January 6, 2010
I’ve been having an interesting discussion with Robin Yassin-Kassab (AKA Qunfuz) about Zionism. I had to play the role in some segments. Fat chance the fascist basterds (*) in Israel will thank me for the service, I suppose.
(*) Yes basterds with an ‘e’ if you see what I mean… (a great subversive piece of movie BTW…)
December 23, 2009
I suppose I should apologize for not writing for so long. A few things have conspired to prevent me from doing so. First, I must admit that the obsessive dealing with the Israel-Arab conflict has resulted in a minor depression attack on me. Perhaps because I was exposed to activism at a relatively old age, I didn’t know how to pace myself and as a result found myself consumed in an effort that offers very little rewards. Second, my other insignificant activities, such as winning bread for my wife and three boys also suffered and needed extra attention. Third, the downward spiral in the state of Israeli politics and society did not hit a bottom. I was hoping, when a I started Racism Watch, that we would hit some sort of rock bottom which will awaken the dormant secular sector in Israel to action. This has not happened and will not happen, because the seculars are either desparate or are co-opted in various ways to accept the hegemony of the army-settler-religious three-pillared regime in Israel. They are also being out-bred by the religious types. With no hope on the horizon, I lost my voice. Fourth, I was also working on some other peace-related activities, some of which I can tell you about, and some will be exposed only at a later point in time.
The thing I can talk about is Alon Liel’s soccer team. Alon is a great example of a long-distance runner for peace, a person who is both committed to the macro as well as to the micro, meaning actual activities on the ground which teach people how they could live together. Please check out the Facebook page for HaPoel Mevasaret Abu Gosh and become a fan. A donation would be great too.
I would like to start posting again but this time around I will mostly just share with my readership (all five of you) things that I’m reading and watching. It would be more as a way to inform and stay in touch, than a repeat of a Quixotic attempt to find a grand unified theory for the situation in Israel/Palestine (Netty thanks for pointing out to me, that I was always trying to do that).
For today, I’d like to share this great interview that Brit Tzedek v’Shalom (which is in the process of uniting with J Stream) did with Amjad Atallah.
We recently asked Amjad Atallah, Co-Director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation and longtime friend of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, for frank responses to some persistent questions about Palestinians and their approach to peace.
- Aliza Becker, Interim Executive Director, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom
Disclaimer: Amjad Atallah’s views expressed below are entirely his own and don’t necessarily reflect Brit Tzedek v’Shalom’s views.
1. Why do Arabs and Palestinians reject Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State?
Palestinians and Arabs are prepared to accept a Jewish right of self-determination in Israel. What they can’t accept is that the Jewish right to self-determination abrogates or supersedes the Palestinian right to self-determination. So how do two rights to self-determination co-exist? That has been asked in Bosnia, in South Africa, in Rwanda, and other places.
The easiest answer in Palestine/Israel is partition into two states. However, Palestinians are afraid that “right to exist as a Jewish state” is actually code for disenfranchising the 20% of the Israeli population that is Palestinian Arab.
Palestinians are afraid that many Israeli politicians ultimately want to remove, “transfer,” or further restrict the rights of the Palestinians who live in Israel who already have Israeli citizenship. The debate in Israel currently taking place as to whether Israel should be a “state for all its citizens” with a Jewish majority or a “Jewish state” impacts Palestinian thinking. One real concern is that Palestinians will be dragged into the discussion of “who is a Jew” that periodically flares up in the Knesset. If Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state, are they accepting the dominance of Talmudic law in Israel? If the Knesset passes a law claiming that Reform and Conservative Jews are not really Jews, should the Palestinians be expected to endorse it?
So the common answer of many Palestinians is that it is up to all the citizens of Israel to determine the nature of their state, just as it is up to all the citizens of Palestine to determine the nature of their state. Best to leave questions of Israel’s nature to Israel’s citizens.
2. Isn’t the ultimate goal of Palestinians to destroy the state of Israel one piece at a time?
There will probably always be people from the generation that remember the expulsions of 1947-49 who won’t be able to ultimately be happy with the reality of Israel. But the truth is that for the majority, this is not the case. Arabs have lived with Jews since before the time of the Prophet Mohammed. The Caliph Omar was the one who opened Jerusalem to Jews again after conquering the city from the Byzantines. Arabs and Jews flourished in Andalusian Spain. Muslim jurisprudence was heavily influenced by Jewish jurisprudence (as even a cursory look at the two communities’ respective religious laws show). When the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem, Muslims and Jews fought and died together on the same side. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain, Muslims and Jews faced ethnic cleansing or forced conversion together. Most Andalusian Jews fled to Muslim areas. In World War II, Arabs in Morocco and Algeria fought the French Vichy government and tried to protect the Jewish community from expulsion to concentration camps in Europe. Everything I’ve mentioned here is very well documented.
The current nature of the Israeli-Arab antipathy is actually an aberration from a long history of cooperation, co-existence, and in some cases common struggle against an external enemy. A just resolution of this current conflict and the ensuing peace will allow that aberration to be put aside and for the two communities to return to a more cooperative relationship.
3. Is anti-Semitism intrinsic to Islam and Arab culture?
No, anti-Semitism is a distinctly European-Christian phenomenon. Even much of the anti-Semitism currently found in the Arab world is a derivative of European anti-Semitism, such as reliance on the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Bernard Lewis, no friend to the Arabs, but a great historian when not writing about contemporary affairs, notes that before there was a Judeo-Christian civilization there was a Judeo-Islamic civilization. Anti-Semitism may or may not be intrinsic to European culture, but that is where it started. That colonial legacy still resonates with some Arabs just as anti-Arab racism that also began in Europe with early Zionism’s adoption of European nationalist constructs, still resonates with some Israelis.
Racism and bigotry are inherent to different degrees in the very idea of nationalism as well as in many interpretations of religion. However, political and economic circumstances often dictate the fertility of the environment for this form of discrimination. Once the occupation ends and normalcy begins between Israelis and Palestinians, it will be possible (and necessary) to directly address both anti-Semitism and anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice head-on.
4. Why do Palestinians and Arabs incite against Jews? What is the truth about Palestinian textbooks?
Actually, this is a canard. It is simply not true anymore. Palestinians and Arabs do decry Israeli injustices, and this is what is today viewed by the Israeli government as “incitement.” Palestinians, like Israelis, should not be expected to remain silent to attacks on their civilians or other non-combatants, or in the case of Palestinians, to policies of collective punishment imposed on civilians in the hopes of affecting the political calculations of their leaders.
As for Palestinian textbooks, those in the West Bank used to be Jordanian textbooks and those in Gaza were from Egypt, so any inaccuracies in them were actually in the textbooks of the two Arab countries that have made peace with Israel. In the last ten years, the UN has been helping the Palestinians make their own textbooks one grade year at a time and to ensure that in maintaining the Palestinian narrative, they do not include any racist conclusions. This practice should be adopted at least by Israel, Jordan, and Egypt as well.
5. How can there possibly be two states when the Palestinians insist on the right of return?
There are two possible arguments. The current Palestinian government argues that it wants an acknowledgement that Palestinians once lived in Israel and were driven out or fled. They argue in private that if reparations and compensation are paid to the refugees, the Palestinian state can take them. Others have argued that there also needs to be a real implementation of a return of at least some of the refugees to Israel. One way to ensure Israel’s political nature is to provide those refugees with permanent residency but not citizenship in Israel. They would possess Palestinian citizenship but be allowed to move back to the areas they once lived in. Under such circumstances, Palestinians might reciprocate and invite settlers to continue living in Palestine and maintain their Israeli citizenship. They could develop a relationship like France and Germany where citizens keep their mother nation’s citizenship but live and work in either country.
If neither of the above scenarios are implemented, there is a real risk that the Palestinian refugee population, which forms roughly half the Palestinian population, would continue to agitate for a solution (more unacceptable to Israelis) even after an agreement, thus further promoting instability.
6. How can you make peace when there is no Palestinian partner?
Again, the question can be asked in reverse. Israelis argue that their political system is so heavily weighted to vetoes by small fringe parties that it is impossible for Israel to actually make any decisions necessary for peace, such as withdrawing settlers, sharing Jerusalem, or accepting some responsibility for the expulsions of 1947-1949. The question for Americans is doubly complex: how do we make peace between two parties with dysfunctional political systems heavily weighted against making the hard decisions necessary for a comprehensive peace agreement?
The answer to this means that the United States has to compensate for the inadequacies in both political systems or else choose to be slave to those inadequacies.
The martyred Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin had to make this choice. He realized it was in Israel’s interest to end its occupation — and he knew that Israel had just spent thirty years trying to destroy and demonize the Palestinian national movement — in many cases making exactly the same argument that “there was no partner for peace.” However, by negotiating in good faith with the very same leaders of the movement he had spent much of his political career trying to destroy, he created the partner he needed.
7. How can there be a Palestinian state when Hamas rules the Gaza Strip and Fatah the West Bank?
The ending of the occupation and the creation of an effective and unified Palestinian government need to both take place but the first is not contingent on the second. The occupation itself created the dynamics by which Hamas was first created and thrived, and US and Israeli policies helped ensure the subsequent political division of Palestinian Occupied Territory. It thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The answer to this requires, in a variation of Yitzhak Rabin’s axiom, for the parties to work to end the occupation as if Palestinian unity exists, and work to promote Palestinian unity as if the occupation has already ended.
8. How can Israel be secure if it cedes land to the Palestinians given what happened in Gaza?
Israeli security is a legitimate concern but it is often conflated with illegitimate concerns thus making the problem irresolvable. Israel has a legitimate right to ensure that Israelis not living on occupied Palestinian territory are secure but that is not why Israel builds kindergartens, schools, movie theaters, and swimming pools on Palestinian territory in the West Bank. In fact, the action of pushing so many Israelis and their children to live on Palestinian and Syrian territory is evidence of just how secure Israelis really feel.
Gaza is actually a case in point on the necessity of a peace agreement for real security. When Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza, then Israeli leader Ariel Sharon made a point of telling Palestinians and Israelis that he was breaking once and for all Palestinian aspirations for a state. He made it clear that by leaving the Gaza Strip, which constitutes less than 5% of Palestinian territory, he was making sure that Israel would never have to leave “Judea and Samaria.” To drive the point home, he rejected desperate pleas by President Abbas to negotiate the withdrawal as part of a peace plan.
Gazans are as much Palestinian nationalists as any other Palestinian — so the idea that they should stop caring for Palestinians living in the other 95% was as unrealistic as expecting Israelis in Tel Aviv to stop caring about Israelis in Sderot, or Ashdod.
Furthermore, Israel did not “end the occupation” even though it withdrew settlers and the soldiers who were protecting them. Israel maintains control over all the border crossings, the sea, and airspace. Once Hamas won the democratic elections in 2006, Israel also ensured that it and Egypt enforced a strict blockade on Gaza, plunging an already poor population to the edge of starvation. The results were predictable.
The one axiom to remember is that as long as only one side in a conflict has security, that security will always be temporary. This is true across the world, and Israel/Palestine is no exception.
9. Why are Palestinians against having Jews live in a Palestinian state?
They are not. Palestinian negotiators in the past, as well as current leaders in the PLO, Fatah, and other third secular parties have all gone on record as saying they would support Jews living in the Palestinian state, either as citizens of Palestine or potentially as permanent residents. However, Palestinians do not accept exclusivist ethnic townships in their state, especially armed enclaves. The Palestinian negotiating position does not demand an exclusivist Arab population for the state of Palestine. Incidentally, Palestinians consider Kurdish, Armenian, Balkan and other non-Arab Palestinians to be fully Palestinian despite their diverse ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. In fact, the removal of Jews from Palestinian territory has always been an Israeli negotiating position — the Israeli government wants to remove all settlers from any area that would be under Palestinian sovereignty.
10. Do the Palestinian people support two states or one bi-national state?
Both. The majority of Palestinians polled in the Occupied Territory consistently show support for a two-state solution, and this is probably a result of it being considered the most pragmatic and achievable solution as it overlaps so much with Israeli national security interests. However, there are few Palestinians ideologically opposed to living in a bi-national state and a distinct minority actually prefers it. What matters most to Palestinians is freedom and a normal life through realizing their national aspirations. Either a dignified two-state option or a dignified bi-national option could theoretically achieve that outcome. So at least one question that friends of Israel might ask themselves with greater urgency is what they expect Palestinians to endorse if they ever come to the conclusion that the United States will not or cannot induce Israel to end the occupation (having already assumed that Israel will not end the occupation on its own).
size=3 width=”100%” align=center>
Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, The Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace
11 E. Adams Street, Suite 707
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 341-1205
Fax: (312) 341-1206
info@btvshalom.org
www.btvshalom.org
Donate: Help us spread our message far and wide.
Renew: Continue to sustain our vision.
September 28, 2009
Today it is Yom Kippur, The Day of Atonement, the holiest day in Jewish tradition. The day is devoted to repentance and fasting, and all work is highly sinful, and yes that would include blog writing too… The way I see it, Yom Kippur is a prime example of the evolution of the Jews and the state of Israel.
Phase one: from human sacrifices to a dialog with an abstract god.
I assume Yom Kippur started like all other self-punishing traditions, as a way to satisfy the omnipotent and powerful gods. In the beginning it was necessary to sacrifice a child from the tribe in order to escape the leopard and hunt the Mammoth. Then we humans learned a little more about nature, we learned how to farm lands and domesticate animals, and build weapons with tips of steel. So god went down one rung in the ladder of all-powerfulness, and we replaced human sacrifices with animal ones. Time moved on and we seemed able to explain more and more aspects of our existence using our observational capabilities and accumulated knowledge. We moved man to the center, and god became an abstraction. We started believing that god was not in the skies, but everywhere, and especially in our souls, and that we are a projection, reflection or even the essence of god. We started conversing with God, who was a form of us. We asked him to guide us and forgive our sins. We then realized that we pray to god both as individuals, and as members of a society, which shares a belief, and a moral code.
This was the process, I presume (without much evidence), that resulted in the emergence of Yom Kippur. After the holiday was established though, it regained some of its original pagan origins, if only because it is a highly organized and mandatory practice of Jewish society, which has been marked for hundreds of year.
Phase two: Yom Kippur becomes a self-administered Judaism loyalty test.
In the 19th and 20th century, against a backdrop of accelerated assimilation, Yom Kippur was many times seen as the last defense line of the traditional Jewish identity. Many secular Jews mark Yom Kippur not because they feel they have to abide by the contract of repentance, but because they know they have to choose at least ONE tradition to keep, so that they consider themselves not completely alien to the Judaism of their ancestors. They mark the day as a way of affirming their identity using a convincing manifestation (full day of fasting—not easy!) of loyalty to old traditions.
Egyptians Crossing
Phase three: into the secular military state, and out again.
On Yom Kippur in 1973, which happened to be on October 6th that year, Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack against Israel, which resulted in a three-week war, a bloody one for Israel and the last one that majorly pitted Arab armies against the Israeli one. The war was a blow to Israeli confidence and sent shock waves throughout the society. But it also provided an endless source of battle stories, and their heroes. In a country that revolves around the army, the Yom Kippur day turned into the Yom Kippur War day. Thus, if you were to turn on the TV just before Yom Kippur, you will not see religious sermons or philosophical debates about sin, repentance and free will in Jewish thinking, you will most likely see a documentary about that war.
This was a welcome development for Israel, since another war-and-struggle holiday (in addition to the national memorial, holocaust and independence days and the traditional war-and-struggle holidays of Passover, Hannukah and Lag b’Omer) is of much greater relevance and interest to Israel compared with the “whiny” Yom Kippur. How can the Israelis mark Yom Kippur, when this requires some reflection and admitting that there are some things which are wrong, which require fixing, while at the same time, Israelis know that they are always moral and just? The old Yom Kippur just felt out of place. Out with the old, in with the new.
However, the Yom Kippur war has crested its importance in the Israeli psyche. Thirty six years have passed since the Yom Kippur war and its grip over Israeli society starts to wane. There are several reasons for that.
First, the Yom Kippur war has become the property of the left, and that’s why it needs to be moved into the shadows now that the right rules supreme. The close-call experience of the Yom Kippur war caused the genesis of the modern peace movement in Israel. The politicians, army officers, the man on the street, realized that Israelis WERE NOT invincible nine feet tall Vikings, as some Arabs had claim after the defeats of 48 and 67. They were just humans who could be defeated in the battlefield like all other nations have experienced in their histories. The conclusion was clear—Israel must secure peace treaties with its neighbors. However, given the repeated failure to secure peace with the Palestinians, and the Syrians and Lebanese too, and given the unilateralism that has taken hold over Israeli policy due to these failures, there exists a great desire to unlearn the lessons of the Yom Kippur war. There is thus a desire to explain why the lessons of that war are no longer applicable. The arguments are known and are quite powerful:
Second, and this is quite obvious, the military leaders of Yom Kippur are now out of the picture, replaced by officers who bring “their” wars into the focus—e.g., the first Lebanon war. Out with the old, in with the new.
Third, the population has changed too, it has become more fragmented, and each of the fragments has declining interest in the war, each for its own reasons: the Russian and American immigrants of the last twenty years do not have any attachment to the Yom Kippur War mourning or heroism. The growing Orthodox sector is indeed growing fast, so the traditional meaning of the day is getting renewed emphasis, and the significance of the Yom Kippur War, with its perceived secular hubris, wanes. The seculars, what’s left of us, are becoming more cosmopolitan, and neither the traditional nor the militaristic facets of Yom Kippur interests us.
Phase four: fragmentation
As I alluded in the last paragraph, the Yom Kippur experience is now quite different for different segments of the Israeli society. Let’s talk about two of them.
Akko 2008 Yom Kippur Riots
Yom Kippur as a nationalistic event
For the masses of poor who live in mixed Jewish-Arab cities such as Akko and Jaffa, Yom Kippur has become a benchmark for the relative power of each of the warring communities. The Jews, incited by reckless politicians such as Akko’s mayor Shimon Lankry used the day as a “loyalty test” for the Arabs: will they dare disrespect the holiest day for Jews by driving around? Listen to music? Last year the Akko riots started when an Arab resident was not mindful of how hurtful his actions could be construed. He was shuttling food and passengers in preparation of a wedding party, and almost got lynched. Arab rioting which ensued wasn’t any better. Could he have been more mindful? Of course. Was it possible to just “let it slide”? Of course. In a place where the communities know and respect each other, such small transgressions do not result in a huge conflagration. However, when hatred is cultivated by the mayor (!) the whole city is a tinderbox.
It seems that some Arabs also use this day specifically to demonstrate that they will never be subservient to the Jews, or Jewish sensibilities. A member of the Shibli clan is accused of recklessly killing 10 year old Tal Zino, by driving his ATV wildly in Kfar Tabor two year ago, during Yom Kippur. Clearly, the Shiblis were looking to make a statement when they rode their ATV’s recklessly in the Jewish village of Tabor, which is adjacent to the Shibli village. If it’s any consolation, the Shiblis are involved in crime to their necks, and it could be that it’s mostly just their criminality that motivates their behavior. (A personal note: one of these guys broke into my friend’s car and stole the car’s radio when we were visiting the area. It seems nobody is able to stand-up to them, not the least the impotent police.)
This year, touch wood, so far so good.
A secular Yom Kippur experience
Secular experiences
What does a secular person do on Yom Kippur? Well, there’s no radio or TV. There’s the internet, so you can blog or chat. Nobody rides their cars, so all the kids go out and ride their bikes through the night, without fear of getting hit by a car. Some seculars go to the desert the day before and camp. Some go abroad. Some would listen to music with headphones or quietly, or read that book they have been trying to finish for decades. In our crazy world—a day of unpluggedness is welcome by all, but it has nothing to do with the original tradition. Some fast to “feel Jewish”, some fast because they want to prove they can or to “clean their bodies”.
Thus for seculars Yom Kippur is becoming this eclectic new-age type of experience. The old rallying slogans of both tradition or nationalism are looked at in bemusement, while each person puts his own personal and individualistic spin on the day.
We recognize we were born Jewish and Israeli by a chance of nature, we can tolerate all the dogma, to keep the neighbors and the elderly happy, as long as we can live our personal lives in intense freedom in our personal quarters. Come to think about it, it reminds me of what one hears of Tehran.
One last thought: the Internet is helping break the effective ban of travel. We can meet on the Web. The ultimate secular pastime in Yom Kippur 2020 will be a virtual reality mass orgy in a virtual Rabin Square.
September 25, 2009
This is written in response to a comment made on Syria Comment, here.
Co-existence, Settler Style
Akbar Palace,
You are either dishonest or very forgetful, as we’ve had the exact conversation a few months ago. Here is the interview with Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala)
Q: Do you believe Israel would agree to evacuate Ma’aleh Adumim’s 35,000 residents?
Qureia: “[Former U.S. secretary of state] Condoleezza Rice told me she understood our position about Ariel but that Ma’aleh Adumim was a different matter. I told her, and Livni, that those residents of Ma’aleh Adumim or Ariel who would rather stay in their homes could live under Palestinian rule and law, just like the Israeli Arabs who live among you. They could hold Palestinian and Israeli nationalities. If they want it – welcome. Israeli settlements in the heart of the territories would be a recipe for problems. Israel evacuated all the settlements in Yamit and in the Gaza Strip. All the prime ministers who negotiated with Syria, including Netanyahu, agreed to evacuate all the settlements from [the Golan] Heights. So why is it so difficult for you to evacuate the settlements in the West Bank?
———————————————————————
So if I had to boil down your comment to any real argument you’re basically saying this: your settler buddies would absolutely love to be Palestinian citizens, as long as that state is not anti-Semitic like the Hamas charter is, and it is a good democracy etc. This is obviously a big fat lie. If that’s the case, why aren’t they saying that? Why aren’t we hearing about settlers’ leaders meeting with the PA, negotiating their possible future role in the Palestinian state?
My report on Efrat is coming soon, but here’s just a little indication of how well it is set up to be integrated into the Palestinian state. On the municipality’s Web site there is a picture gallery, in which you can see how Jews and Palestinians work together in Efrat, go together to market and play sports together.
Oh, I’m sorry, this was Efrat OF YOUR DREAMS. The real Efrat doesn’t have a single picture of even a shadow of a Palestinian in its gallery, they simply don’t exist. Nor does that wall that snakes right East of Efrat, or the lands that were confiscated in order to make way for Efrat’s new sewer pipe… Yes that’s right, Palestinian fields were uprooted to make room for your crap. Literally.
Hard to watch, but probably not for you.
Back to the gallery. What DO we see in the Gallery?
Compensating
There is not a single mention of the word “Arab” or “Palestinian” in the gallery. They are simply ignored, except as the all-too-understood subject of the various drills and security centers and visits of military functions in the settlement.
Here is a presentation called “Our Efrat 2006”. Palestinians mentioned? Nope. Separation barrier? Nope. Status of land it sits on (“disputed” AKA “stolen private Palestinian land”)? Nope.
And what does the Efrat magazine has to tell us about co-existence with the Palestinians? Well, I see lots of Arabic poetry classes, joint music events, a real wealth of activities… Nah, just joking! Like everywhere else, the existence of Arabs is almost completely denied in the magazine. With a few exceptions…
The August 7th issue (#63), has no mention of Arabs or Palestinians at all, unless you count the prolific activities of the security and “preparedness” bodies that are given ample coverage in this issue…
The July 17th issue (#62), mentions that the “settler” Italian MP Fiamma Nirenstein visited the settlements and she is “…a supporter of the cultural war against Islam…” (!!) and that she was hosted by the Mayor as part of a general recruitment of political forces for “the consolidation of our hold”…
The June 26th issue (#61), reminded that residents that “workers” (i.e., Palestinian hired help) are now only permitted through a special gate (like dogs, that is), where they can undergo more rigorous security checks, and it apologizes—to the residents to whom this causes any inconvenience!
So Akbar by all means your question about Palestinian citizenship to the settlers has great relevance, your buddies in Efrat will provide exactly the extra sauce that the Palestinian state needs after 40 years of occupation and 60 years after the Nabka. It would be as adequate as a KKK settlement in an impoverished Indian reservation.
And to think that these are the “moderate” settlers from the “big blocs”! This is the tame (or rather PR-conscious) face of antipathy. You and your settlers buddies are the scourge of Israel, you have weakened the country, guzzled all resources and have made a difficult conflict into an insoluble one. You are responsible for the corruption of young soldiers, who have to go to army to abuse Palestinians so that your buddies can live in their Anglo-Saxon fantasy land.
Rid us of your punishment. Just tell your buddies to go back to Brooklyn, as they are positively bound to do if this settlement ever becomes a part of Palestine. Tell your buddies to move to Utah instead. Neither Israel nor Palestine can sustain your rude colonization. Go back home and leave us in peace.
Thank you. Do some soul searching this Yom Kipur.
September 10, 2009
Unfortunately, the rate of racism news from Israel doesn’t show much signs of slowing down. All of us who have hoped for more responsibility and maturity from the right, once it seized power, are bewildered by the divisiveness that it promotes between Jews and Arabs in Israel. It really reminds of darker times in history. Please check the Racism Watch Page for the items that were added since the last update (in August 21st).
Things that I would like to write about, but didn’t have time to…
1. Writeup on the Efrat (or Efrata) settlement. There is a commenter in Syria Comment who goes by the alias Akbar Palace, who has the audacity to claim that this settlement, where his relatives live, hasn’t affected adversely the lives of Palestinians in its vicinity. A few hours of research dug up so much dirt that I need to organize and post to shut him up and his hasbara for good.
2. What do Jewish kids learn in American/Canadian Jewish schools about the Palestinians? I got some teaching materials, funded in part by the Quebec government, that will make you wonder who is really inciting their innocent kids?
3. Any readers’ requests? Let us know…
August 27, 2009
The following is an important article by Gilad Atzmon, a pro-Palestinian activist and a former Israeli. Atzmon talks about the Westerner Activist nightmare, in which he/she falls into the hands of Amal, or Fatah or another Middle Eastern revolutionary cause celebre du jour and tries to explain to them, “I’m on your side… I have a blog.. I signed petitions… I participated in rallies and sent money… I WAS OSTRACISED BY MY OWN PEOPLE FOR SUPPORTING YOU! PLEASE spare me…” but to no avail. The activist’s pleas are dismissed, he is not genuine, and at any rate, the problem is bigger than his individual case. He is unceremoniously (or ceremoniously) executed.
Atzmon takes some comfort in the fact that the nightmare is his own making. It doesn’t really happen, it’s only a dream of his mind. These feelings of disingenuousness are really a sort of self-criticism projected by the unconscious. Atzmon in his sophistication recalls Zeno’s parable of Achilles and the Tortoise. Achilles realized that however close he’d get to the tortoise, he will never catch up to him. Similarly the activist will never really be a Palestinian and however hard he’ll try to be genuine, he’ll never be one with the Palestinian, he will always misrepresent, and will always stay a part of the criminal West and therefore will ultimately “deserve” to be sacrificed. In fact his Palestinian object of political desire may be loathsome to the way the activist has betrayed his own people. Mercy is given only to enemies with dignity, not to confused traitors.
Atzmon’s choice of an analogy is interesting, because in real life, Achilles would have caught up with the tortoise. Achilles is only defeated in his own imagination, by misinterpreting a mathematical equation to imply something in the real world, which it does not. Even the mathematical formula predicts that in the limit of some finite amount of time (say 20 seconds), Achilles and the tortoise will be together, and that should be sufficient for the activist and his object of political desire. Achilles doesn’t need to pass the tortoise in the race, just to catch up to it.
It is befitting that Atzmon’s analogy contains two analogous levels of fictitious threats (first the execution dream, then the fiction of not being able to catch up with the tortoise). That’s because he is leery about recognizing the real underpinnings of his worries. Would he, or wouldn’t he, place himself in the hands on the Hamas, in an unscripted visit to Gaza? My analogy on the other hand will be drawn from the realm of kids’ cartoons, which is much more fitting to my level of intellect, and in a way more concrete. My analogy is drawn from the episode of SpongeBob when he decided to leave the comfortable suburban underwater life of Bikini Bottom and join the cryptic, violent, radical and free jellyfish colony. After getting rid of all his material possessions he entered their “hive” and greeted his new comrades. The instinctive jellyfish response was to electrocute him Texas style. They had no patience for his prepared texts. He wasn’t of their kind, and that was all there was to it.
So in my analogy, unlike Atzmon’s, the inability to connect with the object of your political desire, is real, not imaginary. Spongebob doesn’t realize by his sheer thought power that he will be rejected by the Jellyfish. No, he doesn’t realize this, until it’s painfully demonstrated to him. And I have some evidence that this analogy is appropriate. As most readers (that would be about two or three people) of this blog know, I have been communicating with Syrians and other Arab folks on Syria Comment. And let me tell you this, the only way I get tolerated there is if I tow the Arab line to the letter. It suffices to remind my Arab interlocutors ever so slightly of their own misdeeds and responsibilities, and I’m rolled in virtual tar and feathers and taken to the pit to be torched to death. For them, there is something irresistibly satisfying in exposing the “Israeli liberal” for the sham he is. It makes life much easier again—all Israelis are evil—none needs to be spared, except out of exceeding generosity.
These thoughts remind me of a book I read about (which I haven’t read) called Disgrace by J.M. Coetzee which talks about post-Apartheid South Africa. It shows how the misery of Apartheid has been replaced by the misery of anarchy and crime. It also shows that the destiny of whites in South Africa is to wither away in disgrace, regardless of whether they have supported or objected Apartheid. The gangs who take over homes and rape the women (as happened to relatives of a friend of mine), really don’t care. They are as sophisticated as SpongeBob’s objects of political desire—the electrocuting jellyfish. Any Israeli who talks about the one-state solution has this nightmare in the back of his mind: gangs roam the streets, lawlessness, rape and murder. We do not know whether the one-state Utopia that we imagine will bring endless suffering and pain to our friends and kin. It’s a deblitating uncertainty, the price of “blind” justice.
Still, Coetzee did not suggest that whites should have continued Apartheid. They just had to leave, or live in disgrace. They had a choice, maybe not the one they hoped for though.
Please read:
By GILAD ATZMON
http://www.counterpunch.org/atzmon08212009.html
To wrap up, I’d like to ask my Arab and/or Muslim readers to kindly tell me whether they experience any nightmares as a result of their “collaboration with Zionists”? Or is their night sleep pure and uneventful? In your dreams, do you end up in the dungeons of the SHABAK, or maybe of the Mukhabarat? Do you get co-opted by the Zionist regime to collaborate against your brethren and then are stoned to death for treason? Tell me, let’s share our nightmares. This way I’ll know if I’m the only sucker.
August 3, 2009
I’d like to believe that I have received my sensitivity to issues of equality and the desire for civil and equal society from my parents’ home. No, they were not members of Hadash, or Meretz, not even Labor. On the contrary, Labor was always the target of much scorn for its nepotism and double-standards. No, my parents’ home was aligned with none but the infamous Likud. To be more exact, with the liberal party, which has merged with Herut to form Likud in the seventies. The Likud used to have, and still has, a few members who are truly committed to creating a civil society and a deep partnership with the Arab citizens of Israel, and with Israel’s neighbors. These few remaining characters trace their ideology back to Jabotinski, who, as only few know, had a vision of full partnership between Jews and Arabs on an equal basis.
Jabotinski envisioned the government being comprised of a Jewish president, followed by an Arab prime-minister, etc., not dissimilar to the confessional system of Lebanon. Alas, in order to get to this Utopian future Jabotinski believed that first the country must undergo a “breakthrough” phase during which the Jews will become the majority in the land. The breakthrough were to happen under the protection of Britain and the Jewish armed forces, which were to constitute an “iron wall” against the inevitable resistance from the Arab aboriginals. Jabotinski claimed that this resistance is inevitable and therefore the iron wall is inevitable too, but once the Arabs recognized that the Jews have established themselves in the land in an irreversible manner, then the road will be opened to creating his egalitarian partnership with the Arabs. Like so many other revolutionary movements of the 20th century (Soviet communism, Maoism, Nazism), Jabotinski’s vision involved a bloody-yet-necessary first phase, followed by a Utopia in the second phase.
Jabotinski failed in multiple ways. First, he failed to save European Jewry, despite his efforts to alert the Jewish communities of their precarious situation in the 30’s. Second, he failed to create a strong Jewish majority in all of original mandatory Palestine, the area that today includes Israel, Palestine and Jordan. Such a majority had only been established in the area which Israel managed to seize in 1948, and now we come to the third failing: the method using which this majority was established—the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians—is another failing to Jabotinski’s enlightened colonialism philosophy. Jabotinski recognized all along that his vision of Zionism was unjust towards the Arabs. He maintained that the survival of the Jews in Europe warranted the intrusion and inconvenience that the Arabs will incur. He believed that the damage to the Arabs will not be greater than inconvenience and that over time they will stand to gain from the Jewish colonization. This was in line with British colonial philosophy, of which he was a great admirer.
To be accurate, more than being a great thinker, Jabotinski was a warrior, a military organizer, and a politician. We may never know whether his Utopian dream was something he really believed in or whether it was just a bunch of peacock feathers in his tail, to complement his militaristic outlook on everything he had to deal with in his contemporary times.
However flawed Jabotinski’s vision was in its essence, it still brought about a few precious qualities that trickled through to current Likud politicians. First, his followers espoused telling things as they are, not as you’d like them to be or how you’d like them to be perceived. Second, they espoused deep appreciation, rather than patronization, to the Arab enemy. Third, they demonstrated a basic decency towards human beings of all stripes and the implied disposition to live in a heterogeneous society.
It is still very common for Likudniks to say that Meretz supporters are really the great Arab haters, since they can’t fathom living in the same state with them, and that’s what motivates their desire for separation into two countries. This accusation is not baseless. That is not to say that Jabotinski’s way had a chance of resulting in an egalitarian society—no egalitarian society could ever ensue from Zionism, Jabotinski’s or Ben-Gurion’s. But it did encourage thinking of Arabs as equals, if still enemies, and it was ready to build a society together with the Arabs, when they stopped being enemies.
The current right in Israel has for the most part nothing to do with Jabotinski’s vision, outlined above. It is fairly obvious that the new ideal of the right is a pure-Jewish country, the expulsion of the Arabs, and in the meanwhile, treating them as badly as possible. But there are four exceptions to the rule: Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin, deputy prime minister and minister of intelligence and atomic energy Dan Meridor, minister of improvement of government services Michael Eitan and MK Benny Begin.
Although the four span quite a range in political thinking, from the moderate Eitan and Meridor to the far-right Begin they share a commitment to equality, the rule of law and high-quality governance. Here are three pertinent examples from the recent past.
Eitan, Begin and Meridor have vehemently opposed the Nakba law that was proposed by MK Miller from Lieberman’s party:
…”The proposed law does not correspond with the freedom of expression practiced in Israel – a Jewish and democratic state,” Ministers Benny Begin, Michael Eitan and Dan Meridor wrote in their petition.
Minister Eitan added that he hoped “the government reaches the same conclusion I did during the committee meeting – that this law will prove ineffective and will do nothing but smear freedom of speech in Israel.”
“Legislation is a serious thing and it should not be used for declarative purposes,” said Minister Begin. “The legislator has to think about the ways to enforce a law in advance. I cannot see a way to enforce this kind of law.
“Freedom of speech is tested in the ability to see and hear aggravating things, a point which the courts have debated repeatedly,” he added.
Reuven Rivlin has recently attacked Netanyahu for degrading the Knesset to serve as a tool for his tactical political considerations. Netanyahu wanted to pass “Mofaz law” (and succeeded, actually) that would allow for MK’s to more easily defect from their current parties and move to a different one. This was done in anticipation of Mofaz leaving Kadima and joining Likud. Rivlin presented a disciplined opposition to his party’s leader, as he has done many times before.
Today, Rivlin is going to talk about the future of Jews and Arabs in Israel in a conference about democracy and he had these, very helpful, preliminary remarks:
Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin (Likud) is calling for a fundamental change in relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel, urging the founding of a “true partnership” between the two sectors, based on mutual respect, absolute equality and the addressing of “the special needs and unique character of each of the sides.”
…”the establishment of Israel was accompanied by much pain and suffering and a real trauma for the Palestinians (in large part due to the shortsightedness of the Palestinian leadership). Many of Israel’s Arabs, which see themselves as part of the Palestinian population, feel the pain of their brothers across the green line, a pain they feel the state of Israel is responsible for.”
“Many of them, encounter racism and arrogance from Israel’s Jews; the inequality in the allocation of state funds also does not contribute to any extra love.”
“[Israel's Arab population] is an inseparable part of this country. It is a group with a highly defined shared national identity, and which will forever be, as a collective, an important and integral part of Israeli society.”
Rivlin remarks that most of Israel’s Arab residents refuse to accept the idea that the state of Israel is the home of the Jewish people, and adds that some of the Arab leaders within Israel align themselves with Israel’s worst enemies, and incite against it.
“The Arab population is an inseparable part of our homeland,” he adds, however, saying that “we, the Jews, must send out a clear message that is apparent to us that our homeland is their homeland, and that we intend to live together with them, and that we reject all the calls for forced immigration or even expulsion.”
“The somewhat European goal that most of us have — to live alongside a Zionist minority which sings the anthem with sparkling eyes — will not become a reality in our Middle East,” Rivlin planned to say. “We can’t pretend, or hope that our neighbors will go away, even if we close the window. Furthermore, we mustn’t do it! We must see them as they are and tell them that we accept them as they are and that we seek a true partnership with them.”
At a time when committed racists are Netanyahu’s bedfellows, Rivlin, Eitan, Meridor and maybe even Begin are the only brakes that stir his government from the abyss. If it wasn’t for them, the Nakba law might have been a reality by now.
July 28, 2009
2009-07-28
You can build in East Jerusalem, but only if you’re Jewish.
In West Jerusalem, on the other hand, you can only live if you’re… Jewish.
The government to approve additional building permits for the extreme right wing (and extremely racist) Elad association in the village of Silwan. This announcement comes on heels of the withdrawal of the Jerusalem master plan that allowed for *some* Palestinian construction (see below).
Two days earlier, the police and government issued a demolition order for the Palestinians in Silwan when they tried to establish an information center to counter that of Elad. Watch the video (thanks for Gabe Maldoff and Hagit Ofran from Peace Now for bringing this to my attention)
http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DoQflSHgSUcY
Also on the topic of fake equality in the “united” city of Jerusalem, Hagit Ofran writes: Palestinians Can’t Really Live In West Jerusalem.
Akiva Eldar writes about the double-standard that results in de-facto ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem. Arab Jerusalemite’s plight is proof of two-faced policy.
Last but not least, if you’re a Jewish Bingo Mogool from Florida, then, too, you can legally build in East Jerusalem, Eileen Read writes.
2009-07-23
Hemming the Negeb Bedouins in using JNF trees
Zafrir Rinat reported in the Hebrew site of Haaretz on the controvertial plans of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) to turn large areas of the Northern Negev, as part of a plan that seemed aimed at stunding the growth or legitimization of Bedouin villages. Here is the Hebrew report. It appears that Rinat has written about the topic in Enlish last year, but I couldn’t find a translation for the new update.
Maintaining the racist status-qou in Jerusalem
Jerusalem’s mayor Nir Barkat withdraw the previously approved developmenet plan for Jerusalem since it was too much pro-Palestinian. Namely, it allowed for *some* legally approved construction in non-Jewish area, God forbid.
Court: Pool must compensate Beduins
The Beersheba Magistrate’s Court on Monday ruled that a swimming pool manager in Ofakim must pay NIS 10,000 in compensation to a Beduin couple after he prevented them from entering the pool together with their three children on racial grounds.
2009-07-21
Minister Landau refuses to meet MK El-Sana
Yisrael Beiteinu member sends Arab MK letter saying he will not grant his request to discuss Bedouin sector because he ‘refuses to unequivocally condemn Hamas’ terror activity’; El-Sana: I guess an Arab lawmaker has to convert in order to meet with Landau
July 12, 2009
Australians, Indians & Incentives
By Netsp
Everybody knows that big business interests are behind 58% of west bank checkpoints. While these interests are allowed to corrupt the political process, peace doesn’t stand a chance. Campaigns are funded by real estate industrialist tycoons. Bombs are hard at work putting money in to the pockets of the rich. The military industrial complex makes these wars inevitable. You don’t need to be Dov Khenin to see that. Everybody knows that interests are important. Everyone knows that incentives make things happen. We’re just not always sure exactly how. We know they’re up to no good, most of the time.
Over the last few months the Australian and Indian media have been reporting violence towards young Indian men. These seemed like random attacks. Late at night. On their own. Train Stations. That kind of thing. At first there was no narrative, just a presence in the rapid fire news headlines.
biker-shoots-girlfriend-parents-blame-metanphatimines-health-minister-comments-shadow-minister-blames-health-minister-home-in-brisbane-burned-young-indian-man-attacked–at-train-station-four-dead-in-gaza-city
At some point some journalist noticed a narrative could be pulled out of this. A lot of Random violence seemed to be directed at Indians. On closer inspection, it turns out that these weren’t just any Indians, these were Indian students. What would Israeli media do if they caught wind of something like this? That’s what Indian media did. Indian students took to the streets. For a few days this was the main news item.
At this point I think we need some background. We all know the economies of China, India, Thailand and many other smaller countries of Asia have grown recently. They have left the country with an inflated upper-middle class and a subsequent shortage of (among other things) University seats. Australia is an attractive place to study. English is the spoken language. Anglo education rates highly among many employers at home. Tuition is relatively low and quality is high.
Australia has quietly developed an education export market. Each student pays around $15 (US) per year and the same again in living expenses. It’s hard to quantify it, but education is Australia’s second or third largest export market. Australia is a commodity (minerals,grains, beef..) exporting country, so that means a $5b – $10b industry if you count generously. This fits right in to the politically irresistible mission of making “Micro Chips not Potato Chips.”
If this violence had been aimed at the community of recent immigrants from Africa… Well, that’s a different story. People feel threatened. They feel overwhelmed. They feel they’re culture is in danger. Of course we condemn these attacks, but what can you do? Anyway, immigration needs to slow down a bit just to keep some of these emotions at bay.
Luckily, these are not mere ‘immigrants’ who can deal with xenophobic violence or go back to wherever the hell they came from. These are paying customers. If they are abused, they will go elsewhere. New Zealand sounds nice.
What happened next was the wonderful work of incentives. Police came under pressure. Plans were made straight away. Politicians went into high gear to prove that Australia is not a racist place. Reconciliation cricket matches creating trust between foreign students and police were played. Cricket is taken very seriously by Indians. University Deans will be keeping an eye on things. So will politicians.
When dealing with a force of nature, its better to have it on your side.
July 8, 2009
When I started the Racism Watch effort two days ago I wondered how often I wil lhave to update the Racism Watch page. It seems like about once a day is the minimum, and that’s without going out of my way to check anything but the main news sources.
Today’s crop:
2009-07-05
1. Israeli councilor faces probe for saying all Arabs must ‘disappear’
2. Interior Ministry dismisses use of biblical quote
….The Interior Ministry yesterday dismissed criticism of members of the new Oz migrant task force for circulating an e-mail with an “offensive” biblical passage. Officials said a message with the quote, “So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee” sent by Acre’s Oz unit to other branches was a way for “ministry employees to wish each other good luck.” A spokesman for the Interior Ministry said the quote referred to the “idea” of purging evil from the “sole country of the Jewish people.”…
My comment: Oz in Hebrew means “might”. It is interesting to note how a law enforcement agency that is supposed to deal, at the end of the day, with miserable people, is adopting a militaristic name like an army unit that needs to vanquish a ferocious enemy. I guess the e-mail illustrates that there was no innocense behind the name selection.
