Zionists Out of the Peace Movement

Update II: The First Jewish President

2011-12-19T22:44:00.000-08:00

Below is an image of the cover of the September 26, 2011 issue of New York magazine.

See also:

Is Judge Goldsmith Biased in AATA Suit?

2011-12-18T21:08:00.000-08:00

Henry Herskovitz is reporting another apparent conflict of interest in the AATA "Boycott Israel" advertising controversy. In a section of his recent vigil report entitled "Disturbing News Flash" he writes:

On the heels of this conflict of interest existing with AATA Board members and Counsel, comes this: according to U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith's biography, "[Goldsmith] has also served in the leadership of several community organizations, including ... the B'nai B'rith Anti- Defamation League." We have also determined from a separate and reliable source that his leadership included Board membership on the ADL. How many foxes does it take to guard this henhouse? Will someone ask Judge Goldsmith whether he supports Israel’s claimed right to exist as a Jewish state (the ADL sure does), and whether that answer might influence his ability to render a fair verdict?

Judge Mark A. Goldsmith was nominated to the federal bench by Barack Obama while serving on the Oakland County Circuit Court. A little digging revealed more evidence of Goldsmith's potential bias in the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority case. Goldsmith's 2010 federal Financial Disclosure Report (Section VII) indicates that he doesn't own any US bonds but he does own Israel Bonds and they're the only asset for which he did not declare a value. Furthermore, Goldsmith and his wife sent their sixteen-year-old daughter to study in Israel. Can a man with such strong Zionist ties really be expected to preside impartially at a trial over the constitutionality of an advertisement graphically criticizing Israel as an apartheid state and calling for its boycott?

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges says:

CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES
Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

Regarding Canon 2B, Goldsmith has or recently had demonstrable family and financial ties to Israel. It may be, too, that his social relationships unsuit him to preside at this trial. In the nominee's questionnaire Goldsmith submitted to the judiciary committee, he discloses that he became Vice-President for Religious Affairs of B'nai B'rith Barristers in 2009. "Advocacy for Israel" is second on B'nai B'rith's list of "Our Prime Issues". B'nai B'rith has publicly "condemned" supporters, such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, of the international boycott of Israel. Furthermore, Goldsmith has been a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee since the 1990s.

Goldsmith is also evidently a "strictly Sabbath observant," devout adherent of Judaism; he is a cantor at his synagogue and a serious student of the Talmud. In his nominee's questionnaire Goldsmith reports that he is a member of the Board of Directors of the Council of Orthodox Rabbis of Greater Detroit. Goldsmith was profiled in 2011 in "Jewels of Justice: Timeless Jewish Values in the American Courtroom" in the American Jewish Spirit (emphasis added). Reportedly, at his federal investiture ceremony, "the newly appointed judge said 'he was grateful to the Almighty for allowing my plan to be part of His plan,' and in the words of an ancient Jewish prayer, thanked God for 'granting us all life, sustaining us and allowing us to reach this day.' ... 'I do believe with a complete faith, Judge Goldsmith said, 'that the Spirit above guides the spirit within.' "

Being devoutly religious should not per se be a disqualifying factor but one wonders how the "Spirit above" will guide Goldsmith's "spirit within" when it comes to Coleman v. AATA. He's been a member of Congregation Beth Shalom since 1987; he joined its Board of Directors that same year and served until 2005. He was the president of the congregation from 1997 until 1999. Congregation Beth Shalom describes itself as providing "opportunities for all ages that nurture our love of and commitment to Jewish life, our Synagogue and the State of Israel" and it hosts an "Israel Affairs" committee. There can be little doubt that the Congregation Beth Shalom agrees that Zionism is an affirmation of Judaism and "has its origins and roots in the authoritative religious texts of Judaism. ... Anti-Zionism, not Zionism, is a departure from the Jewish religion."

Regarding Canon 2C, Goldsmith's service (1986-1994) on the "Regional Advisory Board of B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League" (ADL), which was highlighted in his Senate confirmation hearing, sets off alarm bells. The ADL is decidedly and undeniably pro-Israel and that to the detriment of Palestinians. A case can be made that it "practices invidious discrimination" (although probably not in its membership) against non-Jewish people and Jews who are not Zionist (or insufficiently so).

In 2000, a Colorado jury awarded a $10 million judgment against the ADL to two people who had been defamed as "anti-Semites" by the ADL. That award survived all ADL appeals. Earlier, in 1999, the ADL was forced to pay $175,000 in an out-of-court settlement stemming from forty years of domestic political espionage by the ADL. The ADL has been active in lobbying against Congressional recognition of the Armenian genocide. This had led some Massachusetts communities to pull out of the ADL's bogus "No Place for Hate" campaign. Interested readers are urged to have a look at Professor Steven Salaita's book, Israel's Dead Soul. Salaita devotes an entire chapter to the ADL where he makes a compelling case that "according to its own public criteria, the ADL should classify itself as a hate group."

In light of all of the above, should Goldsmith recuse himself? You decide. Canon 3C(1) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges says: "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned ..."

Conflicts of Interest at AATA?

2011-11-21T22:30:00.000-08:00

As I pointed out to a friend and fellow activist Sunday night, the current dispute over the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority's Board of Directors decision to reject a proposed bus advertisement by Blaine Coleman raises the matter of conflicts of interest in the AATA's decision-making process. After huddling in a closed session with AATA counsel Jerry Lax, the Ann Arbor Chronicle reports that the Board voted unanimously, with Board chair Jesse Bernstein and member David Nacht present and voting, to support a resolution endorsing a rejection of Coleman's proposed "Boycott 'Israel,' Boycott Apartheid" ad by the AATA's advertising contractor. It doesn't seem likely that the entire Board would go against the advice of legal counsel and, thus, it's reasonable to conclude that Jerry Lax supported the resolution too.

The problem is that Lax, Bernstein, and Nacht are, apparently, supporters of Israel, the very entity targeted by Coleman's ads. The Washtenaw Jewish News reported in December 2009 that Jerry Lax has served on the boards of the two local pro-Israel outfits: the Jewish Federation of Greater Ann Arbor and Temple Beth Emeth. Lax also added his name to a campaign advertisement of "Michigan Jews Who Support Senators Obama & Biden". Here's part of the text of that ad:

Stay focused on the issues:

Israel's security: "Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable."
– Barack Obama, speech to AIPAC, June 4, 2008.

Iran's threat: "There is no greater threat to Israel – or to the peace and stability of the region – than Iran ... and my goal will be to eliminate this threat." – Barack Obama, speech to AIPAC, June 4, 2008.

Yes, those were the first two issues in the ad. No wonder those Michigan Jews supported "The First Jewish President."

As to AATA Board chair Jesse Bernstein, well, he's also on the Board of Directors of the Michigan Israel Business Bridge. 'Nuff said, right? Okay, but it won't hurt to mention that Bernstein is also a donor to Kehillot B'Yahad/Congregations Together (KBY), whose aims include: "STRENGTHENING THE JEWISH STATE". Bernstein also happens to be the chair of a Temple Beth Emeth's Long Range Sustainability committee. David Nacht's LinkedIn profile identifies him as a supporter of the Anti-Defamation League, a former Board member of Temple Beth Emeth, and a donor to the Jewish Federation of Washtenaw County.

Inquiring minds want to know how much these guy's--all three associated with Temple Beth Emeth--support of Israel may have colored their judgment in favor of violating the First Amendment rights of Coleman. The vote also potentially put the AATA and, thus, taxpayers on the hook for an expensive legal fight it seems likely to lose.

12/11/2011 Update: Just days after this post was published the ACLU announced that it is bringing suit in federal court against the AATA on behalf of Blaine Coleman. It's a real shame and a bit of a mystery that the Board of Directors are not named as defendants in the complaint.

See also: "Is Judge Goldsmith Biased in AATA Suit?"

Quotable: Jewish Question/Zionist Question

2011-10-29T01:18:00.000-07:00

The anti-Zionist struggle must not encage itself in too simplistic a link between the Jewish Question with the Zionist Question-–a simplistic link that in fact craves to sever the deeper ontological connection that might persist between the two questions. Such a dominant, and far too quick, paradigm that by and large dominates the anti-Zionist struggle has been that Zionism's misuse of the Holocaust is somehow an aberration of Jewish thinking. Thus portrayed, Zionism can be successfully isolated and fought against by Jews as Jews.

It is this very denial of the existential link between the Jewish Question and the Zionist Question–a link that is suppressed by formulations such as "Jews Against Zionism" or, more broadly, by many attempts of "Jews" to become anti-Zionist--that needs to be questioned and destabilised.To be an anti-Zionist without due regard to that being and thinking that Zionism may so tragically continues, may well be to confuse symptom and cause, thus perpetuating that history that leaves the symptom–Zionism–intact. There is need to fathom the extent to which the slogan "Jews against Zionism" may be an oxymoron. Such an oxymoron may be at the heart of the denial, and protection bestowed upon the denial, of the oxymoronic nature of another notion, namely that of a "Jewish and democratic state".

Source: "The Silencing of Gilad Atzmon" by Oren Ben-Dor in CounterPunch, March 15-17, 2008.

Quotable: Jews Take Charge

2011-10-16T22:20:00.000-07:00

Anti-Semitism could really amount to something if the Jews would just take charge of it.

And so they have ...

Source: Alexander Roda Roda (1872-1945) as quoted in "Germans use 'anti-Israel' Jews to soothe Holocaust guilt" by Benjamin Weinthal in the Jerusalem Post online edition, Oct. 16, 2011.

Saturday 10/8 is Eat-a-Cheeseburger Day

2011-09-26T16:40:00.000-07:00

Saturday, October 8, 2011, is the 2nd annual Bill Henry international Eat-a-Cheeseburger Day. This day honors Bill Henry (né Herskovitz) for a decision that quite possibly saved an eight-year-old boy from a life of "Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism".

That boy grew up to be Henry Herskovitz and in 1954 young Henry was hungry from fasting on Yom Kippur. Eight-year-olds aren't required to fast and so the fact that his father Bill bought him something to eat is not remarkable, that he bought him a cheeseburger is.

Under Judaic religious law or halacha, cheeseburgers are treif, i.e. they're not kosher. Observant Jews aren't supposed to eat them and some Jews can get pretty worked-up about cheeseburgers. You see, keeping kosher is about Jewish self-segregation. But you don't have to believe me, you can believe Rabbi Yaakov Luban.

Rabbi Luban is a "specialist in communal [kosher] issues" and Executive Rabbinic Coordinator of the Orthodox Union's kosher certification division, the world's largest kosher certification agency. In "Playing with Fire", Rabbi Luban writes:

Thousands of years ago, the Rabbis of old recognized that Jewish identity is the key to the survival of Klal Yisrael ["the Jewish People, as a whole"]. To this end, they enacted three sets of food laws to limit socialization: bishul akum, pas akum and stam yainom (cooked food, bread and wine prepared by gentiles). This was based on the realization that bonds of friendship are established by eating together, and breaking bread with a stranger is the first step to developing a closer relationship. For thousands of years of exile, the biblical and rabbinic laws of kosher have formed a natural fortress that prevented the assimilation of the Jewish people into many different cultures of the world. Today, with spiraling assimilation wreaking havoc at a frightening rate, the prophetic vision of Chazal [an acronym, meaning "Our Sages of Blessed Memory" in ref. to the Talmud] is all the more apparent. It is significant that even for secularized Jews, a kosher kitchen often remains the last bastion against intermarriage and assimilation.

More than two thousand years ago, the Rabbis prohibited eating certain foods cooked by non-Jews in order to limit socialization which might lead to intermarriage between Jews and gentiles.

Okay, so maybe I've taken a little interpretive license with this otherwise true story but, still, I like to believe that Bill Henry's decision to buy his boy a cheeseburger on the "Sabbath of Sabbaths" wasn't an accident but a mitzvah that helped set his son on the path of becoming a mensch, a fighter for human rights, justice, and, peace for all. So, what the heck? If you're not fasting on Saturday 10/8 then join people across the globe in eating a cheeseburger (really, any non-kosher food or beverage will do) in honor of our shared humanity and in memory of Bill Henry, a dad who truly loved his son enough not to try to turn him into a bigot.

P.S. If you're going to buy that cheeseburger at a fast food restaurant (Yuck, don't do it!) then skip McDonald's. With 153 restaurants in Israel, they're big-time violators of the global boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Try Burger King instead, they pulled out of Israel last year.

See also:

"Gems from 'Jewish Medical Law' " in ZionistsOut
"A Light Unto the Butchers?" in ZionistsOut
"McDonald's bans Arabic" in The Guardian (UK)
"McDonald's changes its brand to suit kosher appetites" in The Guardian (UK)

Jews and Torture Update II

2011-09-03T23:06:00.000-07:00

In my "Jews and Torture" post, back in 2007, I wrote:

Michael Mukasey's nomination as US Attorney General was placed in apparent jeopardy when he refused to state in Senate confirmation hearings that the form of torture known as waterboarding was illegal under US law. His nomination was rescued by two Jewish Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer, who joined with all nine Republicans in an 11-8 vote to send the nomination to the full Senate where they were joined by Joseph Lieberman, another Jew who voted against his caucus. Mukasey was confirmed by a 53-40 vote--"the narrowest margin to confirm an attorney general in more than 50 years."

Recently I had occasion to look at the voting records of the three Jewish Senators who pulled Mukasey's nomination out of the fire. They only highlight how remarkable it was for them to cross party lines to support Mukasey. According to the Washington Post's database, during the 110th Congress, Feinstein voted with her caucus 94% of the time, Lieberman 87%, and Schumer 97%.

See also:

Update on "The First Jewish President"

2011-07-02T18:28:00.000-07:00

It turns that when I wrote my brief post on "The First Jewish President" back in 2009 I missed a lengthy and revealing article in the Chicago Jewish News. The article is from October 24, 2008, and is entitled "Obama and the Jews" (the article is also archived here by If Americans Knew). The piece begins with a quote from "the former Chicago congressman, federal judge and White House counsel to President Bill Clinton," Abner Mikva: "I think when this is all over, people are going to say that Barack Obama is the first Jewish president".

See also: "Jews Could Decide Dems Presidential Nominee"

Not Far Enough: Fact-Checking Finkelstein

2011-05-02T17:08:00.000-07:00

I've been reading This Time We Went Too Far: Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion by Norman G. Finkelstein (OR Books, 2010). Even though Finkelstein is "functionally a Zionist of the Left-liberal persuasion" there is no denying his passionate and often principled argumentation in support of positions that are generally helpful to those unemcumbered by Finkelstein's tribal loyalties.

The "Gaza Invasion" of Finkelstein's subtitle was the 22-day Hanukkah Massacre in the winter of 2008-2009 wherein forces of the Jewish state killed 1,417 Palestinians and wounded 5,303 in Gaza. I can't say I made a thorough examination of Finkelstein's book but I did flag two pages in chapter six, "Ever Fewer Hosannas," in the hardcover edition for follow-up.

At the top of page 110 there appears the last sentence of a lengthy quote from "Poll: Attachment of U.S. Jews To Israel Falls in Past 2 Years" by Steven M. Cohen in the Jewish Daily Forward (March 04, 2005). It says: "Just 57% affirmed that 'caring about Israel is a very important part of my being Jewish,' compared with 73% in a similar survey in 1989." In chapter six Finkelstein is making the case that American Jewish support for Israel is declining.

Finkelstein, apparently, didn't go far enough in reading the article. When read in its entirety a more complex picture of the attitudes of Americans Jews towards Israel emerges. For example, there's the finding that 95% of Americans Jews feel some degree of pride in Israel with fully two-thirds saying they "always" or "often" "feel proud of Israel"; only 5% said "never". Then, too, "Only 13% said they are 'sometimes uncomfortable identifying as a supporter of Israel,' with an additional 14% 'not sure' "; 73% disagreed with the statement.

Concerning the attitudes of American Jews regarding Palestinians, Cohen writes:

When offered sharply critical characterizations of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, more respondents disagreed than agreed. However, substantial numbers were unsure. Thus, by 60% to 11% the sample rejected the assertion that "Israel persecutes a minority population," with 29% not sure. Similarly, by a 65% to 13% margin, they rejected the notion that "Israel occupies lands that belong to another people," with 22% not sure.

To restate that, only 11% of Americans Jews recognize that Palestinians are oppressed by Israel and only 13% admit that Israel occupies Palestinian territory. Curiously, only 17% of American Jews answered "Yes" when asked, "Are you a Zionist?"

Regarding a poll more closely related to the subject of his book, Finkelstein spins the results of J Street's March 2009 "National Survey of American Jews". On pages 118-119, Finkelstein writes, "a poll of American Jews found that 47% strongly approved of the Israeli assault, but—in a sharp break with the usual wall-to-wall solidarity—53 per cent were either ambivalent (44 per cent 'somewhat' approved or 'somewhat' disapproved) or strongly disapproved (9 per cent)."

Now, before I tell you what Finkelstein didn't tell his readers about that poll, I want to emphasize two points: First, these are American, not Israeli, Jews. Second, the poll was conducted from February 28, 2009 through March 9, 2009. The Hanukkah Massacre ended on January 18, 2009.

So, these American Jews were expressing their attitudes more than a month after the fog of war and Israeli gov't. propaganda had begun to clear. The one-sidedness of the 'conflict' was well-known by then, graphic images of Palestinian suffering had circulated widely, and respected international human rights groups had already begun to weigh-in against Israel.

What did American Jews tell J Street pollsters? Fully 75% said they "strongly approved" or "somewhat approved" "of the recent military action that Israel took in Gaza"; a plurality (47%) of American Jews "strongly approved". This despite the fact that 59% "felt that the military action had no impact on Israel's security (41 percent) or made Israel less secure (18 percent)". This is not quite the picture Finkelstein paints.

See also: "Quotable: '99 percent of American Jewry'"

Rabbi Dobrusin Hijacks Religious Freedom Day Panel

2011-01-15T21:40:00.000-08:00

Inspired by incidents of anti-Muslim violence, it was billed as part of celebrating Religious Freedom Day but Rabbi Robert Dobrusin of Beth Israel Congregation (BIC) hijacked the panel discussion on Thursday at the Ann Arbor District Library. One of the featured panelists, Dobrusin bemoaned "an extremely unpleasant situation" and launched into a diatribe against the weekly vigils of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends despite his admission that "our religious freedom has not been threatened, it has not been limited" and "no one has ever been physically prevented from entering our building".

Dobrusin was long on generalities but short on specifics. He admits that JWPF is "expressing an opinion at odds with deeply held feelings of a majority of our members". This gives the lie to the claim sometimes made by vigil critics that many or most of the congregants agree with JWPF's criticisms of Israel but that the problem is mainly with JWPF's tactics. Dobrusin then proceeds to claim that JWPF misrepresents the "relationship" and "connection which our congregation ... feels with the State of Israel." Yet, Dobrusin's charge of misrepresentation is bald-faced with nothing to support it.

He follows with the claim that JWPF "has endeavored ... to publicize its message against the legitimacy of Israel and against any negotiated settlement based a two-state solution". This falsehood is not new.

Regardless of the varying positions individual JWPF members may have, as I wrote in 2007, "In fact, JWPF has never taken a group position on the legitimacy of Israel." Likewise, the group has never taken a position opposing a "two-state solution." In March, 2007, JWPF approved the following statement:

Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends have been asked what it would take for us to end our vigils at the Beth Israel Congregation (BIC).

Our answer is simple and well within the power of BIC. We would end our vigils at BIC if the Board of Directors of BIC publicly states its full support for the following principles that basic human rights require:
The full civil and political equality of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel within Israel;
The prompt implementation of the rights of Palestinian refugees of 1947-8 and 1967 to return to their homes and properties in Israel and Palestine as stipulated in UN resolution 194; and,
The prompt end of Israeli occupation and colonization of all lands seized by Israel in 1967.
Although we are not all Jewish, we hold that inequality, the forced exile of millions of Palestinians, and military occupation are inconsistent with the highest ideals of Judaism.

Following his misrepresentation of JWPF's position on Israel, Dobrusin says: "Now, the question is if we express our opinions ... are we accountable for what it is we believe? Can people disagree with us or should we be able to hide behind the walls of our synagogue and say this is our opinion and it can't be debated?"

Dobrusin answers his question in the negative claiming "if we want to have respectful discussion ... we can have respectful discussion ... surely that can happen." So, why is it that more than seven years ago the request of JWPF founder Henry Herskovitz, who regarded BIC as his spiritual home and regularly attended High Holy Day services there, to address the congregation, not at Sabbath services but on a week night evening, was denied?

In more than seven years, why haven't Henry and JWPF ever been invited in for the debate Dobrusin says he welcomes? The answer is, apparently, because JWPF's non-violent exercise of their own Constitutionally protected rights, which Dobrusin grudgingly admits is legal, feels "to us as harassment".

Dobrusin also claims that the signs JWPF members hold outside BIC are "often quite simply untrue." This is a tacit admission that at least sometimes they are true. Moreover, as before, Dobrusin's claims are simply unsubstantiated. What signs are untrue, Rabbi? Let's debate that.

Dobrusin talks about how "restrained," at his behest, the congregants have been in responding to the "harassment" of JWPF. "We don't want physical or verbal confrontation on the street outside the synagogue," he says.

This would have been a nice time to acknowledge that the only people ever investigated or arrested by police in connection with the protests were a Beth Israel congregant, Eli Avny (Assault with a Deadly Weapon), and a guest, Abraham Seligman (Assault and Battery). It would also have been an opportune moment for Chuck Warpehoski to make a belated apology for the fact that the organization he heads, the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, never took a stand against the violence directed at JWPF members but that probably wouldn't be good for business.

Dobrusin concludes his presentation with a plea for people to support BIC and speak out against JWPF's vigils. Dobrusin frames his plea by saying:

The point I want to stress this evening is really the one with the most importance. You know in the long-run this isn't a Beth Israel issue. And it isn't a Jewish community issue. And it isn't an issue about Middle East politics. It's an Ann Arbor issue. The atmosphere and peace of our entire community is tarnished when people feel tension as they approach their house of worship on their holy day ... as long as this type of action continues the spiritual atmosphere and the sense of comfort and peace of our community is severely damaged and that's truly a shame for all of us. (emphasis added)

What's clear from this is that Rabbi Dobrusin is no student of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Here's something the Rev. King had to say in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" about "tension" and "peace":

... I am not afraid of the word "tension." ... there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

No doubt it was men like Rabbi Dobrusin whom the Rev. King had in mind when he lamented the one "who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods ... ' "

Rabbi Dobrusin wants us to believe that the violent Jewish supremacist state that he and his congregation support is not the real issue.

Forget that when Israel turned Lebanon into a "free-fire zone" in 2006, BIC responded by publishing on their web site a photo of four Israeli flags along with a statement of support for the "people of the State of Israel at this time of crisis" and stating that "We pray for the safety of those who defend Israel …"

Forget that Rabbi Dobrusin wrote in the Ann Arbor News: "Beth Israel Congregation affirms without any hesitation or equivocation the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state, and affirms the right of Israel to defend itself from enemies who seek its destruction."

Forget that BIC sends their young children to Israel and poses them for photos with armed Israeli soldiers.

Forget that Rabbi Dobrusin has offered a halachic justification of torture from the bima.

Forget all that. The real issue is the tension and tarnished peace in our community. Oh, the humanity!

Rabbi Dobrusin wants us to believe that "among the institutions which our community must respect is the sanctity of the house of worship." But Beth Israel's support for Israel has diminished, if not eradicated, its claim of sanctity. As Abraham Heschel explains:

The prophet knew that religion could distort what the Lord demanded … To the people, religion was Temple, priesthood, incense: "This is the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord" (Jer. 7:4). Such piety Jeremiah brands as fraud and illusion. "Behold you trust in deceptive words to no avail," he calls (Jer. 7:8). Worship preceded or followed by evil acts becomes an absurdity. The holy place is doomed when people indulge in unholy deeds.

BIC's support of Jewish supremacism in Palestine is indeed an evil act and an unholy deed. And as the prophet Isaiah (ch. 1) said:

Though you pray at length,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood.

And as the prophet Amos (ch. 5) said to "the House of Israel":

Ah, you that turn justice to wormwood,
and bring righteousness to the ground! ...
They hate the one who reproves in the gate,
and they abhor the one who speaks the truth. ...
Hate evil and love good,
and establish justice in the gate ...
let justice roll down like waters,
and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

You can find a 3.1 Mb audio file (.wav) of Dobrusin's speech here at http://a2vigil.org/video/dobrusinspeech-small.wav.

Obamas Celebrate Hanukkah at White House

2010-12-03T23:29:00.000-08:00

He celebrates Passover, so why not Hanukkah, too?

Last night, the "first Jewish President" celebrated Hanukkah at the White House. Barack Obama underscored the nationalistic nature of Judaism by addressing opening remarks to Israeli ambassador Michael Oren and the people of Israel.

To cheers from the audience, Obama also noted, "One third of the Supreme Court is here." Of course, with his nomination of Elena Kagan, Obama himself helped ensured that an ethno-religious group comprising less than 2% of the US population would occupy three of the nine slots on the Supreme Court while the largest segment of the US population--Protestant Christians--is wholly unrepresented.

After a few more intros, Obama recited an abbreviated version of the Hanukkah story, neglecting to mention, of course, that the 'Maccabean revolt' that spawned the holiday was as much a religious civil war instigated by violent fanatics as it was a revolt against "the yoke of empire." Today, violent religious fanatics--Jewish and Christian--and their lackeys head an empire that far exceeds the scope of the Seleucid empire. That empire insures the Jewish state's existence and wages wars on its behalf in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.

Also left out of the Obama's remarks is any mention of Israel's 2008-09 Hanukkah Massacre that killed 1,400 Palestinians or the millions of living Palestinians "who still suffer under tyranny and oppression". The clip ends with a saxophone performance by Joshua Redman. Too bad the White House didn't invite Gilad Atzmon and his sax, instead.

Proving the Rule: The American Council for Judaism

2010-09-15T19:38:00.000-07:00

I started exploring the links between Judaism and Zionism as early as April 2007, when I wrote "Judaism's Culture of Death". Today, I finished reading Jews Against Zionism: The American Council for Judaism, 1942-1948. The book demonstrates that the American Council for Judaism is an exception that proves the rule of overwhelming Jewish religious support for Zionism.

Author Thomas A. Kolsky writes that although there was Jewish opposition to Zionism from other quarters, "the longest, fiercest, and most persistent resistance to it in America came from Reform Jews" (28). He continues, "The only American Jewish organization ever formed to fight against Zionism was founded by Reform Jews" (29).

The organization in question is the American Council for Judaism (ACJ), which was belatedly founded in 1942, five years after the 1937 convention of the Reform movement's Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) whence The Guiding Principles of Reform Judaism were adopted. The principles stated inter alia:

In the rehabilitation of Palestine, the land hallowed by memories and hopes, we behold the promise of renewed life for many of our brethren. We affirm the obligation of all Jewry to aid in its upbuilding as a Jewish homeland by endeavoring to make it not only a haven of refuge for the oppressed but also a center of Jewish culture and spiritual life.

The precipitating event that led to the formation of the ACJ was the introduction and passage of a resolution on February 27th at the 1942 CCAR convention "favoring the creation in Palestine of a Jewish army" (42). The convention that year was presided over by "a staunch Zionist," Rabbi James G. Heller, who had proclaimed upon assuming the presidency of the CCAR "that Reform was no longer anti-Zionist."

In August 1942, 96 rabbis, including many who would later that year found the ACJ, issued a "Statement of Principles of Non-Zionist Rabbis." The document "recognized the importance of Palestine 'to the Jewish soul' and expressed support for the Jews in Palestine in their economic, cultural, and spiritual--but not nationalistic--endeavors" (54). The reaction by their foes was a resounding repudiation in the form of "Zionism: An Affirmation of Judaism". An early release of this document--which declared "Anti-Zionism ... is a departure from the Jewish religion"--listed as signatories the names of 757 rabbis, representing "the largest number of rabbis whose signatures are attached to a public pronouncement in all Jewish history". By the time the statement was released to the press on November 20, 1942, 818 rabbis had signed on.

As Kolsky shows, the Reform rabbis opposed to the Zionist hardliners in the CCAR were beset, at the very beginning, by internal divisions. One camp was primarily motivated by the Reform vision exemplified in the "Pittsburgh Platform" of 1885, which stated: "We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine ... nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state." The other camp shared the vision of their brethren but they were more strongly animated by and prioritized their opposition to Zionism as detrimental to Jews. Although he cites some individual rabbis who opposed the injustice that Zionism represented for Arabs, I found no evidence that the ACJ ever strongly appealed to Jews or anyone else on those grounds.

The story of the ACJ is, of course, much more complicated than just internal division and visionary short-sightedness. Suffice it to say, though, the ACJ's story is one of failure. Kolsky writes: "Unlike the Zionists, who had skillfully penetrated most American Jewish institutions by the 1940s, the Council was unable either to penetrate or to influence significantly even a single important Jewish organization during its struggle against the Jewish state" (199).

Despite their best efforts, by November 1945, a Roper poll of American Jews "showed that 80.1 percent supported the Zionist goal of a Jewish state in Palestine and only 10.5 percent opposed it" (126). Also, despite having access to high-level, sympathetic State Department officials, the ACJ was unable to thwart US support for the UN's partition resolution in 1947 or US diplomatic recognition of Israel in 1948. As Kolsky notes, Zionists--David Niles and Clark Clifford--were inside the White House (172). On the matter of recognizing Israel, Kolsky writes, "President Truman was constantly reminded by Jewish spokesmen and Democratic party leaders that he needed Jewish votes and financial contributions in the approaching 1948 elections" (188).

After the establishment of Israel, the ACJ, writes Kolsky, "did not have an appreciable effect on American Jews" and "became no more than a marginal, isolated, unpopular and largely ignored gadfly, an irritating critic of Zionism of all shades and degrees" (194).

Taxpayer-Funded Priest Publishes "Complete Guide to Killing Jews"; Says Killing Jewish Babies Okay

2010-05-28T16:30:00.000-07:00

Caught you looking. If the title of this post were true then it would be real news but it isn't true. The truth is that in yet another expression of Judaism's Culture of Death a West Bank rabbi on the payroll of the Jewish State and also bankrolled indirectly by US taxpayers has written "The complete guide to killing non-Jews". The book is entitled Torat ha-Melekh [The King's Teaching]. Why isn't that news?

Below is a translation of an article that first appeared in the Israeli newspaper Maariv. The translation is from an article by Didi Remez on the Coteret web site. I encourage readers to check out the article there as it has links to sources and others who have written about this story.

The complete guide to killing non-Jews

Roi Sharon, Maariv, November 9 2009 [page 2 with front page teaser]

When is it permissible to kill non-Jews? The book Torat ha-Melekh [The King’s Teaching], which was just published, was written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the dean of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in the community of Yitzhar near Nablus, together with another rabbi from the yeshiva, Yossi Elitzur. The book contains no fewer than 230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guide for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.

Although the book is not being distributed by the leading book companies, it has already received warm recommendations from right-wing elements, including recommendations from important rabbis such as Yitzhak Ginsburg, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, that were printed at the beginning of the book. The book is being distributed via the Internet and through the yeshiva, and at this stage the introductory price is NIS 30 per copy. At the memorial ceremony that was held over the weekend in Jerusalem for Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was killed nineteen years ago, copies of the book were sold.

Throughout the book, the authors deal with in-depth theoretical questions in Jewish religious law regarding the killing of non-Jews. The words "Arabs" and "Palestinians" are not mentioned even indirectly, and the authors are careful to avoid making explicit statements in favor of an individual taking the law into his own hands. The book includes hundreds of sources from the Bible and religious law. The book includes quotes from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, one of the fathers of religious Zionism, and from Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, one of the deans of the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, the stronghold of national-religious Zionism that is located in Jerusalem.

The book opens with a prohibition against killing non-Jews and justifies it, among other things, on the grounds of preventing hostility and any desecration of God’s name. But very quickly, the authors move from prohibition to permission, to the various dispensations for harming non-Jews, with the central reason being their obligation to uphold the seven Noahide laws, which every human being on earth must follow. Among these commandments are prohibitions on theft, bloodshed and idolatry. [The seven Noahide laws prohibit idolatry, murder, theft, illicit sexual relations, blasphemy and eating the flesh of a live animal, and require societies to institute just laws and law courts]

"When we approach a non-Jew who has violated the seven Noahide laws and kill him out of concern for upholding these seven laws, no prohibition has been violated," states the book, which emphasizes that killing is forbidden unless it is done in obedience to a court ruling. But later on, the authors limit the prohibition, noting that it applies only to a "proper system that deals with non-Jews who violate the seven Noahide commandments."

The book includes another conclusion that explains when a non-Jew may be killed even if he is not an enemy of the Jews. "In any situation in which a non-Jew's presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created," the authors state. "When a non-Jew assists a murderer of Jews and causes the death of one, he may be killed, and in any case where a non-Jew's presence causes danger to Jews, the non-Jew may be killed."

One of the dispensations for killing non-Jews, according to religious law, applies in a case of din rodef [the law of the "pursuer," according to which one who is pursuing another with murderous intent may be killed extrajudicially] even when the pursuer is a civilian. "The dispensation applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly," the book states. "Even a civilian who assists combat fighters is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Anyone who assists the army of the wicked in any way is strengthening murderers and is considered a pursuer. A civilian who encourages the war gives the king and his soldiers the strength to continue. Therefore, any citizen of the state that opposes us who encourages the combat soldiers or expresses satisfaction over their actions is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Also, anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer."

Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur determine that children may also be harmed because they are "hindrances." The rabbis write as follows: "Hindrances—babies are found many times in this situation. They block the way to rescue by their presence and do so completely by force. Nevertheless, they may be killed because their presence aids murder. There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."

In addition, the children of the leader may be harmed in order to apply pressure to him. If attacking the children of a wicked ruler will influence him not to behave wickedly, they may be harmed. "It is better to kill the pursuers than to kill others," the authors state.

In a chapter entitled "Deliberate harm to innocents," the book explains that war is directly mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers.

Retaliation also has a place and purpose in this book by Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur. "In order to defeat the enemy, we must behave toward them in a spirit of retaliation and measure for measure," they state. "Retaliation is absolutely necessary in order to render such wickedness not worthwhile. Therefore, sometimes we do cruel deeds in order to create the proper balance of terror."

In one of the footnotes, the two rabbis write in such a way that appears to permit individuals to act on their own, outside of any decision by the government or the army.

"A decision by the nation is not necessary to permit shedding the blood of the evil kingdom," the rabbis write. "Even individuals from the nation being attacked may harm them."

Unlike books of religious law that are published by yeshivas, this time the rabbis added a chapter containing the book's conclusions. Each of the six chapters is summarized into main points of several lines, which state, among other things: "In religious law, we have found that non-Jews are generally suspected of shedding Jewish blood, and in war, this suspicion becomes a great deal stronger. One must consider killing even babies, who have not violated the seven Noahide laws, because of the future danger that will be caused if they are allowed to grow up to be as wicked as their parents."

Even though the authors are careful, as stated, to use the term "non-Jews," there are certainly those who could interpret the nationality of the "non-Jews" who are liable to endanger the Jewish people. This is strengthened by the leaflet "The Jewish Voice," which is published on the Internet from Yitzhar, which comments on the book: "It is superfluous to note that nowhere in the book is it written that the statements are directly only to the ancient non-Jews." The leaflet's editors did not omit a stinging remark directed at the GSS, who will certainly take the trouble to get themselves a copy. "The editors suggest to the GSS that they award the prize for Israel's security to the authors," the leaflet states, "who gave the detectives the option of reading the summarized conclusions without any need for in-depth study of the entire book."

One student of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in Yitzhar explained, from his point of view, where Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur got the courage to speak so freely on a subject such as the killing of non-Jews. "The rabbis aren’t afraid of prosecution because in that case, Maimonides [Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1135–1204] and Nahmanides [Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, 1194–1270] would have to stand trial too, and anyway, this is research on religious law," the yeshiva student said. "In a Jewish state, nobody sits in jail for studying Torah."

Obama Celebrates Passover at White House

2010-04-04T18:42:00.000-07:00

At right: Official White House photo of the 2009 Seder.

As I've argued in several posts on this blog, Passover is part of a Judaic culture of death. Well, late last month the New York Times reported on "the story of the Obama Seder, now one of the newest, most intimate and least likely of White House traditions." One wonders how unlikely it is that Obama--the "first Jewish president"--would hold a Passover seder in the White House.

According to the Times, Obama's been celebrating them at least since 2008. That seder took place "at the bleakest point of the campaign, the long prelude to the Pennsylvania primary, which was dominated by a furor over Mr. Obama's former pastor" i. e. the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an anti-Zionist and liberation theologian who Obama betrayed.

The Times also reports:

When Passover begins at sunset on Monday evening, Mr. Obama and about 20 others will gather for a ritual that neither the rabbinic sages nor the founding fathers would recognize.

In the Old Family Dining Room, under sparkling chandeliers and portraits of former first ladies, the mostly Jewish and African-American guests will recite prayers and retell the biblical story of slavery and liberation, ending with the traditional declaration "Next year in Jerusalem." (Never mind the current chill in the administration’s relationship with Israel.)

Top aides like [Senior Advisor to the President] David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett will attend, but so will assistants like 24-year-old Herbie Ziskend.

I guess White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Lee "Rosy" Rosenberg, who served on Obama's national campaign finance committee and is now the new president of American Israel Public Affairs Committee, celebrated Passover at home in Chicago.

Wars of Choice in Judaism

2010-03-26T14:15:00.000-07:00

I hadn't planned on writing another post on Passover until I came across the halachic (Jewish religious law) doctrine of milchemet reshut. A 2002 essay on the web site of a Reform synagogue in Sudbury, MA helpfully explains: "[Milchemet reshut is] an optional war" and "one the king may fight with other nations in order to expand the boundaries of Israel and add to his greatness and reputation." Jacob Chinitz, a Masorti (Conservative) rabbi, calls milchemet reshut a "discretionary war" and "a war of aggression". Chinitz says, "The Torah permits such a war to expand the borders of Eretz Yisrael, to capture captives, or because the King of Israel decides [that] a war is good for the country and for God."

It is the latter aspect of the doctrine--the idea of going to war for "greatness and reputation" or because it "is good for the country and for God"--that called to mind Passover. You see, as pointed out in an earlier post:

The book of Exodus, just before the first passover occurs, records that Pharaoh was ready to let the Israelites leave Egypt "But the Lord stiffened Pharaoh's heart and he would not agree to let them go" (Exod. 10:27). The idea that it is God and not Pharaoh who is hardening Pharaoh's heart is repeated several times throughout the account, including at the beginning (Exod. 7:3). ... It is important to note that God is not perpetrating this mass killing in order to free the Israelites. No, according to scripture, it is merely an opportunity to show off the "marvels" of God as he frees the Israelites (Exod. 11:9).

I don't know if there is any Talmudic commentary that links the massacre in Exodus for the glory of God with the Talmudic concept of milchemet reshut. The modern texts I've read link the concept to Deuteronomy 20, 21:10-14, which is post-Exodus in the narrative. In any case, there seems to be a real congruence between the two. Further, both stand in contrast to the much abused medieval ecclesial "just war" doctrine, which is in turn a departure from the earlier nonviolent resistance of Jesus and the early church.

I'll close with an interesting excerpt from Rabbi Chinitz's article:

How could the Torah permit a discretionary war, how could we entertain such a notion in modern Israel? We have trumpeted the ideal of ein bererah – no choice. All of our wars were forced on us by our enemies, including the current struggle against suicide bombers.

Let me offer some qualifications to this posture of purity. With respect to the war in Lebanon – Operation Peace for Galillee - Menachem Begin said that sometimes a war of yesh bereirah – a war of choice - is better than a war of ein bereirah – a war of no choice. Ein bereira means your back is to the wall, as "And Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him" (Genesis 32:24). In a war of yesh bereirah, you take the initiative, limit your casualties and decide when to stop.

Ezer Weizman stated that the Six Day War was not really a matter of saving the nation, but rather an opportunity. Egypt did not attack first. It only closed the Straits of Tiran.

This excerpt suggests, if not demonstrates, the relevance of examining Judaism when considering Zionist foreign and domestic policy. This scrutiny is, of course, unwelcome for those who insist, despite the evidence to the contrary, on the disconnect between Judaism and Zionism, see e.g. "Response to M.", "Readers Respond to 'Israel's Hanukkah Massacre & Judaism's Culture of Death'", and "Will IJAN Challenge Jewish Power?".

In Recognition of Passover

2010-03-19T14:05:00.000-07:00

The Jewish holiday of Passover is less than two weeks away and in recognition of this I provide below two excerpts from Dr. John Hartung's illuminating 2005 article "Passover: Caveat Emptor". Hartung is the Associate Editor of the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology and an Associate Professor of Anesthesiology at the State University of New York. He holds a PhD in Anthropology from Harvard University.

The story of Jewish slavery in ancient Egypt has probably served more purposes more effectively than any other partially believed foundation myth in history. Every time the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz publishes a weekend magazine piece written by one of Israel's most prominent archaeologists, explaining that the story of Israelite enslavement in Egypt was a whole-cloth fabrication, a flood of outrage pours over the editor's desk. Some letter-to-the-editor writers even draw analogies to Holocaust denial. Why such a powerful response? Primarily because the myth still serves a variety of purposes.

The fact that the Passover myth, or any accepted myth, has no historical validity makes it all the more revealing. It means that the myth is unencumbered by facts that do not [suit] its purpose. It also means that the extent to which the myth has been effective is the extent to which it has been retrospectively considered prophetic, and thereby validated — a self-fulfilling prophecy perceived as a prophecy fulfilled. ...

According to the [Passover] myth, Jacob's family left Canaan to escape a famine. They arrived in Egypt as impoverished and bedraggled guests of the Pharaoh (Genesis 47:26-27). Several generations later they left Egypt with a standing army of "six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty . . . . every man able to go forth to war" (Numbers 1:45-46). Logistical support included "very many cattle, both flocks and herds" (Exodus 12:38), and having gained the trust of their Egyptian neighbours, financing included several thousand kilograms of "borrowed" gold and silver (Exodus 38:24-25).

The Israelites were able to leave Egypt with so much wealth and power because their god "passed over" his people's houses when he killed all Egyptian firstborn children (Exodus 12:27). To this day, as instructed (Exodus 12:11-14), Judaism celebrates these fabled events as Passover.

Can you imagine the outrage that would be rightfully felt today — rightfully felt but eventually elicited, solicited, embellished, organized, manipulated, and incessantly propagandized to promote Zionist objectives through books, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, film, show trial litigation and tax-payer supported museums — if some group of eighteen to twenty million people annually celebrated a tale of the killing of all firstborn Jewish children as a "sport" of their god? [notes omitted]

AA Palestine Film Festival Violates Palestinian Boycott

2010-03-14T14:27:00.000-07:00

Last June, in "Which Side Are You On?" I wrote, "There's an old labor song by Florence Reece called 'Which Side Are You On?' Sometimes self-styled Palestinian solidarity activists bring this tune to mind." Today brings the sad news that the organizers of the recently concluded Ann Arbor Palestine Film Festival have violated both the Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott against Israel and the 2005 Palestinian call for "broad boycotts ... against Israel" by showing an Israeli film, Ajami.

In an Electronic Intifada interview with Jimmy Johnson entitled "Education and resistance at the Ann Arbor Palestine film fest" one of the festival's organizers, Hena Ashraf, is quoted characterizing the festival as combining her interest in film and Palestine solidarity activism. Ashraf says, "Film, and more broadly, media, can be used as a means to educate, but also unfortunately to miseducate. Mainstream media outlets have often presented gross stereotypes of Palestinians and biased misinformation." In the case of Ajami, it appears that Ashraf and her colleagues have not only violated the boycotts but if Raja Shehadeh, founder of the Palestinian human rights organization, Al-Haq, is to be believed they are also guilty of presenting "gross stereotypes of Palestinians and biased misinformation."

Shehadeh says:

[The world of Ajami is] a city of drive-by shootings, drugs, and racketeering, where men, young and old, are shot or stabbed to death on the slightest provocation and shady sheikhs in Arab dress sort out the blood money in what is supposed to pass as tribal justice. ... the unrelieved blood-letting punctuated only by moments of love and loyalty to family and friends leaves us in no doubt that the Jewish citizens of Israel exist in a jungle infested by bloodthirsty, uncivilized Arabs who live inside and outside its borders exactly as Israeli propagandists claim. If Israel is to make it, the story goes, this tiny bastion of civilization has no choice but to remain militarized and on full alert.

To return to the boycott issue, last month Hannah Brown touted Ajami in the Jerusalem Post as "a triumph for Israel in a year in which prominent industry figures called for a boycott of a program of Israeli films at the Toronto Film Festival last fall." She also noted, "It received some of its funding from the Israel Film Fund, which is government-supported." On Oscar night, responding to Ajami co-director Scandar Copti's criticism of Israel, Israeli Consul General Jacob Dayan told a Jewish Journal blogger: "Tomorrow no one will remember what [Copti] said ... They’ll remember that this is an Israeli movie and that it will help make Israel a little stronger by reinforcing the relationship between Israel and Hollywood."

The same article also says:

"The film represents Israel exactly," said Israeli-American choreographer Barak Marshall. "It touches on almost all of the issues we face in Israeli society and it shows how broad the public debate is; that someone who is from Israel can negate his very connection to the state shows how wonderfully strong and alive our political culture is."

For Dayan, art that reflects a dynamic Israeli society and its status as a pluralistic democracy is an essential strength of statehood.

The issue of why Zionists like Ajami is also addressed here and in the Palestine Chronicle but the matter of why self-styled Palestine solidarity activists like Ashraf and her colleagues promote the film is another matter. Is it ignorance? Arrogance? Elitism? Who knows?

Will IJAN Challenge Jewish Power?

2010-02-27T15:16:00.000-08:00

Below is the analysis of Henry Herskovitz (with Michelle J. Kinnucan) of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends to a recent op-ed by Rebecca Tumposky on the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN).

There are many problems with IJAN, which lead me to doubt the purposes of the group. I first question whether they are a Palestinian solidarity group or yet another group that seeks to shield and preserve Jewish power both in Palestine and in the U.S.

In this writer's opinion, Jews - if they are acting in a group that represents Jews in the peace movement - should first and foremost challenge what Akiva Eldar and J. J. Goldberg, among others, call the "Jewish lobby" - the powerful people and institutions (and their rank-and-file supporters) who dominate the US discourse and policy regarding Jews and Israel. Often, these are the very people behind the charge of "self-hating Jews" (and for non-Jews, "anti-Semites") about whom Rebecca Tumposky, national organizer with the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, complains. Yet, nowhere in her article does Ms. Tumposky show a disposition to directly do that.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that three originators of IJAN who live in southeast Michigan, including "Invincible," declined the invitation to stand vigil with us at our Global Vigil Day in 2007 or at any other time. They refused to expose and challenge Beth Israel Congregation--a local institutional bastion of open, unabashed Jewish support for Israel--when they had the opportunity. And yes, I'm the first to admit that standing in front of a synagogue is not the only way to challenge Jewish power, but at the same time ask where does IJAN directly challenge this power using another tactic?

In Tumposky's op-ed she says IJAN "seeks to challenge the violence and injustice of Israeli apartheid" but she and IJAN are US-based. So, where is her mention, let alone challenge, of the Jewish supremacism/power that allows Jews - less than two percent of the US population - to so effectively steer US policy and resources into underwriting Jewish apartheid in Palestine?

Right out of the box, she shows her hand - Tumposky's and IJAN's opposition to apartheid is rooted not in universalistic notions of justice and human rights but in Jewish chauvinism/exceptionalism. Thus, they appeal to Jews on the grounds of "our varied traditions of social justice." And Tumposky wants to make sure - absolutely certain - that fighting anti-Semitism is prioritized in any work on freeing Palestine from the genocide brought on by the Jewish state. Thus, she writes, "We challenge anti-Jewish prejudice while standing in solidarity with organizations that support Palestinian liberation and historic justice ..." In short, IJAN enters the Palestinian solidarity movement with an explicit agenda of highlighting, if not foregrounding, the concerns of Jews, the very people who enjoy Jewish privilege here and in Israel.

Her opposition to Zionism is carefully couched as a subset of opposing colonialism and imperialism, in general: "We share a commitment to participation in struggles against colonialism and imperialism. We therefore oppose Zionism ... IJAN, in fact, opposes all imperialist aggression". She refuses to take notice of the peculiar situation of Zionism - Jewish imperialism - in that Jews lacked a nation-state of their own and, thus, Zionists commandeered other countries, namely Britain and the US, to realize their goals.

Tumposky beats up one or two carefully placed straw men along the way: "We will say it again and again, despite accusations of being 'self-hating Jews': Zionism is not Judaism and the Jewish community." Just who is it that equates Zionism with "Judaism and the Jewish community"? And why is this point so essential for "anti-Zionists" like the IJAN folks? What would Tumposky say to the 757 rabbis - "the largest number of rabbis whose signatures are attached to a public pronouncement in all Jewish history" - who in 1942 stated that Zionism is an "Affirmation of Judaism" and "Anti-Zionism, not Zionism, is a departure from the Jewish religion"?

She also plays a Left Zionist game when she attempts to distinguish the 'types' of Zionism, claiming that "the Zionism we oppose is not a longstanding cultural or religious expression". She conveniently ignores the fact that when push came to shove, all the Zionists - Left, Right and Center - gave their blessings to destroying Palestine.

In the first chapter of his book Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Norman Finkelstein challenged the myth that any of the Zionist tendencies (Labor, Religious, etc.) were ever benign. In short, the only thing about Zionism that really matters is that it "is a form of racism and racial discrimination," as the UN General Assembly correctly identified in 1975.

Tumposky's definition of Zionism is also problematic - "the 19th century ideology that led European Jews to work with imperialist powers to displace and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people, which continues today." It is folly to imply that Jews were passive objects of that "ideology". Zionism was created, implemented, and popularized by Jews. Are readers supposed to believe that it was the imperialist powers that Jews only "worked with" that committed this crime? Isn't it more accurate to say that Jews led these imperialist powers by the nose - as they still do today - to have non-Jews die for the Jewish state?

When she writes "Israel and its U.S. lobby helped pushed us toward the Iraq war and are exerting similar pressure to attack Iran", readers need to be cognizant of what she omits - EVERY major constituent group of the organized Jewish community pressed for war on Iraq, and there's a list of at least two dozen Jewish individuals - in powerful government or media positions - who also pressed strongly for war.

Tumposky touts "Jewish visions of collective liberation and traditions of social justice", but doesn't give us any proof that this tradition ever existed, other than in the minds of Jews who want their image spit-shined, if not outright falsified. More than 300 years ago, Benedictus de Spinoza, who is often upheld as a great Jewish intellectual, observed that Jews had in fact nothing to commend themselves as superior to others, had acted in such a way as to "incur the hatred of all", and that this hatred was the glue that bound Jews together. Other than, perhaps, a few years during the Civil Rights struggle (and Benjamin Ginsberg casts doubt on even this), Jews collectively have acted in concert NOT for universal well-being, but for the benefit of Jews. IJAN does not seem to be an exception.

Distinguishing IJAN from AIPAC, J-Street and Tikkun, might make good reading, but doesn't let them off the hook. Once again, I'm reminded of Paul Eisen's words: "The crime against the Palestinian people is being committed by a Jewish state with Jewish soldiers using weapons displaying Jewish religious symbols, and with the full support and complicity of the overwhelming mass of organized Jews worldwide. But to name Jews as responsible for this crime seems impossible to do." It seems obvious to me that IJAN and similar organizations exist, in no small part, to prevent the naming of Jews as responsible for the Jewish-led genocide against the Palestinian people.

Zionist IDF Supporter Appointed to Human Rights Commission

2010-01-13T21:59:00.000-08:00

The City of Ann Arbor's Human Rights Commission (HRC) was created in 1970 to, among other things, "Investigate, study, hold hearings and make recommendations to City Council regarding complaints from any class or group protected under the human rights ordinance" (Ann Arbor City Code §1:222(b)) The City has gradually gotten out of the human rights business by all but dropping "human rights" from the text of the relevant city code section (Chapter 112) and by eliminating the City's Human Rights department (HRD), which had several duties including providing staff support to the HRC, whose members are unpaid volunteers.

It is probably not coincidental that the HRD was eliminated after the HRC, led by Helen Fox and a Palestinian, Hani Bawardi, showed great courage and integrity in 2003 in adopting a "Resolution in Support of Ending U.S. Military Support for Israel" (text below). At the time, none of Ann Arbor's Zionized local 'peace' organizations--Veterans for Peace, Michigan Peaceworks, Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, Jewish Voices for Peace and Justice--supported the HRC or endorsed its resolution. And Ann Arbor's Zionized City Council, led by Democratic Mayor John Hieftje, never even formally considered the resolution.

Although the HRC is still active, elected officials recently demonstrated their contempt for human rights and the integrity of the HRC once again. Less than a year after Israel's murderous assault on Gaza, in a sneak attack of his own, Mayor Hieftje appointed Neal Elyakin to the HRC, effective last year on December 7th ( "a date which will live in infamy," indeed). According to his LinkedIn profile, Elyakin is, among other things, a "Formation (founding) Member at Michigan Israel Business Bridge;" a Board Member of the Friends of the IDF, Michigan Chapter; and a Board Member of the Jewish National Fund (Michigan).

The Michigan Israel Business Bridge obviously aims at facilitating trade and business between Michigan and Israel, contrary to the Palestinian BDS campaign. As for Friends of IDF, well that speaks for itself, doesn't it? According to Adalah, the Jewish National Fund controls "over 2.5 million dunams of land, equating to 13% of the total land-space in Israel," the majority of which "was transferred to it by [the] state and was originally in the ownership of Arab refugees or internally displaced persons." In other words, the JNF controls land that was ethnically cleansed during the Nakba in 1948. The JNF manages these lands to create Jewish-only towns and neighborhoods in Israel; Palestinian citizens of Israel are prohibited from leasing JNF land and building houses on it. For these reasons, the JNF was singled out in the Cairo Declaration to End Israeli Apartheid of January 1, 2010, and has been the object of a campaign by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee to strip the group of federal tax-exempt status.

Elyakin also has a blog. Concerning Israel's attack on Gaza, Elyakin wrote: "Let Israel do what it does; let Israel take on Hamas and the terrorist government in a way that will dismantle the infrastructure in Gaza that supports the terror state. Let it happen fast, let it take its course, and let us support Israel to once again tell the world that terrorism will not defeat her." On January 11, 2009, he wrote: "I know that hundreds of Gaza residents have died. I know that many non-combatants have died. I know that schools and mosques have been destroyed. ... I blame Hamas. ... I will support Israel in her campaign to keep her children free of terror, away from the bomb shelters, and secure in their own recognized country."

Here's part of what Elyakin wrote last June:

There was no Nakba in 1948. There was, though, a war for independence that Israel waged after being attacked on all fronts by pretty much the entire Arab world ... Most of the Arabs living in what is now Israel came during the early years of the century, enticed by the work offered as a result of the opportunities created by the early Jewish immigration ... Palestinian nationalism didn't exist prior to the UN vote, prior to the war of 1948, prior to the establishment of the State of Israel. ... For all intents and purposes, there was no Arab Palestinian movement. ... There is no Palestine. ... The area that was called Palestine is now called Israel. ... The borders of Israel are or will be what Israel determines them to be. ... Countries wage war; countries lose and countries win. Israel won. Get over it.

Two weeks after appointment to the HRC began, Elyakin wrote: "The myth most strongly reinforced, the biggest lie repeated over and over again, is that Israel threw people out of their homes and took over their lands; that Israel exists only because of what they did to the indigenous Palestinians ..."

It is, frankly, an outrage for a man with Neal Elyakin's record of denigrating the history and human rights of Palestinians and of supporting the racist institutions of apartheid Israel to be appointed to the Ann Arbor Human Rights Commission. What can one expect though in times such as these when the oxymoronic lie of "Israeli democracy" is a commonplace?

###

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ENDING
U.S. MILITARY SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL

Proposed by the Ann Arbor Human Rights Commission on December 4, 2003

Whereas, the United States, by providing Israel with virtually unlimited diplomatic, economic, and military support, has made itself complicit in Israel’s 36-year old military occupation of Palestinian lands;

Whereas, the State of Israel’s building of a 25-foot Separation Wall that cuts through Palestinian communities, is further undermining chances for a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict;

Whereas, construction of the Separation Wall deprives a significant proportion of the Palestinian people of all means for self governance, movement, commerce, and education on all levels, and makes the prospect of a viable independent Palestinian state unfeasible;

Whereas, the United States government has expressed its official opposition to the construction of the Separation Wall (President George W. Bush, London, Nov. 19, 2003) while at the same time refusing to use its unquestionable influence to prevent the Israeli government from proceeding with its construction;

Whereas, a majority of Jewish Americans support ending the occupation of Palestinian lands and dismantling of the Settlements (US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, Sept. 23, 2003) and;

Whereas, the City of Ann Arbor has in recent months witnessed dozens of vigils, peaceful protests, teach-ins, lectures, and debates on behalf of the beleaguered Palestinian population;

RESOLVED, That the City of Ann Arbor urge the United States Federal Government to stop military aid to the state of Israel until such time that Israel ends its occupation of Palestinian lands; and

RESOLVED, That the City Administrator send copies of this resolution to our U.S. Congressional and Senate representatives, and the President of the United States.

Eli Valley on Jewish Narcissism

2009-12-26T15:19:00.000-08:00

I posted one of Eli Valley's cartoon's last year in "Happy Hanukkah". Below are three of his cartoons on Jewish self-absorption (click on the images to enlarge them).

Bloody-handed Prophets of the Royal Court Disparage JWPF

2009-12-05T08:39:00.000-08:00

There were other voices in the days of the prophets. The prophets Amos, Elijah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and all the rest, were opposed, generation after generation, by prophets who belonged to the royal courts, who assured the king that his conduct was beyond reproach. The biblical prophets were harassed as traitors ... While the official soothsayers denounced the enemies of the king, the prophets whom we revere followed after Nathan, who dared to confront King David with murdering Uriah and stealing his wife. Nathan defended this Hittite stranger ... "You are the man," he said to David: you are morally responsible.

--Arthur Hertzberg. "An Open Letter to Elie Wiesel."New York Review of Books. Vol. 35, No. 13. August 18, 1988.

Though you pray at length,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood.

--The Book of Isaiah, Chapter 1.

Just less than a year after Israel launched its deadly Hanukkah Massacre against the densely populated open-air prison that is Gaza, leading lights of Ann Arbor's Jewish community once again felt compelled to show themselves as bloody-handed prophets of the "royal courts" by mounting another effort to disparage truly prophetic voices in their midst.

I'm referring here to Art Aisner's front-page story in this month's issue of the Washtenaw Jewish News: "False witnesses." You may find evidence in Aisner's story that members of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends (JWPF) are flawed and frail human beings--as are we all--but you will search in vain in Aisner's 3400-word piece to find any conclusive evidence that JWPF's witness is false.

For instance, Aisner claims: "the core of the group remains committed to a belief that not just Israelis, but all Jews who support a Jewish national home, are responsible for inflicting tragedy upon tragedy on Palestinians." Assuming Aisner is correct, it is unclear how that marks JWPF members as false witnesses. Would Aisner make the same claim about Rabbi Abraham Heschel?

In The Prophets, Heschel wrote: "Above all, the prophets remind us of the moral state of a people: Few are guilty, but all are responsible. ... In a community not indifferent to suffering, uncompromisingly impatient with cruelty and falsehood, continually concerned for God and every man, crime would be infrequent rather than common" (emphasis added). Who can deny that if the American Jewish community was not actively complicit in Palestinian suffering and did not enable and engage in Zionist cruelty and falsehood that the daily crimes perpetrated by and on behalf of the Jewish State would soon cease?

In 1971, Richard Nixon's "Plumbers" broke into the offices of the psychiatrist of Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg "to get a 'mother lode' of information about Mr. Ellsberg's mental state, to discredit him." I imagine that Aisner wishes he had that type of 'access' because a significant part of his article smacks of "Plumber" journalism. For example, there's this: "Herskovitz acknowledges regularly attending sessions with a therapist over the years, but insists he isn't crazy."

Like Ellsberg and Herskovitz, tens of millions of Americans have sought out the aid of a psychotherapist; undoubtedly, many have done so for extended periods of time. So, what kind of person is Aisner that he resorts to innuendo to reinforce the "cruelty and falsehoods" of someone like Stephen Pastner whose "caricature depictions of the protesters ... honestly [sic] question some members' sanity?"

To his credit though Aisner lets Herskovitz take a crack at this "cheap diversion of the public's attention." The purpose of this, Herskovitz notes, is to send the message: "Pay no attention to the Israeli atrocities, but focus on Henry so nobody wants to take up the issue."

Aisner also resorts to innuendo when it comes to Herskovitz's name and attendance at Beth Israel Congregation (BIC). Aisner writes: "Although he claims to have attended services at the synagogue he now pickets, an initial search revealed no member by that name. Perhaps it is because for much of his time in Ann Arbor the Pittsburg [sic] native was known by his given [sic] name, Henry Henry." Perhaps, it's because of Aisner's sleight-of-hand of slipping from attending services to membership, as if they were same. Further, the surname Herskovitz received when he was born was "Herskovitz." It shouldn't have been too hard for Aisner to sleuth this out but it must have better suited his purposes to raise rather than dispel doubts.

The discerning reader is also left to wonder why Aisner searched BIC records for "Henry Herskovitz" but, apparently, not for "Henry Henry." It's seems reasonable to conclude that, if it were true, Aisner would dutifully report that there was no "Henry Henry" in the records, either. So, did Aisner find (and fail to report) what he didn't want to find--a record that Herskovitz attended BIC's services when his name was Henry Henry?

As part of his effort to call into question Herskovitz's "true motives," Aisner also quotes BIC member Dan Cutler: " 'I've heard a pretty wide range of opinions about the Middle East [in the congregation] including no lack of people very critical of the Israeli government' ... But the picketers don't care about actual opinions among real people in the congregation, he contends." This reminded me of the bit from the first Blues Brothers movie when Elwood asks the proprietress of an establishment he hopes will book his band, "What kind of music do you usually have here?" The woman proudly replies: "Oh, we got both kinds. We got country and western." BIC is just as diverse: They have Zionists who are critical of Israel and Zionists who are not-so-much critical of Israel. Vive la différence!

If Rabbi Rob Dobrusin is to be believed, it is precisely because of the "actual opinions among real people in the congregation" that BIC is a fitting site for a protest. As Dobrusin writes in the Ann Arbor News in 2007: "there is one general statement which I can make on behalf of the Congregation - Beth Israel Congregation affirms without any hesitation or equivocation the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish State ... No matter how long the protests continue, this will never change." Anyone else hear echoes of George Wallace: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever"?

In Aisner's piece, Stephen Pastner also complains: "The thing that twinges me is that it's the impropriety of doing it in front of a place of worship". Would Pastner hesitate to protest outside a local church that advocated stripping Americans Jews of their US citizenship? How about one that supported the dissolution of Israel? I doubt Pastner would bleat much about the "impropriety" of protest then.

Arguably, institutions and individuals who claim to deal in values and ethics deserve to be held to a higher standard of conduct. Nor are such protests inconsistent with religious tradition. The Old Testament tells us that Jeremiah stood "in the gate of the LORD'S house" and rebuked Israel. As Abraham Heschel explains:

The prophet knew that religion could distort what the Lord demanded ... To the people, religion was Temple, priesthood, incense: "This is the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord" (Jer. 7:4). Such piety Jeremiah brands as fraud and illusion. "Behold you trust in deceptive words to no avail," he calls (Jer. 7:8). Worship preceded or followed by evil acts becomes an absurdity. The holy place is doomed when people indulge in unholy deeds.

BIC's support of Jewish supremacism in Palestine is indeed an evil act and an unholy deed. In 2006, as Israel devastated Lebanon, killing hundreds and wounding thousands, BIC waved the flag (Israeli, that is) and prayed "for those who defend Israel." BIC attendees have assaulted JWPF members because of their criticism of Israel (in his search of official records Aisner somehow missed this). BIC spreads falsehoods about the vigils. They send their children to Israel and pose them with armed Israeli soldiers. And Rabbi Dobrusin has offered a halachic justification of torture from the bima. Yet, none of this "twinges" Stephen Pastner or interests Art Aisner.

Speaking of records, Aisner went so far as to get records of Sol Metz's divorce, as if this information was somehow relevant to Metz's position on Israel. He brings it up, in part at least, to tag Metz as a hypocrite for protesting the pro-Israel activities of the Jewish Federation but Aisner, apparently, has to invent some of his "facts" in order to accomplish that.

Aisner has Metz going "to the local Jewish Federation for help with clothing and other needs for his family" after the divorce. But in an e-mail sent to Aisner after the publication of his story, Metz makes it clear that "I did not go anywhere for help with clothing during that or any other time. Rosemary [his ex-wife] did go with my opposition." Commenting on Aisner's assertion that Metz is "aware of the hypocrisy, but remains unfazed by it," Metz wrote, "I guess that your lie [about seeking help from the Jewish Federation] was an attempt to set up this whopper."

Marcia Federbush's divorce of twenty years ago is also grist for Aisner's mill as is a very abbreviated account of Katherine [sic] Wilkerson's criminal trial and firing from Packard Community Clinic (PCC). Aisner writes: "Wilkerson was acquitted by a jury in 2007, but she was fired a year later over a contract dispute."

In fact, Dr. Wilkerson was fired about two months after her acquittal because she refused to consent to a gag rule. In a letter to PCC Executive Director Kim Kratz from the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Michael Steinberg characterizes the gag rule as "extremely broad" and said it "poses serious civil liberties implications for the free expression rights of employees" and "could prevent an [employee] from participating in virtually any political demonstration outside of work that has nothing to do with work."

The ACLU urged the PCC to remove the offending contract provision and stated that any employees no longer working at the clinic because of refusing to agree to the gag rule should be "given the opportunity to return to work upon signing a revised agreement." Wilkerson was never given this opportunity.

Steinberg also writes, "I understand that individuals were threatening to withhold contributions or patient referrals because of the controversial speech of one of your doctors, Catherine Wilkerson, about Israel and Palestine." Now, what kind of people would cut off funding and patients for a non-profit community medical clinic that was founded to serve needy, vulnerable people? What kind of cowards would quietly submit to such blackmail? These are not questions Aisner is interested in.

Aisner is interested in the Greens though--when it fits his agenda, that is. Although Aimee Smith and Michelle Kinnucan were duly elected, he characterizes their ascension "to leadership positions in the local Green Party" as an example of JWPF's ability "to disrupt a few Ann Arbor institutions where you'd least expect." It shouldn't have been too unexpected or much of a disruption though since the Green Party of the United States went on record in 2005 (before the alleged Smith-Kinnucan coup) as calling "for divestment from and boycott of the State of Israel until such time as the full individual and collective rights of the Palestinian people are realized."

Aisner implies that under Smith and Kinnucan "issues like the environment, instant run-off voting, and domestic social justice" were sidelined as the "the party quickly became laser focused on Palestinian rights." It's funny then that during this time the local party did such things as supporting the United ENDA campaign and maintaining a presence at Ann Arbor's annual environmental Green Fair.

You can also read Smith's 2006 interview with Ann Arbor's own (but not-so-homeless) "Homeless Dave." There, she speaks articulately about Palestine but also about things such as depleted uranium, food localism, Bahro's concept of "exterminism," and the "Green Revolution." All in all, not a very laser-like focus on Palestine, I'm afraid.

On the local Greens, Aisner also quotes Peter Schermerhorn of the sour grapes brigade: "It was very difficult for the Greens to get any traction locally since we were blamed for losing the 2000 election for Gore and we were building it back ... But it's gone, and it's been gone ever since they [Smith and Kinnucan] were put in charge." Schermerhorn fails to mention that the Huron Valley Greens were moribund and not even meeting regularly when Smith, Kinnucan, and others revived the local organization in late 2005. Schermerhorn seemed to acknowledge this in an Ann Arbor News article by Aisner's former colleague, Tom Gantert. In the July 1, 2006 piece, Schermerhorn is quoted as saying: "Some joined recently ... Some have been members for years. They've definitely perked up the energy level and, to some degree, redirected it.''

It bears mentioning that Aisner's article also has a photo of Smith (who is not a Muslim, as Aisner ever so helpfully points out, and has never claimed to be one, as Aisner does not point out) wearing hijab while, according to the caption, scolding "the [Celebrate Israel Day] crowd, 'Stop pretending you're from Arabia. Be proud of your European roots.' " To get his apparent point across that Smith is a hypocrite for wearing the hijab while taking Jews to task for pretending to be a Semitic people, Aisner depends upon the inability or unwillingness of his readers to distinguish between solidarity and theft/appropriation.

On the subject of Jewish theft/appropriation it will suffice for present purposes to quote Columbia University associate professor Joseph Massad, citing Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel by Israeli scholar Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi:

The naming of the new Jew (Beit-Hallahmi refers to the new Jew as the "anti-Jew") Sabra is consistent with Zionism's interest in nature and geography. Not only is the new Jew a hard fruit to pick, but he also grows in the desert, the product of a new geography. His mother is nature and the land of Israel. His name is part and parcel of the geographic, historical and cultural appropriation of Palestine by Zionism. That the very name of the new Jew is Arabic is no more of an inconsistency than the future Israeli cultural theft and appropriation of falafil and hummus (traditional Palestinian and Levantine Arab dishes) as Israeli Jewish dishes or dabkah (traditional Palestinian and Levantine Arab line dancing) as Israeli Jewish folk dancing.

I have by no means addressed every omission, distortion, factual error, or hare-brained notion expressed by JWPF opponents in Aisner's piece but before I end I want to take on one of David Shtulman's inanities. Herr Shtulman whines: "There's a sense of entitlement they have that everything they want to do is okay, and I don't think the Jewish community needs to accept it."

As the article makes clear, the relevant "everything they want to do" is to speak out against the organized Jewish community's support for Israel. And it must aggravate poor Shtulman and his ilk that there is an "entitlement" to that, it's called the First Amendment and Zionists haven't succeeded in killing it off yet. Until they do, the bloody-handed prophets of the "royal courts" will undoubtedly continue to wail and gnash their teeth as long as someone has the courage and integrity to criticize Israel's evil acts and unholy deeds and those who are complicit in them.

Packard Health

J Street: "The center of American Jewish thought"

2009-10-24T22:23:00.000-07:00

Below are two excerpts from a recent Atlantic Monthly interview with Jeremy Ben-Ami, executive director of J Street, which bills itself as "the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement." "JG" is interviewer Jeffrey Goldberg and Ben-Ami is "JB".

JG: Are you a Zionist?

JB: I am a Zionist personally. I am deeply committed to a Jewish home, to a democratic home, to a Jewish Israel. I'm deeply committed to that and you know my family background.

JG: Ben-Ami is a Jewish name, I think.

JB: Exactly. My great-grandparents were in the First Aliyah, my grandparents founded Tel Aviv, my father was in the Irgun. I've lived in Israel myself. I have 500 cousins there. I'm deeply committed to the safety, the sanctity and the security of a Jewish home in the state of Israel.

JG: Is J Street a Zionist organization?

JB: Well, we are unabashedly for a Jewish home in the land of Israel, that there should be a Jewish home that is a democracy, that has a Jewish character and a Jewish flavor and where the law of return is a fact -- I know you're having a disagreement with Bernie (Avishai) right now. I don't even know what he said about the right of return.

JG: That he wants it repealed.

JB: Well I don't agree with that, I certainly don't agree with that. I think that the notion is that there should be a homeland that is a Jewish homeland. That is the founding principle of J Street. The question is, how do we preserve it? That's where we seem to be getting attacked. Our view is that in order to preserve this, there just simply has to be an independent state for the Palestinians next door, and that's where they will live. And we live in Israel and we live there and there's always going to be a minority in Israel that is not Jewish and we need to treat them like equal citizens and value their participation in our democracy, but it is a Jewish home. This is the Jewish homeland. ...

JB: J Street officially will not use the term "One-State Solution." That is an oxymoron because it is a one-state nightmare. That is the thing we are most opposed to -- moving in a one-state direction.

JG: A nightmare for practical reasons or a nightmare for moral reasons?

JB: A nightmare for the Jewish people. There would be no more Israel. One state is not a solution, one state is a dissolution.

JG: The thing I'm worried about with the conference is that I think most of your supporters are well-meaning, left-of-center Jews who love Israel and are tortured by the various dilemmas, who do stay awake at night worrying about this. But there are others who are glomming on to you guys as a cover, just using you to advance another agenda entirely.

JB: I hope that we have a very strong left flank that attacks us, that Jewish Voice for Peace and other groups that are consistently upset with us for backing Howard Berman's sanctions plan and for refusing to embrace the Goldstone report and for standing up for the right of Israel to defend itself or for its military aid -- I hope we get attacked from the left because I would characterize J Street as the mainstream of the American Jewish community.

JG: You believe that you're at the center of American Jewish thought?

JB: I believe that we are at the center. The Marty Peretzes and the Michael Goldfarbs and the Lenny Ben-Davids are on the right, to the far right, and there are people to our left, and we are in the middle trying to put forward a thoughtful, moderate, mainstream point of view about how to save Israel as a Jewish home.

The First Jewish President

2009-10-24T19:45:00.000-07:00

I recently looked at the archived version of the Chicago Tribune article, "Barack Obama: The First Jewish President?" and decided to Google the title. Below are links to two of the articles that came up.

"Some Chicago Jews say Obama is actually the 'first Jewish president' " by Natasha Mozgovaya in Haaretz.
"Barack Obama: 'America’s First Jewish President' " by James Petras.

Click here for an update to this post.

Open Letter to Wadad Abed

2009-10-24T01:33:00.000-07:00

This post was gathering cobwebs in the drafts folder. I last worked on it on January 20, 2009. Wadad Abed did not support or attend the Batsheva Dance Company protest.

Dear Wadad Abed:

You joined a group of Zionist Jewish women in a Hasbara operation called Zeitouna. As a result of that experience you rejected your old notion "that the Holocaust was ... used to justify taking away" Palestine and you, instead, embraced tenets of the Holocaust Industry and told the Detroit Jewish News that, as a result, you "now accept[ed] Israel's right to exist."

Perhaps emboldened by your conversion to the Zionist cause, you teamed up with Zionist Aaron Ahuvia, the national secretary of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, as the sole Palestinian in the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice's "Imagine Process" and gave the thugs in the organization's leadership cover to make permanent the "suspension" of its Middle East Task Force and the ouster of the task force Chair, a fellow Palestinian.

In 2007, you became, literally, the voice of Zionist propagandist Laurie White at the Ann Arbor premiere of the Zeitouna movie. In 2008, you were reelected to the Board of Directors of the University Musical Society (UMS), when interviewed on the radio in connection with a concert hosted by the UMS you identified yourself not as a Palestinian, nor as a refugee but merely as "an immigrant [who] came here forty years ago." Shortly thereafter when local activists and the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC) called for a boycott and protest of the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra, hosted by the UMS, you were silent and missing-in-action.

After weeks of relentless Israeli bombing in the Gaza strip that has already killed hundreds of people, most of them civilians or policemen, and injured thousands more, many of whom may yet die for lack of medical supplies and facilities, your words and actions have never stung more painfully. And yet, now, you have signed an open letter to Barack Obama where, among other things, you say: "Almost certainly, the only hope of a lasting solution is a single state in Israel/Palestine, committed to the civil and human rights of all peoples within its boundaries, irrespective of religion or ethnicity" and "It is time for constructive disengagement from Israel, financial, diplomatic, military. What worked in the case of South Africa, divestment and pressure, may finally work in the Middle East."

Does this mean that you have trimmed your sails and, for the sake of mere appearences you are acting like you care about the people in your homeland more than friendships with Zionists? Does this mean that, unlike Dr. King, your sense of justice is adjustable to the tenor of the times?

Or does it mean you have finally cast off the blinders that prevented you from seeing or acknowledging the harm you have done to the Palestinian liberation struggle and the people you have hurt? Will you now speak loudly and work conscientiously in support of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel and in particular, the boycott and protest of the Israeli apartheid Batsheva Dance Company, which is to be hosted by the UMS next month? Or will you find excuses to nurse old grievances and to continue to collaborate with Zionists?

Update: It turns that Wadad Abed also donated $250 to John D. Dingell For Congress Committee on March 24, 2006. This is the same Dingell who has openly bragged: "I yield to no man in my support for Israel. I have voted for hundreds of billions of dollars for it over the years I have served here" and "... during my 50 years in Congress, I have proudly supported more than $300 billion dollars in aid for the State of Israel."

See also

"The Long Decline of Wadad Abed"
"Israel vs. South Africa: Reflecting on cultural boycott" by Omar Barghouti
"Some Important Developments in the Movement for a Cultural Boycott Against South Africa" by the United Nations Centre against Apartheid

Chuck Don't Need No Stinkin' Facts

2009-07-03T21:39:00.002-07:00

Writing to the Ann Arbor Peace list, one of the (mis)leaders of the local peace biz, Chuck Warpehoski, takes a jab at JWPF leader Henry Herskovitz regarding last week's vigil report. Warpehoski writes:

1. Checking whether or not Temple Beth Emeth displayed a "torture is wrong" banner does take doing a bit more work than sitting at a computer, but it's not hard to verify. All it takes is a walk or drive to the building. As of today, the "torture is wrong" banner is still hanging at Temple Beth Emeth/St. Clare's Episcopal Church.

2. Regarding Beth Israel Congregation's opposition to torture, I see no reason to believe that a survey of citizens of Israel would have the same results as a survey of American Jews in general or Beth Israel Congregation members in particular. In fact, last year Beth Israel Congregation participated in the Rabbis for Human Rights "Honor the image of God: Stop Torture Now" campaign. This year, Rabbi Dobrusin has submitted a joint Op-Ed column to the Detroit Free Press along with Imam Dawud Walid and Bishop Wendell Gibbs calling for an investigation of U.S.-sponsored torture since 9/11 as well as stronger U.S. laws banning torture.

This year the Jewish community has had the highest participation in Torture Awareness Month activities of any faith tradition. A much higher participation of the synagogues have participated than the churches, sanghas, mosques, or other congregations.

But hey, since when has Henry let a few facts stand in the way of a good rant?

In reality, simply walking by Genesis--the name of the building shared by TBE and St. Clare's--is not sufficient to verify that TBE rather than St. Clare's put up a banner. In his report, Henry doesn't dispute that there is a banner present in front of Genesis but claims that TBE is apparently not on any NRCAT endorsement list accessible by Google. As of Tuesday, that was still true. Eleven Ann Arbor congregations are listed from last year but none of them are Jewish. JWPF, however, comes up as a member of NRCAT and is listed on the 2008 participating congregations list of 5/29/08.

As for "facts," Warpehoski claims that "This year the Jewish community has had the highest participation in Torture Awareness Month activities of any faith tradition" but he doesn't offer any evidence for this. Is he including JWPF? Even if his assertion is true, it doesn't erase the fact that last year Rabbi Dobrusin, from the bima, made a case for justifying torture as self-defense under Jewish religious law. Nor does it change the fact that the only anti-torture banner that has ever flown outside Beth Israel Congregation--'spiritual' (I use the term loosely) home of ICPJ president Ruth Kraut--is the one carried by JWPF members.

Warpehoski claims to see no reason to suppose that American Jewish support of torture parallels Israeli Jewish support. Consider the following points that Warpehoski can't see:

When, in Senate confirmation hearings, former Republican attorney general Michael Mukasey, "a believer and devout Jew," refused to declare waterboarding illegal under US law, his nomination was rescued by two Jewish Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer, who voted with Republicans to send the nomination to the full Senate. They were joined there by Joseph Lieberman, another Jew who voted against his caucus. Mukasey was confirmed by a 53-40 vote--"the narrowest margin to confirm an attorney general in more than 50 years."
Alan Dershowitz is one of the world's foremost apologists for torture and for Israel. Need I say he is Jewish?
Leaders of Reform Judaism movement admit: "Jewish law presents some conflicting principles that effect how Jews view torture."
In December 2007, Marc Perelman, wrote an article entitled "As Torture Debate Heats Up, Jewish Groups Stay Mum." Here are a few select passages from that article:

The American Jewish Committee last week became the first, and to date only, mainstream Jewish group to give strong public backing to proposed legislation that would ban the use of torture by American military, intelligence and law-enforcement personnel ...

Most other Jewish organizations with prominent advocacy efforts in Washington, however, have been noticeably absent from efforts to push through the anti-torture legislation ...

"There was a shocking silence of the Jewish community on the issue of torture, and there is still a lacuna on this vital issue, to my eye," said Felice Gaer, director of the AJCommittee’s Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights. ...

The executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights-North America, Rabbi Brian Walt, said that the reluctance of a large segment of the organized Jewish community to speak out against harsh interrogation techniques [sic] stems partly from the belief that torture may help to prevent terrorist attacks, as well as from concern that heightened scrutiny of American security forces’ methods could draw increased attention to Israel’s own interrogation practices.

Of course, Chuck Warpehoski sees none of this. Indeed, one wonders if Warpehoski can see anything that his paymasters don't want him to see, let alone speak about.

See also:

Which Side Are You On?

2009-06-05T11:06:00.004-07:00

There's an old labor song by Florence Reece called "Which Side Are You On?" Sometimes self-styled Palestinian solidarity activists bring this tune to mind. For example, not long ago I attended a presentation at the Washtenaw Community College on the Michigan Peace Team by a designated representative of that organization. One of the low points of the talk was when the presenter flashed an anti-Jewish quote attributed to King Abdul Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia from 1937. It was a portion of the passage below:

'Our hatred for the Jews dates from God's condemnation of them for their persecution and rejection of Isa (Jesus Christ), and their subsequent rejection later of His chosen Prophet. It is beyond our understanding how your Government, representing the first Christian power in the world today, can wish to assist and reward these very same Jews who maltreated your Isa (Jesus).

''We Arabs have been the traditional friends of Great Britain for many years, and I, Bin Sa'ud, in particular have been your Government's firm friend all my life, what madness then is this which is leading on our Government to destroy this friendship of centuries, all for the sake of an accursed and stiffnecked race which has always bitten the hand of everyone who has helped it since the world began.^*

What is the purpose of this? It was given in the context of Jewish Zionist statements about Palestinians but don't Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims already get enough bad press in the West as it is and isn't the Jews-as-victims drum banged loudly and often enough without "friends of Palestine" joining in? Doesn't this kind of stuff stem from genuflecting at the false idol of neutrality/objectivity?

In any case, I'm always skeptical of these kind of quotes. I mean, haven't we learned anything from the Zionist manipulation of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy? The quote was presented with no source citation but it's all over the Internet on mainly Zionist sites. The source appears to be a book, Islam in the modern world and other studies, by Elie Kedourie (pp. 69-74). Kedourie cites a British Foreign Office file as his source.

Unless another secondary source can be found confirming the existence of Kedourie's primary source and his accurate usage of it, it is certainly worth wondering if Kedourie hasn't fabricated the report. I say this because Kedourie was an ardent Zionist and an Orientalist. As Israel Shahak wrote:

... Israeli policies bear the easily recognizable imprint of Orientalist ‘expertise’ abounding in militarist and racist ideological prejudices. This 'expertise' is readily available in English, since its harbingers were the Jewish Orientalists living in English-speaking countries, like Bernard Lewis or the late Elie Kedourie who had visited Israel regularly for hobnobbing on the best of terms with the Israeli Security System. It was Kedourie who performed a particularly seminal role in fathering the assumptions on which Israeli policies rest and who consequently had in Israel a lot of influence. In Kedourie’s view, the peoples of the Middle East, with the 'self-evident' exception of Israel, would be best off if ruled by foreign imperial powers with a natural capacity to rule for a long time yet.

Kedourie was also reportedly a fan of Likud and the terrorist Menachem Begin. Kedourie was a frequent contributor to the American Jewish Committee's Zionist, neoconservative house rag, Commentary.

Even assuming the Foreign Office record actually exists and Kedourie has quoted it accurately there are still grounds for questions about it. First, it is the record of a retired British diplomat and colonial adminstrator, at the time, very evidently still in service to the Empire, Colonel H. R. P. Dickson. The report was duly submitted to George W. Rendel of the British Foreign Office. Dickson allegedly spoke with Abdul Aziz Al Saud in 1937 in the context of the great Palestinian uprising of 1936-1939, twenty years after the British government attached itself to the Zionist project with the Balfour Declaration. In his report, Dickson indicates that the Saudi monarch did not permit anyone else to listen to his words and that Dickson did not have a stenographer standing by or tape recorder running--his report is a post hoc paraphrase of a lengthy monologue. Dickson is no disinterested party, and there is, apparently, no independent confirmation of the British diplomat's account.

One other point worth making is that if the Dickson report is accurate and authentic it would tend to undermine a claim Kedourie makes later in his book. On page 116, he says: "There had never been a 'special connexion' between the Arabs in and outside Palestine, much less a 'special connexion' between Palestine and Saudi Arabia." But consider this excerpt from Dickson's report:

His Majesty early on turned to the subject obviously close to his heart, namely the Palestine tangle, and for close on an hour and a half delivered himself as follows. He spoke for the most part in low earnest voice ...

'We are most anxious that the British Government should send us every eight months or so an experienced officer whom they trust, or equally well an ex-official like yourself, who can listen personally to what we have on our minds, and what troubles our hearts, for times are deeply serious and full of danger these days. ...

'Today we and our subjects are deeply troubled over this Palestine question ...

But why should Kedourie care about what an Arab says? And why should peace activists leave off bashing Arabs with questionable quotes when it serves their own purposes?

Note:
* To see the text in its larger context go to http://www.mideastweb.org/Saud-Dickson.htm and scroll down to "Report of Conversation of Col H.R.P. Dickson, with HRH Abd al Aziz ib Sa'ud, king of Saudi Arabia October 28, 1937". I haven't checked it real carefully but this appears to be an accurate rendition of the text in Kedourie's book.

Last revision: 1/15/2010

Update on David A. Wesley

2009-05-25T17:17:00.009-07:00

This is a follow-up post to "David A. Wesley: Information or Obfuscation?" I went to hear Wesley when he was in Ann Arbor on March 20, 2009 and I took notes but never got around to writing about what he said. Now, through reliable intermediaries, come e-mail messages from Wesley's wife, Elana, and one "Jeanie Shaterian, Bay Area coordinator and host, 2009 Wesley book tour."

Ms. Shaterian's message was posted to a list but some of her comments were addressed directly to another list member named Steve, who posted to the same list a somewhat altered text of "David A. Wesley: Information or Obfuscation?." Shaterian calls the piece "a total misrepresentation" and chastises Steve for circulating "that old piece of inaccurate innuendo." But when it comes specific criticisms of the +3,000 word post, Shaterian's message is predictably lacking.

Specifically, on May 23, 2009, Shaterian writes:

Dear Steve,

Thanks for copying the article Nader sent out [link added by PM].

That article on David Wesley is a total misrepresentation. Although he has a deep attachment to his adopted homeland (he emigrated to Israel in 1955), and that deep attachment can be called Zionism, he sees his homeland's only viable future as a nation for all its citizens, a nation whose name will no longer be Israel. His book tour was sponsored by no organizations, least of all the IATF. He was, however keen to speak to people of all political persuasions, especially those outside of the usual bunch who come to Palestine solidarity events. How else do you open minds? David traveled with his wife Elana. They stayed with friends, many of them Palestinian Americans (no hotel bills for nasty organizations to foot), and their airfare came from honoraria at academic and community events. I'm sure he'd be glad to address any concerns you have. He did not come as part of an Israeli PR or hasbara campaign. I'm sure plenty of ISMers can vouch for his integrity.

I'm very sad that you're circulating that old piece of inaccurate innuendo.

Jeanie

Jeanie Shaterian, Bay Area coordinator and host, 2009 Wesley book tour

The same day, responding to Shaterian, Elana Wesley takes up the cudgel against Henry Herskovitz of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends:

Dear Jeanie,
I can't locate the article in Newsweek that is mentioned here. Do you know what is being referred to here?

When Henry first decided that David's trip and talks were being sponsored by the IATF, he stated such an assumption as fact and promptly circulated that totally untrue assumption as fact. The only thing he did to try to clarify - let alone correct - after the fact of that distribution and treatment of his false assumption as fact - was to finally put his assumption as a question at the time of one of David's talks in Ann Arbor which he attended. David responded to his question on the spot, succinctly and unequivocally that the IATF had not sponsored or organized his trip or his talks, and that in his single meeting with Jessica Balaban [link added by PM], who heads that powerful US Jewish conglomeration of organizations, since they have national connections, his only request was that publicity be given to his impending talks, since her affiliated groups exist throughout the US. Jessica willingly agreed to that. David has no bone to pick with that group of organizations, but he does want it made clear that there was no discussion whatsoever of the IATF financing his trip, talks, research, or anything connected with him and his work. He was able to hand Ms. Balaban a copy of his entire US itinerary. Although the answer Henry received was totally clear, Henry never apologized for spreading that false and misleading word, never retracted his words, and never made it clear to his misled readers that he had been mistaken. Henry who envelops himself in a seemingly moral cloak is very quick to accuse and falsely attribute totally inaccurate suppositions as if they were facts, but he is obviously in no hurry to attempt to undo his own irresponsible actions. Based on this contact and experience with Henry and his 'reports' to his readers, I would not trust anything he writes in his 'reports' as if they were facts.

Our overseas airfare was offered to us by a Jewish philanthropist from Los Angeles. No conditions or limitations whatsoever were placed on David or me as to the length, content, geography, audiences, or any other aspect of that trip. We asked to borrow the internal costs of transportation between US cities, intending to use honoraria to return these costs to our benefactor when we arrived in LA. Our benefactor asked us what sum we would need, and when we told him, he immediately and unexpectedly undertook to fund the entire cost of the internal travel as well. The only sponsor of our trip was that lone philanthropist, and we will be eternally grateful to him and his family for their generosity and belief in us both.

No one except Henry on the occasion of one public talk in Ann Arbor has directly confronted David about sponsorship of his trip and his talks. I, as the person who did the overall planning of the trip from coast-to-coast, including insisting that we stay only in private homes and that all those helping us did so on a totally voluntary basis, am in a position to know exactly what happened and what the true situation was.

Since this vitriol and unjustified attempt to place David's work into total disrepute is still making the rounds, might it be necessary to bring Henry to court for libel? Why has he not long since neutralized the lie he disseminated and thus limited the damage he has done?

I would like to make use of the good offices of Anne to pass this notice on to Henry along with all the accompanying comments and articles (including Jeanie's clarification).... Anne, if you have comments of your own to add, please feel free to do so. I would like to also separately receive a copy of what goes to Henry.

David has not yet discussed this situation with me or anyone else, but I take the liberty of giving Henry this one possibility of a public retraction and apology.

My love and blessings to you both,
Elana

There are several revealing things to note in these messages. First, Henry Herskovitz did not write most of the blog post in question. The only thing authored by Herskovitz is the 254-word letter, written on behalf of the Middle East Task Force, to David Wesley at the very end of the post. Elana Wesley did not bother to inquire about this, though, and Herskovitz informs me that the Wesleys have still not responded to the letter.

Second, Shaterian asserts David Wesley's "deep attachment to his adopted homeland (he emigrated to Israel in 1955)... can be called Zionism ..." Elana Wesley does not dispute this.

Third, the substance of Elana Wesley's and Jeanie Shaterian's criticism is seemingly focused on the nature of his problematic relationship with the IATF. So, what did David Wesley say when questioned in Ann Arbor about the IATF? My notes of his response paint a slightly different picture than the one presented by his wife and Shaterian. David Wesley said the assistance of the IATF had been "very valuable" and that "one accepts one's allies" though he indicated that he was the one who initiated contact with the IATF. He acknowledged the IATF was promoting his tour and said he "welcomes that much sponsorship."

So, while there is no evidence I aware of that the IATF "organized" Wesley's book tour (and that has been corrected in the original post), he did seek and receive their "very valuable" assistance. The original error, if error it was (and that now seems to be the case), was based on the fact that the IATF had listed Wesley's book tour as an IATF event on their web site. I provided a link to the relevant page in the original post but that link no longer works.

It would be interesting to know the identity of the mysterious "Jewish philanthropist from Los Angeles" who, contra Shaterian, bankrolled the air fare for the entire trip (David Wesley said it was fifty speeches in three months) to the tune of at least several thousand dollars. What are the connections of the Wesleys' "benefactor" to the IATF, its constituent organizations, and the rest of the US Zionist terrorist infrastructure?

Fourth, and this is probably the most telling point, neither of the messages from Elana Wesley or Shaterian addresses the substance of my or Nimer Sultany's critiques of Wesley's book. After all, he is on a book tour and these critiques makes up the bulk of the post.

In closing, I will address a couple more issues from my notes of Wesley's talk. At one point Wesley addressed the issue of how one identifies the indigenous people of Israeli-occupied Palestine. Wesley said that "out of convenience, probably" he would refer to them as "Arabs" instead of Palestinians. This, of course, disregards the evident preference of Palestinian citizens of Israel to identify as Palestinians. But then why should an American-born Jewish Israeli social scientist concern himself with the preferences of Palestinians?

"A 1984 survey found that an overwhelming 75 per cent of Israeli Arabs identified themselves as 'Palestinian Arab', 'Palestinian', or 'Arab' and only 24 per cent as 'Israeli Arab' or 'Israeli Palestinian'." Source: Peacemaking in a divided society by Sasson Sofer, p. 124.
"Israeli Arabs are beginning to see themselves more as Palestinians ... Forty-six percent described themselves as Palestinians or Arab-Palestinians in Israel, while 21 percent opted for the description of Palestinian Arabs, 9 percent as Arabs and just over 3 percent as Palestinians." Source: "Poll shows Israeli Arabs feel more like Palestinians" Jweekly.com.
"The intifada had inevitably served to strengthen people's Palestinian identity. The outcome was that today the majority of Israeli Arabs identify themselves as Palestinians by nationality and Israeli by citizenship." Source: "Israeli Arabs: 'Unequal citizens' " by Jonathan Marcus.
"Virtually all political parties, movements and non-governmental organisations from within the Arab community use the word 'Palestinian' somewhere in their description – at times failing to make any reference to Israel." Source: "Identity Crisis: Israel and its Arab Citizens" by the International Crisis Group.

Consciously or not, Wesley's usage harks back to the words of Irgun terrorist-cum-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. To paraphrase Begin's 1969 warning to an Israeli audience: If these are Palestinians then this is Palestine and not the land of Israel, and you are conquerors, not tillers of the land. You are invaders. If these are Palestinians, then this is Palestine and it belongs to a people who lived here before you came.

Wesley described the research behind his book as an "attempt to uncover" the source of pervasive anti-Palestinian discrimination in Israel. He found it "puzzling" that the price charged to Palestinians for land in Israel was three-and-one-half times more than the price charged to Jews. "How could that be?", he wondered. One imagines poor, befuddled Dr. Wesley stumbling around like Mr. Magoo until he suddenly "discovered [sic] the Zionist discourse in Israel." Oh, Wesley, you've done it again!

If only Wesley and his project were as benign as Magoo. As I indicated in my notes, Wesley is a living testament to pervasive anti-Palestinian racism in the so-called peace movement in that so many people (there were 50-60 in attendance when I heard him) would eagerly come to hear a lackluster Jewish scholar who voluntarily left the land of his birth to occupy Jaffa, an ethnically-cleansed city in Israel, talk about something that Palestinians have been complaining about for decades, as even Wesley acknowledges.

During the Q&A, an Arab woman suggested that Wesley was trying to put lipstick on the pig of Zionism and challenged Wesley's notion that foreign-born Jews like himself had an equal claim to the land of Palestine. In true Zionist fashion, Wesley responded that Palestinians only became Palestinians in the encounter with Zionist Jews. This is an idea debunked by Rashid Khalidi in Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness. As Khalidi writes, "it is a serious mistake to suggest that Palestinian identity emerged mainly as a response to Zionism" (p. 20). But then why should an American-born Jewish Israeli social scientist concern himself with the work of a Palestinian-American scholar?

Op-Ed on the Morikawa Conference

2009-05-20T19:49:00.006-07:00

Below is the text of an opinion piece by Michelle J. Kinnucan on last November's Morikawa Conference. It was submitted and accepted for publication in the Ann Arbor News before the conference. But the opinion page editor later contacted Michelle and told her it wouldn't be published except as a 250-word letter. That was unworkable and it was distributed to some of the conferees as a leaflet. Click here to download the leaflet.

On "Taking Sides" and the 2008 Morikawa Conference

by Michelle J. Kinnucan

The thematic question of this year's Morikawa Conference is: "In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, how can Jews, Christians, and Muslims make religion part of the solution, instead of part of the problem?"

Just weeks after September 11, 2001, one of this year's three keynote speakers, Rabbi Marc Gopin, wrote an article entitled, "This War Is About Religion, And Cannot Be Won Without It." The main religion to which Rabbi Gopin refers is Islam and in the article he writes, "The time has come for a war for the soul of Islam."

While I disagree with Rabbi Gopin's diagnosis and prescription (as the late Edward Said observed in 1995, "the best response to terrorism is justice"), I share his assumption that religions are fair game for criticism even by outsiders, such as Gopin is to Islam. Jews, Christians, and Muslims can be "part of the solution" by bringing their universalistic justice traditions to bear upon the conflict. To do this, though, everyone will have to abandon particularistic notions of justice and make all of the narratives and supporting ideologies subject to forthright but fair criticism.

This will require Christians to courageously reject what Jewish theologian Marc H. Ellis calls an "ecumenical deal" requiring "eternal repentance for Christian anti-Jewishness unencumbered by any substantive criticism of Israel." Ellis adds, "Substantive criticism of Israel means, at least from the Jewish side, the reemergence of Christian anti-Jewishness."

Under the terms of the deal, Ellis says, "the main energy of ecumenical gatherings is spent on diverting the question that hovers over all discussions of Jews and Christians: the oppression of the Palestinian people by Jewish Israelis with the support, by commission or omission, of Jewish and Christian partners in the ecumenical dialogue." It is this situation that the late the Rev. Dr. Michael Prior had in mind when he lamented how "thoroughly Zionized Judaism infects the so-called Jewish-Christian dialogue."As Dr. Rosemary Radford Ruether states:

... [Western] Christians evade knowing and hence having to speak about [Palestinians] in order not to be denounced as anti-Semitic by those Jews with whom they wish to cultivate 'ecumenical relations.'

Christian repentance for the Holocaust and anti-Semitism have been effectively distorted into a silencing of Western Christians in regard to Palestinian human and civil rights, a view carefully nurtured and reinforced by the Jewish establishment, especially in North America. Any effort to break through this wall of self-censorship of Western Christians in regard to injustice to Palestinians ... encounters built-in walls of ignorance and self-censorship among Christians.

This year's Morikawa Conference could mark the beginning of a break with this sad history. But in promotional materials it is stressed: "This Conference is about religion and enhancing the human condition. It is not about taking sides." This signals, before the Conference has even begun, a profound betrayal of justice, one of the most vital principles of the best of our faith traditions. Justice requires us to takes sides.

In 1993, in its "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic," the Parliament of the World's Religions affirmed: "that a common set of core values is found in the teachings of the [world's] religions, and that these form the basis of a global ethic." It declared, "No person should ever be considered or treated as a second-class citizen, or be exploited in any way whatsoever. ... We must put behind us all forms of domination or abuse."

Mainstream American Judaism is committed to supporting Israel, the "Jewish state." Israel is built upon past and ongoing domination, abuse, and violence facilitated by decisive American financial, diplomatic, and military support. The Rev. Naim Ateek, the Palestinian founder of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, eloquently describes the resulting situation on the ground in his 2001 Easter message:

Here in Palestine Jesus is again walking the Via Dolorosa. Jesus is the powerless Palestinian humiliated at a checkpoint, the woman trying to get through to the hospital for treatment, the young man whose dignity is trampled, the young student who cannot get to the university to study, the unemployed father who needs to find bread to feed his family; the list is tragically getting longer, and Jesus is there in their midst suffering with them. He is with them when their homes are shelled by tanks and helicopter gunships. He is with them in their towns and villages, in their pains and sorrows.

In this season of Lent, it seems to many of us that Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him. It only takes people of insight to see the hundreds of thousands of crosses throughout the land, Palestinian men, women, and children being crucified. Palestine has become one huge Golgotha. The Israeli government crucifixion system is operating daily. Palestine has become the place of the skull.

To look at it less metaphorically, in 2008 alone, according to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, Israelis have, thus far, killed 434 Palestinians, 86 of whom were minors. The respective figures for Israelis killed by Palestinians are 30 and 4.

Just as people of conscience and faith opposed militarized, state-identified religion in the service of South African apartheid and today oppose it in the service of the US "War on Terror," they must also today oppose such religion in the service of Israel and Zionism. As the "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic" concludes: "Let no one be deceived: There is no survival for humanity without global peace! ... Let no one be deceived: There is no global peace without global justice!"

Contra the call of the Morikawa Conference, both faithfulness and justice demand that we do "take sides." As the Rev. Allan Boesak, a Black South African anti-apartheid activist, wrote in 1977: "Neutrality, as you know, is the most abominable demonstration of partiality because it means choosing the side of power and injustice without assuming responsibility for them." As Elie Wiesel, put it in his 1986 Nobel Prize acceptance speech: "We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere."

Christians and other people of faith and conscience would do well to consider the example of this year's University of Michigan Wallenberg Endowment honoree. Archbishop Desmond Tutu came to prominence as a result of his active opposition to South African apartheid but the disappearance of that racist state has not silenced him. On April 13, 2002, he told a Boston audience:

... the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal, and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic, as if the Palestinians were not Semitic. ...

People are scared in this country to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful–very powerful. Well, so what? This is God's world. For goodness sake, this is God's world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosovic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.

This is, indeed, God's world and as the Psalmist reminds us "The Lord works vindication and justice for all who are oppressed." Fortified by Tutu's inspiring words and example let us go forth confidently "to say wrong is wrong," to challenge Zionism—Christian and Jewish, and to do our part to work for justice and to toss Israeli apartheid onto the dust heap of history. The Morikawa Conference is as good a place as any to start.

About the author: Michelle J. Kinnucan is a member of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Ann Arbor and she can be contacted [via http://michellejkinnucan.myopenid.com/]. Her writing has previously appeared in CommonDreams.org, Critical Moment, Palestine Chronicle, Arab American News, and elsewhere. Her 2004 investigative report on the Global Intelligence Working Group was featured in Censored 2005: The Top 25 Censored Stories (Seven Stories Pr., 2004) and she contributed a chapter to Finding the Force of the Star Wars Franchise (Peter Lang, 2006).

Quotable: "99 percent of American Jewry"

2009-04-24T16:58:00.004-07:00

... anti-Zionists would be hard put to find any affirmatively identifying Jew who would not view them as mortal enemies. Studies and opinion polls have shown that 99 percent of American Jewry identifies with the right of Jews to the Jewish state.

For religious Jews, as we have seen, Israel and Jewish nationhood are part of their religious creed. An anti-Zionist is therefore an enemy of religious Jews. As for secular Jews, anti-Zionists oppose the one aspect of Judaism which they passionately affirm--Israel. The only Jews who could see anti-Zionism as anything other than an expression of antisemitism affirm neither Jewish nationhood nor the Jewish religion.

Source: Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin. The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986) p. 125.

Notice that Prager and Telushkin use the ambiguous phrase "identifies with." I actually think this speaks to a certain mindset among some American Jews. While they may not be full blown Zionists themselves, they give prime consideration not to questions of right or wrong but to the well-being of Jews.

To cite one prominent example, although typically characterized as an anti-Zionist, in 1914, Henry Morgenthau, Sr. used his position as the US ambassador to the Ottoman Empire to have an American warship, the USS Tennessee, sent to Alexandria, Egypt "ostensibly to protect American citizens. In fact, it made possible the evacuation of many impoverished Jewish refugees, including about one hundred prominent Zionists who had been released from prison. Among them were the young David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, who were destined to become, respectively, Israel's first prime minister and second president."

Ben-Gurion was no impoverished refugee but a commited Zionist who voluntarily migrated to Palestine to participate in the Jewish takeover. In a memoir, Ben-Gurion said he "never suffered anti-Semitic persecution" in his native Poland.

Earlier, Morgenthau had arranged for the another American warship, the USS North Carolina, to ferry $50,000 in gold from Jewish financier Jacob Schiff to "Zionist authorities" in Palestine. This same Schiff, another "anti-Zionist," used his financial power to, among other things, help bring about the defeat of the Russians in the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War.

Addendum: In the incident involving the USS North Carolina, Morgenthau made the arrangements "through the good offices of his friend, Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels." According to the final report of the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission, prior to his Navy appointment, Josephus Daniels was "a hearty supporter of the Democratic Party's white supremacy platform" and was "enlisted ... as editor of the Raleigh News and Observer to be the 'militant voice of White Supremacy.' " Inasmuch as Zionism is run through with strong elements of Jewish-White supremacism it is not surprising that Morgenthau would befriend a known racist like Daniels. Birds of a feather ...

See also:

Last revised: 24 October 2009

David A. Wesley: Information or Obfuscation?

2009-03-19T11:35:00.004-07:00

Weeks ago, the impending visit of David A. Wesley, PhD to our fair city was brought to my attention and I decided to see what I could find out about him. Below is some of what I discovered.

Wesley was born in the United States and left Detroit to move to Israel in 1955. He currently lives in Jaffa ("Yafa" is the Arabic transliteration). Dr. Wesley has written a book entitled State Practices and Zionist Images: Shaping Economic Development in Arab Towns in Israel (Berghahn Books, 2006) and he is currently on a US book tour ~~organized and~~ promoted by the Inter-Agency Task Force on Israeli Arab Issues (IATF).

The IATF bills itself as a "diverse, broad-based coalition composed of 80 North American Jewish organizations, foundations, federations and private philanthropists, who are committed to the welfare of Israel and support the Jewish state's right to a secure and peaceful existence." It counts Abraham Foxman as one of its more infamous Executive Committee members. The rest of the IATF's leadership reads like a Who's Who of American Jewish Zionism.

It follows then that on the major issues, Wesley's book is an obscurantist work and consciously so. Wesley justifies his approach by invoking the work of Michel Foucault but his reading of Foucault is faulty. While it is true that in analyzing power Foucault eschewed the simplistic notion of "a binary structure with 'dominators' on one side and 'dominated' on the other" ("Power and Strategies," 1977), Foucault never used complexity to obscure domination or excuse power exercised unjustly.

In place of a simplistic binary, Foucault argued that "domination is organised into a more-or-less coherent and unitary strategic form ("Power and Strategies," 1977). In the context of Palestine, the "unitary strategic form" is Israeli Jewish society, of which the state is an important part, and indigenous Palestinians are embedded within it. In 1982 (Afterword to "The Subject and Power"), Foucault argued for a "new economy of power relations" which "consists of taking the forms of resistance against different forms of power as a starting point." He suggested, "As a starting point, let us take a series of oppositions which have developed over the last few years: opposition to the power of men over women, of parents over children, of psychiatry over the mentally ill, of medicine over the population, of administration over the ways people live."

Clearly, resistance/opposition to the power of Jews over Palestinians falls within this schema but that is not an "opposition" that Dr. Wesley cares to explore in such terms. No, Wesley has a different agenda. Emanuel Marx wrote the Foreword to Wesley's book, he says:

[Wesley] makes it quite clear that violence plays only a limited role in the transactions he describes, and that it certainly does not underlie the countless other forms of power. [p. xi]

I take Marx's Foreword as an accurate characterization of Wesley's book. I agree Wesley is obscuring and downplaying violence in the creation and maintenance of Israel. This is curious on at least two levels. First, Israel is one of the most militarized societies in the world.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, his book tour is sponsored by the IATF, which came into being as a Zionist public relations operation in the aftermath of the Or Commission report. The Or Commission being the Israeli government commission created to deal with the brutality of Israel police to Palestinian Israelis in October 2000, as described below in this excerpt from a report by Adalah: The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel:

In early October 2000, Palestinian citizens of Israel staged mass demonstrations in towns and villages throughout the country to protest the government's oppressive policies against Palestinians in the 1967 Occupied Territories. These protests erupted soon after al-Aqsa Intifada began in the Occupied Territories, during which the Israeli army and security forces killed and injured scores of Palestinians. The protests in Israel developed and were directed shortly thereafter in opposition to the use of lethal force by the police against Palestinian citizens in Israel.

During these demonstrations in Israel, the police and special police sniper units killed 13 unarmed Palestinian citizens of Israel and injured hundreds more using live ammunition, rubber-coated steel bullets ("rubber bullets"), and tear gas. The firing of live ammunition and rubber bullets at protestors, including the use of snipers, are all prohibited by law and even violate internal police regulations. Israeli Jewish citizens also attacked Palestinian citizens of Israel, their property and their holy sites in early October 2000. Close to 700 Palestinian citizens of Israel were arrested in connection with these events, and hundreds, including scores of minors, were indicted and detained without bond until the end of trial.

In 2005, another Palestinian Israeli human rights organization weighed-in: "The Mossawa Center says that the only recommendations of the Or Commission that have been implemented were the ones going against Arab citizens. More than 500 Arabs were taken to court and Arab political leaders, including two mayors of the Um El-Fahm municipalities and leaders of the Islamic movement." In January, 2008, the Israeli Attorney General, Menachem Mazuz, issued a final decision announcing that none of the police officers or commanders involved in the fatal shootings of Palestinian citizens of Israel in October 2000 would face criminal indictment.

If Wesley mentions the Or Commission or the police killings in October 2000 in his book then I have missed them. Wesley has nothing to say about the violence involved in putting Jews in control of his adopted hometown of Jaffa. The story is worth a long excerpt from "Jaffa: from eminence to ethnic cleansing":

Jaffa was the largest city in historic Palestine during the years of the British mandate, with a population of more than 80,000 Palestinians in addition to the 40,000 persons living in the towns and villages in its immediate vicinity. In the period between the UN Partition resolution (UNGA 181) of 29 November 1947, and the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel, Zionist military forces displaced 95 percent of Jaffa's indigenous Arab Palestinian population. Jaffa's refugees accounted for 15 percent of Palestinian refugees in that fateful year, and today they are dispersed across the globe, still banned from returning by the state responsible for their displacement. ...

Zionist forces initiated a cruel siege on the city of Jaffa in March 1948. The youth of the city formed popular resistance committees to confront the assault. On 14 May 1948, the Bride of the Sea fell to the Zionist military forces; that same evening the leaders of the Zionist movement in Palestine declared the establishment of the state of Israel. Approximately 4,000 of the 120,000 Palestinians managed to remain in their city after it was militarily occupied. They were all rounded up and ghettoized in al-Ajami neighborhood which was sealed off from the rest of the city and administered as essentially a military prison for two subsequent years; the military regime under which Israel governed them lasted until 1966. During this period, al-Ajami was completely surrounded by barbed wire fencing that was patrolled by Israeli soldiers and guard dogs. It was not long before the new Jewish residents of Jaffa, and based on their experience under Nazism in Europe, began to refer to the Palestinian neighborhood as the "ghetto."

In addition to being ghettoized, the Palestinians who remained in Jaffa had lost everything overnight: their city, their friends, their families, their property and their entire physical and social environment. Most had lost their homes as the Israeli military forced them into al-Ajami. Legislator, judge and executioner in the Ajami ghetto was the military commander; without his permission one could not enter or leave the ghetto, and rights to things like education and work were among those rights that Palestinians were denied. Arab states were classified as enemy states, and so making contact with the expelled family and friends, the refugees, was strictly prohibited. This was the nightmare lived by the Palestinians of Jaffa after the 1948 Nakba.

In the early 1950s, Jaffa was administratively engulfed by the Tel Aviv municipality that became known as Tel Aviv-Yafo; the Palestinians of Jaffa went from being a majority in their city and homeland to the two-percent "enemies of the state," a minority of Israel's main metropolis. The municipality immediately began drawing up plans for what they called the "Judaization" of the city, renaming the Arabic streets of the city after Zionist leaders, demolishing much of the old Arab architecture, and completely destroying the buildings in the surrounding neighborhoods and villages that were depopulated during the 1948 Nakba. The new curriculum introduced in Palestinian schools denied that the place had any Arab-Palestinian history at all, a facet of the Israeli education system that continues until today.

The largest armed robbery of the 20th century

After expelling most of Jaffa's residents, militarily occupying the city and ghettoizing the remaining original inhabitants, Israeli authorities passed the Absentee Property Law (1950) through which it seized the property of all Palestinians who were not in possession of their immovable properties after the Nakba. Through the implementation of this unjust law, the state of Israel sent its operatives to all corners of the land, surveying the properties left behind by the expelled refugees, the internally displaced Palestinians banned from returning to their lands, and those relocated to the ghettos of Palestine's cities. Title to these lands, buildings, homes, factories, farms and religious sites were then transferred to the state's "Custodian of Absentee Property." This is how the Palestinians of Jaffa, the refugees and the ghettoized, had their properties "legally" stolen by the State of Israel.

As a Jewish American immigrant, David A. Wesley was the beneficiary of this exercise of power, the violence of the Nakba but he obscures it.

Below are some excerpts from Wesley's book with my comments in italics.

Rosenfeld, writing from a class approach, attributed the underdevelopment of the Arab village economy to Israeli state policy, which "fosters a Jewish state-nation ethos and economy ... and regards development as relating specifically to Jews" (400). Zureik (1979) argued that the economic situation of the Arabs in Israel is a manifestation of internal colonialism, that is, the domination and exploitation of a native population by a colonial settler. Lustick (1980) described economic dependence as a major component of the system of control to which the Israeli Arab minority has been subject. [p. 4]

PM: These are the approaches that Wesley, in the main, rejects in developing the arguments presented in his book.

It should be emphasized that it is not collective identity that concerns me here -- neither the mobilization of identity, in the case of the Arabs in Israel, nor the state as an instrument of collective will, in the case of the Jews. The view of representation as exterior to either individual or collective consciousness is one of the conceptual elements that make it possible to sidestep the ultimately futile question, Who is the oppressor? and to focus instead on how power relations work themselves out in practice. [p. 6]

PM: In a society consciously constructed around identity, downplaying "collective identity" seems to me a luxury that comes with Jewish privilege. And how self-serving is it to argue that "Who is the oppressor?" is a "futile question."

The problem of the Palestinian refugees and appropriate compensation is, of course, a serious issue in its own right. That is not my subject, however. [p. 109]

PM: Okay, Wesley is not writing a book about the ~~ten~~ 6.4 million Palestinian refugees, fair enough. But it is interesting to note that he characterizes them and their rights under international law as a "problem" and while "compensation" figures in his remarks, repatriation does not.

But struggle for change is itself a discursive space, and one may choose to take one's stand within it: what I would present here is the challenge of an attempt to imagine a world in which Jews and Arabs, to paraphrase the prominent Israeli planner I cited near the end of chapter 1, share this land as the homeland of each.

I close with a personal note in the register of Jewish self-interest. It is my sense that, by and large, the Jewish people in Israel has, at least since the advent of the state, been embarked on a course of closing in on itself in ever narrowing circles. That way, I feel, lies not existence but eventual suffocation. Part of our constriction inheres in our attempt to exclude those others, our Palestinian fellow citizens, who, like us, may claim this land as their homeland. To share the land would mean to choose, instead, breath and life. [p. 197]

PM: Notice here that Wesley, a man born and raised in America posits an equal claim to Palestine as the homeland of himself and, presumably, all Jews. Does he propose to share this homeland with the ~~ten~~ 6.4 million Palestinian refugees or only his "Palestinian fellow citizens"?

I am going to wrap up this discussion of Wesley's book with two excerpts from Nimer Sultany. Sultany reviewed State Practices and Zionist Images for the Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 115–116). He writes:

The book is an important contribution to current scholarship on the Arab economy inside Israel. By taking into account administrative practices (including outline plans, municipal jurisdictions, industrial areas, national priority areas, and foreign investment) and their accompanying rationalizing discourses, the book sheds light on a vital area that has a crucial effect on impeding Arab development.

The author confines himself, however, to the domain of distributive justice and does not address questions of redistributive, let alone corrective, justice. While Wesley acknowledges that politics always plays a role in planning and bureaucracy, his conclusions remain limited to the domain of planning and bureaucratic access.

Would an inclusion of Arab representatives in planning bodies change the inferior citizenship granted to Palestinian citizens in a Jewish and Zionist state? This approach takes the ethnic order as a fait accompli and aspires only to mitigate its discriminatory effects, rather than, say, to annul or alter the order altogether. Demands for inclusion and participation fall short of resolving the predicament of the indigenous Palestinian minority. So long as the macro-order is in place, inclusion will be conducted on the order's own terms, complying with prevalent discourses and traditions and performing through well-established institutions. Save for some adjustments, the flawed design remains unquestioned.

In a letter responding to Wesley, Sultany reiterates:

My critique of Wesley's book is that it does not go far enough in criticizing the "regime of truth." The book emphasizes the demands of distributive justice, and in doing so, it falls short of understanding how current predicaments can be overcome. One can see this approach in the author's choice of terminology (how he refers to the Palestinian citizens of Israel, for example) where he again chooses not to challenge the orthodoxy. The book's desire is to analyze administrative practice while "bracket[ing] the issue of identity" (p. 16). This choice, however, does not really bracket identity; it merely leaves identity politics unchallenged.

While he provides a historical narrative of dispossession, he underestimates the foundational role of violence, as well as its role in maintaining the ethnic order and the planning system as the main beneficiary of the spoils of violence. Demands for inclusion and distribution might be a "fundamental change," to use the phrase that appears in the author's letter, from the point of view of Zionist supremacy, but it certainly does not redress the historical injustice. Wesley frames the question of Palestine as one of homeland versus homeland and right versus right (p. 197); at another point he might be understood as referring to Zionism as colonialism (p. 195) without telling us what this entails.

The author's interest in understanding and analyzing the dynamics of power is of course commendable and appropriate. Yet this move is lacking if it is not combined with an analytical framework that tells us why these power relations and their effects are wrong or unjust. At times it seems to me that scholars who are interested in these questions tend to lose sight of the forest (ethnic macro-order by a colonial project) while gazing at the infinite trees (techniques of power).

Henry Herskovitz, founder and leader of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends also made some inquiries of Wesley via the Middle East Task Force. Henry has been the point person on the Middle East Task Force concerning a letter sent to Wesley. In his vigil report for the last Saturday of February, Henry writes, in part:

A speaker is planning on addressing Ann Arbor's peace community later on this month, and since this person has just received a few questions from METF, this Report will keep the name confidential until the speaker has enough time to provide METF with answers. This speaker shares some common ground with other speakers that have appeared in Ann Arbor, in that they are members of a privileged population which enabled them to make Aliyah to Palestine. The Middle East Task Force does not wish to censor speakers, or alter their prepared messages. On the contrary, many members of the group are eagerly awaiting the information this speaker has to offer.

But METF feels that listeners should have the right to know where any given speaker who had US citizenship, then moved to the Jewish State and acquired Israeli citizenship, stands on issues at the core of the colonialist project in Palestine. Excerpts from the letter, which are applicable to any Israeli citizen born in the US, follow:
Do you feel that as one who partook of Jewish privilege in [year] and "made Aliyah", that it is correct to identify you as a Zionist?
Do you support Israel's claimed "right" to exist as a Jewish (supremacist) state in Palestine?
While you still maintain an Israeli address, are there actions you could do to repudiate your participation in the Zionist project in Palestine?
Is there any way the Middle East Task Force can assist you in determining and/or carrying out these actions?

Henry, who knows David Wesley personally and has stayed in his home in Israel, made his inquiry via electronic and postal mail. As of this writing, Wesley has not responded.

See also: Update on David A. Wesley

Hiller's is Begging for It

2009-03-18T14:21:00.007-07:00

A friend sent me the video below of an inspiring French BDS action and invited me to "Imagine this happening in A^2." I replied:

It looks like that action was organized by mostly Muslims and 2nd or 3rd generation descendants of immigrants to France. I can't imagine the same demographic group in Ann Arbor doing an action like this because they would apparently rather do nothing or collaborate with Zionists like the SAFE kids do, with the apparent approval of their elders. There's plenty of L'Oréal products on the shelves of local stores and there's a whole chain of stores in SE Michigan that openly brags about selling products from Israel but the leaders of the local Arab community and their protégés would rather kiss the ass of a baby-killer like Albright. So, I can't imagine it happening in A2, not now at least.

The chain of stores I had in mind is Hiller's Markets and upon further investigation I find grounds for hope. Below is an excerpt from a 1999 Jewish Telegraphic Agency article.

Jim Hiller was in a jovial mood on a recent Sunday morning.

"I've got a herd of picketers outside two of my stores," the 56-year-old Detroit grocery-store owner said.

The picketers were protesting Hiller's decision to feature Israeli products in his six-store chain. Rather than back down, Hiller seemed to take pleasure in digging in in what has become an increasingly public demonstration of his support for Israel.

Concerned about the economic price Israel had been paying since the start of the Palestinian intifada in September 2000, Hiller began stocking Israeli produce, cheeses and canned goods in his store.

"You cannot imagine a person who would be less likely than me to do this," Hiller said while protesters handed out leaflets to shoppers. Until a few years ago, his main connection to Israel was what he calls a "perfunctory" annual gift to a local charity that supported the Jewish state.

Now he sells some 1,000 Israeli products to his mostly non-Jewish customers, and he's a hero in the Jewish community.

Jim Hiller decided to stock Israeli goods as a result of the fallout to Israel because of the Al-Aqsa Intifada and protests sprang up outside two of his stores. That's inspiring news to me.

But the protests, apparently, didn't last even though Jim Hiller hasn't changed his evil ways. According to a 2009 article in Grocery Headquarters Magazine: "Operating in Detroit's middle-class and wealthy northern and western suburbs, the seven-unit Hiller's is the go-to destination for that perfect roast, farm fresh produce, international groceries from Great Britain, Israel, ..." The article also says:

Hiller's employs a team of buyers specializing in British, Japanese, Israeli/kosher, Middle Eastern and Russian foods. ...

The buyers help Hiller better serve customers. For instance, a customer recently sent Hiller an e-mail requesting that the store carry Osem flour from Israel. "We will respond to her either by getting the product in if we think it is useful, or we'll tell her we'll be happy to order her a case and sell it to her at a 10% discount," Hiller says.

So, there it is--Hiller's is begging for an action like the one in the French video below. Who will organize it?

Addendum: I should be clear about one thing: The burden should not be on Arab and Muslim people in this country to fight and lead the struggle against the US-backing of the Jewish apartheid state of Israel but one understandably looks to them because most of the non-Arab, non-Muslim population in this country is so deeply brainwashed and indifferent, if not openly complicit, in Israel's and the US Empire's crimes.

Addendum II: In response to my remarks, the same friend who sent me the video has forwarded a 2005 article to me that purports to explain why Arab and Muslim Americans are so pathetic when it comes to the question of Palestine. Although I would disagree with some of the analysis, I think the author's main point is well-taken and although the author does not say so it also speaks to why non-Arab, non-Muslim Americans are so pathetic when it comes to almost any social justice issue other than Palestine (on Arabs/Muslims/Palestine they are deeply Zionized). Here's an excerpt from "American Muslims Not Like Those of France" by Ali Moossavi:

One reason is the simple fact that Muslim youth in America aren't ghetto youth; they lead middle class lives with the means to fulfill their middle class dreams. As a Lebanese friend remarked to me during a Palestine solidarity march in Dearborn four years ago after I jokingly suggested that these Arab youths start rioting, "That'll never happen; this is a middle-class community."

This is, of course, the American dream and it's exactly why our parents and we moved here in the first place. As the saying goes, however, it's a mixed blessing.

While we can afford nice houses and cars and give our kids a future, it also blinds to the reality that we are people of color, with foreign ways and funny names that will always doom us to some form of discrimination. With every election, with more funds gathered and the occasional politician bothering to show up and say a few words, we delude ourselves into thinking, "Our time is coming soon. We'll alter Washington's pro-Israel bent and assume our rightful place in the American mainstream."

All we did was help put Bush in the White House in 2000 and wasted our time with Kerry in 2004. Not only are we nowhere nearer to this goal, but we also have suffered setbacks – the Patriot Act, Iraq invasion, covert regime change, etc.

We lack the financial clout of the Jewish lobby and we lack the voting numbers of the Christian Right. The same corporations that sell weapons to Israel and the dictatorships, control Congress, the Pentagon and the White House also control Hollywood and the media, which continue to portray us as terrorists and morons, influencing American social and political attitudes.

A Quartet of Zionist Letters on the Batsheva Protest--Part II

2009-02-20T17:28:00.001-08:00

This is the second part of a two-part post on a quartet of Zionist letters to the editor that recently appeared in the Ann Arbor News. Read the first part here.

The last of the quartet of Zionist apologies is from new president of the Jewish Federation of Washtenaw County, David S. Shtulman. Shtulman is a dual US-Israeli citizen, Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) veteran, and, in all likelihood, a current IOF reservist. Just a few days into the Hanukkah Massacre, Shtulman proclaimed poor Israel to be "under attack."

In his letter (AAN 2/13/09), Shtulman writes:

It always strikes me as strange that 20 percent of Israel's citizens are Arab Muslims, while the Palestinians insist that every Jew must leave any territory that will become part of the Palestinian State, and yet it is Israel that is accused of apartheid. Or that Israel publicly advocates for a two-state solution ...

This is a classic case of psychological projection - a defensive psychological ploy to attribute to others one's own behaviors, impulses and traits. The 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Arabs (not all of them Muslims) are the survivors, and their descendants, of the violent Jewish ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 or Nakba. Before the Nakba, there were 650,000 Jews and 1.3 million Arab Palestinians in Palestine and Jews owned less than 6 percent of the land. By the end of 1948, Jewish forces had taken control of 78 percent of Palestine and expelled 84 percent of the Palestinians living on that land. As the founder of the Palestine Land Society, Dr. Salman Abu Sitta, wrote in 2006: "Today the Palestinian population is about 10 million (9.650). Two thirds are refugees, the largest ratio among any people in the world. If you add those displaced in 1967, fully three quarters of the Palestinians are deprived of the normal human right to live at home."

If Shtulman wants to convince any reasonable person that he favors the peaceful coexistence of Jews and Palestinians then he can start by publicly declaring his support for the return of the millions of Palestinian refugees to their homes. Every serious scholar of the history of the Jewish domination of Palestine knows that the status of Palestinian refugees has always been a primary obstacle to any political solution for the simple reason that Jews like Shtulman want Jewish demographic and political supremacy to be maintained and Palestinians naturally don't want to give up their homeland or their right to return to it. Shtulman will never support the Palestinian right of return because he wants an apartheid state like the one Jews have now--one where Jews are running the show and Palestinians are fourth-class citizens or, worse, stateless people living under the Israeli military occupation as in the West Bank and Gaza.

As for Shtulman's allegation that "the Palestinians insist that every Jew must leave any territory that will become part of the Palestinian State," it is more accurate to say that Israel insists that every part of Palestine inhabited by Jews remain under the control of the Jewish State. Undoubtedly, Shtulman's complaint here is that Palestinians do not want Jews to be allowed to stay on land they occupy illegally in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In this, Palestinians are in accord with international law. As the International Court of Justice opined in the "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory":

As regards these settlements [i.e. the "Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem)"], the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory.

In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.

The Security Council has thus taken the view that such policy and practices "have no legal validity". It has also called upon "Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously" by the Fourth Geneva Convention and:
"to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories" (resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979).
The Council reaffirmed its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case it described "Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in [the occupied] territories" as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

Let's see Shtulman come out in favor of granting dual Israeli citizenship, like Shtulman enjoys, to any Palestinian who wants it. Let Shtulman come out in support of the three goals of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign:

1. Ending [Israel's] occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Shtulman to support any of these goals, folks.

In another case of dissembling and projection Shtulman complains "Hamas advocates publicly for the destruction of Israel." But, in his article "Likud has a Charter which does not recognize the right of Palestine to exist," Frank Barat writes:

... What was the official reason given by the Israel and the International community for not recognizing Hamas?

The reason they gave was that Hamas refused to recognize Israel and had a Charter calling for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Everyone (politicians and corporate media leaders) accepted this without asking a few important questions. Which Israel should Hamas recognize? Israel has not yet stated what its international borders are. Should Hamas recognize the Israel of 1948? The Israel of 1967? The Israel of 2009 with its apartheid wall, settlements (settlements building raised by 60 percent in 2008, the year of the Annapolis "Peace Process", according to a Peace Now report), second class Arab citizens and with East Jerusalem annexed?

Any astute observer could also have objected by reminding people that Hamas (through Haniyeh and Meshal) had said many times over that it was willing to accept Israel as a political entity on the 1967 borders. You do not have to look hard for this, it was stated in the Guardian, Washington Post, amongst others, meaning that Hamas was now in line with most of the international community, accepting a two-state solution.

The next Israeli prime minister will be Likud leader Netanyahu. Unlike Hamas, Likud is a party which has actually held the reins of a powerful, sovereign nation-state. As Barat writes:

... With Netanyahu and his right-wing party ready to take over, it is only fair to find out a bit more about them.

In the "Peace and Security" chapter of the Likud Party platform, a recent document (1999) it says initially that:
"Peace is a primary objective of the State of Israel. The Likud will strengthen the existing peace agreements with the Arab states and strive to achieve peace agreements with all of Israel's neighbors with the aim of reaching a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict."
But then it says about settlements:
"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
Therefore annihilating the slightest chance of a two-state solution.

On Palestinian self-rule it says:
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs"
Therefore annihilating any chance of seeing a Palestinian sovereign state.

On Jerusalem:
"Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem, including the plan to divide the city presented to the Knesset by the Arab factions and supported by many members of Labor and Meretz."
Therefore annihilating any chance for future peace negotiations because east Jerusalem as capital of a future Palestinian state is non-negotiable for any Palestinian.

We have therefore established that the Likud party charter does not recognize Palestine and will not accept a sovereign Palestinian state. The soon-to-come non-recognition of Likud by the international community and an implemented blockade on Israel should therefore not come as a surprise for Israelis.

Where is Shtulman's outrage and concern that the ruling Likud Party is opposed to any realistic implementation of the much-hyped "two-state solution," which is, in any case, the very epitome of apartheid?

Finally, Shtulman asks: "Will boycotting the Batsheva Dance Company or UMS in general help the Palestinians?" Shtulman answers: "I don't see how." Of course he doesn't, but one doubts that Shtulman is so visually impaired when it comes to the protests and boycotts of the Russian Bolshoi Ballet, etc. over the matter of "Soviet Jewry" in the 1970s and 1980s.

In any case, Omar Barghouti has written on the subject of the efficacy of BDS. In response to critics of BDS, he says:

Boycott is counter-productive?

Is it? Who is to judge? A Call signed by more than 170 Palestinian political parties, unions, NGOs and networks, representing the entire spectrum of Palestinian civil society -- under occupation, in Israel, and in the diaspora – cannot be "counter-productive" unless Palestinians are not rational or intelligent enough to know or articulate what is in their best interest. This argument smacks of patronization and betrays a colonial attitude that we thought -- hoped! -- was extinct in liberal Europe.

Pragmatically speaking, the BDS process has proved over the past few years that it is among the most effective forms of civil, non-violent Palestinian resistance to Israeli colonial and apartheid regime. The sheer breadth and depth of support this Call has garnered among major trade unions, academic associations, church groups, and other grassroots organizations in South Africa, the UK, Ireland, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and even the US, among others, attest to the efficacy and enormous potential of this campaign in resisting Israeli injustice. For the first time in decades, many movements in Europe, for instance, that have supported peace with justice in Palestine through demonstrations, public appeals and -- mostly marginal -- media work, discovered a process that they can actively and effectively contribute to and that promises to bring about concrete results on the ground, as proved to be the case in the struggle against apartheid struggle in South Africa. Judging by results so far, and as our South African comrades have told us repeatedly, our BDS campaign is moving at a faster pace than theirs ever did.

So, while Shtulman and pals spread their lies and disinformation, human rights activists and other people of conscience will continue to work on BDS--the Bathseva Dance Company protest is only part of a growing campaign.

A Quartet of Zionist Letters on the Batsheva Protest--Part I

2009-02-13T19:37:00.009-08:00

This is the first part of a two-part post on a quartet of Zionist letters to the editor that recently appeared in the Ann Arbor News.

One of the complaints that opponents of the Palestinian boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel frequently make is: "Boycotts aren't effective." Ruth R. Gretzinger's "why bother?" response (Ann Arbor News 2/12/09) to Henry Herskovitz's letter (AAN 2/3/09) is a fine example of this class of fallacious reasoning. Herskovitz wrote in favor of boycotts against Israel, generally, and in favor of boycotting the Batsheva Dance Company (BDC), in particular. The giveaway, of course, is that Gretzinger does "bother" because her fear is precisely that boycotts against Israel will be effective.

So, with such an inauspicious start what is Gretzinger to do in the rest of her letter? Why, personally attack Herskovitz and then spread falsehoods, naturally. First, she accuses Herskovitz of being a "well-known rabble-rouser." In reality, Gretzinger has just paid Herskovitz a high compliment, for rousing the "rabble" from their Zionist-induced complicity, ignorance, indifference, and defeatism is precisely what Henry seeks to do.

As George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) says in It's a Wonderful Life to the villainous Henry Potter (Lionel Barrymore), a slum-lord and the richest man in Bedford Falls: "Just remember, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about, they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community." And so it is that Gretzinger and her fellow Zionists want the "rabble" to remain asleep-- to keep quietly working and letting Washington DC send their tax money to Israel at the tune of $6.8 million per day and to keep sending their children to die on foreign battlefields for the sake of Israel.

Next up, Gretzinger tells her readers that BDC members "are dancers, not soldiers" when, in fact, some of the dancers are soldiers. In an October 2006, Dance Magazine interview BDC Director Ohad Naharin said: "It seems to me that in Israel more of the young dancers are likely to have had military experience than in the U.S. In Israel when people really want to dance, they will find a military service that will allow them to dance. We have two soldiers in our junior company." Naharin is himself an Israeli Occupation Forces veteran.

Then Gretzinger strikes up the "art, not politics" tune. David S. Bach (AAN 2/12/09) joins in with: "To suggest a boycott of this dance troupe for the political actions of their government is to suggest that the world should have boycotted all things American for the last eight years." In response, it will suffice to quote Rabbi Tovah Shalom's online comments to Bach's letter:

It would have been a good thing to "have boycotted all things American for the last eight years." In fact, it's not a bad idea now and some people are doing just that. The fact is that almost all Americans are, to varying degrees, responsible for the actions of the US government. An effective boycott campaign might have motivated Americans to prevent the illegal invasion of Iraq and it might help end the illegal ongoing occupation of that country, not to mention Afghanistan.

An effective boycott of the US might restrain Obama, who wants increase the number of US combat troops. In his first week in office he authorized illegal missile strikes on Pakistan--a sovereign nation and, ostensibly, a US ally, at that--that killed two dozen people.

As for the insipid claim that "Through the arts and through cultural exchange come understanding." Well, Hitler and Stalin would have loved that one. Only someone incredibly ignorant of history could make such a claim. Ever heard of the Reichskulturkammer, Triumph of the Will or Arno Breker? How about the Proletkult, Socialist Realism, Bulgakov, or Solzhenitsyn? Every modern, repressive regime has been keenly aware of the importance of culture and promoted some works and artists while suppressing others. And the approved art has never found a shortage of "little Eichmanns," to quote John Zerzan, and dupes to lap it up. The monstrous Jewish state is no different and, thus, we have the Batsheva Dance Company and its fans.

Attorney and former city council member Joan H. Lowenstein, Zionist shill and past president of the Jewish Federation of Washtenaw County, weighs in (AAN 2/13/09) with some classic guilt-by-association. Curiously, she starts out with something that, while perhaps an overstatement, is demonstrably true. An unsourced quote she attributes to "Iranian cleric Hojjatoleslam Ali Maboudi" says: "The Zionists brought Obama to power to help America pass through its current challenges."

Zionists certainly did play a major role in getting Barack Obama elected. As Shmuel Rosner, Chief U.S. Correspondent for Ha'aretz wrote in a blog post entitled "Obama supports Israel. Period.":

It is no secret that Jewish money plays a big role in the Democratic Party. "They don't have the number [of voters], but have the means to get the voters," a prominent Democratic operative told me last week. That's why I told the told the NY Sun that "I don't think his real motive is to win votes. It's, of course, Jewish money."

Not coincidentally, after the major party nominees were selected, a spokesman for the most visible component of the Israel Lobby gloated: "AIPAC is pleased that both parties have selected four pro-Israel candidates."

After being elected, the "first Jewish president" wasted no time in appointing Rahm Israel Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, the highest-ranking member of the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Emanuel once served the Israeli Occupation Forces as a civilian volunteer and as Ali Abunimah notes, "Emanuel is one of the most hard-line supporters of Israel in the Congress and has been for many years." No wonder Obama backed Israel's Hanukkah Massacre in late December and January that killed over 1,300 Palestinians and left over 5,300 injured.

In the rest of her letter, Lowenstein lumps Herzkovitz with Bishop Richard Williamson and Hizbullah Deputy Secretary General Naim Qassem. As Lowenstein makes clear, these men have violated one or more of the nine commandments of the "Holocaust Religion" identified by Israeli journalist Shraga Elam. Though the offending Herskovitz quote is only: "Join the worldwide boycott against Israel."

Lowenstein helpfully instructs us that "It is not paranoid or alarmist to say that there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism - and of acceptance of anti-Semitism - in the world today" thereby suggesting that, yes, it is paranoid and alarmist. At times like these, the words of Dr. Norman G. Finkelstein are apt. In Beyond Chutzpah (p. 85) he writes:

Wrapping themselves in the mantle of The Holocaust, these Jewish elites pretend—and, in their own solipsistic universe, perhaps imagine themselves—to be victims, dismissing any and all criticism as manifestations of "anti-Semitism." And, from this lethal brew of formidable power, chauvinistic arrogance, feigned (or imagined) victimhood, and Holocaust-immunity to criticism has sprung a terrifying recklessness and ruthlessness on the part of American Jewish elites. Alongside Israel, they are the main fomenters of anti-Semitism in the world today.

In The Holocaust Industry, (p. 3) Finkelstein argues:

"The Holocaust" is an ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust. Like most ideologies, it bears a connection, if tenuous, with reality. The Holocaust is not an arbitrary but rather an internally coherent construct. Its central dogmas sustain significant political and class interests. Indeed, The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world's most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a "victim" state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable benefits accrue to this specious victimhood--in particular, immunity to criticism, however justified.

The second part of this two-part post will respond to the letter (AAN 2/13/09) of David Shtulman. Click here to read the second part of the post.

Ann Arbor Protest Tomorrow and Sunday--No Dancing on Gaza's Graves

2009-02-13T19:35:00.000-08:00

Reposted from Next Year in al-Quds.

Ann Arbor Protest Tomorrow and Sunday--No Dancing on Gaza's Graves

***PLEASE FORWARD***

Please join other people of conscience in Ann Arbor this Saturday and Sunday as we stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people and answer their collective call for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israel. Just a few weeks ago, the Israel rained down death and destruction upon the people of Gaza and now the Batsheva Dance Company, an Israeli government-sponsored group is coming to Ann Arbor, to dance on their graves.

As Ali Abunimah asked while the slaughter was still happening: "... what will happen after the demonstrations disperse and the anger dies down? Will we continue to let Palestinians in Gaza die in silence? Palestinians everywhere are asking for solidarity, real solidarity, in the form of sustained, determined political action. ... The global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement for Palestine provides the framework for this. Now is the time to channel our raw emotions into a long-term commitment to make sure we do not wake up to 'another Gaza' ever again."

NO DANCING ON GAZA'S GRAVES
PROTEST THE ISRAELI APARTHEID DANCE TROUPE COMING TO ANN ARBOR

7:30 PM Sharp, Saturday February 14, 2009
3:30 PM Sharp, Sunday, February 15, 2009
(performances start at 8 PM and 4 PM)
Power Center, 121 Fletcher (at Huron) UMich-Ann Arbor
(for map and directions click here)

Click here to download a PDF file of the most recent Ann Arbor Batsheva Dance Company protest leaflet.

This protest is sponsored by the Middle East Task Force with support from Home for Peace and Justice; MidEast JustPeace; Newaygo County People for Peace; Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends; Ann Arbor Coalition Against War; Palestine Office; Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice; the Rev. Naim Ateek, Director of Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, Jerusalem; and the Israel/Palestine Action Group of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship.

Please Send an E-Letter
We only need seven (7) more people to send e-letters to reach our goal. If you haven't already done so, please send a Batsheva e-letter today. Click here: http://michiganpeacenetwork.org/eletters/index.php?eid=19

Update: 6 Days to Go--No Dancing on Gaza's Graves

2009-02-08T20:21:00.000-08:00

Reposted from Next Year in al-Quds.

Update: 6 Days to Go--No Dancing on Gaza's Graves

***PLEASE FORWARD***

In this update:
1. Protest reminder
2. E-letters at 80% of goal
3. New supporters
4. New Batsheva article on Palestine Think Tank
5. Photos from Pittsburgh protest

1. 08 Feb 2009 - Israel's apartheid Batsheva Dance Company comes to Ann Arbor next Saturday. This recital is part of an ongoing campaign to polish the image of Israel in the American consciousness and, thus, to help secure continued American financial, diplomatic, and military support of the Jewish state even in the aftermath of the recent Israeli massacre in Gaza. Please plan to come and nonviolently protest the Batsheva Dance Company on Saturday and Sunday. Let us answer the call of the Palestinian people for broad boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel.

Click here to download a PDF file of the most recent Ann Arbor Batsheva Dance Company protest leaflet. Click here or see below for protest details and more updates.

The Batsheva Dance Company:

Israel's leading cultural ambassador
Israeli government-funded
Israeli soldier dancers
No Arab dancers

NO DANCING ON GAZA'S GRAVES--PROTEST THE ISRAELI APARTHEID DANCE TROUPE COMING TO ANN ARBOR
7:30 PM Sharp, Saturday February 14, 2009
3:30 PM Sharp, Sunday, February 15, 2009
(performances start at 8 PM and 4 PM)
Power Center, 121 Fletcher (at Huron) UMich-Ann Arbor
(for map and directions click here)

This protest is sponsored by the Middle East Task Force with support from Home for Peace and Justice; MidEast JustPeace; Newaygo County People for Peace; Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends; Ann Arbor Coalition Against War; Palestine Office; Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice; the Rev. Naim Ateek, Director of Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, Jerusalem; and the Israel/Palestine Action Group of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship.

2. The Middle East Task Force's e-letter has now reached 80% of its goal. If you haven't already done so, there's still time to sign the e-letter and you don't have to live in Michigan or Ann Arbor to take a stand against Israeli apartheid. Please sign today. Click here to sign the e-letter or see a list of those who have already signed. The purpose of the e-letter is to ask University Musical Society (UMS) Executive Director Ken Fischer and members of the UMS Board of Directors to honor the Palestinian people's boycott against Israel by canceling the Batsheva Dance Company performances and by ending all scheduling of Israeli performers.

3. Since the last update the Dearborn-based Palestine Office and the Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice have stepped up to support the Batsheva boycott and protest. Other new supporters include the Rev. Naim Ateek, Director of Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, Jerusalem and the Israel/Palestine Action Group of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship. Thanks to everyone for their support. It's not too late add your organization's name to the list of supporters.

4. Click here to read a February 2, 2009, action alert about the Batsheva Dance Company on Palestine Think Tank.

5. Click here to see two photos from the Pittsburgh Batsheva protest.

A Response to the Pittsburgh Batsheva Protest

2009-02-06T14:24:00.004-08:00

On the Pittsburgh Arts - Digging Pitt blog Jessica Fenlon writes:

We were settling into the audience at the Benedum center when I saw E. a few rows down.

I went down to say hi. "Did you feel guilty, crossing the picket line to get in?" I asked her.

"A little," she said, "but this is art. What does art have to do with war?"

I smiled. We were here for Batsheva Dance Company, an Israeli dance troupe founded by Martha Graham and Baroness Batsheva De Rothschild in 1964. Ohad Naharin, the current artistic director, began working with Martha Graham in 1980, at her invitation, after he began his study with Batsheva in the late 1970's.

Here is a comment posted to the blog:

Ah, the smug questions of 'cultured' ignoramuses: "What does art have to do with war?" Only someone incredibly ignorant of history could ask such a question or smile at it. Ever heard of the Reichskulturkammer, Triumph of the Will or Arno Breker? How about the Proletkult, Socialist Realism, Bulgakov, or Solzhenitsyn? Every modern, repressive regime has been keenly aware of the importance of culture and promoted some works and artists while suppressing others. And the approved art has never found a shortage of "little Eichmanns" and dupes to lap it up. The monstrous Jewish state is no different and, thus, we have the Batsheva Dance company and its fans.

Of course, the Nazi and Soviet cultural progams are obvious examples by 'official enemies' that most indoctrinated er, I mean educated, Americans should be aware of. The New Rome* has done the same thing only usually more effectively and through the use of 'free-market mechanisms,' see e.g. Jackie Salloum's documentary short, Planet of the Arabs. One notable example where the government intervened more directly is the CIA's Congress for Cultural Freedom.

*In 1967, British historian Alfred Toynbee’s observed: "America . . . now stands for what Rome stood for. Rome consistently supported the rich against the poor in all foreign communities that fell under her sway; and, since the poor, so far, have always and everywhere been far more numerous than the rich, Rome’s policy made for inequality, for injustice, and for the least happiness of the greatest number."

¿Cómo apoyar a Palestina frente al estado artificial de israel?

2009-02-01T21:37:00.003-08:00

El siguiente artículo fue escrito por Emilio Silva y publicada en 22/01/09 en aporrea.org, un sitio web de Venezuela. Es publicado aqui en el interés de la libertad intelectual y su apariencia aqui no es una aprobación de las opiniones expresadas en él. El artículo ha sido ampliamente denunciado por esos lobos sionistas en piel de cordero como el Rabino Marvin Hier del Centro Simon Wiesenthal.

Sin ser palestino, cuando cualquier persona con sensibilidad (más particularmente en todo revolucionario) tiene conocimiento de las salvajadas de los judíos sionistas en un país que no es de ellos y que le arrebataron a sus verdaderos moradores, es algo que causa angustia, dolor, indignación y rabia realmente descomunales, lo suficiente para quien cree en la acción de la justicia y la voluntad de cambio sin incurrir en los excesos que critica de gentes que se creen por encima de las leyes humanas y naturales.

La sensatez y el deseo de triunfo obligan a canalizar positiva y constructivamente esa energía mental y sentimental del revolucionario en función de posibilitar hechos concretos para el logro eficaz de los objetivos. He allí la interrogante leninista: ¿Qué hacer?

Desde esta modesta trinchera de ideas, quien esto escribe cree que el contexto propio de una situación como la padecida por el pueblo de Palestina requiere de actos, actividades y propuestas de esencia profundamente radical y concientizadora para conmover y movilizar al pueblo venezolano.

1) A nivel nacional.

_. Videos-foros acerca de la verdadera situación sobre Palestina e israel. Hacerlos en todos los espacios, incluyendo barrios y caseríos, junto a un intenso debate de ideas.

_. Ofensiva mediática en prensa, radio, televisión e internet acerca del terrorismo perpetrado en Palestina por los judíos sionistas y sus aliados eurogringos desde 1.918 hasta la actualidad. Para asegurar el éxito de esa ofensiva, aparte de reactivar (o desengavetar del sueño burocratista) el convenio entre Telesur y Al Jazeera, hay que despedir a patadas a aquellos funcionarios saboteadores o negligentes que sólo sirven de latre a la política comunicacional del Estado, así como estimular a los medios alternativos y comunitarios. ¿Para qué ha servido CONATEL (donde supuestamente trabajan dos ciudadanos judíos en instancias claves) si hasta ahora sigue engavetado el procedimiento contra Globovisión por las declaraciones magnicidas de Rafael Poleo, además de no haber ni un solo preso civil por el intento de magnicidio y golpe de estado denunciado por Mario Silva entre Septiembre y Octubre de 2.008?

_. Denunciar públicamente con nombre y apellido a los integrantes de grupos judíos de poder con presencia en Venezuela, indicando las empresas de su propiedad para boicotearlas. Por ejemplo, no asistir más al Centro Comercial Sambil de Caracas, Maracaibo, Valencia, etc., propiedad de la familia del choro sionista Salomón Cohen, quien se sigue enriqueciendo todavía desde la Cuarta República con la complicidad de funcionarios corruptos enquistados en el aparato de Estado. En consecuencia, es un imbécil quien esté a favor de la apertura del Sambil de La Candelaria como centro comercial, y más descerebrado todavía quien desee una construcción de esa naturaleza en lugares como Catia.

_. Al respecto, como a gentes tan capitalistas como estos hebreos sionistas les duelen más el bolsillo que cualquier otra cosa (incluyendo Jehová), es inapropiado comprarles sus productos y acudir a sus locales comerciales, como también a aquellos negocios, supermercados, restaurantes, etc., que tengan vinculaciones con ellos o sean de su propiedad (como Locatel y la marca láctea Carabobo), o donde vendan sus alimentos Kosher, como Unicasa y Central Madeirense.

_. Incluir dentro del boicot a las empresas transnacionales vinculadas al régimen sionista de Israel. Por ejemplo, Citröen, Nestlé, McDonald’s (o McMierda), Adidas, Nike, Zara, Revlon, General Electric, Coca Cola, Walt Disney Pictures, IBM, etc.

_. Cuestionar la existencia en Venezuela de instituciones educativas solo-para-judíos, como si ellos fueran clase aparte de nuestra población, menos si no es posible la existencia de un Estado dentro del Estado.

_. Concentraciones públicas masivas y periódicas no solo frente a la embajada de israel, sino también a las sedes de las organizaciones judías ubicadas en los espacios de las urbanizaciones Sebucán y Los Chorros del Municipio Sucre del Estado Miranda, y la Urbanización San Bernardino de Caracas. Es bueno recordar la existencia de la Sinagoga ubicada en el sector caraqueño de Maripérez. Las concentraciones se pueden replicar frente a las sedes de Globovisión, El Universal, Unión Radio, las universidades privadas y autónomas, etc., o sea, frente a cualquier espacio donde se defiendan y promuevan los intereses sionistas.

_. Detectar y vigilar, por parte de los cuerpos de inteligencia de Estado y la Contraloría Social del pueblo organizado, a los agentes encubiertos del Mossad y a todas las ONG y demás grupos de la autodenominada sociedad civil (incluyendo a los estudiantes escuálidos de las universidades privadas y autónomas) que han recibido asesoría y financiamiento desde el estado artificial de israel, sobre todo cuando están haciendo labores de penetración ideológica en barrios como los ubicados en la Parroquia Petare del Municipio Sucre. Importante es tomar en cuenta que Enrique Capriles Radonsky es ciudadano israelí. A propósito, recordemos la afrenta que los estudiantes burguesitos le hicieron al pueblo de Petare el Jueves 15-1-2.009 cuando impunemente hicieron actos politiqueros golpistas cerca de la estación del metro, sin que nadie les diera unos fuertes correazos y los mandara derechito paras sus cómodas quintas y apartamentos. ¡Nos quitaron los espacios políticos de las instituciones de gobierno local, y ahora dejamos que nos quiten los espacios políticos de las calles, que son del pueblo y no de la burguesía!

_. Depurar a las instituciones gubernamentales de aquellos funcionarios escuálidos con o sin boína roja que actúan a favor de los intereses de los grupos sionistas ubicados en nuestro país.

_. Emplazar públicamente a todo judío que se encuentre en cualquier calle, centro comercial, plaza, etc., a que tome posición vociferándole consignas a favor de Palestina y en contra del estado-aborto de israel. No es un gesto inmaduro de agresión psicológica, sino un acto de cuestionamiento contra la indiferencia, complicidad, simpatía o apoyo que esas personas sientan hacia ese estado-monstruo de Israel.

_. Invitar a los judíos antisionistas que habiten en Venezuela a manifestar públicamente su posición de deslinde contra los crímenes de guerra del Sionismo y la imposición de israel como estado artificial existente sobre Palestina.

_. Instalación y difusión mediática de centros de acopio para la recepción de donaciones destinadas a ayudar al pueblo palestino, así como se hizo para ayudar a los pueblos cubano y haitiano cuando sufrieron el impacto de los huracanes del año 2.008.

_. Nacionalización de las empresas y confiscación de los bienes de los judíos sionistas que apoyen los desmanes del estado nazifascista de israel, y donación inmediata de dichos bienes a los palestinos víctimas del actual holocausto. Si existen impedimentos legales para tal propósito, será necesario modificar las leyes que vayan contra un hecho de justicia. En una sociedad deformada, no todo lo legal es justo ni todo lo justo es legal, hecho incompatible con una Sociedad Socialista.

_. Enjuiciar a los judíos sionistas involucrados en el golpe de estado del Jueves 11 de Abril de 2.002 y en el saboteo empresarial y petrolero de diciembre de 2.002 y febrero de 2.003, como la bruja Pinchas Brenner y otros judíos de su calaña que aún se ocultan discretamente tras bastidores. Idem con Abraham Levi Benshimol por las mismas razones, además de su oficio de palangrista (¡La tuya, por si acaso!).

2) A nivel internacional.

_. Envío de todo tipo de ayuda a los palestinos, incluso suficiente armamento básico y sofisticado para su defensa de las huestes sionistas.

_. Movilizar todas las instancias mundiales para condenar, aislar y sancionar en todos los aspectos posibles, de manera contundente y firme, al estado genocida de israel, incluyendo el embargo de sus propiedades y cuentas bancarias en el exterior.

_. Propiciar el destacado trabajo de los hackers informáticos contra las páginas de internet elaboradas por los sionistas y aquellos gobiernos e instituciones con vínculos favorables a israel.

_. Realización de un concierto internacional por la paz en Palestina y contra la invasión israelí en ese país. A dicho concierto únicamente deben ir artistas y grupos musicales que sean revolucionarios. ¡Nada de nada con Shakira, Juanes, Maná, Miguel Bosé y demás faranduleros escuálidos! El concierto se puede efectuar en Caracas, o en Maracaibo para latirle en la cueva a la oposición atrincherada en el Estado Zulia.

_. Organización de una conferencia internacional sobre la aparición del estado teocrático nazifascista de israel en su condición de colonia genocida eurogringa, y otra acerca de los mitos y verdades del supuesto holocausto u holocuento judío (una verdadera industria de la lástima chantajista y el sentimentalismo de baja estofa) aplicado por los nazis alemanes, el cual posee un carácter fuertemente dudoso, tergiversador y cuestionable, hasta el punto de considerarse que sí hubo asesinatos de judíos pero sin caer en una matanza masiva y planificada como la que las hordas sionistas hacen ahora en Palestina. Ambas conferencias se efectuarían en Caracas, con amplia cobertura mediática y duración de varios días.

_. Combatir la criminalización mediática de las justas luchas heroicas de grupos como Hamas y Hezbollah, así como la chocante y cínica victimización mediática del estado segregacionista de israel, y frente a la venenosa e invisible manipulación aquí referida, no reducir todo el conflicto únicamente a la Franja de Gaza, cuándo es una porción de una totalidad más grande como lo es Palestina. No olvidemos que Gaza es parte de Palestina, pero Palestina no incluye solamente a Gaza. Es también Cisjordania y el resto de territorio ilegal y violentamente usurpado a los palestinos y ocupados por los invasores judíos sionistas.

_. Aplicar los puntos anteriores para los casos de Afganistán, Irak, Colombia y el Congo, países donde el imperialismo eurogringo y el Sionismo tienen sus manos metidas.

_. Toda esta ofensiva política, diplomática y comunicacional debe ir acompañada de todas las gestiones necesarias para la liberación del camarada Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, alias “Carlos” (el sobrenombre de “El Chacal” es una ofensa impuesta por las empresas privadas de comunicación), quien está prisionero en las cárceles de Francia por obra y gracia del Sionismo y el imperialismo, debido a que hasta ahora es el único revolucionario venezolano públicamente conocido que ha ido a combatir a favor de la causa palestina desde los años 60 del siglo pasado. ¡Honor y gloria al camarada Carlos!

_. En ese orden de ideas, denunciar la represión interna existente dentro del estado dictatorial de israel contra aquellos judíos opuestos a los abusos contra Palestina. Esa represión ha llegado hasta el punto de estar encarcelados numerosos jóvenes judíos por no querer enrolarse en la soldadesca sionista. Con el fin de apoyar la campaña de liberación de esos jóvenes, en la página virtual www.december18th.org existe un enlace para tal efecto.

_. Retorno a su país de los palestinos exiliados y refugiados en otros países. Aquí sí vale hablar de la diáspora palestina, no de la supuesta diáspora judía pues no se puede plantear ese concepto de dispersión en torno a una religión que cualquier persona puede adoptar en cualquier parte del mundo.

_. Destrucción de la versión ampliada del Muro de Berlín que rodea a la Franja de Gaza y otros territorios de Palestina.

_. Devolución inmediata, por parte de la entidad sionista, de todos los territorios usurpados a los países vecinos a Palestina.

_. Anular los acuerdos internacionales que favorezcan al estado artificial de israel, como el Tratado de Libre Comercio que tiene con el MERCOSUR.

_. Incentivar la concientización de los sectores alienados de la población israelí, y apoyar su insurrección contra el régimen nazifascista de israel.

_. Liberación incondicional e impostergable de los valientes combatientes palestinos prisioneros de los chacales sionistas en cárceles y campos de torturas.

_. Compensación material, financiera y moral a todas las víctimas palestinas, libanesas, sirias, etc., a ser cumplida con los recursos del estado de israel, o en última instancia con los bienes mal habidos de judíos sionistas beneficiarios de las propiedades que eran de originalmente de los palestinos y sus descendientes.

_. Reconstrucción (con colaboración internacional) de todas las aldeas y ciudades palestinas, junto a la devolución total de las aldeas y ciudades antes pobladas por los palestinos pero que ahora se hayan ocupadas ilegalmente por ciudadanos israelíes. Igualmente, entregar a los palestinos todos aquellos asentamientos judíos, que aparecieron luego de la creación del estado forajido de israel, en zonas despobladas con anterioridad. En pocas Palabras, es el reintegro total de la nación palestina sin caer en la trampoa política que representa la muy cuestionable Resolución 181 de la ONU (irrespetada por el Sionismo), donde absurdamente se establece la creación de dos estados en el mismo territorio palestino. ¡Un solo territorio palestino, un solo estado palestino!

_. Avalar la disolución del estado artificial de israel (un anacronismo medieval de inspiración religiosa) luego de haber cumplido con los debidos actos de compensación, reconstrucción y devolución de los puntos anteriores. Esa disolución no implica expulsar a todos los judíos del territorio palestino, sino más bien retomando de otra forma lo que propone el camarada Eduardo Rothe, que es la conformación de una asamblea constituyente donde participen judíos antisionistas y palestinos de religión judía, cristiana y musulmana, donde se consagre la tolerancia religiosa y la construcción de una sociedad socialista pluricultural y multiétnica, a ser ejemplo de los demás pueblos asiáticos. El territorio donde existirá ese nuevo estado se seguirá denominando Palestina, y el estado de israel será solo un mal recuerdo de épocas atrasadas. Los judíos sionistas tendrán que aceptar estas condiciones o deberán emigrar a otro sitio, como Estados Unidos y Europa, de donde originalmente provienen muchos de ellos y sus ancestros.

_. Enjuiciamiento sumario sin contemplaciones de los políticos y militares judíos sionistas (de todos los rangos, incluyendo soldados) responsables del actual holocausto palestino y de crímenes anteriores cometidos en Palestina y otros países, así como llevar a los tribunales a los colonos judíos de derecha que hayan sido autores y cómplices de esas y otras barbaridades. Dentro de esos procesos judiciales, incluir a integrantes de grupos terroristas como Hagana, Irgun y Stern que aún estén vivos, y efectuar juicios póstumos a criminales fallecidos como Golda Meier, David Ben Gurion, Menaghen Begin, Ariel Sharon, etc.

_. Búsqueda y enjuiciamiento de los mercenarios israelíes que han entrenado a las bandas paramilitares causantes de sufrimientos a los pueblos de Colombia y Centroamérica. Un digno representante de esa ilustre estirpe es el psicópata Yair Klein (o como se llame), coronel retirado del ejército israelí.

_. Actuar contundentemente contra Estados Unidos y los países europeos que se opongan o saboteen la aplicación de todos los puntos aquí expuestos.

Seguir con esta sucesión de planteamientos va para largo por la enormidad de las aberraciones sionistas, confrontada con la colosal capacidad de amor, imaginación, inteligencia y justicia que los revolucionarios estamos obligados a desarrollar y estimular entre nosotros mismos y el resto de la humanidad para que otro mundo mejor sea posible.

Dejo hasta aquí estas humildes aportaciones para que otros las enriquezcan y mejoren, pero más importante aún, luchar porque sea realidad concreta a favor del hermano pueblo de Palestina.

¡Por la liberación del revolucionario venezolano-palestino Ilich Ramírez Sánchez (mal llamado “El Chacal” por los pitiyanquis), prisionero en las mazmorras francesas! ¡Palestinos somos todos!

Emilio Silva: Trabajador Académico de la UBV, miembro del Colectivo Docente UBV

Correo Electrónico: silvachapellin@yahoo.es

Open Letter to Noor Ali

2009-01-31T00:29:00.001-08:00

On January 30, 2009, the Ann Arbor News published an op-ed piece by Noor Ali entitled "In crisis, humanity should unite us." This open letter is a response to that op-ed. It is published here at the request of the author.

Dear Noor Ali:

In the Ann Arbor News, you write about Tamar Weaver, "a Jewish Israeli American who attends the Beth Israel Congregation" and her "concern for humanity." If Tamar Weaver has a "concern for humanity" then why is she a member of the Beth Israel Congregation where they affirm "without any hesitation or equivocation the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state," where they send their children to Israel and pose them with armed Israeli soldiers, and where the Rabbi explains to the congregation how to justify torture under Jewish religious law?

Noor, how about supporting the call by 171 Palestinian civil society organizations for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international humanitarian law? How about respecting the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel by boycotting and protesting the Israeli apartheid dance company coming to Ann Arbor in two weeks. See how long Tamar Weaver and her pals stay friends and in dialogue with you if you come out strongly in favor of those two nonviolent Palestinian campaigns (to see why it is wrong to have dialogue with Zionists read "When Dialogue is NOT our Hope" by Joseph Phelps in the Mennonite Conciliation Service's journal, Conciliation Quarterly).

You write that an "ongoing peace" lies in "mutual dialogue and respectful, honest and difficult negotiation." And you invoke the memory of the Rev. Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. The Rev. King didn't spend a whole lot of his time in dialogue groups with KKK members and their sympathizers. Zionism is every bit as racist as the KKK's ideology ever was and Zionists have undoubtedly killed, maimed, and immiserated far more people. Most, probably all, of your Jewish friends in the Common Ground for Peace for Palestine and Israel task force (which replaced a task force that supported BDS) are Zionists, i.e. they support a Jewish state in +78% of Palestine.

No, the Rev. King wasn't focused on dialogue; rather, he organized and participated in direct action campaigns to confront racism and it supporters. Now, the Rev. King did engage in negotiation but his negotiation was not for negotiation's sake but it was based on making demands for justice. What demands are you making in the Common Ground task force? Here's something he wrote in the "Letter from Birmingham Jail" about the relationship between negotiation and direct action:

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. ...

There are millions of Palestinians and their descendants living in forced exile from their homeland. 78% of Palestine was violently occupied in 1948 and the rest was occupied in 1967. So, my question to you is what are you doing to "create such a crisis and foster such a tension" that Americans can no longer ignore and silently abet the US government's wholesale support of Palestinian dispossession and misery? Are you working "to create a situation so crisis-packed" in the Common Ground task force, the ICPJ, or Ann Arbor that people will be compelled to accept and work for the just demands of the BDS campaign for full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel, an end to the occupation of the lands seized in 1967, and the return of Palestinian refugees in accordance with UN GA Resolution 194? If not then I suppose that Frederick Douglass described you aptly more than 150 years ago:

If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

Perhaps, you think I am an extremist. If so, I would wear the title proudly. Here's what the Rev. King had to say in the "Letter from Birmingham Jail" on that subject:

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?

Noor, I hope you will aspire to be an extremist for love and for the extension of justice. The Rev. King didn't get labelled as such an extremist by engaging in interminable dialogue with White racists and their sympathizers and neither will you earn such a privilege by engaging in interminable dialogue with Zionists and their sympathizers.

Sincerely,

Michelle J. Kinnucan

Four Cities Now to Protest Batsheva Dance Company

2009-01-27T21:18:00.001-08:00

Reposted from Next Year in al-Quds:

Four Cities Now to Protest Batsheva Dance Company

Their tour hasn't even started yet but protests against the Israeli apartheid Batsheva Dance Company are now planned or in the works in Ann Arbor, Chicago, Vancouver, and Pittsburgh.

There's still time to sign the e-letter to UMS and you don't have to live in Michigan or Ann Arbor to take a stand against Israeli apartheid. Please sign today.

Send UMS an E-Letter--Boycott the Israeli Apartheid Dance Troupe

2009-01-23T00:52:00.001-08:00

Reposted from Next Year in al-Quds:

Send UMS an E-Letter--Boycott the Israeli Apartheid Dance Troupe

***PLEASE FORWARD***

No Dancing on Gaza's Graves--Boycott the Batsheva Dance Troupe

Please ask Executive Director Ken Fischer and members of the Board of Directors of the University Musical Society (UMS) of Ann Arbor, Michigan to honor the Palestinian people's boycott against Israel by canceling the Batsheva Dance Company performances scheduled for February14-15, 2009, and by endings all scheduling of Israeli performers until such time as the boycott against Israel is ended by the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee.

The Batsheva Dance Company is funded by the Israeli government, it has no Arab performers, and is "proud to be considered Israel's leading ambassador." Ohad Naharin, the dance company's director, is an Israeli army veteran and current Israeli soldiers/reservists also belong to the company.

To send an e-letter to Ken Fischer and UMS Board members asking them to cancel the upcoming performance go to http://michiganpeacenetwork.org/eletters/.

Please plan to join us outside to nonviolently protest the performances unless the UMS cancels them. The protest is sponsored by the Middle East Task Force with support from Michigan Peace Team, Home for Peace and Justice, MidEast JustPeace, and Newaygo County People for Peace.

Anna Baltzer in Syria

2009-01-18T18:21:00.003-08:00

The text below is from a report by the Syrian state news agency and my comments appear in italics:

American human rights activist Anna Baltzer, who participated in the march [in Damascus], described what is going on in Gaza as "insane…there are no words that can describe the situation there…I was very much affected by what I saw on TV screens."

PM: Really? I can think of some words to describe the situation: war crimes, slaughter, massacre, atrocities, genocide.

She added that she published a book titled "Witness in Palestine" documenting her diaries of the Israeli human rights abuses committed by the Israeli occupation forces against the Palestinian people, and calling on her country to change its policies in the Middle East and pressure Israel to change its hostile behavior.

PM: How nice to work in a plug for the book and how perfectly quaint to argue for the US to "pressure Israel". Why not go for the whole enchilada--a full cutoff of US diplomatic recognition and support and of US military and financial assistance? As Ben-Gurion observed, it's not a dream if you make it real.

Ms. Baltzer said that many Americans reject Israeli exercises against the Palestinians, adding that also many other Americans don't know what is really taking place on spot.

PM: What purpose and whose interests are served by telling Arabs that "many Americans reject Israeli exercises ..." when the vast majority of Americans passively or actively support Israel? Wouldn't it would be better if Ms. Baltzer had lent her support to growing calls to boycott Israel and the United States rather than make excuses for Americans?

Tovah Shalom Strikes Again

2009-01-16T06:03:00.000-08:00

Who knew Tovah Shalom was a rabbi? She even calls the Jewish slaughter in Gaza a Hanukkah Massacre. Oy!

'Tovah Shalom' Writes to an IDF Soldier

2009-01-15T05:52:00.003-08:00

Those dear hearts at Chabad House have provided a service to us all--an opportunity to write to an IDF soldier. Here's the message that "Tovah Shalom" sent recently:

Dear Soldier:

Please stop your complicity in the war crimes of the Jewish apartheid state. Refuse to fight. Go home and work for justice, democracy, and equality in all of Palestine for everyone including the Palestinian refugees from 1948, only when that is achieved can there be peace. Stop believing the lies of your leaders and rabbis.

Tovah Shalom

Here's the message she got back:

From	"Chabad.org"
Date	01/15/2009, 09:52:31 AM
Subject	Thank You For Showing Your Solidarity!
	Dear Tovah Shalom, Thank you so much for submitting an encouraging letter along with a personal picture to be submitted to an IDF soldier/Israeli citizen living under the threat of rocket attacks. The delight of the soldiers/Israelis receiving these letters is really something to behold. Their hearts are warmed by the knowledge that so many people really care so deeply about their plight. Jewish unity is the greatest conduit for G-d’s blessings. Seeing the amazing outpouring of love and care increases our faith and confidence that G-d will protect the citizens of the Holy Land, and we will soon see the fulfillment of the promise (Leviticus 26:5-6): “You will live in security in your land, and I will grant peace in the Land.” www.chabad.org If you have any questions or inquiries, please contact us at: http://www.chabad.org/tools/feedback.htm P.S. Click below to see continuing coverage of the Gaza War: news, commentary, first-person reports and more: http://www.chabad.org/gazawar

Click here to send your own message to an IDF soldier.

Joel Finkel Whistles Past the Graveyard

2009-01-09T21:51:00.004-08:00

Poor old Joel Finkel of the Chicago chapter of the openly Zionist organization Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), was reduced, once again, to sputtering nonsense by a fellow Jew who speaks the truth about Jews and Palestine.

Back in 2005, when Chicago JVP was still called Not In My Name, Finkel had a conniption over Paul Eisen's essay "Jewish Power." Finkel was so mentally impaired by that bout with the truth that, among other things, he was apparently rendered incapable of understanding that "a single state 'between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, one country with equal citizenship for all' " is fully compatible with Palestinian "national aspirations." Palestinians--not including millions of refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, and elsewhere--already comprise a demographic majority 'between the river and the sea' and it is Jewish opposition to equality and democracy that comprises the primary obstacle to the realization of Palestinian national aspirations.

Recently, Finkel was set to frothing over the 12-27-08 vigil report from Henry Herskovitz of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends. On January 3rd on the Chicago JVP e-mail list Finkel writes:

Henry is a reactionary fool. As a critic of the vigils outside the synagogue during Sabbath services, I never claimed that these desecrated the Sabbath. The issue is that the message that is given to the public is that Jews--religious Jews--are guilty of the crimes of the Israeli government. This message is false and incites anti-Jewish sentiment, which is exactly what it is designed to do.

In fact "Jews-religious Jews" are guilty of Israeli government crimes especially those Jews in the Israeli government but also those who freely lend their support to the Jewish apartheid state. According to a poll conducted by an Israeli organization, 95% of Israeli Jews support the Hanukkah Massacre in Gaza and you can bet that includes a lot of religious Jews and reflects the attitude of, probably, millions of American Jews.

The synagogue that JWPF holds vigil in front of has publicly declared itself in support of Israel. In 2006, as Israel devastated Lebanon, killing hundreds and wounding thousands, Beth Israel waved the flag (Israeli, that is) and prayed "for those who defend Israel and for the three kidnapped soldiers." Beth Israel attendees have assaulted JWPF members because of their criticism of Israel. Like Finkel, Beth Israel spreads lies about the vigils. They send their children to Israel and pose them with armed Israeli soldiers. And Rabbi Dobrusin has offered a halachic justification of torture from the bima. Yet, to Finkel, none of this justifies public protest.

Are all Jews guilty of Israel's crimes? Of course not, and JWPF has never claimed otherwise. The blanket guilt is the phantom of Finkel's fevered imagination.

Finkel continues:

Secondly, Henry believes that anyone who, in any way, speaks of solidarity with Israelis is necessarily a Zionist. This is a right-wing view that betrays a deep-seated loathing for international solidarity. It is a view that is as reactionary as Zionism itself. It is of little wonder that Henry’s group is widely despised within the Palestinian community in the Detroit area.

The question I've heard Henry ask again and again is "Do you support Israel's claimed right to exist as a Jewish state?" That is Henry's test: Do you support an outlaw, exclusivist apartheid regime? I remember the American movement in support of the struggle against South African apartheid and the internationalist position is the same now as it was then--solidarity with the oppressed, not with the oppressor class. In the 1980s people of conscience supported the Azanian/Black South African people and today's internationalists stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people. Henry is a living example of such solidarity, which is why he has hosted visiting Palestinians (and anti-Zionist Jewish Israelis) in his home.

As for "Henry's group" being despised, sure, some Palestinians probably despise JWPF because it shows them up as compromised defeatists. But when opponents of the vigils waged public campaigns against JWPF they couldn't find a single Palestinian, other Arab, or Muslim individual or group to publicly oppose the vigils. And four months ago when the Arab American News profiled JWPF none of Finkel's imagined "Palestinian community" members had anything to say against them.

Finkel writes:

As for me, I was proud to carry a sign, which read "Solidarity with the families of Gaza and Sderot," at our demonstrations in Chicago. A Palestinian man, who had spent 20 months in Israeli prisons before being deported, asked if he could help me carry the sign. The only people who objected were the right-wing Hamas supporters, who surrounded us and tried to intimidate us with chants of "God is Great," "Long live Hamas," "Long live Hezbollah," and "Down with Israel." But, as we expected, the overwhelming Palestinian response was to thank us for being there.

It was undoubtedly people like Finkel whom Emerson had in mind when he wrote: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Finkel is proud to equate the situation of Gazans with that of the colonizers in Sderot as if that grotesquerie made sense anywhere but in the racism-addled minds of Finkel and his ilk or to a few broken, desperate Palestinians abasing themselves for crumbs fallen from the master's table. Of course, as an Arab friend points out, it is possible that Finkel has also exploited and distorted, for his own political agenda, simple expressions of kindness and generosity, the type for which Palestinians are renowned. That is, Finkel has solipsistically spun a charitable indulgence of his absurd comparison into a ringing endorsement of it.

As in an earlier paragraph, Finkel invokes "right-wing" as a sort of bogeyman. I mean, who else would say "God is great," uphold Hamas and Hizbullah, or worst of all say, "Down with Israel"? No, poor old Joel Finkel has drunk so much Trotskyist-Zionist kool-aid that the can't even imagine that progressives might express solidarity with such popular (and in the case of Hamas, democratically elected) indigenous liberation movements as Hamas and Hizbullah, let alone denounce the blessed Jewish state. It is a measure of the decrepitude of the American Left that, when it comes to Hamas and Hizbullah, they are mostly on the same side as the US government.

Finkel closes as follows:

In the end, Henry’s little group, which has successfully isolated itself from the Peace and Justice movement, will not even be a footnote in history. And that is just fine with me.

/Joel Finkel

Jewish Voice for Peace – Chicago
American Jews for a Just Peace

It's clear that Finkel is whistling past the graveyard here. His deepest fear is that Israel is headed for the garbage heap of history and that JWPF is playing a small but significant role in hastening that inevitable conclusion and exposing Jewish complicity in the crimes of Zion.

95% of Israeli Jews Support Hanukkah Massacre

2009-01-04T19:46:00.005-08:00

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is reporting:

Israel's deadly "Operation Cast Lead," unleashed against Hamas on Saturday in retaliation for persistent rocket fire from its Gaza stronghold, is enjoying massive support among Jewish Israelis, the poll found.

Some 95 per cent of Jews among those questioned for the poll support the offensive - one of Israel's deadliest in Gaza in decades - with 80 per cent backing the bombardment without reserve.

The poll was carried out by the Teleseker institute among a sample of 800 Israelis, both Arab and Jewish. The pollsters gave a margin of error of 2 per cent.

This is consistent with a Judaic culture of death and is reminiscent of the fact that Israelis lead the world in their support of torture, according to a 2006 BBC poll.

Readers Respond to "Israel's Hanukkah Massacre & Judaism's Culture of Death"

2009-01-04T19:09:00.004-08:00

All of the reader responses to Israel's Hanukkah Massacre & Judaism's Culture of Death discussed below came to me by e-mail.

Here's the first one I got from a Muslim friend:

I'm emailing you from Arizona. Weather is perfect over here.

I don't know enough about Jewish law and Israel's history to know about this, but is it possible that Israel is to Jewish law what Saudi Arabia, for example, is to Islam? So Saudi Arabia gives a bad image of Islam by misinterpreting Sharia and prohibiting women from driving etc. There is no shortage of Muslims who misapply Sharia law i.e. Al-Qaeda types who take a verse from the Quran to mean that Muslims should kill "infidels" wherever they find them. And Taliban types who find in Islam a justification for prohibiting girls from attending school. Or Christians who find justification in the Bible for attacking abortion clinics or burning witches at the stake. You know what I mean. The examples are countless.

As the Neturei Karta would argue, Zionism and Judaism are polar opposites, so is it also possible that Israel misapplies halacha and that "authentic" Judaism is innocent from Zionism's crimes?

Here's the response I sent a couple of days ago:

It's about 25 degrees here--happy? ;-)

As to your question, to an important extent I think religion is as religion does and religion says. So, I don't think I can tell anyone what "authentic" Judaism is nor can the Saudi family tell us what "authentic" Islam is nor can the Neturei Karta tell us what "authentic" Judaism is. Ditto for Christianity. What I think we have to do is consider what is actually being done by the adherents of those religions. Thus, when I have written about Judaism I never insist that I am writing about "authentic" Judaism. I may quote someone else who makes that claim but it is up to the reader to evaluate such claims.

To get more concrete, let's look at Zionism and Judaism. As you have noted, Neturei Karta would argue they "are polar opposites" but the evidence suggests that the vast majority of adherents of Judaism disagree. The main bodies of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism have all explicitly endorsed Zionism in practice, if not in name, that is they all support Israel as a Jewish state in Palestine. The same is true of the smaller Reconstructionist and Secular Humanist movements. But it is not for me to say whether or not that represents "authentic" Judaism.

You ask, "is it ... possible that 'authentic' Judaism is innocent from Zionism's crimes." My short answer is yes but what is "authentic" Judaism? Who gets to decide? What are the consequences of absolving/obscuring Judaism as it is actually practiced here and now by most of its adherents because some small minority insists that Zionist Judaism or Judaic Zionism are not "authentic"? As Paul Eisen writes:
The present, too, is full of ambiguities. Zionism is not Judaism; Judaism is not Zionism has become an article of faith, endlessly repeated, as is the assertion that Zionism is a secular ideology opposed, for much of its history, by the bulk of religious Jews and even now still opposed by true Torah Jews such as Neturei Karta. But Zionism is now at the heart of Jewish life with religious Jews amongst the most virulent of Zionists and Neturei Karta, despite their impeccable anti-Zionism, their beautiful words and the enthusiasm with which they are welcomed at solidarity rallies, etc., may well be just Jews in fancy dress, a million miles from the reality of Jewish life."
I think Ludwig von Mises was on to something when he said "To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war." And that is why it appears as an epigraph to my blog and why I as an, anti-Zionist, write about Judaism. In this, I am trying feebly to follow in some of the footsteps of Jews and former Jews like Benedict Spinoza, Moshe Menuhin, Israel Shahak, Norton Mezvinsky, Paul Eisen, Gilad Atzmon, and Israel Shamir.

I don't try to write for Jews in particular but I aim for others in the peace movement because I think the Zionism of so many Jews in the peace movement is connected to their Judaism even when they are not conventionally devout/observant. Zionism must be understood and challenged and I don't think that can be adequately done without understanding its Judaic roots. Any way I hope I respectfully and thoroughly answered your question.

A less friendly response appears next:

what crap! Trying to wrap an entire Jewish culture into one of death is NOT a way to comprehend today's issues. This old anti-antisemitism has no answers, only bullshit!

Here's how I responded:

No one is trying to "wrap an entire Jewish culture into one of death." The point is that there is a "culture of death" within Judaism and Jewish society. The phrase "culture of death" comes from an Israeli Jew, Professor Idith Zertal of Hebrew University, in her book Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood (Cambridge University Press, 2005). But you probably don't need to bother with such books because you already have all the answers, right? So answer me this: The timing of the current Israeli assault on Gaza was of the IDF's own choosing, if it has nothing to do with a Judaic "culture of death" then why did the IDF choose to start it during Hanukkah and why did they choose to give it a name associated with Hanukkah?

IOF Major--"I am also a civilian"

2009-01-04T02:45:00.008-08:00

We've all known that Zionist Jews are world champion liars but surely Israeli Occupation Forces Major Avital Leibovich deserves a special prize for sheer gall. Watch at 2:34 in the video below as she bleats "I am also a civilian" while shown dressed in her military uniform.

The fact is that, except for children, there are relatively few civilians in Israel as:

All Israeli citizens and permanent residents are liable to military service. ... Reserve service is required up till the age of 51 in the case of men (54 for officers) and up till 24 in the case of women. Reservist duty involves one month training annually.

Leibovich also gets caught red-handed peddling more lies for the Jewish state in this video: "B'Tselem questions Israeli account of attack".

Shtulman, Jewish Federation on the Hanukkah Massacre

2009-01-03T22:00:00.008-08:00

I was curious to see what the "local cadre of the Zionist state terrorist infrastructure," i.e. the Jewish Federation of Washtenaw County (now the Jewish Federation of Greater Ann Arbor), are saying about Israel's Hanukkah Massacre in Gaza. The Federation refers to it as the "Gaza situation." On their web site, I found a national Federation statement that says in part:

United Jewish Communities/the Federations of North America expresses its solidarity with the State of Israel at this critical time as Israel engages in Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip. ...

"This is not the first time that Israel has been under attack and is not likely to be the last time. ... During this crisis, UJC Israel coordinates closely with our partners and with the Government of Israel regarding realities on the ground. We are monitoring the situation on an ongoing basis and should things deteriorate, we will consider additional needs including possible emergency fundraising efforts. ..."

Israel has turned Gaza into the world's largest prison and dropped more than 100 tons of bombs on Gaza just in the first day and, yet, Israel is "under attack." Go figure.

The new JFGAA Executive Director is David Shtulman, a dual US-Israeli citizen, Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) veteran, and, in all likelihood, a current IOF reservist. Naturally, there is no indication that the local Federation repudiates any part of the above statement or its pathetic claim to Israel's victim status. On the contrary, in his weekly shabbat message--wittily entitled "The New Year Enters with a Bang!"--Herr Shtulman refers to the Israeli attacks as an "Israeli counter-attack on Hamas."

Shtulman next pulls a predictable role reversal of the Judaic culture of death with the unsourced claim: "Hamas has often responded with the mantra, 'We will win because we love death and Israel loves life.' " If Hamas uses this "mantra" frequently then it is pretty strange that it is not attributed to Hamas in the New York Times even once. In fact, in searches using two different databases, the phrase "we love death" turns up in the NYT archives only three times between 1851 and the present. The "mantra" never made it onto the news pages of the NYT.

In two instances, it appears in editorials by Jewish neoconservative pundit David Brooks. In March 2004, Brooks attributed it to Al Qaeda and by September of that year he had expanded it to the "fringes of the Muslim world." The third instance, was just five days before Brooks' second invocation of the "mantra." At the invitation of the NYT "Op-Ed page," in his proposed "conclusion to President Bush's [2004 RNC] address," former Bush I speech writer Daniel McGroarty attributed the phrase "to the statement the terrorists released to claim responsibility for the carnage ... in Madrid."

Terrorism: A Documentary and Reference Guide by Burns and Peterson (Greenwood, 2005), which includes Hamas, has only one documented reference to terrorists loving death and that is a statement attributed to "al-Qaeda in Europe" in connection with the Madrid bombings. It says: "You love life and we love death." There are two problems, though.

First, this is one of at least two statements claiming responsibility for the 2004 Madrid bombings. The apparently first alleged claim of responsibility by al-Qaeda does not say anything about loving death. It was discredited by the pro-Israel group, MEMRI. More importantly, a "two-year investigation into the attacks has found no evidence that al-Qa'ida helped plan, finance or carry out the bombings, or even knew about them in advance," which would indicate that both of the claims of responsibility are fabrications.

It is plausible that Shtulman's claim began as an Israeli false flag operation to smear Islam (see also the "Gil Affair" and "Israeli Psyops Against EU and US"). If that is the case, then it is awfully helpful to have someone to discredit the competing claim of responsibility. In this case the guy doing the discrediting, author of the MEMRI analysis, was Yigal Carmon, an IOF Colonel who served at least twenty years (1968-88) in the Israeli intelligence service. In sum, there is nothing credible linking Shtulman's "mantra" to Hamas. But since when have supporters of Israel ever cared about the truth?

Shtulman expresses surprise at the very unsurprising: "following a full week of heavy bombardment and hundreds of deaths, the majority of western newspapers and most European governments are still standing firmly with Israel." He notes that "the 'moderate' members of the Arab League – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority especially – while critical of Israel are placing the blame squarely on Hamas" and he helpfully identifies the real enemy to peace in the Middle East: Iran. Again, none of this is surprising--all of these "moderates" are bought, paid for, and/or propped up by the US government and have colluded--openly or otherwise--with Israel and the US on several occasions.

Shtulman continues: "Although civilian suffering is inevitably great, this is not a war against the civilian population." The only thing inevitable about the Israeli massacre is that when you attack densely populated neighborhoods with massive aerial bombings and missile attacks, you will kill civilians. It bears pointing out that since Gaza has no recognized sovereignty, no standing army, and almost nothing but small arms, a case can be made that everyone Israelis kill in Gaza is a civilian.

Shtulman closes with: "We must never become immune to the horror of war or accept it as anything but the last resort. But we also must accept that sometimes it is the only resort and hope that when it is over it will open a window to a more peaceful time for all." We have here a fine example of the Jewish "art of moral anguish" so admired by Barack Obama, the first Jewish president. Echoes of Rabbi Robert Dobrusin's justification of torture can also be heard.

See also:
"We love death": Projecting the American Culture of Death onto Islam

Israel's Hanukkah Massacre & Judaism's Culture of Death

2008-12-31T21:02:00.010-08:00

Click here for a gallery of Gaza images.

About a year-and-a-half ago I wrote:

The Jewish holidays of Purim, Passover, and Hanukkah are part of the "culture of death" and "victimization" that permeates Judaism and much of modern Jewish life, as noted by Idith Zertal in Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood (2005; pp. 1-2). ... The Maccabean civil war at the root of Hanukkah started when Mattathias, a priest and father of Judah Maccabee, killed another Jew [sic] for coming "forward in the sight of all to offer sacrifice" to Greek gods. According to I Maccabees 2:
When Mattathias saw it, he burned with zeal and his heart was stirred. He gave vent to righteous anger; he ran and killed him on the altar. At the same time he killed the king's officer who was forcing them to sacrifice, and he tore down the altar.

I concluded that post by noting, "Last year's Israeli slaughter in Lebanon and the ongoing war against Palestinians are natural expressions of a Judaic culture of death." The recent murderous onslaught against Palestinians in Gaza by the Jewish state only confirms this. As the pro-Israel Matzav.com reports:

Israel has given its Gaza assault the codename "Operation Cast Lead." Where did this rather poetic title come from? Most people don't know that it actually comes from a poem. Specifically, a Chanukah poem by Israel's national poet, H.N. Bialik. The operation began on Shabbos, the sixth day of Chanukah. According to Eli Isaacson, a spokesman for the IDF, the codename comes from a line in "For Chanukah" referring to "a dreidel cast of solid lead."

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency simply notes: "The name of the operation, Cast Lead, is a Chanukah reference: The dreidel originally was manufactured by pouring molten lead into a mold. It has a double meaning, because that is how bullets are manufactured."

See also:

"Hanukkah Games in Gaza" in the Palestine Chronicle
"Why Israel Named Its Gaza War After a Hanukkah Poem" by Ethan Perlson
"Happy Hanukkah"
"Shtulman, Jewish Federation on the Hanukkah Massacre"
"Readers Respond to 'Israel's Hanukkah Massacre & Judaism's Culture of Death'"
"95% of Israeli Jews Support Hanukkah Massacre"

Palestinian Unions say "intensify the international boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel"

2008-12-31T00:25:00.002-08:00

Here is an excerpt from an appeal by the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees:

We add our voice to the urgent appeal issued two days ago by the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC) urging international civil society not just to protest and condemn Israel's massacre in Gaza, but also to join and intensify the international boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel to end its impunity and to hold it accountable for its persistent violations of international law and Palestinian rights. We agree that, without sustained, effective pressure by people of conscience the world over, Israel will continue with its gradual, rolling acts of genocide against the Palestinians, burying any prospects for a just peace under the blood and rubble of Gaza, Nablus and Jerusalem.

See also "Gaza massacres must spur us to action" by Ali Abunimah in The Electronic Intifada

No More Gazas!--Protest the Batsheva Dance Company--Tues. 1/6 Israel Boycott Meeting

2008-12-30T23:15:00.002-08:00

Via Next Year in al-Quds:

***PLEASE FORWARD***

In the wake of the recent Israeli war crimes in Gaza, the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee has called upon people of conscience around the world "not just to protest and condemn in diverse forms Israel's massacre in Gaza, but also to join and intensify the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel to end its impunity and to hold it accountable for its persistent violation of international law and Palestinian rights." Likewise, Ali Abunimah writes: "what will happen after the demonstrations disperse and the anger dies down? Will we continue to let Palestinians in Gaza die in silence? Palestinians everywhere are asking for solidarity, real solidarity, in the form of sustained, determined political action. The Gaza-based One Democratic State Group reaffirmed this today as it 'called upon all civil society organizations and freedom loving people to act immediately in any possible way to put pressure on their governments to end diplomatic ties with Apartheid Israel and institute sanctions against it.' The global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement for Palestine provides the framework for this. Now is the time to channel our raw emotions into a long-term commitment to make sure we do not wake up to 'another Gaza' ever again."

People in southeast Michigan will have a special opportunity to heed this call on February 14-15 when the Batsheva Dance Company of Tel Aviv comes to Ann Arbor, courtesy of the University Musical Society. Now is the time to begin building opposition to the Batsheva Dance Company's performances as part of a sustained BDS campaign. A recipient of public financing since the 1990s, the Batsheva Dance Company is clearly an Israeli apartheid cultural institution that includes Israeli soldiers in its ranks. Writing October 26, 2008, in The Independent of London, Jenny Gilbert reports that the dance company is "funded by Israel's government, its performers include none of Arab extraction, and it is 'proud to be considered Israel's leading ambassador.'" For more information on the Batsheva Dance Company, please see "Organize to stop apartheid dance troupe's North America tour" in The Electronic Intifada

Batsheva Dance Company Boycott Organizing Meeting
When: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Where: Memorial Christian Church, 730 Tappan Ave (at Hill), Ann Arbor
What: This is a special meeting sponsored by the Middle East Task Force of Ann Arbor and the Detroit/Ann Arbor Friends of Sabeel -- North America. The purpose of the meeting is see if and how the various Palestinian solidarity groups in Ann Arbor and southeast Michigan can work together to respond to the scheduled performance by the Batsheva Dance Company of Tel Aviv on the University of Michigan's Ann Arbor campus. This meeting is only for people who support the 2004 Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel and the 2005 Palestinian Call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel.

No More Gazas, Time for a Long-term Commitment

2008-12-28T01:34:00.003-08:00

***PLEASE FORWARD***

From the concluding paragraph of the article below: "Now, more than ever, the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee, BNC, calls upon international civil society not just to protest and condemn in diverse forms Israel's massacre in Gaza, but also to join and intensify the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions ( BDS) campaign against Israel to end its impunity and to hold it accountable for its persistent violation of international law and Palestinian rights" [emphasis added].

Ali Abunimah writing in "Gaza massacres must spur us to action" on The Electronic Intifada, says:

On top of the intense anger and sadness so many people feel at Israel's renewed mass killings in Gaza is a sense of frustration that there seem to be so few ways to channel it into a political response that can change the course of events, end the suffering, and bring justice.

But there are ways, and this is a moment to focus on them. Already I have received notices of demonstrations and solidarity actions being planned in cities all over the world. That is important. But what will happen after the demonstrations disperse and the anger dies down? Will we continue to let Palestinians in Gaza die in silence?

Palestinians everywhere are asking for solidarity, real solidarity, in the form of sustained, determined political action. The Gaza-based One Democratic State Group reaffirmed this today as it "called upon all civil society organizations and freedom loving people to act immediately in any possible way to put pressure on their governments to end diplomatic ties with Apartheid Israel and institute sanctions against it."

The global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement for Palestine (http://www.bdsmovement.net/) provides the framework for this. Now is the time to channel our raw emotions into a long-term commitment to make sure we do not wake up to "another Gaza" ever again [emphasis added].

People of conscience all across North America will have a special opportunity to heed this call in January when the Batsheva Dance Company of Tel Aviv begin its tour of the US and Canada. A recipient of public financing since the 1990s, the dance troupe is clearly an Israeli apartheid cultural institution. Writing October 26, 2008, in The Independent of London, Jenny Gilbert reports that the dance company is "funded by Israel's government, its performers include none of Arab extraction, and it is 'proud to be considered Israel's leading ambassador.'" The Batsheva Dance Company is currently scheduled to perform in Houston, TX; Purchase, NY; Princeton, NJ; Philadelphia, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Chicago, IL; Columbus, OH; Ottawa, ON; Ann Arbor, MI; Minneapolis, MN; Vancouver, BC; Santa Barbara, CA; San Diego, CA; Los Angeles, CA; and New York, NY. Let's begin planning now; let's make that "long-term commitment to make sure we do not wake up to 'another Gaza.' " For more information on the Batsheva Dance Company, see "Organize to stop apartheid dance troupe's North America tour" in the Electronic Intifada.

.
http://www.bdsmovement.net/?q=node/235

"Stop the Massacre in Gaza – Boycott Israel Now!"

Posted on Sat, 12/27/2008 - 19:48

Occupied Ramallah, Palestine - 27 December 2008: Today, the Israeli occupation army committed a new massacre in Gaza, causing the death and injury of hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including a yet unknown number of school children who were headed home from school when the first Israeli military strikes started. This latest bloodbath, although far more ruthless than all its predecessors, is not Israel 's first. It culminates months of an Israeli siege of Gaza that should be widely condemned and prosecuted as an act of genocide against the 1.5 million Palestinians in the occupied coastal strip.

Israel seems intent to mark the end of its 60th year of existence the same way it has established itself – perpetrating massacres against the Palestinian people. In 1948, the majority of the indigenous Palestinian people were ethnically cleansed from their homes and land, partly through massacres like Deir Yassin; today, the Palestinians in Gaza, most of whom are refugees, do not even have the choice to seek refuge elsewhere. Incarcerated behind ghetto walls and brought to the brink of starvation by the siege, they are easy targets for Israel's indiscriminate bombing.

Prof. Richard Falk, the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and international law expert at Princeton University, described Israel 's siege of Gaza last year, when it was still not comparable in its severity to the current situation, as follows:

"Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not. The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty. The suggestion that this pattern of conduct is a holocaust-in-the-making represents a rather desperate appeal to the governments of the world and to international public opinion to act urgently to prevent these current genocidal tendencies from culminating in a collective tragedy."

The most brutal episode of this "collective tragedy" is what we have seen today.

Israel's war crimes and other grave violations of international law in Gaza as well as in the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem , could not have been perpetrated without the direct or indirect complicity of world governments, particularly the United States, the European Union, Egypt, and other Arab regimes.

While the US government has consistently sponsored, bankrolled and protected from international censure Israel's apartheid and colonial policies against the indigenous people of Palestine, the EU was able in the past to advocate a semblance of respect for international law and universal human rights. That distinction effectively ended on December 9th, when the EU Council decided unanimously to reward Israel's criminal disregard of international law by upgrading the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Israel clearly understood from this decision that the EU condones its actions against the Palestinians under its occupation. Palestinian civil society also got the message: the EU governments have become no less complicit in Israel's war crimes than their US counterpart.

The large majority of world governments, particularly in the global south, share part of the blame, as well. By continuing business as usual with Israel, in trade agreements, arms deals, academic and cultural ties, diplomatic openings, they have provided the necessary background for the complicity of world powers and, consequentially, for Israel's impunity. Furthermore, their inaction within the United Nations is inexcusable.

Father Miguel D'Escoto Brockman, President of the UN General Assembly prescribed in a recent address before the Assembly the only moral way forward for the world's nations in dealing with Israel:

"More than twenty years ago we in the United Nations took the lead from civil society when we agreed that sanctions were required to provide a nonviolent means of pressuring South Africa to end its violations. Today, perhaps we in the United Nations should consider following the lead of a new generation of civil society, who are calling for a similar non-violent campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions to pressure Israel to end its violations."

Now, more than ever, the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee, BNC, calls upon international civil society not just to protest and condemn in diverse forms Israel's massacre in Gaza, but also to join and intensify the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions ( BDS) campaign against Israel to end its impunity and to hold it accountable for its persistent violation of international law and Palestinian rights. Without sustained, effective pressure by people of conscience the world over, Israel will continue with its gradual, rolling acts of genocide against the Palestinians, burying any prospects for a just peace under the blood and rubble of Gaza, Nablus and Jerusalem.

* The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) includes: Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine; General Union of Palestinian Workers; Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions; Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations' Network (PNGO); Federation of Independent Trade Unions; Union of Palestinian Charitable Organizations; Global Palestine Right of Return Coalition; Occupied Palestine and Golan Heights Advocacy Initiative (OPGAI); General Union of Palestinian Women; Palestinian Farmers Union (PFU); Grassroots Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign ( STW); Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI); National Committee to Commemorate the Nakba; Civic Coalition for the Defense of Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem (CCDPRJ); Coalition for Jerusalem; and Palestinian Economic Monitor.

Happy Hanukkah

2008-12-22T23:44:00.005-08:00

Sunday night was the beginning of Hanukkah. The cartoon below has much to commend it. It comes from a 2007 post to Jewcy.com. Click on the image to enlarge it. Below that is an older image from Ben Heine.

See also:

Quotable: How Jewish is Hollywood?

2008-12-22T23:14:00.009-08:00

Here are a few excerpts from Joel Stein's recent article in the Los Angeles Times, "How Jewish is Hollywood?":

I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.

How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.

The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents [and brother of Rahm Emanuel]) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.) ...

As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you'd be flipping between "The 700 Club" and "Davey and Goliath" on TV all day.

So I've taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that's what we do best. I'm weighing several slogans, including: "Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!"; "Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible"; and "Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all." ...

"That's a very dangerous phrase, 'Jews control Hollywood.' What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood," he said. Instead of "control," Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry "happen to be Jewish," as in "all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish."

But Foxman said he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews. "I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They're disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well," he said. He argues that this does not mean that Jews make pro-Jewish movies any more than they do pro-Jewish surgery. Though other countries, I've noticed, aren't so big on circumcision.

I appreciate Foxman's concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.

Quotable: Israel "a racist, apartheid state"

2008-12-22T02:01:00.001-08:00

In anticipation of UN's Durban Review Conference in Geneva on 20 – 24 April 2009, the Palestinian BDS National Committee has issued a "strategic position paper as a basis for anti-racist intervention at and beyond the UN Durban Review Conference." In honor of that effort, I reprint below some excerpts from the NGO Forum Declaration of the Durban conference.

1. We, the representatives of local, national and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other civil society groups from around the world gathered in Durban/South Africa during the week of 28 August - 3 September 2001 for the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR), guided by our commitment in the struggle against racism and racial discrimination and inspired by the recommendations of the NGO Forums held in Strasbourg/France, Santiago de Chile/Chile, Dakar/Senegal and Tehran/Iran and the related sub-regional NGO meetings held in Warsaw/Poland, Kathmandu/Nepal, Cairo/Egypt and Quito/Ecuador, in preparation for the World Conference, hereby make the following Declaration: ...

162. We declare Israel as a racist, apartheid state in which Israel's brand of apartheid as a crime against humanity has been characterized by separation and segregation, dispossession, restricted land access, denationalization, "bantustanization" and inhumane acts. ...

419. Also call for the reinstitution of UN resolution 3379 determining the practices of Zionism as racist practices which propagate the racial domination of one group over another through the implementation of all measures designed to drive out other indigenous groups, including through colonial expansionism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, including Jerusalem), and through the application of discriminatory laws of return and citizenship, to obliterate their national identity and to maintain the exclusive nature of the State of Israel as a Jewish state to the exclusion of all other groups.

Source: United Nations World Conference Against Racism NGO Forum Declaration, Durban, South Africa, 2001.

See also: "Excerpts from the WCAR NGO FORUM DECLARATION on Palestinians and Palestinian Refugees"

UM Prof. Yaron Eliav & Sexual Slavery in Israel

2008-12-13T22:27:00.010-08:00

On Friday, the Ann Arbor News ran a prostitution story with a twist or two. First, the prostitute was a student at the University of Michigan Law School who came to police after her customer allegedly physically assaulted her. As the News reports, "The student told police she reluctantly agreed to allow Eliav to strike her buttocks with a belt, but got upset when he slapped her in the face twice, reports said. She said she suffered vision problems afterward, but did not have any lasting injuries."

The "John" was Yaron Z. Eliav (pictured at right), Associate Professor in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan, specifically, Eliav is the Jean and Samuel Frankel Associate Professor of Rabbinic Literature & Jewish History of Late Antiquity. For his part, Eliav "admitted to slapping her face, but said it was 'like a game.' "

The Ann Arbor police have also taken a playful attitude toward the assault allegation with Ann Arbor Detective Sgt. Richard Kinsey saying, "Perhaps she should have cracked a legal textbook before coming in to the police station to talk about this." I guess the police's attitude is if you engage in prostitution then don't expect any help if your John hurts you.

The unnamed victim, like her assailant, was charged with "using a computer to commit a crime"--a misdemeanor. Charging the victim and ignoring her assault is the exactly the wrong thing to do to someone who has already been victimized by prostitution, which in progressive countries is regarded as a form of exploitation and violence against the prostitute. In Sweden, prostitution has been greatly reduced by a) criminalizing the buying of sex, b) decriminalizing the selling of sex, and c) providing ample and comprehensive social services for "any prostitute who wants to get out, and additional funds to educate the public."

This story was brought to my attention by someone who identified Eliav as an Israeli and judging from his c.v. there seems little doubt about that. At a minimum, he's lived in the Jewish state for several years. This got me thinking about sexual mores and practices in Israel--the "blight unto the nations" backed by the full diplomatic, military, and financial force of the United States.

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness. -Leviticus 25:44-46.

The Halakhah [Judaic law] presumes all Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous ... Whether a Gentile woman is married or not makes no difference, since as far as Jews are concerned the very concept of matrimony does not apply to Gentiles ... Therefore, the concept of adultery also does not apply to intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman; rather, the Talmud equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality. ...

This does not imply that sexual intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman is permitted - quite the contrary. But the main punishment is inflicted on the Gentile woman; she must be executed, even if she was raped by the Jew '... because through her a Jew got into trouble' ... and all Gentile women are presumed to be prostitutes. -Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years.

The 2008 US State Department "Trafficking in Persons Report" (p. 146) shows Israel has never been a "Tier 1" state in the seven years that the US has been monitoring human trafficking (Tier 1 countries are those "whose governments fully comply with the [US] Trafficking Victims Protection Act's minimum standards").

Here's an outtake from the 2006 report, as you read the figures bear in mind that Israel has a total population of about 7.1 million:

Israel is a destination country for low-skilled workers from the P.R.C., Romania, Jordan, Turkey, Thailand, the Philippines, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and India who migrate voluntarily for contract labor in the construction, agriculture and health care industries. Some are subsequently subjected to conditions of involuntary servitude. Many labor recruitment agencies in source countries and in Israel require workers to pay up-front fees ranging from $1,000-10,000 – a practice that often leads to debt bondage and makes these workers highly vulnerable to forced labor once in Israel. Israel is also a destination country for women trafficked from Eastern Europe – primarily Ukraine, Moldova, Uzbekistan, Belarus, and Russia – for the purpose of sexual exploitation. NGOs estimate that in 2005 between 1,000-3,000 women were trafficked into Israel for sexual servitude and 16,000-20,000 foreign workers faced involuntary servitude, though NGOs do not provide evidence to support their claim.

The Government of Israel does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; however, it is making significant efforts to do so. Israel is placed on Tier 2 Watch List for its failure to provide evidence of increasing efforts to address trafficking, namely the conditions of involuntary servitude allegedly facing thousands of foreign migrant workers. The government did not pass a much-needed law criminalizing all forms of trafficking, including labor trafficking, drafted in 2003, though it took more steps than in previous years to criminally investigate and prosecute employers allegedly keeping foreign workers in conditions of involuntary servitude.

Did you notice the contradiction at the beginning of the second paragraph? Here it is again with key portions in bold: "The Government of Israel does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; however, it is making significant efforts to do so. Israel is placed on Tier 2 Watch List for its failure to provide evidence of increasing efforts to address trafficking ..."The Tier 2 Watch List is the second lowest category and placed Israel on a par with countries such as Brazil, Cambodia, Egypt, Kenya, Kuwait, and Russia. Oh, and "involuntary servitude" and "forced labor"--those are just fancy ways of saying slavery without coming right out and saying it.

By the 2008 report not that much had changed although Israel did finally pass a law after the 2006 report outlawing all forms of human trafficking. Here's an excerpt from the 2008 report:

... NGOs note an increase in the internal trafficking of Israeli women for commercial sexual exploitation, and report new instances of trafficking of Israeli women abroad to Canada, Ireland, and England. African asylum seekers entering Israel illegally are also vulnerable to trafficking for forced labor or prostitution.

The Government of Israel does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking ... though the government prepared some indictments for forced labor, it did not criminally prosecute or convict any employer or recruitment agent for labor trafficking.

According to the report, "This year, the government convicted 38 individuals for sex trafficking ..." Bear in mind that thousands of women are victims of sex trafficking in Israel every year.

Now, that we've looked at parts of official reports prepared under the watchful eye of State Dept.'s very own 'anti-Semitism' thought police let's look at a few other accounts of trafficking in the Jewish state. In 2006, the Jewish Tribune of Montreal quoted Victor Malarek, author of the 2003 book The Natashas: Inside the New Global Sex Trade: "Newspaper ads from modelling and employment agencies promise exciting jobs, but the women are duped. They must submit, or they are raped, beaten and tortured. There are between 5,000 and 10,000 trafficked women in Israel and more than 280 brothels in Tel Aviv alone" (metro Tel Aviv has a population of 3.1 million).

In his book, Malarek quotes Leah Gruenpeter-Gold: "Israeli men have simply grown used to the idea that women can be bought. Both married and single men no longer want to work at relationships. For them it is easier to purchase sex when they want it." In the same interview, he spoke with Nissan Ben-Ami, who describes how young Israeli men flock to brothels on Rosh Hashanah and how "the haredim (orthodox Jews) ... crowd the Tel Aviv brothels on Friday mornings and afternoons for a pre-Shabbat tumble." He continues that the haredim consider masturbation to be a sin and they won't use condoms and so they end up paying the pimps more money and "sacrific[ing] these women." To which Gruenpeter-Gold adds, "Because these women are not human beings. They are foreign women. The religious prefer it to be with foreign women because then they don't wrong Jewish women" (emphasis added).

In 2005, Ynet, the online version of the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, reported:

Thousands of women are being smuggled into Israel, creating a booming sex trade industry that rakes more than USD one billion a year, a parliamentary committee said on Wednesday.

The Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, headed by Knesset member Zehava Galon of the left-wing Yahad party, commissioned the report in an effort to combat the sex trade in Israel. Findings showed that some 3,000 and 5,000 women are smuggled to Israel annually and sold into the prostitution industry, where they are constantly subjected to violence and abuse.

The report, issued annually, said some 10,000 such women currently reside in about 300 to 400 brothels throughout the country.

A 2007 BBC report illuminated the personal price that the victims pay:

Marina rarely leaves her two-room home in northern Israel these days.

She is in hiding - wanted by the Israeli authorities for being an illegal immigrant, and by the criminal gangs who brought her here to sell her into prostitution.

Marina - not her real name - was lured to Israel by human traffickers. ...

"When I was in the Ukraine, I had a difficult life," said Marina, who came to Israel in 1999 at the age of 33 after answering a newspaper advertisement offering the opportunity to study abroad.

"I was taken to an apartment in Ashkelon, and other women there told me I was now in prostitution. I became hysterical, but a guy starting hitting me and then others there raped me.

"I was then taken to a place where they sold me - just sold me!" she said, recalling how she was locked in a windowless basement for a month, drank water from a toilet and was deprived of food. ...

Prostitution in Israel is legal, but pimping and maintaining a brothel are not.

The law however is not widely enforced and few brothels are closed down.

In Tel Aviv's Neve Shaanan district for instance, just a short walk from the city's five-star tourist hotels, brothels masquerading as massage parlours, saunas and even internet cafes, fill the side streets.

One such place even operates opposite the local police station.

There are bars on windows and heavily-built men guard the doors, which are only opened to let customers in and out.

Inside, groups of sullen-looking women sit in dimly-lit rooms, waiting for their next client.

Foreign women fetch the highest prices, with trafficked women forced to work up to 18 hours a day. ...

Campaigners say things began to change for the better in 2004, when the government opened a shelter in north Tel Aviv for women who had been trafficked for sex.

It marked a change in the way the state perceived them - as victims of a crime rather than accomplices.

There are some 30 women at the Maggan shelter - most from former Soviet states, but also five from China.

For years, Israel treated trafficked women as criminals "When they come here they are in a bad condition," said Rinat Davidovich, the shelter's director.

"Most have sexual diseases and some have hepatitis and even tuberculosis. They also have problems going to sleep because they remember what used to happen to them at night," she said. ...

Barack Obama: The First Jewish President?

2008-12-12T22:30:00.000-08:00

This article was archived on 2/13/09 after it was removed from the Chicago Tribune web site.

Barack Obama: The First Jewish President?
Chicago circle nurtured him all the way to the top

by Tom Hundley
The Chicago Tribune
December 12, 2008

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-jews-wrapdec12,0,1483597.story

Writer Toni Morrison famously dubbed Bill Clinton "the first black president"—a title he fervently embraced.

Abner Mikva, the Chicago Democratic Party stalwart and former Clinton White House counsel, offers a variation on that theme. "If Clinton was our first black president, then Barack Obama is our first Jewish president," says Mikva, who was among the first to spot the potential of the skinny young law school graduate with the odd name.

"I use a Yiddish expression, yiddishe neshuma, to describe him," explains Mikva. "It means a Jewish soul. It's an expression my mother used. It means a sensitive, sympathetic personality, someone who understands where you are coming from."

Obama, of course, is a Christian. And his middle name is Hussein. In the presidential election, he won 78 percent of the Jewish vote and about 70 percent of the Arab-American vote, according to unofficial exit polling. Obama collected 52.8 percent of the overall vote.

Putting aside which of the three great Abrahamic religions can lay claim to Obama's soul, it is clear that his political career, from its South Side inception to the audacious run for the White House, was nurtured and enabled by a close-knit network of Chicago Jews.

Mikva and his friend Newton Minow, the former Federal Communications Commission chairman and Kennedy-era New Frontiersman, were there at the beginning. Minow first heard about Obama in 1988 from his daughter Martha, a professor at Harvard, where Obama was studying law. Minow, senior counsel at Sidley Austin, offered him an internship and later a permanent job at the white-shoe firm, but Obama declined, saying he was planning to go into politics.

When Obama graduated, Mikva, then a U.S. appeals court judge in Washington, tried to lure him with a prestigious clerkship, but Obama turned him down too. That, according to Mikva, took some chutzpah.

Both Mikva and Minow say they sensed back then that Obama was something special. They made a point of staying in touch.

Obama's circle of Jewish patrons and advisers widened further in 1992 when he became involved in a voter registration drive that brought him into contact with Bettylu Saltzman, a liberal activist (and daughter of the late Philip Klutznick, a former commerce secretary and shopping mall developer). Saltzman says she knew from the moment she met Obama that he would someday be president. She introduced him to David Axelrod, who saw something similar.

Axelrod designed the strategy in which Obama first won the backing of white liberals and then reached out to blacks. Jews made up a significant number of the first constituency.

"As Jews got to know him, they recognized a kindred spirit, not someone who came down from Mars," Mikva said.

Rabbi Arnold Wolf, of KAM Isaiah Israel synagogue across the street from Obama's Chicago home, was another early backer. Like Mikva, he sees what he called Obama's "Jewish side."

"Obama is from nowhere and everywhere—just like the Jews. He's black, he's white, he's American, he's Asian, he's African—and so are we," Wolf said.

Certainly, Obama is comfortable with Jews, especially Jews from Chicago. Axelrod will remain at his side as senior adviser, and Rep. Rahm Emanuel will be White House chief of staff. Billionaire Penny Pritzker, who has known Obama since the mid-1990s and served as his campaign finance chairwoman, was said to be under consideration for commerce secretary until she took herself out of the running.

But Jews haven't always been comfortable with him. The once-solid alliance between Jews and blacks that was forged during the civil rights movement has frayed in recent years. During the primary campaign Sen. Hillary Clinton was far more popular among Jewish voters, many of whom were worried about Obama's close friendships with influential Palestinian thinkers, including his former Hyde Park neighbor Rashid Khalidi, now at Columbia University.

Mikva and Minow recall trying to help candidate Obama reassure skeptical Jewish audiences that he would be a genuine friend to Israel.

"He was frustrated," Mikva said. "And I remember I told him that it wouldn't matter if your name was Chaim Weizmann [first president of Israel], there are some Jews who won't vote for you no matter what you say because they are Republicans."

Obama jokingly asked if it would make a difference if he called himself Baruch Obama, noting that the Swahili name Barack and the Hebrew Baruch derive from the same linguistic root. Both mean "blessing."

Throughout the presidential campaign, Obama did and said what was necessary to court the Jewish vote. In March he made the pilgrimage to AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying organization. There he pledged unwavering commitment to Israel's security. In July he traveled to Israel and was photographed with Israeli leaders.

Even without the Jewish vote, Obama would have carried New York, California and Illinois, three key states with large Jewish populations. Florida was a different story.

The battleground state had cost Al Gore the 2000 election and was carried again by President George W. Bush in 2004. Florida's Jewish population tends to be older and more conservative. Florida's Jews also were the target audience for an Internet smear campaign that portrayed Obama as a secret Muslim with ties to terrorists.

The Obama campaign spent heavily in Florida. It also got a boost from comedian Sarah Silverman, who organized The Great Schlep, a tongue-in-cheek Internet campaign to get young Jews to visit Florida and persuade their grandparents to vote for Obama.

Obama won Florida. Exit polls suggest the Jewish vote there was in line with the Jewish vote elsewhere.

Having gained the trust of mainstream American Jews, one question now is whether Obama will be the president to finally deliver a decent settlement for the Israelis and Palestinians.

"I think he's going to try. We've had presidents whose hearts were in the right place—Clinton and Carter," Mikva said. "But Barack Obama really has a way of bringing people together."

James Zogby, director of the Arab American Institute, a Washington lobby, said Arab-Americans also were optimistic that Obama was uniquely positioned to achieve a breakthrough.

"He gets it. He really gets it," Zogby said of Obama's understanding of the core issues. "He believes in reconciling diverse communities."

The Amman Call

2008-12-06T21:18:00.000-08:00

The Amman Call

issued at WCC International Peace Conference "Churches together for Peace and Justice in the Middle East"

Amman, Jordan, 18-20 June 2007

Amman imperatives:

1. Almost sixty years have passed since the Christian churches first spoke with one voice about Arab-Israeli peace. For the last forty years the Christian churches have called for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. In the very place where Jesus Christ walked upon the earth, walls now separate families and the children of God - Christian, Muslim and Jew -- are imprisoned in a deepening cycle of violence, humiliation and despair. The Palestinian Christians from Gaza to Jerusalem and to Nazareth, have called out to their brothers and sisters in Christ with this urgent plea: "Enough is enough. No more words without deeds. It is time for action."

2. We welcome the timely and prophetic statement of the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem. We affirm that "the Churches are part of the conflict, because the Churches cannot remain silent while there is still suffering. The role of the Churches is to heal and to bring all sides to reconciliation." Our belief in God reminds us "that all God's children of all religions and political parties are to be respected." We assure the Churches of Palestine and Israel of our prayers, collaboration and resources.

3. Thus, in Amman, Jordan 18-20 June 2007, days that have witnessed a deepening of the crisis in the occupied Palestinian territories,and also includes the United Nations World Refugee Day, we representatives of Christian churches and church-related organizations from every corner of the earth, affirm the decision of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches and launch the "Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum" as an instrument to "catalyze and co-ordinate new and existing church advocacy for peace, aimed at ending the illegal occupation in accordance with UN resolutions, and demonstrate its commitment to inter-religious action for peace and justice that serves all the peoples of the region."

4. This action has been taken in response to three fundamental imperatives that call us to action:

The ethical and theological imperative for a Just Peace
The ecumenical imperative for unity in action
The Gospel imperative for costly solidarity

5. The premises of this action are the following:

5.1. That UN resolutions are the basis for peace and the Geneva conventions are applicable to the rights and responsibilities of the affected people.

5.2. That Palestinians have the right of self-determination and the right of return.

5.3. That a two-state solution must be viable politically, geographically economically and socially.

5.4 That Jerusalem must be an open, accessible, inclusive and shared city for the two peoples and three religions.

5.5 That both Palestine and Israel have legitimate security needs.

5.6. That the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal, and constitute an obstacle to peace.

5.7. That the "Separation Barrier" constructed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories is a grave breach of international law and must be removed from the occupied territory.

5.8. That there is no military solution for this conflict. Violence in all its forms cannot be justified whether perpetrated by Israelis or Palestinians.

5.9. That comprehensive regional peace is indivisible from a just peace in Israel and Palestine.

5.10. That the life and witness of local churches is at the center of worldwide church advocacy for a just peace.

6. We understand the mandate of the Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum to be a space where we will develop comprehensive strategic approaches to the two processes of peace making and peace building. An inclusive core group convened urgently by the WCC should be mandated to facilitate this and also ensure improved coordination between all actors. The core group will be informed by the reports of the working groups of the Amman conference, and that its composition and mechanism be designed and announced by the WCC.

7. Peace building will include the following:

7.1. Furthering theological and biblical perspectives and Christian education resources around those issues central to the conflict.

7.2. Developing strategies that will support the processes of justice and reconciliation, including inter-religious dialogue and cooperation.

7.3. Strengthening the churches' responses to the occupation.

7.4. Recognizing, encouraging and cooperating with all efforts of Israeli and Palestinian civil society that are in accord with the vision and goals of the PIEF.

8. Peace making will include the following:

8.1. Defining and promoting measures, including economic ones, that could help end the occupation and enhance sustainable growth and development.

8.2. Strengthening existing efforts and identifying new models of church solidarity in action. Supporting local churches and church related organizations not only to survive and continue their powerful ministries, including educational, health, cultural and social services, but also to thrive and be witnesses of hope.

8.3. Developing a long-term advocacy strategy in order to mobilize all of our constituencies and influence change.

Amman challenges:

9. We have heard the voices of the Christian churches of Palestine and Israel challenging and saying to us:

9.1. Act with us to liberate all peoples of this land from the logic of hatred, mutual rejection and death, so that they see in the other the face and dignity of God.

9.2. Pray with us in our efforts to resist evil in all of its guises.

9.3. Raise your voices along with ours as we speak "truth to power" and name with courage the injustices we see and experience. The illegal occupation has stolen two generations of lives in this tortured place, and threatens the next with hopelessness and rage.

9.4. Risk the curses and abuse that will be aimed at you and stand in solidarity with us and with our Palestinian brothers and sisters of all faiths as we defiantly reject the possibility that occupation will continue.

9.5. Help us to tear down walls and build and rebuild bridges among all peoples in the region. Extremism on all sides produces chaos. It threatens to divide us and to destroy bridges among peoples that would lead to reconciliation and peace.

9.6. Add your hope to ours in the knowledge that evil and despair have been overcome through the death of our Lord on the Cross and through His Resurrection.

9.7. Insist with us that all dispossessed peoples, all refugees, have the right to return.

9.8. Partner with us as we seek peace and pursue it. Peace is possible. Christians and Muslims and Jews have, can and will understand one another and live together as neighbors.

10. And we representatives of Christian churches and church-related organizations from every corner of the earth, we respond:

11. Yes, we will. Together we will act and pray and speak and work and risk reputations and lives to build with you bridges for an enduring peace among the peoples of this tortured and beautiful place –Palestine and Israel– to end these decades of injustice, humiliation and insecurity, to end the decades of living as refugees and under occupation. We will work with you to seek peace and pursue it. We have allowed too much time to pass. Time has not served the cause of peace but has served the cause of extremism. This is our urgent cause that cannot wait.

Shahak on Lying About Judaism

2008-12-01T19:12:00.000-08:00

I was perusing Reading the Torah Out Loud: A Journey of Lament and Hope by Marc H. Ellis when I found an interesting quote from the late great Israel Shahak's book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years. I have highlighted the portions that Ellis uses in bold below in a much larger excerpt from Shahak's book. I would draw particular attention to the last paragraph:

Nor was [Martin] Buber alone in his attitude, although in my opinion he was by far the worst in the evil he propagated and the influence he has left behind him. There was the very influential sociologist and biblical scholar, Yehezkiel Kaufman, an advocate of genocide on the model of the Book of Joshua, the idealist philosopher Hugo Shmuel Bergman, who as far back as 1914-15 advocated the expulsion of all Palestinians to Iraq, and many others. All were outwardly 'dovish', but employed formulas which could be manipulated in the most extreme anti-Arab sense, all had tendencies to that religious mysticism which encourages the propagation of deceptions, and all seemed to be gentle persons who, even when advocating expulsion, racism and genocide, seemed incapable of hurting a fly – and just for this reason the effect of their deceptions was the greater.

It is against the glorification of inhumanity, proclaimed not only by the rabbis but by those who are supposed to be the greatest and certainly the most influential scholars of Judaism, that we have to struggle; and it is against those modern successors of the false prophets and dishonest priests that we have to repeat even in the face of an almost unanimous opinion within Israel and among the majority of Jews in countries such as the USA, Lucretius' warning against surrendering one's judgement to the declamations of religious leaders: Tantuii: religio potuit suadere malorum – 'To such heights of evil are men driven by religion.' Religion is not always (as Marx said) the opium of the people, but it can often be so, and when it is used in this sense by prevaricating and misrepresenting its true nature, the scholars and intellectuals who perform this task take on the character of opium smugglers.

But we can derive from this analysis another, more general conclusion about the most effective and horrific means of compulsion to do evil, to cheat and to deceive and, while keeping one's hands quite clean of violence, to corrupt whole peoples and drive them to oppression and murder. (For there can no longer be any doubt that the most horrifying acts of oppression in the West Bank are motivated by Jewish religious fanaticism.) Most people seem to assume that the worst totalitarianism employs physical coercion, and would refer to the imagery of Orwell's 1984 for a model illustrating such a regime. But it seems to me that this common view is greatly mistaken, and that the intuition of Isaac Asimov, in whose science fiction the worst oppression is always internalized, is the more true to the dangers of human nature. Unlike Stalin's tame scholars, the rabbis – and even more so the scholars attacked here, and with them the whole mob of equally silent middlebrows such as writers, journalists, public figures, who lie and deceive more than them – are not facing the danger of death or concentration camp, but only social pressure; they lie out of patriotism because they believe that it is their duty to lie for what they conceive to be the Jewish interest. They are patriotic liars, and it is the same patriotism which reduces them to silence when confronted with the discrimination and oppression of the Palestinians.

In the present case we are also faced with another group loyalty, but one which comes from outside the group, and which is sometimes even more mischievous. Very many non-Jews (including Christian clergy and religious laymen, as well as some marxists from all marxist groups) hold the curious opinion that one way to 'atone' for the persecution of Jews is not to speak out against evil perpetrated by Jews but to participate in 'white lies' about them. The crude accusation of 'antisemitism' (or, in the case of Jews, 'self-hate') against anybody who protests at the discrimination of Palestinians or who points out any fact about the Jewish religion or the Jewish past which conflicts with the 'approved version' comes with greater hostility and force from non-Jewish 'friends of the Jews' than from Jews. It is the existence and great influence of this group in all western countries, and particularly in the USA (as well as the other English-speaking countries) which has allowed the rabbis and scholars of Judaism to propagate their lies not only without opposition but with considerable help.

Nadia Lays It On The Line

2008-11-30T18:05:00.004-08:00

In a recent post entitled "anti racist blogging," Nadia at no snow here writes, in part:

but i guess one thing that is important to point to (and a thing that was and continues to be a source of confusion for many young arabs coming up) is that larger u.s. people of color culture doesn't include arabs, and often actively excludes us. i thought, maybe this was because of how the u.s. census categoriezes us, maybe because so many of us have sadly assimilated into whiteness, or maybe because of ways arabs are positioned as rich in media outlets, i don’t know. it seems like a total disconnect to me that one could watch a movie with a brown, bearded "foreign" man speaking a different language and holding white people hostage and regard that person (and his u.s. counterparts) as white. but after two years in the "anti racist" blogosphere i figured out that it is not that we are too "white" for u.s. people of color, but that we are just too fucking outlaw and a lot of ya'll can’t handle it because
our issues are too dangerous; you want safety. and after all i have experienced i’ve truly come to believe this. you’re more concerned with "anti-semitism on the left" than the reality of war (war is torture, rape, murder and desctruction)–there are wars going on, people are dying, but ya'll are more concerned about white people's feelings than about the actual systematic physical destruction of the people we love in other countries AND the systematic institutionalized racism we face. fuck you.

Just about a year and half ago Nadia wrote:

Last week I stumbled upon a great zine entitled “The Past Didn’t Go Anywhere: Making Resistance To Antisemitism Part of All of Our Movements” (via Josh Russell). It is available for download in both digital and printout formats (I recommend reading it before reading the rest of this post.) This is a must read for EVERYONE. The writers of the pamphlet did a great job breaking down so many issues in a clear, concise and engaging way. They went into the history of Jews in Europe, the history of antisemitism, antisemitism on the left ...

I hope Nadia's post signifies a new willingness to call bullshit on the "anti-Semitism on the Left" racket. After all, the Anti-Semitism Industry is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Holocaust Industry or vice versa--I always forget which.

Any way, people of color are generally subject to the same racist media garbage about Arabs and Muslims that White folks get and if I've learned anything it's that being oppressed is no inoculation against being an oppressor. The "anti-Semitism on the Left" racket is about ensuring that critiques of racism and other forms of oppression don't get turned against Zionism and Jewish supremacism.

Nadia didn't seem very receptive when I ripped the "great zine" in "Rosenblum's Myths of 'Anti-Semitism'--Part 1." She said I was "way off base." I hope she's willing to reconsider that and the extent to which she has also bought into the "anti-Semitism on the Left" racket. We'll see.

Jewish Kids with Guns (pt. 2)

2008-11-28T20:57:00.002-08:00

The photo below comes from "Kristallnacht in Hebron" in a recent edition of Al-Ahram Weekly.

See also:

Siege of Gaza Protested in Ann Arbor

2008-11-28T19:57:00.003-08:00

Today, in Ann Arbor, ten people challenged indifference and defeatism to protest against the US-backed siege of 1.5 million people in the Gaza Strip by Egypt and Israel. Signs protesting the policy of starvation and US aid to Israel were held for two hours at a busy downtown intersection while shoppers streamed past on a clear, if brisk, day.

175 people accepted leaflets. Some to the following rap:

US tax dollars are paying to starve children in Gaza.
Please help them.
End the siege of Gaza.

The leaflets explained the situation in Gaza and had suggestions on how to help end it. There were honks, waves, and shouts of support. Others thanked us for what we were doing.

A small handful of people apparently thought the holiday yesterday was Halloween because they said monstrous things such as "I hope more children starve in Gaza." Some indicated the illegal, murderous siege of Gaza was justified because five Jews had been killed in Mumbai, India (and, oh, some other people died, too--about 150 but we know who really matters). Pretty scary stuff. Pretending to be demons or televangelists, a couple just told us to go to hell.

Mark your calendars for Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends upcoming annual protest outside the Ypsilanti Marriott at Eagle Crest on December 11. The local propaganda and fund-raising arm of the Zionist terrorism network, the Jewish Federation of Washtenaw County, is bringing in NPR and Fox media personality Mara Liasson for their Main Event 2008. Remember, it's never too late to challenge indifference and defeatism.