J. Zel Lurie, the retired founding editor of Hadassah Magazine, concludes the following column, prepared on Nov. 29 (the 60th anniversary of the UN General Assembly vote for two states in Palestine) for publication in the Jewish Journal of South Florida, December 4, by noting, "Meanwhile I became 94 today, December 4. Will I see peace in my lifetime?"
My reply: Despite all the obstacles and all our doubts, may it be so! Happy Birthday, Zel.
On November 27, 2007 at Annapolis. a few moments after the President of the Palestine National Authority and the Prime Minister of Israel had promised, to begin vigorous, serious and continuous negotiations to arrive at a peace pact within 13 months, a CNN reporter commented: ‘This is the beginning of the beginning."
I would have called it the end of the beginning. The beginning actually occurred 60 years ago less two days, on November 29, 1947, when in a converted factory in Lake Success, the United Nations General Assembly voted by a two-thirds majority to create two states in Palestine, a Jewish state and an Arab state.
I was there. I watched the furious Arab delegates, led by Azzam Pasha, the Egyptian head of the Arab League, and Prince Faisal of Saudi Arabia, stalk out of the room. I followed them to the press section where Azzam Pasha declared war. He said "any partition line drawn in Palestine will be a line of fire and blood."
The Jews were ecstatic. A state at last. In the lobby outside they were dancing. In the delegates lounge they had surrounded Abba Hillel Silver, head of the Jewish Agency, to drink a lechayim. The Israeli delegation had left for the ailing Chaim Weizmann’s hotel room to give him the good news.
At Annapolis, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, who is Prince Faisal’s son or grandson, led the Arab League delegation into the hall and not out of it. [Although he could not quite bring himself to shaking an Israeli's hand - ed.]
November 29, 1947 was the real beginning but there were several other ends of the beginnings over the years, There was Anwar Sadat’s startling visit to Israel in 1977 and his declaration "No more war." Israel and Egypt had fought four wars since 1948.
This was the beginning of negotiating an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. It took over a year for President Jimmy Carter, devoting his time and energy with constant visits to Cairo and Jerusalem to hammer out a peace treaty that has held up for the last thirty years.
President Bush has made it clear that he will not mediate. ... He will not make bridging proposals as did President Carter, with the invaluable help of Moshe Dayan; they were successful 30 years ago. ...
Reaching an agreement with the Palestinians will be much harder, as President Clinton discovered. The core issues dividing them - Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, borders, water, security from suicide bombers - are much broader, deeper and more ingrained than the Sinai. ...
The Oslo Accords were signed in September 1993 on the White House lawn with President Clinton’s arms around Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, exactly the same posture as the Annapolis photo of Bush embracing Olmert and Abbas.
The Oslo Accords might be called another end of the beginning. They were followed by several implementation meetings, in Cairo, Paris, Wye River and Sharm al Sheikh. They covered economic relations and the gradual transfer of territory to the Palestine Authority. All of these agreements, none of which dealt with the core issues, were abrogated on the outbreak of Arab violence and suicide bombers in 2000, following Ariel Sharon’s provocative march onto the Temple Mount.
The Army took over completely. Over 500 checkpoints confined the Palestinians. Jewish settlements in the West Bank almost doubled. Expensive roads, forbidden to the Palestinians, were constructed. A separation barrier was built on Palestinian land destroying tens of thousands of olive trees and separating Arab farmers from their fields. Hamas terrorists took over Gaza.
Now Olmert and Abu Mazen (a.k.a. Mohammed Abbas) have promised to try to solve all these issues and many more in 13 months. I wish them well.
Annapolis was essentially a show place but I don’t wish to denigrate its achievements. ... Olmert has appointed high level committees to deal with the core issues. The United States will mentor the negotiations. President Bush has appointed General James Jones, the retired commander of NATO forces to oversee the security problems. Tony Blair will convene a donors conference to provide funds for Palestinian Prime Minister Saalam Fayed. ...
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
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Present for Peace at Annapolis, Part 2
The following is from Meretz USA's immediate past president, Lilly Rivlin:
I went to Annapolis to cheer on the peace conference on Tuesday.
Three-quarters of those traveling with me on the bus from NYC were young people. Tammy Shapiro, the Director of Union of Progressive Zionists who ran the rally, is a young person. In fact, most of the speakers there were under the age of 30. Leading us in song were the two co-chairs of Habonim-Dror. Noam Shalef, representing Americans for Peace Now, is also a young person. Halleluyah. The baton has passed; at the very least it's shared.
It was exhilarating, yet I also had mixed feelings, especially since we stood on the lawn of St. Anne's Church not far from the Annapolis State House, probably no more than 30 miles from the moshava where I went to summer camp more than 50 years ago to be inculcated with the socialist-Zionist values that have influenced me throughout my life.
It was a beautiful and windy day. I held my sign "Negotiate for Peace," standing next to my peers, facing the traffic circle before us, cars honking, people staring at the more than 100 mainly young people who care, who in the face of much skepticism, put their bodies where their hopes are, to take a political action that may end up on the nightly news for one minute.
But it was more than that: it was acting in concert with other people that make me yearn to remember the words of Hannah Arendt--- something about participating in the public sphere that makes one more human.
And the surreal: We walked from the church to the waterfront, towards the closed off area where the dignitaries were meeting. We were guided by the Maryland Police to one side of the broad street, across from the Lubavitcher contingent who had come on a bus from Monsey, NY to voice their opposition to the Annapolis conference. We stood across from each other waving opposing signs. A group of four townies from Annapolis stood nearby, "Don't these American Jews have peace?," one asked cynically.
On the way back to our bus, I was stopped by two tall and well-groomed women who introduced themselves. They were evangelical Christians who had come to Annapolis to pray. They had been praying all day, they said. One of them, with long flowing blond hair, recounted that she had been to Israel many times, that Israel was the apple of God's eye, and that Israel should not give up one inch of land. I differed with her, I said, but our differences deserved more time than we had. She accompanied me to the bus overflowing with faith that God would intervene and do his best. I was not assured, I said politely.
On the bus, a few of us old timers engaged and disagreed mightily about the details of the two opposing narratives, Israeli Jewish and the Palestinian--- surely echoing, I thought, the back-and-forth agreements and disagreements, accusations and recriminations among the negotiators.
Am I hopeful? Well, nine organizations came together for the rally. And 49 countries (including most Arab governments) came together with Israel in Annapolis. This has never happened before.
I went to Annapolis to cheer on the peace conference on Tuesday.
Three-quarters of those traveling with me on the bus from NYC were young people. Tammy Shapiro, the Director of Union of Progressive Zionists who ran the rally, is a young person. In fact, most of the speakers there were under the age of 30. Leading us in song were the two co-chairs of Habonim-Dror. Noam Shalef, representing Americans for Peace Now, is also a young person. Halleluyah. The baton has passed; at the very least it's shared.
It was exhilarating, yet I also had mixed feelings, especially since we stood on the lawn of St. Anne's Church not far from the Annapolis State House, probably no more than 30 miles from the moshava where I went to summer camp more than 50 years ago to be inculcated with the socialist-Zionist values that have influenced me throughout my life.
It was a beautiful and windy day. I held my sign "Negotiate for Peace," standing next to my peers, facing the traffic circle before us, cars honking, people staring at the more than 100 mainly young people who care, who in the face of much skepticism, put their bodies where their hopes are, to take a political action that may end up on the nightly news for one minute.
But it was more than that: it was acting in concert with other people that make me yearn to remember the words of Hannah Arendt--- something about participating in the public sphere that makes one more human.
And the surreal: We walked from the church to the waterfront, towards the closed off area where the dignitaries were meeting. We were guided by the Maryland Police to one side of the broad street, across from the Lubavitcher contingent who had come on a bus from Monsey, NY to voice their opposition to the Annapolis conference. We stood across from each other waving opposing signs. A group of four townies from Annapolis stood nearby, "Don't these American Jews have peace?," one asked cynically.
On the way back to our bus, I was stopped by two tall and well-groomed women who introduced themselves. They were evangelical Christians who had come to Annapolis to pray. They had been praying all day, they said. One of them, with long flowing blond hair, recounted that she had been to Israel many times, that Israel was the apple of God's eye, and that Israel should not give up one inch of land. I differed with her, I said, but our differences deserved more time than we had. She accompanied me to the bus overflowing with faith that God would intervene and do his best. I was not assured, I said politely.
On the bus, a few of us old timers engaged and disagreed mightily about the details of the two opposing narratives, Israeli Jewish and the Palestinian--- surely echoing, I thought, the back-and-forth agreements and disagreements, accusations and recriminations among the negotiators.
Am I hopeful? Well, nine organizations came together for the rally. And 49 countries (including most Arab governments) came together with Israel in Annapolis. This has never happened before.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Present for Peace at Annapolis, Part 1
Meretz USA’s president Lawrence I. Lerner, executive director Charney Bromberg, past president Lilly Rivlin, board member Shirley Rausher, and Ralph Seliger joined with staff and activists of the Union of Progressive Zionists, Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek V’Shalom, Ameinu, Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim-Dror to rally for peace in Annapolis, Maryland. Charney Bromberg was among those who addressed the rally jointly sponsored by this coalition of pro-Israel peace groups at St. Anne’s Church in downtown Annapolis, across from the Maryland governor’s official residence.
Other speakers included two friends from Israel, Mossi Raz, a former Meretz Member of Knesset and director of Israel’s Peace Now, and Gavri Bargil, co-director of Israel’s Kibbutz Movement and a former Shaliach (Zionist emissary) headquartered in New York. In attendance, cheering us on, was Nidal Fuqaha, a Ramallah-based Palestinian who is executive director of the Geneva Initiative.
Collectively, this progressive Zionist coalition was among the largest groups making its presence known in Annapolis. As we strolled through this charming town toward the gates of the United States Naval Academy where the conference was staged, we found the only possibly bigger bunch— that of the Neturei Karta, an oddball Chasidic sect demonstrating against Israel’s very existence. Also a sizeable group– almost identical in attire with the Neturei Karta– was another band of ultra-Orthodox Jews demonstrating against the conference on the premise that West Bank territory is Israel’s sacred real estate. A smaller group of less visibly religious Jews opposed the conference on the grounds that it was planning to surrender territory to Arab terrorists; they stood with their signs in close proximity to an even smaller bunch of anti-Israel demonstrators (apparently Arabs and a few sympathizers).
Sadly, ours was apparently the only pro-negotiations, pro-peace demonstration, but at least there was no massive anti-peace mobilization. I’m including links here to the public remarks at Annapolis by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and
Pres. George W. Bush.
Click here for a thumbs-down view of the conference from the ever-skeptical Ami Isseroff
but he usefully includes the joint statement signed onto by Israel and the PLO, pledging "vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations and ... every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008."
Charney Bromberg and Ofer Gutman (a World Zionist Organization official who is a member of Meretz) are two hopeful voices recorded as against some negative remarks registered at the Mideast Youth website.
Other speakers included two friends from Israel, Mossi Raz, a former Meretz Member of Knesset and director of Israel’s Peace Now, and Gavri Bargil, co-director of Israel’s Kibbutz Movement and a former Shaliach (Zionist emissary) headquartered in New York. In attendance, cheering us on, was Nidal Fuqaha, a Ramallah-based Palestinian who is executive director of the Geneva Initiative.
Collectively, this progressive Zionist coalition was among the largest groups making its presence known in Annapolis. As we strolled through this charming town toward the gates of the United States Naval Academy where the conference was staged, we found the only possibly bigger bunch— that of the Neturei Karta, an oddball Chasidic sect demonstrating against Israel’s very existence. Also a sizeable group– almost identical in attire with the Neturei Karta– was another band of ultra-Orthodox Jews demonstrating against the conference on the premise that West Bank territory is Israel’s sacred real estate. A smaller group of less visibly religious Jews opposed the conference on the grounds that it was planning to surrender territory to Arab terrorists; they stood with their signs in close proximity to an even smaller bunch of anti-Israel demonstrators (apparently Arabs and a few sympathizers).
Sadly, ours was apparently the only pro-negotiations, pro-peace demonstration, but at least there was no massive anti-peace mobilization. I’m including links here to the public remarks at Annapolis by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and
Pres. George W. Bush.
Click here for a thumbs-down view of the conference from the ever-skeptical Ami Isseroff
but he usefully includes the joint statement signed onto by Israel and the PLO, pledging "vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations and ... every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008."
Charney Bromberg and Ofer Gutman (a World Zionist Organization official who is a member of Meretz) are two hopeful voices recorded as against some negative remarks registered at the Mideast Youth website.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Saudi Gender Apartheid
Meretz USA’s immediate past president, Lilly Rivlin, has passed along this item:
Young girls are left to burn to death in a school fire because they are not suitably attired to be seen in public if rescued. A rape victim is ordered to be whipped 200 lashes and imprisoned six months. Welcome to a few of the horrors of gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia, says Mona Eltahawy.
NEW YORK -- Once upon a time, in a country called South Africa the color of your skin determined where you lived, what jobs you were allowed, and whether you could vote or not. Decent countries around the world fought the evil of racial apartheid by turning South Africa into a pariah state. ...
Today in a country called Saudi Arabia it is gender rather than racial apartheid that is the evil but the international community watches quietly and does nothing.
Saudi women cannot vote, cannot drive, cannot be treated in a hospital or travel without the written permission of a male guardian, cannot study the same things men do, and are barred from certain professions. Click here to read entire article.
Young girls are left to burn to death in a school fire because they are not suitably attired to be seen in public if rescued. A rape victim is ordered to be whipped 200 lashes and imprisoned six months. Welcome to a few of the horrors of gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia, says Mona Eltahawy.
NEW YORK -- Once upon a time, in a country called South Africa the color of your skin determined where you lived, what jobs you were allowed, and whether you could vote or not. Decent countries around the world fought the evil of racial apartheid by turning South Africa into a pariah state. ...
Today in a country called Saudi Arabia it is gender rather than racial apartheid that is the evil but the international community watches quietly and does nothing.
Saudi women cannot vote, cannot drive, cannot be treated in a hospital or travel without the written permission of a male guardian, cannot study the same things men do, and are barred from certain professions. Click here to read entire article.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Scheinberg: Qassam Rockets, No Easy Solution
Week after week primitive Qassam rockets fired from Gaza land in or near the Israeli town of Sderot. [So far, they have killed about a half dozen Israeli civilians and injured more-- ed.] They have seriously wounded soldiers camped near the town and they certainly threaten everyone from school children to the very old. The problem is that there are no easy solutions.
Of course the right-wing parties want the IDF to march right into Gaza and stop this outrageous assault on a civilian population but what would that mean? Would the IDF be able to track the elusive fighters operating on their own turf, amidst their own people? Would it mean a repeat of some of the tragedies of the 2nd Lebanon War, which inflicted grave losses on both sides? Would it necessitate a stupid and wasteful reoccupation of Gaza? None of these scenarios are very appealing.
Defence Minister Ehud Barak offered a kind of interim measure, tightening the screws on Gaza by cutting back on the electricity supply along with limiting gasoline shipments and a sharply curtailing commercial ties with the strip. There was a loud outcry against these measures from human rights groups, the United Nations and the European Union and the term they all used was – "collective punishment". In other words, Israel was proposing to punish the entire population of Gaza, some 1.5 million people when the real culprits were a handful of terrorists and the Hamas officials which allowed them to operate. Human rights groups turned to the Israel high court arguing that the power cut was illegal and would harm innocent civilians.
Israel’s leading political columnist Nahum Barnea declared that Barak had made "a stupid decision." First, even if not carried out, the threat to electric supplies and fuel gave Hamas excellent propaganda. Second, punishment of the entire Gazan population can only drive it into the open arms of Hamas. Third, as Israel seeks a dialogue with moderate Palestinian and Arab nations she appears to them as a cruel occupier. Even if the threats of sanctions are not carried out Israel has egg on its face. Undoubtedly, with that in mind, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz prohibited the electricity cut, at least for the time being.
This all leaves Israel with a predicament in which she has seemingly no good options and several poor ones. One is that she can maintain the status quo, tolerating the rockets until one hit a school or other sensitive location and then be forced to invade while suffering the taunts of right wing critics, who had urged preemptive action. Two, Israel might yet turn to electricity cuts and other harsh sanctions but suffer the diplomatic storm which would ensue, as well as adding to the ranks of Hamas. Three, the IDF could be turned loose on Gaza, with unknowable results, but this is probably not an option until after the Annapolis peace conference, while even then a poor choice. In sum, there are situations which admit of no easy solutions and the rockets from Gaza present just such a problem. Sober men and women at the cabinet table will be facing a major test of their humanity and of their wisdom. We can only wish them well.
Dr. Stephen Scheinberg is emeritus professor of history at Concordia University (Montreal) and co-chair of Canadian Friends of Peace Now. More of his opinions can be found at http://thejewishliberal.blogspot.com.
Of course the right-wing parties want the IDF to march right into Gaza and stop this outrageous assault on a civilian population but what would that mean? Would the IDF be able to track the elusive fighters operating on their own turf, amidst their own people? Would it mean a repeat of some of the tragedies of the 2nd Lebanon War, which inflicted grave losses on both sides? Would it necessitate a stupid and wasteful reoccupation of Gaza? None of these scenarios are very appealing.
Defence Minister Ehud Barak offered a kind of interim measure, tightening the screws on Gaza by cutting back on the electricity supply along with limiting gasoline shipments and a sharply curtailing commercial ties with the strip. There was a loud outcry against these measures from human rights groups, the United Nations and the European Union and the term they all used was – "collective punishment". In other words, Israel was proposing to punish the entire population of Gaza, some 1.5 million people when the real culprits were a handful of terrorists and the Hamas officials which allowed them to operate. Human rights groups turned to the Israel high court arguing that the power cut was illegal and would harm innocent civilians.
Israel’s leading political columnist Nahum Barnea declared that Barak had made "a stupid decision." First, even if not carried out, the threat to electric supplies and fuel gave Hamas excellent propaganda. Second, punishment of the entire Gazan population can only drive it into the open arms of Hamas. Third, as Israel seeks a dialogue with moderate Palestinian and Arab nations she appears to them as a cruel occupier. Even if the threats of sanctions are not carried out Israel has egg on its face. Undoubtedly, with that in mind, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz prohibited the electricity cut, at least for the time being.
This all leaves Israel with a predicament in which she has seemingly no good options and several poor ones. One is that she can maintain the status quo, tolerating the rockets until one hit a school or other sensitive location and then be forced to invade while suffering the taunts of right wing critics, who had urged preemptive action. Two, Israel might yet turn to electricity cuts and other harsh sanctions but suffer the diplomatic storm which would ensue, as well as adding to the ranks of Hamas. Three, the IDF could be turned loose on Gaza, with unknowable results, but this is probably not an option until after the Annapolis peace conference, while even then a poor choice. In sum, there are situations which admit of no easy solutions and the rockets from Gaza present just such a problem. Sober men and women at the cabinet table will be facing a major test of their humanity and of their wisdom. We can only wish them well.
Dr. Stephen Scheinberg is emeritus professor of history at Concordia University (Montreal) and co-chair of Canadian Friends of Peace Now. More of his opinions can be found at http://thejewishliberal.blogspot.com.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Yael Dayan Addresses Meretz USA Executive Committee
On Monday, November 12, Yael Dayan (Meretz), Deputy Mayor of Tel Aviv and Jaffa, spoke before a meeting of Meretz USA's Executive Committee. Her talk concentrated on the Annapolis Conference and its prospects for commencing a new peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In particular, she bemoaned the low expectations that all parties now seem to have for it, citing as an example the fact that the "conference" is now being called a "meeting."
These feelings, she said result primarily from skepticism, fatigue, and attempts to please different parties inside the Israeli and Palestinian societies. With the anniversary of Rabin's assassination recently passed and years gone by since Oslo, the Israeli street lacks enthusiasm for a peace process. Every time Israel and Palestine have come close to peace, they have faced a schism within their respective populations.
In Israel, this mindset is supported by the widely-held belief that Hamas is succeeding in its takeover, as well as by fear that another evacuation (i.e., that of the West Bank) would further bolster Hamas and put more Israelis in danger. These convictions are also backed by the intelligence services.
Ms. Dayan stressed that, no matter what happens at the Annapolis Conference, it is vital to be well prepared for the day after. The Conference will be a green light to negotiations, and all pro-peace communities should help make sure that the Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans carry on with negotiations.
In these negotiations, Ms. Dayan believes that Israel will have the responsibility of taking the first step - largely because it has done very little to ease conditions thus far. For their part, the Palestinian authorities must take better control of security in the West Bank. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) must also negotiate with Hamas and work to reduce Qassam fire on Sderot.
Nevertheless, Ms. Dayan explained, it is also the responsibility of the Israeli government to provide better security and shelter for its citizens living in Sderot. After all, the only thing that will fully stop the Qassam fire is peace. Quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We must fight terrorism as if there is no peace process, and we must pursue peace as if there is no terrorism," Ms. Dayan explained that it is futile to wait for quiet. If Israel does so, peace will never come. Security must be a result of peace, not a precondition.
Closing, Ms. Dayan asserted that waiting for peace has been detrimental to Israeli society. She observed that, despite a strong economy, the country used to be much stronger in sciences, basic education, and other disciplines. She also pointed out the huge gap between Jewish and Arab education, and the gap between general Israeli education and education for immigrants. These things have been neglected with the understanding that, once peace comes, they will improve. However, Ms. Dayan argued that Israel cannot afford to think that peace is around the corner; some reforms must come now. And she said, peace may not be enough to push these necessary changes forward once it comes.
Summarized by Amy Kapit, Meretz USA Program Director
These feelings, she said result primarily from skepticism, fatigue, and attempts to please different parties inside the Israeli and Palestinian societies. With the anniversary of Rabin's assassination recently passed and years gone by since Oslo, the Israeli street lacks enthusiasm for a peace process. Every time Israel and Palestine have come close to peace, they have faced a schism within their respective populations.
In Israel, this mindset is supported by the widely-held belief that Hamas is succeeding in its takeover, as well as by fear that another evacuation (i.e., that of the West Bank) would further bolster Hamas and put more Israelis in danger. These convictions are also backed by the intelligence services.
Ms. Dayan stressed that, no matter what happens at the Annapolis Conference, it is vital to be well prepared for the day after. The Conference will be a green light to negotiations, and all pro-peace communities should help make sure that the Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans carry on with negotiations.
In these negotiations, Ms. Dayan believes that Israel will have the responsibility of taking the first step - largely because it has done very little to ease conditions thus far. For their part, the Palestinian authorities must take better control of security in the West Bank. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) must also negotiate with Hamas and work to reduce Qassam fire on Sderot.
Nevertheless, Ms. Dayan explained, it is also the responsibility of the Israeli government to provide better security and shelter for its citizens living in Sderot. After all, the only thing that will fully stop the Qassam fire is peace. Quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We must fight terrorism as if there is no peace process, and we must pursue peace as if there is no terrorism," Ms. Dayan explained that it is futile to wait for quiet. If Israel does so, peace will never come. Security must be a result of peace, not a precondition.
Closing, Ms. Dayan asserted that waiting for peace has been detrimental to Israeli society. She observed that, despite a strong economy, the country used to be much stronger in sciences, basic education, and other disciplines. She also pointed out the huge gap between Jewish and Arab education, and the gap between general Israeli education and education for immigrants. These things have been neglected with the understanding that, once peace comes, they will improve. However, Ms. Dayan argued that Israel cannot afford to think that peace is around the corner; some reforms must come now. And she said, peace may not be enough to push these necessary changes forward once it comes.
Summarized by Amy Kapit, Meretz USA Program Director
Monday, November 19, 2007
Beilin: It’s Better to Stay Home [unless...]
.... The three leaders [Abbas, Bush, Olmert] can "leverage" their weakness in the upcoming meeting. They have very little to lose and a great deal to gain. After trying everything - and we have all paid an unnecessary price - they are returning to the year 2000, and they can try to go on from there. ...
They can agree in Annapolis about the principles of the final-status agreement (the Bush vision, the Clinton plan, the Geneva Initiative, the Ayalon-Nusseibeh plan) and immediately afterward begin negotiations, which will be conducted for several months and end as early as possible, in 2008.
The implementation of the agreement should be conditioned on the ability of Palestinian security forces to carry it out, and for this purpose a multinational force can be deployed on the Palestinian side.
Virtually the entire Israeli public is ready for a final-status agreement, according to the familiar principles. Virtually the entire Palestinian public supports these principles, according to all of the most recent surveys. Olmert is guaranteed an unprecedented parliamentary majority; more than 65 MKs will support the agreement he will reach. Even if he loses the support of Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas, the Knesset will be with him. ...
Click here for entire article in Haaretz by Meretz party chair Yossi Beilin.
They can agree in Annapolis about the principles of the final-status agreement (the Bush vision, the Clinton plan, the Geneva Initiative, the Ayalon-Nusseibeh plan) and immediately afterward begin negotiations, which will be conducted for several months and end as early as possible, in 2008.
The implementation of the agreement should be conditioned on the ability of Palestinian security forces to carry it out, and for this purpose a multinational force can be deployed on the Palestinian side.
Virtually the entire Israeli public is ready for a final-status agreement, according to the familiar principles. Virtually the entire Palestinian public supports these principles, according to all of the most recent surveys. Olmert is guaranteed an unprecedented parliamentary majority; more than 65 MKs will support the agreement he will reach. Even if he loses the support of Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas, the Knesset will be with him. ...
Click here for entire article in Haaretz by Meretz party chair Yossi Beilin.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Becher: Annapolis -- More than words needed
Talks, promises no longer enough; timetables, actions are key to peace by Susie Becher
Hardly a day goes by without some new twist in the preparations for the Annapolis conference, and speculation is rife on whether it will end in success or failure. The Israeli prime minister is trying to lower expectations, emphasizing that it is not a peace conference but a starting point for negotiations toward a peace accord. The Palestinian president has his eye on the day after Annapolis. ...
All the key players want to put on a good show for their respective audiences and know the cost of a flop. They will take to the stage with their lines well rehearsed and – supported by extras from the Arab League - will lock arms as they take their collective bow at the end. The curtain will fall, and only then will the real drama begin.
In his speech before the Saban Forum, Prime Minister Olmert stressed his commitment to negotiations. Ongoing negotiations, in the words of the prime minister; open-ended negotiations, if he has his way. Olmert is insistent that there be no timetable, although he has said that he hopes to sign an agreement by the end of President Bush's term. Note that the operative term here is sign, not implement. Deputy Premier Haim Ramon has suggested that the talks should begin with the broader issues on which there is agreement, leaving the disagreements for a later stage. Ramon appears to have learned nothing from Oslo, and all the talk about talking leads one to suspect that the Israeli government is studying a different history lesson.
Shortly after his defeat in the 1992 elections, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who headed the Israeli delegation to the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference, was quoted in a Ma'ariv interview as admitting that his intention had been to drag out negotiations with the Palestinians for a decade while continuing to strengthen the Jewish presence in the occupied territories.
Although he was not the one to accomplish it, Shamir's plan to talk and build has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. When he left office there were just over 100,000 settlers in the West Bank; today, they number close to 270,000. As they went from Madrid to Oslo to Wye River to Camp David to Sharm el-Sheikh, successive Israeli governments have talked, talked, talked and built, built, built. Click here for entire article at Ynet News by Susie Becher, a member of the Meretz-Yahad party national executive.
Hardly a day goes by without some new twist in the preparations for the Annapolis conference, and speculation is rife on whether it will end in success or failure. The Israeli prime minister is trying to lower expectations, emphasizing that it is not a peace conference but a starting point for negotiations toward a peace accord. The Palestinian president has his eye on the day after Annapolis. ...
All the key players want to put on a good show for their respective audiences and know the cost of a flop. They will take to the stage with their lines well rehearsed and – supported by extras from the Arab League - will lock arms as they take their collective bow at the end. The curtain will fall, and only then will the real drama begin.
In his speech before the Saban Forum, Prime Minister Olmert stressed his commitment to negotiations. Ongoing negotiations, in the words of the prime minister; open-ended negotiations, if he has his way. Olmert is insistent that there be no timetable, although he has said that he hopes to sign an agreement by the end of President Bush's term. Note that the operative term here is sign, not implement. Deputy Premier Haim Ramon has suggested that the talks should begin with the broader issues on which there is agreement, leaving the disagreements for a later stage. Ramon appears to have learned nothing from Oslo, and all the talk about talking leads one to suspect that the Israeli government is studying a different history lesson.
Shortly after his defeat in the 1992 elections, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who headed the Israeli delegation to the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference, was quoted in a Ma'ariv interview as admitting that his intention had been to drag out negotiations with the Palestinians for a decade while continuing to strengthen the Jewish presence in the occupied territories.
Although he was not the one to accomplish it, Shamir's plan to talk and build has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. When he left office there were just over 100,000 settlers in the West Bank; today, they number close to 270,000. As they went from Madrid to Oslo to Wye River to Camp David to Sharm el-Sheikh, successive Israeli governments have talked, talked, talked and built, built, built. Click here for entire article at Ynet News by Susie Becher, a member of the Meretz-Yahad party national executive.
Friday, November 16, 2007
J. Zel Lurie: Israel — Jewish people’s national home
Israel is the national home of the Jewish people. The underlying basis of Zionism, from Theodor Herzl to Ariel Sharon, is self-determination for the Jewish people.
The Jewish people in Tel Aviv today includes atheists, agnostics, scientologists, Buddhists, Samaritans, Karaits, Christians who have a Jewish grandparent and just plain secular Jews who happen to be a majority.
To call Israel a “Jewish state” is misleading. A Jewish state would be a state based on the Jewish religion.*
The government of Israel is secular. It includes religious Jews and one Moslem. The majority is secular. The Israel law is secular.
The secular government and the secular majority have a respect for the minority that are religious. Communal and family affairs are still in the hands of the clergy, whether Jewish or Muslim, [Druse] or Christian. This system, inherited from Turkish times, troubles the secular majority and is ever so gradually being modified.
The secular majority does not respect the religious Jewish settlers on the West Bank. “God’s Warriors,” Christina Annapour called them in a recent TV spectacular. They murder Palestinians, steal Palestinian land and destroy Palestinian olive groves. According to a recent poll, 76 per cent of Israelis do not support Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Jewish history and tradition are not neglected in the secular schools of the Jewish majority. “Tikkun olam,” making the world a better place to live and love, lies behind the frantic efforts of the Olmert government to find a formula that his Palestinian partners can agree to which would make the forthcoming Annapolis peace summit a success.
Ehud Olmert’s recent demand that the Palestinians recognize “the Jewish State” was an aberration. Saab Erekat, the veteran Palestinian negotiator quickly scotched it by telling Israel radio that “no state in the world connects its national identity to its religious identity.”
As stated above its [Israel’s] national identity is Jewish peoplehood. The state has no official religious identity.
But on Yom Kippur the secular majority of Jews stay home. As do the 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim, Christian [or Druse]. Except for the kids. They take advantage of the lack of vehicular traffic to fill the roads with their bikes and roller skates.
*Note disagreement between Zel Lurie and Ami Isseroff on Erekat’s rejection of “Jewish state” concept. I see the “Jewish state” term as ambiguous and would refer to a Jewish religious state as “Judaic” or a Torah state. Isseroff believes that Erekat is denying the concept of Jewish peoplehood by defining Jews as only a religious group. What do you think?
The Jewish people in Tel Aviv today includes atheists, agnostics, scientologists, Buddhists, Samaritans, Karaits, Christians who have a Jewish grandparent and just plain secular Jews who happen to be a majority.
To call Israel a “Jewish state” is misleading. A Jewish state would be a state based on the Jewish religion.*
The government of Israel is secular. It includes religious Jews and one Moslem. The majority is secular. The Israel law is secular.
The secular government and the secular majority have a respect for the minority that are religious. Communal and family affairs are still in the hands of the clergy, whether Jewish or Muslim, [Druse] or Christian. This system, inherited from Turkish times, troubles the secular majority and is ever so gradually being modified.
The secular majority does not respect the religious Jewish settlers on the West Bank. “God’s Warriors,” Christina Annapour called them in a recent TV spectacular. They murder Palestinians, steal Palestinian land and destroy Palestinian olive groves. According to a recent poll, 76 per cent of Israelis do not support Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Jewish history and tradition are not neglected in the secular schools of the Jewish majority. “Tikkun olam,” making the world a better place to live and love, lies behind the frantic efforts of the Olmert government to find a formula that his Palestinian partners can agree to which would make the forthcoming Annapolis peace summit a success.
Ehud Olmert’s recent demand that the Palestinians recognize “the Jewish State” was an aberration. Saab Erekat, the veteran Palestinian negotiator quickly scotched it by telling Israel radio that “no state in the world connects its national identity to its religious identity.”
As stated above its [Israel’s] national identity is Jewish peoplehood. The state has no official religious identity.
But on Yom Kippur the secular majority of Jews stay home. As do the 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim, Christian [or Druse]. Except for the kids. They take advantage of the lack of vehicular traffic to fill the roads with their bikes and roller skates.
*Note disagreement between Zel Lurie and Ami Isseroff on Erekat’s rejection of “Jewish state” concept. I see the “Jewish state” term as ambiguous and would refer to a Jewish religious state as “Judaic” or a Torah state. Isseroff believes that Erekat is denying the concept of Jewish peoplehood by defining Jews as only a religious group. What do you think?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
A profile of Theo Bikel
A fortunate few have been able to get to work with Theo Bikel. This includes a number of us associated with Meretz USA (Theo, a committed progressive Zionist, is currently the Chairman of our Board) ... and, more to the point, it includes ... me. It has been my privilege to be with him in delegations to -- and hear his presentations at the 33rd and 35th World Zionist Congresses, in Jerusalem. (Go ahead, try the links - they're to the text of his presentations.)
Many millions have watched him perform, from the world stage before hundreds of people to small performances, from the large screen to the small, and have heard his recorded music as well. Two nights ago, I learned of another way people are, even now, after decades of visibility in the "public eye," learning more about our good friend.
Rahel Musleah has written an engaging profile / interview / portrait of the man, which is in the November 2007 issue of the widely-read Hadassah magazine -- not only in the hands of that organization's many members and other subscribers, but also, thankfully, online. It is really worth reading. She is an excellent writer and journalist.
Noting that he played Tevye - the leading character in Fiddler on the Roof, the musical {music by Jerry Bock, lyrics by Sheldon Harnick, book by Joseph Stein, set in Tsarist Russia in 1905, based on characters created by Sholom Aleichem in the late 1890s} - in over 2,000 stage performances for 40 years, Musleah succinctly states that:
First, Theo leading those present in a rousing singing of "Solidarity Forever," at the conclusion of his receiving a John Commerford Award from the New York Labor History Association a few years back. [Disclaimer: I am a member of the Executive of the NYLHA.]
Second, years earlier, Theo giving a spirited presentation, on the challenges presented by the specter of "boycott Israel" resolutions within the international trade union movement, at a breakfast meeting, sponsored by the Jewish Labor Committee, at a breakfast meeting at a biennial convention of the American Federation of Teachers.
[Second disclaimer: I am Communications Director of the Jewish Labor Committee, and, some 23 years back, when Americans for Progressive Israel (one of the ancestors of Meretz USA) first became an affiliate of the JLC, I was selected to be one of API's representatives to its National Executive Board. One thing led to another, and I've been a member of the JLC executive staff for some two decades now.]
Most people don't know of Theo's relationship to "Israel Ha'Ovedet," that is, Israel's labor sector. Musleah notes that he was "imbued with the pioneer spirit," and:
I mentioned his autobiography, Theo, yes? Good. It's a great read, and ... a great gift. (And should be on the shelf of your local community / congregation / high school / college bookshelf.) [Note: Rather than order the book at the largest place one can purchase books online, what about a smaller, unionized one? ("Solidarity forever" is not just a song, ya know).
Again, you can link to the entire Hadassah Magazine article by clicking here.
Many millions have watched him perform, from the world stage before hundreds of people to small performances, from the large screen to the small, and have heard his recorded music as well. Two nights ago, I learned of another way people are, even now, after decades of visibility in the "public eye," learning more about our good friend.
Rahel Musleah has written an engaging profile / interview / portrait of the man, which is in the November 2007 issue of the widely-read Hadassah magazine -- not only in the hands of that organization's many members and other subscribers, but also, thankfully, online. It is really worth reading. She is an excellent writer and journalist.
Noting that he played Tevye - the leading character in Fiddler on the Roof, the musical {music by Jerry Bock, lyrics by Sheldon Harnick, book by Joseph Stein, set in Tsarist Russia in 1905, based on characters created by Sholom Aleichem in the late 1890s} - in over 2,000 stage performances for 40 years, Musleah succinctly states that:
At a time when the streetlights of Manhattan's Broadway theater district illuminate picket lines of theatrical stagehands http://www.playbill.com/news/article/112725.html , it was worth reading Musleah's description of some of Theo's early involvement with the trade union movement:Bikel’s talents add up to no less than an embarrassment of riches. His versatility spans stage, screen and television. He is an actor, folk singer, lecturer, raconteur and political activist. ...
Though he asserts that the arts don’t have to have an agenda, for Bikel, art and activism will forever be intertwined. Born in Vienna in 1924, he recalls that, as a boy of 13, he fearfully watched neighbors cheering Hitler and Goering as they rode by in open limousines. Some of his neighbors were silent, but they did nothing. Later, he says, “it became clear that I would never ever put myself in the place of the nice people next door who said ‘It’s not my fight.’ It’s always my fight. Whenever I see an individual or group singled out for persecution, there’s a switch thrown in my mind-and they become Jews.” To that end, Bikel has fought on behalf of civil rights (he once sang a Yiddish socialist song at a black church in Birmingham, Alabama) and has been arrested several times: with civil rights marchers; protesting apartheid in South Africa; and demanding an end to repression in the Soviet Union. Today, he lends his voice against genocide in Darfur and is chairman of the progressive Zionist organization Meretz USA.
Throughout his career, Bikel has protected the interests of his peers. The actors’ strike of 1960 and a personal incident - not being given time off forTwo personal flashbacks:
Yom Kippur while performing in The Sound of Music - prompted him to become
active in Actors Equity. He has served Actors Equity as both vice president and
president and was vice president of the International Federation of Actors from
1981 to 1991. He is currently president of the Associated Actors and Artists of
America.
First, Theo leading those present in a rousing singing of "Solidarity Forever," at the conclusion of his receiving a John Commerford Award from the New York Labor History Association a few years back. [Disclaimer: I am a member of the Executive of the NYLHA.]
Second, years earlier, Theo giving a spirited presentation, on the challenges presented by the specter of "boycott Israel" resolutions within the international trade union movement, at a breakfast meeting, sponsored by the Jewish Labor Committee, at a breakfast meeting at a biennial convention of the American Federation of Teachers.
[Second disclaimer: I am Communications Director of the Jewish Labor Committee, and, some 23 years back, when Americans for Progressive Israel (one of the ancestors of Meretz USA) first became an affiliate of the JLC, I was selected to be one of API's representatives to its National Executive Board. One thing led to another, and I've been a member of the JLC executive staff for some two decades now.]
Most people don't know of Theo's relationship to "Israel Ha'Ovedet," that is, Israel's labor sector. Musleah notes that he was "imbued with the pioneer spirit," and:
attended the Mikve Israel agricultural school and joined Kibbutz Kfar Maccabi,“neglecting to observe I had neither talent nor inclination for agriculture,” he recalls. “I stood on heaps of manure singing about work I wasn’t doing.” He found an abandoned guitar and taught himself to play, but never learned to read music properly. The kibbutz sent him to a cultural seminar - and the rest isIndeed!
history.
He joined the Habimah Theater in 1943 as an apprentice actor; a year later, he cofounded the Cameri, the Israeli chamber theater in Tel Aviv. At 22, he moved to London to study at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. Impressed with his work at small London theaters, Olivier cast him in Streetcar. In 1954, Bikel appeared on Broadway in Tonight in Samarkand; he fell in love with New York and made the United States his home. ...Theo sings works of many cultures, and indeed is famous for among other things the diversity of his range. At the same time, he is not a denatured internationalist by any means. The Hadassah interview quotes from his autobiography, Theo:
“I make no claim that the Jewish song is better than the song of my neighbor,” he writes in Theo. “But it is mine. And since it is the song of my people, it is up to me to cultivate it lest the blooms wither and the garden becomes bare and desolate.” ...
“I’m a Jew who loves and knows the tradition, who has studied a lot and speaks the languages of my people,” he says. Urging Jews to study their own tradition instead of turning to others, he says, “We all have an attic. Our grandfather’s attic is full of wonderful heirlooms, most of them dusty and dull. A little dust on an old heirloom is not so terrible. We can brush it off and make it shine again.” ...
“I keep slugging away at things of importance,” he says. “The Yiddish language, which was almost murdered along with the six million; a sense of Jewish community that believes justice to be more important than politics; a Zionism true to its origins and not to a pragmatic accommodation of circumstance ....”
I mentioned his autobiography, Theo, yes? Good. It's a great read, and ... a great gift. (And should be on the shelf of your local community / congregation / high school / college bookshelf.) [Note: Rather than order the book at the largest place one can purchase books online, what about a smaller, unionized one? ("Solidarity forever" is not just a song, ya know).
Again, you can link to the entire Hadassah Magazine article by clicking here.
Wallerstein: 'Last Call for Two States'
Curiously, Zmag does not allow comments on its website, so I’m commenting here on Immanuel Wallerstein’s posting of Nov. 11, "Last Call for a Two State Solution."
I knew Wallerstein a little in Montreal when I was a student of sociology at McGill University (Wallerstein was a star on the McGill sociology faculty in the early 1970s). It's interesting how he thinks he's an expert on this when he’s not, but I guess it's his Jewishness seeping through. He comes off as being a relative moderate on the issue (unusual for Zmag) but expresses this moderation harshly.
He has no idea that a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine has long had majority support, both in the Knesset and in the population of Israel. Meretz Members of Knesset tell us that it has the support today of about 70 out of 120 MKs. But Wallerstein is correct that this support will not last forever. As he points out, there are openings for such a solution on the Arab side, with Palestinian President Abbas and the Saudi/Arab League peace plan.
Here’s a little more of what Prof. Wallerstein doesn’t know: David Ben-Gurion never advocated "one state" (over two) but was surely in favor of a partition of Palestine with Jordan, and would have accepted a Palestinian state in 1948 if the Arabs had not violently rejected the UN partition plan. Wallerstein puts Ben-Gurion into the same category as Ariel Sharon; and he gives no credence to Sharon’s late-life conversion to his (admittedly anemic) conception of two states.
Like so many self-styled experts, Wallerstein refers to the liberal vision of Judah Magnes and Martin Buber for a binational state, but ignores its advocacy by Zionism’s second largest political movement prior to the state’s founding— Hashomer Hatzair (a predecessor of Mapam and Meretz today). The principle of "Land for Peace" has had majority support in Israel for decades, and most dramatically when Yitzhak Rabin was prime minister in 1992 to 1995. Even Bibi Netanyahu would never have been elected in 1996 (very narrowly over Shimon Peres as a result of a wave of Palestinian terrorism) if he had not departed from the traditional Likud opposition to this formula (of Land for Peace).
I knew Wallerstein a little in Montreal when I was a student of sociology at McGill University (Wallerstein was a star on the McGill sociology faculty in the early 1970s). It's interesting how he thinks he's an expert on this when he’s not, but I guess it's his Jewishness seeping through. He comes off as being a relative moderate on the issue (unusual for Zmag) but expresses this moderation harshly.
He has no idea that a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine has long had majority support, both in the Knesset and in the population of Israel. Meretz Members of Knesset tell us that it has the support today of about 70 out of 120 MKs. But Wallerstein is correct that this support will not last forever. As he points out, there are openings for such a solution on the Arab side, with Palestinian President Abbas and the Saudi/Arab League peace plan.
Here’s a little more of what Prof. Wallerstein doesn’t know: David Ben-Gurion never advocated "one state" (over two) but was surely in favor of a partition of Palestine with Jordan, and would have accepted a Palestinian state in 1948 if the Arabs had not violently rejected the UN partition plan. Wallerstein puts Ben-Gurion into the same category as Ariel Sharon; and he gives no credence to Sharon’s late-life conversion to his (admittedly anemic) conception of two states.
Like so many self-styled experts, Wallerstein refers to the liberal vision of Judah Magnes and Martin Buber for a binational state, but ignores its advocacy by Zionism’s second largest political movement prior to the state’s founding— Hashomer Hatzair (a predecessor of Mapam and Meretz today). The principle of "Land for Peace" has had majority support in Israel for decades, and most dramatically when Yitzhak Rabin was prime minister in 1992 to 1995. Even Bibi Netanyahu would never have been elected in 1996 (very narrowly over Shimon Peres as a result of a wave of Palestinian terrorism) if he had not departed from the traditional Likud opposition to this formula (of Land for Peace).
Monday, November 12, 2007
Scheinberg: Bibi and the Bishop
Five years ago I was part of a Concordia University crowd which was pushed and shoved by Arab students as we waited to hear former Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. I am not an admirer of Bibi and his belief in a greater Israel, but I certainly did not share the Arab characterization of him as a "war criminal." He is a wonderful speaker and I often learn much from those I disagree with. Moreover, as an academic I believe that the University must be open to controversial opinions and I was also there to support his right to speak against those thugs who were trying to stop him. However, that day marked a minor triumph for hoodlumism and a dark day for free speech and academic freedom as the RCMP deemed it inadvisable for Bibi to enter the building. ...
Thus I was most disturbed, a short time ago, to hear that the Catholic St. Thomas University in Minnesota had barred Bishop Desmond Tutu from speaking on the grounds that some of the Bishop’s past remarks were "offensive and hateful to Jews." Now, Bishop Tutu, unlike Bibi, is regarded as one of the great human rights advocates of our time, a man who gained international respect in the South African struggle against apartheid. Mr. Morton Klein, who heads the [right-wing] Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), has attacked the good Bishop implying that he compared Israel to Hitler and apartheid, which is emphatically not the case.
The Bishop, who is a patron of a holocaust center, and has proclaimed his belief in the right of Israel to exist within secure borders, has made statements that some would challenge such as a reference to a "powerful Jewish lobby" which, he claims, makes people fear speaking out against the injustices done to Palestinians. He has also approved of anti-Israel boycotts but these are not the kinds of positions or statements which should lead a University to ban him from speaking. A vice president and spokesman for St. Thomas said they had talked to members of the Jewish community who believed Tutu’s appearance would be hurtful.
St. Thomas’ action in barring Bishop Tutu is what is hurtful to the Jewish community. The University has tried to dodge the charge that they have violated academic freedom by claiming that Tutu was invited by an external body, albeit in conjunction with a recognized program of the institution. That will not wash. It is clear that the University feared giving offense to some in the Jewish community and acted with alacrity at the behest of a small, unrepresentative segment of American Jewry. A more intelligent response came from Mordecai Specktor, publisher and editor of a Minnesota Jewish weekly, who calmly stated: "The Jewish community can survive a speech by Archbishop Tutu. We’ve survived worse." He might have pointed out that Columbia University and New York’s great Jewish community are still there after the speech of the despicable Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
Academic freedom and free speech are not selective. The Netanyahu incident demonstrates that the Jewish community should have a strong self-interest in keeping universities open to varying and sometimes unpalatable viewpoints. We cannot choose this view but not that one. Either we fight to maintain universities as places in which the interchange of conflicting ideas is the norm, even when we find some of those ideas offensive, or we can fight it out on the streets with the thugs who insist that only their ideas should be heard.
In the particular case of Bishop Tutu, we should all regret the actions of the ZOA and the University. Like it or not, Tutu is regarded by much of the world and also, I would think, by a large section of Jewish youth, as one of the great human rights figures of our time. Attempts to silence him can only result in a backlash which will bring discredit to North American Jews and to Israel. It is Morton Klein and his allies that should be regarded, like the Arab hoodlums of Concordia, as enemies of free speech and thus among Israel’s worst enemies.
Dr. Scheinberg is emeritus professor of history at Concordia University (Montreal) and co-chair of Canadian Friends of Peace Now. More of his opinions can be found at http://thejewishliberal.blogspot.com
Thus I was most disturbed, a short time ago, to hear that the Catholic St. Thomas University in Minnesota had barred Bishop Desmond Tutu from speaking on the grounds that some of the Bishop’s past remarks were "offensive and hateful to Jews." Now, Bishop Tutu, unlike Bibi, is regarded as one of the great human rights advocates of our time, a man who gained international respect in the South African struggle against apartheid. Mr. Morton Klein, who heads the [right-wing] Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), has attacked the good Bishop implying that he compared Israel to Hitler and apartheid, which is emphatically not the case.
The Bishop, who is a patron of a holocaust center, and has proclaimed his belief in the right of Israel to exist within secure borders, has made statements that some would challenge such as a reference to a "powerful Jewish lobby" which, he claims, makes people fear speaking out against the injustices done to Palestinians. He has also approved of anti-Israel boycotts but these are not the kinds of positions or statements which should lead a University to ban him from speaking. A vice president and spokesman for St. Thomas said they had talked to members of the Jewish community who believed Tutu’s appearance would be hurtful.
St. Thomas’ action in barring Bishop Tutu is what is hurtful to the Jewish community. The University has tried to dodge the charge that they have violated academic freedom by claiming that Tutu was invited by an external body, albeit in conjunction with a recognized program of the institution. That will not wash. It is clear that the University feared giving offense to some in the Jewish community and acted with alacrity at the behest of a small, unrepresentative segment of American Jewry. A more intelligent response came from Mordecai Specktor, publisher and editor of a Minnesota Jewish weekly, who calmly stated: "The Jewish community can survive a speech by Archbishop Tutu. We’ve survived worse." He might have pointed out that Columbia University and New York’s great Jewish community are still there after the speech of the despicable Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
Academic freedom and free speech are not selective. The Netanyahu incident demonstrates that the Jewish community should have a strong self-interest in keeping universities open to varying and sometimes unpalatable viewpoints. We cannot choose this view but not that one. Either we fight to maintain universities as places in which the interchange of conflicting ideas is the norm, even when we find some of those ideas offensive, or we can fight it out on the streets with the thugs who insist that only their ideas should be heard.
In the particular case of Bishop Tutu, we should all regret the actions of the ZOA and the University. Like it or not, Tutu is regarded by much of the world and also, I would think, by a large section of Jewish youth, as one of the great human rights figures of our time. Attempts to silence him can only result in a backlash which will bring discredit to North American Jews and to Israel. It is Morton Klein and his allies that should be regarded, like the Arab hoodlums of Concordia, as enemies of free speech and thus among Israel’s worst enemies.
Dr. Scheinberg is emeritus professor of history at Concordia University (Montreal) and co-chair of Canadian Friends of Peace Now. More of his opinions can be found at http://thejewishliberal.blogspot.com
Friday, November 09, 2007
Rabin-Peres: The Personal Is Political
We were reminded November 4, of the 12th anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination. The following is most of my review of a documentary film (to be published in New Jersey Jewish News) that depicts Rabin’s life in juxtaposition with that of Shimon Peres, Israel’s current president.
What may be of special interest to supporters of Meretz is that Shulamit Aloni and Yossi Sarid were prominent talking heads, as was the radical peacenik Uri Avnery; the latter was somewhat caustic about Peres and surprisingly respectful toward Rabin— he believed that Rabin might have succeeded in achieving peace if he had lived. Although I share this general sentiment with Avnery, I was struck by the amazing succession of shocking disappointments and defeats suffered by the irrepressible Peres, which would have easily broken a lesser man. – R. Seliger:
Although the New York premiere of "Rabin-Peres: Everything Is Personal" at the Israel Film Festival, Oct. 24, was sparsely attended, this television documentary was well received by the audience. It was somewhat difficult to follow for viewers not fluent in Hebrew..., but judging from comments overheard in casual conversation and in the Q & A with director Arik Henig, it was gratifying for Israelis ... who grew up with the decades-long rivalry between Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres.
"Rabin-Peres" imparted some little-known facts and worthwhile insights. One feels for both protagonists, vicariously experiencing their triumphs and disappointments. But their rivalry diminished both of them. There’s no question also, as made clear in the film, that their mutual antagonism affected state policy and undermined Israel’s quest for peace.
They competed head-to-head for the leadership of the Labor party in 1974, 1977, 1980 and 1992. Rabin won all but the contest in 1980, and as prime minister in 1977, felt compelled to resign as the party’s candidate in favor of Peres over the ridiculously minor matter of his wife illegally maintaining a small US bank account. While out of favor in the early 1980s, Rabin wrote a memoir that slashed at Peres with accusations of underhanded dealings. Peres is shown shouting from the podium at a Labor party conference in exasperation at Rabin’s published charges.
And Peres, now generally thought of as a dove, is depicted as undermining the first Rabin government’s resolve in standing up to militant nationalists who had entrenched themselves at Sebastia in the West Bank in 1974. Peres, Rabin’s minister of defense at the time, negotiated personally with the demonstrators, basically capitulating and helping them to establish the first all-civilian settlements in the midst of the West Bank.
The film may be breaking ground in claiming that Rabin, as defense minister in turn, worked against a potentially dramatic development engineered by Peres as foreign minister in the national unity government in 1988. According to the film, Peres had successfully negotiated with King Hussein in London for a peace treaty that would have involved Jordan taking back the West Bank. There are no exact details on what Peres had actually negotiated and no exploration of how this would have played in the Arab world, but if such a deal had in fact been concluded, Israel’s vexing problems of occupation and dealing with the Palestinians might have been largely resolved. It would be outrageous if personal animosity were a factor in forestalling this agreement.
It was emphasized that they had radically different backgrounds: Rabin was born and raised in the "sabra" Labor-Zionist elite, rising within the inside track of the pre-state Palmach and then the army to the pinnacles of power. Peres came to Palestine as an immigrant child, regarded at the start as an outsider who suddenly embarked upon his meteoric career by gaining the notice of, and attaching himself to, David Ben-Gurion.
They also had radically different temperaments: Rabin was known for simplicity and directness in expression, typical of the sabra-Zionist ideal of the "new Jew." Exemplifying this pioneer ethic of the man of action as a combat soldier, Rabin is said to have disliked politics and politicians. He came to prominence during the 1948 war, including as commander of the Harel Brigade that relieved the siege of West Jerusalem. But as a Palmach commander related politically to the Achdut Ha’avoda movement, he felt that he was being blocked from promotions in the early 1950s by Ben-Gurion’s Mapai, for which Peres was a key operative.
Peres is described by one talking head as reading two books at once while writing a third. In contrast to Rabin, he is intellectually inclined and retains some repute as a poet. They even differed sartorially: Rabin favored the informal open-collar style of the classic sabra while Peres is always resplendent in suit and tie.
Peres made his mark as a bureaucrat and politician, having never served in uniform. Still, his experience in security affairs, in arms procurement, as director general (chief administrator) of the defense ministry at the record young age of 29 and in establishing Israel as a nuclear power, might have qualified him to receive a political commission— something that would have helped him politically.
The film is thin in its depiction of the Oslo peace process. Oslo’s downfall had much to do with bloody Palestinian terrorist attacks, but the first major violent incident of the Oslo era was Baruch Goldstein’s mass murder of 29 Muslim worshipers in Hebron in February 1994. Not only is this critical event unmentioned, but there is no examination of Rabin’s lack of resolve at that time, particularly his failure to act dramatically against the militant settlers of Hebron and/or Kiryat Arba (something he considered), which might have allayed the Palestinian anger that triggered the terrorist activities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
There is discussion of Peres’s error of omission in not calling for a snap election immediately after Rabin’s assassination. Their competition is shown to have been so all-consuming, that even with Rabin dead and buried, Peres could not bring himself to ride to power on the back of the country’s grief and affection for Rabin.
But there is no mention of Peres’s tragically shortsighted decision to kill Yihya Ayyash, the Hamas "engineer," who adapted the suicide belt for Palestinian use. This assassination by the Shin Bet, however morally justified, triggered a wave of revenge attacks by Hamas and Islamic Jihad (including two exploding buses on the same line in Jerusalem and one attack in Tel Aviv that killed numerous children celebrating Purim in costume), which cost Peres his 20-point electoral lead and eventually led to Bibi Netanyahu’s narrow victory of 1996. Peres’s failure to successfully shepherd the peace process he had begun, and Rabin had gone along with, links the two forever in tragedy— and still threatens to consume all Israel in its wake.
What may be of special interest to supporters of Meretz is that Shulamit Aloni and Yossi Sarid were prominent talking heads, as was the radical peacenik Uri Avnery; the latter was somewhat caustic about Peres and surprisingly respectful toward Rabin— he believed that Rabin might have succeeded in achieving peace if he had lived. Although I share this general sentiment with Avnery, I was struck by the amazing succession of shocking disappointments and defeats suffered by the irrepressible Peres, which would have easily broken a lesser man. – R. Seliger:
Although the New York premiere of "Rabin-Peres: Everything Is Personal" at the Israel Film Festival, Oct. 24, was sparsely attended, this television documentary was well received by the audience. It was somewhat difficult to follow for viewers not fluent in Hebrew..., but judging from comments overheard in casual conversation and in the Q & A with director Arik Henig, it was gratifying for Israelis ... who grew up with the decades-long rivalry between Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres.
"Rabin-Peres" imparted some little-known facts and worthwhile insights. One feels for both protagonists, vicariously experiencing their triumphs and disappointments. But their rivalry diminished both of them. There’s no question also, as made clear in the film, that their mutual antagonism affected state policy and undermined Israel’s quest for peace.
They competed head-to-head for the leadership of the Labor party in 1974, 1977, 1980 and 1992. Rabin won all but the contest in 1980, and as prime minister in 1977, felt compelled to resign as the party’s candidate in favor of Peres over the ridiculously minor matter of his wife illegally maintaining a small US bank account. While out of favor in the early 1980s, Rabin wrote a memoir that slashed at Peres with accusations of underhanded dealings. Peres is shown shouting from the podium at a Labor party conference in exasperation at Rabin’s published charges.
And Peres, now generally thought of as a dove, is depicted as undermining the first Rabin government’s resolve in standing up to militant nationalists who had entrenched themselves at Sebastia in the West Bank in 1974. Peres, Rabin’s minister of defense at the time, negotiated personally with the demonstrators, basically capitulating and helping them to establish the first all-civilian settlements in the midst of the West Bank.
The film may be breaking ground in claiming that Rabin, as defense minister in turn, worked against a potentially dramatic development engineered by Peres as foreign minister in the national unity government in 1988. According to the film, Peres had successfully negotiated with King Hussein in London for a peace treaty that would have involved Jordan taking back the West Bank. There are no exact details on what Peres had actually negotiated and no exploration of how this would have played in the Arab world, but if such a deal had in fact been concluded, Israel’s vexing problems of occupation and dealing with the Palestinians might have been largely resolved. It would be outrageous if personal animosity were a factor in forestalling this agreement.
It was emphasized that they had radically different backgrounds: Rabin was born and raised in the "sabra" Labor-Zionist elite, rising within the inside track of the pre-state Palmach and then the army to the pinnacles of power. Peres came to Palestine as an immigrant child, regarded at the start as an outsider who suddenly embarked upon his meteoric career by gaining the notice of, and attaching himself to, David Ben-Gurion.
They also had radically different temperaments: Rabin was known for simplicity and directness in expression, typical of the sabra-Zionist ideal of the "new Jew." Exemplifying this pioneer ethic of the man of action as a combat soldier, Rabin is said to have disliked politics and politicians. He came to prominence during the 1948 war, including as commander of the Harel Brigade that relieved the siege of West Jerusalem. But as a Palmach commander related politically to the Achdut Ha’avoda movement, he felt that he was being blocked from promotions in the early 1950s by Ben-Gurion’s Mapai, for which Peres was a key operative.
Peres is described by one talking head as reading two books at once while writing a third. In contrast to Rabin, he is intellectually inclined and retains some repute as a poet. They even differed sartorially: Rabin favored the informal open-collar style of the classic sabra while Peres is always resplendent in suit and tie.
Peres made his mark as a bureaucrat and politician, having never served in uniform. Still, his experience in security affairs, in arms procurement, as director general (chief administrator) of the defense ministry at the record young age of 29 and in establishing Israel as a nuclear power, might have qualified him to receive a political commission— something that would have helped him politically.
The film is thin in its depiction of the Oslo peace process. Oslo’s downfall had much to do with bloody Palestinian terrorist attacks, but the first major violent incident of the Oslo era was Baruch Goldstein’s mass murder of 29 Muslim worshipers in Hebron in February 1994. Not only is this critical event unmentioned, but there is no examination of Rabin’s lack of resolve at that time, particularly his failure to act dramatically against the militant settlers of Hebron and/or Kiryat Arba (something he considered), which might have allayed the Palestinian anger that triggered the terrorist activities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
There is discussion of Peres’s error of omission in not calling for a snap election immediately after Rabin’s assassination. Their competition is shown to have been so all-consuming, that even with Rabin dead and buried, Peres could not bring himself to ride to power on the back of the country’s grief and affection for Rabin.
But there is no mention of Peres’s tragically shortsighted decision to kill Yihya Ayyash, the Hamas "engineer," who adapted the suicide belt for Palestinian use. This assassination by the Shin Bet, however morally justified, triggered a wave of revenge attacks by Hamas and Islamic Jihad (including two exploding buses on the same line in Jerusalem and one attack in Tel Aviv that killed numerous children celebrating Purim in costume), which cost Peres his 20-point electoral lead and eventually led to Bibi Netanyahu’s narrow victory of 1996. Peres’s failure to successfully shepherd the peace process he had begun, and Rabin had gone along with, links the two forever in tragedy— and still threatens to consume all Israel in its wake.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Hillel Schenker at Rabin Square, 12 years on
On Saturday evening, as I have done every year since that fatal night 12 years ago, I went to Rabin Square in the heart of Tel Aviv, opposite the municipality, to mark the anniversary of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. It feels like a tribal ritual, but it is an act I am compelled to carry out each year, whatever the weather or my own state of mind or wellbeing.
I was there on the night of November 4, 1995, 12 years ago. At the time there was a feeling that we were taking the streets back from the extremists on the right. The former Tel Aviv mayor Shlomo Lahat was the head of the organising committee, and the French Jewish philanthropist Jean Friedman also played a major part. As a member of the national leadership forum of the Peace Now movement, our role was to help bring out the demonstrators. There had been concern that not enough people would come, and that perhaps there would be hostile snipers stationed on the rooftops around the square – but the people came, over 100,000, to take back the night from the rejectionist forces of darkness.
I remember being particularly upbeat after Rabin spoke. He was not a great speaker, and tended frequently to place the wrong emphases within his sentences, perhaps due to the fact that he had never totally gotten used to the necessities of public life.
This time, I remarked to those around me, he spoke well, perhaps gaining strength from the masses below him. His call for peace and against violence, with his familiar deep voice, sounded as if it was expressed from the depths of his being. And at the end, he even seemed to smile as he sang Shir Lashalom, (Song for Peace) together with blond singer Miri Aloni and the other politicians on the platform.
In recent years, the memorial gathering has always begun with a video image and recording of excerpts from Rabin's final speech, followed by the chilling announcement by his bureau chief Eitan Haber that "the Government of Israel, announces, with astonishment, that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has been shot, killed by a Jewish assassin."
This time, the 12th anniversary of that tragic night, 150,000 gathered in the square, the largest number in recent years. Perhaps they were motivated to come as a counterpoint to the fact that the assassin, Yigal Amir, was about to celebrate the birth of a son in prison. And perhaps they came to demonstrate an expression of hope as we near the Annapolis Conference, another crossroads in the quest for Israeli-Palestinian peace. One of the signs that floated over the square read: "Olmert, the time has come to decide." And perhaps they came to gain strength from each other.
The oldest demonstrator, at the age of 91-plus, was probably Fiska, the legendary cultural impresario, who ran the Tzavta Club for progressive culture and politics for many years, and used to record five hours of performances for Israeli television in its infancy in the late 60s and early 70s. He is always there, at every memorial demonstration.
But the most encouraging element of this demonstration was the fact that the clear majority of the crowd were teenagers or in their early 20s. As both President Shimon Peres, who was at Rabin's side as his foreign minister on that other night 12 years ago, and Rabin's son Yuval said looking out at the audience – you, the younger generation are the key to the future. Perhaps there will be some in the audience who will take those words seriously, and will consider their presence at the evening a formative experience in their lives.
There were veterans who have been burned out from too many demonstrations and too few results, who decided not to come. And there were others who didn't like the fact that Labor party leader and defence minister Ehud Barak was one of the invited speakers. The Meretz party held up signs saying: "Barak, you have forgotten Rabin's legacy." In response, for the first time since his return to politics, Barak declared that the Annapolis Conference was an opportunity, and that he was committed to seeking peace.
The most interesting moment in the evening took place in the middle of the speech by the Orthodox religious mayor of Jerusalem, Uri Lupolianski. His appearance was a surprise, and an anomaly amid the overwhelmingly secular speakers, singers and crowd. Lupolianski decided to remind the audience that two weeks before his death, Rabin had declared that the one thing that unites all Israelis is their belief in a united Jerusalem. He then paused ... and was greeted by total silence. Not a single clap. If he had said this in Jerusalem, or at a right-wing rally, he would have been greeted by thunderous applause. But here, in the heart of Tel Aviv, just silence. A silence which projects hope for the future. People are tired of slogans, and want solutions that work.
Peres was tired; Tel Aviv mayor Ron Huldai said the correct educational words reading from a text; Barak was clearly uncomfortable, trying to recapture the support of the camp he lost when he declared that there was no Palestinian partner for peace, and when he ran away from politics to make money.
The singers sang their songs, to give peace a chance. [But] the powerful emotional tone was set by Yuval Rabin. Everyone wanted to quote the Song for Peace. But Peres and Lupolianski were only capable of quoting the first lines: "Let the sun rise / and the morning bring forth its light."
The younger Rabin had the courage to conclude his presentation with the final words of the second verse: "Don't say that a day will come / Bring forth that day / And in all the city squares / Shout only peace."
This entry by Hillel Schenker was originally published at the UK Guardian Weblog
I was there on the night of November 4, 1995, 12 years ago. At the time there was a feeling that we were taking the streets back from the extremists on the right. The former Tel Aviv mayor Shlomo Lahat was the head of the organising committee, and the French Jewish philanthropist Jean Friedman also played a major part. As a member of the national leadership forum of the Peace Now movement, our role was to help bring out the demonstrators. There had been concern that not enough people would come, and that perhaps there would be hostile snipers stationed on the rooftops around the square – but the people came, over 100,000, to take back the night from the rejectionist forces of darkness.
I remember being particularly upbeat after Rabin spoke. He was not a great speaker, and tended frequently to place the wrong emphases within his sentences, perhaps due to the fact that he had never totally gotten used to the necessities of public life.
This time, I remarked to those around me, he spoke well, perhaps gaining strength from the masses below him. His call for peace and against violence, with his familiar deep voice, sounded as if it was expressed from the depths of his being. And at the end, he even seemed to smile as he sang Shir Lashalom, (Song for Peace) together with blond singer Miri Aloni and the other politicians on the platform.
In recent years, the memorial gathering has always begun with a video image and recording of excerpts from Rabin's final speech, followed by the chilling announcement by his bureau chief Eitan Haber that "the Government of Israel, announces, with astonishment, that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has been shot, killed by a Jewish assassin."
This time, the 12th anniversary of that tragic night, 150,000 gathered in the square, the largest number in recent years. Perhaps they were motivated to come as a counterpoint to the fact that the assassin, Yigal Amir, was about to celebrate the birth of a son in prison. And perhaps they came to demonstrate an expression of hope as we near the Annapolis Conference, another crossroads in the quest for Israeli-Palestinian peace. One of the signs that floated over the square read: "Olmert, the time has come to decide." And perhaps they came to gain strength from each other.
The oldest demonstrator, at the age of 91-plus, was probably Fiska, the legendary cultural impresario, who ran the Tzavta Club for progressive culture and politics for many years, and used to record five hours of performances for Israeli television in its infancy in the late 60s and early 70s. He is always there, at every memorial demonstration.
But the most encouraging element of this demonstration was the fact that the clear majority of the crowd were teenagers or in their early 20s. As both President Shimon Peres, who was at Rabin's side as his foreign minister on that other night 12 years ago, and Rabin's son Yuval said looking out at the audience – you, the younger generation are the key to the future. Perhaps there will be some in the audience who will take those words seriously, and will consider their presence at the evening a formative experience in their lives.
There were veterans who have been burned out from too many demonstrations and too few results, who decided not to come. And there were others who didn't like the fact that Labor party leader and defence minister Ehud Barak was one of the invited speakers. The Meretz party held up signs saying: "Barak, you have forgotten Rabin's legacy." In response, for the first time since his return to politics, Barak declared that the Annapolis Conference was an opportunity, and that he was committed to seeking peace.
The most interesting moment in the evening took place in the middle of the speech by the Orthodox religious mayor of Jerusalem, Uri Lupolianski. His appearance was a surprise, and an anomaly amid the overwhelmingly secular speakers, singers and crowd. Lupolianski decided to remind the audience that two weeks before his death, Rabin had declared that the one thing that unites all Israelis is their belief in a united Jerusalem. He then paused ... and was greeted by total silence. Not a single clap. If he had said this in Jerusalem, or at a right-wing rally, he would have been greeted by thunderous applause. But here, in the heart of Tel Aviv, just silence. A silence which projects hope for the future. People are tired of slogans, and want solutions that work.
Peres was tired; Tel Aviv mayor Ron Huldai said the correct educational words reading from a text; Barak was clearly uncomfortable, trying to recapture the support of the camp he lost when he declared that there was no Palestinian partner for peace, and when he ran away from politics to make money.
The singers sang their songs, to give peace a chance. [But] the powerful emotional tone was set by Yuval Rabin. Everyone wanted to quote the Song for Peace. But Peres and Lupolianski were only capable of quoting the first lines: "Let the sun rise / and the morning bring forth its light."
The younger Rabin had the courage to conclude his presentation with the final words of the second verse: "Don't say that a day will come / Bring forth that day / And in all the city squares / Shout only peace."
This entry by Hillel Schenker was originally published at the UK Guardian Weblog
Monday, November 05, 2007
A GIFT TO ISRAEL’S ENEMIES
The following is one of a series of radio commentaries (delivered in Canada for a program called "Shalom Radio") by Dr. Stephen Scheinberg, emeritus professor of history at Montreal’s Concordia University and co-chair of Canadian Friends of Peace Now:
Recently Israel’s Knesset voted, in its first reading [a preliminary step– ed.], to approve a bill which would make Jewish National Fund (JNF) lands available to Jews only. The vote was 64 to 15, meaning that support for it came not only from right wing parties but from the centrist parties of Labor and Kadima. The bill if passed in final reading would circumvent an Israeli high court decision and an attorney general’s ruling that opened the door to Arab bids for JNF lands.
I will remind you that less than half of the lands in question were purchased with JNF funds.
Most of the lands were so-called state lands, in fact confiscated from their original Arab owners by the state [mostly from Arabs who had fled or were forced from their land during the 1948 war– ed.] and then turned over to the JNF. Thus, Arab-Israeli citizens are being told that they are now ineligible to bid on the lands that their fathers once owned.
Of course the question arose as to whether the bill should be nullified because it was racist, in that it clearly discriminated against one-fifth of the citizens of Israel. The framers of the bill, seeking to avoid this charge, incorporated a clause saying that "the leasing of JNF lands for the purpose of settling Jews will not be seen as unacceptable discrimination." Thus, the Knesset appropriates to itself the normal judicial function of judging discrimination.
Compounding this charade of good law making, in a curious opinion, the Knesset’s legal advisor, Nurit Elstein, declared that the bill might only be rejected if the racism was explicit in the proposal. I suppose that means that if the legislation avoids overt racism in its language but not in its impact, then it is, in her opinion, a proper exercise of the legislative function.
Arab MK Ahmed Tibi rightly characterized the bill as "institutionalized Jewish racism and ethnic democracy that is raging against anything Arab." This latest example of the on-going discrimination against Arab-Israelis is, I believe, not only offensive to universal standards of human rights but against Israel’s own best interest.
We all know that there has been a worldwide campaign to characterize Israel as a racist state. For years we have confronted the charge that "Zionism is Racism" but the Knesset is now on the brink of giving Israel’s enemies all the proof that they need. In its statement the liberal-left Meretz party declared: "The Knesset is giving an excellent excuse for whoever is asking to represent Israel as an apartheid state which must be destroyed."
Rabbi Eric Yoffe, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations [the central body of Reform Judaism-- ed.], in a more measured critique of the bill, stated that it was "not appropriate for the government of the state of Israel … to take actions which discriminate against its non-Jewish minority." He added a cogent analogy, that it would be difficult to imagine diaspora Jews in any democratic country, accepting a bill denying Jews the right to purchase lands.
This bill will do more damage to Israel than all the vile propaganda currently flowing through the Arab world. Democratic nations are judged by their treatment of their minorities. The bill is a gift to Israel’s enemies. It represents the triumph of a narrow Jewish nationalism against elementary human rights and even good sense. The friends of a democratic Israel should do all in their power to oppose this legislation.
Recently Israel’s Knesset voted, in its first reading [a preliminary step– ed.], to approve a bill which would make Jewish National Fund (JNF) lands available to Jews only. The vote was 64 to 15, meaning that support for it came not only from right wing parties but from the centrist parties of Labor and Kadima. The bill if passed in final reading would circumvent an Israeli high court decision and an attorney general’s ruling that opened the door to Arab bids for JNF lands.
I will remind you that less than half of the lands in question were purchased with JNF funds.
Most of the lands were so-called state lands, in fact confiscated from their original Arab owners by the state [mostly from Arabs who had fled or were forced from their land during the 1948 war– ed.] and then turned over to the JNF. Thus, Arab-Israeli citizens are being told that they are now ineligible to bid on the lands that their fathers once owned.
Of course the question arose as to whether the bill should be nullified because it was racist, in that it clearly discriminated against one-fifth of the citizens of Israel. The framers of the bill, seeking to avoid this charge, incorporated a clause saying that "the leasing of JNF lands for the purpose of settling Jews will not be seen as unacceptable discrimination." Thus, the Knesset appropriates to itself the normal judicial function of judging discrimination.
Compounding this charade of good law making, in a curious opinion, the Knesset’s legal advisor, Nurit Elstein, declared that the bill might only be rejected if the racism was explicit in the proposal. I suppose that means that if the legislation avoids overt racism in its language but not in its impact, then it is, in her opinion, a proper exercise of the legislative function.
Arab MK Ahmed Tibi rightly characterized the bill as "institutionalized Jewish racism and ethnic democracy that is raging against anything Arab." This latest example of the on-going discrimination against Arab-Israelis is, I believe, not only offensive to universal standards of human rights but against Israel’s own best interest.
We all know that there has been a worldwide campaign to characterize Israel as a racist state. For years we have confronted the charge that "Zionism is Racism" but the Knesset is now on the brink of giving Israel’s enemies all the proof that they need. In its statement the liberal-left Meretz party declared: "The Knesset is giving an excellent excuse for whoever is asking to represent Israel as an apartheid state which must be destroyed."
Rabbi Eric Yoffe, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations [the central body of Reform Judaism-- ed.], in a more measured critique of the bill, stated that it was "not appropriate for the government of the state of Israel … to take actions which discriminate against its non-Jewish minority." He added a cogent analogy, that it would be difficult to imagine diaspora Jews in any democratic country, accepting a bill denying Jews the right to purchase lands.
This bill will do more damage to Israel than all the vile propaganda currently flowing through the Arab world. Democratic nations are judged by their treatment of their minorities. The bill is a gift to Israel’s enemies. It represents the triumph of a narrow Jewish nationalism against elementary human rights and even good sense. The friends of a democratic Israel should do all in their power to oppose this legislation.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Tough issues at NIF forum, Part 2
Panelists and audiences [at the Oct. 20 forum of the New Israel Fund] contended with the issues of separate and distinct communities in Israel: immigrant communities with roots in the former Soviet Union, Ethiopia and Arab countries, and those indigenous Palestinian Arabs who are citizens of Israel and constitute nearly 20 percent of Israel’s population. Most schools, neighborhoods and towns– with a few exceptions– are segregated, especially dividing Arabs and Jews from each other, but also separating religious from secular Jews.
Issues of identity and identification figured prominently and problematically during the course of the day, both for Israeli Arabs and for young American Jews. Judging from how such panelists referred to themselves at the conference, Israeli Arabs identify as "Palestinian citizens of Israel."
Even an Arab professor of law and a vice dean at Hebrew University, Michael Mousa Karayanni, participating in the concluding panel, expressed his difficulty when teaching Israeli legal procedure in referring to "our" (Israeli) law, rather than "your" Jewish law. But he did end with some expression of hope in reporting greater comfort in regarding the Israeli legal system as a common possession after a semester of dialogue with his Jewish students.
The JTA news service exemplified, in its coverage, the discomfort that American Jews feel in listening to such people as Prof. Karayanni. Uriel Heilman (the JTA reporter) quoted Karayanni further:
Heilman’s article was NOT a hatchet job; he quoted NIF responses. It happens to be true that Palestinian-Israeli grievances and alienation from Israeli society that they express are difficult to hear and to deal with. But although we do not need to agree with everything they say and do, these are based upon real injuries and constitute significant challenges for Israeli society.
Still, it’s easier for liberals to engage with Jews on Arab grievances than for them to challenge Arabs on their "narrative." For example, I personally found at an NIF event in 2006, that it can be hard to even get Palestinians to acknowledge that their side started the military conflict of ‘47-‘48 that resulted in the "Nakba," their catastrophe. Yet it’s to the NIF’s credit that the Palestinian-Israeli "narrative" is being brought to the attention of Israeli and American Jews.
This closing session, moderated by The Forward editor in chief, JJ Goldberg, was preceded by a short video celebrating the 25th anniversary of the founding of Shatil, described on the NIF’s website as the "Empowerment and Training Center for Social Change Organizations in Israel."
Shatil has been instrumental in establishing a host of civic rights organizations that attempt to meet the needs of a variety of underprivileged sectors in Israeli society: including Arabs, women, the physically and mentally handicapped.
The video culminated in a memorable scene of a young black-hatted religious individual speaking into a microphone at an outdoor rally. He proclaimed in American-accented English that "the Torah states 36 times ‘not to oppress the stranger.’ We suck at that," he concluded.
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this conference was the large presence of young people in their 20s and 30s — a demographic group that Jewish and especially liberal Jewish organizations have had difficulty recruiting in recent years. Both in a panel of young American Jews ("Challenging the Paradigm: Israel’s Place in Contemporary Jewish Identity"), and again in that concluding plenary session, which included 36 year-old Rabbi Felicia Sol of New York’s socially-conscious B’nai Jeshurun synagogue, it was emphasized that the gut emotional attachments to Israel that held true for older generations, does not exist for the young. Speakers saw this as a function both of feeling more secure as American Jews and of having not lived through the traumas and crises experienced during World War II, 1948, 1967 and 1973.
Rabbi Melissa Weintraub, a participant on the "Paradigm" panel, criticized the Hebrew concept of "hasbara" — which literally means "explanation " but connotes public relations or propaganda. Hasbara is a one-way process in which the official line is imparted, rather than initiating a discussion or open-minded inquiry. She identified this latter approach as important in establishing an honest and meaningful relationship, even in teaching "love" for Israel. "What does it mean to teach love?," she asked rhetorically. It’s to teach about "a real place, at a real time, and not to give people only one view."
Issues of identity and identification figured prominently and problematically during the course of the day, both for Israeli Arabs and for young American Jews. Judging from how such panelists referred to themselves at the conference, Israeli Arabs identify as "Palestinian citizens of Israel."
Even an Arab professor of law and a vice dean at Hebrew University, Michael Mousa Karayanni, participating in the concluding panel, expressed his difficulty when teaching Israeli legal procedure in referring to "our" (Israeli) law, rather than "your" Jewish law. But he did end with some expression of hope in reporting greater comfort in regarding the Israeli legal system as a common possession after a semester of dialogue with his Jewish students.
The JTA news service exemplified, in its coverage, the discomfort that American Jews feel in listening to such people as Prof. Karayanni. Uriel Heilman (the JTA reporter) quoted Karayanni further:
"I can't say 'our' flag, I can't say 'our' national anthem, I can't say 'our'government, I can't say 'our' president," Karayanni said at Sunday's closing session.
"You talk about compromise," he said, turning to his Jewish co-panelists. "I'm supposed to forget about 1948? I'm supposed to forget about the 70 percent of confiscated Arab lands?"Heilman went on to point out that, "Karayanni is one of the co-authors of a controversial 2006 document produced by Israeli Arabs called ‘The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel,’ which calls for Arab cultural autonomy, Arab veto rights in some government decision-making, the elimination of Jewish character from the anthem and flag, and modifications to immigration laws to eliminate favorable treatment of Jews."
Heilman’s article was NOT a hatchet job; he quoted NIF responses. It happens to be true that Palestinian-Israeli grievances and alienation from Israeli society that they express are difficult to hear and to deal with. But although we do not need to agree with everything they say and do, these are based upon real injuries and constitute significant challenges for Israeli society.
Still, it’s easier for liberals to engage with Jews on Arab grievances than for them to challenge Arabs on their "narrative." For example, I personally found at an NIF event in 2006, that it can be hard to even get Palestinians to acknowledge that their side started the military conflict of ‘47-‘48 that resulted in the "Nakba," their catastrophe. Yet it’s to the NIF’s credit that the Palestinian-Israeli "narrative" is being brought to the attention of Israeli and American Jews.
This closing session, moderated by The Forward editor in chief, JJ Goldberg, was preceded by a short video celebrating the 25th anniversary of the founding of Shatil, described on the NIF’s website as the "Empowerment and Training Center for Social Change Organizations in Israel."
Shatil has been instrumental in establishing a host of civic rights organizations that attempt to meet the needs of a variety of underprivileged sectors in Israeli society: including Arabs, women, the physically and mentally handicapped.
The video culminated in a memorable scene of a young black-hatted religious individual speaking into a microphone at an outdoor rally. He proclaimed in American-accented English that "the Torah states 36 times ‘not to oppress the stranger.’ We suck at that," he concluded.
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this conference was the large presence of young people in their 20s and 30s — a demographic group that Jewish and especially liberal Jewish organizations have had difficulty recruiting in recent years. Both in a panel of young American Jews ("Challenging the Paradigm: Israel’s Place in Contemporary Jewish Identity"), and again in that concluding plenary session, which included 36 year-old Rabbi Felicia Sol of New York’s socially-conscious B’nai Jeshurun synagogue, it was emphasized that the gut emotional attachments to Israel that held true for older generations, does not exist for the young. Speakers saw this as a function both of feeling more secure as American Jews and of having not lived through the traumas and crises experienced during World War II, 1948, 1967 and 1973.
Rabbi Melissa Weintraub, a participant on the "Paradigm" panel, criticized the Hebrew concept of "hasbara" — which literally means "explanation " but connotes public relations or propaganda. Hasbara is a one-way process in which the official line is imparted, rather than initiating a discussion or open-minded inquiry. She identified this latter approach as important in establishing an honest and meaningful relationship, even in teaching "love" for Israel. "What does it mean to teach love?," she asked rhetorically. It’s to teach about "a real place, at a real time, and not to give people only one view."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)