Mondoweiss

Barack sure seems to be graying fast

2009-07-16T21:51:34-04:00

in his meeting on Monday with Jewish leaders. Talk about stress. And think, right after that meeting he had to meet with a delegation of Arab-Americans!

Not!

Lady at left is Debra DeLee, the head of Americans for Peace Now. I believe the guy on her left is Ira Forman of the National Jewish Democratic Council. I'm seeking identity of the fella at BHO's right.Oh-- Rob Browne says it's Alan Solow, the new chairman of the Conference of Presidents. The "propaganda" organization, per Steven Rosenthal's book Irreconcilable Differences; Solow was a rainmaker for Obama's campaign and then lo and behold was named to the Conference chair upon Obama's victory, after the leader of the org, Malcolm Hoenlein, had sort of screwed things up with the incoming prez.

It's hard to campaign against intermarriage when you're voting for Obama

2009-07-16T21:39:49-04:00

In the Forward, Isaac Luria, 26, of J Street goes after Foxman, David Harris and Malcolm Hoenlein, saying that the old guard don't get it, and young Jews are making a new identity. "Continuity" in this excerpt is the concern with Jewish survival, which usually translates to the organizational efforts to stop intermarriage (which grew out of the Jewish survey in 1990 indicating that over half of young Jews were marrying out).

Many of these new communities and organizations are more committed to making Judaism personally meaningful than to simply pursuing Jewish continuity, and aren’t necessarily housed inside traditional Jewish institutions (though they may be funded by forward-thinking Jewish philanthropies). Many of us who are active in these new endeavors are connected to and care about Israel. We hope for a lasting peace, and believe that both sides must play a role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

For many young Jews, Obama embodies our values. He leads an interconnected world, dealing with myriad and difficult problems pragmatically and honestly. As a symbol of a new era of racial relations, he is uniquely positioned to help peacefully resolve ethnic strife and conflict abroad.

Foxman worries that Obama is Carter redux

2009-07-16T21:33:38-04:00

Fresh from meeting the president, Abe Foxman is reassured that he reached out to Jewish leaders. But he says in the Jerusalem Post that Carter erred by pushing peace in the Middle East, and so is Obama erring. I guess we can wait another 30 years of more colonization and dispossession? Even Foxman is reading the tea leaves, knows that the U.S. political class is all that Israel's got. Speak, Abe:

Still, I continue to sense that the administration is putting too much weight on solving the conflict. We all want to see progress and I have no problem with the administration view that the US must be much more engaged to achieve progress. But I am concerned when expectations rise dramatically, as when the president says that he expects the problem to be resolved in two years.

Going back to the Carter administration and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the idea of a comprehensive agreement as the centerpiece of American interests in the Middle East invariably led to undue pressure on Israel, a strain in US-Israel relations, without real progress toward peace. This is because the Arab world then, and now, hasn't been ready to reach an agreement and, if there is a determination at all costs to get there, the tendency is to blame Israel for the stalemate. Once such a process begins, arguments about whether Israel truly serves American interests come into play.

Finally, I worry about perceptions arising from these assumptions. Anti-Israel forces around the world, those who engage in boycotts, resolutions and propaganda believe they have largely triumphed everywhere but in America. Now right or wrong, because of the lack of clarity coming from the administration, they sense a unique opportunity to separate America from Israel.

o happy day... 'Washington Post' covers racist Israeli current, and mentions the word 'Nakba'

2009-07-16T11:35:48-04:00

I attack the Washington Post all the time. Well here's a great piece by Howard Schneider and Samuel Sockol of the Post about Israeli novelist Alon Hilu, who has made the Nakba a central theme in a historical novel about Palestine/Israel. Emphasis mine:

The first immigrants "came from Europe with an attitude," Hilu, 37, said in an interview at his apartment north of Tel Aviv. "It was kind of a typical meeting between colonialists and natives. There are aspects of colonialism in Zionism. You can't deny that."...

An opening quote from the Koran sets the tone: "We destroyed them and their people. . . . So those are their houses fallen down because they were unjust."

The backlash, while deferential to Hilu's right to publish what he wants, reflects the mood of a public that has become increasingly impatient with criticism of the country. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has argued that -- counter to Hilu's vision -- reconciliation will come when Palestinians stop regarding Jews as interlopers and acknowledge Israel as the rightful Jewish homeland. Members of his government have advocated measures that would require Israel's Arab citizens to take oaths of loyalty to the Jewish state and prohibit them from commemorating Israel's independence as the "naqba," or the disaster.

"Self-criticism is okay, but sometimes it is beyond the redlines," said Ben-Dror Yemini, a columnist for the Maariv newspaper whose articles helped trigger a campaign against the book after it was awarded the coveted Sapir Prize. "When Jews or Zionists are depicted in this way, it is going from criticism to delegitimization and demonizing the whole idea of the Jewish state."

'Human Rights Watch' tries to get past identity politics

2009-07-16T10:43:00-04:00

A controversy that the rightwing lobby is seeking to stir up over the fact that Human Rights Watch has raised money recently in Saudi Arabia is well-reported here by Ali Gharib:

[Law professor/blogger David] Bernstein maintained that "it's extremely unwise for a human rights group to raise money in a totalitarian country, even from human rights advocates in that country."

[HRW's Sarah Leah] Whitson said the claim had no grounds, noting that the notion "that any money from Saudi Arabia is tainted because it comes from a country with a totalitarian ruling regime is a gross generalisation."

"The ethnic background of our donors is irrelevant to the work we do," Whitson told IPS. "It's not relevant to our work in Israel that many, many of our donors are Jewish. And it's not relevant for the work that we do that we get money from Arab countries."

"Should people be criticising us for the fact that much of our support base is made up of Jews?" Whitson said. "Should that imply that our work on Israel is in fact too soft?"

Good questions. Ethnicity can be predictive, actually. But not always. This is the central struggle of this site.

Abunimah: despite all the 'pressure,' Obama seems to be licensing illegal colonization

2009-07-16T10:37:32-04:00

Ali Abunimah, an old friend of Barack Obama's and a leading member of the Arab-American community who has not yet been invited to the White House, reflects on the visit of 16 Jewish machers to the president's table on Monday and concludes that Obama's "pressure" on Israel has so far been toothless and without real effect. I wish I could write so calmly and logically (not in my skill set):

Obama has consistently stressed his belief in the "unbreakable" US-Israeli relationship. Considering his actions and words so far, there is little reason to doubt him. But unless he is prepared to go much further than anyone has publicly contemplated in pressuring Israel, his peace initiative has negligible chances of success.

For months the focus has been on Obama's demand that Israel agree to a complete cessation of settlement construction, including the subterfuge called "natural growth." It was during a similar "freeze" in the early 1990s that Israel built thousands of settler housing units on occupied land. Arab optimism and Israeli anxiety were amplified as Obama and his Middle East Envoy George Mitchell said repeatedly that this time they wanted a total halt.

Yet the firmness shows signs of erosion. Israeli press reports spoke of a "compromise" taking shape in which Israel would be allowed to complete thousands of already planned housing units. Although those reports were denied by the United States, several participants in the White House meeting said Obama alluded to an unspecified compromise in the works.

Anything short of a complete cessation of settlement construction will mark an achievement for Israel; what is important is not the number of units the United States may approve, but the principle that this administration, like its predecessors, will license Israel's illegal colonization. Once that principle is established, Israel may present more faits accomplis and build at will.

And even if Israel does agree to a verifiable cessation, the US has structured the matter as a quid pro quo in which Israel is not required to do anything without receiving a reward. The president has appealed to Arab states to normalize ties with Israel if it freezes settlements, including opening diplomatic missions and allowing overflights by El Al aircraft (recall that when en route to bomb Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981, Israeli warplanes reportedly falsely identified themselves as commercial aviation). Given how little leverage the Arab side has, it would be totally disarmed if it conceded any such gestures in exchange for so little.

Are Jews the new WASPs? Mebbe so

2009-07-16T10:10:23-04:00

The Senate Judiciary Committee is charged with the serious ruling-class responsibility -- or masquerade as it turns out-- of vetting Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. Given the supremacy of the Democratic Party these days, there are 12 Democrats and only 7 Republicans on the committee; and I count seven of my people among the Democrats: Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Cardin, Franken, Schumer and Specter. (Yes I misidentified Specter as a Republican the other day). An eighth senator, Kaufman, has Jewish heritage.

Whatever the standing of the Christian right in the Republican Party (and Frank Rich and I say it has sat down), there are as many Jews on this committee as there are Republicans; and many of these Jews have expressed an identification with Israel. Franken, locked in an election dispute last January, defended Israel's savage actions in Gaza (as did his opponent, Norm Coleman, a former Senator, also Jewish). The fact that non-Jewish politicians express the same sentiments has a lot to do with Jewish power in the Establishment, in political giving, in the media, in thinktanks, in lobbies--and in turn with Jewish identity, which has been constructed in the last 50 years to entail what Dershowitz calls the "secular religion" of supporting a militarist state that treats its minority as second-class citizens and worse.

Back to sociology. These numbers should prompt Jews to reflect: How much power do we have in American society? Is it appropriate to think of ourselves as outsiders, or "a minority"? How significant is anti-Semitism (the basis of the Zionist idea) in America? Do those of us in the media who write about sociological issues have a responsibility to address these issues? (And yes I mean David Brooks, socio-trend-tracker par excellence, who has been to Israel 12 times out of "gooey-eyed" identification, and who can spot a WASP at 1000 meters and write about his drinking habits and other mannerisms.)

And what if those seven Jewish senators all said to their children, in line with Jewish organizational edicts, I don't want you to marry non-Jews? I wonder what Sonia Sotomayor would make of that.

(Notice I haven't said a word about wealth, another important indicator of power in a capitalist society, and of marital attraction, too... some other time.)

Warm-n-fuzzy 'Times' profiles of rightwingers served the lobby (advertently)

2009-07-16T09:04:00-04:00

This is interesting. Take a breath, and connect the dots in this post.
Yesterday we ran a post on Rush Limbaugh, by the assidulous FE Felson, who had dug up a 2007 speech where Rush said that he had gone to Israel in 1994 at the behest of Israel lobbyist Malcolm Hoenlein.
The post prompted the following note from another friend:

"Excellent and revealing item on Limbaugh. It sheds light on the peculiarly soft profile of Limbaugh that was published by the New York Times Magazine on July 6, 2008, by Zev Chafets, former director of the government press office under Menachem Begin and an extreme Israel chauvinist.

"The Times did not do that unknowingly. Already in the weeks before they had triangulated against Obama by endorsing Hillary Clinton and John McCain: the only time the paper ever endorsed a candidate in both major parties. Think what it meant to assign the Limbaugh profile to this man, and look at what he made of it--the closest Rush Limbaugh has ever come to legitimation by the mainstream media. Chafets would likely have known about the Hoenlein-Limbaugh connection and the Israel trip.
"The Times was kind to Rush for a reason."

I showed this note to Felson, who agreed with the analysis, and noted that Chafets wrote another kind piece about a rightwinger, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, in the New York Times Magazine in 2007. Felson added:

In early 2007, Chafets published A Match Made In Heaven, in which he called for a partnership between American Jews and the Christian right so as to serve Israel's political ends in the U.S. And within a year or so, Chafets lands two NYT mag cover stories, each a warm and fuzzy profile of a right-wing leader.
It's classic: The stories say virtually nothing about Israel, but in a way, they're all about Israel.
Chafets also had a chat with Haaretz, in which he urged Jews to be nicer to the religious right. Here's the money quote:

"Zionist Christians want an alliance with the Jews, but alliances work in two directions. If the American Jewish leadership wants to make enemies out of 70 million fellow citizens, attacking them publicly on every issue is a good way to start. And who, then, will then replace these allies?"

Also, try this one:

"Israel cares about conservative Evangelicals because Israel's only reliable friend is the United States; that friendship depends on a bi-partisan coalition; and tens of millions of Republican Christians provide the right wing of that coalition. Conservative Christians are great allies. Like Jews, they love Israel. Unlike Jews, they are not vulnerable to charges of "neo-con" dual loyalty, they don't give a damn about sophisticated European opinion and they are not afflicted with the need to seem balanced.Evangelical tourism is big factor in the Israeli economy (and Evangelicals came during the intifada, when others stayed home)."

and this:

Jews are a major stakeholder (perhaps THE major stakeholder) in the Democratic Party; evangelicals are a major stakeholder (perhaps THE major stakeholder) in the Republican Party. And many Jews still see evangelicals as dumb southern rednecks. There is a fair amount of snobbery and even (dare I say it) bigotry, in this stereotype. Jews have real enemies. The Jihad is aimed primarily at us. So is the intifada. And the Iranian nuclear program. And the Hamas Charter. Under the circumstances, it is irresponsible and even crazy to pick a fight over domestic issues with our most reliable friend. Obviously there can be differences over domestic issues. American Jews don't need to convert to Christianity or even (God forbid) Republicanism. But they do need to put first things first. If they don't, they may spend the next generation--as they spent the last - building museums to commemorate the consequences of confused priorities in a time of war.

One last point: In Irreconcilable Differences, the superb book on American Jewish attachment to Israel by sociologist Steven Rosenthal, Hoenlein's group, the Conference of Presidents, is said to have been formed 50 years ago for "coordination of lobbying and propaganda."

Update from Jerusalem: Palestinians continue to resist concerted Israeli effort to erase them from the city

2009-07-15T22:30:00-04:00

The following was written by Samia Khoury. Khoury was born in Jaffa, Palestine on November 24, 1933. She has had a lifetime of of involvement in Palestinian civil society through Birzeit University, the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center and the YWCA of Palestine among other institutions. She sent out the following by email:

July 13, 2009

Dear Friends:

I write to you with a heavy heart as two more houses were demolished today in Beit Hanina and Silwan. Eviction orders, confiscation of land and demolishing of homes have become a daily activity of the Israeli occupying forces in East Jerusalem, while the world is watching. Renewal of Permits for couples who are seeking family reunification are being delayed endlessly without any explanation. This is a process required when one of the spouses is from outside the Jerusalem area. And when a new baby is born in Jerusalem, parents need to prove that they are actually living in Jerusalem by presenting a whole set of documents including municipal taxes, electricity, telephone, and sewage bills, etc. etc. in order to be able to register the child. As if their Identity Cards were not proof enough. Restrictions are being imposed on organizations and schools as well, so as to tighten the pressure on them and make their presence in Jerusalem irrelevant, or force them out of the city. Even cultural activities and festivals have become a great challenge for organizations and their sponsors as they continue to face obstacles imposed by military orders.

When Israel, which claims to be a leading country in the world of arts, would deprive a small community from the pleasure of enjoying music and literature festivals, then there is something very wrong in the psyche of those occupying forces. They probably would rather see us throw stones and bombs so that they will have a good reason to lock us up or expel us out of the country. But we shall not give them that pleasure. We shall defend our freedom and rights by music, art, drama and literature, and any other non-violent resistance. In fact if any of you saw this month’s publication “This Week in Palestine,” you would be astonished at the number of activities going on not only in Jerusalem, but in Ramallah, Birzeit, and other parts of the country. While we are being creative in cultural activities to help us overcome the pressures of the occupation, Israel continues to come up with the most innovative measures of oppression to subdue us and make life absolutely unbearable. If I were a cartoonist, I would sketch a demonic brain that creates this continuous onslaught.

It is becoming very obvious that there is a concerted effort to implement the policy of limiting the number of Palestinians in Jerusalem to a minimum percentage of the population of Jerusalem, which rises all the time through the annexation of Israeli settlements built on Palestinian land. The Arabic name of the city as well as the names of other towns and streets are not being spared this onslaught by the enforcement of Hebrew names, so as to obliterate not only our existence but our history and heritage.

We urge you dear friends to help us put an end to this onslaught that is affecting every aspect of our lives. We appreciate all the statements, solidarity groups, church initiatives, conferences, and all the advocacy. But rhetoric is not enough any more at this stage. There should be a serious consideration for a change in policy so that Israel, the spoilt and pampered child, will not be allowed to continue to get away with all the violations that have devastated not only the land but the human dignity of the Palestinians. We have seen how affective the policy of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) was in bringing an end to the Apartheid regime in South Africa. We are not being innovative in this policy, we are simply learning from history. So I hope the international community, and basically the US administration will deal with Israel by the same standards it deals with other countries which violate UN resolutions and international law.

It will be very interesting to see if Mr. Obama can bring about that change he spoke about when he was elected, and actually be able to take action if Israel refuses to freeze the settlement building, which is illegal in the first place. No peace or security, let alone reconciliation, can prevail without justice, and a serious resolve to end this brutal occupation.

Samia Khoury

Viva Palestina convoy of US activists breaks the siege of Gaza

2009-07-15T22:29:00-04:00

(Photo from http://www.vivapalestina-us.org/)

Viva Palestina, a convoy of US human rights activists has entered Gaza with truckloads of humanitarian aid. The delegation has over 200 people, and is a follow up trip to one led by British MP George Galloway last March. This delegation includes Vietnam vet Ron Kovic, New York City Council member Charles Barron and Cynthia McKinney.

Details are still unclear on how much aid got in. Although Viva Palestina's website reports that they had over "over one million dollars worth of aide" to bring in, Egypt may not have allowed all of it to enter. As has happened on other delegations to Gaza, Egypt created serious obstacles for the convoy as it attempted to enter Gaza, but they got through.

Presstv is reporting that the convoy is only allowed to stay in Gaza for 24 hours, so it might be a short stay. Regardless, the siege has been broken - if only for a day.

Update - The International Middle East Media Center is reporting that no aid was allowed in Gaza. From the IMEMC:

The Egyptian Authorities stopped trucks of the Viva Palestina aid convoy from entering the Gaza Strip and allowed the crew 24 hours access.

The Palestinian Information Center reported that the crew will be allowed into the Gaza Strip for only 24 hours and the aid supplies will stay at the Egyptian side of the borders.

The Viva Palestina arrived to Egypt on Sunday. On Monday, the caravan members were met by British MP George Galloway, who organized the aid campaign, and US former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who was deported from Israel last Wednesday while attempting to bring several tons of aid to Gaza by boat.

The convoy of humanitarian aid from the U.S includes 47 vehicles, tons of medical supplies, and 120 caravan participants.

Update - Here is a Presstv report showing the convoy entering Gaza. George Galloway says that they were forced to leave more than half of the aid behind in Egypt:

Wide-eyed college kids flood Ramallah, determined to change the world in a month

2009-07-15T22:26:54-04:00

Pamela, an American journalist who used to live in the West Bank and lately returned there, sent the following report in an email to friends from Ramallah. We are not using her last name because she fears difficulties at the border.

After leaving Haifa, I headed for Nablus. It's only about 60 miles from Haifa, but because I had to travel all the way down to Jerusalem and then back up to Nablus due to the Wall (alternatively, I could have taken a settler bus into the settlement of Ariel in the middle of the northern West Bank and then walked to a Palestinian road and taken a cab from there, but I didn't feel like dealing with settlers), the trip was more than three times longer than it should have been and took five hours.

As my bus from Ramallah to Nablus passed settlement areas in the West Bank, I noticed that a poster has been put up showing President Obama wearing an Arafat-style keffiya. I couldn't read the Hebrew (and I personally thought the President looked dashing in the black-and-white scarf), but the implications were clear: The American president was an Arab-lover, betraying the Jewish race with his insistence on enforcing anti-discrimination laws.

Why does this sound familiar? Ask Alabama ca. 1961.

Note: Not all Israelis, much less all Jews, feel this way. But this is what we're up against when it comes to the settlers in the West Bank. So many of them are living in Lala-Land, and all too many are willing to defend their fantasies with violence.

But here's the amazing part -- the Huwara checkpoint south of Nablus, the one I had been turned away from so many times and had to hike over the mountains to get into Nablus, the one that turned Nablus into a virtual prison camp, the one where so many horrific abuses had taken place, the human cattle chute of so much dread and lore -- it was gone!

Not gone exactly... Israeli soldiers were still there. But they weren't stopping anyone. They were just watching. The infrastructure of the checkpoint is still in place, and it can be shut down again at any time. But for now, buses and cars passed by in minutes instead of hours without being forced to get out and be checked and harassed and, often as not, detained or turned back (or worse) on arbitrary grounds. In fact, our bus drove straight from the center of Ramallah to the center of Nablus without being stopped at a single checkpoint! It was bizarre, but nice.

When I got into town and asked about the news, I found that the raids into Nablus's Old City, which before were nightly and often deadly occurrences, have slowed significantly. Like in Ramallah, business in Nablus was taking off at a much faster clip than when I was here last. The situation is still dire, and settlers have stepped up their attacks on Palestinian farmers (beating them, burning or cutting down their trees and crops, etc.) in the wake of Obama's calls to halt settlement expansion. But when you've spent nearly a decade with an elephant sitting on your face, it's hard not to feel relief when suddenly it's a slightly smaller elephant.

There are many theories about why some major checkpoints have been opened. (No one here listens to official news reports of why things are done, because these are almost always PC BS.) Some say it's because Netanyahu is trying to use this relatively easy concession to cut down on pressure for him to halt settlement expansion. Others say that Netanyahu is pushing for "economic peace," which means Palestinians will get certain areas that Israel is willing to "give up" but without the full rights of statehood such as control over their borders and airspace, and with much of their land annexed to settlements. Easing up and letting the economy get a little better is a way to keep the Palestinian population quiet while he tries to sell them a glorified Indian reservation (minus any rights of citizenship in Israel, but with 'citizenship' in a dummy state ultimately controlled by Israel) -- a plan that has no chance of working. Palestinians may be quiet at the moment, but they're not stupid.

Either way, for the moment it's a stunning and welcome development. Nablus is now, as it should be, an easy 1.5-hour, ten-shekel ($2.50) jaunt from Ramallah by bus, less in a car, which is good for Ramallah and amazing for the Nablusis, who've been shut up in their town for so long.

It's a beautiful place to be trapped in, though, as collective prisons go. Built in a long valley between two high hills, it's one of the most unique and beautiful cities in the Middle East. Its Old City, largely intact and thoroughly lived in, is not only stunning, it's virtually untouched by foreign tourists.

I was there to visit a Canadian friend whom I'd met six years earlier in Jayyous village during my very first visit to the West Bank. He runs a prominent humanitarian NGO (non-governmental organization) in Nablus with tens of Palestinian and international employees and volunteers who teach English, art, nursing, and other subjects in several locations around Nablus and engage in other awareness-raising and civil-society-building projects. ...

[One] evening, sitting on the veranda of the volunteers' house with its little herb and squash garden and looking out over the city, unseen F-16 fighter jets were doing loud maneuvers over the city. We had to pause our conversation every time the decibel level got too high for us to be able to hear each other. A young Icelandic volunteer yelled over the roar, "Why are they doing this?"

My Canadian friend and I looked at each other. She was probably looking for a rational or strategic reason. Why the sonic booms over Gaza? Why did soldiers make a Palestinian play his violin at Huwara checkpoint and jeer at him in 2005? Why did a female Israeli soldier force a Palestinian woman to drink cleaning fluid at a checkpoint? Why do so many children get shot in the head by Israeli snipers in Gaza? Why suicide bombings? We could have been there all night trying to answer her question. I'm writing a book that tries to explain. I gave her a snide and abbreviated answer that doesn't bear printing here.

After that, I headed back to Ramallah. Two things I forgot about Ramallah in the summer: It's hot and crowded. But the invasion of foreigners isn't as bizarre as I thought at first -- this happens almost every summer, although it's a bit over-the-top at the moment. Now that the violence has gone down (and the global economy has, too), the NGOs (non-governmental organizations) seem to have exploded like a pinata from Europe. There are also a lot of college kids breezing in to learn a mite of Arabic over the summer break or demonstrate against the Wall. More power to 'em, but they sure do fill up the place like tourists in New York, wide-eyed, aghast, and sure they can change the world in a month. We old-timers remember our first time here, of course, and can't and shouldn't judge. Circle of life, I suppose. And who knows, maybe one of them will go on and shake things up somehow....

The heat wave also broke, to the point that it's almost chilly at night and I have to close the door to my room to keep out the breeze. On Saturday I finally found some cool, quiet places to work, set up my new apartment in a more homey way, bought some fruits and vegetables from the market in town, got to know my (very busy) roommates better, and got to work on the book again. Finally I feel like I have arrived.

I've noticed also that the dress code in Ramallah has relaxed. You can see girls wearing almost-sleeveless shirts and capri pants that show off their calves (in addition to long pants so tight you would be forgiven for mistaking them for bare skin if not for the color, which has always been de rigeur), and men freely wear athletic shorts walking down the streets. The Muntaza Baladia Ramallah (Ramallah City Hall Park) has been spruced up, its fountains spraying water high in the air instead of sitting there like dusty shipwrecks, and there's a bouncy castle with a ball pit along with the playground for kids and tables set up under shady trees where people can order food, drinks, and hookahs.

I've always thought of Ramallah as a nearly-ideal blend of East and West, with the fantastic and welcoming hospitality and culture of Palestine, breezy parks, wind-swept Biblical hillsides, small shops and spice and vegetable markets mixed with virtually anything a Westerner could want, from lattes, Nutella, and Chinese food to hip hop and classical concerts. But lately it seems to have tilted a bit too far to the West.

The crowding in the cafes has turned the scene into a seller's market, which means prices are higher, space scarcer, and waiters snootier. Some places have even instated a $10 cover charge for Thursday and Saturday nights. It's upsetting the balance at DJ'ed dance parties of the relatively rich folks with foreign NGO salaries and the rest of us -- students, activists, volunteers, and artists. But they have to limit the clientele somehow, and this is an easy and lucrative way to do it. I've certainly been eliminated, but I'm not much into the big going out nights anyway -- I prefer the intimacy of the off-nights -- so it all works out...

Incidentally, it's also possible that the lessening of (some) checkpoints (others have intensified, and the vast majority, more than 600 including unmanned but impassable road blocks, are still there) is a concession not to the Palestinians but to the Palestinian Authority (PA) so that they can make more investments and skim off the top and therefore have less of an incentive to form a unity government with Hamas that might actually represent the Palestinian people in peace talks.

Palestinians are disgusted by the Palestinian Authority these days. It's not that they love Hamas -- they're getting more fed up with Hamas by the day as well. But the PA has become little more than a fig leaf and security sub-contractor for the occupation, helping Israel round up Hamas members and other dissidents and caving into every Israeli demand without asking for anything tangible in return. (They make requests now and then, but Israel ignores them.) There is essentially no high-level push-back to the occupation other than Obama's right now.

But as for organized resistance coming from the Territories, it's been pretty well neutered for the moment other than the frequent non-violent protests against home demolitions and the Wall that the Israeli army counters with extreme violence -- such as shooting tear gas, rubber bullets, and live bullets at unarmed protesters, killing seven in the past year and grievously wounding many, including an American named Tristan Anderson whose head was split open by a high-velocity tear gas canister a few months ago -- and the international press ignores.

But as a friend said the other day, people were about this demoralized just before the First Intifada erupted in 1987. If nothing moves in a good way in the next couple of years, times may be ripe for Round Three. Hopefully some important lessons have been learned from the first two Intifadas....Right now people seem to be in wait-and-see mode.

Maybe Obama will man up, stop the settlements, and engage Hamas in talks for a unity government that includes Hamas and Fatah under reasonable terms. Maybe all the millions of little ways the truth has to chip away at the edifice of lies surrounding Israel (blogs from Palestine, writers, filmmakers, travelers, activists, and even a few political leaders and pundits who call for a more even-handed approach) will start to bear fruit in a more systematic way, or the press will continue to speak a little more honestly, nudging public opinion toward a major policy shift.

It doesn't hurt that the Israeli right wing are shooting themselves in the foot in a major way, sounding more absolutist and racist as the days go by. The Israeli Housing Minister recently said out in the open that the spread of Arab populations in Israel to Jewish areas had to be stopped. Projecting much? As if it's Arabs who are colonizing Jewish land! As if it's kosher in 2009 to say, "This race of people is undesirable, and we should segregate them." These Israeli right-wingers are something else. As a friend of mine said, "Do they not hear what they are saying?"

So maybe, in the end, simple common sense and decency will prevail where titanic clashes between Israel's PR machine and Palestinian resistance have merely muddied the waters over the years.

Either way, even now it's not all doom and gloom. One of the most important thing I've learned here, vis-a-vis my happiness, is to try to think positively and look for the good even in very bad times. It's always there, even though there's also plenty to be cynical about. I've found that too much cynicism is not only unpleasant, it's often a self-fulfilling prophecy.

MSNBC commentator pipes line that Arab states worry about Iran more than peace process. He's wrong

2009-07-15T19:37:00-04:00

This afternoon on MSNBC, Mark Whitaker said of Hillary's speech that some Arab states care more about Iran than they do about the peace process--that they seek American pressure to stop Iranian nukes more than pressure to resolve the Israel/Palestinian conflict. (Don't have a transcript, sorry.)
I hear this line regularly and asked a smart friend who studies the Arab states. He said that Whitaker was imbibing pro-Israel propaganda. Yes, the Arab states care about nuclear disarmament, but the chief concern is Israel.

The famed Sunni-Israeli alliance against Iran is a lot of wishful thinking. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and much of the Gulf are certainly concerned about Iran's hegemonic intentions and they do worry about what they see as Iran's inflated notions of its proper place in the region. And they do not want Iran to have a bomb. But that is not the same thing as wanting a military strike or other precipitous actions when the blowback will undermine regional stability and widen the gaps being rulers and ruled. When one considers how dependent much of the Gulf, in particular the UAE, is on Iranian trade it is crazy to believe they would be interested in aggressively taking on the Islamic Republic of Iran. And, priority number one for these states is a real peace process regardless. They would never give precedence to Iran issues at the expense of issues with Israel. If there is any linkage it is the reverse. The Egyptians and Saudis really do detest the Iranians but they aren't suicidal.

Obamen and J Street (new nexus)

2009-07-15T19:24:00-04:00

Ira Glunts writes:

Did you see the editorial in Ha'aretz today? They think Obama should take his case directly to the Israeli public. Talk about Obamania!!! From the Hebrew comments I would say that the President would not be treated kindly. But who knows? Maybe he can perform some more Obamagic even in Israel.

It was great to see JStreet and Americans for Peace Now included in the meeting at the White House. I think it was a real victory. Jeremy Ben-Ami from JStreet sure got some awesome face time in the press. Debkafile says J Street has a direct line to Rahm and Alexrod. I think the Obamen have always thought of JStreet as possible cover for any problems with the lobby. And JStreet sometimes appears more interested in supporting Obama than in talking about the peace process. Solomont I believe is JStreet's top financial backer and was also Obama's first top Jewish money guy. I'm all for it if it leads to improved conditions in ME.

goody goody gumdrops

2009-07-15T15:38:21-04:00

set the alarm clock: December 2010.

Mearsheimer: C-Span would cover a debate. Jump up to it, Yivo!

2009-07-15T14:11:14-04:00

Journalist Ron Kampeas of JTA (a settler who owns property in illegally-annexed East Jerusalem) writes today that the American Jewish Committee has not run from a debate with "bums" Walt and Mearsheimer. He says the AJC has merely postponed such a debate (forever):

[I]t is not out of the question that a more urgent matter might press the professional leader of a group that informally calls itself

drum roll

"the State Department of the Jewish people" to delay discussion of a topic that ain't exactly about to drop off the radar.
"One would hope there would be an appreciation of scheduling difficulties," Ken Bandler, the AJC's spokesman, told me. "The issues we would discuss with Professor Mearsheimer are not going away. Whether now or in a few months, there will be plenty to talk about." In other words, game still on.

Holding up my end of the discussion here, I asked Mearsheimer-- He responds:

"[AJC spokesman] Ben Cohen did not say that the AJC was simply putting off or delaying the debate. He said, as I reported in my July 12 note to you, that we might revisit the issue in 2010. He gave no indication that the AJC was committed to having the debate we had been talking about. And given what happened in my negotiations between April and June, I have no reason to think that the AJC really wants to have a debate. But if they do, David Harris should call up some institution like YIVO or the 92nd Street Y and ask it (not the AJC) to set up a public debate with me and Steve on one side and Harris and another prominent figure from the lobby on the other side. I am sure that there is an institution in New York that would be happy to sponsor a serious debate involving that cast of characters and would do a fine job arranging it. David Harris would simply have to show up and he would even have a wingman to help him out. And I am sure that C-Span would happily cover the event so that people all around the country could see it."

Seham: What Palestinians say is meaningless unless a Jew of conscience signs off on it first (ugh)

2009-07-15T13:10:00-04:00

Seham responds to my post about the question of whether Jews agonizing over their Jewish identity is a sideshow to real engagement on Israel/Palestine:

You know how much I like forwarding news items along, and invariably at some point a Jewish activist well say or do something that I find particularly moving (this week it was Naomi Klein and Max Blumenthal) and so when I email these things out I get a lot of flack-- there are two "nice jerks" who always respond and ask me why I insist on having Jews frame and humanize the cause for me. I don't. It's a resentment that some Palestinian activists have because as I said before: what Palestinians say is insignificant unless a Jew of conscience signs off on it first. Those same expectations don't apply to Tibetans, we don't expect the Chinese to sanctify their cause nor do we demand that the government in Sudan sanctify the plight of the people in Darfur, but like I said before, the white man expects/demands that the Palestinians have an intermediary and it is most palatable to the white man that the intermediary be a Jew. So, some of us resent the fact that while we are capable and willing to tell our narrative, nobody really wants to listen.

I don't really mind the process that Jewish activists have to go through until they get to the point where they are standing on the right side of humanity and the law in regards to the Palestinian issue, while it isn't necessarily about "you" per se, you can't be ignored. There is an apartheid regime in Israel and they claim to act on behalf of world Jewry and they use something that was collectively traumatizing to world Jewry in order to gain support from world Jewry.

“Do you know why we Palestinians are famous? Because you are our enemy. The interest in us stems from the interest in the Jewish issue. The interest is in you, not in me. So we have the misfortune of having Israel as an enemy, because it enjoys unlimited support. And we have the good fortune of having Israel as our enemy, because the Jews are the center of attention. You’ve brought us defeat and renown.” --Mahmoud Darwish

Hillary to demand more-- from Arabs

2009-07-15T11:29:12-04:00

Yes Virginia, there is an Israel lobby. Greg Sargent reports:

In a major foreign policy speech this afternoon, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will take direct aim at Arab states for not doing their part towards securing Mideast peace, demanding that “all sides” do more to crack down on the “cultures of hate, intolerance and disrespect that perpetuate conflict,” according to an advance excerpt I’ve obtained.

The only way to understand this report is in the context of Obama's meeting with big Jews on Monday. In the meeting Obama did not back down an inch on the settlements issue (would that were the answer) but had to massage a lot of injured Jewish egos. But note James Besser's report on the meeting says that none of the Jewish leaders, even Foxman and the AJC, would take Obama on on substance. I.e., J Street has cracked the lobby. They just want more handholding.

“Nobody spoke in favor of Judea and Samaria as rightful places of Jewish settlement,” said Jason Isaacson, Washington director for the American Jewish Committee. “The concerns that were expressed were concerns about the way he has expressed himself on these issues, in ways that will not necessarily advance peace.”...

Instead of criticizing the substance of administration policies, the strongest critics at Monday’s meeting complained that the president is too willing to express disagreements with Israel in public, which they say gives the Palestinians and the other Arab states a free pass and undermines support for U.S. policy within Israel.

Obama vigorously defended that policy, saying that a public airing of differences between close friends can only bolster their friendship.

“What we heard from the administration is that the president believes he has an ability to open up to the world in a way that his predecessors didn’t,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “He argues that by reaching out and showing a different approach, we can bring peace and security — he used the word ‘normalization’ — to Israel and the Arabs.”

Foxman pressed Obama to keep policy disputes between the two governments private, arguing that perceived differences between the two allies can be exploited by Palestinian leaders not interested in making compromises.

The president did not back down an inch, he said.
“He spelled out that he has a strategy — and the strategy is to tell it like it is. Tell your friends the truth. The problem is, some of us feel he is not telling the truth in a fair way."

Breaking the Silence kinda breaks the silence

2009-07-15T11:25:00-04:00

Yesterday Breaking the Silence broke an important report from Israeli soldiers, one of whom compared the Gaza operation to burning ants with a magnifying glass, as a kid.
Bruce Wolman writes:

The Independent covers the IDF soldiers' testimonies from Gaza, as the "brutal truth" of an assault designed to make sure "not a hair will fall" from an Israeli in the attack. Front page (on web) in Ha'aretz and Norway's Aftenposten. Will there be any mention in the NY Times and WaPo?

Hazel Kahan is on the story too:

The story about Breaking the Silence testimonies against IDF is a leading item on bbc.com and radio , the World Wires section of the Washington Post (AP Story: reckless violence used), but I could find no reference to it on the NYT.

When Jews agonize about their identity and Israel, is that an elitist tea party?

2009-07-15T11:15:53-04:00

Last night we had a blowout discussion of Gaza at the Brecht Forum in New York. At the end of the night Mahmoud Bitar, a Palestinian-American, rose and in a passionate tone said "what I'm experiencing now is excitement, I actually feel optimism today," and that the meeting was historic. I don’t know that I would go that far but it was certainly a packed house, over 250 people, and an unusual combination of leftwingers, progressives, Jews and Arabs. Gaza has lit a fuse and the politics are exploding before us.

But I want to do this post about the Jewish identity piece of the evening.
Before the meeting I met my Gaza roommate Sammer Aboelela, an Egyptian-American, in a park on 8th Avenue and we talked about what we were going to say. We continued an argument we’d had in Gaza, how important the Jewish identity part of the issue is. Sammer said that to him it was a sideshow. The heart of the issue is that Americans are signing off on grotesque aggression against the Palestinians and this is all that matters politically. People have to get engaged as Americans. I said I disagreed because Sammer is underestimating Jewish power in this society, from contributions to congress to the media. Jews care about the issue and they have to be taken on. Fine, he said you can do that, but it’s not the heart of the problem. And Jews are just a tiny part of the population involved. They’re paying for this in Louisiana and no one there worries about Jewish identity.
I wasn't planning to say anything about Jewish identity in my little talk, and I didn't. I talked about five Palestinians I had met and how they showed me that Palestinians are “civilized to the core,” as John Ging put it. Here’s my lineup. If I accomplished one thing, it was that the last portrait I used was of Jalal Sagr, an 82-year-old father who is afraid he is going to die without seeing his imprisoned son, and so the picture of this incredibly dignified but half-broken spirit stayed on the wall throughout the conversation, for the next hour and a half.

Medea Benjamin spoke after me and she got into the Jewish identity piece. Benjamin is a great speaker. She always knows who she’s talking to, and she knows how to rally them. She said that she had avoided the Israel Palestine issue for years for two reasons. One was that she was told that it was a hornet’s nest organizationally and she would get eaten alive. The second reason was “I come from a Jewish family where it was the one issue we didn’t talk about.” She also said that it was remarkable to her “how welcoming you are to people who are coming way too late to the issue.” After that she asked people to raise their hands who had been on it for two decades. There were a bunch of people, including Michael Smith, Helen Schiff, Rick Congress, and Abdeen Jabara. We applauded those people.

I’m digressing a little but it was an important moment because there has been a lot of murmuring about Where Was Code Pink before Gaza. I think I did some myself (I forget!), but Benjamin swept the ground out from under us with incredible grace. And because “I am a newcomer,” she said, she recognizes that Now is really the time to take this issue to another level, with a major action in Gaza over the New Year's, this is the “moment to up the ante.” To show that this is a force that is stronger than AIPAC.

Now maybe the identity issue would have laid there but it didn’t. In the Q-and-A, Jabara, a long time activist on the issue, asked me to address the Jewish piece. He said that he recognized that the issue would not get anywhere without Jews changing, and he asked me, What do I think of that? I talked about my running argument with Sammer about whether it was a sideshow. To me it wasn’t a sideshow. I thought it was a vital part because of Jewish influence in politics and liberal movements. But non-Zionist Jews couldn’t do this on their own. If we did, we would be defeated. We needed to make alliances in other communities, that was where we could find power, and then I gave the mike to Sammer. He said what he’d said ahead of time, it was an American issue and Americans had to be mobilized on it regardless of ethnic politics.

Well, Jabara’s question reopened the Jewish identity door, and a number of other people talkd about it. Naomi Allen of Brooklyn for Peace said they specifically try to work with the Jewish community to show the liberal Jews that they are not being represented by AIPAC. A friend handed me a note saying, "The psychosis of Israel is its insistence on its right to an internal debate." Brilliant point.

Then a stooped older guy with a walker or a cane, I forget, cranked up to the mike, and next to me Norman Finkelstein said, “That’s Morton Sobell. He’s over 90.”

Sobell went after the issue hammer and tongs with words I won’t soon forget. “Throughout history we’ve all been fighting against anti-Semitism. Now all of a sudden we reverse the call, asking people to fight against Semitism. This is a tremendous problem. How do you cope with it? That the Jews, who have been persecuted all their history, have become the persecutor.” This had to be addressed, he said.

The person I thought was most affected by the Jewish identity piece, though, was Norman Finkelstein. He took the microphone and after trying to excuse the fact that he was talking about a Jewish-centric issue, saying dismissively, This is just a New York conversation, he did the New York conversation. He said that young Jews were changing around the issue because Jews are liberal and educated, and no one can avoid getting educated on Israel's "dirty laundry" on college campuses, to the point where being for Israel on a campus, “That’s really dangerous, that’s really taking your life in your hands.”

Talking about Jews, Finkelstein spoke with more anguish and passion than he had all night. How can you possibly be liberal and read the Human Rights Watch report saying that Israel had dropped white phosphorus on a hospital? He itemized Israeli abuses and the Jewish view of them. “Anti-Zionism is not my cup of tea, I have a bigger vision. It’s become a satanic state….”

He spoke in an incantatory manner about visiting Lebanon and Gaza. “Devastation devastation devastation devastation.” And later, “Rubble rubble rubble rubble rubble rubble rubble-- wherever you turn.” Finkelstein as Dylan.

“How can anyone who’s liberal and Jewish support that.”

Finkelstein closed by saying that we could win the issue because we have the truth and the facts and post-Gaza, enlightened opinion (and by implication Medea Benjamin). “With those weapons and just a tiny little bit of backbone, we can win.”

The place exploded in applause and I leaned over to Sammer in I-told-you-so fashion and said, “Well the Jewish identity piece certainly got Finkelstein going.”

Afterward a couple of people came up to me and said that you could never do anything on the issue without winning the Jews, then I walked up Eighth Avenue with Sammer and Max Blumenthal arguing the point a little longer. I tried a number of tacks with Sammer. Sammer is a strong, controlled person (he grew up Arab and Muslim in America) and I harangued him a little. He said he believed his view that the Jewish piece was a sideshow 90 percent and the 10 percent in him that doubts that is why he was listening.

I said his doorway into the issue was an identity piece: he’s an Arab-American and when he insists that it’s a moral American issue, I don’t see where you go politically on that. You have to go with the people who care. I said there was a brief moment when the Cuba lobby got flipped by Steve Largent the Republican Oklahoma congressman who said that Elian Gonzalez had a right to go back to his father, and Clinton said so too, but that was just a moment. Sammer said that the South African argument wasn’t won because Americans of South African heritage got involved. No, I said; but blacks got involved, they had an identity reason to get involved; and the money, 3 billion and even white phosphorus weren’t going to be enough for the people in Louisiana. I said that Sammer was underestimating the Jewish power effect in politics and he said that just wasn’t where he was going to plant his charge.

He went into the subway at 40th Street and at the steps there I told him that Adam Horowitz agrees with him: that when Jews stand around at these events and wring their hands about their parents or their history or the Torah, in the end he says, Well go ahead and have that conversation, but the bigger issue is the human rights of Palestinians.

I walked on to my train station past Golda Meir Square. I recalled that Michael Smith had risen at the event to say he had gotten involved in the issue decades ago as a 26-year-old lawyer who though he came from Golda Meir’s town, Milwaukee, had visited Israel and knew that religious nationalism was the wrong path. I thought of Norman Finkelstein coming incredibly alive at the event, and I realized that Jewish stuff has always engaged him. His work began in some ways as a long argument with Michael Walzer and love affair with Noam Chomsky, and later in life it became a long argument with Alan Dershowitz. Morton Sobell was a Communist because of his Jewish identity.

It struck me that Sammer was suggesting a self-indulgent aspect to the Jewish identity piece, and he was right but I didn't know if I was going to change. I feel engaged by Jewish history, by Jewish learning, and by intellectual and political battles in the United States. As a friend who was in the room—another Jewish friend who must go nameless lest his own family learn of his engagement and flay him—the number of people killed in Israel/Palestine during the second intifada is just “a bad day in the Congo,” which is to say that human rights is not the alpha and omega of our engagement, we are engaged by the crucible of three big religions, and in the latest working out of the issue of the Jewish Problem in western society. The last resolution of that problem, which perplexed Bismarck, Herzl, Einstein, Wilson, and so on, a number of good political minds, has not worked out that well-- Israel-- and we are engaged by another Jewish tradition, Arendtian non-Zionism, to try and figure out a better answer.

Medea Benjamin also has a Jewish reason to be engaged, but that's not the energy for her; she's been working at Third World issues forever. Maybe Sammer is the same way, we'll see. He has a view of democratic politics in which the people are engaged on a moral question. I don’t see it. I think elites matter. And, yes, fighting about Israel, its raison d’etre, legitimacy, and the future of the Jews-- is elite tea-drinking.

I wrote that last night and this morning I'm already feeling different. Yes you can say that Sobell, Finkelstein and I are all engaged because we think that Jews matter. But at least, at last: there is a true effort to engage Jews with our non-elitist shadow.

Sonia-- Kate Winslet 'joked' that she wouldn't win an Oscar till she played a Holocaust victim

2009-07-15T10:23:00-04:00

From the JTA: "Life story, Israel trips tie Sotomayor to Jews"

It doesn't hurt that Sotomayor, 54, is a poster child for strong Jewish-Hispanic relations. In 1986, when she was in private legal practice, she joined one of the first young leadership tours of Israel sponsored by Project Interchange, which is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee.

Sotomayor so enjoyed the country -- its immigrant culture, its popular music influenced heavily by Jewish immigrants from Argentina and Brazil -- that she made a return visit in 1996 when she was a federal judge, and recently joined a Project Interchange U.S.-Israel forum on immigration. In the process, she formed a lifelong friendship with Project Interchange founder Debbie Berger and her husband, Paul, who attended her swearing-in as a Manhattan appeals court judge in 1998.

"She enjoyed Israel not just from an intellectual perspective, she liked the music and the people," Paul Berger told JTA.

Richard Foltin, the legislative director for the AJC, said her background naturally played a role in how the Jewish community would welcome her.

The Kate Winslet/Ricky Gervais joke is here.

How they do it: Hoenlein brought Limbaugh to Israel and Mossad, many years ago

2009-07-15T09:16:00-04:00

FE Felson writes:
Don't ask me how I ended up on his site at 12:45 AM, but I was just looking through a Rush Limbaugh speech from 10/07 in which he casually mentioned Malcolm Hoenlein how het set up Rush's (only, I assume) trip to Israel, back in '94. It's a very small but telling example of the lobby at work. I'm quite sure Rush talked to no Palestinians on his trip and made no effort to see Gaza or the West Bank or to learn anything about the Palestinian perspective. And I'm sure he hasn't gone to Gaza or the West Bank since. I'd be very interested to know if Hoenlein is the one who suggested the Israel trip in the first place. (He talks about going to the wedding of Hoenlein's daughter, and how everyone who's anyone was there.) Rush:

"It's the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. His name is Malcolm Hoenlein, and when I went to Israel in 1994, he arranged the trip in a four-day, whirlwind, meeting everybody that was anybody in the government, in the Mossad. I had special briefings, went up to the Golan Heights, and the Mossad. It was just unbelievable."

It's time for Yivo to host a debate with Walt and Mearsheimer

2009-07-15T08:23:00-04:00

There's a new director at Yivo Institute for Jewish Research. A guy from the Yale Press, Jonathan Brent.

On a few occasions on this site I have challenged Yivo, which conducted a smearfest of Walt and Mearsheimer in 2007, during which they were repeatedly denounced as the second coming of Father Coughlin, to invite these non-Jewish scholars of Jewish history to the Yivo stage to defend their position. Now that David Harris of the American Jewish Committee has baited Mearsheimer to debate, then run from the debate, it ups the ante for Yivo to do the right thing.

There is other pressure on Yivo. A year ago, Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the participants in the Yivo monsters' ball, all but recanted his position, blaming the Israel lobby for the settlements program. Other events have underlined the truth of Walt and Mearsheimer's position: the rise of J Street, as an alternative, inside the Jewish community; and Obama's repeated efforts to trianguate Jewish leadership with a push on the two-state-solution. Not an Arab or Palestinian in sight. No power.

If Jonathan Brent is at all alive to this Jewish moment (in a word, power), he will invite Walt and Mearsheimer to New York.

Can we start a brushfire re Ruth Bader Ginsburg's weird statement about abortion/eugenics?

2009-07-15T06:37:00-04:00

Last week I did a great piece if I say so myself, tipped off by my friend Mark, about Ruth Bader Ginsburg's bizarre comment about abortion as a means of eugenics, limiting "populations we don't want too many of." Well today Jonah Goldberg, with whom I probably disagree on 90 percent of all issues, joins me by devoting a column to the ugly statement and wonders as I do, why journalist Emily Bazelon didn't follow up on it. (I say it's because of Bazelon's identification with Ginsburg as a Jewish lawyer, feminist, elitist; so there's no cultural detachment). Hope Goldberg can get the jungle drums in the blogosphere beating out their mad tattoo on this one:

Left unclear is whether Ginsburg endorses the eugenic motivation she ascribed to the passage of RoeWade or whether she was merely objectively describing it. One senses that if Antonin Scalia had offered such a comment, a Times interviewer would have sought more clarity, particularly on the racial characteristics of these supposedly unwanted populations.

Update from New Profile: our 'criminalization follows a fault line that has long been quaking beneath the surface of Israeli society and is now visibly cracking open'

2009-07-14T21:12:10-04:00

We have been following the ongoing intimidation of the Israeli anti-militarism organization New Profile by the Israeli government. Here is their latest update:

July 15, 2009

Dear Supporters,

As with our earlier (two) updates, we would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your continued and faithful support of New Profile during these critical times. During the recent months your visible show of support has been truly significant and heartening.

The ongoing attempt to delegitimize New Profile is being played out, for now, on the forms and desks of bureaucrats. There are two official scenarios already in process: 1) A petition to the High Court of Justice to revoke New Profile's registration as a non-profit organization, which would amount to shutting off our legal channel for receiving funds; 2) The criminal investigation of New Profile for alleged incitement and assistance with obtaining fraudulent exemptions from the army. (For full background information see two previous updates: http://www.newprofile.org/english/?p=166; http://www.newprofile.org/english/?p=102.)

The court case is now stalled, pending the results of the police investigation. The police, for their part, after the high drama of an orchestrated "raid", have completed their initial interrogations and transferred the case back to the Attorney General. The computers they confiscated were returned to their owners 30 days after being impounded. Written and printed materials have not yet been returned. Further investigative work may be initiated by the police, at any given time, including additional interrogations. We can only assume that the material gathered is now being combed for alleged criminal offenses towards possible indictments.

New Profile members are working very hard both as a movement and as individuals, to resist the intentionally exhausting and dispiriting effects of waiting out the course of this laborious bureaucratic legal process. Just one of our means for doing this has been the unorthodox move of taking a series of close, candid, intimate looks back at the investigators and their practices. (For our series "Investigating the Investigation", authored by various New Profile activists, see: http://www.newprofile.org/english/?p=119#more-119.)

We would like to reiterate that police harassment of New Profile and the interrogation of eleven of our members are not isolated events. They are part of a virulent drive of state McCarthyism, a stepped-up systematic persecution of left-wing activists and voices. This drive arguably obviates the remnants of Israel's claim to democracy and parodies its ludicrous boast to representing a single democratic beacon in the Middle East.

Among human rights organizations in Israel, Adalah (www.adalah.org/eng/index.php) for instance is still preparing a report on the recent, sharp escalation in combined state and university repression of student activists and, in particular, Palestinian citizens of Israel; the Association of Citizen’s Rights in Israel (www.acri.org/eng/) will soon be publicizing their comprehensive report on state violence against activists, left-wing groups and individuals, as well as their international supporters.

Our last update, listed, among others:

- Samih Jabarin, who still remains under house arrest months after being arrested for participating in a political demonstration in Umm al Fahm, though he has finally been allowed to return to his place of residence in Yaffa. The conditions of his house-arrest have significantly improved and while still bound to them, he will now be able to resume part of his work at the Arab-Hebrew Theater until the next court session, set for September 2009. (See: Link to the petition: http://www.atzuma.co.il/petition/friendsofsamieh/1/1000/.)

- Anarchists Against the Wall, some of whom have recently been sentenced to prison terms. (Read more on their website, www.awalls.org.)

- Ezra Nawi, who's sentencing has been postponed, dragging out the legal process. (See: www.supportezra.net.)

This list is constantly expanding. Some of the newer instances include:

1) The recent interrogation of members of Yesh Gvul, for alleged "incitement to evade military service", while promising "financial incentives". This longtime refusers' group, primarily supporting refusal to serve in the Occupied Territories, was also questioned regarding their web link to New Profile's website. (For more information, see: http://www.yeshgvul.org/news.asp?id=81a03ef84f6d0ab2ad2b7d21cec9ea71.)

2) The kidnapping by Israel's navy, on June 30th, of the passengers and crew of “The Spirit of Humanity,” on board which the Free Gaza Movement was bringing food, medical supplies and human rights monitors towards Gaza port. Amongst the 21 passengers detained and later deported were Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire and former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. (For detailed information, see: www.freegaza.org.)

3) The continuing refusal of Israeli state authorities to allow members of the UN investigative mission on the events of December-January 2008-9 to enter Israel. The mission, headed by world renowned jurist Richard Goldstone, has been hearing testimonies in the Gaza Strip. (For a report on the mission, see for instance: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3739538,00.html.)

And yet, we would also like to point out that within the overall context of political and racist persecution, each separate instance of repression represents individual state policies and specific bids for control by the state. New Profile's criminalization and our attempted shut-down are directed, in particular, at intimidating the huge numbers of young people who fail to comply with conscription law today. The drive against us targets this popular display of mistrust and indifference, this major threat to politicians' fear-based hold on voting constituencies and to military commanders' uncontested control of "national security" issues.

New Profile's criminalization follows a fault line that has long been quaking beneath the surface of Israeli society and is now visibly cracking open.

We will send out further updates as the events unfold and we'll also turn to each of you to take concrete action when needed. We'd like to remind you, though, of our ongoing need to inform and engage more and more people and of our list "What you can do" at: www.newprofile.org/english/?p=102#what-you-can-do . Please take one of these actions into consideration.

Again, we hugely appreciate your continuing interest, caring and support.

Sincerely,

Ruth Hiller & Rela Mazali

The Discourse It Is a-Changin': ABC News reports on Israeli plan to 'ethnically cleanse' road signs

2009-07-14T19:30:15-04:00

If you need any indication that the discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is changing in the US just check out this report from ABC News - Israel at War ... Over Road Signs?: Israeli Transport Ministry Accused of Plan to Ethnically Cleanse Road Signs.

The story outlines plans the new Israeli Minister of Transportation has to change the "the names of more than 2,500 road signs, doing away with Arabic place names and replacing them with simple translations of Hebrew names." Some examples given would be dropping the Arabic al-Nasra for Nazareth and using the Hebrew Natsrat, and more controversially dropping the Arabic name for Jerusalem Al Quds and only using the Hebrew Yerushalayim. Although a Ministry spokesperson says the changes are being made solely for the benefit of drivers, a communications adviser to the Minister is a bit more upfront, saying opposition to the changes are an "attempt by anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist elements to annul Israel's identity as a Jewish and democratic state. Anyone willing to refer to Jerusalem as al-Quds is collaborating with the Palestinian propaganda."

As context the article highlights Avigdor Lieberman's success in the recent Israeli elections, and it's clear that his right wing views are opening space for the US media to talk truth about Israel in a way that it hasn't before. One example from the article is the explanation that "Israel's Arab community makes up 20 percent of the country's population and many have long perceived of themselves as second-class citizens." Weren't these the same 20% that used to be held up as evidence that Israel is a flourishing democracy? More interesting is that the term "ethnic cleansing" is not actually used by anyone in the story, but was added by ABC News to help clarify the story in the subtitle.

When Ilan Pappe came out with The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine in 2007 applying the term "ethnic cleansing" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was considered controversial and on the cutting edge. Less than two years later, ABC News has adopted the term. Anyone think this might be why the Israel Project is trying to co-opt it for their own purposes?

Max Blumenthal: Feeling the hate in Tel Aviv (Huffington Post pulls the plug, again)

2009-07-14T16:00:00-04:00

Update: Max Blumenthal crossed posted this video and story on The Huffington Post. Even though HuffPo promoted it this morning over their Twitter feed, it has been taken down without explanation. We'll post more as we get the details.

Max Blumenthal writes:

On May 27, journalist Jesse Rosenfeld and I set out on the streets of Tel Aviv to probe the political opinions of young local residents. We started the day filming at Tel Aviv University, where a group of Jewish and Palestinian Israeli students gathered to protest a proposed law that would criminalize public observance of the Nakba, or the mass expulsion and killing of Palestinians by Zionist militias in 1948. There, we interviewed Palestinian Israeli students about the rising climate of repression, then spoke to another group of students who gathered nearby to heckle their Arab classmates and demand their deportation. A few hundred meters away, two genial business students expressed support for the so-called Nakba law, remarking to us, “If you want to keep democracy, you can’t let people protest against the independence of the country.”

That evening, Jesse and I took our camera to central Tel Aviv, where thousands were taking part in the annual all-night festival known as White Night. Some revelers took an intermission from the partying to express to us their hatred for the Iranian people. And a group of teenagers launched into a virtually unprompted diatribe against Barack Obama, referring to him as a Nazi, a Muslim, and a “Cushi,” which is Hebrew slang for “nigger.” When questioned about the source of his opinions, one teenager proudly declared himself a “gezan,” or a racist.

This video, entitled “Feeling the Hate in Tel Aviv,” is the sequel to a piece the Israeli blogger Joseph Dana and I released in June called “Feeling the Hate in Jerusalem.” That video, which featured a cast of mostly American Jews in Jerusalem leveling racist vitriol at Obama, stirred immediate controversy, prompting the Huffington Post to remove it on the grounds that it was not “newsworthy.” As the “not newsworthy” video began climbing towards 400,000 hits on YouTube, and before YouTube and Vimeo banned it without explanation and without offering me any legal recourse, the Israeli media weighed in. (“Feeling the Hate” has been reposted here).

Benjamin Hartman, a young correspondent for Ha’aretz who had moved to Israel from his hometown of Austin, Texas, wrote that my video was “circling the internet at a critical velocity on a mission to humiliate the Jewish people.” Hartman concluded that I was “speaking to the wrong crowd at the wrong time of night,” a meme that would comprise the key talking point for bloggers and organized Jewish groups (including the Israeli chapter of Democrats Abroad) seeking to discredit and ultimately suppress the video.

Hartman then offered me advice on where to find the right crowd, and at which time of night they might be on their best behavior:

“I hope Blumenthal films his next segment in Tel Aviv, though the results would probably be far less salacious. On a balcony in Florentin, he would ask the drum circle what they think of Obama and through the purple haze would hear only praise for the president, before being forced to listen to a 30-minute account of a recent trip to Nepal.”

Unbeknownst to Hartman, who only attempted to interview me days after publishing his review and then published a piece questioning whether I had been “fueling anti-Semitism,” I had already filmed my next segment in Tel Aviv. (And I had already spent an evening, sans camera, with an Israeli hippie on a balcony in Florentin, though he told me through the purple haze that the Palestinian people do not exist and should be immediately transferred to Jordan).

Now that I have released my footage from Tel Aviv, I wonder what Hartman and other, even more insecure critics of my first “Feeling the Hate” video will do to ensure that the sequel does not “humiliate the Jewish people.” Will they rely on the same old hasbara?

Can they still claim that clean-cut students at Tel Aviv University were “the wrong crowd?” Was filming during the afternoon, or during the evening at an officially sanctioned festival still “the wrong time?” And could I have heard similarly racist opinions in “an American college town,” as Hartman suggested? Perhaps for my next video I should ask frat brothers at South Dakota University if they would like their Native American classmates to be jailed for three years for observing the massacre of Wounded Knee. Or I could ask Anglo students at the University of Texas, located in Hartman’s hometown, if they want the US government to round up every single Latino student on campus -- especially those who are US citizens -- and deport them to somewhere south of the border. Call me an idealist, but for some reason I don’t think this project would go anywhere.

If Hartman chooses to review the sequel, I hope he will explain how he has so stringently avoided any exposure to the crude racism, bellicose nationalism and anti-democratic sentiments I heard expressed on a daily basis by young, seemingly cosmopolitan Jewish Israelis during the month I spent living in the so-called “bubble city” of Tel Aviv. Or perhaps Hartman has been exposed to it, but believes racism in Tel Aviv must be concealed from the goyim to avoid tribal humiliation. Harvard University Yiddish literature professor Ruth Wisse has promoted this mentality, telling a group of young Jewish journalists in 2007 that they should not act as independent-minded critics but rather as “soldiers” for Israel, “armed with pens instead of Uzis," as Eric Alterman recalled.

Gershom Gorenberg, the writer American opinion pages so often turn to for a supposedly progressive Israeli perspective, attacked “Feeling the Hate in Jerusalem” as “an argument for old media,” claiming the video did not pass journalistic muster because I didn’t interview enough “real” Israelis.

Have I now met Gorenberg’s threshold for Israeli interview subjects? If Gorenberg, who recently took to the pages of the neocon Weekly Standard to pontificate on “The Missing Mahatma in Palestine," has any further advice on improving my reporting chops, I hope he will help readers locate the Israeli MLK as well. He can start with the Tel Aviv U student who confuses Martin Luther King with Rodney King, then proceeds to mock his optimistic philosophy.

Uncomfortable as is may be for many to confront, Israeli resentment of Arabs, minorities and designated foreign enemies ranging from the Iranian people to Barack Obama is not a phenomenon exclusive to the denizens of fanatical settlements in the West Bank. The trend now hovers well above the surface in the mainstream of Israeli society, including throughout Tel Aviv. It is reflected most apparently in the almost total national support for Israel’s brutal, maximalist war on the civilian population of the Gaza Strip in December 2008-January 2009, the subsequent election of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the ascent of Avigdor Lieberman and his proto-fascist Yisrael Beiteynu party.

It is also reflected in unreported daily indignities against members of the country’s Arab population, like the detention and interrogation I witnessed in the Florentin district of two Palestinian Israeli men by Tel Aviv police officers. Their crime, I learned, was speaking Arabic on a city bus. “The police are always on my dick,” one of the men told me after he was released. “But that’s what it’s like being Palestinian in Tel Aviv, so I’ve gotten used to it.”

The proposed bills that have flooded the Knesset since the election which seek to criminalize the speech of Palestinian Israelis and demand they make loyalty oaths under threat of deportation, along with the constant raids and repressive actions by Israeli authorities against anti-occupation activists, reveal a country careening rapidly and perhaps irrevocably towards authoritarianism. Just as Hamas reflects the genuine national aspirations of Palestinians, the far-right coalition government of Israel embodies the mood of Israeli society. This is not a momentary aberration.

“I don’t think there is a qualitative change [in Israeli society], I think there’s a deepening of trends,” former Knesset member and New Israel Fund President Naomi Chazan told me. “One day it’s the Arabs, the next day it’s going to be the secular people, the next day it’s going to be women. You know where the repression starts but you have no idea where it ends.”

Blumenthal is author of the forthcoming Republican Gomorrah.

Correction to video. Blumenthal: "We have reviewed footage of the Tel Aviv U student identified as a 'Jewish-Druze Israeli.' He describes himself over and over (and quite defensively) as a Jew while several of his friends identify him as a Jew with mixed Druze heritage. While it is very rare for Jews and the Druze to intermarry in Israel, the description by the student and his friends accounts for the student's designation, one that some commenters have challenged."

Once Bush's poodle, now Blair is Bibi's

2009-07-14T14:22:38-04:00

Rob Browne writes:

The Bibi and Blair show, which was featured [credulously] by PBS's NOW show last week, resumed today in Haaretz, discussing ways to improve one side of the Palestinian economy. Netanyahu has the nerve to tell Blair that the West Bank Palestinians could have more economic advantages if they were more cooperative with Israel. How much more subservience does he want from these people before he condescendingly gives them his Shock Doctrine neo-conservative economic "benefits"?

One great irony is Netanyahu's promise to Blair that Israel would take action to facilitate the launching of a new cellular phone network in the West Bank by the end of this month. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out if Cellcom was somehow involved in all of this?

Maybe NOW can interview Blair, again, after all of this inevitably fails, and show his Nathan Thurm-like explanations.

'Birthright' trip provider: Iraq war was 'great for Israel'

2009-07-14T12:58:44-04:00

Excellent reporting in the New York Jewish Week on a "divorce" in the birthright program that provides free trips to Israel for American Jews, 26 and under. Gone is Shlomo "Momo" Lifshitz, the largest Israeli provider of the trips, through his organization, Oranim Birthright, who promoted the marital and rightwing political aspects of the trip too hard:

“Oranim’s ‘honeymoon package’ and emphasis on ‘making Jewish babies’ commit a cultural faux pas that carries the potential to damage Birthright’s image in the U.S.,” said Ruth Stein, who attended an Oranim trip in June 2007. “Such ‘religious’ choices are regarded as private matters that are none of anybody’s business.

“Momo’s lectures on the unsurpassed beauty of Jewish women, among other topics,” continued Stein, “are especially risky given the trip’s reputation as a secular option for non-religious Jews.”...
“The right-wing perspectives presented were rather unsettling, and the indoctrination was unappealing,” said a 23-year-old 2005 Oranim trip participant, who requested to remain anonymous due to his work at an American Jewish organization. “[Momo] spoke to our group, saying, ‘Some people say the Iraq war was good for Israel. Wrong. The Iraq war was great for Israel,’ representing a rather astonishingly narrow viewpoint.”

Sotomayor for the bench, Jim Crow for the West Bank (Where does the rubber meet the road on Jewish advocacy for minorities?)

2009-07-14T10:06:10-04:00

All this week you will hear Jewish voices lifted on behalf of Sonia Sotamayor as the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. No doubt all the dozen or so Jewish senators will vote for her confirmation. Like other minority strivers before her, Sotomayor's story resonates for American Jews because it recalls our own struggle to come inside the American establishment. Republican Arlen Specter praised diversity yesterday and said that it was wrong that it took till 1967 for a president to name a black justice to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall. From the Times coverage of the hearing's opening day:

As he introduced her, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, choked up with emotion over her life story. Mr. Leahy compared her to Louis D. Brandeis, the first Jewish justice, and Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American justice.

On NPR yesterday, Robert Siegel openly criticized Iowa Senator Charles Grassley for his criticism of President Obama's statement that he seeks judges with "empathy." The roles in the interview/encounter were clear. The Jewish journalist was siding with an African-American president on behalf of a Puerto Rican judge; on the other side was a heartland gentile, or as they used to say in postmodernist classes, a dead white male.
I've always been mildly cynical about the Jewish support for the civil rights struggle, though I have been engaged in that struggle myself. I have always wondered what portion of the large Jewish engagement was selfish: that blacks and Puerto Ricans, being far more numerous than Jews, might serve as our surrogates in our efforts to gain acceptance in American society. We could stand up for them without having to stand up so loudly for ourselves. All the Jewish lawyers serving Paul Robeson and other civil rights heroes--they were advocating for the Jews, too.
On the one hand the Sotomayor hearings lessen my cynicism. Jews are part of the American establishment; we're privileged, and still we affirm minority rights as a keystone of modern American society. That's great. I cheered Specter's statement as an expression of liberal, blue-state culture.
On the other hand, the hearings enlarge my cynicism. All this week we will be hearing empowered American Jews praising Sotomayor-- from Schumer to Specter to Franken, to Brian Lehrer on WNYC to Nina Totenberg, to Robert Morgenthau and Michael Bloomberg. Many of these Jews are also big supporters of Israel. Does it mean anything to them that in Israel, Palestinians are second-class citizens? And that several million Palestinians live in Jim Crow conditions on the West Bank, or worse, in Gaza? What does it mean that Israeli society is infused with racism, that a Barack Obama could never become prime minister in Israel--no, the Arab parties are not even invited into the governing coalitions, even as Labor breaks bread with the Jewish far right, in precisely the way that Mississippi black voters were dealt out of the Democratic Party in 1964--and that a Sonia Sotomayor would never be treated as an equal?

I have faith. The new Freedom Riders in the West Bank are stirring us all. Younger American Jews are fully aware of this hypocrisy, and that they will want no part of it.

Hoenlein: No daylight between US and Israel. Obama: I disagree

2009-07-13T19:21:00-04:00

The Times has a report on Obama's meeting with big Jews. Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street, justifiably proud of being in the room, says Obama said there's a narrow window for the two-state solution, and I'm going for it.

Mr. Hoenlein [Malcolm, of the Conference of Presidents] told the president that diplomatic progress in the Middle East has traditionally occurred when there is “no light” between the positions of the United States and Israel. But Mr. Obama pushed back, citing the administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
“He said, ‘I disagree,’ ‘’ said Marla Gilson, director of the Washington action office of Hadassah, the women’s Zionist organization. “He said, ‘For eight years, there was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished.’

And the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, what did they say? Jim Zogby? Wait, sorry. This was a power group.