Cheering Iran & Israel at Oscars & NY Times

Apparently, the Islamic Republic couldn't stop itself from touting "A Separation," its winning submission for the Academy Award in the Best Foreign Language category, as a victory over "Zionism," for triumphing over Israel's "The Footnote" and three other contenders.   The Iranian film won despite the Islamic regime's censorship, as its film industry has long earned international kudos for its "non-political" artfulness.  Israel's film industry is also outstanding but not lucky in this venue, with "The Footnote" being the tiny Jewish state's tenth finalist (but no cigar as of yet). 

The Iranian director showed class and grace in his acceptance speech and in his general behavior in his visit to LA for this Hollywood extravaganza.  This is how the JTA put it:

Director-writer Asghar Farhadi of “A Separation,” which centered on the conflict of a husband and wife in a complex and difficult society, struck a note of international conciliation in his acceptance speech. He spoke of his country’s “rich and ancient culture that has been hidden under the heavy dust of politics,” and of his countrymen as “people who respect all cultures and civilizations and despise hostility and resentment."
In a backstage interview, Farhadi heaped special praise on Poland’s Agnieszka Holland, the director of “In Darkness,” describing her as “a great director, a great filmmaker and a great human being.” Holland's Jewish father's parents were killed in the Warsaw Ghetto. ...

This NY Times op-ed by a Jewish-Iranian-American, Roya Hakakian, "Iran and Israel Share Bonds," is an eloquent plea for the two countries to back away from their conflict.  In a radio interview, she recalls that as a young person growing up in Iran, the regime attempted to popularize antisemitism, but her experience with Muslim Iranians is that most simply didn't buy it:

'Ask for what you want'

From my Florida Jewish Journal column of 2/28/12, 'My Kid brother died at 96' by J. Zel Lurie (98):

.... At the funeral, a granddaughter, Dr. Jenifer Weiss, an osteopathic physician, enumerated "some of the gifts he gave me." ... :

• ..."Be skeptical but try it anyway."

• "Tell the truth and know when you are lying."

• "Ask for what you want." ...

I reflected on these maxims as I flew home to ... Delray Beach. "Ask for what you want" came up at the Mardi Gras dinner that evening. Red beans and rice was on the menu. I told my partner Dorothy that I'd like red beans without rice. She said it is already mixed. "I'll ask for it," I said and I did, and a piping hot dish of delicious red beans without rice arrived.

On a higher level, I wish that the serious gap between Hamas and the Likud Government could be narrowed just as easily. I wish that instead of telling Abbas that he could have peace or Hamas, not both, that Israel would ask Hamas to join the PLO and the peace process. Ask for what you want and you might get it.

Purim Massacre in Hebron, Feb. 24, 1994

There were a few small-scale Palestinian terrorist attacks in the preceding months, but this was the first major blow to the Oslo Peace Process.  Baruch Goldstein's extreme act prompted numerous revenge attacks by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which cost scores of Israeli lives in the course of the next couple of years. 

Some voices in Meretz (Yitzhak Rabin's main coalition partner), and other dovish quarters, argued for Israel to forcibly remove the extremist settlers from Hebron and/or nearby Kiryat Arba (where Goldstein lived).  We don't know if such a resolute act of contrition would have changed history by allaying Palestinian anger, but some believe that it would have, while also removing the most militant of settler communities from its base at a time that most Israelis would have supported such a move.

Prime Minister Rabin reportedly came close to making this decision, but in the end decided to stay rigidly with the gradual Oslo timetable for negotiating the future of the settlements as a final status issue.  This five-year timeframe from the initial 1993 Oslo agreement was derailed by the murder of Rabin and then by the terrorist attack wave that racked Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in February and March of 1996, prompting the narrow election of Binyamin Netanyahu over Shimon Peres. (Tomorrow, Feb. 28, is Rabin's 90th birthday.)

This is the Jewish Currents "Jewdayo" message of Friday, Feb. 24, 2012, on Goldstein:

Lack of Israeli-US coordination on Iran

This NY Times article, "Iran Raid Seen as Huge Task for Israeli Jets," discusses the technical obstacles facing Israel if it were to try to take out Iran's nuclear installations.  It implies that Israel may not have the capacity to carry out a successful attack, let alone face the military consequences of such an attack.

At the same time, an editorial in the NY Jewish Week, "A War That's Hardly Phony" takes Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, to task for warning against an Israeli attack on Iran, instead of warning Iran against going nuclear and continuing to threaten Israel:

Iran can rest easy, the general seemed to be saying. ... Usually, the way to prevent war is to convince the enemy — it is Iran, isn’t it? — that threatening Israel is not just something for Israel to fear but for Iran itself to fear, for such is the confidence and willingness of the United States and Israel to do something about it.
Instead, what was heard in Israel, according to one Jerusalem Post writer, is that the Americans “seem to be trying to undermine Israel’s confidence…” 

Norman Finkelstein supports Israel (sort of)

Back in 2007, Norman Finkelstein was supposed to take part in an Oxford University Student Union debate on one Israeli-Palestinian state versus two states.  Incongruously to the British-Jewish organizations that vociferously objected to, and torpedoed his participation at the time, Finkelstein was scheduled to debate on the side of two states.

Widely known as a stridently anti-Israel writer-activist, the former academic supports Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) as tactics against Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, but condemns the global BDS movement for being dishonest about its real agenda of displacing Israel; he also views a full right of return for Palestinians as unrealistic.  To the outrage of the anti-Israel far-left,  he denounces the BDS movement as a "cult."  Finkelstein says he's "not going to be in a cult again," as he admits to have been as a Maoist in his youth. 

Mind you, he is absolutely unsympathetic toward Israel's behavior in the conflict, and has long advocated a full withdrawal from the occupied territories--arguing against a negotiated withdrawal and exchange of territories as advocated by J Street's Jeremy Ben-Ami, in a debate televised on "Democracy Now"--but he is totally in favor of a two-state solution, based on the pre-June 1967 border and as originally validated by the UN partition plan of 1947 (i.e., the border was different in 1947, but he speaks clearly of an international consensus for the 1949-'67 armistice line).  By the way, Noam Chomsky, also a harsh critic of Israel, is likewise a supporter of two states, who has applauded the two-state model agreement known as the Geneva Accord, which our organization has long championed.  See this 31-minute video discussion, in which Finkelstein states his case:


Arguing the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign with Norman Finkelstein from HuffPoMonitor on Vimeo.

How would a one-state solution work?

Last week, I found a 2010 NY Times "Lede" blog post by Robert Mackey, "Thinking Outside the Two-State Box," (Sept. 7, 2010). He reported upon right-wing[!] voices within Israel advocating a one-state solution involving a single political entity for Israel, East Jerusalem and the West Bank, but excluding the Gaza Strip.  The Gaza Strip would be excluded in order to insure either a Jewish majority or a more equal ethnic balance between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, and presumably to isolate Hamas.  This provision alone would likely make it a non-starter for the Palestinians, but the unrealistic excision of Gaza is curiously not considered by the blogger. 

My general belief is that a repartition of Palestine into two states is the only solution, and that one state--given the history of violence and the ethnic, religious and cultural differences between Israelis and Palestinians--is no solution at all.  Yet the intractable nature of the conflict to-date leaves me open to the possibility of "outside the box" ideas.  Still, it's up to the one-state advocates to convince the majority of Israelis and Palestinians how one state would work. 

Mackey concludes with several paragraphs quoting the late Tony Judt's controversial NY Review of Books article in 2003, where he suggests the "unthinkable" of one bi-national Israeli-Palestinian state; but Judt is highly abstract and meta-historical in this article.  He somewhat overdraws a conclusion that Israel, as an "ethno-religious state" is "an anachronism," claiming that ethnic-based states are now passé.  Curiously, Judt did not consider the reverse trend toward new-old ethnic states created with the breakup of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and

For the Rights of Women vs. Islamists

The writer Meredith Tax wrote an Open Letter and petition to Human Rights Watch.  The letter is fantastic; she points out that Human Rights Watch supports the Islamists coming to power but never mentions the burden this places on women. 

I read the letter and signed the petition.  I am relieved that Meredith is telling it like it is and not being politically correct.  For the full text of her letter, here is the link: http://www.centreforsecularspace.org/?q=news/open-letter-kenneth-roth-human-rights-watch.  And the link to the petition is: http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/tohrw

--Lilly Rivlin

Dialogue on Hamas-Fatah unity

Paul Scham, who teaches Israel Studies at the University of Maryland, originally meant some version of this as a comment on my initial post on Fatah-Hamas unity, but he felt a need to modify it as a result of Haniyah's declaration a few days ago that Hamas will never accept Israel. But this did not change Paul's fundamental view.  I don't necessarily disagree with Paul; I think it's possible that Hamas can take a back seat to Fatah negotiating peace and then accept it by default.  Yet I'm not optimistic. I will provide a fuller response beneath Paul's comment.

From Paul Scham: It's 'Good for the Jews'

I think it ought to be recognized that Hamas-Fatah unity is "good for the Jews" -- and Israel.  Thus, Israel advances its own interest in a viable two-state solution by accepting that.  (Obviously I am arguing in the abstract.  Even Kadima and Labor, let alone the current government, are a long way from accepting that premise).

The primary reason for this is pragmatic.  It is a fact that has been true for years that Hamas represents between 25-35% of Palestinians.  Even if Fatah were to try to make peace on its own, Israel can't accept that because a huge chunk of the Palestinian people and leadership wouldn't have bought in.  I doubt Fatah would try to sign a treaty in the face of Hamas's opposition; if it did there is little reason to believe it could be enforced.

Commentary on 'Bedouin Removal' Policy

Our friend in Montreal, Stephen Scheinberg, an emeritus professor of history and a leading activist of Canadian Friends of Peace Now, brings our attention to a piece on the Bedouin, posted at "+972," an online magazine, based in Israel and Palestine:

Remains of an unrecognized Negev Bedouin village

Some of you know that my dedication to a better Israel is not merely concentrated on peace with the Palestinians.  A few years ago, on a visit to Israel, I was struck by Israel's blindness towards her indigenous people, the Bedouins.  The article below serves as an  update on the policy of Bedouin Removal and leaves me in pain.Where are the voices of liberal Jews in Canada, U.S. and elsewhere, to protest this massive violation of human rights? What do those who defend Israel as "the only democracy in the Middle East," have to say? As an American historian, it reminds me of the Cherokee Removal and other infamous acts.  Can this be the 21st century?--Steve

Discussing Ari Shavit's 'New Peace'

This is a new position that has been in the making for a few years.  Ari Shavit articulates it in Ha'aretz in "The New Peace": that a full, formal peace has not worked out (primarily in Shavit's view because the Palestinians have rejected it) and that a non-violent form of coexistence must be regarded as the "new peace." I've invited a number of friends and colleagues to respond.-- Lilly  

Their comments are included below:
1. Writer and veteran Americans for Peace Now activist Letty Cottin Pogrebin:

But what does the new peace look like and how would it be achieved and would both sides participate with equal commitment and what happens to the Islamic forces in the meantime and how many new "facts on the ground" will be established in the settlements in the meantime?  The article ends just before the hard part.

2. Lesley Hazelton, a liberal British-American Jewish writer, who has lived in Israel:

Part of the problem is the idealistic way we use the word peace -- images of skies full of doves and balloons, former enemies hugging each other in tears, calling each other brother and sister etc. In other words, we tend to have an all-or-nothing image of peace.  A Hallmark-card image.   Maybe we can start with people not killing each other, even if they don't like not killing each other.  Maybe we can start with no-war.  After all, the Egypt-Israel peace treaty has held, despite everything, for over thirty years, and there's certainly no love lost on either side (it even survived being inaugurated with the full Hallmark-card treatment, Nobels and all).  I think of England and Germany.  Or Japan and the US.   Perhaps peace is the uncomfortable accommodation nations make with each other in order to get on with the business of pursuing their own self-interest. -- L.

Zehava Gal-On New Leader of Meretz Party

On Monday night Zehava Gal-On was declared the new chair of the Meretz party.  She won majority support of about 950 members of the party central committee with 60.6% of the vote.  MK Ilan Gilon won 36.6%, and Ori Ophir won 2.8%.

In her victory speech, Zehava promised to re-energize the party, and bring back its sharp, smart, brash, against-the-stream spirit.  She said the party would be the party of the Left, and would not court the 'Center' or choose its positions based on what was easily marketable.  Y-net sums up her speech with this quote:

For a constructive response to Fatah-Hamas unity

It is reported that the Palestinians are on the verge of a unity government once again.  History argues against this as a lasting arrangement, but regardless, Israel's reaction is predictably and unnecessarily negative.  Prime Minister Netanyahu repeats the mantra that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority can have peace with Israel or unity with Hamas but not both.  While I understand this view, I think that Israel should have a more creative response. 

Why not critique this deal by suggesting that peace can be had with Israel if Hamas fully endorses the principle of peaceful coexistence?  If, as some argue, Hamas is moving toward accepting Israel, why not suggest that this be a component of the Palestinian unity process?  Instead of simply dismissing them as "terrorists," challenge Hamas to definitively and explicitly change from a movement rooted in "armed struggle" and antisemitism into one that makes history by breaking with its past. 

I know, Hamas sometimes hints at a long-term truce or armistice with Israel and at accepting Israel along the pre-1967 borders.  But a truce is not a peace, and demanding a particular end-point of a territorial agreement is not the same thing as negotiating a deal.  The many contentious issues between Israel and the Palestinians need to be hammered out in an overall treaty.  Moderates and progressives on both sides have long known that a territorial settlement will be based on the old '67 boundary but would also include a substantial exchange of territories.  Unfortunately, Israel is neither politically nor physically capable of removing over a half million Jews from all post-1967 neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and each and every West Bank settlement.  But, if both Israelis and Palestinians can summon the wit and the will, a deal is there to be made.

Israel vs. Iran: The Debate Rages On

Here are some recent news items and editorial comments:

1. Nuclear Inspection Visit to Iran Deemed a Failure By Robert F. Worth and David E. Sanger (NY Times): This assessment came as Iran’s supreme leader lashed out at the United States, vowing to retaliate against oil sanctions and threats of military action. The IAEA delegation, returned from its three-day visit to Iran, is reported as dissatisfied with the level of access and cooperation afforded them: ".... diplomats briefed on the trip said that Iranian officials had not answered the questions raised in an incriminating report issued by the agency in November... [that] cited documents and evidence of experiments with detonators that strongly suggested Iran might have worked on technologies to turn its nuclear fuel into working weapons and warheads. Tehran ... has refused to engage in substantive discussions or inspections."  
2. Trading Threats With Iran (NY Times editorial): Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are real and dangerous, but a military attack would backfire. “Israel must defend itself. This country’s alliance with Israel is crucial. We hope for everyone’s sake that Israel’s leaders weigh all of the consequences before they act. A military attack would almost certainly make things worse. Tough sanctions and a united diplomatic front are the best chance for crippling Iran’s nuclear program” 
3. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius warned on the looming threat of an Israeli attack, while its editorial page voiced the same line as the NY Times, for sanctions and diplomacy rather than an attack.  Click to watch How Will Iran's Threats Affect U.S.-Israeli Ties?,  the discussion last week on the PBS Newshour between David Ignatius and David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Alternatives needed now for 2 states? (Not yet)

Some people are saying that since Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are a non-starter, the settlements are continuing, and the international community seems to be unable to jump-start the peace process (President Obama’s preoccupied with the elections, and the Europeans with the fate of the Euro-zone), the two-state solution is dead and we--who believe in the necessity of an end to the occupation and a non-violent political resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--should begin to explore alternative solutions: Like a Palestinian state in the West Bank with provisional borders, a unilateral Israeli “convergence” (disengagement), a confederation of Israel-Palestine-Jordan, or a bi-national one state solution.

Anyone who doubts the importance of the international community in the achievement of progress, or who challenges the Palestinian application for membership in the UN, would do well to recall that the basis for the legitimacy of the State of Israel was UNGA Resolution 181, otherwise known as the Partition Plan.  That served as the basis for Ben-Gurion’s declaration of the independent State of Israel. Thus the international community played a key role in the establishment of the state.

The Partition Plan called for the establishment of a Jewish and an Arab state in place of the British Mandate. The State of Israel was established, fulfilling one half of the call, and unfortunately for all of us, the Arab state was not established.  There are many reasons why the Palestinians and the Arab world were incapable of accepting the idea that only 45% of the land was to become an Arab state in 1947.  Today there are senior Palestinians who regret this, and explain why they were incapable of doing it at the time.