Film Review by Ralph Seliger
The following is my preferred version of what was published recently in the New Jersey Jewish News :
Before seeing the new Milos Forman film, “Goya’s Ghosts,” the only Jewish angle I could think of was the star turn by Natalie Portman — everybody's favorite Israeli-born actress. Ms. Portman was chosen by Forman largely because he noticed a close facial resemblance to the subject of an actual Goya painting, A Milkmaid in Bordeaux. It also surely figured in his casting decision that Ms. Portman has won acclaim for a remarkable body of work for one so young (26), including as a Golden Globe winner and a nominee for an Academy Award.
I discovered that what is tragically Jewish is the central plot line: the arrest, torture and imprisonment of Portman's main character, Ines, by the Spanish Inquisition in 1792— before Napoleon abolished it (an episode also depicted in the film) 15 years later. In a less consequential and less believable role, Portman portrays Ines’s teenage daughter at that later time.
Ines’s crime? She is accused of being a "Judaizer" when Inquisition spies see that she refuses to eat pork at a tavern. Ines is seen recoiling from offerings of piglet, served to her rowdy table in an unappetizing way — grilled whole and hacked open, with the head still attached.
Beforehand, the spies are lectured by Brother Lorenzo (Spaniard Javier Bardem acquits himself with icy effectiveness in this complex role), charging them to search for Judaizers and Protestants. A test for the former among males is a circumcised penis. (Where have we heard that before?) This fictional tale reminds us that this sort of paranoid scrutiny was commonplace in the Church-dominated police state that Spain was in the 18th century.
Yet Ines is not a practitioner of secret Jewish rites as accused. She is unaware that her father (a wealthy merchant who is very generous in his contributions to the Church) had a Jewish ancestor nearly 200 years before, a Catholic convert who had immigrated from the Netherlands. Ines responded earnestly but quizzically to her Inquisitor that she simply doesn’t like the taste of pork. What follows is a shockingly abrupt transition into the peculiar brutality and demented thinking that characterized the so-called Holy Office.
Brother Lorenzo is shown early on as both a politically-astute sophisticate and a career-driven fanatic. He explains to his brother Inquisitors why the same Francisco Goya who paints scenes of poverty and unflattering caricatures of Church authorities, which make him suspect in their eyes, is also painting his own portrait: Goya is regarded as Spain’s greatest living artist and as such is patronized by the royal family.
Prior to her arrest, Ines sits as a studio model for Goya; their respective relationships with Goya bind Brother Lorenzo’s fate with that of Ines. It also occasions a life-altering lesson for Lorenzo as a dinner guest of Ines’s father, on how torturing the accused – putting them to “the question” as the euphemism goes – is utterly useless when it comes to the quest for truth.
The absurdities, bestial cruelties and injustices presided over by the Inquisition are then matched, even exceeded in the volume of bloodshed, by the butchery and zealotry of the French and their Spanish collaborators in overthrowing the Old Regime. Although theoretically liberated in the name of the noble ideal of human rights proclaimed by the French Revolution, the Spanish people rise up against the foreign invader and defeat them to restore a vestige of the old order, with the decisive assistance of Wellington's British army.
“Goya’s Ghosts” rivets the viewer in its first half with its narrative power and its vivid visual quality. Unfortunately, it descends to melodrama as Ines is released from prison and innocently (to the point of laughable pathos) pursues her unlikely relationship and totally naive agenda with the ever-sinister Lorenzo. But taken as a whole, it offers a rich cinematic experience.
Goya’s art lends a sensual lushness to the film. Goya is played as a decent but surprisingly bland observer by the Swede Stellan Skarsgard. His works graphically depict the injustice and grinding poverty of the Old Regime; his paintings and etchings even more famously illustrate the barbarities of war.
VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT partners4israel.org .
The Partners for Progressive Israel Blog (formerly Meretz USA Blog) is a platform for open discussion of issues related to Israel and the American Jewish community. The views expressed in its posts, and the comments on them, do not necessarily reflect the organization's official position.
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Monday, July 30, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
From One Peace Process to the Next?
What follows are selections from an article in the summer 2007 issue of ISRAEL HORIZONS by Dr. Thomas Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell is a graduate of Hebrew University in Jerusalem and has a doctorate in international relations from the University of Southern California.
Lessons Tony Blair may bring from Northern Ireland
Early in May, Protestants and Catholics began a unique power-sharing experiment in Northern Ireland. This follows two previously failed attempts — in 1974 and in 1999-2002; hopefully, the third time is the charm. It may be hard to recall, but there was a time in 1993 when the inhabitants of Ulster, as this province of the United Kingdom is also known, were envious of Israelis and Palestinians for having a peace process when they had none.
The Northern Ireland (NI) peace process began in December 1993 with the British and Irish governments drafting the Downing Street Declaration outlining the parameters of this process. ... Serious negotiations on power sharing began in the late winter of 1998; after about six weeks, an agreement was signed in Belfast on Good Friday 1998. ...
In October 2006, at a summit in St. Andrews, Scotland, the DUP and Sinn Fein reached an agreement on power sharing. ... A sinking peace process had been righted by the ceaseless toil of Tony Blair ... and Bertie Ahern [then the prime ministers of Britain and Ireland, respectively].
What are the lessons that can be learned from this peace process for the Middle East? First, the importance of dual mediation — the joint mediation by two powers who have relations with the main parties in the conflict, but are closer to each other than they are to their clients. At critical junctures, the two governments would formulate the parameters of negotiations taking into account the interests of their respective clients.
Second, dual mediation works only as long as both patrons represent equally the interests of their clients. ...
Third, the peace process must begin with the moderate centrist parties. ... It was only because an agreement negotiated between the moderates had been signed early on, that the peace process could later be saved.
Fourth, the peace process takes constant long-term attention from the sponsors in order to be successful. It must also be bipartisan. ...
Fifth, the peace process takes commitment at the head of government level — prime ministerial or presidential. It was Blair and Ahern who drove the process in NI.
Let's now translate all this into Middle Eastern terms. First, the two powers who have a track record of good relations with the two sides and with each other are the United States and the European Union. Second, it should be clear that Washington is unlikely to sacrifice fundamental Israeli interests and should not expect the Europeans to sacrifice basic Palestinian interests.
Third, in the Israeli-Palestinian context, the “centrists” are Meretz and Labor on the Israeli side and Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah and the independents on the Palestinian side. Meretz and Labor have seen an erosion of over 50 percent of their combined Knesset strength since 1992; unless this is revived, the chances for reactivating the peace process are low. ...
Jimmy Carter is the only US President who was as consistently focused on peacemaking in the Middle East as were Blair and Ahern in Ulster. ... Clinton showed a similar focus for six months from June to December 2000. ...
George W. Bush pointedly rejected taking up the Israeli-Palestinian agenda with the same energy and commitment. Bush has become too bogged down in Iraq to be involved successfully in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his administration is damaged goods in Arab eyes. Therefore, peace in the Middle East awaits a new American administration.
Based on past history and the present composition of the Republican base, a Democratic administration would probably be preferable for this task. Although progress was also achieved in the Middle East under Presidents Nixon, Ford and Bush, Sr., it seemed to be less a priority with them than it was with Carter and Clinton. ...
Lessons Tony Blair may bring from Northern Ireland
Early in May, Protestants and Catholics began a unique power-sharing experiment in Northern Ireland. This follows two previously failed attempts — in 1974 and in 1999-2002; hopefully, the third time is the charm. It may be hard to recall, but there was a time in 1993 when the inhabitants of Ulster, as this province of the United Kingdom is also known, were envious of Israelis and Palestinians for having a peace process when they had none.
The Northern Ireland (NI) peace process began in December 1993 with the British and Irish governments drafting the Downing Street Declaration outlining the parameters of this process. ... Serious negotiations on power sharing began in the late winter of 1998; after about six weeks, an agreement was signed in Belfast on Good Friday 1998. ...
In October 2006, at a summit in St. Andrews, Scotland, the DUP and Sinn Fein reached an agreement on power sharing. ... A sinking peace process had been righted by the ceaseless toil of Tony Blair ... and Bertie Ahern [then the prime ministers of Britain and Ireland, respectively].
What are the lessons that can be learned from this peace process for the Middle East? First, the importance of dual mediation — the joint mediation by two powers who have relations with the main parties in the conflict, but are closer to each other than they are to their clients. At critical junctures, the two governments would formulate the parameters of negotiations taking into account the interests of their respective clients.
Second, dual mediation works only as long as both patrons represent equally the interests of their clients. ...
Third, the peace process must begin with the moderate centrist parties. ... It was only because an agreement negotiated between the moderates had been signed early on, that the peace process could later be saved.
Fourth, the peace process takes constant long-term attention from the sponsors in order to be successful. It must also be bipartisan. ...
Fifth, the peace process takes commitment at the head of government level — prime ministerial or presidential. It was Blair and Ahern who drove the process in NI.
Let's now translate all this into Middle Eastern terms. First, the two powers who have a track record of good relations with the two sides and with each other are the United States and the European Union. Second, it should be clear that Washington is unlikely to sacrifice fundamental Israeli interests and should not expect the Europeans to sacrifice basic Palestinian interests.
Third, in the Israeli-Palestinian context, the “centrists” are Meretz and Labor on the Israeli side and Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah and the independents on the Palestinian side. Meretz and Labor have seen an erosion of over 50 percent of their combined Knesset strength since 1992; unless this is revived, the chances for reactivating the peace process are low. ...
Jimmy Carter is the only US President who was as consistently focused on peacemaking in the Middle East as were Blair and Ahern in Ulster. ... Clinton showed a similar focus for six months from June to December 2000. ...
George W. Bush pointedly rejected taking up the Israeli-Palestinian agenda with the same energy and commitment. Bush has become too bogged down in Iraq to be involved successfully in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his administration is damaged goods in Arab eyes. Therefore, peace in the Middle East awaits a new American administration.
Based on past history and the present composition of the Republican base, a Democratic administration would probably be preferable for this task. Although progress was also achieved in the Middle East under Presidents Nixon, Ford and Bush, Sr., it seemed to be less a priority with them than it was with Carter and Clinton. ...
Monday, July 23, 2007
Meretz USA News Update – July 20, 2007
Focus on: The West Bank versus Gaza
For months now, we’ve been hearing the Israeli government promise to release prisoners, to remove checkpoints, and to take other measures to reduce strain on the Palestinian population and to build confidence. This talk has gone on for months, with nothing happening… until recently.
The past few weeks have seen positive steps towards negotiations. In the beginning of July, Israel restored financial ties with the Palestinian Authority; on Monday, President Bush called for a regional peace conference; and today, Israel freed 255 Palestinian prisoners, turning them over to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. In addition, Israel has offered immunity to 178 members of Fatah’s militant wing, Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade – many of whom have taken the offer and put down their guns, willing to give peace a chance.
However, these steps hold one fatal flaw. They are part of a policy toward the Palestinians that resulted from Hamas taking control of Gaza last month.
Following the takeover, Israel and the U.S. decided to work with Fatah and President Abbas, pitting him against Hamas and its leadership. In the U.S., for instance, AIPAC commended the Palestinian government for breaking ties with Hamas. And, in his speech, President Bush painted a black and white situation, in which the Palestinians could choose to either follow the “good” Fatah or the “evil” Hamas. With its measures directed solely at bolstering President Abbas, Israel has been joining the U.S. in this new plan to negotiate with the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank to the outright exclusion of Gaza.
But this strategy is leaving Gaza in increasingly dire straits – last week, the World Bank warned that the Strip is facing “irreversible collapse” – and there is no way that Hamas will watch its territory fail without fighting back. Danny Rubinstein writes about the quarreling between Hamas and Fatah – over days of the weekend, salaries, and other issues. He observes that it is difficult for the Israel government to do anything productive when Fatah is preoccupied with fighting Hamas. Indeed, as Assistant Director of Meretz USA Ron Skolnik, recently argued in an op-ed to the New York Resident, it is dangerous for the United States and Israel to use Abbas to fight Hamas, threatening the organization’s existence and causing it to battle back.
Meanwhile, Zvi Bar’el of Haaretz, asks, “How can Israel and Abbas continue to ignore the only force capable of managing the Gaza Strip?” And in a piece for the New York Times, Steven Erlanger wrote that the American perception of the conflict is “missing shades of grey.” He quoted Daoud Kuttab saying that, rather than fully writing off Hamas, the U.S. and Israel should distinguish between Hamas’ political wing and military wing. There, they may find something they can work with – even if just unofficially.
For any real progress towards negotiations to occur, there must be a change of policy on the part of Israel and the U.S. In response to Bush’s speech, Rami G. Khouri of the Daily Star wrote that one of its biggest problems was the President’s insistence on overtly picking sides and attacking Hamas.
In a statement on the speech, Meretz USA wrote that it welcomed the address, but that “American involvement must go beyond cash infusions for Palestine and a solitary international conference” to a sustainable and committed peace process. No matter what form this process takes, it cannot ignore Gaza.
For months now, we’ve been hearing the Israeli government promise to release prisoners, to remove checkpoints, and to take other measures to reduce strain on the Palestinian population and to build confidence. This talk has gone on for months, with nothing happening… until recently.
The past few weeks have seen positive steps towards negotiations. In the beginning of July, Israel restored financial ties with the Palestinian Authority; on Monday, President Bush called for a regional peace conference; and today, Israel freed 255 Palestinian prisoners, turning them over to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. In addition, Israel has offered immunity to 178 members of Fatah’s militant wing, Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade – many of whom have taken the offer and put down their guns, willing to give peace a chance.
However, these steps hold one fatal flaw. They are part of a policy toward the Palestinians that resulted from Hamas taking control of Gaza last month.
Following the takeover, Israel and the U.S. decided to work with Fatah and President Abbas, pitting him against Hamas and its leadership. In the U.S., for instance, AIPAC commended the Palestinian government for breaking ties with Hamas. And, in his speech, President Bush painted a black and white situation, in which the Palestinians could choose to either follow the “good” Fatah or the “evil” Hamas. With its measures directed solely at bolstering President Abbas, Israel has been joining the U.S. in this new plan to negotiate with the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank to the outright exclusion of Gaza.
But this strategy is leaving Gaza in increasingly dire straits – last week, the World Bank warned that the Strip is facing “irreversible collapse” – and there is no way that Hamas will watch its territory fail without fighting back. Danny Rubinstein writes about the quarreling between Hamas and Fatah – over days of the weekend, salaries, and other issues. He observes that it is difficult for the Israel government to do anything productive when Fatah is preoccupied with fighting Hamas. Indeed, as Assistant Director of Meretz USA Ron Skolnik, recently argued in an op-ed to the New York Resident, it is dangerous for the United States and Israel to use Abbas to fight Hamas, threatening the organization’s existence and causing it to battle back.
Meanwhile, Zvi Bar’el of Haaretz, asks, “How can Israel and Abbas continue to ignore the only force capable of managing the Gaza Strip?” And in a piece for the New York Times, Steven Erlanger wrote that the American perception of the conflict is “missing shades of grey.” He quoted Daoud Kuttab saying that, rather than fully writing off Hamas, the U.S. and Israel should distinguish between Hamas’ political wing and military wing. There, they may find something they can work with – even if just unofficially.
For any real progress towards negotiations to occur, there must be a change of policy on the part of Israel and the U.S. In response to Bush’s speech, Rami G. Khouri of the Daily Star wrote that one of its biggest problems was the President’s insistence on overtly picking sides and attacking Hamas.
In a statement on the speech, Meretz USA wrote that it welcomed the address, but that “American involvement must go beyond cash infusions for Palestine and a solitary international conference” to a sustainable and committed peace process. No matter what form this process takes, it cannot ignore Gaza.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Wallerstein: Winners and Losers
"Winners and Losers in Palestine" by Immanuel Wallerstein 11 July 2007
This analysis is a touch easy on Hamas for my taste, but basically a sage look at pressing matters:
It's easy to see who are the losers. It's harder to see if there are any winners. During June, there was a dramatic confrontation between Fatah and Hamas in Gaza. The sequence was as follows. President Abbas dissolved the Hamas-led government (of which Fatah was a part). Prime Minister Ismael Haniya said this was illegal and refused to recognize the dissolution. Each side used force against the other. Hamas won hands down in Gaza. All Fatah leaders left Gaza for the West Bank where Abbas named a new government led by Salaam Fayyad, a government without Hamas members. De facto, Hamas now controls Gaza completely. Fatah controls the West Bank, albeit a little less surely than Hamas in Gaza. In the West Bank, not only does Hamas exist, if somewhat underground for the moment, but the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, nominally affiliated to Fatah, acts autonomously and neither is really under the control of Abbas nor agrees with his current politics. Abbas is in a weak position. He has turned to the outside world - the United States, the European Union (EU), the "moderate" Arab governments (basically Egypt and Jordan), and Israel - for four things: love, money, arms, and substantial progress towards an independent Palestinian state. So far he has gotten lots of love, some but not all of the money Israel owes the Palestinian Authority, no arms (but they may be coming in limited supply), and nothing in terms of the so-called final settlement with Israel.
Click here to read more from this well-known sociologist and increasingly vocal observer of international events.
This analysis is a touch easy on Hamas for my taste, but basically a sage look at pressing matters:
It's easy to see who are the losers. It's harder to see if there are any winners. During June, there was a dramatic confrontation between Fatah and Hamas in Gaza. The sequence was as follows. President Abbas dissolved the Hamas-led government (of which Fatah was a part). Prime Minister Ismael Haniya said this was illegal and refused to recognize the dissolution. Each side used force against the other. Hamas won hands down in Gaza. All Fatah leaders left Gaza for the West Bank where Abbas named a new government led by Salaam Fayyad, a government without Hamas members. De facto, Hamas now controls Gaza completely. Fatah controls the West Bank, albeit a little less surely than Hamas in Gaza. In the West Bank, not only does Hamas exist, if somewhat underground for the moment, but the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, nominally affiliated to Fatah, acts autonomously and neither is really under the control of Abbas nor agrees with his current politics. Abbas is in a weak position. He has turned to the outside world - the United States, the European Union (EU), the "moderate" Arab governments (basically Egypt and Jordan), and Israel - for four things: love, money, arms, and substantial progress towards an independent Palestinian state. So far he has gotten lots of love, some but not all of the money Israel owes the Palestinian Authority, no arms (but they may be coming in limited supply), and nothing in terms of the so-called final settlement with Israel.
Click here to read more from this well-known sociologist and increasingly vocal observer of international events.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Israel and Palestinians via ‘Peace Now’ tour
Stephen Scheinberg, professor emeritus of history at Montreal’s Concordia University, a friend of Meretz USA and currently co-chair of Canadian Friends of Peace Now, toured with Americans for Peace Now in June. These are most of his observations:
I’ve returned from the Peace Now mission to Israel of June 17-22. ... We met with many outstanding individuals but they failed to give me the stimulation in the form of new ideas that I took back from past trips.
... We arrived within days of the Hamas takeover of Gaza and we heard not clear strategies but instant responses which tended to be replays of familiar positions. Maybe it will take more time for creative responses to evolve but I am not too hopeful. We did meet with some outstanding individuals.
I was impressed with Rabbi Michael Melchior, former chief rabbi of Norway, and now a member of the Knesset. Melchior is a voice for a refreshing religious pluralism both within Judaism and especially with Islam. He has organized international conferences with leading Imams and is hopeful that a vital, moderate Islam is emerging. We shall see.
Within Israel he serves on the Knesset education committee and is deeply concerned with the future of Israeli democracy. The haredi [ultra-Orthodox] schools are a growing force and together with schools for Arab Israelis they enroll the majority of Israel’s youth. The latter is a concern but one poll of teachers in the haredi schools showed that 90% of them did not believe in democracy. What does that promise for the future of the state and what can be done when any coalition government depends on conciliating the haredim?
A second outstanding presentation was made by Prof. Khalil Shikaki the leading Palestinian pollster. He was just completing work on a new poll taken in the aftermath of the Hamas takeover. The results were somewhat surprising. Even in Gaza, Fatah is now more popular and most Palestinians regard the Hamas coup as a criminal act. However neither President Abbas nor deposed P.M. Haniyah has much popular support. There is one figure that is held in high regard. If the still imprisoned Marwan Barghouti was released and headed a Fatah slate, it would triumph easily. 65% would vote for a Fatah slate headed by Barghouti and 30% for Hamas and Haniya. Barghouti would even win by a handy margin in Gaza. One of the problems is that Fatah, headed by a weak Abbas, is still corrupt and factionalized. It might take more than Barghouti to remake a hopefully strong and moderate Fatah. It will take even more to rebuild the Palestinian institutional structure. He cited a substantial number of Palestinians who would like to immigrate. Among the young and educated 60% would like to get out. 70% of those polled felt that the chances for creation of a Palestinian state were remote. Shikaki’s dismal conclusion was that “I have never seen a more depressed environment,” among the Palestinians,”but the Palestinians’ willingness to compromise (toward a deal with Israel) has not been eroded.”
We heard again and again about the weakness of Abbas but also, more importantly, that the Palestinian Authority exists mostly in name. It would be termed a “failed state” if it had ever achieved statehood. Everything is in disarray. There is no unified security force, civil servants have gone unpaid, and there is only the merest semblance of an education system. Much, I suppose, can be blamed on Israel and the United States, but I would not exempt the Palestinians from responsibility. Corruption, clan rivalries (armed militias) and Islamism have played defining roles.
Some in our group were impressed with Meir Shitreet, until yesterday the Housing Minister and a leading candidate within Kadima to succeed Olmert. He sounds as if he was almost a spokesman for Peace Now, urging a positive and vigorous response to the Saudi peace plan. I hate to be cynical but I caught a different undertone. I believe that he hopes, within the present context, to support a peace diversion. I mean that given the weaknesses of Olmert, Abbas, and Bush, there is not going to be any peace with the Palestinians in the short run. There are no partners for peace. Given that situation, a generous response to the Saudis will not lead to a real negotiation with the Palestinians. Thus, I think that while we heard words of peace from this Kadima leader, they are best understood as an electoral platform. We heard from one other Kadima MK, Amira Dotan a former Brigadier General in the IDF and a hard-headed management specialist. I am surprised that she has not achieved more prominence within the government but bet that she will. I can see her with Labor if Kadima collapses.
We also met with some of the left wing Meretz people. ... The Meretz leader Yossi Beilin is, to my mind, the most honorable politician in Israel, not only on the peace front but on behalf of Arab-Israelis, Bedouins, etc. ... He was a protégé of Shimon Peres, served as Deputy Foreign Minister and Justice Minister under Labor, was a major architect of Oslo, but he is an intellectual without the populist touch. He also lacks the security credentials which Israelis understandably desire. Our meeting with him was not reassuring. He seemed very tired and his answers to our questions were in the familiar words of the peace camp, as if little had changed. Of course, he did warn about isolating Hamas and creating a humanitarian disaster in Gaza but he did not offer any new way out of the morass. I understood him to say that accelerated negotiations over the broad principles with Abbas were desireable because the President was in a weak position. My own judgment is that his weakness makes it even more difficult to make concessions.
Beilin’s Knesset colleague Chaim Oron (better known as Jumas), a former Minister of Agriculture, was somewhat interesting, in that he has regularly visited with Barghouti and assured us that, even as a prisoner, Barghouti had a strong voice on the naming of the new PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Moreover, Jumas told us that Barghouti aredently desires negotiations on a peace process. I am sure that those on the Israeli left would like to see Barghouti released. They probably see him as a Nelson Mandela but I am not sure that is the case. He has been convicted in the planning of five murders and thus from the official Israeli view Barghouti has blood on his hands. Of course, most leaders of anti-colonial struggles had a similar background and I think the issue is not blood or so-called criminal acts but what he might accomplish, if released.
We met with only three Palestinian moderates and all favored his release. They see him as clean, a reformer, and the only man who might clean up and unite the Fatah camp. Prominent Israelis of the left and center agree with them. Of course, on the Israeli side, there may be some who fear Barghouti either as a more demanding figure than Abbas or even as the potential leader of a renewed intifadah. My own feeling is that if Olmert and the United States really want to help the West Bank moderates then they should run the moderate risk of freeing Marwan Barghouti, but I am very conscious that I do not live in Israel nor do I have access to their intelligence. It is not my risk. However, Israel also faces the risk of not doing all in its power to combat the Islamists, at this very moment, and Barghouti could make the difference. MKs Braverman, Oron and Beilin all told us that they supported Barghouti’s release. The other Palestinians we saw were Jihad Abu Ziad a Fatah leader from Gaza who got his family out of there six months ago and Hanna Siniora, a permanent fixture of peace meetings.
One of the most interesting evenings in Jerusalem was spent with Alon Liel and Akiva Eldar. Liel, a former director of the foreign office, has recently taken the lead in the informal contacts with the Syrians and has urged that the negotiations progress to the formal level. Eldar is the outstanding columnist with Haaretz. I have heard him before and always read his columns with great interest. The evening was almost surreal. I had hoped that Liel would shed real light on the Syrian peace prospect and Assad’s intentions but he did not give us the desired details, only his hopes and beliefs. In addition, he seemed to find it necessary, perhaps because we were Peace Now, to argue against any attempt to talk to the Palestinians. He seemed to fear that negotiations with the Palestinians would undermine an approach to the Syrians.
Eldar seemed almost amused by this. Why would Liel take this tact? I can only surmise that he believes a Palestinian peace is, at least for now, a dead issue or that the Israeli public could not tolerate giving up both the Golan and significant control over the West Bank. For his part, Eldar continues to see negotiations with the Palestinians as an urgent matter and the advent of Hamastan makes this more evident. He saw no reason why both sets of negotiations could not be conducted under the umbrella of the Saudi peace proposal. Two of us ran into Eldar, later in the evening. He told us that he had just been on the phone with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni who confirmed his judgment. The Palestinian track must be pursued. ...
I’ve returned from the Peace Now mission to Israel of June 17-22. ... We met with many outstanding individuals but they failed to give me the stimulation in the form of new ideas that I took back from past trips.
... We arrived within days of the Hamas takeover of Gaza and we heard not clear strategies but instant responses which tended to be replays of familiar positions. Maybe it will take more time for creative responses to evolve but I am not too hopeful. We did meet with some outstanding individuals.
I was impressed with Rabbi Michael Melchior, former chief rabbi of Norway, and now a member of the Knesset. Melchior is a voice for a refreshing religious pluralism both within Judaism and especially with Islam. He has organized international conferences with leading Imams and is hopeful that a vital, moderate Islam is emerging. We shall see.
Within Israel he serves on the Knesset education committee and is deeply concerned with the future of Israeli democracy. The haredi [ultra-Orthodox] schools are a growing force and together with schools for Arab Israelis they enroll the majority of Israel’s youth. The latter is a concern but one poll of teachers in the haredi schools showed that 90% of them did not believe in democracy. What does that promise for the future of the state and what can be done when any coalition government depends on conciliating the haredim?
A second outstanding presentation was made by Prof. Khalil Shikaki the leading Palestinian pollster. He was just completing work on a new poll taken in the aftermath of the Hamas takeover. The results were somewhat surprising. Even in Gaza, Fatah is now more popular and most Palestinians regard the Hamas coup as a criminal act. However neither President Abbas nor deposed P.M. Haniyah has much popular support. There is one figure that is held in high regard. If the still imprisoned Marwan Barghouti was released and headed a Fatah slate, it would triumph easily. 65% would vote for a Fatah slate headed by Barghouti and 30% for Hamas and Haniya. Barghouti would even win by a handy margin in Gaza. One of the problems is that Fatah, headed by a weak Abbas, is still corrupt and factionalized. It might take more than Barghouti to remake a hopefully strong and moderate Fatah. It will take even more to rebuild the Palestinian institutional structure. He cited a substantial number of Palestinians who would like to immigrate. Among the young and educated 60% would like to get out. 70% of those polled felt that the chances for creation of a Palestinian state were remote. Shikaki’s dismal conclusion was that “I have never seen a more depressed environment,” among the Palestinians,”but the Palestinians’ willingness to compromise (toward a deal with Israel) has not been eroded.”
We heard again and again about the weakness of Abbas but also, more importantly, that the Palestinian Authority exists mostly in name. It would be termed a “failed state” if it had ever achieved statehood. Everything is in disarray. There is no unified security force, civil servants have gone unpaid, and there is only the merest semblance of an education system. Much, I suppose, can be blamed on Israel and the United States, but I would not exempt the Palestinians from responsibility. Corruption, clan rivalries (armed militias) and Islamism have played defining roles.
Some in our group were impressed with Meir Shitreet, until yesterday the Housing Minister and a leading candidate within Kadima to succeed Olmert. He sounds as if he was almost a spokesman for Peace Now, urging a positive and vigorous response to the Saudi peace plan. I hate to be cynical but I caught a different undertone. I believe that he hopes, within the present context, to support a peace diversion. I mean that given the weaknesses of Olmert, Abbas, and Bush, there is not going to be any peace with the Palestinians in the short run. There are no partners for peace. Given that situation, a generous response to the Saudis will not lead to a real negotiation with the Palestinians. Thus, I think that while we heard words of peace from this Kadima leader, they are best understood as an electoral platform. We heard from one other Kadima MK, Amira Dotan a former Brigadier General in the IDF and a hard-headed management specialist. I am surprised that she has not achieved more prominence within the government but bet that she will. I can see her with Labor if Kadima collapses.
We also met with some of the left wing Meretz people. ... The Meretz leader Yossi Beilin is, to my mind, the most honorable politician in Israel, not only on the peace front but on behalf of Arab-Israelis, Bedouins, etc. ... He was a protégé of Shimon Peres, served as Deputy Foreign Minister and Justice Minister under Labor, was a major architect of Oslo, but he is an intellectual without the populist touch. He also lacks the security credentials which Israelis understandably desire. Our meeting with him was not reassuring. He seemed very tired and his answers to our questions were in the familiar words of the peace camp, as if little had changed. Of course, he did warn about isolating Hamas and creating a humanitarian disaster in Gaza but he did not offer any new way out of the morass. I understood him to say that accelerated negotiations over the broad principles with Abbas were desireable because the President was in a weak position. My own judgment is that his weakness makes it even more difficult to make concessions.
Beilin’s Knesset colleague Chaim Oron (better known as Jumas), a former Minister of Agriculture, was somewhat interesting, in that he has regularly visited with Barghouti and assured us that, even as a prisoner, Barghouti had a strong voice on the naming of the new PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Moreover, Jumas told us that Barghouti aredently desires negotiations on a peace process. I am sure that those on the Israeli left would like to see Barghouti released. They probably see him as a Nelson Mandela but I am not sure that is the case. He has been convicted in the planning of five murders and thus from the official Israeli view Barghouti has blood on his hands. Of course, most leaders of anti-colonial struggles had a similar background and I think the issue is not blood or so-called criminal acts but what he might accomplish, if released.
We met with only three Palestinian moderates and all favored his release. They see him as clean, a reformer, and the only man who might clean up and unite the Fatah camp. Prominent Israelis of the left and center agree with them. Of course, on the Israeli side, there may be some who fear Barghouti either as a more demanding figure than Abbas or even as the potential leader of a renewed intifadah. My own feeling is that if Olmert and the United States really want to help the West Bank moderates then they should run the moderate risk of freeing Marwan Barghouti, but I am very conscious that I do not live in Israel nor do I have access to their intelligence. It is not my risk. However, Israel also faces the risk of not doing all in its power to combat the Islamists, at this very moment, and Barghouti could make the difference. MKs Braverman, Oron and Beilin all told us that they supported Barghouti’s release. The other Palestinians we saw were Jihad Abu Ziad a Fatah leader from Gaza who got his family out of there six months ago and Hanna Siniora, a permanent fixture of peace meetings.
One of the most interesting evenings in Jerusalem was spent with Alon Liel and Akiva Eldar. Liel, a former director of the foreign office, has recently taken the lead in the informal contacts with the Syrians and has urged that the negotiations progress to the formal level. Eldar is the outstanding columnist with Haaretz. I have heard him before and always read his columns with great interest. The evening was almost surreal. I had hoped that Liel would shed real light on the Syrian peace prospect and Assad’s intentions but he did not give us the desired details, only his hopes and beliefs. In addition, he seemed to find it necessary, perhaps because we were Peace Now, to argue against any attempt to talk to the Palestinians. He seemed to fear that negotiations with the Palestinians would undermine an approach to the Syrians.
Eldar seemed almost amused by this. Why would Liel take this tact? I can only surmise that he believes a Palestinian peace is, at least for now, a dead issue or that the Israeli public could not tolerate giving up both the Golan and significant control over the West Bank. For his part, Eldar continues to see negotiations with the Palestinians as an urgent matter and the advent of Hamastan makes this more evident. He saw no reason why both sets of negotiations could not be conducted under the umbrella of the Saudi peace proposal. Two of us ran into Eldar, later in the evening. He told us that he had just been on the phone with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni who confirmed his judgment. The Palestinian track must be pursued. ...
Monday, July 09, 2007
Meretz USA Youth Symposium
Between June 11th, 2007 and June 14, 2007, Meretz USA partnered with the World Union of Meretz to sponsor an educational program in the West Bank for young American Jews. Twenty people participated in the trip, whose goal was to show the hardships of life under the Israeli occupation and to highlight the work of Israelis who work daily to change that reality.
The trip was premised on the desire of young progressive American Jews to travel to the Palestinian Territories and the lack of opportunities to do so with organizations not antagonistic to Israel. Although the trip revealed many injustices, it also highlighted a face of Israel deeply committed to social equality and peace. The tour guides included Israelis from the Geneva Initiative, Rabbis for Human Rights, Machsom Watch, Breaking the Silence, and Ta’ayush. They stressed the importance of showing the Palestinians, who typically only encounter Israelis soldiers or settlers, to Israelis and Jews concerned for their well being. Much of the trip painted a harsh reality, but it also showed the best of Israeli society.
June 11, 2007 – East Jerusalem
Day one of the Youth Symposium was spent in East Jerusalem, learning about the separation barrier with the Geneva Initiative, a joint Israeli-Palestinian effort that suggests a detailed peace agreement, and about home demolitions with Rabbis for Human Rights, which promotes social justice in Israel from a rabbinic perspective.
Throughout the morning, Noa, our guide from the Geneva Intiative, discussed the restrictions of the Occupation, asking whether or not they were all actually necessary for security. Pointing out small "settlements" - single houses purchased largely by an American from Miami named Irving Moskovitch, Noa also showed how some Jews are slowly trying to gain a foothold in East Jerusalem.
Most striking was a visit to the Arab neighborhood of Abu Dis, which is cut right down the middle by the Wall. It should be noted that the separation barrier is primarily made of fence, but around cities like Jerusalem, there are portions of it that are wall. Built on the line drawn after the Six Day War to define Jerusalem's borders, the Wall does not take into consideration the neighborhoods which have long existed in its path.
The Wall severely disrupts the lives of the residents of Abu Dis. For instance, children who have school in the other section of town must travel a long distance for their education.
Moreover, the way in which the Wall has been constructed does little to make one believe it is necessary for security. Noa observed that it separates Arabs from Arabs, not Jews from Arabs. And with gaps where Palestinians can cross almost unhindered, the Wall does not even fully separate one side from the other. At the small checkpoint, Noah pointed out such a gap. There, she said, Palestinians could climb through, without being stopped by the soldiers standing right around the corner. As we left, Noa hypothesized that the wall functions more as a sign of power than a security barrier.
Following lunch, we met up with Rabbi Arik Asherman, Executive Director of Rabbis for Human Rights, for a very immediate and powerful look at the housing disputes taking place in East Jerusalem. We first visited a family whose house had been demolished that morning and then a family whose house was subject to repeated attempts by settlers to take it over.
When we got to the demolished house, the Red Cross was leaving having dropped off a tent, three mattresses, and some other provisions – a poor substitute for the home that had housed the family of ten. Rabbi Asherman explained that house demolitions frequently tear apart the families they affect - lowering the children’s esteem for the parents who were unable to prevent the tragedy.
The father of the family explained that the house had been built 10 years before, but that the Interior Ministry had told them three years ago that they needed to apply for a permit for the land. After years of struggle and much money spent, the army had notified them that morning of the impending demolition. The children had gone to school blissfully unaware of what would happen, and returned to find that they no longer had a home.
Before leaving, we helped them put up the tent. Even with the house demolished, they brought us cold drinks, welcoming us into what home they could.
Our final stop was a house in Silwan / Ir David. For the past week, settlers from the organization El ‘Ad had been attempting to take over the home in the sacred city, which rests on an important archaeological site.
One family member explained the complicated situation: They owned the house through "key money." A form of rent control, key money means that the family living in a house has all the rights to the home, but are not the actually owners. One of the owners had supposedly sold the group of settlers her portion of the house. One week ago, the family had received a phone call notifying them they would have to leave. That evening, the El‘Ad settlers came to the house and tried to forcibly remove the family. The family had resisted, and was now taking the case to the court. But, for reasons that were unclear, multiple family members had been arrested and the court had not yet decided the verdict.
For now, the family, who had lived there for 50 years, is trying to hold onto their house against continued takeover attempts. At all times one member would be present in the house, and they were trying to get media attention for their cause.
Wishing them luck, we left, promising to tell their story.
June 12, 2007 – Hebron
On our second day, Yehuda Shaul of Breaking the Silence, a group of discharged Israeli soldiers speaking out against IDF abuses in the Territories, led us on a tour of Hebron, the site of a violent and ugly struggle between Palestinians and Israelis.
Hebron is divided into two sections: H1, which is under the control of the Palestinian Authority, and H2, which is under Israeli control. H2, where we spent our time, is home to all 600-800 settlers and some estimate 30,000 of the 120,000 Palestinians in the city – as more settlers have moved in, more Palestinians have been driven out.
Nevertheless, H2 is essentially a ghost town. Walking the streets of Hebron, we saw primarily military vehicles. Yehuda showed us pictures of the bustling city, taken 10 years ago. The pictures showed a stark contrast to the now deserted, boarded up, and ruined streets. These days, Hebron is almost entirely segregated. Palestinians cannot drive in 60% of the city and they cannot walk on certain streets. In some places, they must climb over several roofs just to get out of their houses and onto the streets. Many Palestinians are not allowed to own stores - in total about 2,200 are closed.
After being blocked by the army from visiting a Palestinian home inside the Hebron settlement of Tel Rumaida, we spoke briefly to the owner on the street. As he left to return to his shop, a settler, Baruch Marzel, came up to us, asking if we wanted to hear the other side. We said yes, and he explained to us that if the military lifted the restrictions, he would be happy to share the city with the Palestinians. It seemed an ironic encounter once we returned to Yehuda’s house and viewed a video, In God's Bunker, where the same settler was shown quoting a song “have you killed an Arab today?” In reality, Marzel is the former leader of the outlawed Kach party, created by the right-wing radical Rabbi Meir Kahane. He has a long criminal record which includes assaults of Palestinians and even an Israeli police officer.
Before leaving Hebron, we stood on a hill and looked over the large portion of the city controlled by the Palestinians. The bustling area seemed entirely different from the eerily quiet place where we stood.
June 13, 2007 – The Checkpoints & South Mount Hebron
The third day of the Symposium was spent with Hanna Barag (who not so long ago spoke at Beit Shalom) of Machsom Watch, a group of women who go out each day to the checkpoints to document abuses and, to the best of their ability, to relieve Palestinian suffering, and later with Avichai Sharon of Ta’ayush, a group of Arabs and Jews working together to end the occupation and to achieve civil equality.
Hanna, a 70 year old grandmother, took us first to the Etzion District Commanding Office (DCO), which regulates the flow of Palestinians from Bethlehem who wish to work in the Gush Etzion settlement bloc. It is incredibly difficult to get a permit to do so – particularly for anyone under the age of 27 (because the Israelis have found that most suicide bombers are young people). Most Palestinians return to the DCO day after day without success.
However, getting a work permit is not the end to a Palestinian’s troubles. Frequently, employers deduct ahead of time the permit’s cost from the worker’s salary. Thus, if a Palestinian is unable to get to work one day – perhaps because of troubles at the checkpoints – the money has already been taken. He loses both that amount and his day’s salary.
That afternoon, we met up with Avichai to explore the South Mount Hebron area. The residents of the region are primarily Palestinian farmers and herders, who have lived in caves and shacks for generations. These are the “invisible people” – neither the Palestinian Authority nor the Israeli government looks out for their well being – and, in the area we visited, they are being moved to the city of Yatta as settlers come in and take their land.
Avichai explained that even seemingly small changes made by the Civil Administration have a strong impact on the Palestinians’ lives: in many areas, road guards have been put up. These guards come up to about mid-calf, but they are much larger barriers than they appear. The Palestinian livelihood relies largely on herding – and their sheep cannot climb over the barriers. Entire areas of grazing have been cut off.
June 14, 2007 – The Olive Groves
We had planned to visit Ramallah on the last day of Meretz USA’s Youth Symposium, but decided, at the last minute, to forgo the trip because of concern that the violence between Fatah and Hamas in the Gaza Strip might spill over. Instead, we visited Augusta Victoria Hospital on the Mount of Olives and joined once again with Rabbi Arik Asherman, this time to learn about the disputes centered around the olive groves.
At Augusta Victoria, we met with Reverend Mark Brown, the Regional representative of the Lutheran World Federation, which runs the hospital. Augusta Victoria treats primarily Palestinians, and about 90 - 95% of the patients come from outside Jerusalem. There, we heard about the medical problems facing the Palestinians, but, Revered Brown noted the biggest problem facing the Palestinians is a lack of freedom. Very few problems, he said, would remain unresolved were the occupation to end.
Picking up Rabbi Asherman from his office, we headed north to the Palestinian village of Qaryot, midway between Ramallah and Nablus. In the Qaryot municipal building, we listened to several community members. Qaryot lies between three settlements, which continue to grow, despite a law banning new settlements. Instead, existing ones build new “neighborhoods,” which land one or two miles away from the original settlement.
In addition to expanding the neighborhoods into Qaryot land, the settlers obstruct access to the village’s olive groves. In total, Qaryot residents can no longer get to 12,000 dunams (or about 3,000 acres) of land and about 3,000 adult olive trees. In order to harvest the olives that they still have access to, they are forced to travel long distances.
Wrapping up the trip, we returned to Jerusalem, having learned and seen things that few Americans – and even few Israelis – ever see. The Youth Symposium, sponsored by the Meretz USA and the World Union of Meretz, broadened the insight of its participants into the nuances of the occupation. Although terrorism is a legitimate and constant concern, the reality of Palestinian life is particularly bleak. Significantly, the trip also demonstrated the remarkable vision and commitment of the Israelis working for justice and the fulfillment of the Zionist ideal.
The trip was premised on the desire of young progressive American Jews to travel to the Palestinian Territories and the lack of opportunities to do so with organizations not antagonistic to Israel. Although the trip revealed many injustices, it also highlighted a face of Israel deeply committed to social equality and peace. The tour guides included Israelis from the Geneva Initiative, Rabbis for Human Rights, Machsom Watch, Breaking the Silence, and Ta’ayush. They stressed the importance of showing the Palestinians, who typically only encounter Israelis soldiers or settlers, to Israelis and Jews concerned for their well being. Much of the trip painted a harsh reality, but it also showed the best of Israeli society.
June 11, 2007 – East Jerusalem
Day one of the Youth Symposium was spent in East Jerusalem, learning about the separation barrier with the Geneva Initiative, a joint Israeli-Palestinian effort that suggests a detailed peace agreement, and about home demolitions with Rabbis for Human Rights, which promotes social justice in Israel from a rabbinic perspective.
Throughout the morning, Noa, our guide from the Geneva Intiative, discussed the restrictions of the Occupation, asking whether or not they were all actually necessary for security. Pointing out small "settlements" - single houses purchased largely by an American from Miami named Irving Moskovitch, Noa also showed how some Jews are slowly trying to gain a foothold in East Jerusalem.
Most striking was a visit to the Arab neighborhood of Abu Dis, which is cut right down the middle by the Wall. It should be noted that the separation barrier is primarily made of fence, but around cities like Jerusalem, there are portions of it that are wall. Built on the line drawn after the Six Day War to define Jerusalem's borders, the Wall does not take into consideration the neighborhoods which have long existed in its path.
The Wall severely disrupts the lives of the residents of Abu Dis. For instance, children who have school in the other section of town must travel a long distance for their education.
Moreover, the way in which the Wall has been constructed does little to make one believe it is necessary for security. Noa observed that it separates Arabs from Arabs, not Jews from Arabs. And with gaps where Palestinians can cross almost unhindered, the Wall does not even fully separate one side from the other. At the small checkpoint, Noah pointed out such a gap. There, she said, Palestinians could climb through, without being stopped by the soldiers standing right around the corner. As we left, Noa hypothesized that the wall functions more as a sign of power than a security barrier.
Following lunch, we met up with Rabbi Arik Asherman, Executive Director of Rabbis for Human Rights, for a very immediate and powerful look at the housing disputes taking place in East Jerusalem. We first visited a family whose house had been demolished that morning and then a family whose house was subject to repeated attempts by settlers to take it over.
When we got to the demolished house, the Red Cross was leaving having dropped off a tent, three mattresses, and some other provisions – a poor substitute for the home that had housed the family of ten. Rabbi Asherman explained that house demolitions frequently tear apart the families they affect - lowering the children’s esteem for the parents who were unable to prevent the tragedy.
The father of the family explained that the house had been built 10 years before, but that the Interior Ministry had told them three years ago that they needed to apply for a permit for the land. After years of struggle and much money spent, the army had notified them that morning of the impending demolition. The children had gone to school blissfully unaware of what would happen, and returned to find that they no longer had a home.
Before leaving, we helped them put up the tent. Even with the house demolished, they brought us cold drinks, welcoming us into what home they could.
Our final stop was a house in Silwan / Ir David. For the past week, settlers from the organization El ‘Ad had been attempting to take over the home in the sacred city, which rests on an important archaeological site.
One family member explained the complicated situation: They owned the house through "key money." A form of rent control, key money means that the family living in a house has all the rights to the home, but are not the actually owners. One of the owners had supposedly sold the group of settlers her portion of the house. One week ago, the family had received a phone call notifying them they would have to leave. That evening, the El‘Ad settlers came to the house and tried to forcibly remove the family. The family had resisted, and was now taking the case to the court. But, for reasons that were unclear, multiple family members had been arrested and the court had not yet decided the verdict.
For now, the family, who had lived there for 50 years, is trying to hold onto their house against continued takeover attempts. At all times one member would be present in the house, and they were trying to get media attention for their cause.
Wishing them luck, we left, promising to tell their story.
June 12, 2007 – Hebron
On our second day, Yehuda Shaul of Breaking the Silence, a group of discharged Israeli soldiers speaking out against IDF abuses in the Territories, led us on a tour of Hebron, the site of a violent and ugly struggle between Palestinians and Israelis.
Hebron is divided into two sections: H1, which is under the control of the Palestinian Authority, and H2, which is under Israeli control. H2, where we spent our time, is home to all 600-800 settlers and some estimate 30,000 of the 120,000 Palestinians in the city – as more settlers have moved in, more Palestinians have been driven out.
Nevertheless, H2 is essentially a ghost town. Walking the streets of Hebron, we saw primarily military vehicles. Yehuda showed us pictures of the bustling city, taken 10 years ago. The pictures showed a stark contrast to the now deserted, boarded up, and ruined streets. These days, Hebron is almost entirely segregated. Palestinians cannot drive in 60% of the city and they cannot walk on certain streets. In some places, they must climb over several roofs just to get out of their houses and onto the streets. Many Palestinians are not allowed to own stores - in total about 2,200 are closed.
After being blocked by the army from visiting a Palestinian home inside the Hebron settlement of Tel Rumaida, we spoke briefly to the owner on the street. As he left to return to his shop, a settler, Baruch Marzel, came up to us, asking if we wanted to hear the other side. We said yes, and he explained to us that if the military lifted the restrictions, he would be happy to share the city with the Palestinians. It seemed an ironic encounter once we returned to Yehuda’s house and viewed a video, In God's Bunker, where the same settler was shown quoting a song “have you killed an Arab today?” In reality, Marzel is the former leader of the outlawed Kach party, created by the right-wing radical Rabbi Meir Kahane. He has a long criminal record which includes assaults of Palestinians and even an Israeli police officer.
Before leaving Hebron, we stood on a hill and looked over the large portion of the city controlled by the Palestinians. The bustling area seemed entirely different from the eerily quiet place where we stood.
June 13, 2007 – The Checkpoints & South Mount Hebron
The third day of the Symposium was spent with Hanna Barag (who not so long ago spoke at Beit Shalom) of Machsom Watch, a group of women who go out each day to the checkpoints to document abuses and, to the best of their ability, to relieve Palestinian suffering, and later with Avichai Sharon of Ta’ayush, a group of Arabs and Jews working together to end the occupation and to achieve civil equality.
Hanna, a 70 year old grandmother, took us first to the Etzion District Commanding Office (DCO), which regulates the flow of Palestinians from Bethlehem who wish to work in the Gush Etzion settlement bloc. It is incredibly difficult to get a permit to do so – particularly for anyone under the age of 27 (because the Israelis have found that most suicide bombers are young people). Most Palestinians return to the DCO day after day without success.
However, getting a work permit is not the end to a Palestinian’s troubles. Frequently, employers deduct ahead of time the permit’s cost from the worker’s salary. Thus, if a Palestinian is unable to get to work one day – perhaps because of troubles at the checkpoints – the money has already been taken. He loses both that amount and his day’s salary.
That afternoon, we met up with Avichai to explore the South Mount Hebron area. The residents of the region are primarily Palestinian farmers and herders, who have lived in caves and shacks for generations. These are the “invisible people” – neither the Palestinian Authority nor the Israeli government looks out for their well being – and, in the area we visited, they are being moved to the city of Yatta as settlers come in and take their land.
Avichai explained that even seemingly small changes made by the Civil Administration have a strong impact on the Palestinians’ lives: in many areas, road guards have been put up. These guards come up to about mid-calf, but they are much larger barriers than they appear. The Palestinian livelihood relies largely on herding – and their sheep cannot climb over the barriers. Entire areas of grazing have been cut off.
June 14, 2007 – The Olive Groves
We had planned to visit Ramallah on the last day of Meretz USA’s Youth Symposium, but decided, at the last minute, to forgo the trip because of concern that the violence between Fatah and Hamas in the Gaza Strip might spill over. Instead, we visited Augusta Victoria Hospital on the Mount of Olives and joined once again with Rabbi Arik Asherman, this time to learn about the disputes centered around the olive groves.
At Augusta Victoria, we met with Reverend Mark Brown, the Regional representative of the Lutheran World Federation, which runs the hospital. Augusta Victoria treats primarily Palestinians, and about 90 - 95% of the patients come from outside Jerusalem. There, we heard about the medical problems facing the Palestinians, but, Revered Brown noted the biggest problem facing the Palestinians is a lack of freedom. Very few problems, he said, would remain unresolved were the occupation to end.
Picking up Rabbi Asherman from his office, we headed north to the Palestinian village of Qaryot, midway between Ramallah and Nablus. In the Qaryot municipal building, we listened to several community members. Qaryot lies between three settlements, which continue to grow, despite a law banning new settlements. Instead, existing ones build new “neighborhoods,” which land one or two miles away from the original settlement.
In addition to expanding the neighborhoods into Qaryot land, the settlers obstruct access to the village’s olive groves. In total, Qaryot residents can no longer get to 12,000 dunams (or about 3,000 acres) of land and about 3,000 adult olive trees. In order to harvest the olives that they still have access to, they are forced to travel long distances.
Wrapping up the trip, we returned to Jerusalem, having learned and seen things that few Americans – and even few Israelis – ever see. The Youth Symposium, sponsored by the Meretz USA and the World Union of Meretz, broadened the insight of its participants into the nuances of the occupation. Although terrorism is a legitimate and constant concern, the reality of Palestinian life is particularly bleak. Significantly, the trip also demonstrated the remarkable vision and commitment of the Israelis working for justice and the fulfillment of the Zionist ideal.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Two small victories
1) In Phil Weiss's blog posting of July 1, while not exactly changing his views, Weiss has apologized for his tone in a prior posting. He also admits to some commonality of concern and values with progressive Zionists. And he realizes that some of the comments he attracts are antisemitic or close to it. Still, the confusions, which he readily admits to, continue to shine through.
He continues to insist upon simply naming issues (e.g., “dual loyalty”) rather than analyzing them in practical terms. In other words, he wraps himself in the principle of “universalism” versus “nationalism,” as if anyone who supports the right of the Jewish people to self-determination automatically is a “nationalist” in the mold of a right-wing chauvinist. As progressive Zionists, we struggle to find ways to reconcile the opposing rights to self-determination of both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. There’s no easy formula in this, but a just solution is NOT the complete subordination of the rights of one to the other.
2) I doubt that this will mark a dramatic change in Rabbi Michael Lerner's overly-PC attitudes re Israel, but the following episode is gratifying. In an email below, I complained about his ongoing use of Tikkun print and online resources as a platform for Ilan Pappe, an Israeli historian who is stridently and uncompromisingly anti-Zionist:
He continues to insist upon simply naming issues (e.g., “dual loyalty”) rather than analyzing them in practical terms. In other words, he wraps himself in the principle of “universalism” versus “nationalism,” as if anyone who supports the right of the Jewish people to self-determination automatically is a “nationalist” in the mold of a right-wing chauvinist. As progressive Zionists, we struggle to find ways to reconcile the opposing rights to self-determination of both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. There’s no easy formula in this, but a just solution is NOT the complete subordination of the rights of one to the other.
2) I doubt that this will mark a dramatic change in Rabbi Michael Lerner's overly-PC attitudes re Israel, but the following episode is gratifying. In an email below, I complained about his ongoing use of Tikkun print and online resources as a platform for Ilan Pappe, an Israeli historian who is stridently and uncompromisingly anti-Zionist:
Michael,Lerner e-mailed back that he agreed with me and promised to “stop using him.”
I wonder why you continue to give Ilan Pappe a platform for his noxious views. It isn't that he lies (although he shades the truth), but that he's totally one-sided. In his piece on Gaza here, he is contemptuous of "Diet Zionists" and in other ways attacks progressive Zionists who believe in two states [Israel and Palestine]. "Zionism" as such is anathema to him. If you have a Tikkun forum about two states vs. one, such as the recent debate between Pappe and Uri Avnery, then his voice belongs, but otherwise, you are just reinforcing blanket anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism. I know that you don't really mean to do that.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Good guys and bad guys
Gaza upheaval gives rise to simplistic view of Palestinian society by Susie Becher
While Mahmoud Abbas was watching his followers being paraded through the streets of Gaza in their underwear with their hands above their heads, or being shot dead on live television, Prime Minister Olmert's vision suddenly cleared: Eureka! There is a partner, an able partner, a worthy partner!
Abbas, who was compelled to resign his post as prime minister of the Palestinian Authority in 2003 over Israel's unwillingness to cooperate with him on the implementation of the Road Map and who later assumed the presidency only to be met by the same cold shoulder and disregard, has suddenly become the can-do man, the go-to guy. ...
Yes, Israel must negotiate with Abbas and must do so quickly. It should take advantage of the good offices of the Arab League to help shepherd the talks and infuse them with a regional dimension. But the talks must not be limited to the process, to confidence-building measures, to withheld taxes and interim borders. This is the time to discuss the final status: Everything on the table, until white smoke rises.
At the same time, it should be remembered that Hamas, by signing the Mecca Accord that gave birth to the short-lived Palestinian national unity government, endorsed Abbas' right to conduct such negotiations, indicating that it, too, can be a partner. Perhaps by proxy, but a partner nonetheless.
A Hamas spokesman reiterated on Friday that the movement's goal is the establishment of an independent state along the 1967 borders. This message must not fall on deaf ears. If a peace agreement is reached, it will only hold if it serves as a foundation for reuniting the Palestinian people in a national homeland that encompasses both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Abbas must conduct the negotiations in his capacity as the head of the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people – all the Palestinian people.
Susie Becher is a member of the national executive of the Meretz-Yachad Party. Click here for entire article at Ynetnews.
While Mahmoud Abbas was watching his followers being paraded through the streets of Gaza in their underwear with their hands above their heads, or being shot dead on live television, Prime Minister Olmert's vision suddenly cleared: Eureka! There is a partner, an able partner, a worthy partner!
Abbas, who was compelled to resign his post as prime minister of the Palestinian Authority in 2003 over Israel's unwillingness to cooperate with him on the implementation of the Road Map and who later assumed the presidency only to be met by the same cold shoulder and disregard, has suddenly become the can-do man, the go-to guy. ...
Yes, Israel must negotiate with Abbas and must do so quickly. It should take advantage of the good offices of the Arab League to help shepherd the talks and infuse them with a regional dimension. But the talks must not be limited to the process, to confidence-building measures, to withheld taxes and interim borders. This is the time to discuss the final status: Everything on the table, until white smoke rises.
At the same time, it should be remembered that Hamas, by signing the Mecca Accord that gave birth to the short-lived Palestinian national unity government, endorsed Abbas' right to conduct such negotiations, indicating that it, too, can be a partner. Perhaps by proxy, but a partner nonetheless.
A Hamas spokesman reiterated on Friday that the movement's goal is the establishment of an independent state along the 1967 borders. This message must not fall on deaf ears. If a peace agreement is reached, it will only hold if it serves as a foundation for reuniting the Palestinian people in a national homeland that encompasses both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Abbas must conduct the negotiations in his capacity as the head of the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people – all the Palestinian people.
Susie Becher is a member of the national executive of the Meretz-Yachad Party. Click here for entire article at Ynetnews.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Church reverses anti-Israel resolution
The United Church of Christ (UCC) General Synod has adopted a balanced resolution regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reversing the anti-Israel and anti-peace divestment resolution of a previous Synod. This move is similar to the change adopted earlier by Presbyterian Church USA, reversing their own anti-Israel resolution. The most important parts of this resolution are commitment to a two state peaceful solution, rather than liquidation of Israel, commitment to a balanced approach to the causes and history of the conflict, and a call for an end to incitement and violence.
However, we can surmise that as in the case of PC-USA, the UCC resolution will be challenged again and again by anti-Israel forces within the church. Click here for entire piece.
However, we can surmise that as in the case of PC-USA, the UCC resolution will be challenged again and again by anti-Israel forces within the church. Click here for entire piece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)