Dovish pro-Israel lobby

Meretz USA has cordial relations with the people involved in the development of a liberal pro-Israel lobby. After a year and a half of speculation, the press is announcing its birth (see front-page article in this week’s NY Jewish Week). We have word that this is about two weeks before it was meant to be unveiled.

Jeremy Ben-Ami is a key figure in this effort, along with Daniel Levy, a British oleh (immigrant to Israel) who will shortly return to Israel after a stint on a think-tank fellowship in Washington, DC working on peace process issues. I once shared a speaking platform on a panel with Jeremy, a most cordial and impressive individual. His bio includes his current position as senior vice president of Fenton Communications and being a deputy domestic policy advisor for President Clinton. On American-Israel issues, he has worked for the Center for Middle East Peace, the New Israel Fund and the Geneva Initiative-North America. He is also currently a member of the board of Americans for Peace Now.

The following is part of a long comprehensive article, well worth reading, "A Liberal Israel Lobby" by Gershom Gorenberg in the April 2008 issue of Prospect Magazine, a British publication (hence the spelling):

... It is easier, even cheaper, for America to keep Israel strong than to defend it directly. But Washington must also accommodate Arab allies. ...getting Arabs and Israelis to agree [on] a peace deal would resolve the contradictions in US policy—andwould be the best guarantee of Israeli security. The question then becomes one of how much the US should lean towards providing for Israel's immediate security needs, and how much it should be pushing Israel towards a peace agreement as a strategic solution.

Aipac, according to sources familiar with Capitol Hill lobbying, tries to keep US policy almost entirely on the side of security needs, of protecting an embattled Israel. ... Aipac does not come out explicitly against peace efforts. But the list of initiatives it boasts of promoting includes nothing aimed at a two-state solution, and much aimed at restricting US relations with the Palestinians and otherArab and Muslim actors.

...As MJ Rosenberg of the dovish Israel Policy Forum comments, "They create an atmosphere on Capitol Hill that is sceptical of Palestinians in any shape or form."Another knowledgeable source explained to me that Aipac promotes an American stance that the Palestinian side is the one "responsible for what is going wrong, and it hasto prove itself first. And if that's always going to be the definition of the peace process, they've killed it from the start."

Aipac has reportedly created hurdles even when the Israeli government itself has tried to make peace. In1995, for example, Aipac backed a bill in congress tomove the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The legislation looked pro-Israel. But as Michael Massing argued in the New York Review of Books and elsewhere, it was actually an ambush for Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was negotiating with the Palestinians. Moving the embassy would have thrown a spanner into the Oslo peace talks. (The bill passed, but with a loophole enabling Presidents Clinton and Bush to avoid the move to Jerusalem.)

Another of the things that a responsible researcher could say with confidence is that within US politics, Aipac does not represent the views of American Jews. In 2004, only 24 per cent of Jews voted for Bush, according to exit polls. Yet when Bush spoke at Aipac's convention earlier that year, delegates reportedly interrupted him 67 times with ovations and chants of "Four more years!"

The liberal Jewish tilt even applies to middle east issues. The American Jewish Committee's most recent year-end survey of Jewish opinion showed a 46-43 plurality of US Jews in favour of establishing a Palestinian state. Support for the war in Iraq is consistently lower among Jews than among Americans ingeneral. The AJC survey showed 57-35 per cent opposition among US Jews to American military action to stop Iran's nuclear programme.

As for Aipac, one of its current legislative concerns is promoting a hawkish position towards Iran. The organisation's website celebrates its role in the passage last year of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, a Senate resolution on Iran. Among other provisions, theamendment labels the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation. Democratic critics of the resolution saythat it could open the door to the Bush administration going to war against Iran. Nonetheless, 76 out of 100 senators voted for it—meaning it got a majority even among Democrats.

That vote came too late for Mearsheimer and Walt to describe, but it raises a big question: how significant is Aipac's role in influencing Democratic lawmakers to take stances apparently to the right both of their constituency and of US Jewish opinion? This is not a rhetorical question; other pressures must be accounted for too, including Democrats' abiding fears of appearing insufficiently muscular.

In any case, Mearsheimer and Walt did not write the sober and balanced book that we need on this emotional subject. Among other things, they described the neoconservative movement as being a subset of the Israel lobby rather than a wider political stream for whomIsrael is just one concern—and whose positions on the middle east sometimes differ sharply from that of the Israeli government. The neocons, for example, thought they could democratise Arab countries; Israeli officials and experts generally fear that democracy will empower Islamic extremists or destabilise their neighbours, and they were ambivalent about the invasion of Iraq.

Yet perhaps the most striking flaw is that Mearsheimer and Walt accept Aipac's own claims regarding its power and who it represents. "In 24 hours, we could have the signatures of 70 senators on this napkin," they quote an Aipac official telling a journalist, and they insist it is not bluster. Though they sometimes note that "the lobby" is not the same as the American Jewish community, they also cite guesstimates that Jews provide between 20and 60 per cent of donations to the Democratic party and its presidential candidates, and explain this as basic to "the lobby's" influence.

In a strange way, the book thereby becomes an advertisement for Aipac: the organisation's attraction for supporters is the power of its influence overcongress and US policy. Its allure to candidates is its influence over Jewish donations and, to a lesser extent, votes. There's a truth here, as we have seen, but there is also a mythic shadow and politicians are sometimes frightened of the shadow. The potential for a counter-Aipac dovish lobby lies, in part, in dispelling fear of the shadow. The concern of US politicians to stay in Aipac's good books becomes especially clear during election campaigns. Its status as a lobby means it is not allowed to directly raise money for candidates, or to endorse them. Instead, explains Rosenberg, it works closely with"50 to 60" political action committees—the bodies that actually raise and dispense donations.

One way for a politician to gain Aipac's approval is to publish a position paper on Israel, such as one that Hillary Clinton posted on her website last year. She begins by praising Israel as "a beacon of what democracy can and should be." She asserts that "Israel's right to…an undivided Jerusalem as its capital… must never be questioned." (Israel's vice-premier, Haim Ramon, is among those who supports negotiating a political division of Jerusalem.) She defends "Israel's right to build a security barrier" without mentioning that it runs through occupied territory, meaning Israeli settlements in the West Bank are de facto annexed to Israel. Indeed, the paper contains no mention of settlement, occupation, or helpful changes in Israeli policy. In Israel, it would place her firmly on the political right.

Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, BarackObama, has his own policy statement on Israel, opening with a snippet of a speech he gave to an Aipac forum. Strikingly, though, his paper includes a promise to"work towards two states living side by side in peaceand security." Obama has also been more forthright in calling for a shift in strategy towards Iran, including direct talks. Click here to read the entire article.

Meretz problems in context

One recent comment on this blog has noted a Haaretz article that quotes a study critiquing the finances and political functioning and future of the Meretz-Yahad/ Democratic-Israel party. This has been seized upon with some glee by left-wing opponents of Israel, as if the supposed demise of this progressive peace-oriented party would be good for the Palestinian people whom they claim to champion. It’s probably been noted with pleasure by the Zionist right as well, but happily I haven’t heard from this quarter.

One criticism had to do with the very small share of the Israeli-Arab (or Israeli-Palestinian) vote that Meretz garners. This is a challenge, but readers should understand that Israel has three political blocs that are basically Arab parties (two are entirely Arab in orientation and a third is officially bi-national but mostly Arab). Longstanding arrangements and loyalties exist in various Arab communities that cause a substantial number of Arab voters to support Labor, Likud and even (at times) the National Religious Party.

Moreover, Meretz’s disinclination to join a government coalition with which it has principled differences (including the current Kadima-led government that it’s been invited to join more than once), means that it has no favors to offer supporters which come from being in the government. In the past, and probably still today, Labor, Likud and the NRP have garnered Arab votes because of such favors or the prospect of such favors.

This problem does not have to do with any disinclination by Israeli members of Meretz to refer to Arab Israelis as "Palestinian citizens of Israel" (notwithstanding the belief of our frequent kibbitzer and critic, Ted). Meretz activists are usually as PC in their nomenclature as leftists are in this country. Moreover, Meretz is both a Zionist party, endorsing the view that Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, and a bi-national party that advocates the promise of Israel’s declaration of independence for equality under the law for all of its citizens. Toward this end, Meretz practices affirmative action for Arab members. A seventh Knesset seat would have automatically gone to an Israeli Palestinian.

We’ve inquired with our contacts at the World Union of Meretz about that study reported in Haaretz. It was more or less an independent initiative of a Meretz member, not an authorized party document. Though it contains some valid criticisms, its methods were questionable. For example, Jumas (the new party leader, Chaim Oron) was quoted in Haaretz as saying that the report examined the party as if it were a money-making business, not a political party.

The parts that got reported in Haaretz were made to look "juicier" by taking them out of context. The Meretz debt is well under control ("the banks loves us," we were told, because the party is scrupulous in paying off its loans on schedule), and is actually quite small when compared to the debt that’s been run up by other parties in Israel. The party was nowhere near bankruptcy, they said, and the financial recovery plan instituted in 2004 is being adhered to.

About Chaim Oron

The newly-elected Meretz party chair, MK Chaim Oron, affectionately known as "Jumas," was born in 1940 in Ramat Gan. Having moved to Kibbutz Lahav in the Negev at the age of 18, he still resides there today with his wife and four children. He has served as national secretary of the National Kibbutz (Artzi) Federation and treasurer of the Histadrut trade union federation.

Oron was first elected to the Knesset in 1988 with the socialist Mapam party, one of the three parties that later formed Meretz. He has been a Mapam and then Meretz Member of Knesset ever since. In 2003, he was one of the drafters and signatories of the Geneva Initiative. More recently, Oron has been Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's liaison to jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti. (Link to a more detailed biography at the Meretz USA Web site.)

Jumas has announced that Meretz will remain an opposition force that will play a role in moving the government toward a peace agreement with the Palestinian people and the Arab world, but others would like Meretz to play this role within the government coalition. (See the impassioned Haaretz editorial of March 20, "Bring Meretz into the Government.")

Chaim Oron is new Meretz chair

Here's an excerpt of the victory speech delivered by MK Chaim Oron ("Jumas") after being voted in last week as Meretz party chairman in Israel. (This unofficial translation is my own; click here for the original.) It has lately become journalistic bon ton in Israel to suggest that, since the main components of the Meretz peace platform have been adopted by the mainstream, the party is no longer relevant. Jumas responds as follows:

"... I hear the voices of the cynics who doubt our relevance. What are they talking about? When the Justice Minister, backed by the Prime Minister, and with the silence of the Labor Party, causes damage to the Supreme Court day in and day out, and undermines the last defense for human rights in Israel - who will stand against him, if not Meretz?

"And when [Defense Minister and Labor Party chair] Ehud Barak, who calls himself ‘the head of the peace camp', fails to remove settlement outposts and enables construction in the settlements, and hurts the chances for promoting the peace process - who will stand against him, if not Meretz? ...

"When the economic plan, as conceived by [Likud leader, Bibi] Netanyahu, delivers blows to Israeli society, to hospitals, to schools, and to hundreds of thousands of poor children in Israel - who will stand against it, if not Meretz?

"In the fight for the character of the State of Israel, we need Meretz to be big, strong and influential. Meretz is relevant and Meretz is needed - today more than ever. "

And while we're on the subject, here are a few more items of interest:

• Some background info on Chaim Oron
• Meretz USA's letter of congratulations to Jumas

Congressman Ackerman's Skepticism

This statement by US Representative Gary L. Ackerman of New York, at the March 12 hearing of the House subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia (which he chairs), encapsulates our skepticism on so many points. His probing comments spare no one – not Israel, not the Bush Administration, not the Palestinian Authority, not Hamas:

.... In Jerusalem, Israeli leaders are trying to square a circle that won’t come round. On the one hand, they welcome and celebrate moderate Palestinian leaders who are committed to a two-state solution, who are responsible and reasonable, and have rejected violence and accept Israel’s right to exist. On the other hand, there’s been an increase in the number of checkpoints and roadblocks; there have been several announcements about settlement expansions and new housing in Jerusalem; there have been no illegal outposts dismantled; and from time to time, necessary Israeli security operations have–as an unintended consequence–made a mockery of nascent Palestinian efforts to put just a little authority back in the Palestinian Authority.

In Ramallah, the lack of clarity is even more striking. After ascending to the top of the Palestinian body politic as a negotiator and a peacemaker, as a man who has rejected violence on a moral basis–-not a tactical, but a moral basis-–Mahmoud Abbas now seems ready to squander all the credibility he’s struggled for so long to acquire. Speaking to the editorial staff of al-Dustour, a Jordanian paper, Abbas is alleged to have said, "At this time, I object to the armed struggle, since we are unable to conduct it; however, in future stages things may change." When pressed by our government to clarify these remarks, Abbas’s senior advisor, Saeb Erakat, explained "that certain comments were reported out of context. We have chosen the path of negotiations and no other path, and we will continue along it until we achieve our goal of an independent Palestinian State." Skeptics would ask "Until statehood? Not after?" During the Nixon presidency, we referred to such statements as a "non-denial denial."

In Washington, I fear things are little better. Speaking Monday at the White House, President Bush was asked what he thought of Israel's plan to build 750 new homes in a settlement near Jerusalem. He responded that "We expect both parties involved in the Middle Eastern peace process to adhere to their obligations in the road map." So far, so good. Then the President went off into that other private world of his where everything seems to be going well. He then said "And those obligations are clear. And to this end, the Secretary of State is dispatching the general that we named to be the coordinator of road map activities to the Middle East, for him to conduct meetings with the relevant parties." In other words, everyone’s obligations under Phase I of the Roadmap are so crystal-clear, that we’ve assigned a three-star general–who reports directly to the Secretary of State–to sit with the Israelis and Palestinians to discuss what is already clear, at least to the President, if not to the relevant parties....

In the mean time, who do we hope will take control of the borders of Gaza? The PA? Really? The leaders of Hamas are going to let that happen why? Because of their humanitarian impulses? Because their Iranian patrons want it? And who and what is going to stop the smuggling of weapons into Gaza? I’m not a military man but I know the difference between Qassams and Grad rockets, the kind that recently fell on Ashkelon. Qassams can be made by Hamas, Grads have to be imported. Other than reoccupation by the IDF, what’s going to stop the flow of Grad rockets into Gaza and then, on a high-arc, into Israel? And if the IDF goes in, how do they go out? Who gets the keys this time when they leave? If Abu Mazen gets them, will he be able to keep them, much less use them?

In my view, what is happening in Gaza is pushing the entire peace process right up to the precipice. The idea of "land for peace" is rapidly decaying into a new concept called "land for rockets." Not surprisingly, the Israelis don’t seem to like it much. And signals from Jerusalem seem to indicate that they’re losing patience and interest in the PA anyway. At Annapolis, we had a meeting that wasn’t a conference, and certainly not a summit, that put into motion negotiations on an agreement which was originally a declaration, but is now moving toward becoming an understanding. I see a lot movement but not much forward motion. When do we see real changes, real sacrifices, real political pain? I’m not seeing any of these things from any of the parties and I’m starting to suspect that I’m not going to. (Our thanks to Lilly Rivlin for passing this on.)

Breaking the Silence; Ending the Occupation

Last Sunday evening, I attended an eye-opening lecture and slideshow of the "Breaking the Silence" organization, which Meretz USA was proud to co-sponsor at a synagogue in Brooklyn, NY. Our speaker was Dotan Greenvald, a wonderful, soft-spoken 25 year-old from the Haifa Bay area, who had grown up in the HaNo'ar Ha'Oved socialist-Zionist youth movement.

For those who don't know, "Breaking the Silence" (or "BTS" for short) is a group of IDF veterans who coalesced in 2004 in the wake of their service in Hebron and elsewhere in the occupied territories. These recently-discharged vets, in their early 20s, wanted desperately to tell Israeli society, and the broader Jewish world, what they had just witnessed and experienced first-hand: The damage that Israel's military rule is wreaking on both Palestinian society and on the Israeli citizen-soldiers who are compelled to maintain it.

Dotan gave a powerful presentation, illustrating in words and pictures, how - out of a need to maintain both sanity and safety - he and his fellow soldiers gradually became indifferent, "numb" as he said elsewhere, to the suffering they were causing Palestinian civilians. Dotan exposed the audience to an impossibly complex reality, in which kids, just out of high school, are forced to walk a tightrope between the IDF's orders, their own moral code, the demands of Israeli society for security, and the need to get through their service in the "shtachim" (territories) in one piece.

Overwhelmed by pressure, he reported, the clarity of the soldier's ethical vision quickly becomes blurred, until "right" and "wrong" become almost indistinguishable, and small violations of Palestinian dignity pave the way for ever larger ones. Some soldiers have even conceded to Dotan that they became "addicted" to the feeling of power that they wielded over the occupied population.

Dotan also echoed remarks that we have heard from other Israeli human rights groups, such as Machsom Watch and Gisha, calling attention to the fact that the deployment of Israel's military apparatus in the West Bank is much more about protecting the settlers than about maintaining the security of those Israelis living within the country's borders.

Dotan and his comrades-in-arms were in Hebron to protect the small group of Jewish settlers who have imposed themselves on the city's Palestinian population, not to protect my friends in the Galilee, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and the Arava. Other soldiers man hundreds of roadblocks deep within the West Bank, not to prevent the infiltration of terrorists into Israel, but to ensure the motor traffic of the settler community, as they move between authorized and unauthorized outposts.

Which brings me to the one point on which I would differ with Breaking the Silence - the organization's reluctance to state plainly and officially that they are against the occupation. Dotan explained that his group is about raising questions, about exposing people to the moral dilemmas of occupation. But as the occupation deepens its grip, as Israeli-Palestinian violence continues to expand its reach with every new action and reaction, as the hatred becomes passed to the next generation, Israel needs these young men and women not only to prod and provoke, but to lead the way and say: The occupation must end. It is destroying Palestinian society and undermining our own.

This past week, we saw how powerful pressure groups in Israel - this time the Shas party - are creating the settlements that Dotan and his friends are forced to defend. Riding roughshod over the renewed peace talks and risking Israel's international standing, Shas threatened to secede from the Olmert government if the Prime Minister did not agree to renew construction in the settlement of Givat Ze'ev, southwest of Ramallah. Olmert's compliance, a violation of Israel's obligations, has only whet Shas' appetite, and the party is now vowing to press for more.

Breaking the Silence offers an incomparable critique of the corrosive effects of the occupation. But the occupation, and the settlement enterprise that it supports, needs to be condemned in words that leave no room for doubt. Those opposed to the occupation need to push back.

Comparing Tibet with Palestine

Tibet has been mentioned in one comment on this blog and in my email box. There are Tibetan parallels to Palestine. They are not exact: China did not occupy Tibet in response to a Tibetan attack on Chinese territory and a coalition of Buddhist states blockading a key port and whipping up their populations to conquer China; this is approximately what happened in analogous terms in 1967 when Egypt forced UN forces from their border positions in the Sinai, massed its army along the border, blockaded Eilat, whipped up its population into a war frenzy and formed an anti-Israel alliance and joint military command with Jordan, Syria and Iraq. And Jordan stupidly bought into Egyptian lies on how the war was going in its opening hours by shelling Jerusalem and suburbs of Tel Aviv and seizing a UN border post in a ground attack.

Also, Tibetan rioters do not threaten to overrun or "take back" China. The closest parallel is to Palestinian attacks against Israeli settlers and occupation authorities in the Palestinian territories. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have weakened their moral claim against the Israeli occupation by attacking Israel---and civilian targets within Israel almost exclusively; many Palestinian nationalists understand this as an error.

One should also keep in mind that Tibet was a sovereign country before the Chinese took it over in the 1950s. A sovereign Palestinian-Arab state has never existed but would have been created if the Arab world had accepted the UN partition plan of 1947.

Our Own Worst Enemy by Mona Eltahawy

Here is another Mona Eltahawy gem, another call for rationality. Mona is amazing to me, she is authentic, a voice of humanity, and speaks from within Islam. – Lilly Rivlin

If I weren’t a Muslim and didn’t know better, I’d think Muslims really do come with a grenade at the end of their turbans – as portrayed in the infamous 2005 Danish cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed. Danish police arrested three Muslims earlier this year for allegedly plotting to kill the 73-year-old cartoonist behind that caricature of the Prophet that appeared in 2005.

It would be tempting to believe that our holy book, the Quran, really was a fascist violence-baiting manifesto, as a right-wing Dutch politician claims in a forthcoming film that deliberately heightens European terror fears. After all, it seems as if the default setting for Muslim reactions these days is violence and more violence.

A Berlin gallery opened an exhibit last month that Muslims found offensive, some threatened it with... guess what? Yep. Violence.

The Madrid train bombs (four years ago this month), the London bombings in 2005, and the murder in Amsterdam of Dutch director Theo Van Gogh have made Muslim terrorism a dominant European concern.

With a prayer for all those souls murdered in the name of my religion, I confess I am not so concerned about Europe. And I don’t care about cartoons in Denmark. Newspapers there have every right to publish whatever they like. I couldn’t care less about Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician whose film Fitna will surely provoke more fear-mongering racism. It's just red meat dished out to right wing Europeans.

But I also have little interest in the views of the left wing reader who may be waiting for my inner Victimized Muslim to blame all our ills on the right wing, or the United States, or Israel. No, I have a much closer, more intimate concern.

I am not so concerned about these others, because the main target of Muslim violence is fellow Muslims in the Muslim world.

Nearly every week, hundreds of Muslims are blown to shreds in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The frequent demonstrations held across the Muslim world don't call for an end to the slaughter of Muslims by Muslims, but to demand petulantly that the 'world' stop offending Muslims.
For this Muslim, no number of Danish cartoons or Dutch films will ever be more offensive than the seven suicide attacks that have killed at least 100 in Pakistan in the past three weeks alone. No slur is as horrible as the 600 people dying in violence in Pakistan since the start of the year.

In Iraq, suicide attacks are so common and claim so many lives that most news agencies include just the most deadly incidents in their reports, such as these two from Reuters: On February 1, two women suicide bombers killed 99 people in attacks blamed on al Qaeda at two popular Baghdad pet markets in the city's worst attacks in six months. On February 24, a suicide bomber targeting pilgrims heading to one of Shi'ite Islam's holiest rites in southern Kerbala killed 63 people and wounded scores in Iskandariya.

And yet, topping the agenda of the summit in Senegal this week of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is Islamophobia.

Denial? Not just a river in my Egyptian homeland, but blindness to rivers of shed Muslim blood.
... Read on at Mona Eltahawy’s Web site.

Lurie to Clinton & Obama: Go for Peace

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of seeing Samantha Power in dialogue with Azar Nafisi (author of "Reading Lolita in Teheran") at the NY Public Library. Power is a Pulitzer Prize-winning author on issues of genocide and international human rights. She was also an Obama foreign policy adviser until forced to resign by an unfortunate lapse quoted in a Scottish newspaper interview, characterizing Hillary Clinton as a "monster." This faux pas is not characteristic of this thoughtful, brilliant and humane Harvard professor and activist.

It was a hopeful sign to me that Prof. Power indicated that finding a workable two-state solution for Israel and Palestine would be a high priority for an Obama administration. She also showed real knowledge and sensitivity to the Israeli need for security and even referred to the West Bank security barrier as a "fence" rather than "wall" (about 95 percent of it is, in fact, a fence). My hope is that the new president, whoever he or she may be, will resolutely pursue Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab peace.– R. Seliger

The following is from J. Zel Lurie’s March 11th column in the Jewish Journal of South Florida:

I have a suggestion to both Hillary and Obama. In your campaign speeches, talk abut bringing peace to Israel and Palestine, which only the United States can do.

Get a hold of the book "Negotiating Arab-Israel peace: American Leadership in the Middle East" by Daniel C. Kurtzer and Scott B. Lazensky, which will be unveiled next week in a ceremony at the United States Institute for Peace in Washington.

This slim book is the product of an 18-month study by a group of five professors under the auspices of the Peace Institute. It was led by Kurtzer, who is the former American Ambassador to both Egypt and Israel. Its main point is that, unlike George Bush, who spent eight years neglecting the matter, and Bill Clinton, who worked at it intensively only in the last few months of his reign, the next president must make peace in Jerusalem a priority in his/her inaugural address.

While Kurtzer has been advising Obama, Hillary is more apt to follow his advice in her campaign for nomination. She goes into detail and talks substance and solutions.

The book says that the next president must make clear that an Israeli-Palestinian settlement [i.e., peace agreement] is of vital national interest. The United States is NOT doing favors.

The next president must develop a just and fair policy, get the agreement of the parties and count on our envoys to see to it that the parties implement what they have agreed to. As we all know, the latter has been the chief failure of past agreements.

A special envoy might be needed, but the study found that with the president enunciating a fair and just policy, a special envoy could be superfluous. "Better a policy without an envoy than an envoy without a policy," says Kurtzer.

If a special presidential envoy is needed, Hillary could not do better than to call Princeton University for Obama advisor Amb. Daniel Kurtzer.

‘Other Israel Film Festival’

In November, 2007, Carole Zabar initiated the first of what is planned as a yearly event, "The Other Israel Film Festival: Images of Arab Citizens of Israel," in partnership with a number of New York’s Jewish community institutions. (Ms. Zabar’s husband, Saul, is an owner of Manhattan’s world-famous Zabar’s food emporium and both were board members of the Educational Fund for Israeli Civil Rights and Peace, a predecessor to Meretz USA.)

Ms. Zabar screened some Israeli productions that may now be considered classics: e.g., the 1984 Academy-Award finalist, "Beyond the Walls," about Jews and Palestinians finding solidarity in an Israeli prison and "The Syrian Bride," about the travails of a Druze-Arab woman in the Israeli-held Golan Heights having to leave her family behind (possibly forever) to wed her Syrian groom. Zabar also brought directors and actors of a number of the films to speak after their screenings.

New and especially intriguing to me was "Maktub," which combined elements of a cops-and-robbers story with an exploration of Druze identity. At the heart of this movie is a love affair between a male Druze detective and a Jewish juvenile court officer. The Druze policeman is plagued by a dilemma: since there is no such thing as conversion to the Druze religion and he cannot marry his non-Druze lover without being banned from his family and community, he must choose between eventually losing her by refusing to marry, or losing his family. (The filmmaker indicated that "Maktub" is inspired by such an actual situation.)

This film is further enriched with an exploration of the Druze belief in reincarnation. When a Druze dies, his or her soul is thought to immediately migrate to a new Druze being born. Since their community is extremely secretive, little else is known about the Druze faith.

A classic— often anti-Semitic— rap against Jews (especially the Orthodox) is their "clannishness." Not that I’m being critical— and Druze are basically portrayed cinematically in positive and dignified tones— but it struck me how the Druze are one people who are actually more closed off than Jews.

An uncomfortable but comical moment in the plot involved the detective questioning an old couple who were neighbors of a murder victim. When they discovered that he’s Druze, the old man goes on a short rant to the effect of "What is this country coming to: an Arab policeman? Maybe we’ll soon see an Arab prime minister." His wife reassuringly replies that since he’s a Druze, "He’s only a little bit Arab." The detective responds to these slights with a retort in perfect Yiddish (the gist of which I’ve forgotten) that works wonderfully.

The Druze inhabit three Middle Eastern countries with substantial populations. About 100,000 live in Israel, with somewhat larger numbers in Lebanon and Syria. In each country, the Druze have shrewdly negotiated a political course to maintain their integrity and security. Israeli Druze have shown loyalty to the state and been rewarded with more or less equal status with Jews; this is symbolized in the fact that Druze males are subject to military conscription like Jews and unlike other Arabs. In Lebanon, the Druze navigated the civil war with their own militia and they continue to maneuver with their own political party (the Progressive Socialist Party, led by Walid Jumblatt). In Syria, and so far in a couple of villages living under Israeli rule in the Golan Heights, they profess their loyalty to the Bathist regime headed by the Assad ruling dynasty.

I also saw "The Film Class," a fascinating documentary on the little-known reality of the "Black Bedouin," Negev Bedouin with African roots, brought to what is now Israel by Arab slave traders during the 19th century. The Israeli-Jewish filmmaker documents how his class of Black Bedouin women in a community center in an Arab town are inspired to research their African cultural background and to explore what this means to their lives. These are charmingly feisty people and it’s a pleasure to witness their voyage of self-discovery.

Meretz USA Statement on Ending the Violence

The brazen murder of eight yeshiva students, mostly teenagers, in a landmark mainstream Orthodox institution in Jerusalem, has convulsed Israel in sadness and outrage. That this has occurred within a week of the massive operation in the Gaza Strip, killing about 120 Palestinians, is no accident. About half, if not more, of this latter toll were of fighters of the terrorist factions, but dozens were non-combatant civilians, including children.

The intent of the attackers was not the same in these two cases. Israel was attempting to end the ongoing rocket attacks on southern Israel; it did not target civilian victims. The lone terrorist in Jerusalem did exactly that.

Still, there is a "cycle of violence," a term that offends many supporters of Israel because it seems to imply a moral equivalence between acts of terror and efforts to end them. We make no such argument. Israel's intentions to defend itself are justified, but the carnage exacted upon Palestinians is much greater, generally by a large order of magnitude. Clearly, these tactics do not work; violence begets violence.

The only way out is through a ceasefire on the ground and a renewed effort to negotiate a peaceful end to the conflict, a viable two-state solution. President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority has offered to broker a truce between Israel and Hamas; Egypt's good offices might also facilitate an indirect negotiation for such a result.

We implore that Israel not allow the terrorists to win by vetoing the possibility of peace. We commend Prime Minister Olmert's announced intention to continue the peace talks with the Palestinian Authority and urge every effort toward a breakthrough.

'The Counterfeiters': Harrowing Holocaust Tale

This Austrian production beat out "Beaufort," the Israeli entry and three others for the Academy Award in the Best Foreign Language Film category. I'm a big fan of the winner (see my review in the New Jersey Jewish News online; the features editor inexplicably and awkwardly transformed my opening paragraph into the penultimate, but never mind). My sidebar on meeting the director/script writer and his star, Stefan Ruzowitzky and Karl Markovics, was not published in NJ Jewish News but was picked up by The Forward in "The Shmooze" section this week.

For those readers who may recall seeing this subject here, a week ago, you were not hallucinating. I was asked to delete it by The Forward, which requires a two-week exclusive. But there's surely no such constraint in revealing parts of the original piece that were not included in The Forward: for one thing, in writing about the previous directorial experience of Mr. Ruzowitzky, I had mentioned "All the Queen's Men," a World War II cross-dressing espionage spoof starring Matt Le Blanc (Joey of "Friends").

In the "it's a small-world" category, I learned that Ruzowitzky and Markovics know the husband of a relative of mine. My parents traveled on an epic journey to the United States in the spring of 1941 with my mother's Tante Else from Vienna. Tante Else's granddaughter migrated from the Bronx to Vienna nearly 40 years ago and married Peter Patzak, who became a prominent Austrian filmmaker. Karl Markokvics was directed by Patzak in a television production; Karl said he'd mention me the next time he speaks to Patzak.

Briefing from MK Abu Vilan: Invasion or Ceasefire?

According to Meretz MK Avshalom (Abu) Vilan, who presented a briefing at Meretz USA's offices Beit Shalom last night (Thursday, February 28th), the two Ehuds - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak - were disinclined as of this past Monday to respond to continuing rocket attacks from Gaza into Sderot by sending the Israeli army into the Gaza Strip. However, recent occurrences could change this opinion.

The past few days have experienced a continually intensified round of attack and retribution by both Israelis and Palestinians. On Wednesday, about 50 Qassams hit the Western Negev region of Israel, with one killing a college student in Sderot. In retaliatory action, Israel killed 12 Palestinians. Then, Thursday morning began with the deaths of 18 Palestinians - including five boys under the age of 16 - followed by the firing of at least 8 Katyusha-like rockets which reached much farther into Israel, hitting the city of Ashkelon. Hamas' growing rocket power makes ever more pressing a way out of this violent back and forth. But will the solution involve military action or will it follow more diplomatic means?

For his part, MK Vilan maintained that a ceasefire and dialogue with Hamas are the way to go - an argument that is gaining steam among Israeli activists, like Gershon Baskin, and the Israeli public. An invasion would only result in more casualties (MK Vilan pointed out that, although the Qassams cause psychological terror, they have not killed or injured as many Israelis as would an invasion), and it would not solve the problem. MK Vilan argued that talks should occur with Egypt serving as a mediator; a point that is bolstered by a fact that Baskin points out: Israel is already negotiating through Egypt with Hamas for the release of Gilad Shalit.

It is likely that the Israeli government would find in Hamas a willing partner for further negotiations. The Islamic group has already sent several ceasefire requests (see Meretz Chair Yossi Beilin's comments below), and MK Vilan pointed out that they want a ceasefire at least partially to prove their ability to govern and to generate economic development. Many counter by arguing that Hamas wants a ceasefire in order to establish greater weapons capabilities.

In Egypt too, the Israelis would find - and have found - a willing mediator. In many instances Egyptian and Israeli interests align: like Israel, Egypt is frightened by the rising power of Hamas and its own Islamic movement, the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt may also have another good reason for working to foster some sort of agreement. If the two state solution fails, Egypt might be forced to absorb Gaza; a move that would likely destabilize the country. A ceasefire agreement could be one step in preventing this outcome.

Nevertheless, MK Vilan noted, a ceasefire agreement is not particularly appealing to the Israeli government, since it would mean that its policy of sanctions against Hamas had failed. Furthermore, if rocket attacks continue to worsen, Israeli public opinion could push the government into military action, despite its lack of enthusiasm for such a move.

MK Vilan was pessimistic about the prospects for a broader peace deal with the Palestinians, which, according to statements by both Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, seems less and less likely to occur in 2008. Both Olmert and Abbas are currently very weak leaders, and MK Vilan had little to suggest for solving this problem. He did propose that the Palestinian side could be bolstered if Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti is released from prison in a prospective prisoner deal for Shalit. Barghouti is widely popular in the Palestinian community, and he may even be able to generate support from some pragmatists who currently support Hamas.

But on the Israeli side, MK Vilan implied that there is little hope at the moment. Because he has so little legitimacy, the Israeli Prime Minister is currently without an agenda. MK Vilan suggested that Olmert's best bet would be to move forward on the peace initiative, but he also recognized that progress is unlikely. Shas, the religious party that is holding together the governing coalition, would leave if negotiations advance too far. The coalition would fall apart, resulting in new elections.

Were these events to happen today, a recent poll in Haaretz gave Meretz 6 or 7 seats in Knesset (a gain of 1 or 2). But overall Israeli parliament would become more right-wing. While the current Knesset has 65-70 members who would support a peace deal, polls predict that a future government would be led by Likud, with approximately 70 seats belonging to the right, pushing a resolution far off to the future.

Such a scenario may be becoming more attractive to some Palestinian moderates who are losing hope in the two-state solution. MK Vilan pointed out that some are now taking the Hamas line: if they wait 20 years, the Palestinians will be the majority; at that point, the Israeli government will have to choose either democracy or Israel's Jewish identity. Yet, that future is dark for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. MK Vilan argued that it would mean at least another generation of bloodshed on both sides.

So with such pessimistic possibilities as MK Vilan laid out, is there any hope? One place to find it may be in the fact that the Meretz MK predicts that new elections will not occur until next March. As both past Israeli elections and the current Democratic and Republican primary races have shown, early polls don't always predict the final results. And in Israeli politics, a year is an eternity - a lot can still change.