Mondoweiss

The situation, in a nutshell

2009-11-21T14:29:44Z

Anna Baltzer, author, and Haithem El-Zabri, founder of the Palestine Online Store. Austin, TX, November 2008. [Photographer unknown]

J Street seeks to undermine BDS

2009-11-21T01:34:45Z

We’ve been following J Street’s attempts to counteract the growing BDS movement. First there was its aborted release of a public letter criticizing the Toronto Declaration. Then there was the workshop at its student conference called “Reckoning with the Radical Left on Campus: Alternatives to Boycotts and Divestments." The workshop didn’t go quite as planned either as many students who attended actually offered their support for divestment campaigns targeting the Israeli occupation. You would think these two initial missteps would lead J Street to reconsider which way the wind is blowing. Nope.

J Street is now working to undermine the National Campus Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Conference that will be held this weekend at Hampshire College. The conference is being called to build "a coordinated national BDS campaign," and J Street seems to feel threatened by this. Yesterday the organization sent the following email out to its student wing:

From: "Tal Schechter, J Street U" <info@jstreetu.org>
Date: November 19, 2009 2:49:07 PM PST
Subject: Invest, Don’t Divest!

Invest, Don’t Divest!

This weekend, a bunch of students espousing that same, tired old narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a zero-sum game will converge on Hampshire College (my campus) — and I’m pretty concerned.

The upcoming conference promotes the misguided Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. This movement is spreading like wild fire on campuses across the country and we’re all going to get burned unless we speak out now.

We should be investing – not divesting – in our campus debate, in our communities and in the people who will bring about change in the region.

That’s why J Street U is launching an "Invest, Don’t Divest" campaign today to raise money for two organizations — LendforPeace.org, a Palestinian microfinance organization set up by students like us, and The Center for Jewish-Arab Economic Development, which promotes Jewish-Arab Economic Cooperation in Israel.

We’re setting a goal of recruiting 500 students like you by the end of the semester to pitch in $2 each (2 bucks for 2 states!) to support economic stability for all Israelis and Palestinians. Will you do your part right now and ask your friends to do the same?

Donating just $2 might not seem like much – but if hundreds, maybe thousands, of students like us make this "$2 for 2 states" statement together, we’ll really show the media and campuses around the country that there is a strong and growing alternative on campus to the tired debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it’s exactly the right amount to ask for from cash-strapped students like us.

Let’s be honest: we have already divested from this issue too much.

When debate becomes too heated, we divest from each other and stop listening. When we feel at odds with our traditional institutions’ message, we divest from our communities and tune out. When the conflict seems too confusing, we divest from the issue entirely and leave the conversation to the extremists.

Divestment defies common sense: Not only are the Israeli and Palestinian economies deeply intertwined, but so too are the fates of both peoples and their prospects for real peace and security.

If it is peace through a two-state solution and security for both Israelis and Palestinians that we want, divestment won’t get us there.

To Jewish Israelis, divestment only reinforces the notion that they are constantly under attack, creating an environment in which it is harder to achieve peace, not easier. [1]

For Palestinians who already suffer from a weak economy, divestment only puts their society more at risk. [2]

Investing in economic stability and cooperation will help set the context for a sustainable peace, but it won’t lead to a two state solution in and of itself. That’s why we need to invest in a campus movement that advocates for peace and social justice in Israel, the future state of Palestine and across the Middle East.

Check out our website to find out the many ways you can invest in this issue on your campus.

* Table on campus and ask other students to donate 2$ for two states
* Write an op-ed to your campus paper about why we need to invest, not divest
* Organize a discussion with other groups on campus about why a broad debate is important
* Turn a push for divestment into a drive for socially responsible investment
* Enter our t-shirt design contest. If you win, we will order t-shirts with your design from Israeli and Palestinian companies for students to sell on their campuses.

Thank you for helping us build a movement that takes constructive steps towards a peaceful and sustainable two-state solution.

- Tal

Tal Schechter
J Street U National Board Member
Co-Founder of Students Promoting Israeli Culture and Information (SPICI) at Hampshire College
November 19, 2009

[1] http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1251547904

[2] http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/fd807e46661e3689852570d00069e918/bb544ccfd6f4d6968525762c004869ac?OpenDocument
———-

J Street U is the campus address for Middle East peace and security.

Lots to comment on here, but I’ll leave it at a few thoughts. This campaign is pretty indicative of the liberal Zionist take on BDS – it’s dismissive and condescending towards the strategy without making a real argument against it or offering a meaningful alternative. There is a debate to be had over whether BDS is an effective strategy towards peace, but simply labeling the movement "misguided" without saying why, or using cute puns on the word "divest" don’t really cut it. Some are trying to have this debate in a meaningful way. Hopefully J Street will follow that example and present its case in a more substantial way in the future.

It is also odd how much this campaign seems to mirror Benjamin Netanyahu’s "economic peace" proposal, which puts off forming a Palestinian state in favor of building the Palestinian economy. Divestment is about holding Israel accountable because no other body is willing to do so. Investing in Palestinian businesses is a nice idea, but does not do anything to shift the equation or provide the political pressure needed to create change. J Street seems to acknowledge this itself: "Investing in economic stability and cooperation will help set the context for a sustainable peace, but it won’t lead to a two state solution in and of itself. That’s why we need to invest in a campus movement." Frankly that gives this email the tone of an alarmist fundraising campaign for J Street–stoking the fear of marauding hordes of divesting students ("This movement is spreading like wild fire on campuses across the country and we’re all going to get burned unless we speak out now.")

J Street says it wants to promote an "alternative on campus to the tired debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Good luck to them. From where I’m sitting it seems like BDS is that alternative. But maybe holding a t-shirt contest will suffice.

The Atlantic gets Einstein wrong, twice

2009-11-20T22:07:25Z

"How Einstein Divided America’s Jews," an article by Walter Isaacson in the current Atlantic magazine is a curious little piece, inaccurate by what it says and perhaps moreso by what it omits.

The headline is simply untrue (Einstein did not divide America’s Jews) — but it was written by the Atlantic editors and cannot be blamed on Isaacson. Indeed, the article at one point specifically refutes the headline. There was to be sure a sharp division between the European and American Zionists (who did not represent most Jews in either continent). In 1921, when the European Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann came to the US, one of his reasons was to do battle with his American counterparts, led by Louis Brandeis. The other reason for Weizmann’s trip was to raise money to help build the new Hebrew University. When Einstein agreed — reluctantly — to accompany Weizmann it was specifically only to help with the Hebrew University fundraising. He made a conscious effort to avoid the intra-Zionist war.

Isaacson makes this clear when he writes: "Einstein was happy to pay a call on Brandeis, even though Weizmann urged him not to. They hit it off well [and Brandeis later wrote] "Prof. and Mrs. Einstein are simple, lovely folk…they are not in it" [not involved in the Brandeis-Weizmann dispute].

Still, the article suggests that Einstein, by going on the trip with Weizmann, was a major player in the controversy. Whereas, in fact, Einstein went to help raise funds for the Hebrew University which he favored, but not to support the Zionists’ call for a Jewish state — which he opposed.

Isaacson might have quoted Einstein who wrote on March 8 and 9 (before the US trip) "I am not going entirely willingly to America," but only to help raise money for the Hebrew University, adding "I am to play the role of a little tin god and a decoy." And further: "Of course they don’t need me for my abilities but only because of my name [which] they hope will have a fair amount of success with the rich kinsmen of Dollar-land."

But most significantly, Einstein’s disagreement with the Zionists on the need for a Jewish state and other issues — especially their anti-Arab policies — is omitted from this article (as well as from most Einstein biographies).

The article of course is not about that point, but simply about Einstein’s visit to America in 1921. Yet even then the Zionist leaders were quite aware — and nervous — about their differences with Einstein. Kurt Blumenthal, the Zionist leader credited with enlisting Einstein (partway) into the Zionist cause, wrote to Weizmann before the 1921 trip:

"Einstein, as you know, is no Zionist, and I ask you not to try to make him a Zionist or to try to attach him to our organization…. Einstein, who leans to socialism, feels very involved with the cause of Jewish labor and Jewish workers….

"I heard…that you expect Einstein to give speeches. Please be quite careful with that Einstein…often says things out of naivete which are unwelcome by us."

So while it is hard to imagine why the Atlantic editors would create the headline about the fiction that Einstein somehow divided American Jews, it is equally hard to imagine how an article about Einstein’s connection to the Zionists can leave out his major differences.

Given the growing world-wide opposition (including among more and more Jews) to the Israeli government’s apartheid policies and occupation of the West Bank, what a grand contribution an article in The Atlantic and Isaacson could have made had they quoted Einstein’s 1938 comments:

"The essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army and a measure of temporal power….I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain — especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks."

Or his 1955 comment:

"The most important aspect of [Israel's] policy must be [the] ever-present, manifest desire to institute complete equality for the Arab citizens living in our midst…. The attitude we adopt toward the Arab minority will provide the real test of our moral standards as a people."

Perhaps the time will come when the major media will include such quotes. But, as they say, don’t hold your breath. Meanwhile, websites like this one, fortunately for the rest of us, keep truth alive.
————–

Other relatively minor inaccuracies in the Atlantic piece include:

- The article states that the ship bringing Weizmann and Einstein to New York in 1921 "pulled up to the battery in Lower Manhattan on the afternoon of April 2." The Rotterdam actually docked at Pier 7 in Hoboken, New Jersey, which meant that 4,000 people had to get to Hoboken (mostly from New York) to greet Einstein.

- The article also states that the intra-Zionist conflict between Weizmann (and the European Zionists) and Brandeis (and the American Zionists) "has been only touched upon in previous books." This might be disputed by Ben Halpern who wrote the thoroughly detailed book, A Clash of Heroes: Brandeis, Weizmann and American Zionism (Oxford University Press, 1987), as well as by several biographers of Brandeis and Weizmann.

Fred Jerome is the author of Einstein on Israel and Zionism, as well as The Einstein File and the co-author of Einstein on Race and Racism. A veteran journalist and science writer, his articles and op-ed pieces have appeared in dozens of publications, including Newsweek and The New York Times.

When the Mets support the Hebron Fund the terrorists win

2009-11-20T19:11:55Z

(NY1 reports on Wednesday’s protest outside the baseball commissioner’s office)

Jews Against the Occupation’s Aaron Levitt writes in Electronic Intifada about how the Hebron settlers should be considered terrorists, and the work on the Hebron Fund is supporting terrorism:

I have witnessed this behavior by men and women, boys and girls, from pre-school-aged children to middle-aged adults. I was myself assaulted, on Shabbat, by a group of six teenage settlers, when I came between them and their intended victim, an elderly Palestinian woman who also happened to be the proud mother of a US Navy fighter pilot (the picture of her son standing by his plane was prominently displayed on her living room wall). The settler youths then turned to attack my companion, a young Scandinavian woman who was videotaping the original assault. I have heard and read numerous, credible reports of far worse violence than I personally experienced from other human rights observers, who were in the area for different and/or longer periods.

The Hebron settlers engage in this violence for the express purpose of driving out Palestinian families from Tel Rumeida, site of the Cave of Machpelah, or Cave of the Patriarchs, which is holy to both Jews and Muslims. Settler leaders have said as much in at least one published interview, and a young man from the Beit Hadassah settlement confirmed it to my face in September 2006. The settlers’ efforts have been remarkably successful: of more than 600 Palestinian families originally living in the neighborhood, probably less than 100 remained when I was last there in 2008. If the settlers continue to receive free reign, and full funding, we may soon add a new chapter of completed ethnic cleansing to the troubled history of this ancient city.

According to the US Code, Title 22, Chapter 38, S 2656f, our country defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." The Hebron settlers’ violence is certainly premeditated. It is, by their own admission, politically motivated. It is perpetrated solely against noncombatant targets (overwhelmingly children), and it is obviously the work of a subnational group — the settlers themselves.

The business of the Hebron settlers is terrorism, pure and simple; not quasi-terrorism, crypto-terrorism, neo-terrorism, potential terrorism, or something akin to terrorism, but the very thing itself. And the business of the Hebron Fund is funding terrorism.

Levitt ends, "no American team, no American business, and no American individual should be providing material support for terrorism, or assisting those who provide such support. Unless and until the Mets reverse their terribly ill-considered decision to host this event, that is precisely what they have chosen to do."

the public interest?

2009-11-20T19:17:36Z

From the JTA:

Canada’s opposition Liberal Party is crying foul after the ruling Conservatives mailed out flyers extolling themselves as stronger supporters of Israel.

Joe Lieberman doesn’t answer the only question

2009-11-20T16:14:12Z

Nahum Barnea in Yedioth Ahronoth. Can’t find it online yet:

Grand Park is the most luxurious hotel in Ramallah. On Sunday afternoon, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad held a press conference there. About 20 local reporters, security people, Fayyad, US Senator Joe Lieberman and others from a US congressional delegation, crowded into a small room at the end of a corridor. …

The right to the first question was given to Ha’aretz reporter Amira Hass…. She asked Lieberman how he, as a Jew, could accept Israel’s discriminatory attitude toward minorities.

Both felt awkward. Lieberman is not used to having his origins thrown at him. “What could I say,” he told me afterwards with a sad smile. “I said I supported the establishment of two states.”

That doesn’t answer the question, Joe. In a sense, it is the only question. In 1964 the United States Democratic Party presidential nomination procedures excluded black delegates from Mississippi. It was a landmark outrage. It fed the civil rights movement. It led to your nomination to be vice president and Barack Obama’s to be president.

Today Israel’s process for creating a new government excludes Arab parties on a racial basis. Where’s the outrage?

Is there any other so-called lobby that has its own state department?

2009-11-20T19:07:42Z

From the American Jewish Committee:

An AJC leadership delegation has concluded a four-day visit to Madrid , where it met with Spanish government officials, media and Jewish community leaders.

AJC´s interlocutors included Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos; Secretary General of the Presidency Bernardino Leon, the key foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Zapatero; Javier Moreno, director of the leading Spanish newspaper El Pais; the leadership of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Spain (FCJE); and American and Israeli diplomats.

“As Spain assumes the EU presidency in January, consultation with key Spanish officials is particularly constructive,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris, who led the delegation. “ Spain will be counted upon to lead Europe in standing firm against Iran´s nuclear ambitions.”

The only basis on which I might forgive Obama his collapse on Gaza and settlements

2009-11-20T17:08:03Z

I don’t believe that what we see before our eyes is the reality. In politics that means, We don’t know the half of it. If you think that what’s taking place in the councils of the president is represented directly in the press, you’re deluded. Great crises pass with little more than a groan from the president. This would seem to be the lesson of all those conferences that Kennedy-era policymakers have on the Cuban missile crisis, when they disclose new and horrifying details about how close the world came to war. It is the lesson of the last presidential race, which from a foreign-policy standpoint was all about Israel/Palestine/Iran, and the words were never mentioned by the mainstream media.

This is the only basis on which I might halfway-forgive Obama, and along with him the new progressive Israel Lobby, their silence on the Gaza massacre and Israel’s relentless expansion in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Here is my fantasy. Some day there is a conference at Harvard about the Obama presidency. Thirty years from now– god willing I am still watching CSpan over my lunch of leftovers, and there is one democratic state called Israstein. Or Pasreal. Old bald Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod are talking about how close the world came to coming off the rails in 2009. And they finally tell us about Obama’s meetings with Netanyahu. Netanyahu was belligerent and out of control. He lost his temper and talked to Obama like a student. He spoke about it being 1938 all over again, he spoke about using nuclear weapons against Iran. They left the meeting shaken and wondering what he might do, to bathe the Middle East in fire, and wondering what power we had to prevent it.

That’s the only way I can understand the complete collapse on Goldstone, Gaza, human rights, and the demolition of Palestinian homes. They are actually afraid of Netanyahu. They are trying to dial everything down to stave off a world war. And keep some factions of the Is-lob with them.

A blogger in the audience asks, "Why didn’t you say anything about this at the time? Didn’t the public have a right to know? Might that have given the U.S. more power in dealing with a government that was tyrannizing its minority population and the Israel lobby in the U.S.?"

Axelrod and Emanuel look at one another goofily. "We never thought about that."

Just a theory, anyway. And no, I don’t really forgive them.

I vow to be less dependent on my wife

2009-11-20T17:19:12Z

My wife and I were driving and talking yesterday when I said, "Of course I’m dependent on you." "You are," she said. "And you’re dependent on me." I waited for her assent to that statement. None was forthcoming.

I dealt with my embarrassment analytically at first. I said, "But in cultures around the world, who is more dependent?" "By and large men are more emotionally dependent than women," my wife said, throwing me a sop.

I felt funny about it the rest of the day. The truth of our relationship is, I’m more emotionally/psychically dependent than she is. I require her approval. This is hardly the first time I’ve acknowledged this truth. I’ve always thought there is a Jewish element to the issue. I’m from a matriarchal family. My mother is stronger emotionally than my father, closer to the ground. She holds his tether, keeps him from floating away, and she made the big decisions. I gravitated to my wife because she’s a strong woman. She’s made most of the big decisions. Oh–I made a couple of them, I moved us to this new house; but it involved a lot of dithering and angst. I’m not a very decisive person. A luftmensch, more: "people without any roots in the social structure of society, without any occupation, without any regular livelihood; hawkers, rag and bone men, people who made a living as match-makers…" (per Isaac Deutscher, The Russian Revolution and the Jewish Problem).

I want to regain independence in my marriage. How will I do that? I will try and be more self-contained, I will try not to cling to the gunwhales of her boat as I tread water in this mad sea.

Will it work? Can I change the pattern of two decades? I’ve changed before, I say to myself. Can I just use my own brain in life, and navigate on that basis? Really I’m not sure how I’ll do on my own.

My wife went away for the weekend yesterday afternoon. I effected the new regime by not calling her. Or not calling her a hundred times, as she puts it. But when she calls this morning, to get a friend’s phone number that she left behind, I announce, "You’re dependent." "I’m the most dependent person in the world," she purrs, lying.

I vow not to make any more announcements of my new independence. I will just be the thing, not say it. I won’t power-leak. That’s my wife’s word for talking about something rather than doing it. She explained this to me a long time ago.

Why it’s appropriate to remember the Warsaw Ghetto when considering Gaza

2009-11-20T05:12:36Z

"He [Spinoza] had to fight against the Jewish clergy which, itself recently a victim of the Inquisition, became infected with the spirit of the Inquisition."

–Isaac Deutscher, writing about the excommunication of Spinoza by the Dutch rabbis in The Non-Jewish Jew.