Preview of ISRAEL HORIZONS, Winter 2011

Due to financial difficulties during these hard times, the decision has been made that this will be the final print edition of IH.  But we still anticipate an annual print publication to report on our work and views. Since printing and mailing costs have skyrocketed in recent years, we especially need your help for this purpose.  Only you can keep us going!

If you are progressive, pro-peace and pro-Israel, please give generously to Meretz USA (contributions are tax-deductible and may be made via our website or in the mail). Also consider joining us on the coming “Israel Symposium,” March 26-April 2, 2011. Call us at 212.242.4500 for more information.  

The contents of this final print issue of IH are outlined below.  Click on the Web links for earlier online versions of these articles and features, which were updated and refined for the print edition of IH:

Ripeness or insanity? by Thomas Mitchell, Ph.D.

While emphasizing that he only represents his personal perspective with this post, I am pleased to share this commentary by the independent foreign relations analyst, Dr. Thomas Mitchell:

The international mediation theorist I. William Zartman has written that most attempts at international mediation fail because the moment is not ripe for negotiations. Ripeness, according to Zartman consists of three elements: a hurting stalemate, legitimate representatives, and a formula that offers a way out. Just as an exercise, let’s compare these three elements with the present situation before the peace process industry shoves us into another round of negotiations.       

A hurting stalemate is a situation that is not comfortable for either side and often involves a threat to the existing balance-of-power with the stronger power usually losing position to the weaker power but at great cost to the weaker power. Hamas is quite comfortable with the status quo because it believes that time is on its side and that it is better to wait for better terms that will allow it to destroy Israel in the future. The Israeli government is quite comfortable with the status quo because it believes that it has America in its pocket. In fact, stalemate is the glue that holds this governing coalition together.

Both sides pursuing 'unilateralism'

The New York Jewish Week, the main Jewish community weekly in the New York area, may be very representative of the majority of the organized American Jewish community's cultural and political sensitivities.  It is both liberal (at least moderately so) and very Jewish-focused, while also providing  a platform for elements on the political right of the community.  Regarding Israel, it editorially supports direct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority for a two-state solution.  

In the new issue this week, its Washington correspondent, James  Besser, reports on Palestinian efforts to gain international support for statehood while bypassing negotiations with Israel.  Both his analysis and the editorial on this subject mostly blame the Palestinians for not engaging forthrightly with an Israeli government that has welcomed direct talks.

But in understandably rejecting "unilateralism," neither piece emphasizes that pursuing ambitious settlement expansion plans in East Jerusalem and the West Bank is a form of unilateralism on Israel's part. It's this that has prompted the Palestinians to look for a diplomatic alternative to bilateral negotiations.

Meretz MK Nitzan Horowitz: Two Injustices and One Putrid Compromise

I am passing on, in translation, an email from Meretz MK Nitzan Horowitz, who throws light on how the current Netanyahu government is using the Knesset to chip away at democracy, and at civil liberties and human rights:

Last night (Monday), in one evening, the Israeli Knesset passed two injustices and one putrid compromise.  Taken together, they intensify the damage to human rights, and they have no place in a democracy.

This evening was not unusual.  Each week, the coalition of Bibi-Lieberman-Barak-Yishai passes regulations, emergency measures, and laws that pulverize Israel’s character as a democratic country. 

Most of these things don’t even make it into the headlines, and only a handful of Knesset members – who could be counted on one hand – stand up against this disgrace.  Most of them are generally the members of Knesset belonging to Meretz.

Here are a few references and links to this depressing night in the Chamber last night:

That square in Ramallah

Hussein Ibish has just informed me that the square in Ramallah (the West Bank capital), which caused an uproar last year (and a small tumult when Meretz USA visited there in March) because it was named for a terrorist, was actually so named ten years ago!  Dr. Ibish indicated that an Israeli TV crew found it less than a year ago, and touched off a firestorm against the current Palestinian Authority leadership, which had nothing to do with this ill-considered decision.

Palestinian Refugees Issue Cannot Be Avoided

In a recent edition of the Canadian Magazine Outlook, and re-printed on the Meretz USA blog, there is a pro and con set of articles regarding the BDS movement. But in his con article, Dr. Steven Scheinberg makes a point that I think deserves much deeper exploration that goes well beyond the BDS debate.

Scheinberg discusses the Palestinian insistence on the “Right of Return (RoR),” and he says: “The assertion of the so-called “right of return” is a non-starter in any peace process, as much as an Israeli rightist call for an indivisible Jerusalem under Jewish rule.”

My own stance on RoR is one that has made me few friends on either side of the debate, and I’ll get to that view below. But first, I think it needs to be pointed out that the approach Scheinberg is pressing here is the real non-starter.

It is, of course, axiomatic that there can be no two-state solution that potentially includes millions of Palestinian refugees coming to live in Israel. But when supporters of peace take the attitude that RoR must simply be removed from the discussion, they betray a total lack of understanding of Palestinian nationalism which ultimately dooms any ideas they may come up with as to how to resolve this vexing and destructive conflict.

Without getting into a long exposition on the evolution of Palestinian nationalism, the events of 1947-1949, al-naqba, or “the catastrophe” for Palestinians were obviously fundamental to the future development of that national consciousness. And a key component of that consciousness, for better or worse, was the hope that at some future date, Palestinians who were expelled or fled during Israel’s War of Independence would be able to return to their homes.

Put simply, this is not an item that can just be removed from the table before negotiations. It can and must be discussed.

In 2007, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, then the opposition leader, told a US congressional delegation that until the Palestinians dropped RoR they could not be considered to be serious about peace. So, this problem goes much farther than one peace activist’s view.

By no means should we underestimate the point that RoR is a red line for Israelis. The overwhelming majority of Israelis, with the exception of a very small minority on the far left, would sacrifice all international support, including that of the US, and be prepared to go to war rather than risk giving millions of refugees the option of returning to Israel.

Indeed, supporters of RoR sometimes, in my experience, underestimate the depth and breadth of Israeli opposition to this idea. It is far stronger than any issues of land and, while it may not be a more passionate point for Israeli Jews (and other Jews worldwide) than Jerusalem, the consensus against any compromise on this point is far more broad than it is on any part of Jerusalem except the Wailing Wall/Temple Mount area.

While all this may make it seem like this question resembles the irresistible force meeting the immovable object, that dynamic is only strengthened when one side or the other insists that the issue must be summarily removed from the discussion in their favor.

There has been considerable speculation that most refugees would not wish to return behind the Green Line if given the choice. That is less than convincing for most Israeli Jews, but it does mean there is a potential opening for compromise that can only be found through discussion.

Similarly, Israel has, at times, suggested that it would compensate refugees and help with their resettlement, and many have speculated that if such an agreement could be reached, Israeli might be willing to accept some degree of moral responsibility for the refugee problem. Again, that falls well short of Palestinian demands, but it demonstrates that if Israeli Jews and Palestinians, as well as their respective diasporas, could have a rational series of discussions about this topic it could conceivably be resolved.

Is There a Right of Return?

One of the key foundations of RoR is UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which states that “(The General Assembly) Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”

Supporters of RoR generally rely on this resolution to back their claim because it comes the closest by far to capturing the Palestinian view of RoR. The problem is that a General Assembly resolution does not have any force of international law, and therefore, by itself 194 does not compel Israel to do anything.

But the right is also found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. -Article 13 [2]) and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. -Article 12). Here, the problem for advocates of RoR is that these provisions only guarantee the right to return to one’s country, not necessarily to the specific place he or she lived before they became refugees.

In my view, the sum of these parts is that return to any part of Palestine, i.e. the West Bank and Gaza, would satisfy international law regarding the refugees. Clearly, justice demands that there also be substantial compensation for Palestinian suffering and material loss, and this would be no small sum.

In my view, Israel has a heavy burden, but it does not bear the total burden. Great Britain, the United States, the UN as well as Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and other Arab states all had substantial roles in creating the refugee problem and perpetuating it as well. In the increasingly unlikely scenario where there is a separate Palestinian state, they will need a lot of help anyway, and helping to increase both national and personal wealth will be a needed shot in the arm in any case, so all these entities coming together to right their previous wrongs is both just and pragmatic. And for Israel’s part, finding a way to allow some refugees back behind the Green Line, perhaps by family re-unification, would be crucial in convincing Palestinians to accept less than what they are currently demanding.

In sum, my view is this: I don’t agree with the way many Palestinians interpret RoR, especially some of the more radical pro-RoR groups and I do believe that its full implementation is clearly anathema to a two-state solution. But I absolutely support the Palestinians’ right to press an issue that is fundamental to their national identity and of supreme importance to so many Palestinians. That importance is demonstrated in the eyes of so many Palestinians I have met who still keep keys to houses they lived in before 1947-49, or still have deeds or other documents of ownership of such houses. I don’t support their view, but I absolutely support their right to hold it and pursue it.

How Can This Be Discussed?

More than any other issue, RoR touches on the question of Israel’s birth. Again, it would take a long exposition to tease out all the questions around what could have been done differently in the first half of the 20^th century, and I believe many mistakes were made not only by the Zionist and Arab national movements, but by the full roster of international actors.

The fact of the matter is, whether Palestinians fled or were expelled, Israel was built on the former homes of some 800,000 Arabs, who now number, with their descendants, nearly 5 million refugees. The loss and dispossession there is enormous, and it is aggravated by the fact that, again for whatever reason, many of those refugees have lived and continue to live in squalid camps.

At the same time, Israel’s very existence is a tonic to Jews, in and out of Israel, who live with a history of being chased out of one country after another until, at the time of their greatest peril during World War II, many were left with nowhere to flee to. And Israel, for better or worse, is home to millions of Jews and, as a Jewish state, a central piece of the Jewish identity for millions more. A Jewish state, as refuge and as a defining piece of Jewish identity, is a strong motivator for many Jews.

Many might argue that, for both Jews and Palestinians, the best thing would be for these national dynamics to change, on either or both sides. But until that happens, this is what we’re working with.

A realistic conversation can only be started when Jews, in and out of Israel, drop their insistence that the Palestinians simply forget about RoR, and Palestinians acknowledge that, whether they think a huge number of refugees would return behind the Green Line or not, RoR represents a potential threat to the state that Israelis worked very hard to build. These are very difficult acknowledgments for both sides, but they can be made, as I’ve seen and experienced first-hand when I’ve discussed these issues with people passionately in this question on both sides.

And for Israel especially, time is working very much against them on this point. As Israel continues to behave in a more and more bigoted fashion toward Arabs – with loyalty oaths proposed, rabbinical decrees against renting to Arabs, Israeli officials insisting that Muslim hotel workers not be allowed to work on the floors where they are staying in Washington, and the popular support for such things growing – Israel could, in the future, see a shift in the international consensus on refugees.

Right now, the bulk of the international community agrees that the way to resolve the issue of refugees is best solved through a combination of return to the West Bank and Gaza, resettlement in host or third party countries and compensation. But Israel’s recent actions as described above very much strengthens the position that anything other than full RoR is unacceptable and bigoted. Trying to pre-empt yet another final status issue before negotiation is a losing proposition for Israel, especially on this issue, which is one of the few that Israel has not lost ground on in the international arena---yet.

Rabbis for Human Rights on East Jerusalem

I briefly attended the very impressive conference of Rabbis for Human Rights-North America in New York, Dec. 6.  The one session I observed was on the conflict in neighborhoods of East Jerusalem where militant religious and nationalist Jews are moving in and pushing Palestinians out.  For about a year now, hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dovish Israeli Jews have been demonstrating against this in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, every Friday afternoon. 

Jerusalem is estimated to have a population of about 730,000, with 290,000 being Palestinian Arabs who live in East Jerusalem, along with 200,000 Israeli Jews who mostly live in Jewish neighborhoods built in East Jerusalem after the 1967 conquest.  The struggle in Sheikh Jarrah and one or two other areas adjoining the Old City is of Jews displacing Palestinians in their neighborhoods.  There is now a Walls of Jerusalem National Park in the area Jews call the City of David (I'm not disputing the historicity of this name, but only describing the nationalist nature of this conflict). 

Some Jews are claiming a right of return to pre-1948 homes, in areas where Jews were expelled during the 1948 war; this complicates the larger political issue. If Jews exercise their "right of return" to 1948 properties, how do they expect the great masses of Palestinians who have official international status as refugees not to claim the same right in what is now sovereign Israel?  These Jewish incursions into Arab areas also undermine the physical reality that would make for a negotiated two-state solution in which Jerusalem is divided between the two states along rational demographic lines. 

Another Progressive Says 'No' to BDS

Dr. Stephen Scheinberg, a Chicago native and dual US-Canadian citizen, is Emeritus Professor of History at Montreal’s Concordia University. Professor Scheinberg currently serves as co-chair of Canadian Friends of Peace Now. The following is adapted from his debate in Sept. 2009 with BDS movement leader Omar Barghouti at St. Michael's College in Winooskie, Vermont, and an updated version that was published in the Sept./October 2010 issue of Canadian Jewish Outlook  (my one point of respectful disagreement is that, yes, singling out Israel above all other violators of human rights is unfair and ill-informed, but in itself, not necessarily proof of antisemitism*):

Boycotting is a legitimate tactic given the right context. I boycotted grapes to support Caesar Chavez and California farm workers, and certainly never knowingly purchased products from apartheid South Africa. By the same token, I have heeded  the voices of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who call for boycotting goods produced in the West Bank settlements. Abbas also proclaims “We are not boycotting Israel because we have relations and we import” their products. I prefer to take their prescription rather than those who claim to be speaking in the name of a rather amorphous Palestinian civil society. 

It is disappointing that general, rather than settlement-focused, boycotting of Israel has been subscribed to by some progressives. They seem to be motivated by several factors.  First, there are those who have given up hope on a two-state solution and believe that a boycott will begin the process of the dissolution of Israel. Second, there are some who believe that Israel was conceived in sin, in 1948, and is therefore not worthy of salvation.  Third, it is more satisfying to some on the left to identify totally with the victim and adopt a tactic favored by some Palestinian militants. Whatever the combination of these motivating factors, I believe that it is not only a misguided tactic but one that is harmful to both Israelis and Palestinians.

Is Obama Charting a New Mideast Peace Course?

Now that the United States has officially abandoned its attempt to convince Israel to stop building settlements for just a little while, please?, everyone is waiting for Plan B. Those who still hope for a peaceful resolution to the Middle East conflict are hoping that the Plan B will include an American assertion of its positions, at least on the matter of borders.

Well, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was supposed to present Plan B on December 10 at the Saban Center of the Brookings Institute in Washington. But while her speech was more even-handed than what we’ve gotten used to, it was too short on specifics to be said to really mark a new direction. She reinforced the US commitment to Israeli security and the two-state solution and claims that, through renewed shuttle diplomacy, the US would facilitate continued negotiations that are purported to tackle all of the core issues.

The familiarity of her statements cannot but breed contempt, but there were a few hopeful signs:

BDS Won't End the Occupation

Gil Kulick is a long-time Middle East peace activist and a former US Foreign Service officer who served at the US embassy in Tel Aviv.  He is a member of the National Advisory Board of J Street, but the views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily represent J Street policy.  This article is adapted from Mr. Kulick's remarks in a debate about BDS on November 11, 2010, in Brooklyn, NY.  It will be featured in the coming issue of ISRAEL HORIZONS magazine.

I share the frustration of those who have turned to boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel out of despair over the lack of progress toward ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.  But I don’t have sympathy for those who advocate BDS as a means of eliminating Israel as a Jewish state; this includes many of its most ardent proponents in the Global BDS Movement. 

The Jewish Voice for Peace says that it takes no position on whether the outcome of this struggle should be two states or one state. The reality, however, is that anything other than a two-state solution means the disappearance of Israel as a Jewish state, which to me is totally unacceptable. 

But above all, whether your goal is two states or a single so-called “secular democratic state,” BDS will not get you there. If we don’t bring an end to the occupation through a negotiated two-state agreement in the near future, we will end up with one state, but it won’t be the kind of state that many BDS advocates envision.

I’m certain that Israeli Jews will never give up their country’s Jewish identity in favor of a phantom “secular democratic state” – an imaginary one with an Arab majority but perfect equality for all its citizens.  Rather, if we fail to end the occupation, Israel and the occupied territories will become an increasingly authoritarian de facto single state with a Palestinian majority, dominated by a Jewish minority. What you will have created is something resembling the apartheid state many claim – falsely – that Israel has already become.  In other words, BDS can create a fulfilling prophesy.

I’m afraid that things in Israel are already heading in that lamentable direction. We see many early signs of creeping quasi-fascism in the bills before the Knesset that would impose loyalty oaths, criminalize free speech, and restrict the rights of its Arab citizens. But efforts to demonize and delegitimize Israel through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions will only accelerate that trend.  

What BDS not do is induce Israelis to re-examine and reject the disastrous anti-democratic policies that Netanyahu's government is pursuing.  On the contrary, they will confirm the conviction that “the whole world is against us,” and that patriotic Israelis must rally around their hard-line government, whatever their misgivings.

BDS will not produce the outcome its proponents pursue, whether that’s to end the occupation or, perniciously, to bring about the collapse of the Zionist enterprise. Davka, they will only make the current intolerable situation worse.  So what, if anything, has a chance of bringing about the just and lasting peace we all sincerely seek, even if we have very different visions of what that means? 

I believe that the only thing that has a chance of turning Israel around from its self-destructive course is a tremendous shift in public opinion, both in Israel and the United States.  Something dramatic needs to be done to persuade Israelis and American Jews, as well as Palestinians, that there  a formula that can bring about a negotiated end to the occupation – which a great majority of Israelis actually desire – leading to two states for two peoples, while meeting Israel’s fundamental and legitimate security concerns.

We know there is such a formula, because its terms have been elaborated at least twice – in the Geneva Accord and the Ayalon-Nusseibeh initiative – by high-level and highly respected leaders on both sides.  Those terms were also laid out in the so-called Clinton Parameters, which the United States belatedly put forth after the failure of Camp David 2000 and, fatally, after the second Intifada had begun.  And Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert came painfully close to reaching an agreement along these lines in 2008, just before the current right-wing government unfortunately came to power.  As has often been wryly observed, “We can see the light at the end of the tunnel; we just can't find the tunnel.”

But these formulas have failed to gain traction with most Israelis, because they haven’t been confronted with any hard choices.  Efforts to cajole or bribe Netanyahu into halting settlement expansion have failed because the US has been unwilling, for whatever reason, to impose penalties for his refusal.  So far, it’s been all carrots and no sticks.  So, with their economy booming and terrorism almost completely in check, the Israeli public has felt no urgency to seriously challenge continuing settlement building and other peace-subverting policies.

The Palestinians may have come further toward compromise on core issues, but they too are holding out, at least publicly, on hard-core demands like the Right of Return, which I don’t doubt their leadership knows – notwithstanding the Global BDS Movement – they will have to relinquish in all but symbolic form in a final-status agreement.

If there is to be any chance for ending this stalemate – and ultimately the occupation – all that has to change, and soon.  The time has come for the United States – the only party that still has the residual trust of both sides – to audaciously confront both parties, and the Israeli and Palestinian publics, with hard choices. 

I believe the President of the United States, from the rostrum of the Knesset, should publicly put on the table the terms of an agreement, along the lines of the Clinton Parameters, that majorities of both Israelis and Palestinians, as well as in the United States, could see as a realistic and reasonable set of compromises that meets each side’s most fundamental requirements.

Having laid out this vision – on which there is already a large degree of consensus – the U.S. should challenge both sides to embrace it or be seen by their own publics and the rest of the world as the recalcitrant party, standing in the way of a peaceful resolution of the conflict.  I could be naïve, but my guess is that the PLO under Abu Mazen is likely to be more amenable to such proposals than a Likud-led government, headed by Netanyahu and beholden to the militant settlers and the likes of Avigdor Lieberman.

And, finally, there must be consequences for whoever is seen as rejecting reasonable compromise and standing in the way of peace.  The U.S. must make it clear that there will be no more “business as usual” with Israel – or with the Palestinians – if they continue to block the road to peace.

This would be very tricky business. The President would have to tread an extremely thin line between tepid rhetorical responses – such as the State Department’s latest description of Israel’s outrageous announcement of 1,300 new housing units in East Jerusalem and Ariel as “unhelpful” – and blunt instruments like threatening to withhold military aid, which could provoke fear and defiance like that aroused by BDS.  I’m convinced that, with political will and diplomatic skill, it can be done.

If that needle can be threaded, I believe – or at least fervently hope – that the Israeli electorate, which until now has allowed itself to be convinced that “there’s no partner for peace,” would want to grasp this unprecedented opportunity and begin to turn away from right-wing obduracy standing in its way.  And I expect that a majority of American Jews would stand with our government in its daring effort to sever this most Gordian of knots. 

But of one thing I’m fairly sure: Israel feeling isolated and threatened by boycotts and divestment would be much less likely to take risks for peace – for the risks are real – than an Israel that felt its legitimate place in the family of nations was secure.

There is, of course, no guarantee that such a ploy would work, or even that it will be undertaken.  It’s not unimaginable that the Palestinians could prove equally recalcitrant, that Hamas could sabotage any agreement, or that the Israeli public has moved so irredeemably to the right that they would reject even an exquisitely fair and balanced set of proposals.  Or that the conventional Israel Lobby and a Republican-controlled Congress could generate so much opposition in the United States that a weakened president would feel constrained to back down once again.

Under such circumstances, the role of pro-Israel, pro-peace organizations like J Street – and indeed every person who is committed to peace for Israel and justice for the Palestinians – could be critical in giving the president the backing – and the backbone – he would need to stand his ground.  We must speak out publicly and vociferously in support of the President, flood Congress and the media with calls and letters, and give generously to groups working to mobilize support in the Jewish community and beyond.

Even all that could well prove insufficient, but I believe it’s our only hope. Traditional quiet diplomacy seems to have run out of steam.  No less than such a daring initiative has a chance of breaking the impasse at which nearly two decades of negotiations have arrived.

Let’s hope that very soon, policymakers in Washington come to the same conclusion.   If Barack Obama, with all his peacemaking ambition and goodwill, cannot bring about a two-state solution in the next two years, no American President will again risk his prestige on such a losing venture, perhaps in our lifetimes.  And for me, the consequences of failure and the prospect of endless conflict, oppression, and accelerating isolation and erosion of Israel’s democracy are too awful to contemplate.

Scientists refute Khazar origins of Ashkenazim

I've just been informed of scientific research that bears on the work of Shlomo Sand, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University who created quite a stir with his book, "The Invention of the Jewish People." When in New York in October 2009 to promote the Verso Press English-language edition, he charmed a packed audience of the "Marxist Theory Colloquium" at New York University with his wit and devastating attacks on ideas that most Jews and Israelis hold dear.  (I blogged on this at the time.)

His notion is that the people we know as Jews are a disparate collection of physically unrelated populations, who are descendants of converts, and mostly not of the original inhabitants of the land of Israel; and that the Palestinian Arabs are actually descended from the ancient Judeans. His basic points of argumentation include:
    1)    that the Romans never "exiled" the Jews from Judea (because there was no Imperial expulsion decree) and that most of the survivors eventually converted to Islam with the Arab conquest about 600 years after the Roman victories over the two great Jewish rebellions;
    2)    that Ashkenazi Jews are mostly descended from the Khazars―a Turkic people, originally from near the Caspian Sea, who largely adopted Judaism over 1000 years ago;
    3)    that Sephardic Jews are mostly descended from Berbers who had a Jewish kingdom that fell to the Arab-Muslim conquest of North Africa;
    4)    that the idea of a "Jewish people" was "invented" by Zionist thinkers in the late 19th century.
 
An article in Newsweek in June, 2010, reported that the Khazar thesis has been refuted in recent DNA research on geographically diverse Jewish communities, which was written up for The American Journal of Human Genetics.  This news led me to survey other articles on this subject, which reveal a complex reality:

1. that descendants of the priestly caste (the kohanim) bear genetic markers that may actually date back to the time of the Biblical story of the Exodus; 
2. that Ashkenazim and Sephardim resemble each other more than they do non-Jews; 
3. that Jews mostly inbred in diaspora communities yet also mixed with local populations among whom they settled, with an impressive number becoming converts during the early years of the Roman Empire. 

In other words, there is a basis in fact for at least some of Dr. Sand's claims, but he presents them tendentiously―especially his exaggerated assertion that most Jews have no common origin in ancient Israel or Judea.

Netanyahu: The Master Juggler

If history records the greatest accomplishment of the government of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu so far, it should be that of a master juggler. As the newest Wikileaks documents reveal, Netanyahu has being able to achieve a feat that, in my opinion, rivals the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself. One way or another, he has managed to present himself as a thoughtful, concerned and peace-seeking leader to the international community, while at the same time maintain a right-wing coalition that had, slowly but surely, and with the complicity of the Labor party, eroded human rights, democracy, and the values of the Zionist movement. He has deflected pressure both from the international community, and from his own coalition partners on the right, by carrying on small gestures, on one direction or the other, that ultimately do little but maintain the status quo.

That is really impressive. Just like a juggler, being able to maintain his equilibrium while being pushed form all sides, while keeping the little balls in motion. The problem is, the balls go nowhere. They continue moving in a perpetual circular pattern with no forward direction.

No serious person can argue that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not complex, or that the solutions are simple without painful concessions and sacrifices of both sides. It is clear that any agreement carries tremendous risk with it. But the evasive and maneuvers of the current government just make the situation worst because they send the signal that we have no end-game. It is not only that it is hard to get to a solution, we don't even agree on what this solution should be. And the absence of an endgame is frustrating and creates hopelessness among Palestinians, which in turn will eventually just fuel more violence.

There is a simple way to end this. Regardless of the difficulties in negotiating an agreement, a clear commitment today to a two-state solution, with assurances that a future Palestinian state will receive equivalent territory to the pre-1967 armistice lines, will mark a clear path, and show light at the end of the tunnel. But that commitment will jeopardize Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition, and for now, he seems content to just keep the balls rolling in circles.

However, the problem is, no matter how skillful the juggler, sooner or latter, the balls must stop rolling, and the act must come to an end.

Hanukkah: The pride & the pity

The traditional Hanukkah story is a source of pride for the Jewish people. We are taught that a small army of freedom fighters, the Maccabees, led by the heroic priestly family of Mattathias and his seven sons, successfully resisted the cruel pagan tyranny of the ancient Greco-Syrian Seleucid dynasty. This is not untrue, but it's only part of the story.

We are usually not taught the far more complex reality that the Maccabean war of liberation was also a civil war between rural “fundamentalist” religious adherents of the old order and the more educated and cosmopolitan Hellenized Jews of the city, who voluntarily and eagerly embraced the Greek culture of the Syrian empire. The Maccabees surely killed many of these “liberal” Jews in their struggle.

It is ironic that the Hasmonean family— the Maccabees’ ruling dynasty— within one generation of their victory for Jewish values over Hellenism, was taking Greek names, speaking Greek and transforming Judea into a Jewish Hellenistic kingdom.  These rulers alienated the masses of the Jewish people by extreme acts of cruelty and debauchery. Their military prowess ultimately undermined their rule, as conquered peoples were converted to Judaism by the sword; Herod emerged from one such Judaized people to marry his way into the Hasmonean clan and murder them into extinction. Herod’s disastrously bloody reign led to Judea’s disintegration as an independent state and its domination by Rome.

Nevertheless, the Maccabees were brave and valiant warriors who did in fact win great victories over a powerful and authoritarian foreign enemy. But to take this snapshot in time as the whole picture is to accept a one-dimensional myth. For some of the reasons mentioned, Rabbinic Judaism accorded Hanukkah a minor religious status. (For example, although obligated to light the Menorah for eight nights, there is no requirement for religious Jews to refrain from work.) 

When considered within its historic context of bloody Jewish civil wars and despotic rule, both embedded within the Hanukkah story and in the eventual downfall of Judea within its wake, Hanukkah provides a cautionary tale. Fifteen years after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, we should be warned against the dangers of fratricidal hatred, of demonizing our political foes, and of failing to understand the need at times for compromise and accommodation. 

So enjoy the holiday, but please make note of this history. This post is an update and reprise of previous blog entries on Hanukkah.