G.S.I. and his academic scruples because he was Israeli. The bottom line is that, as much as the student might have disagreed with the Professor's historical narrative, there was nothing to intimidate him from expressing his opposing views and succeeding in the class.

The other two instructors have had their names smeared more prominently. One, was unsuccessfully "exposed" as a purveyor of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion by a Dafka member. The Department of Near Eastern Studies, Hillel, and --according to a prominent Jewish professor on campus-- the Anti-Defamation League, all concluded that these accusations were unfounded. When this failed, the student tried what never fails: announcing to the Internet that this instructor had "fought for Saddam." In fact, he had fought against Saddam, and this is pretty well known as he is frequently called on as a consultant and contributor to prominent media outlets. Not once did I --with an incredibly Israeli name-- receive the slightest vibe of intimidation or contempt from him.

The third instructor might be the most infamous of all. He has more or less been accused not only of anti-Semitism, but also of treason and incitement to genocide. I have rejected the smear campaign against him based on my past experiences, my experiences with him, and a consideration of who benefits from and sustains this infamy. It's not pro-Israel groups, necessarily. The Israel Action Committee, as much as I mock their hasbara campaigns, tends to realize that it should not bite off more than it can chew, especially on a campus where the instructors in question enjoy considerable support. Rather, these smears come from those who seek to broaden semi-fascism into all walks of life: our friends at Little Green Footballs, Campus Watch, Front Page Magazine, Students for Academic Freedom, Fox News, and Protest Warrior. When any sort of idea is posited by these six organizations, it has zero credibility.

So what kind of organization is The David Project?

"We do not claim to have the solution to this tragic situation, but we believe that the path to peace begins with a fair and honest understanding of the conflict."

Good! I can support any group that recognizes the tragedy of the conflict and believes that justice and honesty are necessary in diffusing it. So I'm assuming they would concede that both sides have committed violence, both sides have acted in bad faith, both sides have failed their own people.

Not quite. Here's some of their "education."

OUT OF CONTEXT

-Distorted Frame: Israel “oppressing” the Palestinians.

-Reframe: Israel humanely defending itself from terror. Palestinians suffering because Arab leaders keep them in refugee camps and encourage them to become terrorists.

That explains it all! Phew! For awhile, I was worried that by occupying land and criminalizing mundane aspects of daily life like movement so that we can defend settlements that we don't need, we were harming Palestinians. Now I can rest.

Some more:

Distorted Frame: Israel’s imperfections singled out and magnified.

Reframe: Apply one standard of morality to all people. Israel is an oasis of freedom in human rights desert filled with despots — who fuel the Middle East conflict and global terror.

Okay, maybe I agree that so many countries other than Israel do so many things that are so much worse. I agree with this. I'm saying it. So those participating in the David Project have every right to be skeptical about people who criticize Israel, to question their motivation, etc. But when these criticisms come from Palestinians whose lives have been affected by Israeli policies, or Israelis who are expected to support those policies, then it is downright arrogant to demand that they "apply one standard of morality to all people," since, in this case, that clearly means "in a manner which obscures Israel's imperfections." Joseph Massad is a Palestinian. He has every right to "single out and magnify" what are pretty damn significant imperfections. No, one's ethnic background does not give one an inherent right or obligation to criticize or to praise something. But one's personal experiences do, to some extent, and they weaken the "Well Everyone Else Is Doing It" argument which the David Project is putting forward.

Plus, it amuses me how novel and original they think their approach is. Surely no one has ever brought up these points before! They call 'em like they see 'em! It's like they're saying what we're all thinking!

Finally, there are two maps: one of them is a close-up of Israel and the territories. This, we learn, is a "distorted frame," because it makes Israel look like some sort of Dinosaur eating the West Bank. The truth, we are informed, is that Israel is surrounded by 22 big bad Arab countries plus Iran, and they want to eat it!!!!!!!!

As campus activist and Visionary Scientist Chris Cantor pointed out, however, the same people who remind us of this at every opportunity are also the ones who remind us that "Egypt made peace, and Israel made painful concessions for that. Jordan made peace, and now Israel co-operates with Jordan. Israel is prepared to do anything for peace when its neighbors are willing and ready. Egypt and Jordan did it. Why can't the Palestinians?"

And why can't Syria? Israel's been extending an olive branch to President Assad for the past 56 years, and all he's been doing is turning up his nose at it...

-Ehud

Confirm this

2004-11-25T22:21:00.000-08:00

Doron Rosenblum of Haaretz has a nice piece about the self-delusion the Israeli public has with respect to the Occupation which allows "Captain R" or whatever his name is to be charged with such crimes as "behavior unbecoming of an officer," but not with murder or even manslaughter.

("Commander R" or whatever his name is "confirmed the killing" of a thirteen year old Gazan girl with about a dozen bullets).

--Ehud

Pop Quiz

2004-11-15T15:14:00.000-08:00

Alberto Gonzales, Bush’s nominee for attorney general, is the author of
"a memo that described certain legal protections in the Geneva Conventions for captured enemy soldiers as "quaint" and "obsolete”"Clearly, therefore, the key obstacle to his confirmation will be. . . .

A. The Forces of Reason
B. AIPAC
C. Right wingers who oppose his views on abortion and affirmative action as too moderate
D. Fluffy Bunnies

In other news, British newspaper says it has records of ‘torture flights’
Via Salon:

“The London Sunday Times reported yesterday that the United States government has a special plane devoted to the extradition of suspects in the war on terrorism to countries where they are likely to be interrogated using torture.”

Lisa

The Hasbara Prophets Present, Volume I

2004-11-08T20:40:00.000-08:00

The Israel Action Committee proactively promoted Israel today. It is very important that the majority of students who don't care about Israel or Palestine love Israel so that they appreciate the Context(TM) behind the conflict. The most successful Hasbara campaigns promote a positive image of Israel well before Hasbara activists would otherwise be put on the defensive by pro-Palestinian activists.

It seems like this week's campaign revolves around "Civil Liberties."

A small leaflet discusses "All for Peace," a Jerusalem radio station which "broadcasts a message of peace to both Israeli and Palestinian listeners." And though I'd not heard of this before, learning of things like this indeed make me happy.

But behind this fascinating and genuinely moving fact, there seem to be horrible logical inconsistencies in this flyer:

"In May, 60,000 Israelis gathered in Gaza to protest the disengagement plan; 100,000 gathered in Tel Aviv in support. This is democracy in action."

Awww, yeah! Take it to the streets, baby! Power to the people! Democracy in action! But wait, what would it be called if 60,000 Palestinians were to protest --or support-- something in Gaza? Does the IAC miss the sheer irony of lauding the fact that 60,000 Israelis have "full freedom of speech and protest" in Gaza? Furthermore, if 60,000 Iranians were to demonstrate --nonviolently, let's assume-- for something similar to what the anti-disengagement people are demonstrating for, or 60,000 Saudis, or 60,000 Palestinians, if any of these peoples had a mass gathering glorifying theocracy, violent resistance, and demonization of another people, would Hasbara activists call it a beacon of the democratic process? Probably not. I'd imagine it would be called "totalitarianism" or "being kept down by their oppressive leaders" or something.

In all fairness, many --possibly most-- Israelis are not huge fans of the settler fringe, and some of their incitment has been put under investigation. But that's more nuanced than the simplistic "Democracydemocracyfreedomhope" message the IAC uses to whitewash Israel's bad characteristics. And this is a shame because, as a result, their hilighting of Israel's many good characteristics --found more in its people than in its government-- seems superficial, manipulative, and ultimately unconvincing.

When Students for Justice in Palestine holds a showy rally, many Hasbara people tend to get concerned that SJP is presenting things out-of-context to an unsuspecting uninformed majority. And it's fine that they feel this way, because it might be true. But it's ridiculous for these same activists not to realize that they are doing exactly the same thing.

For instance:

Since Israel's establishment in 1948, the number of trees has increased from 5 million to 200 million. This effort is spearheaded by the Jewish National Fund."

This juicy nugget has been popular in the last year or two. This is because vast woodlands prove to all Reasonable Critical Thinkers that only Arafat has squandered opportunities for peace. Reasonable Critical Thinkers would all reach the same conclusion if only they knew The Facts. But wait! Where is the "context" about what else the JNF did starting in 1948? I guess it's unimportant, since the woes of semi-privatized land-administration are uninteresting to the silent majority of Cal Forestry Majors. Treeeeees!

Also present was a poster that showed a close-up of a handsome young Israeli man, with the words "What You Don't See on the News" at the bottom. Because critics who talk of "East Jerusalem" or "Checkpoint humiliations" are missing the more important point: Israelis are hot! I wish that promoting an appreciation for Israel (in itself a worthy endeavor) did not serve mostly to whitewash the occupation, but even moreso, I wish that what was out there was not so banal.

-Ehud

Are we all Israelis now?

2004-11-07T20:55:00.000-08:00

Mark LeVine has an interesting piece up at Juan Cole's blog, titled "We're all Israelis Now."

"Three years ago, as the pungent odor of what was left of the World Trade Center slowly pervaded my neighborhood, I wrote a piece called “We’re all Israelis Now.” I didn’t invent the idea; in the hours since the attacks I had heard several commentators say essentially the same thing, although our meanings were in fact diametrically opposed."
"For me, however, the attacks suggested a more troubling scenario: That like Israelis, Americans would never face the causes of the extreme violence perpetrated against us by those whose oppression we have supported and even enforced, and engage in the honest introspection of what our role has been in generating the kind of hatred that turns commuter jets into cruise missiles"
"This situation reveals something dark, even frightening about America’s collective character. Making the situation worse are the reasons why people voted for President Bush: the belief that he better represents America’s “moral values,” along with the faith that he, not Kerry, will fight a “better and more efficient war on terror.” What kind of moral values the occupation of Iraq represents no one dares say. "

Go read it now. (and while you're there, check out the rest of Cole's blog, which also currently includes information on the campaign of intimidation being waged against a pro-Palestinian professor at Columbia University).

-Lisa

Post-election message

2004-11-06T07:48:00.000-08:00

Like many folks around here, I've been rather despondent since the election results came in. Now that it looks like Bush will be back in the White House for the next four years, the half of the electorate who did NOT vote for that man has two big tasks over the next four years.
1. massive resistance. We may not be able to stop Bush and Co.'s plans to wage unnecessary wars in the interest of remaking the world in their own image, or their plans to shelve Americans' civil liberties, but we sure can slow them down, if enough people show their opposition.
2. organizing to remove Republicans in office in 2006 and 2008. There's been a lot of talk recently about how the Republicans won it on the basis of "moral values." What's that you say? There are some BIG moral issues out there right now? Torture is a moral issue? Disregard for the lives of innocent civilians in wartime is a moral issue? Honesty is a moral issue? The use of dishonorable tactics to disenfranchise voters is a moral issue? Damn straight.

Still feeling despondent? Get your war on has some words for you.
www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/home.html

-Lisa

Uri Avnery on the Israeli Nation

2004-10-29T20:16:00.000-07:00

Uri Avnery, one of the most eloquent voices of the Israeli peace movement, was scheduled to give a talk in Berkeley next week, which unfortunately has been cancelled. Avnery hopes to reschedule his talk for the spring, but for now, we'll have to make do with his words in print. One of his recent columns addresses the seeming paradox that "The government of Israel does not recognize the Israeli nation." You can read why here
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article323.html . You can also subscrive to the email newsletter of the Israeli peace group, Gush Shalom, which regularly includes Avnery's columns, by sending a message to intl-subscribe@gush-shalom.org .

Lisa

Which side are you on?

2004-10-25T16:09:00.000-07:00

American Jews, according to William Safire, appear to be suffering from an epidemic of false consciousness. While American Muslims, he writes, know “what side they are on” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a conclusion he draws from a recent poll showing that group’s overwhelming support for presidential candidate John Kerry, American Jews apparently don’t have their heads screwed on straight. Or something. Safire writes:

“Jewish American voters who differ with their Arab and Muslim compatriots, one might logically conclude, would seriously consider supporting the candidate who many Israelis believe has been their best friend in the White House.”

Not only does this statement suffer from the terrible logic of assuming that, if Arabs and Muslims take one position, Jews logically ought to take the opposite, Safire appears to have made a typo and substituted “many Israelis” where it should read “Ariel Sharon.”

Shockingly, at least for Safire, American Jews appear to overwhelmingly support Kerry, despite the fact that many American Muslims support him as well. His explanation for this apparent lack of clear thinking is that

“most Jewish Americans quite properly base their vote on issues like social justice, civil liberty, economic fairness and not primarily on what may be good for Israel”

Safire cleverly avoids the possibility that Bush’s presidency has not in fact been good for Israel, and that perhaps some of us American Jews may even realize that. Finally, if one’s vote is based on the principles of ‘social justice, civil liberty, and economic fairness’ at home, ought one not apply those values abroad as well?

I know who I’m voting for.

Lisa

Tarazi's reply

2004-10-20T10:35:00.000-07:00

In today's Haaretz, PLO legal adviser Michael Tarazi
replies to a previous Haaretz article by Avraham Tal which was replying to a Tarazi article from a couple of weeks ago. The debate is about the 1-state solution, and who is responsible for advocating it (Israel, with its "barrier" and settlements, or Palestinians, with their desire for "destroying" Israel).
Tarazi was a member of a panel sponsored by Faculty For Israeli-Palestinian Peace that spoke at Berkeley a couple of years ago, which I attended. Some (meaning, my dad) have described him as "Israel's worst nightmare," because he knows his stuff and is a very persuasive speaker. I'll bet we'll be hearing more from him in the near future, assuming he doesn't have an unexpected boating accident or find himself on the receiving end of an IAF missile or something.
-Gidon

On Peace Partnership

2004-10-06T00:38:00.000-07:00

In tonight's vice-presidential debate, both Cheney and Edwards said that Israel has "no partner for peace," and both emphasized the failure of Arafat.

Now, I'm no big fan of Arafat, but perhaps the two gentlemen would like to consider this bombshell published this evening in Haaretz:

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass told Haaretz, in an interview for the Friday Magazine....

Weisglass does not deny that the main achievement of the Gaza plan is the freezing of the peace process in a "legitimate manner." "That is exactly what happened," he said. "You know, the term `peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."

Maybe it's true that Israel has no partner for peace, but this suggests that it hasn't exactly been bending over backwards looking for one.

Haaretz will publish the full interview with Weisglass on Friday.

-Ehud

As the dust settles

2004-10-05T16:25:00.000-07:00

"B'Tselem has completed an initial investigation into the IDF operation in the northern Gaza Strip. The investigation reveals that from the beginning of the operation until this afternoon (Monday):

-75 Palestinians have been killed by IDF forces. This includes 31 civilians who took no part in the fighting. Among the dead are 19 children, ages 17 and under.

-The IDF has completely demolished some 55 houses in the eastern neighborhoods of the Jabaliya refugee camp.

-Some 50 additional houses have been severely damaged.

-Seven Palestinian neighborhoods in Beit Hanoun, Beit Lahiya and the Jabaliya refugee camp, home to some 50,000 people, are under complete siege. The water and electricity supplies have been cut off and food stocks are running out."

I never thought I’d see opposing torture become a controversial stance

2004-10-05T11:30:00.000-07:00

A current bill in the House of Representatives (H.R. 10) contains provisions for ‘extraordinary rendition.’ According to the American Bar Assocation,

"These provisions would permit secretly transferring terrorist suspects to foreign countries known to use torture in interrogating prisoners. Extraordinary rendition not only violates all basic humanitarian and human rights standards, but violates U.S. treaty obligations which make clear that the U.S. government cannot avoid its obligations under international law by having other nations conduct unlawful interrogations in its stead."

Basically, the bill makes it legal for the U.S. to enable torture. Not only does the bill remove the current immigration provisions preventing the U.S. from deporting folks to their home countries if they would be subject to torture there, it would also, according to Amnesty International, give the Department of Homeland Security the authority

"to deport people to countries other than where they are citizens or residents if DHS believes deporting the person to his or her home country "would be prejudicial to the United States." The word "prejudicial" is not further defined. This vague authority would allow persons to be returned to any country, even ones in which they had never set foot."

More information:
Paul Krugman’s recent editorial in the New York Times, in which he writes “This would institutionalize a Kafkaesque system under which suspects can be sent, at the government's whim, to Egypt or Syria or Jordan”

Posts at Crooked Timber, where I first learned of this.

Representative Edward Markey is introducing an amendment to remove the provisions for extraordinary rendition. Please write your representative in support of his amendment.

-Lisa

How cute!

2004-10-05T01:10:00.000-07:00

"Deportating Jews from anywhere starts the new Holocaust...not 'peace,' " declares DAFKA, the self-proclaimed "civil rights group" and seemingly-marginalized UCB student organization, as a byline for a piece of "news" or "commentary" (it's usually hard to tell which is which, if any are either, with them) entitled "The New Judenrat."

Now, lest we give Dafka too much credit, this does not appear to be an actual original creation; it is some rehashed propaganda from the Women in Green, romanticizing IDF Colonel Gadi Dorchler who says that "The pullout plan is extremely similar to the plan to deport Berlin Jews to the crematoriums." This, of course, refers to the Gaza disengagement plan, in which 7000 settlers will be asked nicely and given hundreds of thousands of dollars to move away from land which a). does not belong to them and b). will be unsafe for them once the IDF stops protecting them.

Now, unless I'm mistaken, these comments by Dorchler have become the basis for a police investigation; he could very well be guilty of incitement. Which is fine. I'm not going to criticize the Israeli government for taking very seriously some very inflammatory language, nor will I excessively commend them.

But it is telling that DAFKA, which shuns those who equate Zionism to Nazism or the IDF to Nazis (and they have every right to --Tzedek also wants nothing to do with such reprehensible rhetoric) proudly champions similar statements that even the Sharon government find too extreme.

Calling Israelis Nazis would be completely unacceptable from a left-wing group.

DAFKA calling Israelis Nazis, on the other hand, is a cute and original analogy, and better yet, it somehow protects innocent Israeli children from terror!

-Ehud

Hey, at least we'll have a choice

2004-10-04T15:17:00.000-07:00

In case you thought the Bush adminstration's so-called "support" for Israel is grounded in a deep love for the Jewish people, this article reminds us who Bush is really working for. I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to the fun-filled choice between conversion and death, once Jesus returns.
- Gidon

Courage to Refuse

2004-10-01T15:51:00.000-07:00

Courage to Refuse has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

I believe the way this works is that they are competing against a potentially unlimited number of nominees and will not necessarily make it past the recommendations of the Nobel Peace Prize winners who nominated them.

If they win, this would be a huge victory for the Israeli Peace Movement, for progressive Jews worldwide, for the Palestinians, and basically for human rights (which is not to say that there aren't many other people whose Nobelity would also be a human-rights victory). The members say that this will be a great victory for Zionism in general, and I certainly agree that a Zionism based on the highest principles of human rights is superior to a Zionism that is not.

However, when Tzedek held a Refusenik panel two years ago, one of the men who I believe was from Courage to Refuse said

"The group started with a very patriotic image, it was very important to say that we were all brave soldiers, competent and so on and so forth, and I think people get more mature as times go, and people see that it does not impress anyone, and you are being marginalized in a second...so we learn to cooperate more with other groups and to deal less with the issue of images and just to struggle with whoever is willing to struggle...You're marked in a second as a traitor, so at least let's fight."

So, if what he said is any indication of the mindset of most refuseniks, the human rights of the Palestinians really are more important to the movement than the image of Israeli nationalism.

I'd like them to win.

-Ehud

Compulsory Criticism

2004-09-27T21:23:00.000-07:00

Four officers of the "Shaldag" Air Force unit, who "have conducted numerous operations, including ambushes, arrests and even assassinations" in the Occupied Territories, have released a letter highly critical of IDF actions in the territories, particularly in Gaza.

That active duty soldiers are launching criticism of their own actions is a relatively new trend. Such public denunciations --and campaigns of conscientious objection-- have traditionally been dominated by reservists. This has generally allowed the government to dismiss such actions as politically motivated publicity stunts.

According to the Haaretz report, "The fighting in Gaza is currently very different from that in the West Bank: Lacking the precise intelligence information available in the West Bank and confronted with a growing terrorist threat, the IDF has escalated its operations to the point of collective punishment [emphasis added]. In the West Bank, house demolitions are "pinpoint" operations, used to punish the families of suicide bombers. In Gaza, dozens of houses can be destroyed at a time, in an effort to move the front lines away from the settlements and IDF positions."

The gentlemen were "particularly disturbed by what they saw in Rafah during Operation Rainbow in May." That campaign was similar to what has just occurred in Khan Yunis. Even if the houses in both cases were destroyed for security, it is important to ask, for the security of whom? As the (mostly reservist) refuseniks have said, Israel is fighting a "War of the Settlements." True, seizing land and building exclusive colonies might not be nearly as bad as murderous suicide attacks, as the Law of Hasbara Equivalency goes. But given the cost of maintaining these settlements, given the resulting criminalization of being a Palestinian in one's own home, it is amazing that fighting to preserve these settlements can be seen as anything other than criminal.
-Ehud

Another Refusenik Jailed

2004-09-27T15:54:00.000-07:00

"G.S." will be in jail for 28 days for refusing to take part in what he, and many others, feel is an unjust application of military force. The South-African immigrant reservist said "I lived in a society where one group's survival translated into injustice for others. That's the situation in Gaza and I don't want to be part of that."

In an editorial from the same day, Akiva Eldar sarcastically recommends that a national referendum ahead of the Gaza Disengagement Plan (as demanded by the right) include the question: Are you for or against your son or daughter or grandson or granddaughter spending their military service accompanying the children of Netzarim to music lessons?
-Ehud

A dim ray of light

2004-09-27T15:05:00.000-07:00

Not that I'm a big fan of John Kerry, for his reactionary positions on Israel or for a whole lot else, but I’ve all but signed on to the idea that there is a Greater Evil, so articles like this, showing that Jews are still overwhelmingly not Bush supporters, are somewhat comforting. And maybe it says that American Jews really don’t like Bush’s policies in Israel/Palestine. Tracking the “Jewish vote” would be more interesting if Kerry were to take a reasonable stance on Israel/Palestine (e.g., supporting the Geneva Accords-- though I guess that would make him sound too much like Nader, which would scare the “swing voters”), because if Jews were to still vote for Kerry over Bush, it would provide a strong argument that being “pro-Israel” (in a right-wing sense) is not The Most Important Thing to American Jews. Imagine if it were clear that Jews supported Kerry despite him being more balanced (less Bush-style “Pro-Israel”) on the conflict. Too bad we won’t find out if that’s the case during this election season.
I found this line somewhat interesting:
“The Bush administration has been the most unabashedly supportive of Israel, culminating in Mr Sharon's visit to Washington last April, when Mr Bush broke with 30 years of diplomatic tradition by endorsing his Gaza withdrawal plan.”
Hasn’t American diplomatic tradition for the past 30+ years been that Israel should not be in the Gaza strip? So isn’t backing the withdrawal plan very consistent with American diplomatic tradition? Maybe in England, as opposed to the U.S., it’s already common knowledge that keeping parts of the West Bank is a key part of the withdrawal plan, even though the plan, for some shocking reason, isn’t called “The Gaza Withdrawal and West Bank Land Grabbing Plan.” That would certainly be counter to American policy to date-- at least the stated policy.
- Gidon

More Refugee Rubble

2004-09-27T14:08:00.000-07:00

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights reports that the IDF destroyed 54 homes in the Khan Yunis refugee camp over the weekend, totaling 502 homes destroyed since September 2000 in the camp alone.

Haaretz reports only that "the army demolished buildings already abandoned due to fighting, but believed to have been used as cover to launch Qassams that struck Neveh Dekalim the day before, killing a woman."

This is contradicted by PCHR reports that residents of destroyed homes had to flee quickly.

The PCHR version of events is similar to the pattern of Israel's house demolitions confirmed by Amnesty International in a rather lengthy report.

Needless to say, I find it incredibly doubtful that more than a few of these 54 homes were destroyed out of "military necessity."
-Ehud

New Jewish Politics

2004-09-15T17:01:00.000-07:00

Check out this article in Dissent, "The Need for a New Jewish Politics," by Shalom Lappin.
And, happy Rosh Hashanah!
- Gidon

Shana Tova

2004-09-14T23:27:00.000-07:00

Happy New Year! This Haaretz piece seems particularly relevant during the Days of Awe.
-Ehud

Expulsion in the West Bank

2004-09-14T01:50:00.000-07:00

What exactly does Sharon hope to achieve by announcing to the world that Arafat will be expelled from the West Bank "at a convenient time" ? Clearly, this is an empty threat designed to make Arafat as compliant as ever. In the meantime, I'm sure Israel will "expose" Arafat's brutal, repressive, and undemocratic leadership style, as conscientious people should. But I doubt that a similar leader who was more compliant with Israel would get the same treatment.

-Ehud

Meshuganeh Wordplay

2004-09-13T14:22:00.000-07:00

The folks at the Zionist Organization of America are very precise in how they (and I have no evidence that they consist of anyone other than Morton Klein) communicate. Palestinians are always referred to as "Palestinian Arabs." In the ZOA's last five press releases, the term was used fifteen times. I do not deny that Palestinains are, in fact, Arabs, but why repeat this unwieldy term ad nauseum? My theories:

1. To remind us, lest we forget, that since Palestinians ARE Arabs, they can and SHOULD live somewhere other than Greater Israel.

2. To villify both Palestinians and the broader Arab population at once, as frequently as possible.

The press releases are very formulaic: First, the United States is villified for even the most meaningless and insincere "pressure" on Israel "to make one-sided concessions to the Palestinian Arabs." Then the following words are presented in one unit: Palestinian Arab Terrorist Homicide Killers. Then, once we are reminded that all Arabs are, in fact, Maimicide Horrorists, they are brought to task for what is really their biggest sin: building houses on their land without (Israeli-granted) permits!!! The U.S. State Department is then condemned to a fiery abyss for not noticing this, and the release invariably ends by quoting Morton Klein, who repeats everything, word for word, that had appeared up to that point unattributed to anyone.

Fortunately, most American Jews --even those associated with AIPAC-- distance themselves from Klein who, despite his flamboyant rhetoric, is not nearly as detrimental to a peaceful solution as AIPAC.

-Ehud

Moral Clearasil

2004-09-13T01:26:00.000-07:00

Here is a very interesting editorial from Sunday's Haaretz. The Oslo process was incredibly flawed from its outset, but an interesting point that Akiva Eldar brings up here is that the tendency of successive Israeli governments to exploit the Palestinian Authority's interim governmental structure in order to scapegoat Arafat for the process's failure has served mostly to pacify the left. The right never supported the process anyway, accusing the government of collaborating with, then importing and arming terrorists. When the process broke down (and I'd argue that Israel's unwillingness to fully withdraw from the territories was the main cause), it became convenient for Barak to parrot a modified version of the propaganda which the right had peddled for years: in this version, Arafat, the brilliant mastermind, was so thoroughly convincing in his "act" of moderation that the Labor party could in no way be blamed for his failed leadership. After six years in which to consolidate his power, however, he revealed himself for who he was, singlehandedly setting the peace process back ten years and masterminding the intifada, including its terrorism. Thus, armed with what Eldar calls "the conspiracy theory that was cultivated with extreme success in Israel and all over the world," Israel's government conveniently absolved itself in the eyes of both the left and the right.

I think it's important that we as Jews, Israelis, Americans, or whatever, be wary of such conveniently instantaneous self-absolutions by any leader of any body.

-Ehud

Cal Tzedek

On the Right of Return and Sloppy Activism

Lee Kaplan Caught in a Lie

"Hamas Elected to Power" is an anagram of "Mashed Potato Eel Crew"

Cal Tzedek Enters the Twenty-First Century!

Kadima

Shockingly, Schwarzenegger doesn't actually run UC Press

British Civil War

New York Times article reports on secret kidnapping operations

Lee Kaplan Responds

U.S. Preparing to Use "Small" Nuclear Bombs

Is DAFKA racist?

Is Hasbara...dishonest?!

Indoctrination

t-shirts

CaterPillar of Democracy

More on torture outsourcing

this is justifiable how?

on "dialogue"

Assorted Self-Hatred

KA(hane)CH(ai) in Berkeley

"JNF, treasury seek formula for continued Jews-only land sales"

The Only Demogracy in the Middle East

Progressive Jewish Bloggers Unite (With their friends and allies from all backgrounds)!

Israeli tank fire in the northern Gaza Strip on Tuesday killed seven Palestinian youths harvesting strawberries

Danner: We Are All Torturers Now

Gonzales hearings

on the pop culture front

I know you've heard this one before

Don't listen to what comes out of Sharon's mouth, pay attention to what Sharon's hands are doing

Jayyous

Recommended Reading

On comparison, and the incident with the violinist

Orientalism is alive and well (in case you were wondering)

David and Goliath

Confirm this

Pop Quiz

The Hasbara Prophets Present, Volume I

Are we all Israelis now?

Post-election message

Uri Avnery on the Israeli Nation

Which side are you on?

Tarazi's reply

On Peace Partnership

As the dust settles

I never thought I’d see opposing torture become a controversial stance

How cute!

Hey, at least we'll have a choice

Courage to Refuse

Compulsory Criticism

Another Refusenik Jailed

A dim ray of light

More Refugee Rubble

New Jewish Politics

Shana Tova

Expulsion in the West Bank

Meshuganeh Wordplay

Moral Clearasil