Zionists Out of the Peace Movement

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.


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 elsewhere 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

Labels: Beth Israel, David Shtulman, Henry Herskovitz, Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends, Zionism

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.

Labels: anti-Zionism, boycott, critical thinking, David Shtulman, holocaust, University of Michigan

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

Labels: critical thinking, David Shtulman, hasbara, Islam bashing, Israel, Obama, Palestine, Zionism