Second Gaza Flotilla: Humanitarian Aid or a Political Protest?

Many people have been writing a lot of pieces expressing a wide range of opinions on the upcoming Gaza Flotilla. As is par for the course with anything relating to Israel I can predict with very high accuracy what a particular article or opinion piece is going to say based solely on the name in the by-line. People have their perspectives, their world views, and rarely do any of the folks who grapple with these issues on a regular basis surprise me. That’s fine, except everyone seems to be missing what I think the central issue with this second flotilla really is; the question of its goals and the mission it is actually seeking to accomplish.

New Gaza flotilla gearing up

Pro-Palestinian activists are ready to set sail with a second flotilla intended to break the blockade of Gaza.  The NY Jewish Week's Israel correspondent, Joshua Mitnick, contends that "Israel is better prepared this time, both diplomatically and militarily." He reports on differences with last year's situation, including the fact that the government of Turkey has withdrawn support for flotilla activists; Turkey is understood to be tied down with the refugee crisis at its border with Syria, and is said to be trying to repair last year's rupture with Israel.  Also:

... the fact that [Israel] has lifted a ban on imports into Gaza puts it on more solid ground for public diplomacy.  The restored flow of consumer goods and industrial raw materials to Gaza has given Israel a more effective position to argue against the flotilla.

In an April report, the International Monetary Fund described the economy of Gaza trying to “catch up” to normal levels: it noted a 15 percent jump in output in 2010, (though that remains 20 percent below what it was six years ago).

[But] Critics still say that Israeli restrictions on exports from Gaza and the ban on the import of building materials will greatly hamper any recovery in Gaza. “There have been improvements over the last year, but we’re far from a policy of free movement,” said Sari Bashi, director of Gisha, an Israeli nonprofit that advocates for lifting restrictions on the Palestinians there. ...

This month's issue of "In These Times" magazine has an interview with a 

Disagreeing (somewhat) on Nation article

My difference of opinion with Ron Skolnik's view of a recent Nation article is more about nuance and emphasis than the facts.  Ron sums up this article as follows:

In "The Romance of Birthright Israel", Kiera Feldman synthesizes her 2010 Birthright experience with a series of interviews with past participants, as well as Birthright funders and staff.  She comes away seeing the Birthright excursion as a shallow, feel-good but purposely-mind-numbing exercise, whose ulterior motive is no longer Jewish heritage or continuity, but pro-Israel advocacy of the right-wing kind.

I'm disturbed by this Nation article, not because there isn't some truth in it, but because it's written with the same mostly one-sided anti-Israel slant that The Nation and the Nation Institute has taken for years.  The most egregious of their actions was the Institute's decision a couple of years ago to actually sponsor Philip Weiss's Mondoweiss online publication, which is relentless in its hostility toward Israel. (It's not clear to me that this sponsorship has continued, but Weiss and his co-editor, Adam Horowitz, still frequently write for the magazine.)

AUSCHWITZ BORDERS?

I am posting this on behalf of its author, Meretz USA board member, Dr.. Robert O. Freedman, whose full byline can be found below.

              One of the most unfortunate aspects of the response to President Obama’s recently announced plan for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement, has been the unthinking reactions  to it. A careful reading of the Obama speech at the US State Department on May 19th would reveal that it was very sympathetic to Israel. Yet the misinterpretation of his call for a peace settlement to be based on the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed land swaps, has cast a shadow  on his efforts to restart the long-stalled Israeli Palestinian peace talks.

     The first error made by those who criticized the Obama speech---from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to Republican  lawmakers seeking to make Israel a wedge issue in the 2012 Presidential campaign---was to assert that President Obama was trying to force Israel back to the 1967 borders. Netanyahu claimed that the 1967 borders were  “indefensible” , Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney said Obama was “throwing Israel under the bus”, and some right-wing  Israelis and their supporters in the United States carried the argument further, asserting that President Obama was seeking to force Israel back to “Auschwitz borders”. All of this, of course, is nonsense. 

Givat Haviva project for Arab-Jewish coexistence

The other day (June 22), Dan Fleshler--a colleague in New York-based dovish Zionist circles--posted the following piece at the Huffington Post, originally posted at his Realistic Dove blog.  I regret having inadvertently missed this program at my neighborhood synagogue, sponsored by the Givat Haviva Educational Foundation.  

This reminds me of my visit to the Israeli-Arab town of Kfar Kara (mentioned in this article) and also having a pleasant conversation in Hebrew at the Givat Haviva Institute, with a young Israeli Arab woman from that very town, when I was on a young adult tour of Israel in 1982.  From what I recall, relations between Israel's Jews and Arabs were generally better at that time.

Defiant Dreamers of Arab-Jewish Coexistence by Dan Fleshler

.... 62 percent of Palestinian Arabs who live in Israel believe that Israeli Jews "are foreigners who do not fit in this region, and they will eventually leave the country," .... A similar proportion opposes Israel's continued existence as a Jewish Zionist state.

Meanwhile, 68.1 percent of Israeli Jews told the pollsters that they oppose public commemorations of what Arabs call the Nakba... in 1948. 53 percent say the state has the right to encourage Arab citizens to emigrate, and 62 percent say as long as the conflict continues, Arab voters should have no say in Israeli foreign policy....

Gaps in the narratives are matched by disparities in income and educational achievement, as well as systemic discrimination against Israeli Arabs. How in the world can these people ever live together?

Bob Dylan performs in Israel again

Okay, I can't resist. On Monday night I'm going to see Dylan, for the 3rd time in Israel. It's either three strikes and you're out as they said back in the old country, or as they say in Israel -- pa'am shlesheet, glidah (third time, ice cream).

The first time, in Park Hayarkon in 1987 was a disaster. Dylan was in a totally non-communicative mode, and the only saving grace was the opening set by Byrds lead singer Roger McGuinn, and the second set by his relatively unknown at the time backup band, none other than Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, who were more Dylan than Dylan himself. The second time was in '93 in Heichal Hatarbut in Tel Aviv, when he compensated for the first time.

Now comes the big challenge of competing with Leonard Cohen's triumphant concert in the same Ramat Gan national soccer/football stadium a year and a half ago. So, in honor of the occasion, here's a collage of my personal choice of some of his best songs.

Shlomo Avineri: Facts vs. 'Narrative'

A couple of weeks ago, there was an article in the NY Times by Palestinian president Abbas. I was troubled by it because, having done the research for "O Jerusalem" by Larry Collins and Dominque Lapierre, I was familiar with the events of 1948 and frankly felt the article was self- serving and not factual. So I am thankful that Prof. Shlomo Avineri took it on to separate truth from "narrative," in this Ha'aretz op-ed:

.... it is a fact, not a "narrative" -- that in 1947, the Zionist movement accepted the United Nations partition plan, whereas the Arab side rejected it and went to war against it. A decision to go to war has consequences....

'Why Israel Matters' by Stuart Schoffman

Just saw something fascinating online at the Jewish Journal, by a cousin of mine, Stuart Schoffman — an Israeli writer, columnist and translator, who is a fellow of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, where he edits "Havruta: A Journal of Jewish Conversation":

.... Given the persistence of anti-Semitism, how can the Jews function in the world? A hundred years ago, Jews differed vociferously on this question, much as they do today. Then as now, not all Jews agreed that political Zionism, the establishment of an independent Jewish state, was the best solution. The very Orthodox believed that only God, in keeping with Divine plan, could redeem our people, and all that Jews could do, as ever, was pray and observe God’s law. The Yiddish secularists known as Bundists believed that universal socialism would lift all boats, Jewish and gentile alike. And various Jews worried that a Jewish state in the Land of Israel would inevitably become too chauvinistic, militaristic, religiously fervid for its own good.

Some Jews argued that an autonomous entity was indeed necessary, but should be situated somewhere other than Palestine, in a land less holy and complicated. ...

A harsh view of Israeli democracy

Our friend, Dr. Thomas Mitchell, suggested a blog post on this Haaretz op-ed by Ali Haider, a  co-executive director of Sikkuy: The Association for the Advancement of Civic Equality in Israel.  The article begins as follows:

Yale closes anti-Semitism institute

FRIENDS ,

Who has time to think about this when the world is in such chaos--typhoons, storms, towns wiped out, and those guys (Weiner, Strauss-Kahn, Schwarzenegger, et al.) behaving badly--taking our attention away from the business at hand, i.e., economic recovery? What is one to say, let alone think, about anti-Semitism in New Haven? (Oh, that again.)

I have several correspondents who are to the right of me. Sometimes I forward their communications, mostly not. Last week I received one about Yale University dropping its International Institute on Anti-Semitism, which it created five years ago. I read the report carefully and feel that Yale may, in fact, have caved in to political pressure from Arab sources. I googled the subject and noted that the only people exercised by Yale's decision are institutions like the ADL and a right-wing columnist, Caroline Glick. But this doesn't mean that they are wrong. [Read JTA's news report on this matter.]

Anti-Semitism is a problematic issue. It has existed for a very long time and in many places. And in its most recent reincarnation there has been much overlap between anti-Israel positions and drifting into the anti-Semitic camp. I struggled with this subject, thinking I didn't want to do a "shrai arai" (basically meaning, "woe is me, the world is against me") number. But I have been noting that the left-wing of the larger progressive camp (the latter of which I am part of) really goes out of its way to ignore the topic of anti-Semitism in Islamic countries.

Peace before the end of Obama's second term

Three days after President Obama's inauguration in January 2009, I crawled out on a thin limb and predicted that there would be peace in the Mideast before the end of Obama's second term.

On this, my last solemn before the summer hiatus, the limb has gotten thinner. But I dare to repeat my prediction. Obama will be reelected next year and there will be peace before the end of his second term.

I base this double prediction on two facts.

'Shavuot 2011: obscenities as words of Torah'

A number of us have taken notice of a disturbing YouTube video (click below, on this page) that Haaretz columnist, Yossi Sarid (leader of the Meretz party from '97 until 2003) writes about:

'This isn't the Torah we received. Since that time, Israel has been swallowed up by the Land of Israel and disappeared inside its maw.'

Go to your computer right now and watch the frightening video clip posted on YouTube as a memento of Jerusalem Day (it's called "Yom Yeru 2011" ). Not a handful, but hundreds of young people high on hard-core nationalism wave blue-and-white flags....

"Death to the Arabs, death to the leftists," they chanted. "The Temple will be rebuilt, the mosque will be destroyed." "Kahane lives, Mohammed is dead." "Itbach al-Arab" ("Death to the Arabs" in Arabic ). ...

G. Baskin: What happens in September?

Friends,
Hurrah for those who came out yesterday and marched with the "Progressives" in the Israel Day Parade. We were around 125-130 people. We were young and old--I saw a father and his daughter-- we were from several "progressive" organizations and the spirit was great. We sang and walked carrying signs and banners.

Yes, there were those who cursed us, but there were more of those who saw us with our Peace Now signs, our Meretz banner, singing songs of peace, who clapped and held up two fingers for victory. Overall I felt there were more people on the sidewalk who cheered us on then those who disapproved. That's a positive. On that note, below is a realistic appraisal by Gershon Baskin of how things are on the ground. The message of Meretz USA right now is to return to negotiations. Soon I will send out news about the change that Meretz USA will be undergoing.--Lilly

'September Mania'

by Gershon Baskin

The best thing that could happen is to return to negotiations; but if not, it's imperative to prevent a return to a violent intifada.

Should Diaspora Jews act politically re Israel?

Veteran Israeli journalist, Gershom Gorenberg, writes a biting piece on the right-of-center commentator and think-tank intellectual Daniel Gordis, at his "South Jerusalem" blog ("Arrogance 101. Lecturer: Daniel Gordis").  Gordis reportedly took a visiting J Street delegation to task, but left before hearing them out in turn.  This is a selection from Gorenberg's post:

 .... Gordis asserts that J Street’s members should not be taking a position on Israeli policy because its members don’t live here and don’t understand the situation. He strongly suggests that those who do live here, who do know more about “the complexity of this conflict,” don’t want “to give away the store” by making the territorial concessions necessary for peace at present. Reading his words, one is supposed to think that “we Israelis” all agree with him.

Interestingly, though, Gordis himself works for a think-tank that has received funds from Diaspora Jews such as Ron Lauder and Sheldon Adelson, who have extremely strong views on what policy Israel should take. The Shalem Center is devoted to spreading  neoconservative and hawkish ideas in Israel, while also serving as a bullpen for right-wing pols such as Moshe Ya’alon and Natan Sharansky when the right is out of power here.

An eye-opener regarding Netanyahu's 'tantrums'

Also at my recent Tikkun blog post, there's this very instructive comment from Louie Lewy (don't know if this is his real name either), who pointed out the following regarding Prime Minister Netanyahu's dispute with Pres. Obama about negotiating Israel's borders: