Judaism and Israel

American Jews for a Just Peace re Gov't of Israel's War on Palestinians

2009-02-02T12:17:00.000-08:00

Today is Day 14,903 of the Maintenance of the Immoral (and Illegal) West Bank Settlements and more than 40 years since the start of the immoral (and illegal) occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Micah.6:8 “He has told you, O man, Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God

I attended the Founding Conference of American Jews for a Just Peace last August and have been active in it since that time. For more information and to join, go to www.ajjp.org

On Sunday, the organization issued this Call to Action in response to the continuing war of the Government of Israel on Palestinians with which I am in agreement.

February 1, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF AMERICAN JEWS ISSUES
STATEMENT AGAINST ISRAEL’S WAR ON PALESTINE

American Jews for a Just Peace, a new alliance of progressive and predominantly Jewish activists working in the United States working to ensure equal rights, safety, and dignity for all the people of historic Palestine, today issued the following statement:

Israel's recent War on Gaza resulted in worldwide, popular condemnation. Perhaps this marks an important turning point in the relationship between Israel and the world community. We will not stand by while Israel instigates a war, annihilates civilian infrastructure, targets civilian shelters, blocks medical teams from reaching victims, uses chemical weapons, such as white phosphorous, on civilians, prevents medical equipment from entering the war zone, cuts off fuel, electricity and running water, and forcibly prevents civilians including children from escaping their carnage. These are only the latest in a long and shameful history of violent, illegal and immoral actions taken by the government of Israel against the Palestinian people over the last 61 years. They are not the actions of a state that respects international laws or norms. On the contrary, they are actions of a rogue state that flouts international law while justifying its atrocities by invoking the suffering of our forebears.

These atrocities have been fully supported by the U.S. government, which, in this last war, ran diplomatic interference for Israel. This allowed Israel to destroy as much of Gazan society as it could before the new U.S. administration took office.

In the wake of this illegal war, AJJP expresses our outrage and pledges to support all efforts that are aimed at ending Israel's Occupation and undoing the apartheid system that it has constructed. The ongoing illegal occupation and ever-expanding illegal settlements of now some 450,000 Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is a clear violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. This Occupation is an obstacle to peace, as is the apartheid system of separation and oppression that is the organizing structure of life and resources in Israel/Palestine. U.S. tax dollars and foreign policy goals continue to support what is fundamentally an undemocratic and racist system of government that serves to sustain and deepen the ongoing ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine.

For all of these reasons, as Jews of conscience, we reach out to all other activists in the United States and around the world to work together to end, once and for all, these atrocities, which Israel claims to commit in our names.

Dedicated to working with all like-minded groups to build an effective, worldwide movement, American Jews for a Just Peace calls for:

• immediate suspension of all U.S. military aid to Israel pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act;

• the U.S. Congress to open an investigation into possible war crimes as well as violations of the Arms Export Control and Foreign Assistance Acts in the war on Gaza;

• businesses and individuals to refuse to purchase Israeli-made products that originate in or support Jewish settlements in Occupied Palestine and the apartheid system of racial separation and oppression in Israel/Palestine;

• the Israeli government to sign the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid that was adopted by the United Nations in 1973, or explain its refusal to do so to the world community;

• the Israeli government to end the blockade and siege of Gaza and allow unhindered access to all humanitarian aid organizations as well as international journalists;

• efforts by all activists and to promote awareness of and resistance to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, which continues through the ongoing blockade, siege, displacement, annexation, and Israeli state-sponsored terror.

Toward these ends, AJJP calls on the human rights and global justice community to engage in coordinated actions to bring the apartheid policies and criminal activities of the Israeli government to an end. We support all strategies, up to and including acts of non-violent civil disobedience. We will continue to support Palestinian civil society groups. AJJP activists will sponsor teach-ins, write op-ed articles, engage in viral outreach campaigns, ask businesses and individuals to join our boycott, visit our legislators, contact U.S. officials, place paid advertisements, sponsor public demonstrations and vigils, show films, present speakers and exhibits and poetry readings and street theater, and otherwise pledge to be widely and creatively visible and vocal in building the international movement for justice and peace in Israel/Palestine.

Rabbi Akiva - “ ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ (Leviticus 19:18) - this is the major principle of the Torah.”

Deuteronomy 16:20 – “Justice, justice shall you pursue that you may live and inherit the land which God gave you” and the footnote in the 1980 Hertz Edition “(T)here is international justice, which demands respect for the personality of every national group, and proclaims that no people can of right be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or spiritual heritage.

A "JUST PEACE" IS COMING

2009-01-28T15:38:00.000-08:00

A funny thing happened on the treadmill this past Tuesday. I was able to read every word of every article on the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, every word.

Why?

It suddenly struck me. I had, what is it, an epiphany.

There is going to be a “just peace” in the region.

I knew something was happening when I heard President Obama’s inaugural speech.

I thought, of course, that much that he was directing to Americans was directed to Americans.

Not really. He was talking to all the peoples of the world.

Hear, O Israel, what President Obama said and see if the words don’t sound as they came straight out of the Torah and Judaic teachings:

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends -- hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up
for expedience's sake.

And when he was talking those outside the United States, he was not just talking to poor nations and Muslim nations, he was talking to the Palestinians and the Israelis.

And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.

And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

I grow more convinced each day that this person will take steps to ensure that the brutality of the continued occupation of a people allowed to continue for 42 years will not be allowed to stand.

This was confirmed last Friday when he appointed George Mitchell to mediate the conflict in Israel/Palestine.

Listen to what he said in addition to the standard Hamas must not fire rockets that Israel must re-open the border crossing into the Gaza Strip "to allow the flow of aid and commerce."

Also, in his interview, Obama said that Israel was a "strong ally of the United States" and that he "will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side."

Yes they will, my friends, or else.

And listen to what George Mitchell said, referring to his experience in Northern Ireland, which led to the 1998 Good Friday agreement, "I formed the conviction that there is no such thing as a conflict that can't be ended. Conflicts are created, conducted and sustained by human beings; they can be ended by human beings."

The terms of resolving this conflict have been known for decades: move back to the 1967 Green Line, end the occupation, close the settlements, “Tear Down That Wall”, East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian State, allow Palestinian access to water, bring in an international force for security, economic trade agreements, right of return (some return and some reparations).

The floodgates of criticism of the Government of Israel as being the barrier to a just peace have opened.

The Sixty Minutes segment with Bob Simon last Sunday was a powerful condemnation of the occupation of the West Bank. The title was that time may be running out for the two state solution.

Many observers believe that the Government of Israel by allowing the illegal and immoral building of the settlements has foreclosed the possibility of a two state solution.

Without a two-state solution, there are three remaining options, according to Bob Simon:

The Government of Israel could try ethnic cleansing, drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank, or they could give the Palestinians the vote. That would be the democratic option but it would mean the end of the Jewish state. Or they could try apartheid - have the minority Israelis rule the majority Palestinians, but apartheid regimes don't have a very long life.

The Government of Israel has little time left – it must end the inhuman blockade and collective punishment of Gaza and allow an international force in to keep the peace. The next step to show good faith would be the immediate eviction of the 600 Jewish settlers from Hebron.

Those would be positive signs that the Government of Israel intends to negotiate in good faith a two-state solution.

Barring that, there will eventually be one democratic state of the West Bank, Gaza and the State of Israel.

In any event, I can now read the news from that region again because I am convinced that a “just peace” is coming for the Palestinians and the Israelis!

Jeff Halper - A Boat Voyage to "Break the Siege of Gaza"

2008-08-05T12:13:00.000-07:00

Jeff Halper is about to embark on a boat voyage to "break the siege of Gaza" organized by the Free Gaza Movement and involving 40 activists from all over the world.

Jeff believes this is a very meaningful means of resistance, highlighting the ongoing Occupation -- and especially the terrible situation in Gaza -- and Israel's responsibility.

He would also appreciate your distributing the statement to your networks, newspapers, etc.

What a courageous advocate for social justice and a just peace!!

AN ISRAELI JEW IN GAZA: A STATEMENT BY JEFF HALPER

In another few days, I will sail on one of the Free Gaza movement boats from Cyprus to Gaza. The mission is to break the Israeli siege, an absolutely illegal siege which has plunged a million and a half Palestinians into wretched conditions: imprisoned in their own homes, exposed to extreme military violence, deprived of the basic necessities of life, stripped of their most fundamental human rights and dignity. The siege violates the most fundamental principle of international law: the inadmissibility of harming civilian populations. Our voyage also exposes Israel’s attempt to absolve itself of responsibility for what is happening in Gaza. Israel’s claim that there is no Occupation, or that the Occupation ended with “disengagement,” is patently false. Occupation is defined in international law as having effective control over a territory. If Israel intercepts our boats, it is clear that it is the Occupying Power exercising effective control over Gaza. Nor has the siege anything to do with “security.” Like other elements of the Occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where Israel has also besieged cities, towns, villages and whole regions, the siege on Gaza is fundamentally political. It is intended to isolate the democratically-elected government of Palestine and break its power to resist Israeli attempts to impose an apartheid regime over the entire country.

This is why I, an Israeli Jew, felt compelled to join this voyage to break the siege. As a person who seeks a just peace with the Palestinians, who understands (despite what our politicians tell us) that they are not our enemies but rather people seeking precisely what we sought and fought for – national self-determination I cannot stand idly aside. I can no more passively witness my government’s destruction of another people than I can watch the Occupation destroy the moral fabric of my own country. To do so would violate my commitment to human rights, the very essence of prophetic Jewish religion, culture and morals, without which Israel is no longer Jewish but an empty, if powerful, Sparta.

Israel has, of course, legitimate security concerns, and Palestinian attacks against civilian populations in Sderot and other Israeli communities bordering on Gaza cannot be condoned. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel, as an Occupying Power, has the right to monitor the movement of arms to Gaza as a matter of “immediate military necessity.” As activists committed to resisting the siege non-violently, I have no objection to the Israeli navy boarding our boats and searching for weapons. But only that. Because Israel has no right to besiege a civilian population, it has no legal right to prevent us, private persons sailing solely in international and Palestinian waters, from reaching Gaza – particularly since Israel has declared that it no longer occupies it. Once the Israeli navy is convinced we pose no security threat, then, we thoroughly expect it to permit us to continue our peaceful and lawful journey into Gaza port.

Ordinary people have often played key roles in history, particularly in situations like this where governments shirk their responsibilities. My voyage to Gaza is a statement of solidarity with the Palestinian people in their time of suffering, but it also conveys a message to my fellow citizens.

First, despite what our political leaders say, there is a political solution to the conflict, there are partners for peace. The very fact that I, an Israeli Jew, will be welcomed by Palestinian Gazans makes that very point. My presence in Gaza also affirms that any resolution of the conflict must include all the peoples of the country, Palestinian and Israeli alike. I am therefore using whatever credibility my actions lend me to call on my government to renew genuine peace negotiations based on the Prisoners Document accepted by all Palestinian factions, including Hamas. The release of all political prisoners held by Israel, including Hamas government ministers and parliamentary members, in return for the repatriation of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, would dramatically transform the political landscape by providing the trust and good-will essential to any peace process.

Second, the Palestinians are not our enemies. In fact, I urge my fellow Israeli Jews to disassociate from the dead-end politics of our failed political leaders by declaring, in concert with Israeli and Palestinian peace-makers: We refuse to be enemies. Only that assertion of popular will can signal our government that we are fed up with being manipulated by those profiting from the Occupation.

And third, as the infinitely stronger party in the conflict and the only Occupying Power, we Israelis must accept responsibility for our failed and oppressive policies. Only we can end the conflict.

In the Israeli conception, Zionism was intended to return to the Jews control over their own destiny. Do not let us be held hostage to politicians who endanger the future of our society. Join with us end the siege of Gaza, and with it the Occupation in its entirety. Let us, the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, declare to our leaders: we demand a just and lasting peace in this tortured Holy Land.

(Jeff Halper, the head of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, was a nominee for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. He can be reached at jeff@icahd.org.)

Archbishop Desmond Tutu statement on Beit Hanoun May 29, 2008

2008-06-08T08:56:00.000-07:00

I have nothing to add and there is nothing I need to add to what Archbishop Desmond Tutu says below.

From Wikipedia

Beit Hanoun is a city on the north-east edge of the Gaza Strip
with a population of 32,000. It is administered by the Palestinian Authority. It is located by the Hanoun stream, just 6 kilometers (4 mi) away from
the Israeli town of Sderot.

This town is also notable for the Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident where 19 Palestinians were killed by IDF shelling. According to Israeli authorities it
was in response for its use as a base from which Palestinian militant groups
have fired Qassam rockets into the northern Negev towns like Sderot, as well as the former Gush Katif settlements.

In December 2006, the UN appointed a fact-finding commission led by Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu to investigate the attack. However, Tutu and the other members were not granted permission to travel by Israel and the investigation was cancelled.

From Friends of Sabeel – North America
http://www.fosna.org/TutuStatementGazaMay2008.htm

Statement by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Leader of the High Level Fact-Finding Mission into events at Beit Hanoun on 8 November 2006

Press Conference, Gaza, 29 May 2008

We were appointed by the Human Rights Council as a fact-finding mission to investigate the attack on November 8 2006 in Beit Hanoun which left 19 people dead. We have a three point mandate: the assessment of the situation of victims, addressing the needs of survivors and to make recommendations on ways and means to protect Palestinian civilians against any further Israeli assaults. The mission returns to Geneva tomorrow and we will be reporting to the Human Rights Council at its session in September, so these are impressions on our part for it is to the Council first that we are obliged to present our report.

We have tried three times in 18 months to secure the cooperation of the Israeli Government to no avail, and in the end we were forced to come to Gaza through Egypt.

We want to begin by thanking the Government of Egypt for their facilitation of our mission. We also want to thank all of the United Nations personnel for their logistical support. We want to say thank you also to the UN in Egypt and to the Secretariat of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for their efficient and friendly help, as well as to the interpreters who have assisted us. We want to thank all the people we have met here in Gaza, members of NGOs, but especially the survivors and victims of the attack itself. I also want to express my deep appreciation to Professor Christine Chinkin, my co-expert on this mission.

All we had heard about the conditions in Gaza - the deprivation, the sense of despair, the lack of economic activity – had not prepared us for the stark reality we saw. We saw a forlorn, deserted, desolate and eerie place. Hardly any pedestrians as would be the case in a more normal setting.

We were struck particularly by the absence of the sounds of children shrieking and playing. Usually, when there is a convoy in a normal situation, children will rush out to wave, to be funny and to laugh. We saw none of this. There was no hustle and bustle as in a normal urban setting. There are hardly any vehicles on the road because of the scarcity of fuel. We saw more donkey and horse-drawn carts.

We are in a state of shock, exacerbated by what we subsequently heard from the victims and survivors of the Beit Hanoun massacre. For us, the entire situation is abominable. We believe that ordinary Israeli citizens would not support this blockade, this siege if they knew what it meant for ordinary people like themselves. No, they would not support a policy which limits fuel supplies or automatically cuts off the electricity supply. They would not support a policy which jeopardizes the lives of ordinary men and women in hospital, that cuts off water and food from hospitals jeopardizing the lives of babies. No, they would not support a policy that results in what happened in Beit Hanoun on 8 November 2006, when a mother scooped up the brains of her baby lying with its skull cracked open by an Israeli shell, the same mother rushing out into the street to find her son staring at his bowels hanging out and then seeing him scoop them up and shove them back into his abdomen. No, they would not.

As a matter of principle, Profesor Chinkin and I wanted to go to Israel to hear directly from the Israeli authorities their version of the events. We wanted to meet any other interested parties and NGOs. But we also wanted to go to Sderot to meet with victims and survivors of the Qassam rockets. We care about all people. That is why we told Mr Haniyeh that the firing of those rockets is a gross violation of human rights, and asked for them to stop the firing.

We are the descendents of Abraham: Jews, Christians and Muslims. We revere the teaching of scripture. And so we call on Israel to end the siege, the blockade.

Why?

First, because it is a gross violation of human rights. In terms of the scripture that Jews and Christians alike invoke, the blockade is contrary to the teaching of those scriptures. Those scriptures speak about a God: a God of the Exodus, a God notoriously biased in favour of the weak, of the oppressed, of the suffering, of the orphan, of the widow, of the alien. And this God will not be mocked! The God who sided with the slaves against the Pharaoh, the God who sided with Naboth against King Ahab, who sided with Bathsheba's husband against King David. The God who came down to deliver the Israelites from their bondage, who was not deaf to their cries, not blind to their plight, who knew their suffering, is the same yesterday, today and forever!

The siege is contrary to the Jewish tradition of siding with the oppressed. In South Africa, the most outstanding stalwarts in our fight against apartheid were often Jews. People like Helen Suzman, people like Joe Slovo. Almost instinctively, Jews must be on the side of freedom, justice and peace.

The siege must stop because it is not in the interests of Israelis. There can be no justice, no peace, no stability, not for Israel, not for the Palestinians, without accountability for human rights violations. This includes accountability for the human rights violations which occured in Beit Hanoun on 8 November 2006. Israel has admitted that it made a mistake, but this falls far short of accountability and due redress for victims and their families. Accountability applies also to those firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel. The culture of impunity on both sides must end!

True security and peace will not come from the barrel of a gun. It will come through negotiation: negotiation not with your friends. Peace can come only when enemies sit down and talk. It happened in South Africa. It happened more recently in Northern Ireland. It will happen here too.

Please, please, Israelis and Palestinians: for the sake of your children, for the sake of your future, for your sake , for God's sake, for all our sakes. Please, please end the injustice and sit down and talk to one another. It is possible for Israelis and Palestinians to live amicably side by side in two sovereign, viable states.

There can be no peace, there can be no security, there can be no freedom in isolation. Israelis and Palestinians will be free, will be secure, will prosper only together.

My message to the international community is that our silence and complicity – especially on the situation in Gaza - shames us all. It is almost like the behaviour of the military junta in Burma.
Gaza needs the engagement of the outside world, especially of its peacemakers.

Finally, to you our brothers and sisters in Gaza: you will be free. Your isolation and loneliness will end. We want you to know that we are with you, and we will come back to celebrate with you your freedom!

ITISAPARTHEID.ORG

2008-06-06T08:35:00.000-07:00

Here is a message I received from Richard Colbath-Hess.

I would like to encourage you to visit http://www.itisapartheid.org/ , the website home we have created for an anti-apartheid campaign. We hope to heighten awareness of, and eventually end, the current apartheid existing in the Israeli Occupied Territories.

To give you some context for this campaign, the Sabeel Conference on "The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel: Issues of Justice and Equality” was held in Boston last fall. The keynote speaker was Archbishop Desmond Tutu, an internationally acclaimed Nobel Peace prize laureate.

You can read some comments and thoughts about this conference elsewhere in this blog including the following:

“But saying that it is similar to South Africa misses an important point - the Government of Israel's form of Apartheid is WORSE than what the white Africaaners imposed on the blacks; i.e., in South Africa there were no collective punishments (like destroying a power plant), there were no separation barriers (walls, fences), no destruction of land, no destruction of trees (olive or others), there were no closures and roadblocks, there was freedom of movement, there were no separate roads, no separate license plates, the Africaaners hired the blacks to work for them allowing them to earn a living whereas the Government of Israel uses laborers who are brought in from other countries, and there was a benign condescending attitude of the ruling class for the oppressed and no concerted effort to work towards their eventual removal from the land.”

The conference was an amazing success – it sold out with over 900 attending. You think there would have been extensive coverage from the press (there was a small article buried in the Globe). The fact is, if the media covers anyone who speaks out about the Israeli government’s human rights abuses, they are attacked as anti-Semitic. The Nation Magazine recently wrote an article on how this stifling of dissent is tantamount to the new McCarthyism.

"When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the 200-or-so settlements with each other, with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa." Jimmy Carter 2006

It is in this context that http://www.itisapartheid.org/ campaign was created. The purpose of the ITISAPARTHEID.ORG web site is to use the tools of the internet and ingenuity of its readers to spread the word about Apartheid in the Israeli Occupied Territories. Web savvy people sometimes refer to this as Viral Marketing or a Guerrilla Marketing campaign. Since the media by and large ignore or are afraid to print the truth, the job of the web site is to get the word out in other ways. You can help by putting ITISAPARTHEID.ORG everywhere you can think of.

“Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime . ..is reminiscent of .. .the apartheid regime in South Africa.” Israeli Human Rights Group B’tselem, 2002

I hope you are impressed with the web site. The facts on the web site are meticulously researched. The site is based on getting good info out to the public. When the conservatives (in the US) started to label the media as “liberal”, it stuck because they said the lie enough. So by putting the truth -- www.Itisapartheid.org everywhere we can think of -- it will make the truth as available as the air we breathe. I really encourage you to check out the site and join the campaign.

“Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children.”Nelson Mandela 2001

Thank you for your anticipated interest and support. If you would like any further information, I invite you to contact me.

Richard Colbath-Hess, LICSW
Maserve@bluebottle.com

79 Amory Street
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 354 6471

Is the Government of Israel Engaging in Appeasement too, Mr. Bush

2008-05-22T06:26:00.000-07:00

President George W. Bush said this in the Knesset.

So we applaud the courageous choices Israel's leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction. …. Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Here is an excerpt from an article in this morning’s Boston Globe

Israelis, Syrians in peace talks
Seen as effort to halt growing clout of Iran
By Ethan Bronner, New York Times News Service May 22,
2008
JERUSALEM - Israel and Syria announced yesterday that they were engaged in negotiations for a comprehensive peace treaty through Turkish mediators, a sign that Israel is hoping to halt the growing influence of Iran, Syria's most important ally, which sponsors the anti-Israel groups Hezbollah and Hamas.
Senior Israeli officials from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office and their Syrian counterparts were in Istanbul, where both groups had been staying separately, at undisclosed locations, since Monday. The mediators shuttled between the two. Syria and Israel have not negotiated this seriously in eight years.
Syria's motives are clear: It wants to regain the Golan Heights captured by Israel in the 1967 war and to reestablish a relationship with the United States, something it figures it can do through talks with Jerusalem. For Israel - which has watched the Palestinian group Hamas take over Gaza and gain ground in the West Bank, and the Lebanese group Hezbollah display raw power in Beirut in recent weeks - an effort to pull Syria away from Iran could produce enormous benefits. An announcement yesterday of a peace deal that gives Hezbollah the upper hand in Lebanon's government probably added to Israel's sense of urgency on the issue.
The American government opposed Israeli-Syrian negotiations because they feared that such talks would reward Syria at a time when the United States is seeking to isolate it for its backing of Hezbollah and its meddling in Lebanon, Bush administration and Israeli officials said. The United States yielded when it became clear that Israel was determined to go ahead, they said.
The talks come less than a week after President Bush, speaking to the Israeli parliament, created a stir by criticizing those who would negotiate with "terrorists and radicals." Bush's remarks have become an issue in the American presidential campaign because they were widely perceived as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

To repeat, here is what President George W. Bush said in the Knesset.

So we applaud the courageous choices Israel's leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction. …. Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Here is a summary of the Bush foreign policy. Recognize that the other side is wrong, has no justification for its actions, is the epitome of absolute evil and should never be talked to. Never negotiate. Soon it will show its true nature and kill one of our citizens or soldiers at which time we will retaliate massively with all the military might available.

So he made that comment in the Knesset which has for the last year been negotiating with Syria (and Hamas also?).

I am truly at a loss as I try to understand why he would make such a statement where he made it? I really do not think he is stupid (although I have thought for years that those in the Bush administration have so little self-confidence they are terrified to negotiate with an adversary so they come out shooting). I really do not think he is a fool. Who would have written this? Could it be a John Hagee follower – someone hoping to speed up the days of the "Rapture”? Why would he read such inane comments?

Will a member of the media ask President George W. Bush today if he believes that the Government of Israel is engaging in the false comfort of appeasement?

The end of the Bush administration cannot come soon enough!

Razzle Dazzle 'em Part 3 - John McCormack and Bernard Law

2008-05-20T06:59:00.000-07:00

Razzle Dazzle ‘em –Part 3 – John McCormack and Bernard Law

And today on the treadmill of the Jewish Community Center I read the obituary of the courageous Sister Cathering Mulkerrin and again the words and the melody of Razzle Dazzle ‘em resounded in my head. Last November I applied it to the Government of Israel, yesterday to President George W. Bush and today to two of the past heads of the Catholic Church in Boston.

What a universal ecumenical message!! You can Razzle Dazzle ‘em whether you are Jewish, Protestant or Catholic.

Reprinted below are excerpts from the obituary not, however, in the same order as printed.

Sister Catherine Mulkerrin, who repeatedly pressed Roman Catholic church leaders in Boston to warn parishioners about priests who had been accused of exually abusing children, has died. She was 73. Sister Catherine died Saturday at Bethany Health Care Center in Framingham after a 24-year battle with cancer, said Sister Joanne Gallagher, spokeswoman for their religious order, the Sisters of St. Joseph in Boston. Sister Catherine received allegations of clergy abuse and dealt directly with victims while working as assistant director of the Boston Archdiocesan Office for Victims of Abuse from 1992 to 1994. She said she received allegations against more than 100 priests in that period. Many of her memos to her supervisors later were released as part of lawsuits filed against the archdiocese by alleged victims.
"She really confronted the Archdiocese of Boston six years before the sexual abuse scandal broke out . . . I think that she was incredibly brave to do that," said Sheila Boyle, 60, of Malden, an editor and author who received a settlement from the church after she was abused by a now-defrocked priest. Boyle said the nun's sensitive and compassionate handling of sexual abuse victims avoided subjecting them to additional psychological trauma.

Again, if you do not know the song, watch this clip from the movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn5-VN3SH1o&feature=related

(This is not a spoiler but keep in mind that Roxie murdered her lover in cold blood and here she is on trial for that crime.)

BILLY Roxie, you got nothing to worry about.
It's all a circus, kid.
A three ring circus.

These trials- the whole world- all show business.
But kid, you're working with a star, the biggest!

Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em

Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate.

Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?

What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?

Razzle dazzle 'em
And they’ll never catch wise!

"I know I sound like a broken record," according to one memo from Sister Catherine that was released in 2002, "but we need to put in church bulletins 'It has come to our attention a priest stationed here between 19XX and 19XX may have molested children - please contact . . . ' "
She said in a deposition that archdiocese leaders ignored her repeated concerns that priests accused of sexual abuse were allowed to return to parish work without the kind of supervision she had recommended.

Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em

Give 'em a show that's so splendiferous
Row after row will crow vociferous

Give 'em the old flim flam flummox
Fool and fracture 'em
How can they hear the truth above the roar?

Throw 'em a fake and a finagle
They'll never know you're just a bagel,

"I expressed concern, consternation. What are we thinking of? What are you thinking of?" Sister Catherine said in a deposition released April 8, 2003, about her conversations with Bishop John McCormack, her boss who handled sexual abuse complaints involving priests as an aide to Cardinal Bernard Law, then head of the archdiocese.

She said in the deposition McCormack told her he was trying to address her concerns. He later said through a spokesman he was following policy, but acknowledged he made mistakes during his time in Boston.

Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll beg you for more!

Give 'em the old double whammy
Daze and dizzy 'em

Back since the days of old Methuselah
Everyone loves the big bambooz-a-ler

Give 'em the old three ring circus
Stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble, go into your dance

Though you are stiffer than a girder
They'll let you get away with murder

Razzle dazzle 'em
And you've got a romance

Give 'em the oldRazzle Dazzle
Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em

Show 'em the first rate sorceror you are
Long as you keep 'em way off balance
How can they spot you've got no talent

Razzle Dazzle 'em
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Razzle Dazzle 'em
And they'll make you a star!

Law resigned in 2003 (Blogger’s Note - to take a position as archpriest of the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome and eventually to become a member of eight Vatican departments).
McCormack became bishop of New Hampshire in 1998.

Razzle Dazzle 'em - President George W. Bush speaks to the Knesset

2008-05-18T08:31:00.000-07:00

Razzle Dazzle ‘em With apologies to the late great lyricist, Fred Ebb, whose song from Chicago, Razzle Dazzle, was playing as I drove into the parking lot at Puleo’s Restaurant yesterday. This song continues to strike me as applicable to the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Last November I used it on my blog to reflect the approach of the Government of Israel to the peace process. While listening to the lyrics yesterday, I immediately thought of President George W. Bush’s speech to the Knesset on May 15, 2008.

I found the text on the Wall Street Journal on-line and have taken excerpts in the order in which they were delivered connected by what seem to be the relevant lyrics also in order.

I suggest that if you do not know the song, listen first to this recording of it from the movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn5-VN3SH1o&feature=related

Then read the lyrics below along with the excerpts from the Bush speech to the Knesset.

Finally, to show that there is nothing new under the sun, view what else I found when I searched for a recorded version of Razzle Dazzle ‘em (this from 2006).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2IJDtLH03s

(This is not a spoiler but keep in mind that Roxie murdered her lover in cold blood and here she is on trial for that crime.)

ROXIE Oh Billy, I'm scared. BILLY Roxie, you got nothing to worry about. It's all a circus, kid. A three ring circus.
These trials- the whole world- all show business. But kid, you're working with a star, the biggest!

Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em

My only regret is that one of Israel's greatest leaders is not here to share the moment. He is a warrior for the ages, a man of peace, and a dear friend. The prayers of all Americans are with Ariel Sharon.

Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate.

The joy of independence was tempered by the outbreak of battle, a struggle that has continued for six decades. Yet in spite of the violence, in defiance of the threats, Israel has built a thriving democracy in the heart of the Holy Land. You have welcomed immigrants from the four corners of the Earth. You have forged a free and modern society based on a love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity. You have worked tirelessly for peace. And you have fought valiantly for freedom.

Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?

Earlier today, I visited Masada, an inspiring monument to courage and sacrifice. At this historic site, Israeli soldiers swear an oath: "Masada shall never fall again." Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will always stand with you.

What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?

We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman, and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal, and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation. We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world

Razzle dazzle 'em
And they’ll never catch wise!

So we applaud the courageous choices Israel's leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction.

Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em

We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve. The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

Give 'em a show that's so splendiferous
Row after row will crow vociferous

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is the ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

Give 'em the old flim flam flummox
Fool and fracture 'em
How can they hear the truth above the roar?

That is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. That is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Throw 'em a fake and a finagle
They'll never know you're just a bagel,

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll beg you for more!

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Give 'em the old double whammy
Daze and dizzy 'em

Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance, freedom and hope. These values are the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all of the world because they are a gift from Almighty God. Securing these rights is also the surest way to secure peace. They will be partners for peace.

Back since the days of old Methuselah
Everyone loves the big bambooz-a-ler

Leaders who are accountable to their people will not pursue endless confrontation and bloodshed. Young people with a place in their society and a voice in their future are less likely to search for meaning in radicalism. And societies where citizens can express their conscience and worship their God will not export violence

Give 'em the old three ring circus
Stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble, go into your dance

This fundamental insight, that freedom yields peace, is the great lesson of the 20th century. Now our task is to apply it in the 21st. Nowhere is this work more urgent than here in the Middle East. We must stand with the reformers working to break the old patterns of tyranny and despair. We must give voice to the millions of ordinary people who dream of a better life in freedom.

Though you are stiffer than a girder
They'll let you get away with murder

We must confront the moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future.

Razzle dazzle 'em
And you've got a romance

Israel will be celebrating its 120th anniversary as one of the world's great democracies, a secure and flourishing homeland for the Jewish people. The Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved – a democratic state that is governed by law, respects human rights, and rejects terror. …. And al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas will be defeated, as Muslims across the region recognize the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of their cause.

Give 'em the oldRazzle Dazzle
Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em

Yet each one of these transformations took place. And a future of transformation is possible in the Middle East too, so long as a new generation of leaders has the courage to defeat the enemies of freedom, make the hard choices necessary for peace, and stand firm on the solid rock of universal values.

Show 'em the first rate sorceror you are
Long as you keep 'em way off balance
How can they spot you've got no talent

Over the past six decades, …..(y)ou have raised a modern society in the Promised Land, a light unto the nations that preserves the legacy of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And you have built a mighty democracy that will endure forever and can always count on America to stand at its side. May God bless Israel.

Razzle Dazzle 'em
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Razzle Dazzle 'em
And they'll make you a star!

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He is believed by many to be the worst president in the history of this country

A Human Rights Crime against the Palestinians in Gaza - Jimmy Carter

2008-05-08T05:52:00.000-07:00

As you know, for quite a while I have refrained from simply posting material written by others. I am making an exception, however, for this article by Jimmy Carter in today's edition of the Guardian. While it contains nothing new - the Government of Israel continues to kill innocent women and children, the Government of Israel is commiting war crimes in Gaza, theGovernment of Israel has rejected offers of a truce by Hamas, the Goverment of Israel continues to build housing in Jewish settlements - he presents a comprehensive picture of the cruel and horrendous treatment of the Palestinians by the Government of Israel and an urgent plea for international support for bring an end to this human rights tragedy.

A Human Rights Crime

The world must stop standing idle while the people of Gaza are treated with such cruelty

Jimmy Carter
The Guardian,
Thursday May 8 2008

The world is witnessing a terrible human rights crime in Gaza, where a million and a half human beings are being imprisoned with almost no access to the outside world. An entire population is being brutally punished.

This gross mistreatment of the Palestinians in Gaza was escalated dramatically by Israel, with United States backing, after political candidates representing Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Authority parliament in 2006. The election was unanimously judged to be honest and fair by all international observers.

Israel and the US refused to accept the right of Palestinians to form a unity government with Hamas and Fatah and now, after internal strife, Hamas alone controls Gaza. Forty-one of the 43 victorious Hamas candidates who lived in the West Bank have been imprisoned by Israel, plus an additional 10 who assumed positions in the short-lived coalition cabinet.

Regardless of one's choice in the partisan struggle between Fatah and Hamas within occupied Palestine, we must remember that economic sanctions and restrictions on the supply of water, food, electricity and fuel are causing extreme hardship among the innocent people in Gaza, about one million of whom are refugees.

Israeli bombs and missiles periodically strike the area, causing high casualties among both militants and innocent women and children. Prior to the highly publicised killing of a woman and her four children last week, this pattern had been illustrated by a report from B'Tselem, the leading Israeli human rights organisation, which stated that 106 Palestinians were killed between February 27 and March 3. Fifty-four of them were civilians, and 25 were under 18 years of age.
On a recent trip through the Middle East, I attempted to gain a better understanding of the crisis. One of my visits was to Sderot, a community of about 20,000 in southern Israel that is frequently struck by rockets fired from nearby Gaza. I condemned these attacks as abominable acts of terrorism, since most of the 13 victims during the past seven years have been non-combatants.

Subsequently, I met with leaders of Hamas - a delegation from Gaza and the top officials in Damascus. I made the same condemnation to them, and urged that they declare a unilateral ceasefire or orchestrate with Israel a mutual agreement to terminate all military action in and around Gaza for an extended period.

They responded that such action by them in the past had not been reciprocated, and they reminded me that Hamas had previously insisted on a ceasefire throughout Palestine, including Gaza and the West Bank, which Israel had refused. Hamas then made a public proposal of a mutual ceasefire restricted to Gaza, which the Israelis also rejected.

There are fervent arguments heard on both sides concerning blame for a lack of peace in the Holy Land. Israel has occupied and colonised the Palestinian West Bank, which is approximately a quarter the size of the nation of Israel as recognised by the international community. Some Israeli religious factions claim a right to the land on both sides of the Jordan river, others that their 205 settlements of some 500,000 people are necessary for "security".

All Arab nations have agreed to recognise Israel fully if it will comply with key United Nations resolutions. Hamas has agreed to accept any negotiated peace settlement between the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, provided it is approved in a referendum of the Palestinian people.

This holds promise of progress, but despite the brief fanfare and positive statements at the peace conference last November in Annapolis, the process has gone backwards. Nine thousand new Israeli housing units have been announced in Palestine; the number of roadblocks within the West Bank has increased; and the stranglehold on Gaza has been tightened.

It is one thing for other leaders to defer to the US in the crucial peace negotiations, but the world must not stand idle while innocent people are treated cruelly. It is time for strong voices in Europe, the US, Israel and elsewhere to speak out and condemn the human rights tragedy that has befallen the Palestinian people.

Jimmy Carter, a former president of the United States, is founder of The Carter Center

Dershowitz's Despicable Smear of Jimmy Carter

2008-05-01T05:53:00.000-07:00

I cannot even begin to figure out how best to express my outrage as I read the article below, “Jimmy Carter for Sale” by Alan Dershowitz.

Alan Dershowitz is, by all accounts, a brilliant lawyer and an extraordinarily effective advocate for many individuals, organizations and causes – one of them being the Government of Israel.

Here is his conclusion about Jimmy Carter, “He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes.”

“Anti-semite”, “dirty money”, “honor Nazi academics”, “complicit in evil”, “anti-Israel”, “evil influence of Zionism”, “Holocaust was a fable”, “deception bordering on corruption”, “integrity … extraordinarily low.” Has Alan Dershowitz missed smearing Jimmy Carter with any of the words and phrases traditionally applied to someone who is a critic of the Government of Israel?

What has Jimmy Carter done to merit the venom, hate and vilification contained in this detailed “swiftboating”?

What would justify Alan Dershowitz devoting such time and effort to personally attaching Jimmy Carter?

What “despicable cause” has Jimmy Carter been lobbying for?

Not his work in “Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to negotiate with the Communist dictator Mengistou Haile Mariam, to Liberia to induce warlord Charles Taylor to let democratic elections be held, and to Pyongyang, North Korea, to convince Kim Il Sung to give up his nuclear program” … to Haiti to induce General Raoul Cedras to leave the country and permit the elected president to return … to Havana so that I could speak directly to the Cuban people about democracy and human rights. The Center has monitored almost seventy elections, often at the invitation of such people as Manuel Noriega, the Sandinistas, and Hugo Chavez.” Page 250, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”

I cannot imagine Alan Dershowitz unleashing this nuclear attack on Jimmy Carter for his speaking to the Cuban people about human rights.

Here’s a clue “Three of the most honest, fair and peaceful of our elections have been in Palestine.” Page 250

Here is what he has done to incur the wrath of Alan Dershowitz:

Jimmy Carter has become the most respected prominent individual openly critical of the policies of the Government of Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians;

He has put in decades working for a “just” peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians;

He has even been talking to everyone about “the terrible plight of the Palestinians” Page 251;

He talks about three options available to the Government of Israel – one of them being “A system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights. This is the policy now being followed.” Page 215; and

Recently, he has been talking to representatives of Hamas, the group that was elected by the Palestinians in one of those honest, fair and peaceful elections – the results of which were immediately effectively nullified by the Governments of Israel and the United States – Hamas, the organization which a few days ago proposed a six-month truce which was immediately rejected by the Government of Israel.

Alan Dershowitz is a symbol of those who support peace, justice, love, fairness, human rights, and dignity and equality for all unless they are Palestinians. Here’s a few values of Judaism embodied by the work of Jimmy Carter and opposed by Alan Dershowitz when the subject is the Palestinians:

Exodus 22:20-21 - You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Rabbi Akiva - “‘Love your neighbor as yourself’(Leviticus 19:18) - this is the major principle of the Torah.”

Deuteronomy XVI, 18:20 – “Justice, Justice shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” And the footnote in the Hertz edition “(T)here is international justice, which demands respect for the personality of every national group, and proclaims that no people can of right be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or spiritual heritage.”

Isaiah 1:17 “Learn to do well – seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow” and 1:27 “Zion shall be redeemed with justice, and they that return of her with righteousness.”

HILLEL “If I am not for myself, who will be for me, and if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” and his definition of Judaism “What is hateful unto you, do not do unto your neighbor”

Someone just sent me an “Eyewitness Letter from the Gaza Strip” by Kashi Halford in Occupation Magazine http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=26557. In it Halford notes:

1.5 million people live in the Gaza strip, over a million of these are refugees. Over 80% live below the poverty line, with 1.2 million people in Gaza are dependent on food handouts. Only 41% of Gaza’s food import needs are currently being met. The Palestinian Health Ministry says there are no stocks left of 85 essential medicines, including chemotherapy drugs, strong antibiotics and several psychiatric drugs. For a further 138 drugs there are only stocks for three months at most. Supplies of nitrous oxide for surgical anaesthesia will run out in two weeks. 17.5% of patients who have requested access to East Jerusalem, Israel or abroad for emergency or chronic medical treatment have been denied permits since June 2007. In October 2007, the public provider of water and sanitation services received 50% of the amount of fuel it need to operate its wells, pumping stations and treatment plants. As a result 210,000 people are able to access drinking water supplies for only 1-2 hours a day.

Do I know if all of this is accurate? No

Then again, do I know if all that Alan Dershowitz has written is correct? No

But I do think that his article is symbolic of what is happening in what is fortunately an increasing smaller segment of the Jewish community - those who agree with any action taken by the Government of Israel. As more and more people in this country and around the world become aware of the injustices and human rights violations being carried out by that government, these tribal nationalistic oriented individuals and their organizations are likely to ramp up the volume and intensity of their personal attacks on, and verbal persecution of, those who criticize the Government of Israel.

Alan Dershowitz hopes that we will read what he says and not read about what is happening to the Palestinians in the occupied territories. He also hopes to divert our attention from any recommendations Jimmy Carter proposes that might bring appropriate pressure on the Government of Israel to negotiate in good faith for a “just” peace.

Here are my two conclusions:

First, this article by Alan Dershowitz is a gross misrepresentation and an incredibly biased attempt to discredit a good person, Jimmy Carter, and the good works that he has done since leaving the White House and establishing the Carter Center.

Second, while Alan Dershowitz is not a public official who, after leaving public life, sold himself to the highest bidder, he is, in my opinion, actually the one who is a “lobbyist for a despicable cause” – support for the Government of Israel as it continues the occupation and deprives millions of Palestinians of their basic rights and freedoms.

Ron

Jimmy Carter for Sale by Alan M. Dershowitz

Jimmy Carter is making more money selling integrity than peanuts. I have known Jimmy Carter for more than 30 years. I first met him in the spring of 1976 when, as a relatively unknown candidate for president,he sent me a handwritten letter asking for my help in his campaign on issues of crime and justice.

I had just published an article in The New York Times Magazine on sentencing reform, and he expressed interest in my ideas and asked me to come up with additional ones for his campaign.

Shortly thereafter, my former student Stuart Eisenstadt, brought Carter to Harvard to meet with some faculty members. I immediately liked Jimmy Carter and saw him as a man of integrity and principle. I signed on to his campaign and worked very hard for his election.

When Newsweek magazine asked his campaign for the names of people on whom Carter relied for advice, my name was among those given out. I continued to work for Carter over the years, most recently I met him in Jerusalem a year ago, and we briefly discussed the Mid-East.

Though I disagreed with some of his points, I continued to believe he was making them out of a deep commitment to principle and to human rights.
Recent disclosures of Carter's extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, has deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of such apparent integrity associate himself with dirty money from so dirty a source?And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source.

Initially I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School -Rachael Lea Fish -- showed me the facts.They were staggering. I was amazed that in the 21st century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up - a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son - hosted speakers who called Jews "the enemies of all nations," attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel, and the 9/11 attacks to the United States' own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a "fable." (They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his total discredit, Carter did not.

Jimmy Carter was, of course, aware of Harvard's decision, since it was highly publicized. Yet he kept the money. Indeed, this is what he said in accepting the funds: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." Carter's personal friend, it turns out, was an unredeemable anti-Semite as well as a Christian hating bigot.

In reading Carter's statements, I was reminded of the misguided Harvard of the 1930s, which continued to honor Nazi academics after the anti-Semitic policies of Hitler's government became clear. Harvard of the 1930s was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that Jimmy Carter of the 21st century has become complicit in evil. The extent of Carter's financial support from, and even dependence on, dirty money is still not fully known.

What we do know is deeply troubling. Carter and his Center have accepted millions of dollars from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by BCCI, a now-defunct and virulently anti-Israeli bank indirectly controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal investors is Carter's friend, Sheikh Zayed. Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the bank, gave Carter "$500,000 to help the former president establish his center...[and] more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects."Carter gladly accepted the money, though Abedi had called his bank the source of his funding and "the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists."BCC isn't the only source: Saudi King Fahd contributed millions to the Carter Center- "in 1993 alone...$7.6 million" as have other members of the Saudi Royal Family. Carter also received a million dollar pledge from the Saudi-based bin Laden family, as well as a personal $500,000 environmental award named for Sheikh Zayed, and paid for by the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates.

It's worth noting that, despite the influx of Saudi money funding the Carter Center, and despite the Saudi Arabian government's myriad human rights abuses, the Carter Center's Human Rights program has no activity whatever in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have apparently bought his silence for a steep price.The bought quality of the Center's activities becomes even more clear when reviewing the Center's human rights activities in other countries: essentially no human rights activities in China or in North Korea, or in Iran, Iraq, the Sudan or Syria, but activity regarding Israel and its alleged abuses, according to the Center's website.The Carter Center's mission statement claims that "The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral party in dispute resolution activities." How can that be, given that its coffers are full of Arab money, and that its focus is away from significant Arab abuses and on Israel's far less serious ones?
No reasonable person can dispute therefore that Jimmy Carter has been and remains dependent on Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia.
Does this mean that Carter has necessarily been influenced in his thinking about the Middle East by receipt of such enormous amounts of money? Ask Carter. The entire premise of his criticism of Jewish influence on American foreign policy is that money talks.
It is Carter-not me-who has made the point that if politicians receive money from Jewish sources, then they are not free to decide issues regarding the Middle East for themselves.It is Carter, not me, who has argued that distinguished reporters cannot honestly report on the Middle East because they are being paid by Jewish money. So, by Carter's own standards, it would be almost economically "suicidal" for Carter "to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine."By Carter's own standards, therefore, his views on the Middle East must be discounted. It is certainly possible that he now believes them. Money, particularly large amounts of money, has a way of persuading people to a particular position.It would not surprise me if Carter, having received so much Arab money, is now honestly committed to their cause.
But his failure to disclose the extent of his financial dependence on Arab money, and the absence of any self reflection on whether the receipt of this money has unduly influenced his views, is a form of deception bordering on corruption.

I have met cigarette lobbyists, who are supported by the cigarette industry, and who have come to believe honestly that cigarettes are merely a safe form of adult recreation, that cigarettes are not addicting and that the cigarette industry is really trying to persuade children not to smoke. These people are fooling themselves (or fooling us into believing that they are fooling themselves) just as Jimmy Carter is fooling himself (or persuading us to believe that he is fooling himself).

If money determines political and public views-as Carter insists "Jewish money" does-then Carter's views on the Middle East must be deemed to have been influenced by the vast sums of Arab money he has received. If he who pays the piper calls the tune, then Carter's off-key tunes have been called by his Saudi Arabian paymasters. It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real [integrity] to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter.

The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes.

That is now Jimmy Carter's sad legacy.

Author Biography: Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard Law School and author of The Case for Israel.

Palestinians Support Ending Negotiations with the Government of Israel

2008-03-19T07:29:00.000-07:00

An article in today's Boston Globe.

As I wrote to a friend,
"Quelle shocque!! What could possibly have caused them to feel that way?"

What do you think? I do not think that the Government of Israel has for many years engaged in good faith negotiations. I believe that the Government of Israel's definition of peace is not a "just peace" but one in which the Palestinians stop complaining at the least and, at best, leave. If you believe that the Palestinians should continue the negotiations with the Government of Israel, please post a comment here.

Poll says most Palestinians favor violence over talks
By Ethan Bronner, New York Times News Service March 19, 2008

RAMALLAH, West Bank - A new poll says that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians support the attack this month on a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem that killed eight young men, most of them teenagers, an indication of the alarming level of Israeli-Palestinian tension in recent weeks.

The survey also indicates unprecedented support for the shooting of rockets on Israeli towns from the Gaza Strip and for the end of the peace negotiations between Palestinian and Israeli leaders.

The pollster, Khalil Shikaki, said he was shocked because the survey indicated greater support for violence than any other he had conducted over the past 15 years in the Palestinian areas. Never before, he said, had a majority favored an end to negotiations or the shooting of rockets at Israel.

"There is real reason to be concerned," Shikaki said in an interview at his West Bank office. His Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, which conducts a survey every three months, is widely viewed as among the few independent and reliable gauges of Palestinian public opinion.

His explanation for the shift, one widely reflected in the Palestinian media, is that recent actions by Israel, especially attacks on Gaza that killed nearly 130 people, an undercover operation in Bethlehem that killed four militants, and the announced expansion of several West Bank settlements, have led to despair and rage among average Palestinians who thirst for revenge.
Shikaki's poll also suggested that the militant Islamist group Hamas, which Israel and the United States have been trying to isolate, is gaining popularity in the West Bank while its American-backed rival, the more secular Fatah, is losing ground. Asked for whom they would vote for president, 46 percent chose Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, the current president, while 47 percent chose Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas.

Three months ago, Abbas was ahead 56 percent to 37 percent. After Hamas forces pushed Fatah forces out of Gaza last summer, Shikaki's polls suggested that the Palestinian public was disillusioned with Hamas, and in the subsequent months many argued that Abbas, with the support of Washington and Israel, had an opportunity to win public support by easing living conditions and advancing in negotiations. That has not happened.

According to the poll, conducted last week with 1,270 Palestinians in face-to-face interviews, 84 percent supported the March 6 attack on the Mercaz Harav yeshiva, one of Israel's most prominent centers of religious Zionism and ideological wellspring of the settler movement in the West Bank. Shikaki said this is the single highest support for an act of violence in his 15 years of polling here. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

On negotiations between Ehud Olmert, prime minister of Israel, and Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, 75 percent said they were without benefit and should be terminated. Regarding the thousands of rockets that have been launched on Israeli towns like Sderot and Ashkelon, 64 percent support it.

The poll did indicate support for a two-state solution with 66 percent favoring normalized relations with Israel if it returned all land won in 1967 and a Palestinian state was established.

Al-Jazeera's "Slanted Coverage"

2008-03-13T06:18:00.000-07:00

What a way to start the day!! Another story about the Government of Israel.

"Israel imposes sanctions on Al-Jazeera
By Matti Friedman, Associated Press
March 13, 2008

JERUSALEM - Israel said yesterday that it would impose sanctions on the influential Arab satellite network Al-Jazeera, accusing it of slanted coverage favoring the violent Hamas movement.

Majalli Whbee, Israel's deputy foreign minister, said the government would deny visas to the Qatar-based station's employees and Israeli officials would no longer agree to be interviewed by the network. He did not say Israel would strip foreign Al-Jazeera employees currently in Israel of their visas.

"We have seen that Al-Jazeera has become part of Hamas . . . taking sides and cooperating with people who are enemies of the state of Israel," said Whbee, a Druse Arab. "The moment a station like Al-Jazeera gives unreliable reports, represents only one side, and doesn't present the positions of the other side, why should we cooperate?"

Israel was especially incensed by the network's coverage of the most recent round of intense violence in Hamas-ruled Gaza, saying it rarely showed Israeli casualties or
Palestinian rocket fire.

Three Israelis and more than 120 Palestinians were killed, including dozens of civilians, before the fighting subsided earlier this month."

The focus of the outrage of the Israeli Government Officials and its proof of Al-Jazeera bias was the publication by the Arab satellite network of only 3 obituaries of dead Israelis while day after day and week after week for over a month it prejudicially published 120 obituaries of dead Palestinians. Israeli Government Officials protested this is the strongest terms saying that the Al-Jazeera should have provided balance in its coverage by once a month publishing all 123 obituaries on the same day in the same column or, in the alternative, by including in the names of 117 Jewish Israelis who had passed away during that month.

Obviously the previous paragraph is something I made up. But the point is that the difference between slanted coverage and accurate objective reporting sometimes, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I'll bet that Eliot Spitzer believes that the media is offering "slanted coverage". How can it ignore all the good works that he did?

How about the President of the United States? All the time headlines about Torture? Illegal wiretaps? Firings of US Attorneys!! Unjustified invasion of Iraq? Hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers and civilians? Where are all the stories about his great moves and trades when he was involved with the Texas Rangers? Talk about slanted coverage!!

And what about the Catholic priests found guilty of sexually abusing children in spite of doing so much good for so many others in their flocks. Another example of slanted coverage by the media.

Forty years - nearly FIFTEEN THOUSAND (15,000) days and nights of an illegal and immoral occupation and oppression of the Palestinians by the Government of Israel and the Government of Israel accuses Al-Jazeera of slanted coverage and wants to punish it.

What twisted logic? What Chutzpah? What arrogance? How conniving?

What comes to mind as I try to describe this action of the Government of Israel is the phrase Eliot Spitzer used when referring to himself: a f------ steamroller.

Ron

PS: Speaking of steamrollers, in a previous message, I mentioned that Joan and I are going to see My Name is Rachel Corrie this Sunday, March 16, at the New Repertory Theater. I just received a message from the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation noting that that date is the 5th Anniversary of her being killed by an Israeli army Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer (note the slanted coverage) in Rafah in Gaza. Three days later the US illegally and immorally (note the slanted coverage) attacked Iraq. The US Campaign suggests various ways to take action on that day. Coincidentally and fortunately, we will have the opportunity on that day to honor her memory and her dedication to peace by listening to her words.

An Abomination - the 800 Jewish Settlers of Hebron - Part 2

2008-01-14T13:19:00.000-08:00

Today is Day 14,520 of the Maintenance of the Immoral (and Illegal) West Bank Settlements and more than 40 years since the start of the immoral (and illegal) occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Micah.6:8 “He has told you, O man, Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God

Within the borders of Hebron, one of the biggest Arab cities in the West Bank, are 120,000 Palestinians. In the old city of Hebron, there are 800 Jewish Israeli squatters and 30,000 Palestinians while around Kiryat Arba the squatterment founded by Rabbi Levinger near Hebron, there are an additional 9,200 squatters.

On another discussion board, one of the posters was trying to justify the activities of the Jewish settlers of Hebron and made the following comment:

“War is ugly. Conflict is ugly. Either we have a right to the land or we don’t. I believe we do - which necessitates some ugly actions. I don’t condone unnecessary violence; but it isn’t ugly to fight back to protect your rights.”

My response was as follows:

What makes you believe that this is a war? It seems to me to be an occupation in which one body, the Government of Israel, has won a war in 1967 and reigns supreme over another body, the Palestinians, with overwhelming superior military force.

Just “who” is the “we” that has a right to the land? Is it anyone who is Jewish? Do I and my family have a right to the land? What laws do you cite as authority for who you believe owns the land?

“Ugly actions” – for sure!!! – Stealing land, beating and killing children, women and men, cutting down olive trees, preventing the harvesting of olives and cutting down olive trees, harassment to force the closing of commercial establishments, destroying property, pouring filth.

“..it isn’t ugly to fight back to protect your rights”. Assuming that the Jewish settlers own the land, what laws guide them on how to take the land back. In Massachusetts, we have a legal process that dictates the steps in court that a landlord must take in order to evict someone on his or her land. What laws are the settlers relying on when they do what they do? What they do is not only ugly but contrary to what we expect from those who live in civilized society.

Ugly, ugly, ugly……

Isaiah 1:17,27 “Learn to do well – seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow .. Zion shall be redeemed with justice, and they that return of her with righteousness.”

Here is an article published over this past weekend about life as a Palestinian in Hebron.

The Sword is Mightier by Seth Freedman / The Guardian [UK] / Jan 12, 2008

"An unarmed civilian observer mission can’t offer balanced policing to Palestinians in Hebron, a city where the IDF runs the show.

It’s easy to claim that the pen is mightier than the sword from the safety of a university lecture hall, or a middle class soiree in a suburban dining room. However, in the bandit country that is Hebron, the adage rings somewhat hollow, as I found after spending a day out on patrol with Temporary International Presence in the City of Hebron TIPH. What I saw during my six-hour shadowing of the dedicated yet ultimately toothless members of the TIPH team made me question the wisdom of their presence in the troubled city.

Established in the wake of Baruch Goldstein’s shooting spree in a local mosque, TIPH’s raison d’etre is to “monitor the situation in Hebron and record breaches of international law.” In essence, they are stationed in the city to bear witness to the almost daily violent incidents that erupt between the Jewish settlers of Hebron and their Palestinian neighbours.

So it was on Wednesday, as I set out with Sibyll and Mortens, respectively Swiss and Danish TIPH workers, who are old hands at dealing with the explosive situation using the limited tools at their disposal. Our first incident was fairly mundane by comparison with what we’d see later - a youth protesting to the pair that every time Palestinian Authority workmen came to try and fix a sewage blockage in the souk, Israeli soldiers ordered them to leave the area without allowing them to carry out their repairs.

“This is the third time we’ve heard this story in four days,” said Sibyll, as she noted down the boy’s complaint in her notebook. “All we can do is to try and get our liaison officers to try to intervene with the army and the PA, and attempt to get permits for them to complete their work [unimpeded].” Mortens concurred with her plan of action: “It won’t happen overnight, though - we have to write a report, contact the DCO, and hope that they can achieve results.” And in the meantime, the stench of raw sewage hangs over the market and adds to the sense of discomfort that the shopkeepers are forced to endure.

There had been reports that it was the settlers who had blocked up the sewage system, causing the problem, although that was hard for the team to verify. However, the next incident they were called to appeared far more clear cut. In a busy street underneath a barred window of one of the settlement buildings, a couple of tin cans with unidentifiable viscous liquid oozing from them lay on the edge of the pavement. “They tried to light it before hurling it at us,” declared a middle-aged Palestinian man breathlessly, pointing up in the direction of the offenders’ homes.

“They were 16 or 17,” he continued, “not small kids at all.” Hanging from the bars of the windows were sandbags filled with stones, which Sibyll said, “are prepared by the children, who then throw the rocks down at the Palestinians. The IDF come, but always deny that anything has happened.” All that TIPH can do in such circumstances is pull out their notebooks, log a record of the incident, and then file the report with the DCO, which does little to placate the injured parties or to reassure them that anything tangible is being done to protect them.

“There’s a feeling of real frustration amongst us,” said Ghassan, a Swedish member of TIPH. “We can’t intervene in a situation; all we can do is turn up and take photos.” He explained that this causes inevitable resentment on the part of the Palestinians, while others on the Palestinian side “don’t like us because they’re convinced we work for the Israelis.”

As we continued along the route of the patrol, we came across a gaggle of teenagers surrounding a dishevelled-looking man sitting askew in a wheelchair. His T-shirt badly ripped from shoulder to shoulder and covered in bloodstains, he shook as he turned plaintively to Mortens and Sibyll and pleaded for their help. “The army did this,” he began. “They beat me, and there are 15 of them still in my house now - you’ve got to go and do something.”

After taking photos of his injuries to use as evidence, we hurried off in the direction of his house in the company of one of the boys who was acting as guide. However, our way was obstructed by a shaven-headed Russian IDF soldier who ordered us to take a far longer, circuitous route, since the Palestinian boy was banned from walking past the Cave of Machpela. When we eventually got to the raided house, the operation was still in full flow, with heavily-armed soldiers milling around on every floor of the building as the children of the house nervously looked on.

Thanks to the terms of their mandate, TIPH members are unimpeded in their monitoring work, thus the soldiers had to let them photograph the ongoing search and interview the commander once he’d declared the building safe. “There were rocks being thrown from the roof,” he stated flatly when questioned. “I didn’t see anyone in a wheelchair,” he went on, looking to his charges for confirmation, “and if there had been, I promise you he’d still be here with us.”

“It’s a bit fishy that he managed to get out of the house and all the way down the road in a wheelchair in the middle of a raid.” He proposed that the man’s injuries might instead be a result of him jumping off the roof and trying to escape arrest, implying that the wheelchair was merely a prop used to garner sympathy from the TIPH team. Once the soldiers had left, we entered the house and interviewed the wounded man’s children, who assured us that he had been beaten by the troops.

However, they also admitted that their younger brother had been throwing rocks at the army, and refused to stop when his older siblings and father remonstrated with him. At the same time, they couldn’t give a convincing explanation for how their apparently wheelchair-bound father had made it up the impossibly narrow stairs onto the roof to chastise their brother. This prompted Sibyll to complain that the hardest part of her job was trying to decide who was being honest and who just wanted to apportion all the blame to the other side.

The commander’s parting words to us had been “We were just doing our job - no one should have rocks thrown at them, should they?” While entirely right, his concern seemed pretty ironic given the complete ambivalence the army showed earlier when Mortens and Sibyll tried to report the missile attacks on the Palestinians. That the IDF runs the whole show in the city, and TIPH can do little more than meekly complain from the sidelines is the heart of the problem when it comes to policing the area fairly.

Of course, Israel is hardly likely to agree to arm the likes of TIPH, just as they have all but repealed the authority’s mandate to be in charge of keeping order in the Palestinian half of the city. However, given that a large part of TIPH’s purpose is to try and afford the same level of protection and security to the Palestinians that the settlers enjoy, it is clear that there is no balance whatsoever at present.

Well-meaning but ultimately impotent foreigners wielding notebooks and pens are no match for M16-toting soldiers when it comes to delivering justice to the city’s residents. Therefore it is no surprise that, despite what TIPH was set up to deliver, the Palestinians feel no better looked after now than they did before 1994. And that is no more likely to assuage their frustration and fears than any other half-hearted internationally-led initiative - meaning that their ongoing feeling of abandonment is entirely understandable while the best they’ve got is TIPH.

Deuteronomy 16:20 – “Justice, justice shall you pursue that you may live and inherit the land which God gave you” and the footnote in the 1980 Hertz Edition “(T)here is international justice, which demands respect for the personality of every national group, and proclaims that no people can of right be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or spiritual heritage.

An Abomination - the 800 Jewish Settlers of Hebron

2008-01-09T08:40:00.000-08:00

Today is Day 14,515 of the Maintenance of the immoral (and illegal) West Bank Settlements and more than 40 years since the start of the immoral (and illegal) occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Micah.6:8 “He has told you,..., Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God

A few weeks ago I received the latest report from B’Tselem entitled “Ghost Town: Israel’s Separation Policy and Forced Eviction of Palestinians from the Center of Hebron”, May 2007.

This report sits on top of the file of to-be-read material but I just cannot overcome the nausea that overwhelms me as I contemplate reading 107 pages about the abomination that is the 800 Jewish residents of Hebron. I did read the first sentence of the Conclusions:

"The constant and grave harm to Palestinians living in the center of Hebron is one of the most extreme manifestations of human rights violations committed by the State of Israel."

Hebron Area H2

This morning I received this message:

SOURCE http://jewschool.com/
Hebron, Area H2 (guest post)
by BZ - http://www.jewschool.com/ - Tuesday, January 8th, 2008
This post is by guest contributor Shira Levine.

Below is a reflection I wrote after traveling last Friday to area H2 of Hebron, the twenty percent of the city that is under direct Israeli control. I toured with Breaking the Silence, an organization of Israelis who served as soldiers in Hebron and are aiming to educate the public on the reality of the situation.

The most frightening part of the area of Hebron that is under Israeli control is the totality of the tragedy – the complete emptiness which serves as evidence that you can erase a presence with enough guns and padlocks. But there are still Palestinians there.
On the few streets that Palestinians are allowed to walk on, they walk with trepidation – brief encounters with a soldier who asks you on the street to open your jacket and show that you’re not wearing a bomb belt must happen countless time a day for the few residents who stayed in this part of the city. The soldier gestures and it’s clear to the pedestrian what he wants. And in the space between the houses that have not been abandoned, or where residents have not been driven out, you see a young women step out to empty trash. She’s wearing a bed sheet as a headscarf. It’s surprising to see her here. It’s surprising that anyone is left.
Palestinians in Hebron seem to live with a low profile, clinging to their houses. Many of the houses are empty. And all are surrounded by trash. Much of it is the trash thrown by Jewish settlers onto the houses of Palestinians, with the clear intention of driving out their neighbors.
Every Palestinian window is covered with chicken wire to prevent rocks being thrown in from the settlers. Since windows have still been bashed in, some Palestinians have enclosed their homes with metal shutters. How dark is it inside those houses?

The darkness. The day was sunny, but the barrenness cast a deep shadow. Row upon row upon row of locked up shop fronts. Like in abandoned American inner-cities. Only these shops weren’t left voluntarily – different streets have different levels of what our guide described as sterilization. After the Baruch Goldstein massacre in 1994 of Palestinian worshippers, there was a legitimate fear of Palestinian retaliation.
As a result, Palestinians were closed in their homes and allowed out only every few days for provisions. Beginning with the meat market, areas of the city began to be emptied and shut. Shop owners there continued paying the rent that, under the complex property laws in Hebron, maintained their right to the land. They were paying rent for stores that were locked up on roads that they still aren’t allowed to walk on. A few settlers have started building in the empty storefronts.

There are no cars, no stores, and even walking is forbidden on the sterilized roads in what used to be a bustling Palestinian city. The former soldiers who give the tours tell horrible confessional stories of the violence and harm that the army did in its efforts to make Hebron a place where 800 Jewish settlers can live.

800 people who don’t want to live with their neighbors. People who send their children to attack Palestinian students returning from school. Videos, filmed by residents with hand held camcorders from the Israeli human rights group Betselem, show pure hatred in fifteen year old settler girls who push down adult Palestinian women teachers.
The settlers’ goal is clear. The Palestinians should leave.

The encroaching emptiness has succeeded. Is it possible to stand in the ruins and imagine a restored market place? Is it possible to imagine that children could bring back milk without walking through empty streets and army check points?
When you’re there, it feels like the end. 15 years ago, if we’d stood in the market and you’d told me that the army and the settlers together would clear out this section of the city of its Palestinian residents, I couldn’t have believed you. I couldn’t have imagined how strikingly different the place would become.
It’s hard to imagine that it still can.

Sadly, George W. Bush, the President of the United States, who is visiting Israel and the Occupied Territories, is not likely to visit Hebron Area H2 and be made aware of the story of the 800 Jewish settlers living there.

Leviticus, Chapter 19

On New Year’s Eve, for perhaps the twentieth year, my wife and I and another couple, our good friends, enjoyed First Night in Boston. One of the four performances we attended was at the Universalist-Unitarian Church. The sounds of the talented guitar player from Mexico reminded me of music of Andre Segovia played by my roommate Bill in college now over 50 years ago. I took out the prayer book in the pew in front of me and read an excerpt from “The Heart of the Torah” Leviticus Chapter 19. Today, I took a look at the entire Chapter. Here is what struck me.

"1. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
2. Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them, You shall be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy.
9. When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not fully reap the corner of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest.
10. And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you collect the [fallen] individual grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. I am the Lord, your God.
11. You shall not steal. You shall not deny falsely. You shall not lie, one man to his
fellow.
13. You shall not oppress your fellow. You shall not rob. The hired worker's wage shall not remain with you overnight until morning.
14. You shall not curse a deaf person. You shall not place a stumbling block before a
blind person, and you shall fear your God. I am the Lord.
15. You shall commit no injustice in judgment; you shall not favor a poor person or respect a great man; you shall judge your fellow with righteousness.
16. You shall not go around as a gossipmonger amidst your people. You shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow's blood. I am the Lord.
17. You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your fellow, but you shall not bear a sin on his account.
18. You shall neither take revenge from nor bear a grudge against the members of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.
23. When you come to the Land and you plant any food tree, you shall surely block its fruit [from use]; it shall be blocked from you [from use] for three years, not to be
eaten.
24. And in the fourth year, all its fruit shall be holy, a praise to the Lord.
25. And in the fifth year, you may eat its fruit; [do this, in order] to increase its produce for you. I am the Lord, your God.
32. You shall rise before a venerable person and you shall respect the elderly, and you shall fear your God. I am the Lord.
33. When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not taunt him.
34. The stranger who sojourns with you shall be as a native from among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord, your God.
35. You shall not commit a perversion of justice with measures, weights, or liquid
measures.
36. You shall have true scales, true weights, a true ephah, and a true hin. I am the Lord, your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt.
37. You shall observe all My statutes and all My ordinances, and fulfill them. I am the Lord."

The 800 Jewish settlers in Hebron

The American Jewish Committee just released its 2007 survey of American Jewry. I wonder what percentage of American Jews know the story of the 800 Jewish Settlers in Hebron. I wonder what percentage of American Jews are familiar with the above passages from Leviticus 19. I wonder what percentage of American Jews who are familiar with the story and the above passages would condemn the actions of the settlers and the Government of Israel for supporting the settlers.

I wonder what percentage of American Rabbis know the story of the 800 Jewish Settlers in Hebron. I am quite certain that American Rabbis are familiar with these passages. I wonder what percentage of American Rabbis who know the story and are familiar with the passages would condemn the actions of the settlers and the Government of Israel for supporting the settlers.

The Jewish settlers in Hebron are one of the primary reasons I regret that the Great Sanhedrin (the supreme court of the Jewish people) was dissolved about 1700 years ago. One of my fondest dreams is for a Great Sanhedrin to be reinstituted so that the Jewish settlers could be indicted for its violation of Leviticus 19. What might be appropriate would be to frame the accusation as attempted murder of Judaism – the thrusting of a knife into the heart of the Torah.

Elsewhere in the Torah is another piece of the Heart of the Torah- Deuteronomy XVI, 18:20 – “Justice, Justice shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Another question to ask is "Where is God?" We would not need to reestablish the Great Sanhedrin if God was observing the Hebron settlers. She would likely disinherit all the 800 and evict them.

Marty Federman's 2007 Visit Journal - Entry # 9B

2007-12-18T16:42:00.000-08:00

Marty Federman's 2007 Visit Journal - Entry # 9A

2007-12-18T16:34:00.000-08:00

Will One of These Organizations Change the World?

2007-12-11T16:50:00.000-08:00

Will One of These Organizations Change the World?
(or at least 11289 square miles of it)

I often think about the quote attributed to Margaret Mead
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”

Do you ever consider the possibility that there is such a group right now who might, with support, effect a just peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis?

Would you like to do a little research to try to discover it?

If you find what you believe to be that group, you might want to make a year-end financial contribution to, or you might want to devote some time working with, the organization. Who knows, you could, by what you do, change that small sliver of the world.

Here are some organizations to consider. I support and know much about some, know a little about some others and know almost nothing about the rest. In this post, I am not making any recommendations. I am leaving any decision up to you based on your knowledge or your research.

If you do decide to support one or more, I encourage you to post a comment here and let us know which one(s) you chose and why.

If you want to know more about an organization than you were able to find on its website, please ask by a comment and I or a reader may be able to provide some additional information.

Of course, if you would like to recommend that we support another organization not on this list, please let us know its name and its website.

The Abraham Fund
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
American Friends Service Committee
American Jewish World Service
Americans for Peace Now
Amnesty International
B’tselem:The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
Brit Tzedek v’Shalom: Jewish Alliance for Peace and Justice
Code Pink
Doctors Without Borders
Facing History and Ourselves
Friends of Sabeel - North America
Friends of Yemin Order
Friends of Open House
Gush Shalom
Heschel Center for Environmental Learning and Leadership
Human Rights Watch
Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
International Solidarity Movement
Interns for Peace
IPCRI Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information
Jewish Peace Fellowship
Jewish Funds for Justice
New Israel Fund
Jewish Voice for Peace Mazon – A Response to Hunger
American Friends of Neve Shalom/ Wahat al-Salam
One Voice
Palestine BDS Campaign - Boycott Divestment Sanctions against Israel
Parents Circle of Bereaved Parents
Partners for Peace – Jerusalem Women Speak
Rabbis for Human Rights
Seeds of Peace
The Shalom Center
Tikkun: Institute for Labor and Mental Health
United for Peace and Justice
U. S. Campaign to End the Occupation
Women in Black
Ziv Tzedakah

At the request of Arieh Lebowitz, I am adding the following:
Meretz USA
Jewish Academic Network for Israeli-Palestinian Peace
Union of Progressive Zionists

Hanukkah - The Rest of the Story

2007-12-10T10:58:00.000-08:00

What a great story. The evil Syrians (Greeks? Babylonians? North Koreans? who cares?) tried to assimilate us Hebrews. About 167BCE Mattathias and his five sons fought back and defeated the enemy. The Temple (the 2nd) was in rough shape. There was not enough oil to last the eight days until the rededication but - a miracle - it did. And today we light the eight candles and celebrate Hanukkah.

Funny thing, the rabbis hardly ever mentioned the Maccabees in the Talmud.

What gives?

As Paul Harvey says, here is ----- the rest of the story.

(I acknowledge taking nearly all of what follows, including the quotes, from Jewish Literacy by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin. For a more complete description of the events from 167BCE to 135CE, read Chapters 64 to 80)

(There is so much in this history that is relevant to the present situation. I will simply lay out excerpts from the book but encourage you to post comments with your thoughts.)

THE MACCABEES (167BCE)

Antiochus Epiphanes, King of Syria (175-163BCE) was a tyrant whose actions led to the successful revolt of the Maccabees.

Also known as Hasmoneans, they became oppressors when they got power. “Unfortunately the Maccabees were more noble in opposition than in power. They had grown so accustomed to fighting that they seemed incapable of working with anyone who disagreed with them about anything.”

Mattathias' descendant “King Alexander Yannai executed 800 of his Pharisee opponents after first forcing them to witness the murders of their wives and children. While the slaughter was going on, Yahhai was present, hosting a Greek-style drinking party. (For Jews the episode was doubly tragic; it was as if the descendants of the Marranos had later become the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition.)”

The Maccabees terrible moral and religious decline explains why there is almost no mention of them in the Talmud. Today, in fact, when Jews think of the miracle of Hanukkah, they are less apt to think of the Mccabean rebellion than of the small cruse of oli that burned for either days when the Temple was rededicated.”

During a civil war in 63 BCE between Mattathias’ descendants, the Romans were invited in. “It is one of the less proud facts of Jewish history that Rome occupied Jerusalem in 63 BCE not by invasion but by invitation.”

“The tragedy was now complete. The original Maccabees had freed the Jews from foreign rule; their corrupt descendants now returned the Jews to subjugation under an alien (and Pagan) power.”

THE ZEALOTS AND THE GREAT REVOLT (66-70CE)

“The Jew’s Great Revolt against Rome in 66 CE led to one of the greatest catastrophes in Jewish life and, in retrospect, might well have been a terrible mistake.”

The zealots, active since about 6CE, were anti-Rome and believed that all means were justified to attain political and religious liberty. The revolt began in the north and no help came from Jerusalem.

When the north fell to the Romans, the zealots came to Jerusalem, started a suicidal civil war, killing every Jewish leader not as radical as them. Some great figures of ancient Israel, like Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, opposed the revolt.

By 70CE, the walls of Jerusalem were breached by the Romans and the Temple was destroyed leaving only one wall standing (the Western Wall – the Kotel).

It is estimated that one million Jews died in the Great Revolt.

MASADA 73CE

After the fall of the temple, the surviving Zealots fled to the fortress of Masada. The Romans laid siege as the Zealots had been in revolt for nearly 70 years and had started the Great Revolt. Eventually the Zealot men killed their wives and children and then each other.

This episode is not mentioned in the Talmud. Why? Perhaps there was Rabbinic anger at the extremist Zealots who had died there. “Furthermore, at a time when the rabbis were desperately attempting to reconstruct a Judaism that could survive without a temple and without a sovereign state, they hardly were interested in glorifying the mass suicide of Jews who believed that life without sovereignty was not worth living.”

The story of Masada was a more or less forgotten episode until the 1920’s “when the Hebrew writer Isaac Lamdan wrote “Masada” a poetic history of the anguished Jewish fight against a world full of enemies.”

BAR-KOKHBA REVOLT (132-135CE)

Simon Bar-Kokhba organized a rebellion again the Romans in 132CE. The reasons for the revolt are unclear. There seems no evidence that the Romans were trying to eradicate Judaism. Rabbi Akiva (135CE), perhaps the Talmud’s greatest scholar, was a strong supporter of Bar-Kokhba, saying that he was the Messiah.

When it was over and the Romans were victorious, nearly the entire land of Judea lay waste. Fifty percent of the Judea’s population was dead. Rabbi Akiva was executed by burning. Jews were outnumbered by non-Jews. Tens of thousands of Jewish men and women were sold into slavery and other women were forced to become prostitutes.

“In the opinion of many Jewish historians, the failure of this rebellion along with the Great Revolt was the greatest catastrophe to befall the Jewish people prior to the Holocaust. It led to the total loss of Jewish political authority in Israel until 1948.”

“This loss in itself exacerbated the magnitude of later Jewish catastrophes, since it precluded Israel from being used as a refuge for the large numbers of Jews fleeing persecutions elsewhere.”

“As a rule, people regard bold actions they admire as courageous, and those of which they disapprove as foolhardy. In 1980, Israeli General Yehoshafat Harkabi shocked Israeli public opinion by arguing that one of the great Jewish national heroes, Simeon Bar-Kokhba, the leader of a second-century revolt against Rome should be placed into the category of the foolhardy rather than the courageous” arguing “that Bar-Kokhba initiated a revolt that was unnecessary and unwinnable.”

Marty Federman's 2007 Visit Journal - Entry # 8

2007-12-06T06:53:00.000-08:00

Marty Federman's 2007 Visit Journal - Entry # 7

2007-12-04T07:38:00.000-08:00

Journal Entry #7

Marty Federman, the co-chair of the Boston Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, is traveling in Israel and the West Bank. On his trips, he always keeps a journal of what he sees as well as his observations. I have asked for his permission to post each entry on this blog and he gave his approval.

Marty Federman's 2007 Visit Journal - Entry # 7

Sunday, Dec. 2, 2007 – Arab Women’s Union Guesthouse 11:00 p.m.

Had a very laid back day trying to recuperate from the stress, physical and emotional, of the trip to Twana and Tubah yesterday. Did some reading, then walked to Siraj to “connect.” They were closed (it’s Sunday near Bethlehem, of course) so I sat in the stairwell and used the WiFi to catch up with some e-mail (including the distressing one from Alan re: my appearance on the Solomonica blog. Got lost walking back, but nice people in a little store (which was open) directed me home.

Conversations

This evening I had a fascinating meeting with two Palestinians – one a sociologist from a major university here, the other from a big NGO, both with ties to Fatah – who SJ brought to the guesthouse. We talked for a couple of hours, but here are some of what for me were particularly striking things (not necessarily in a coherent order:

The professor made an interesting distinction between Palestine and Palestinians. You can talk about the geopolitical aspects of “Palestine,” he said, but that doesn’t really deal with the real people, the “Palestinians;”

Jerusalem is critical: for some, you can give us all of Palestine without Jerusalem but we won’t accept it, but we will accept Jerusalem without Palestine.

Arafat, who made many mistakes, was a symbol of Palestinian unity. Abu Mazin (Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas) had an opportunity early on to transform symbol into a new approach to what Palestinian unity should be, but he lost the chance. There is no one or group who currently has the ability to bring the people together like the symbol of Arafat did. (And this from loyal Fatah people!)

We are at a crucial place once more, in Palestine, in Israel and in the U.S. Nothing will break the logjam unless it is imposed from the outside, and the only one who can do this is Bush/U.S. – not Europe, not the U.N., not the Arab nations – which leaves us in a terrible – but, in their opinion not impossible – situation.

Finally, the greatest threat to the Palestinian people is the loss of hope. “They took our land, took our water, took our livelihood, even took our lives, but they could not take our hope.” Now, says the professor, unless something happens to change the course, Palestinians risk loosing their hope.

Monday, Dec. 3, 2007 – Arab Women’s Union Guesthouse – 7:00 p.m.

This morning I watched a DVD that was out on the literature table in the entryway – a well-made, somewhat disturbing film: The Garbage Cage (Sadaa Media: Marndooh Afdile; Rima Essa; Yair Sagi Alternative Information Media. 28 minutes, Arabic with English subtitles) The blurb on the package:
Trapped in the Separation Wall, many people from the hebron area are forced to make a living by digging or metal in the Yatta dump yard. The Garbage Cage describes the life of these people, many children among them, who in spite of their so called low position hold tight to their dreams and hopes, their childhood games and small fights, their laughter and pain, their struggle. Their humanity.

The film plays somewhat like a Dickensian (or maybe Kafka-esque) novel: These people need to hunt through garbage for metal scraps because they have no money for food, but if they are arrested doing this they can be fined 1500 shekels or more, amounts that they don’t remotely have (or else they wouldn’t be going through garbage for metal scraps to raise ten or twenty shekels) so most often they have no choice but to opt for jail (usually 30 days) during which they are away from their families and can’t go through garbage for metal scraps to raise ten or twenty shekels to feed their families. Got it?! And, needless to say, the children are the most heartbreaking.

The YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association) – Beit Sahour Branch

This isn’t your father’s – or your brother’s or your son’s YMCA!!”

Spent a few hours with Nader Abu Amsha, director of the YMCA Rehabilitation Program and Beit Sahour Branch. It only took a few minutes to realize that this was a very different kind of Y than we are used to. To begin with, Nader is responsible for both a thriving Y (i.e., social, athletic) program with a larger component of advocacy and grassroots activities as well as a rehabilitation program that services a large number of people throughout the Bethlehem area (and beyond). Some of the things I learned about the Y:

The YMCA is part of the International YMCA and, through that body, has relationships with Y’s throughout the country. They have support from Y’s throughout the world (e.g., Norway, Switzerland, UK, etc.), but not the U.S.A. which, due to its much more mainstream politics, stays away from involvement with Palestinians. In fact, historically the Y’s in “Palestine” go back to the nineteenth century and the big Y in West Jerusalem, created by the U.S. YMCA, was the “Palestine YMCA” in Jerusalem and had a mostly Palestinian board and staff. In 1948, with the partition, the Jerusalem Y switched to a mostly American board and fired their Palestinian staff, most of whom were forced out of Israel and became refugees. In fact, the East Jerusalem Y was first organized to offer services to refugees, even before UNRWA was involved. In 1955 the East Jerusalem YMCA was built. Even with the reunification of Jerusalem there is little or no connection between the two Jerusalem YMCA’s – since the West Jerusalem branch receives funding from US AID through specific “projects” that must comply with US AID guidelines, they adhere to a basically U.S. political agenda. Currently the West Jerusalem Y has a $60 million project that includes building a huge facility that will house income-generating offices and commercial space.

As for the branch in Beit Sahour which services the Bethlehem district, it is technically a branch of the East Jerusalem Y but their interaction is limited due to Israeli-imposed travel restrictions. (Nader Abu Amsha, as a Palestinian, is not able to travel the few minutes from Beit Sahour to East Jerusalem so he is limited to the facilities around Bethlehem.)

Nader is very proud of the fact that his organization’s programs and activities are based on a strongly committed Christian ethic, rooted in the biblical/church concept of all humans being “created in God’s image” (consequently everything they do is available to anyone regardless of religion, etc.), and a concept “love” that, he says, is not only an idea but something to be put into practice. Jesus, he says, didn’t just talk, he healed, helped the sick, the poor, etc., etc. and based on that model the Y’s core mission is ACTS.

This basic philosophy had led the Y here to develop a huge set of services for psycho-social rehabilitation and vocational training. They work with institutions like the Arab Rehabilitation Center in Beit Jalla (which our delegation visited last week) which do the physical/surgical response to wounded and injured individual who are then referred to the Y’s facilities. They have an impressive staff who are not only trained to deal with issues like trauma and other psycho-social problems, but, given the experience they have had because of the nature of the conflict here, their staff has been involved in – and trained professionals in – places like Chechnya, Bosnia and Columbia. They have been pioneering various techniques for the treatment of trauma and have an amazing, and modern, facility for assessing a wide range of physical and emotional abilities in order to direct disabled individuals into appropriate vocational training.

Along with this aspect of the Y’s services there is a highly developed advocacy program which addresses the issues of occupation and methods of non-violent resistance. I first learned about some of this from the first-rate literature that was available in the foyer of the guesthouse in which I’m staying. They sponsor various programs and activities including a “”Journey for Justice” program that brings groups of young people (17-27) from abroad to see the area (both Palestinian and Isreli) and meet with appropriate people from both sides and all parts of society. Not surprisingly the majority of participants come through YMCA’s from Europe and South America – very few from the U. S. That is really too bad!

I could go on, but I’ll just say that all the things that hamper Palestinian society in general – the Wall, checkpoints, Israeli incursions, shellings – all effect the Y’s ability to service its clients. The rehab facility was attacked and part of it’s upper floors destroyed, staff has trouble getting to clients and clients to the facilities, and the intra-Palestinian financial problems and factional conflict all interfere with their ability to provide services, and yet it’s amazing what they are able to accomplish.

A quick observation: it’s amazing what people have to contend with here. When I said something to Nader about how different this was from the Y’s back in the U. S. he smiled. “You have basketball,” he said simply. I’m not so naïve as to think that most people have an agenda, no less so here than anywhere else, but I’m impressed with what comes across as such a sincere desire to forge human relationships that will lead to some kind of resolution that is based on human values, an approach that takes concepts like justice, humanity, international law, etc. seriously, not just catch-words.

Let there be no mistake, Nader Abu Amsha, in addition to obviously being a sophisticated professional, is a political being – his passion for his people and for justice for Palestine is up-front and clear. But his commitment not only to non-violence, but non-violent resistance and advocacy (a word he repeats frequently) permeates everything he talks about. I admit it: I was impressed.

Marty Federman's 2007 Visit Journal - Entry #6

2007-12-02T08:23:00.000-08:00

Marty Federman, the co-chair of the Boston Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, is traveling in Israel and the West Bank. On his trips, he always keeps a journal of what he sees as well as his observations. I have asked for his permission to post each entry on this blog and he gave his approval.

This message, Entry #6 is longer than the previous messages but worth reading especially the section where Marty describes "An Awful Day in Twana and Tubah" and then gives some highly personal observations about the Jewish settlers of that area.

(As is obvious, when I cut and pasted his text, I lost the photographs he included in his Entry.)

Journal Entry #6

Thursday, November 29, 2007 – Arab Women’s Union, Beit Sahour 10:30 p.m.

An interesting conversation this morning in the guesthouse dining room. There are two young men from Amsterdam staying upstairs and they were in the kitchen with Steve, a Welshman (although he doesn’t identify himself as Welsh anymore) who is married to a Palestinian woman from Beit Sahour. We all sat at one of the tables, sipping Nescafe (seemingly the universal national drink – after, of course, “Arab coffee” – and talked about the situation here. For the most part I sat and listened, neither being asked nor offering much about why I am here and what I am doing, intrigued by the conversation and so, choosing to be the proverbial “fly on the wall” albeit a rather large and unavoidable fly.

There was little that I heard that I particularly disagreed with, but I have to acknowledge some discomfort that was somewhat difficult for me to identify. I know that there was something off putting about the self-important way in which Steve presented his having left Wales behind, found love with a Palestinian woman and thrown his lot in with the Palestinian people. I did not derive this feeling from any particular thing he said, but rather a general sense that is difficult to “put one’s finger on.” It is a bit harder for me to articulate my discomfort with the two Dutchmen – really quite nice and seemingly sincere. There was a sense, however, of absoluteness asbout their experience of Occupation – very little that I haven’t felt myself, but with an edge that did not only reject any and all Israeli/Jewish viewpoint, but did not seem to acknowledge that there m might be one to reject. It is an absoluteness that I have felt from many of the “Internationals” I’ve met – even more so, in some ways, than from Palestinians. Many Palestinians, of course, carry a much deeper anger towards those they experience as occupiers and oppressors – but many with a more nuanced point of view that does not completely discount the possibility that there are people on the other side who have feelings born out of their experience that cannot, or at least should not be simply discounted. This is, by no means a universal perspective, but I have found a wider range of perceptions and ways of seeing the situation amoung Palestinians then I have among Internationals.

Later in the day I caught up on my e-mail using the WiFi at the Siraj/Rapprochement offices. There I overheard the phone conversation of one of their journalists who I had heard earlier had been beaten by Palestinian security forces yesterday. There is a complicated set of political realities within Palestinian society that rivals that of the Israelis. The sense in the West Bank (as opposed to Gaza) of support for Fatah rather than Hamas – but a simultaneous (appropriate?) suspicion of the aims and motives of Fatah’s leadership. Consequently, there is a lot of hostility towards the much vaunted possibilities of the Annapolis conference. Yesterday there were large demonstrations planned in opposition to the conference, but Palestinian (i.e., Fatah) security was instructed to stop or at least minimize them in order to avoid the appearance that the grassroots opposed, in any way, Mahmoud Abbas’s participation in Annapolis. The police attempted to make this journalist leave one of the demos, he refused, there was a scuffle and, ultimately, he was beaten, somewhat severely, an attempt was made to take his camera and notes but he eventually was able to leave.

It would be easy for me to write obsessively about the unfortunate kind of infighting that is clearly present within Palestinian society – and how destructive it is for their cause – but I will leave that, perhaps for another time. I’ll only say that it is very depressing for me to see this playing out here.

I had the opportunity later to spend some hours with three people from the Michigan Peace Team group. Like the CPT (Christian Peace Team), they are committed to having a presence at various hot spots in order to support Palestinians and offer some buffer in places where Israeli security is less likely to mistreat Internationals than Palestinians, and sometimes less likely to mistreat Palestinians if Internationals are present. They have considerable interaction with CPT, their main philosophical difference being that, while CPT is fully faith-based (supported by a number national church groups), MPT is not, although they have people who are affiliated with churches, but they take a more “Ghandian” approach to there work, which has, as M, one of the people I spoke to acknowledged, a significant spiritual if not religious component. M stressed that they have a open acceptance of “non-believers.” At the same time, the major practical difference they have vis-a-vis CPT is numbers. MPT is a group that formed locally some years ago to engage in domestic non-violent, third part intervention and branched out over time to address the situation here. They never have more than a handful of people here, so there role is somewhat limited and they are struggling with how – and whether – they can have an ongoing presence in some particular region similar to what CPT has been doing for years in the Hebron area. I was impressed by the approach, commitment and general attitude of these three – and they certainly have a well-developed philoshopical base for their work. At the same time I have serious questions as to what effect thay can have over time unless they are able to recruit a larger core of people on the ground here. For now they are sharing some space – and living – in the building where Siraj and the Rapprochement Center are and their commitment to staying and making a difference is clear.

Ended the day with supper and conversation at SJ’s house – and to bed to rest for tomorrow.

Friday, November 30, 2007 – Arab Women’s Union, Beit Sahour 11:30 p.m.

Demonstration Against the Occupation/Wall near Masara Village (Southern Bethlehem Region)

Another amazingly full day, with two major firsts: A taxi driver who asked me to put on a seat belt this morning, and another this evening that actually used his turn signals! Now I think I’ve experienced everything there is to experience in this world – or at least in this part of it!

Began the day by taking a taxi (ordered by SJ) to the area where most Fridays a group of villagers along with Israelis and Internationals come to demonstrate against the Occupation and the extension of the Wall that will run between the ten villages in this area and the settlement of Efrat and a number of smaller settlements that pinch the area of the villages and will eventually take a large chunk of Palestinian farmland for the “natural growth” of the settlements. The starting place of the demonstration was changed and we had to drive around a bit. At one point the driver, who was, I think, trying to be nice but was impatient to get going and nervous about a couple of Israeli APC’s (Armored Personnel Carriers) sitting on the side of the road we were on, told me he would be happy to leave me anywhere I’d like or take me back to Beit Sahour. While I did not want to have to return, I definitely did not want to be left alone on the side of a road in the backwoods of the “Bethlehem District” with Israeli soldiers and a bunch of settlements around me. As we sat there an IDF vehicle came down the road in the opposite direction, slowed down and, to my great discomfort, made a u-turn and stopped next to the taxi. He asked for the driver’s license and travel permit and my passport. We explained that I was a tourist who was to meet someone who was going to take me around the area but we had gotten lost and were trying to get my “guide” on the phone (which, in fact, I was since SJ was my only contact with anyone who knew where the demo was to take place. The soldier looked dubious, but too harried to really hassle us any further and handed us back our documents and waved us on. I was finally able to get SJ on the phone and, after some back and forth with the driver we found the first group of demonstrators down the road. I got out of the taxi, thanked and paid the driver – despite our pleasant conversation and good connection, he seemed extremely

I introduced myself to a couple of the protesters who seemed quite happy to meet me, and they explained that they were waiting for a few more people before they started down the road I had just come up on and headed towards Efrat. Eventually there were about two dozen people, more than half local villagers, about four or five Israelis and a few Internationals, three of them with the World Council of Churches Accompaniment Project. About three villagers held very large Palestinian flags on poles that flapped assertively as we began to walk.

After walking only a few meters we were joined by three or four Israeli soldiers who had gotten out of a vehicle and now began to walk behind us. As we got near a back road that seemed to me to lead in the direction of Efrat we had accumulated a healthy squad of soldier-chaperones, spreading out within our line of protesters like some sort of squad sent to protect us. All of the people in the group totally ignored our uninvited escorts until we reached the road, where an additional group of soldiers informed us that we could not go any further. There was a good deal of (contained) give and take with these new protectors which involved a couple of the leaders from the village an an Israeli, SP, who seemed to be the most knowledgeable and in control Israeli with us. After a conversation, in mostly Hebrew and a little Arabic, the soldiers were asked why we couldn’t proceed given that we had not done anything wrong and were walking peacefully on what is, the soldiers were reminded, Palestinian controlled land. This, of course, made no difference what-so-ever to the soldiers and, after a few minutes more of this “discussion” the group formed around the beginning of the dirt road and one of the villagers picked up battery operated megaphone, stood on a rock and began the Muslim call to prayer. After a few minutes of this he came down to the road and, in front of a half dozen men sitting on the side of the road gave what appeared to me to be a rousing traditional Islamic sermon – after which the men stood and began their mid-morning prayers. I actually found it quite moving to see these somewhat hardened men, in the midst of a protest against the Occupation, bowing in the dust as devoutly as if they were on their prayer rugs in the local mosque. All of this took place, of course, under the watchful eyes of a large group of Israeli soldiers standing nearby.

When the prayers were over, the group coalesced by the side of the road, there was a bit more speechifying (in Arabic, of course) and we began the walk back to to where we had first grouped. On the way back I had an interesting conversation with one of the Accompaniment people, an older German woman who has been in the area for some months and will be staying for a few more – and was walking this morning with her husband who is on holiday and visiting her! We talked a little bit about the complex situation in Germany given the history of the holocaust and how that colors the conversation in German, as well as the growing anti-Muslim/Arab/immigrant mood there. Finally we got to our starting point where there were a few cars that people had come in, and the mayor of one of the villages, Masara, invited – or perhaps instructed me would be a better word! – to come with him in his car back to his home for a cup of Arabic coffee.

In the car we had a very interesting, enlightening and thought-provoking conversation. He asked me what I was doing here and, when I told him about our Cambridge/Bethlehem People to People Project, he began to share his thoughts about “twinning” with Bethlehem. He had, he assured me, no problem with people supporting the city of Bethlehem, or the population centers in Beit Jalla and Beit Sahour – his problem, he told me emphatically, was that there are “dozens” of cities around the world that have some sort of “twinning” arrangement with Bethlehem. “We are” he informed me, “ten villages with 10,000 people spread out over a vast area of some 60,000 dunams, and no one ever makes it past Manger Square to come to us.” These villages, despite the fact that they are part of the Bethlehem region, get little or no funding from the city, the Palestinian Authority and certainly not the Israeli government. If we want to help them, he stressed, they need support for education (particularly a kindergarten), health care and economic development. By the time we reached his house he had done an admirable “pitch” for his village and those around it. Inside we were able to sit for a while, talking, learning about the area, exchanging contact information and sipping coffee. When I left with a “service” taxi, MZ gave me a warm, hearty handshake and expressed his hope that we would be in contact with one another.

The “service” dropped me off at a major intersection (I think on the edge of Beit Sahour) where there wer many taxis whose drivers began to yell at one another as soon as they perceived that I was looking for a taxi. When I showed one of them a card from Siraj to show him the address I was going to, he took it out of my hand, walked to his taxi and got in as he motioned me to get into the passenger side. I asked a couple of times how much the trip would coast and got no useful answer, only the repetition of “I know where you are going” over and over. By this time there were four or five taxi drivers shouting at “my” driver and beckoning me to there own cars. I was able to get SJ on the phone and, after retrieving my cards, was able to find a driver who spoke a bit of English, gave me a fair price to get me back to Siraj to do some computer/e-mail work.

Later in the evening I had a chance to meet Daniel Moses over a lovely dinner prepared by SJ’s mother at their home. Daniel is a lovely, incredibly well read man who works with Seeds of Peace. Our conversation was fascinating and, as it related to Seeds of Peace, complicated like everything else here. There is no question that Seeds of Peace is doing important work, creating connections not only between young people, but with parents, other adults and the “Seeds” that go on to be “Delegation Leaders,” fostering, if not agreement on everything, at least some understanding and friendships that cross the awful lines of conflict here. At the same time I was disappointed – although not surprised – to hear that Seeds of Peace, like virtually everything here in Israel and Palestine, is burdened by a full complement of personal and political issues. On the Israeli side the choice of participants is carefully overseen and regulated by the Ministry of Education with those chosen thoroughly prepped on how to present Israel in the most positive way possible. On the Palestinian side there is, not surprisingly, much less of an organized process making the choice far looser. On both sides, the influence of the elite, policy-makers and powerful plays a significant role, many of the “seeds” apparently coming from the ranks of their children. Never the less, it would appear from what Daniel described, the effect of the program (which, by the way includes participants from a number of other countries) is extremely hopeful and its true value probably won’t be seen or felt for some time to come.

Saturday, Dec. 1st, 2007 – 9:00 p.m. – Arab Women’s Union Guest House

An awful day in Twana and Tubah

SJ had me picked up by a taxi early this morning and I met him at the YM/YWCA. Our day began with a taxi to the edge of Bethlehem where we were picked up by Ezra, an Israeli activist who drove us in his van, to a large action in the villages of Twana and Tubah. This was the beginning of one of the worst days I’ve had since Yom Ha’atzmaut (“Israel Independence Day) in Hebron in 2001.

Twana is a tiny village south of Hebron, near the settlement of Ma’on – one of the most vicious of the settlements. After waiting a little while in the “center” of the village, two busloads of people, mostly Israelis, with a significant number of “internationals,” began arriving. Our charge for the day was to march to the village of Tubah, about two miles away, and sit while the people of Tubah plowed their land. The whole thing sounds simple, a reasonable walk to do something that shouldn’t need doing to begin with.

[Just something of a side comment: The village’s mosque was demolished, I believe someone said around 1998. Recently the village rebuilt an amazingly simple structure and this past week they received new demolishment orders, apparently because the village could not obtain the proper rebuilding permits.]

We started out along a narrow dirt road that moved up and down rolling hills - a bit challenging but certainly nothing overly difficult. As we marched a number of Israeli vehicles, both police and an array of different kinds of military vehicles, fell in line in front and behind us. Before long the road curved and soldiers appeared in front of us and we were told that we were forbidden to continue. There was a small amount of conversation between the soldiers and the leaders of our group and we were instructed (by Israeli demonstrators) to continue on. With that the 200 or so marchers surged forward, making it impossible for the soldiers to do anything but allow us to pass. What I realized at that point is that our movement had taken a new direction, off the already challenging road, and across the open hillsides. It is difficult to describe the terrain – mostly it is hard and rocky, with hill after hill that make San Francisco seem like thte flatlands of Iowa. As I trekked along, trying to keep up with the mass of people, I would climb up a hillside and feel a great surge of success having made it to the top, only to realize, as we reached the crest, that we had only arrived at another huge (and, thanks to the rocky terrain, even more difficult that going up) another steep descent into a deep valley with another hill on the other side. At one point, trying to direct my mind away from the discomfort of this trek, I imagined that this is what it would be like to do the Walk for Hunger or run the Boston Marathon on the tracks of the largest roller coaster at Coney Island. Attempting to navigate a terrain that was not meant for two-legged creatures, actually made a tiny bit easier by my cane, I began to fall back a bit. A number of people stopped as they passed to make sure that I was OK and ask whether I needed help. A wonderful young Israeli man, Asaf, actually slowed down and, with no fanfare or explanation, began to walk with me as we struck up a conversation about him and about what I was doing there.

All along this tortuous route we were watched from the distance by residents of the Mo’an settlement, whose large, modern agricultural buildings were obvious on the hilltop to our right. There was obvious interaction between the settlers (dressed almost all in white) and the many soldiers and police officers also on the ridge. As the few of us that had fallen a bit behind began to climb the next hill we were confronted by about half a dozen settlers screaming in Hebrew, telling us to go back, leave them alone, and get off their land. Since I was looking mostly at the ground, trying to negotiate the ever-present rocks, I was suddenly surprised by a woman, i would guess in her 30’s, dressed in an ankle-length skirt, long sleeve top and head scar, all in white, who began screaming at me to go off with my “Arab friends,” to “get off our land,” and repeatedly asking me what i was doing there. I continued to walk, trying to ignore this near-hysterical woman and avoid any direct contact with her, until she began to push me back down the hill and, at one point, attempted to grab my cane. As I maneuvered around her, trying to minimize the intensity of the interaction,

I was aware of a number of Israeli police officers about 50 meters away, watching everything that was happening without moving, talking or taking any kind of action. Finally, the woman pointed away from the settlement buildings and told me “go with your Arab friends, you Nazi!” I was relieved that I was then able to go off, with Assaf and a friend of his, and make our way up the hill.

When we finally arrived at a hilltop where the group had gathered, most people sitting on the larger stones or on the ground, listening to speakers talking through battery-operated megaphones (this seems to be a staple of these demonstrations) I was somewhat confused as to what was going to happen, but grateful that we hade apparently reached our destination. I cannot adequately express my feelings when I realized that we had, in fact, not yet reached our final destination, that this was merely a rest stop and, as one of the “veterans” was kind enough to inform me, “the roughest part is ahead of us.” This turned out to not be empty words. After informing us that, when we got to the fields of Tubah, we would form around the perimeter allowing the Tubans to plow the field unmolested by the settlers who regularly harass them when they try to work their land. When we arrived, we sat around the large field we had come to and watched as a middle-aged man riding an ancient tractor drove back and forth across the field, while three older teenage boys walked behind two donkeys pulling crude plows. I asked someone what they would be planting there and was told that they are expecting to grow coarse grass for their sheep!

After about an hour of this the plowing was halted and the word spread that the residents had invited us to their homes. As we began moving over the (thank heaven) last ridge I was told that either the soldiers or the police (it’s not always clear which of them is responsible for what) had halted the plowing because the settlers had demanded to see official maps confirming that this field did, in fact, belong to the residents of Tubah!

Over the ridge we arrived at the “village” of Tubah. If Twana is a small village, Tubah is barely an encampment. With virtually no permanent structures, these Bedouin-like people live with no electricity, no running water and no sewerage system, in lean-tos, semi-structures built with and into the rocks around the area, with kerosene lamps and “stoves” and virtually no furniture. And yet I was not particularly surprised when the women and children began distributing large circles of a a rustic, pita-like bread to all of us, and, from one of the shelters down the side of the hill I saw a man emerge with a tray of about half a dozen little glasses of, tea. The almost obsessive hospitality of these people is almost surreal – and adds to the overwhelming feeling of shame that I feel in situations like this.

After a while we began our hike back. An attempt was made to leave by way of the dirt road that circled the settlement (circuitous, but without the rock climbing), but the soldiers/police/settlers barred our way and we continued back the way we had come. About what I would estimate was a quarter of the way back I slipped on some rocks and pulled my knee. When i sat down to rest a number of people came over to see if I was OK. A very lovely – I was to find out later – professor of Indian literature and Sanskrit at Hebrew University, originally from the U.S. many years ago, identified himself as a medic and asked if I needed help. Although I told him that I thought I’d be alright he insisted on walking me over to a group of police officers nearby and, after some conversation I could only partly follow, the two of us were escorted to a group of military vehicles. I was ushered into one of them, protesting that I did not want to go without DS – but he insisted that I take the ride and was soon off on the dusty, rocky road from the settlement. The four soldiers (three men and one woman) were pleasant, although we had very little meaningful interaction, even offering me the first cup of ice water I’ve had here (from a tank in the back of the vehicle). At some point we converged with the line of returning protesters who had found their way back to the road leading to Twana and I asked the soldiers to let me out. When I got out a number of police officers came over and began speaking to me in Hebrew. I asked the one who seemed to be in charge to speak a little slower since i couldn’t understand everything he was saying – he then asked if I spoke French (!), and when I said no, English or some Hebrew, he asked if everything was alright and whether I had been treated well (I told them I had been), He then asked me my name and told me that I should go back to America and tell everyone how well I had been treated by the Israelis!!! Amazing. I happily rejoined the group and limped the final lap back to the village.

Back in “downtown Twana,” after some speeches thanking everyone for coming, SJ and I headed for Ezra’s van, and started back to Beit Sahour. After a couple of kilometers, however, Ezra began a frenetic round of calls and circled back to where the buses back to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv were loading their passengers. After some conversation with the people there we headed down the road again and stopped at the paved road to the settlement. In a few minutes the two buses arrived, pulled to the side of the road and people began moving from one to the other. I was finally able to ascertain that, as we were leaving Tubah, some settlers had beaten a boy from there and stolen his donkey – and now part of the group was going to remain behind and walk to the settlement to demand that the donkey be returned. As I write this in my room at the guest house in Beit Sahour I don’t know how that situation was resolved – and I don’t expect to find out at least until tomorrow.

As if this wasn’t a enough, heard some distressing news on the way back: earlier I wrote about having stopped in the village of Funduq which was closed because a settler had been shot (not by someone from Funduq). Yesterday a band of settlers went through Funduq, beat up local residents and apparently destroyed a significant amount of the town and some homes. When I heard this news I was overcome by the feeling I had a half dozen years ago in Hebron witnessing the effects of what can only be described as a pogrom perpetrated by the settlers there on the people, stores and homes of the people there. A horribly fitting cap to my experience in Twana and Tubah.

I hate clichés, but today I felt as if I was in the belly of the beast. As I’m writing this, I’m sitting at my desk in the Arab Women’s Union Guest House – my feet ache, my knee is still throbbing (just a little), I’m exhausted – but mostly I’m emotionally totally drained. At the beginning of this entry I said that this was one of the worst days I’ve had since I was in Hebron on Yom Ha’atzmaut (Israel Independence Day) in 2001. My feelings stem from much of the same place that they did then: it is impossible for me to understand or internalize the ugliness of people who identify themselves as observant Jews committed to their people and Jewish values and yet do what the people of the Ma’on settlement are doing. Here is a community of people who identify themselves as devout “Torah-true” Jews who are merely attempting to reclaim a land they believe was given exclusively to their ancestors – and, by extension, themselves – by a loving, caring God. They would have you believe that they have God’s blessing to do anything necessary to claim the land, clear it of anyone who is in the way of their special destiny. Anyone who challenges them, especially other Jews, is at best misguided, at worst a traitor and – as I was called today – a “Nazi.” These tsitsis- (the fringes worn by orthodox men at the corners of a special rectangular cloth) wearing hooligans have expropriated the land of the people in the villages in this region, pushed the legal owners out, created an exclusive enclave for their own use, and yet they still want more, are voracious in their quest to claim the land and vcious in their desire to cleanse that land of anyone who is not, well, them. It is impossible for me to express how I felt – when the woman called me a Nazi, when I saw and heard the ugliness of the settlers arrayed on the crest of the hill on which their transplanted agri-business is affixed; when bearded men in Sabbath clothes shouted filthy epithets at peaceful walkers avoiding their land, when these criminals made use of a legality that is never applied to them and finally, when I see that today in the “Jewish homeland” beating an unarmed boy and stealing the animal he relies on is apparently an acceptable Shabbat afternoon activity.

I will read this tomorrow, after what I hope will be a reasonable night’s sleep, and decide if it needs to be edited. As I write, however, I cannot help but think “If this is the face of ‘Torah-true Judaism’ I want nothing to do with it.” I know of no one with a greater potential for fomenting anti-Semitism than these ugly, vicious people. I have worked diligently to help people understand that they must listen to the stories of the other, not necessarily to agree with them or what they do, but, if not for any other reason, because they are their stories and they help to understand why another does what s/he does – and it gives us an opportunity to find the good in the other if it is there. I cannot, however (and heaven help me) find anything good in these people, nor does their story offer me very much insight into why they act as they do. Arthur Waskow talks about those he “stands with” and those he “doesn’t stand with.” I do not stand with these other Jews, not on anything or ever – and that saddens me. It saddens me because I have always believed that, underneath all of our self-created schisms, we Jews shared a core of values that transcended what divides us. (And make no mistake. As much of an idealist as I am on one level, i am a realist at the same time and have always known that there are those in our community (as there are in virtually all communities) who are extremists that live and function outside of those values. I do not know, however, where to place these people on the spectrum that is the Jewish community – if they are there somewhere it shames all of us who identify ourselves as Jews, and, perhaps worst of all, these people are not only condoned, but embraced by an Israeli state that has jettisoned the values of our tradition along with the platitudes that our Zionists forefathers/mothers built the dream of a special place on. And the institutional Jewish community in the U.S. – along with individuals with seemingly endlessly deep pockets – justify and support behavior like this? And how do I begin to explain, much less justify, my self-absorbed inner struggle with SJ, a Palestinian who sees his land, life and his past being stolen by my people.

Around 1:00 p.m., about the time that many synagogue-attending Jews might have been ending Shabbat services and, possibly, singing “Oseh Shalom” (“Oseh shalom bimromav, Hu ya’aseh shalom alenu, v’al kol Yisroel, v’imru, imru amen.” – May the one who creates Shalom, grant Shalom to us and to all the people of Israel, and let us all say Amen) when a few people sitting on the top of a hill near the village of Tubah began singing the familiar tune, substituting “kol olam” (the whole world) for “kol Yisrael” (all Israel). I want to believe that we other Jews can take back our Judaism, our Jewishness, from those who have tried to highjack it, but, as I sit here I just don’t know.

Just a couple of observations (written the next morning) to end on a little bit of a brighter note: Along with the 200 or so demonstrators were at least three children who walked the entire way with their parents and one baby in a carrier on her father’s stomach. The beautiful little girl in the picture here went off with her abba (daddy) who was carrying a roll of toilet paper thoughtfully carried from home! I’m not sure exactly where they “went” since there are few trees here, accept in the area taken for the settlement, but they returned a few minutes later, the little girl skipping happily.

I must say that one can understand why the settlers want this land – aside from the ideological desire to own and control it, it is a magnificently beautiful, even if stark place. Looking out from the top of the hills one has a vision of truly biblical proportions which risks one seeing the place in nostalgic, picturesque ways, rather than in terms of the political realities. But one cannot deny the grandeur.

Finally, while I’m tired and my knee still hurts, it only hurts a little and I actually feel quite well, better after doing much more physical exertion than the last time I was here and my heart feels 1000% better! I’m watching myself carefully, but sometimes surgery actually does make a difference!

Marty Federman's 2007 Visit Journal - Entry # 5

2007-11-29T08:04:00.000-08:00

Since it IS Apartheid, what should we do? Part 7

2007-11-27T16:02:00.000-08:00

As I mentioned in previous posts, recently on the Israel Palestine Forum there have been a number of comments posted on the topic Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid. I have argued that it is apartheid. I am posting excerpts from some of my posts where I suggest that international law be used since it says that apartheid is a crime against humanity.

What I would like to do is to return to a discussion about the issue underlying this topic; i.e., do we believe that the Government of Israel has instituted a policy in the Occupied Territories that amounts to apartheid, a crime against humanity and, if so, what should we do about it.

Quote from X

From what I am hearing on this forum, we are already convicted. True this forum is not a court and therefore has the freedom of accusing with no need for proof without doubt. For me, this shows the starting point of any such trial and If I was the Israeli government I wouldn't join this "game" either.

As I mentioned, as of February, 2002, 101 states had signed on to the International Covenant on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (18 July 1976) but NOT the Government of the United States and NOT the Government of Israel.

This would pose a technical difficulty in obtaining jurisdiction over the Government of Israel to try it for the crime of apartheid. While no one should be sent to prison for the commission of a crime without having been assumed to be innocent and having been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there is nothing that prevents us (or should keep us) from looking at the facts and the law and forming an opinion about whether we believe that the Government of Israel is guilty.

On a website with a Study Guide on International Law and Israel I found a section on Israeli Violations of International Law entitled “APARTHEID: The State of Israel has a formal system of discrimination set up which technically fits the official UN definition of Apartheid” http://www.geocities.com/savepalestinenow/internationallaw/studyguides/sgil3k.htm

The section contains the text of Article I and Article II of the International Covenant on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (18 July 1976) followed by "evidence" that the Government of Israel has committed the six inhuman acts which, taken together, comprise the crime of apartheid. What I will do for this post is list each of the inhuman acts followed by the "evidence" presented on the website.

Please be aware that this material has been taken from the website of a group I know nothing about – savepalestinenow – and I make no representation that the “facts” that are alleged are true. I just wanted to point out what the international law about apartheid is and what one group alleges to be the “evidence”.

Do you believe that there is apartheid?

If you do, what should we do about it?

Article I

1. The States Parties to the present Convention declare that apartheid is a crime against humanity and that inhuman acts resulting from the policies and practices of apartheid and similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination, as defined in article II of the Convention, are crimes violating the principles of international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and constituting a serious threat to international peace and security.

2. The States Parties to the present Convention declare criminal those organizations, institutions and individuals committing the crime of apartheid.

Article II

For the purpose of the present Convention, the term "the crime of apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:

a. Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person:
i. By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
ii. By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
iii. By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;

"Evidence"

Massive violation of human rights and civil rights -- the Israeli occupation is known for massive forms of human rights violations, often applied as forms of collective punishment (itself a violation of international law) against very understandable rebellion, such as expropriation of Palestinian lands (now taking more than 70% of the West Bank), building Israeli settlements on Palestinian-owned lands (now housing more than 400,000 Israeli citizens), a separation wall (displacing more than 250,000 Palestinians), in addition to a network of Israeli-use highways and Israeli military checkpoints that have now cut the West Bank in half and which isolate and cripple Palestinian society and economy. The land expropriations, settlements and wall have all been labelled illegal and violations of Palestinian human rights by the United Nations.

In addition, the Israeli military continues to practice further collective punishment by destroying economic assets such as office buildings, the Gaza Sea Port, factories, olive tree groves, and schools, and essentials to every day life (especially in Gaza) such as destroying the electrical power plant, disrupting food supplies and medical services.

The Israeli military also employs the Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945, which legalizes imprisonment, deportation, property destruction, area closures, censorship, etc., all without charges or trial (but with limited rights of appeal), and all on either an individual or massive scale.

In addition, the Israeli military practices torture, rebel leader assassination, and random shooting of civilians including children (repeatedly reported by the UN and other human rights organizations), and arming Israeli settlers who do the same.

b. Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;

"Evidence"

Imposition of inhumane living conditions, such as poverty -- the Israeli military has crippled the Palestinian economy leading to severe poverty and unemployment both through surrounding them with Israeli controlled land and isolating them and inhibiting movement between them, and through a network of permit regulations by which it also strangles commerce often directly in service of the Israeli economy.

In addition, the take-over of Palestinian lands has been strategically planned to include on the Israeli side the natural resources of the occupied territories (especially water and rich farmlands), which also has crippled the Palestinian economy contributing to the impoverished conditions of Palestinian communities.

c. Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

"Evidence"

Society-wide legalized discrimination in areas such as finance, housing, employment, education, as well as access to cultural events, etc. -- the Israeli military has created a two-tier government, legal, economic system in the occupied territories. The system for the illegal Israeli settlements is democratic and tied into the government and economy of Israel itself. The system for the Palestinian communities is run by Israeli military committees and Israeli controlled civic adminstrations. This system for the Palestinian communities is not democratic and every aspect of the Palestinian economy and society are controlled by military permits which studies have shown are used to the detriment of the Palestinian society and economy often to the benefit of the Israeli economy. Obviously, this goes beyond discrimination into the realm of oppression and exploitation, but does involve discrimination because it favors one group over another, and is based in laws (which the Israelis call Military Orders and Proclamations).

d. Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;

"Evidence"

Isolating the victim group geographically, such as in ghettoes, or "Bhantulands" (term used in South Africa) -- the Israeli government has confiscated more than 70% of the lands in the West Bank in patterns which surround the Palestinian communities with Israeli controlled land, which they then use to strangle those communities both economically and socially. They build on those lands illegal Israeli settlements, walls, military reserves, wilderness preserves, a network of Israeli-use only highways, and the checkpoints which bisect the Palestinian roads further hampering movement between communities further crippling Palestinian commerce and society. This pattern has now cut the West Bank in half, and if the current trends of Israeli settlement expansion continue, the West Bank will soon be cut in 3 parts.

The massive land expropriations, practice of collective punishment, the Israeli settlements and the wall have all been labeled violations of international law, and severe violations of the Palestinian rights of self-determination. The occupation itself has been determined to be a massive violation of Palestinian human rights.

e. Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;

"Evidence"

Exploitation of labor, such as slavery or forced labor or discrimination in wages -- the only form of labor exploitation in the occupied territories has been wage discrimination when Palestinians are employed vs. Jewish labor.

f. Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid."

"Evidence"

Inhumane suppression of rebellion against apartheid -- in the occupied territories, the Israeli military employs the Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945, which legalize such inhumane practices as imprisonment, deportation, property destruction, area closures, censorship, etc., all without trial or charges, and all on either individual or massive scales.

But the Israeli military has also used inhumane measures not covered in those regulations such as torture and rebel leader assassination, and forms of collective punishment, such as demolishing entire neighborhoods (Jenin, 2204) and expropriating 70% of the West Bank for Israeli use, building on that land Israeli settlements that now house more than 400,000 Israeli citizens, and building a massive separation barrier not on the border, but through Palestinian communities such that more 250,000 Palestinians are now displaced by it. All these have been named by the United Nations as violations of international law and the inalienable right of self-determination of the Palestinian people.

Other serious measures of collective punishment have been interfering with food supplies and medical services, destroying the electical supply (especially in Gaza) and government buildings, and economic assets such as the sea port, airport, office buildings, olive groves, and urban infrastructure such as bridges, curbs, walls, etc., and confiscating natural resources such as water supplies and the most fertile farmlands (including almost the entire Jordan Valley on the eastern side of the West Bank away from Israel).

Since it IS Apartheid, what should we do? Part 6

2007-11-27T15:58:00.000-08:00

If a court case is unlikely and communication with our government is useless, where does that leave us?

I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like to live in a place where there was a government backed up by a powerful military force which treated me and my family brutally and inhumanely. Then add to it not only would this government not listen to my crying out for justice for 40 years but I could not even gain access to a court for relief. Now imagine you are a Palestinian and you believed that this was your situation. Where would that leave you?

Another Quote from X

To practically help the Palestinians get at least something to start with, there has to be negotiations between the two sides. If I understand you correctly, you are saying there is no use talking with Israel (sorry, the government of Israel) And this is my main point of difference with you.

That is the main point of difference with us. I think that the Annapolis conference is a waste of time.

My perspective is probably best reflected in an article by Gideon Levy in the November 20, 2007, issue of Ha'aretz entitled What do you mean when you say 'no'? which begins with these two paragraphs

A festive day for peace: Israel is planning to announce a freeze on construction in the settlements as compensation for refusing to discuss the core issues. The Palestinians are ecstatic at all the good-will gestures Israel is throwing their way. First came the release of prisoners, now a freeze on construction, and the prime minister has already spoken with the settler leaders and informed them of the decision. They said it was a "difficult meeting," as it always is, winking at each other deviously.

Undoubtedly, Israel wants peace. But a tiny detail seems to have been forgotten: Israel has signed a series of binding agreements to freeze settlement activity, which it never intended to fulfill. Of the 40 years of occupation, only during three has construction been stopped despite all the agreements and promises to do so. There is no reason to believe that Israel will behave differently this time.

Here is the rest of the article.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/925054.html

Did you read this?

Do you disagree with Gideon Levy?

In any event our difference is about whether there is any reason for the Palestinians to even bother to negotiate with the Government of Israel (as you note I almost always use the phrase the "Government of Israel" rather than the word "Israel" or "Israelis" since I attribute the gross violations of laws and moral codes to those who run the Government of Israel not its people. In the same way, it is the Government of the United States, not Americans, which has committed illegal and immoral actions in the United States and in foreign countries.)

There are many who would agree with you and who sincerely believe that the negotiations with the Government of Israel could lead to a just peace. For them (and you?) there is an upcoming conference in Annapolis, Maryland, where the Palestinians will have the opportunity to negotiate with the Government of Israel. Is this an example of what you mean when you say that the Palestinians need to negotiate?

Do I hope that it fails to accomplish anything? Of course not. But we should observe and analyze what happens there and then honestly reevaluate our positions. We can then discuss whether we believe that the Palestinians got, as you say Quote:
at least something to start with.

Would you agree to our doing that?

But we digress. This topic is Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid.

Your issue about the need for the Palestinians to negotiate with the Government of Israel would be more appropriately pursued in the topic Annapolis - Should We Hold Our Breath
http://www.israelpalestineforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=116

After hopefully a good night's sleep, I would like to talk more about apartheid and this comment of yours.

Another Quote from X

From what I am hearing on this forum, we are already convicted. True this forum is not a court and therefore has the freedom of accusing with no need for proof without doubt. For me, this shows the starting point of any such trial and If I was the Israeli government I wouldn't join this "game" either.

Since it IS Apartheid, what should we do? Part 5

2007-11-27T15:53:00.000-08:00

And who exactly would be that court of justice, if I may ask? And even if they did actually create that miracle and come out with some judgment, who would enforce it?

Here is part 2 of my response - another potential "court of justice" to appeal to about the apartheid policy of the Government of Israel.

THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
(NOTE – the resource I used for much of this is Wikipedia so please feel free to provide interpretations, comments, corrections, etc.)

Established in 1945 by the UN Charter, the Court began work in 1946. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is the main constitutional document constituting and regulating the Court. In this case, unlike the International Criminal Court, all 192 UN members are automatically parties to the Court's statute.

However, being a party to the statute does not automatically give the Court jurisdiction over disputes involving those parties. The issue of jurisdiction is considered in the two types of ICJ cases: contentious issues and advisory opinions.

CONTENTIOUS ISSUES

In contentious cases, the ICJ produces a binding ruling only between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. Only states may be parties in contentious cases. Since the Palestinians do not have a State, the Palestinians cannot be a party. Even if it were or even if another State filed a case over the issue of apartheid, there is no doubt that the Government of Israel would NOT agree to let the International Court of Justice have jurisdiction.

In addition, if a judgment were entered against the Government of Israel in a contentious case and it refused to comply, the matter could be taken before the Security Council for enforcement. However, while Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the Court involving them, one problem is that if the judgment is against one of the permanent five members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement would then be vetoed. This occurred, for example, after the Nicaragua v. United States case, when Nicaragua brought before the Security Council the issue of the U.S.'s non-compliance with the Court's decision that called on the U.S. to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of force" against the government of Nicaragua saying that the United States was "in breach of its obligation under the Treaty of Friendship with Nicaragua not to use force against Nicaragua" and ordered the United States to pay war reparations.

Furthermore, if the Security Council refuses to enforce a judgment against any other state, there is no method of forcing the state to comply.

In addition, although the Government of the United States had previously accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946, it withdrew its acceptance following the Court's judgment in the Nicaragua case in 1984

No doubt a judgment against the Government of Israel would at the present time be met by a veto by the Government of the United States.

ADVISORY OPINIONSThe advisory procedure of the court, however, is open solely to international organizations. The only bodies at present authorized to request advisory opinions of the Court are five organs of the United Nations and 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations family.

When deciding cases, the Court applies “international conventions, international custom, and the ‘general principles of law recognized by civilized nations’”.

On receiving a request, the Court decides which States and organizations might provide useful information and gives them an opportunity to present written or oral statements. Advisory Opinions were intended as a means by which UN agencies could seek the Court's help in deciding complex legal issues that might fall under their respective mandates.

In 2004, the United Nations passed a number of resolutions and the International Court of Justice, following hearings in which Israel did not participate, issued a non-binding advisory opinion 7 July 2004, General List No. 131 (2003-2004) “Legal consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” calling for the barrier to be removed and the Arab residents to be compensated for any damage done: "The Court finds that the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law". Israel had submitted a document stating that it did not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ and supporting its claim that the issue of the barrier is political and not under the authority of the ICJ.

In principle, the Court's advisory opinions are only consultative in character, though they are influential and widely respected. Whilst certain instruments or regulations can provide in advance that the advisory opinion shall be specifically binding on particular agencies or states, they are inherently non-binding under the Statute of the Court. This non-binding character does not mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect, because the legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the Court's authoritative views on important issues of international law and, in arriving at them, the Court follows essentially the same rules and procedures that govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases submitted to it by sovereign states. An advisory opinion derives its status and authority from the fact that it is the official pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.

CONCLUSION
What this means is that there is unlikely to be a contentious issue case involving the Government of Israel’s apartheid policy.

There could be a request for an advisory opinion, however.

While any opinion would not be binding, it could contain massive evidence and a powerful condemnation of the apartheid it found. The United Nations General Assembly's reaction might be (after also taking into account the court's ruling against the wall and the refusal of the Government of Israel over the last forty years to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions) to vote to urge and encourage the adoption by human rights organizations worldwide of actions against the Government of Israel such as boycotts, divestment and sanctions (even though the United States would block any attempt by the United Nations to do so by means of a Security Council Resolution.)

Since it IS Apartheid, what should we do? Part 4

2007-11-27T15:48:00.000-08:00

And who exactly would be that court of justice, if I may ask? And even if they did actually create that miracle and come out with some judgment, who would enforce it?

Because I took an international law course in 1963, I have continued to try to follow what is happening in that practice area but I have only done so somewhat superficially.

Thank you for that question. It encouraged me to take a little more in-depth look at some of the statutes and treaties.

The first potentially relevant "court of justice" is

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an independent, permanent court (not an organ of the United Nations) established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted in Rome, Italy, on 17 July 1998 by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court.

The court tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Rome Statute is an international treaty, binding only on those States which formally express their consent to be bound by its provisions. In accordance with its terms, the Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002, once 60 States had become Parties. Today, 105 States have become Parties to the Statute.

According to Article 5

The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.

Article 7 defines Crimes against Humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;

Here are the 105 countries that have signed on
http://www.icc-cpi.int/statesparties.html

Note some of the countries that have NOT agreed to have its citizens be subject to trial for violations of laws against genocide; crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression - Israel, the United States, China, Great Britain and Iraq.

As soon as the Government of Israel signs on as a party there is the possibility that a complaint could be filed at least against all the living Prime Ministers (Yitzhak Shamir, Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert) for the crime of apartheid (and perhaps other specific Article 7 Crimes against Humanity).

Following the confirmation of charges, a case is assigned to a Trial Chamber of three judges. The Trial Chamber is responsible for conducting fair and expeditious proceedings with full respect for the rights of the accused. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Prosecutor beyond reasonable doubt. Victims may also participate in proceedings directly or through their legal representatives.

Upon conclusion of the proceedings, the Trial Chamber issues its decision, acquitting or convicting the accused. If the accused is convicted, the Trial Chamber issues a sentence for a specified term of up to thirty years or, when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person, life imprisonment. The Trial Chamber may also order reparations to victims.

Ron

PS After some further review and analysis, I will comment the other potentially relevant "court of justice" - the International Court of Justice.

Since it IS Apartheid, what should we do? Part 3

2007-11-27T15:43:00.000-08:00

The label of apartheid is problematic precisely because it turns-off one of the aggrieved parties (just like the label of Terrorists turns off the other). The research i present in my latest book is pretty convencing in one respect: Most Israelis and Palestinians want to achieve a solution around the Clinton/Geneva parameters. The would do it today if the could, BUT they don't trust each other. ....The use of labels such as apartheid/terrorism might be good for PR. Is terrible for trust building, dialogue, and ultimately reconciliation. SO, the question is, what do you want? Reconlciliation? Then drop the labels and work towards dialogue. Pressure and activism? Then by all means, go for them. You will indeed "rally the troops." And continue the bloodshed.

Before I return to apartheid, a question. What does it mean to say that the Palestinians don't trust the Government of Israel? Are you saying that they would not permit the Government of Israel to stop demolishing their houses, not permit them to stop uprooting their olive trees, not permit them to stop destroying power plants, not permit them to dismantle settlements, not permit them to tear down the Wall? Trust is not an issue for the Palestinians vis-a-vis the Government of Israel. The Palestinians just want the Government of Israel to stop violating their human and civil rights.

I am not sure if you read my comment above about apartheid. If not, I recommend it to you. Apartheid is much more than a PR gimmick. Apartheid is an international crime. In 1973, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid which entered into force in July 1976. By February 2002, it had been acceded to or ratified by 101 states. Would it surprise you that I could not find the Government of Israel and the Government of the United States on this list?

It is possible that some Israelis might get upset when the Government of Israel is accused of establishing a state of apartheid. Many people who are accused of a heinous crime react in a negative way. So what? The reason folks take out a criminal complaint is not to win friends with the accused. It is to seek justice. It is to ask a judge to find the accused guilty or liable and to punish the wrongdoer.

By the way, what makes you think that the Government of Israel is really angry about being accused of apartheid? The major offended party seems to be The Israel Lobby. Now that I think of it, perhaps The Israel Lobby knows what it is doing and is not just "insulted". Likely it is quite aware of the international crime of apartheid and is just working hard to defend the Government of Israel against this legal charge.

Trust building and dialogue have gotten the Palestinians the 88 vicious hate-filled Jewish squatters in Hebron in 1968, 11 Jewish settlements by 1972, 53 Jewish settlements with 12,500 squatters in 1980, 120 Jewish settlements with 100,000 squatters in 1992 and 123 jewish settlements with 250,000 squatters now.

Quote from B

In Israel, apartheid is practiced to achieve a more sinister aim than just separation of Jews and non-Jews ( as we see more blatantly in the occupied territories but stealth apartheid nevertheless exists in Israel). The aim of all of this oppression and separation is to ultimately force people out of their country. In South Africa, while transfer of population took place within the country, moving blacks to bantustans, Israeli aims to push the natives outside of the country

If you assume, as B and Jeff Halper say, that the endgoal of the Government of Israel is to finish 1948 and dispossess the Palestinians, the Government of Israel will use Annapolis to continue a charade of being willing to talk about being willing to talk about being willing to talk.

Dialogue with the Government of Israel is not an option.

I was fortunate enough to have acted as a divorce mediator for 15 years. The process was one which the parties entered voluntarily. What I knew was that if one party had much more power than the other and was not willing to work towards a fair and just agreement, the mediation would be unsuccessful. Since the Government of Israel has all the power and is unwilling to pursue a just peace, negotiations are doomed to fail.

You recommend reconciliation. That is premature

Quote from Wikipedia

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was a court-like body assembled in South Africa after the end of Apartheid. Anybody who felt he or she had been a victim of violence could come forward and be heard at the TRC. Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from prosecution. The TRC was seen by many as a crucial component of the transition to full and free democracy in South Africa and, despite some flaws, is generally - though not universally - regarded as successful.

After Aparthied has ended, then will be an appropriate time for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Again assuming that the Government of Israel's goal is dispossession of the Palestinians, isn't there even more reason to take urgent action.

Pressure and activism is not at all what I am recommending. I favor a trial before an international court. If a judgment is rendered against the Government of Israel as having violated the international law against apartheid, an appropriate remedy/punishment might lead to justice for the Palestinians.

Since it IS Apartheid, what should we do? Part 2

2007-11-27T15:32:00.000-08:00

As I mentioned in Part 1, recently on the Israel Palestine Forum, there have been a number of comments posted on the topic Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid. I have argued that it is apartheid. I am posting excerpts from some of my posts where I suggest that international law be used since it says that apartheid is a crime against humanity.

Quote from Y

I see a point in what DOK is saying here. While I agree that Israel's Occupation IS apartheid, I don't think being "right" on this issue" is what's important. And unlike Ron I think it is important that the Israeli government "get it" when it is called a perpetrator of apartheid. You won't achieve a peace agreement by waving international conventions in Israel's face. You can be right till the cows come home about all of this & still not get any traction. So what we peace activists have to do is walk a fine line. We have to pay attention to morality but also to the practicalities of suasion. How do we convince Israel--its government & its citizens to change? I'm not saying that we stop calling a spade a spade morally or legally. But we must realize that being right isn't enough.

Hi Y

We “may” have a consensus that the situation in the West Bank amounts to apartheid (although X is reluctant to use the term.)

We disagree about whether to use the term when approaching the Government of Israel.

We disagree about whether being right is enough.

What I am saying is that being right is an essential precondition to getting to the solution. The solution would then be a moral or legal action.

Let me suggest another way to look at it.

There are a number of values of Judaism that are non-negotiable; one of them is the demand that we “pursue justice”; another is that even in times of war, we do not uproot a fruit (olive) trees; a third is that we do not oppress the stranger because we were strangers in the land of Egypt.

For 40 years the Government of Israel has steadily taken action that it dreams will one day lead to its annexation of the Land of Israel from the Jordan River west with Palestinians no longer present or forced into small Bantulands totally encircled by Israel.

For that reason NO appeal to the Government of Israel has been effective in keeping it from building 120 settlements. NO arguments have convinced it not to build separate walls, separate roads and over 500 checkpoints. No pressure has kept it from stealing the land of Palestinians, denying them building permits and demolishing their homes. No persuasion has dissuaded it from making the life of the Palestinians a living hell of humiliation, poverty, homelessness and unemployment.

I know that apartheid is NOT a Jewish value?

I would be prepared to provide additional evidence to convince a reader that for 40 years the Government of Israel has violated these three core values of Judaism.

And NO refraining of the use of provocative words (or, in the alternative, the use of diplomatic tactful language) has resulted in its working for a just peace.

I would then conclude that the Government of Israel is “wrong”.

If a reader were to be convinced, I would like to think that he or she would agree that it is important and an obligation for those of us who are Jewish to criticize the Government of Israel for acting contrary to the primary teachings of Judaism; i.e., immorally?

At what point do we decide that the harm and injury and suffering that is being caused by the immorality of the occupation is SO grievous that the "fine line" has been crossed and we can no longer wait for the “practicalities of suasion” to be effective?

And if we have reached that point, as I have, what other realistic and feasible option is there?

I am suggesting that once we have concluded that we are "right" and there has been a "wrong" such as apartheid, we appeal to the world Jewish and other faith communities (cc'ing the Government of Israel) based on its immorality - right/wrong, guilt/innocence, good/bad (and, at the same time, file a lawsuit in the international courts of law based on its illegality under the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.)

And, in both places, seek “judgments” and “remedies.”

Since it IS Apartheid, what should we do? Part 1

2007-11-27T15:17:00.000-08:00

A few times I have mentioned the very active Israel Palestine Forum. Recently there have been a number of comments posted on the topic Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid. I have argued that it is apartheid.

One of the members of the forum has made a number of comments generally disagreeing with the use of that word and has objected to my opinion that the path to peace begins by being right (as in going to court and getting a judgment of verdict against the Government of Israel and then having the appropriate body enforce the decision.)

I intend to post excerpts of my comments there to this Blog. Here is the first.

Quote from X

Hafrada means seperation which is what a two-state solution is driving for. The way I see it, we should have this seperation (two states) side by side, until we can have one state that will include all it's citizens with equal rights for ALL. For the near future this seems to be the way to go. Are we going that way? I can't talk for the Palestinians but my government will have to take this view into account at least on election day. ....Without going into the political view of "Apartheide" I would say that bringing it up will not help in getting to that Two-state solotuion. Question again.... What is more important? Going for a solution or being right in an argument?

hi X

I agree that the two state solution is driving to separation. You and I agree that the goal is for all citizens to be treated equally. But you say that the solution is to leave it the way it is for now.

The problem with that is that one party, the Government of Israel, exercises complete dominion and control over, and treats the "other", Palestinians, differently because of the accident of birth. In addition the Government of Israel continues to demolish houses, uproot olive trees, take land, build walls and separate roads. Finally the Government of Israel has developed the Matrix of Control leaving the Palestinians in small cantons in the West Bank surrrounded on all sides by Government of Israel controlled land.

This is not just separation. It is Apartheid. And as some have said, worse Apartheid than in South Africa.

There is another reason to use the word "apartheid" other than that the facts fit the definition and it is responsive to this comment of yours:

Quote from X

Question again.... What is more important? Going for a solution or being right in an argument

The answer is that looking at the situation from a legal perspective - the solution is the result of being right.

Someone manufactures something defectively and a family member is injured, you sue and the solution is a financial judgment.

Someone intentionally strikes you and hurts you, the solution is to have the person tried and sent to jail.

Someone threatens you with bodily harm, you go to court and the solution is to have a restraining order issued against the person.

The solution is being right.

In 1973, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid which entered into force in July 1976. By February 2002, it had been acceded to or ratified by 101 states.

The entire convention can be found at
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm

Article I states

The States Parties to the present Convention declare that apartheid is a crime against humanity and that inhuman acts resulting from the policies and practices of apartheid and similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination, as defined in article II of the Convention, are crimes violating the principles of international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and constituting a serious threat to international peace and security. The States Parties to the present Convention declare criminal those organizations, institutions and individuals committing the crime of apartheid.

Article II says in part

For the purpose of the present Convention, the term "the crime of apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them: ..... (ii) By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Again, X, the present situation is one where there are NOT equal rights for all and that cannot be justified.

Not only are there NOT equal rights but the treatment of the Palestinians amounts to Apartheid.

The angry reaction of the Government of Israel to the use of the word "apartheid" should be ignored because the initial goal is not to ask the Government of Israel to end the policies and practices it has been unwilling to end for 40 years.

The situation needs to be referred to as apartheid because it is a crime according to the principles of international law.

(This is NOT a "political" view of Apartheid but a legal one.)

The appeal needs to be made to other countries and other international legal bodies with the goal of having either a moral or a legal judgment, with the solution being the Government of Israel ending the apartheid and ending the occupation.

So, we do not have to choose between a solution and being right - the solution follows from being right.

Ron

PS I have one question I would like to pose to ALL readers of this message. Forget for the moment that the Government of Israel and The Israel Lobby will get angry if you use the word "apartheid". Is there anyone who has read the messages on this topic, looked at the International Convention on ..... Apartheid and read other materials who would like to present an argument that the situation of the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is NOT Apartheid?

Marty Federman's 2007 Visit Journal - Entry # 4

2007-11-27T06:09:00.000-08:00

Marty Federman's 2007 Visit Journal - Entry # 3

2007-11-26T05:56:00.000-08:00

Marty Federman's 2007 Visit Journal - Entry # 1

2007-11-25T04:41:00.000-08:00

Marty Federman, the co-chair of the Boston Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, is traveling in Israel and the West Bank. On his trips, he always keeps a journal of what he sees as well as his observations. I have asked for his permission to post each entry on this blog and he gave his approval. I wrote to Marty and told him that I had not gotten Journal Entry #1. Here it is.

Journal Entry #1

Monday, Nov, 19, 2007 – Charles DeGaulle Airport (Paris) 7;37 (Paris Time)

Well, I’ve made it as far as Paris! Just a few initial thoughts as I sit here in the one little café I could find in this terminal, having chosen not to buy a $6.00 bottle of Diet Coke!

First, about the format I intend to use in keeping this “journal.” I expect to be keeping a log of what I’m doing – pretty much straight “reporting” which I’ll do in this Arial font that I just switched to. For my more “reflective” thoughts and meanderings I’ll stick to the usual Times Roman. And I suspect that periodically I’ll have some particularly “profound” thoughts (!) that I’ll put in a box of some sort. Hopefully this will make it a bit easier for you to choose what you want to read or not – and, of course, there is always the “delete” key!

My last minute preparations were pretty hectic and I’m pretty tired, but I do have a couple of initial thoughts even before I arrive in Tel Aviv – and they have to do with the changing feelings I realize I’ve had each time I’ve taken this trip. The first time I went to Israel was (Lord help me!) 38 years ago. I had graduated college three months earlier, gotten married six days before we left for “Ha’aretz” (“The Land” i.e., Land of Israel), the fulfillment of a young couple’s dream. In my excitement and apprehension I was overwhelmed – in a disconcerting, but not unpleasant way – by the seeming swarms of traditional Jews (we flew El Al, of course) both in the terminal at Kennedy and on the huge plane. The babies crying, the constant moving about of the passengers and the dozens of men getting up to daven (pray their daily prayers) kept us awake but terribly excited. It felt wonderful to be on that plane with all of “my” people, going “home.”

I had little time to process very much in 2001. Traveling with eleven other people, having been cautioned to expect an entry I could not conceive, I felt connected to my companions and only distantly aware of the rest of the passengers.

By 2003, traveling alone, much had changed in my life and my relationship to “Ha’aretz.” Flying Northwest Airlines and KLM, with a six hour layover in a totally shut down Amsterdam on New Year’s Day, I’m not sure that I was terribly conscious of any feelings other than a sense of anxiety about what I would find when I got to Israel and how I was going to get around on my own.

Today’s flight from Boston (Air France) has so far seemed like some sort of business trip. Going through security is a complete pain in the whatever, and the vast majority of passengers around me were French. The plane was not full so I had empty seats on both sides of me and basically read the Sunday Times and slept a little. The only other thought of note. A few rows behind me, across the aisle, was a noticeably Jewish family (the father had a medium length beard and a large knit Kippah (Yarmulke/Skullcap). 38 years ago I would have felt an instant bond with this family, all of us going to Israel. This time – and I have to be careful about how I say this – I’ve spent the last many years speaking out against making judgments about people based on stereotypes and looks – but the sad truth is that I not only felt no desire to “bond” with these fellow-Jews, but could not help but wonder what they would think if they knew why I was going to “Ha’aretz” and what I would be doing when I got there. And even as I type these words my innate paranoia makes me wonder what my entry this time will be like if, somehow, someone at Ben Gurion Airport was actually able to access this entry. The times are indeed, and always, a-changing.

More than I intended – and time to walk what seems like many miles to the gate.

Monday, Nov, 19, 2007 – Old Jaffa Hostel (Jaffa)
11:45 (Tel Aviv/Jaffa Time)

There is much to write but I’m much to tired to get it all down. Hopefully tomorrow evening I will be able to catch up with everything. Just let me say that my entry into Israel was quite something! I was taken from the Passport Check line and interrogated, and kept sitting for close to four hours. I finally arrived at the Old Jaffa Hostel (more about it tomorrow), met S and R. We went to a café to meet someone they’ve been in touch with, had a bite to eat and now have to get to sleep since we need to be at the clock tower in the center of Jaffa at 6:00 a.m. (!) to meet the women from Machsom Watch. And i still have to repack everything since they took everything out – and I have to do it in the dark since we are staying in a dormitory type room and the lights are off and everyone else is asleep!

Added Later

When I got to Ben Gurion I went to Passport Control and got on line. The line I was on was moving slowly and I noticed that the line to my right was moving much more quickly – the security officer in that booth was looking briefly at each person’s passport, smiling and passing them on. I moved to that line and, in minutes, was at the window, greeted the woman with a friendly “Shalom” and handed her my passport. Almost immediately I new that I was in trouble: she didn’t speak to me but was looking down in front of her, obviously, I thought, at a computer terminal. After a few minutes and asking “yesh baiyah?” (is there a problem?), and getting no answer from her, another security officer appeared, was handed my passport, and asked me to come with her. As we walked across the terminal she asked me what I was doing in Israel (I told her I had lived in Israel years ago, had visited a couple of times in the last few years and was coming back to sight-see, visit friends and just travel). Again I asked if there was a problem but she only said that there was a security issue and I should follow her. I was taken to a small waiting area near what was obviously a security office (I was never able to see into it, only numerous uniformed security people coming in and out), my backpack and fannyback were taken taken from me and placed on the ground some distance away and I was told to sit down and wait. During the time i was sitting there a man in a suit sat down next me and asked me where I would be staying in Israel, how long I expected to be there and – I have no idea why – my father’s name. And then he left.

After what I would estimate was three quarters of an hour or so an officer came out, holding my passport, and put my bags on a cart and lead me across the baggage claim area to a large room (where my suitcase was sitting) off of which were three smaller rooms, two with huge x-ray machines where my things were scanned behind screens so that I couldn’t see what was going through. Meanwhile I was taken to the third room, a tiny space with only a lectern looking piece and a chair. I was told to empty everything from my pockets (not just metal), remove my shoes and belt, and the agent began to run a hand held scanner over every inch of my body. When it continued to beep as he scanned the front of my pants I was asked to open and drop them while he ran the scanner inside them, finally deciding that the offending object was my zipper. He began to leave abruptly telling me that I could put my things back on and I told him that I was feeling somewhat light-headed, probably because I was upset, but that I am diabetic and would it be possible for me to test my blood sugar. He asked what I needed, left and returned with my backpack from which I took my glucometer, stuck my finger expecting, given how I was feeling and the fact that I had eaten very little on the planes, and drunk less, that my sugars would be very low. To my surprise they were unusually high and I asked to be allowed to give myself an insulin shot which, apparently not happy, he said i could. He then took my things back and left.

When I was re-dressed and no one had come back I walked into the large room where my bags were lying on a large square of long tables and everything was taken out of them by about six or seven security people, felt, perused and looked at. Papers were rifled through, anything electric or electronic was opened, scanned and x-rayed, my six weeks of medications were felt, and everything placed on large palettes as they apparently passed inspection. Both my laptop and one that i had brought to leave for someone in Israel were opened, turned on and x-rayed and mine was placed into my suitcase rather than the backpack where I carry it so that it is always with me. I was told that it “might seem unnecessary since i’d be out of the airport in a little while, but that is their procedure. After perhaps an hour they pushed everything back into my bags (with little concern for what they had come out of), two women struggled for a while to zip my suit case and the agents placed tiny red stickers on every zipper and closure on every bag, apparently to indicate that they and everything inside them had been inspected. The man who had led me to this room now put all three bags on the cart and led me back to the waiting area near the security office.

After about another hour a female security person walked out of the security office, handed me my passport with a small paper sticking out of it and began to walk away. By this point my head was spinning and I could hardly think what to do. I must have said something like “does this mean I can go?” because she nodded and pointed towards the exit gate. I took the cart with my things on it, walked to the now deserted gate where a very chipper attendent took what I now realized was a gate pass out of my passport, smiled broadly and, in Hebrew, welcomed me to Israel and wished me a good stay. Since they had buried my cell phone somewhere in my suitcase I struggled with a pay phone, managed to get hold of R to let him know that I had finally arrived, went out and took the first cab available to Jaffa where I met R & S at the hostel we would stay in that night.

A Nice Jewish Boy from Brooklyn isn’t Safe in Israel Anymore!!

I’m titling this reflection somewhat humorously, but the reality is that this may be one of the most difficult things I’ve written. While I sat in the waiting area – and then in the x-ray room watching people go through my things, I had some very unexpected thoughts, which I’ll try to relate, not necessarily in a coherent manner. I have always stressed my connection to this place that is now Israel, and identified myself as someone who was not “anti-Israel” but strongly opposed to the Occupation and the policies of a long line of Israeli governments. As I sat there Monday night I thought, if you want to create an anti-Israelist, this is a great way to do it. What triggered this? What “list” am I on? Who fed the massive Israeli security apparatus with information on me? I remember arriving at at the then Lod airport for the first time in 1969, coming out of the terminal after a simple walk through passport control and customs, getting hit by the light and feeling an urge (although I was too self-conscious to actually do it) to drop down at the first unpaved patch of land and kiss this holy ground. Very theatrical, but that’s how we felt in those days. And I remember almost trembling as the bus drove us down still rough roads, past palm trees and citrus groves and feeling the rush of countless Jewish National Fund movies about the founding of the State pulsing through me.

Now, as I sat in this small waiting area, not knowing what was happening, getting no answers, I was absolutely sure that I was going to be deported, sent back to who knows where, with a tremendous sense of disappointment after all the preparations I had made for this trip. I was nervous – even frightened – unsettled and progressively angrier, telling myself that I had to keep my cool, whatever happened. Even now, a day later, it is inconceivable to me that this could have happened – Jews, as we always said, don’t do things like this. But, of course, I was only experiencing a tiny fraction of what tens of thousands Palestinians endure every day. I just don’t know what to do with all of this.

I will say that I absolutely hate the feeling of paranoia that this experience has created. When I rebooted my laptop Monday night 1500 old e-mails that I had already opened and/or deleted began to re-load off my server. I have heard a lot of reports that the Israelis (using sophisticated software developed in conjunction with US intelligence services) scan and download everything off computers to somehow go through electronically. I had backed-up all my data files before I left and deleted many that I thought might be problematic from my hard drive. What had I not cleared off, I thought and anyway, as any of us who ever watched CSI-type show on TV knows – anything you’ve ever put on your computer stays there for ever and any fairly adept computer geek can find it. And what if (and this was the worst fear today) there was something there that identified the people in the Bethlehem delegation and, after my getting through they were denied entry because of me? Probably ridiculous, and everyone except R and O went right through (even these Palestinian/Lebanese Arabs were only detained for an hour or so!), but it is the fear and paranoia that my experience instilled that most makes me angry. It seems that it has become standard practice for Israeli authorities to keep everyone off balance – make them worry about what can happen and they’re most likely not to do anything we don’t want them to seems to be the object.

The bottom line is that Israel, a far cry from my naïve expectations 30-some years ago, has become (has been?) a militaristic, paranoid state and that is difficult for me to take. In some ways “A Nice Jewish boy from Brooklyn” has become the greatest threat to Israel. If I am on some list, or someone has “outed” me as an anti-Israel provocateur, I am a terrible menace because I can’t simply be discounted like a terrorist or a suicide bomber can be. So, as in all police states (including increasingly the U.S.) people like me have to be stopped, marginalized and/or demonized to undermine any legitimate criticism of Israeli policy or, especially, any active or assertive action might exist. That’s not an easy thing to acknowledge at this point in my life.

Tuesday, Nov, 20, 2007 – Paulus Haus, Schmidt’s Girls School
7;30 p.m.

We’ve been pulled into things right from the start! After a couple of hours of sleep we were up at 5:00 a.m., had a quick bite of strawberry yoghurt, a quarter of a banana and a cup of instant Nescafe and were off to the Jaffa clock tower at 6:00 a.m. to meet ET. E has worked with Machsom Watch (Machsom is Hebrew for checkpoint) for six years, monitoring what goes on at the checkpoints, taking photos (E is a professional photographer), keeping notes and interceding with the Israeli soldiers and security people on behalf of Palestinians who are mistreated or dealt with inappropriately. We drove from Jaffa, past Tel Aviv and into the West Bank On the super-highway, #5, towards the settlement of Ariel, one of the largest of the new Israeli “neighborhoods.” We drove along this settler-only highway, through part of the settlement and then on to the Huwara checkpoint where E had a head to head with a young Israeli (woman) officer. Other soldiers were actually quite pleasant, had no problem with S and me taking pictures and E spoke to a number of the Palestinians crossing through and ascertained that this was a comparatively “easy” day. That, of course, is one of the awful parts of this whole situation: one never knows what is going to happen and, consequently, no one can anticipate how long it will take to get anywhere. In fact time in Palestine has no analogy to what we think of in the U.S. – the arbitrariness of the decisions made by barely out of their teens soldiers who have total, unconditional power over you, means that you can never be sure when – or even if – you will get to work, school or family.

The checkpoint is right in the middle of an area surrounded by settlements and with a number of sprawling army bases. On our way out E took us to a “cafeteria,” actually a small snack shop, where, apparently, many of the soldiers hang out and socialize. The name of the place is “Ach sheli gibor” (My brother is a hero). It’s a simple place with some sandwiches and lots of junk-food, snacks and drinks – and owned by a young settler who is charming enough that ET admitted that, “even though I don’t want to, I can’t help the fact that I kind of like him.” She also acknowledged that his is one of the few places with Sherutim (literally “services” – in this case toilets!)

On our way back towards the Green line we passed through the village of Funduq. At first we wondered why we saw so many Israeli military vehicles along the very modest road that passes through Funduq – and then were suddenly startled to realize that everything was closed and there were virtually no people on the streets. At one house a small group of young men were on the steps of a house and E stopped to ask them why everything was closed. At first they were somewhat hesitant to talk to her but quickly warmed up and told E that a settler had been shot last night by a Palestinian (who was fairly quickly caught and found out not to be from Funduq) and the whole city was put under “curfew.” Curfew, of course, doesn’t mean the same here as it does at home. It’s not the time we set for our children to ignore coming home – it’s a total lock down where no one is allowed out of their houses, day or night for as long as the authorities decide. We spoke with these men (and their adorable children) had some wonderful, dark, sweet Arab coffee and went on our way after R called an International Solidarity contact to let them know what was happening. Later we heard that some settlers had come to Funduq and set up their own checkpoint, totally unauthorized but neither the police nor the army ever interfere with this kind of action by settlers.

There is an interesting process going on vis-à-vis the relationship between the settlements and Palestinian villages and cities. One of the first things one notices as you drive out of Tel Aviv towards the West Bank are the large highway signs directing you towards Ariel. You drive on super highways that lead to a variety of Israeli destinations (e.g., Haifa) and to these huge new suburbs like Ariel in the middle of the country and Ma’ale Adumim the behemoth “neighborhood” near Jerusalem. The roads allow you to speed to and from the settlements with no indication that there is any difference on either side of the “Green Line” (the 1967 border between Israel and the Palestinian territories). There is, in fact, nothing that indicates that you have crossed the Green Line, and a large swath of land on either side of the highway has been taken to allow a buffer for Israeli travelers – and only Jewish Israeli vehicles with the proper yellow license plates are permitted on these “by-pass” roads. The only Palestinian presence that one sees from one’s car are the “quaint” villages set back on the hills, neat and picturesque like a Disney World “Arab-Land” placed in the distance for effect. One need not concern oneself over what life in these not-quite-for-real villages is like. Meanwhile, as we drove towards Ariel early in the morning, with few cars headed our way, we could see the rather heavy traffic flowing in the opposite direction, people on their way into Tel Aviv, Haifa and other work-day destinations. At one point as we drove I suddenly had a sense that we were going south on I-93 watching all the people heading into Boston at the start of another business day. As we approached the settlement we began to see billboards broadcasting the benefits of living in Ariel (there is a beautiful brick wall at the approach into Ariel that declares in Hebrew “Ariel, for a happy and healthy place to live”) and advertising the best places to secure a mortgage when you decide to buy into the settlement. There is nothing here that wouldn’t be completely normal for any new development expanding around any major city in the U. S.

At the same time there are virtually no signs for any Palestinian towns, villages or cities. Later in the day, for instance, we drove right by the ghetto that is Qalqilyia*, a Palestinian city of 60,000 people in the upper west side of the West Bank. Despite its size, as one approaches there are no signs to the city, but there are numerous signs for the relatively small settlement of Tzafon that is nearby. It is clear that this is all part of a process to change the consciousness of both Israelis and Palestinians: settlements like Ariel are just suburbs of the major cities, all memory of them as “settlements” quickly receding in to forgotten history. At the same time the awareness of any Palestinian presence is being erased from people’s consciousness. With no indication that there any distinction between what’s on either side of the Green Line, with the normality of signage and the absence of any Palestinian presence it is clear that Israeli policy is meant to change the very way in which Israelis think (or don’t ) think about the “neighborhoods,” the connection between them and the rest of Israel and the created non-existence of Palestinian Arabs. The other insidious technique is the subtle renaming of places so that the memory of anything Palestinian will disappear – the old town of Kedum, for instance, is now the settlement of Kedumim, an example of how not only the village has disappeared but the very memory has been erased.

*I don’t use the term “ghetto” lightly given its history and its genesis in the enclosed areas like Warsaw where Jews were locked up in Nazi occupied Europe. I am not trying to – and would never – equate the Israeli Occupation of Palestine with Nazi Germany or its people with Nazis – the two are not the same. Still, I don’t know what else to call it. The “Separation Wall” (and it is a mammoth concrete wall in this region) snakes around Qalqilyia, totally surrounding this city of 60,000 people, with only one small area on the Southeast side open – and, discounting any claim of “security,” a small section\s of wall extends from either side, across the opening leaving a small gate as the only way in or out of the city – and a full-time check-point controls all traffic in and out, not across the border into Israel but restricting the movement of the people of Qalquilyia to the Palestinian

Hot Women and the Lubavitcher Rebbe

One of the first things I noticed driving around the last couple of days is the great proliferation of huge, usually vertical fabric billboard-type advertising signs. There are many varieties, but the largest number fall, it seems, into two categories: first are the signs advertising a variety of women’s fashions, perfumes and personal products, all with giant pictures of very sexy young women. They are not too far off the scale – certainly nothing “pornographic,” but these women, along with there, shall we say “fashionable” attire, have exceptionally comely expressions, peering out into the passing traffic.

The other sign that you see many of, and it seems in all parts of the country, is one with the same likeness of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the last leader of the the CHaBaD Chassidic sect who died a decade ago that one sees on smaller posters here and throughout certain parts of the U.S. Even though he’s been gone all this time, some of his followers still wait for his return, as the signs say, as Moshiach (the Messiah).

Ah, what a strange and wonderful place this Holy Land is! To be able to drive down the highway and see giant images of hot women just down the road from towering images of the Rebbe! Now there’s a divine message, even if I can’t figure out what it is!

Wednesday, Nov, 21st, 2007 – The Grand Hotel, Bethlehem
11:30 p.m.

Just reporting that our whole delegation has arrived and come together! Today was another tremendously full – and for me depressing – day. But I’ve just caught up with everything through yesterday and I’m too exhausted to write any more tonight – not to mention that I have to be up in six hours in order to make it to breakfast before starting a very full day here. So I’ll just say, after a night at the Old Jaffa Hostel, and one at the Schmidt’s Girls School/Paulus Haus Guest House with no hot water, this hotel is charming, modern and wonderful. There’s even a TV with cable and two CNN channels! What more can one ask?

I’m sure to feel overwhelmed with catching up with two day’s worth of reporting tomorrow, but now I must get some sleep.

Marty Federman's 2007 Visit Journal - Entry # 2

2007-11-24T13:55:00.000-08:00

It's the Law

2007-11-12T06:39:00.000-08:00

Recently, I mentioned the Israel Palestine Forum and recommended becoming a member

In one of the topics, someone wrote in response to one of my messages:

I always thought a coin had two sides....but...live and learn..... I have my views on it, no less valid than news and article based views and naturally in disagreement with the above. But I won't argue politics with you. I find it quite pointless. What should we do today to somehow end this age old conflict? Peace is made between enemies. Friends are already there As a starter I would say lets talk with our enemies even when they are shooting. I suggest this to BOTH sides concerned.

To which I responded

First let me say that I am in total agreement that negotiations should take place when there is violence and the parties are enemies. I also agree that a coin does have two sides. Arguments and disagreements have two sides. Often when that happens, the matter ends up in a court of law as a tort case or a criminal matter. Eventually, often, an impartial body decides based on hearing the “two sides” that one is “right” and the other is “wrong”. As a result, money may change hands and/or someone might go to jail.

We may disagree but to me it is not a matter of politics and is not pointless. Probably because of training in the law, I believe that the conflict is a matter of law and is of critical importance. A good place to begin is with the occupation and the Jewish settlements. In my opinion, the Government of Israel has been in violation for 40 years of the Fourth Geneva Convention, international human rights, UN Resolutions and the teachings of Judaism. I would be pleased to share with you more details. Jeff Halper takes this a step further and says that the Government of Israel is not just transferring its population into the occupied territories in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention but has, since 1967, been engaged in an effort to colonize the West Bank and dispossess the Palestinians by its pattern of house demolitions, uprooting of olive trees, roadblocks, the wall, etc. Every day the newspapers carry stories about the “upcoming” peace conference. Here is what appeared in today’s Boston Globe:

"Olmert strongly endorsed the peace talks in a speech to a Jerusalem audience the night before. While the Palestinians pushed hard for the conference to tackle the final status issues, the Israelis had balked, saying they wanted security needs met first. Olmert, conceding nothing on the security question, said, "Annapolis will be the jumping-off point for continued serious and in-depth negotiations which will not avoid any issue or ignore any division which has clouded our relations with the Palestinian people for many years." But in his speech, delivered in Hebrew and broadcast live in Israel, Olmert cast the issue of a timetable far more cautiously than did Abbas. "If we and the Palestinians act with determination," he said, "there is a chance that we can achieve real accomplishments, perhaps even before the end of President Bush's term in office."

The article goes on to say that the negotiators had not decided how to tackle the four final status issues: the contours of a Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem, the removal of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the fate of Palestinian refugees. (I understand that they did agree, after ten long hours of debate, that the Boston Red Sox had won the World Series and that the New England Patriots are undefeated. ( - : ) Note that it doesn’t say that they had not decided these issues. It said that they had not decided HOW to tackle them.

From this article would you be able to make an educated guess as to which party might not be negotiating in good faith? Does anyone believe that the Government of Israel is sincere when it uses “Israel security first” excuse for not negotiating? Does anyone believe that the Government of Israel has ANY intention of entering into any agreement that would result in a “just peace” for the Palestinians which includes a viable contiguous state? The only agreement possibly acceptable to the Government of Israel is one where the Palestinians “unilaterally surrender” their hopes and dreams and agree to live in isolated “cantons” or, if you like, “Bantulands”.

But I would like to think that world opinion would know that that amounts to unacceptable apartheid. Hmmm???

Interesting point, of course, is what option is left if the Government of Israel continues to reject a just two state solution and the world rejects the apartheid option. Isn’t the one state solution the only one left standing?

In a civilized society, we have laws. When laws are broken we bring the wrongdoer to court. By having laws, we hope to prevent “lawless” retaliation and acts of “vigilante justice”. Failing to take the Government of Israel to court and failing to hold it responsible and accountable for its illegal and immoral actions in maintaining the occupation and fostering the growth of the settlements has led to just what could have been predicted – violence and revenge.

So, you ask “What should we do today to somehow end this age old conflict?” For certain, you don’t ignore what both parties have to say about what has happened in the past. As I said above, this discussion is not political and it is not pointless. It is legal and it is evidence.

Our first step is to speak out and promote open and wide discussion about the facts behind the occupation and the settlements. Once the public has heard both sides, I would expect that it would "decide" that the Goverment of Israel has pursued a path of injustice for 40 years in the occupied territories and bring intense pressure on and demand that the Government of Israel agree to a “just peace” for the Palestinians.

To which the same person responded on this topic and a related topic:

“It's sad to see how someone trained in law can suggest a trail where one side is already convicted. I am not going to argue this. I see no point in it.”
“My feeling is in many political discussions is that it's all about who's right and who is wrong.”
“I can assure you, it won't happen by the two sides accusing each other for what is happening.”
“Doesn't anyone get that "who is right and who is wrong" is an impotent discussion?!”

I know I have been influenced by having been in the legal community for 47 years but I frankly am bewildered by these comments that seem to be saying that any discussion about right and wrong is “political”, "pointless" and “impotent”.

For years I have been aware of hundreds (thousands?) of cases where individuals and groups have been treated badly – they have been discriminated against by employers, they have been injured by faulty products, they have gotten sick from toxic waste, they have been prevented from getting an education, they have been abused by spouses.

I also followed the trial of Slobodan Milošević, indicted in May 1999, during the Kosovo War, by the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for crimes against humanity in Kosovo. Charges of violating the laws or customs of war, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions in Croatia and Bosnia and genocide in Bosnia were added a year and a half later. He died in prison after 5 years just prior to the end of his trial.

What did they do? They complained to courts. Judges did not say that discussions about right and wrong are pointless, impotent and political. They did not send them away and tell them that should sit down and talk They did not say that discussions about right and wrong are “impotent”. The judges thought it was critically important to pursue justice – just as demanded in Deuteronomy 16:20 Sometimes wrongdoers had to pay money. Sometimes wrongdoers went to jail.

As an example I strongly believe that the Government of Israel has violated the FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR, OF 1949: ARTICLE 49 - “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Article 35 is similar. I believe that it is of fundamental importance as a legal matter (and it is not at all political) that we not only discuss it but have it heard in a court of law. Why? Because there would likely be a finding that for 40 years the Government of Israel has intentionally violated this article and a judgment that the settlements should be dismantled.

(And by the way as a response to his sadness that a lawyer would prejudge a case, there is nothing in the law that says that I cannot, based on my knowledge and experience, have an opinion on a legal issue; i.e., I was quite certain before the trial ended that O.J. Simpson was a wrongdoer. What we must not do is to send anyone to jail - or even find someone guilty in a criminal case - without a jury of that person’s peers finding him or her guilty beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt.)

Once we have the judgment and it has been implemented, we have accomplished something and THEN we can sit down and talk. With the dismantling of the settlements, and this precedent of looking at who is wrong and punishing the wrongdoer, there is the “possibility” that through “political” negotiations the result might be a “just peace” - the establishment of a viable contiguous Palestinian state.

Should anyone be interested in references to international human rights laws, United Nations Resolutions, and obligations in the Torah and the Prophets the Government of Israel may have violated, please ask.

Israel Just Says NO to a Just Peace - Part 5 - Jeff Halper Op-Ed

2007-11-09T07:05:00.001-08:00

I ended the last post with this

"Even I get weary listening to myself babbling the same thing all the time; i.e., The continued support for 40 years for the illegal transfer of Jewish Israelis into settlements in the West Bank and their expansion is THE obstacle to a viable two state solution. The Government of Israel’s continued refusal to comply with an agreement that it would even freeze the expansion is evidence that it has NO plan to agree to dismantle settlements. Based on the “facts on the ground” today, there no just peace just “pieces’ of land for the Palestinians, a situation that, hopefully, no one, no government, no world opinion would recognize as anything other than a permanent apartheid.Therefore, isn't it the Government of Israel who is forging ahead on a determined plan that has only one realistic option – a one state solution.
The rhetoric of extremists, huh?
“Give peace a chance”
Give me a break!!"

More from Jeff Halper

In an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post Jeff Halper takes note of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s words at the Saban Forum in the presence of Condoleezza Rice and Tony Blair which he says sounded promising, even stirring.

"Annapolis is a landmark on the path to negotiations and of the genuine effort to achieve the realization of the vision of two nations: the State of Israel - the nation of the Jewish people; and the Palestinian state - the nation of the Palestinian people."

He then asks

"SO WHAT is the problem? The missing piece, the crucial document that subverts any viable two-state solution, a factor in Israel's strategic considerations mentioned by Olmert as an aside only a few days ago, is Bush's letter of April, 2004, to then-prime minister Ariel Sharon. This little-noticed document fundamentally changed the parameters of what is to be discussed in any "peace process" and what Israel's obligations are under the road map. It is considered by the Israeli government as perhaps the most crucial element in its effort to retain the major settlement blocs and in that way foreclosing the possibility of a viable Palestinian state. The essence of the Bush letter, which was subsequently ratified by the House of Representatives by a vote of 407-9 and by the Senate by 95-1, is the following passage: "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."
"In one seemingly innocuous sentence, President Bush fatally but knowingly undermined UN Resolution 242, the very basis of the two-state solution since 1967 and of his own road map initiative, by nullifying the requirement that Israel return to the Green Line (with agreed-upon adjustments) so that a viable Palestinian state might emerge."

Fortunately, this op-ed appeared in the Jerusalem Post and we know that while these issues are rarely discussed openly in the United States, In Israel there is thoughtful almost Talmudic conversations on all controversial topics. Here are a few of the comments in the Talkback section after this op-ed:

I volunteer to spit the author at the eye.
As is written: Your haters and distroyers will come from your ranks
The author is a disingenious morally and logically bankrupt nonentity.
The writer is an ignoramus he is also full of crap
There is one in every family This one doesn't live in the attick but writes editorials
As usual, Halper is totally wrong about everything he says

And my favorite as a commentator on Judaism and Israel

Ignorant and deeply disturbed Jews again and again haunt and damage us. It is so patently evident and obvious that a person who matures without a solid foundation of Torah and Jewish history becomes, wittingly or unwittingly, an ally of our enemies. The saddest part is that people like this jerk actually think they are acting from a humanistic and moral perspective and are doing the right thing.

Repeating the words of the Consul General:

“They understand that the one-state solution is rhetoric used by extremists on
both sides who seek to dominate the other and do not accept the right to
self-determination.”

And the words of President of the United States

George W. Bush"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

Again - The words of the Government of Israel are words of peace but its actions do not promote a just peace and neither do those of the Government of the United States.

The rhetoric of extremists?

Israel Just says NO to a Just Peace - Part 4 - The Words say "Peace" but the actions say "No Just Peace"

2007-11-08T08:59:00.000-08:00

The Words say “Peace” but the Actions say “No Just Peace.”

Dateline Boston, MA - November 8, 2007

Included in this post are excerpts from two articles in today's Boston Globe.

Here is the first.

A Legacy of Peacemaking by Nadav Tamir, the Israeli consul general in Boston.

On Sunday, the State of Israel celebrated the life and work of former prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated 12 years ago. In the context of the new opportunities emerging in the Middle East, Rabin's legacy will get one more chance to shine in the upcoming peace conference in Annapolis, Md. Rabin created the foundations for the two-state solution - Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in peace and security - as the only means to end the conflict and the only future for the vision of Israel as a Jewish democracy. Within Israel, an overwhelming majority of the population supports this initiative. So does the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Olmert views the current Palestinian government under Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad as the best partner Israel has ever had for the creation of a political horizon that would foster peace between Palestinians and Israelis. In the Israeli leadership's estimation, Abbas and Fayyad understand that the Palestinian people will not achieve their deserved right to statehood through indiscriminate violence and terror, but rather through negotiations. They understand that the one-state solution is rhetoric used by extremists on both sides who seek to dominate the other and do not accept the right to self-determination. .... In Israel, there is a deep anxiety that high expectations and lack of sufficient preparation to address the most sensitive issues will lead to another tragedy like we faced after Camp David in 2000, when the collapse of peace talks led to egregious violence. However, the status quo is neither attractive nor sustainable, and we must not allow these obstacles to hinder us from cultivating peace. We have to make progress while managing expectations. The Annapolis conference can be a new energizing beginning toward peace, even if it can't be the happy ending to the conflict.... As usual, in the Middle East there are those who would go to any length to destroy this peace initiative. Iran and its proxies are concerned that positive developments would prevent them from exporting the Islamic revolution throughout the region. This is no longer an issue of being pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, but rather a confrontation between those who support peace and those who prefer chaos and bloodshed....The words of the song sung by Rabin just a few minutes before he was shot in a peace rally in Tel Aviv echo strongly today: "Let your eyes look up with hope, not through a rifle sight. Sing a song, a song for love, not for another fight. Don't tell me 'the day will come'; work for it without cease. Inside every city square let out a cheer for peace!" We have to make an effort to clear the entrenched cynicism in the region, so that people in the Middle East will be able to sing this song once again and "give peace a chance" without sounding trite.

Here is the usual “We Strive for Peace” public relations piece by a representative of the Government of Israel who talks of peace in soaring beautiful phrases. He says, as usual, that the people of Israel want peace, that Abbas is (for the moment) a “partner for peace” and that all that seems to stand in the way is the Palestinians realizing that they “will not achieve their deserved right to statehood through indiscriminate violence and terror, but rather through negotiations”.

That’s all there is, isn’t it? Just make sure that those Palestinians stop being so upset at the current situation and there will be peace.

“As usual, in the Middle East there are those who would go to any length to destroy this peace initiative.”

What are the terms of “peace initiative”, Mr. Tamir, that the Government of Israel is striving for and that the people of Israel support? Is it one where the illegal settlements will be closed? Is it one where the borders will be the Green Line? Is it one where there will be final resolution of Jerusalem, the status of the refugees, water resources and security for both states?

And when is this supposed to happen? You mention your concern about the lack of adequate preparation but that Rabin’s legacy will get another chance to shine at the upcoming (?) peace conference.

Did you forget to mention that news reports seem to indicate that there has been any good faith preparation on the part of the Government of Israel leading up to this possible conference? The Government of Israel is the one that wants a “vague” statement and the Palestinians want a detailed statement with timelines for making a deal.

Is it really Iran that is standing in the way of peace?

As I read the other news story about this conflict in the paper today, I continue to believe, as I have for many years, that the Government of Israel is the party standing in the way of a just peace.

Remember the Road Map? The fundamental flaw in the road map was that at the end of two years, the parties would only then negotiate the terms of a final settlement. However, the Road Map was “agreed to”, the “quartet” was established and implementation began.

What was supposed to happen in Phase I (when an agreement is really important does the US Department of State always use Roman numerals rather than Arabic – hmmmm???!!!)

In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below; such action should be accompanied by supportive measures undertaken by Israel. Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation based on the Tenet work plan to end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services. Palestinians undertake comprehensive political reform in preparation for statehood, including drafting a Palestinian constitution, and free, fair and open elections upon the basis of those measures. Israel takes all necessary steps to help normalize Palestinian life. Israel withdraws from Palestinian areas occupied from September 28, 2000 and the two sides restore the status quo that existed at that time, as security performance and cooperation progress. Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report.

So tell me about the Government of Israel’s efforts to comply with the terms of Phase I.

What about those free, fair and open elections that the Palestinians had. Tell me about how the Government of Israel and the quartet supported this road map provision and the effort to establish a democracy in a future Palestinian state.

Oh, I almost forgot. How about this last sentence?

“Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report.”

In case you have forgotten the Mitchell Report, here is what it said about the settlements in 2001:

“Settlements: The GOI also has a responsibility to help rebuild confidence. A cessation of Palestinian-Israeli violence will be particularly hard to sustain unless the GOI freezes all settlement construction activity. Settlement activities must not be allowed to undermine the restoration of calm and the resumption of negotiations.”

And now ………drum roll, please…… the other article in the paper today.

Israelis still expanding settlements, report says – by Richard Boudreaux, Los Angeles Times November 8, 2007

JERUSALEM - Israel is enlarging 88 of its 122 West Bank settlements despite an agreement to halt the spread of Jewish communities in Palestinian territory, the watchdog group Peace Now said yesterday. …. A report by the group, which documented the construction of homes with aerial photography and on-site visits,
intensified the debate here over a key issue for the US-sponsored peace summit planned for later this year. Israel wants to keep large blocs of settlements in a final peace accord, while the Palestinians demand the entire West Bank for a future state. Under a 2003 US-backed plan known as the road map, Israel agreed to stop the growth of settlements as a first step toward talks on borders. …Neither the Israeli government nor Yesha, the settler movement, disputed the report.

So, again, according to Mr. Tamir:

“They understand that the one-state solution is rhetoric used by extremists on both sides who seek to dominate the other and do not accept the right to self-determination.”

Even I get weary listening to myself babbling the same thing all the time; i.e., The continued support for 40 years for the illegal transfer of Jewish Israelis into settlements in the West Bank and their expansion is THE obstacle to a viable two state solution. The Government of Israel’s continued refusal to comply with an agreement that it would even freeze the expansion is evidence that it has NO plan to agree to dismantle settlements. Based on the “facts on the ground” today, there no just peace just “pieces’ of land for the Palestinians, a situation that, hopefully, no one, no government, no world opinion would recognize as anything other than a permanent apartheid.

Therefore, isn't it the Government of Israel who is forging ahead on a determined plan that has only one realistic option – a one state solution.

The rhetoric of extremists, huh?

“Give peace a chance”

Give me a break!!

The words of the Government of Israel say “peace” but its actions say “no just peace.”

CAMERA Obscura - Gaza Glazing

2007-11-07T15:39:00.000-08:00

The last three articles have focused on CAMERA. I would like to continue doing that since I think I am beginning to get a picture of what CAMERA does and how it works.

To test it, I am going to make a working hypothesis: CAMERA is not concerned with accuracy in middle east reporting; CAMERA only examines media material that is critical of the Government of Israel; CAMERA does in depth research to find something, anything, in an article that is not factually accurate or which it can possibly interpret as inaccurate; CAMERA makes, in common vernacular, a mountain out of a molehill; and CAMERA works tirelessly to protect the Government of Israel from criticism.

(NOTE - I have not yet devoted time to researching one of my assumptions. Would someone please forward to me, if you can find it, an article that is highly critical of the Government of Israel where CAMERA issued a press release indicating an inaccuracy which, when corrected, made the article more of a criticism of the Government of Israel.)

Even though I intended to focus on the CAMERA attack of ICAHD, I came across this press release (I think that’s what this is) dated June 30, 2005 entitled "No Excuse for Ha'aretz Gaza Population Error", read it and could not move on.

Here is "accusation" CAMERA hurled at Ha’aretz

“In a May 23 Snapshots blog entry, CAMERA documented that Ha'aretz that day ran an Op-Ed by Amram Mitzna which wrongly identified the Gaza Strip as “the most densely populated area in the world.” (My note - In that entry it says that Amram Mitzna said “A million-and-a-quarter Palestinians living in the most densely populated area in the world, and in terrible poverty across the way from the red rooftops of Gush Katif, are victims.”) Gaza is not the “most densely populated area in the world.” According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004-2005, the population per sq. mile for 2003 in the Gaza Strip is 8,666. Gaza is less densely populated than numerous places around the world, including Monaco (41,608), Singapore (17,751), Gibraltar (11,990), Hong Kong (17,833), and especially Macau, which is nearly ten times more densely populated than the Gaza Strip (71,466). CAMERA that day contacted editors providing them with the Statistical Abstract’s figures and requesting a correction. The Israel Press Council's Rules of Professional Ethics and Journalists requires:
Substantive mistakes, omissions or inaccuracies in the publication of facts must be corrected speedily, fairly and with the appropriate emphasis relative to the original publication.
Ha'aretz never ran a correction as required by the Press Council, and instead settled for a letter to the editor by this researcher on May 26. Not only did the paper not run a correction, but the very same error appeared in an Op-Ed yesterday
by Yitzhak Laor. Writing about the Gaza disengagement and the demolition of
Jewish homes there, he continued:
The thirst and the destruction that have been imposed on the most densely populated place in the world for the benefit of a few thousand settlers . . .

Gotcha, Ha’aretz!!!

Really?

I assume that you think I am making this up. I’m not. CAMERA issued this and really demanded that Ha’aretz correct it.

CAMERA quotes from the rules of ethics for journalists stating that “substantive mistakes, omissions or inaccuracies … must be corrected.”

“Substantive”?

What do you think that these two were talking about? What was the point they were trying to make?

Monaco is the most densely populated country. Singapore is an island nation (one of the few remaining city states). Macau and Hong Kong are special Administrative Regions of the People’s Republic of China. Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory. Look up “densely populated” in Wikipedia and it only lists these countries and regions. It does not even list the Gaza Strip so I guess it is just a densely populated place or area, right? What it does point out, however, is that after these five the next six have between 2000-3000, the next ten have between 1000-2000 and the remaining 224 countries/regions have less than 1000 people per square mile, most less than 500 with the United States listed as having 80 people per square mile.

As an aside, the most recent figures I found for Gaza on MSN Encarta were "2007 population was 1,482,405, giving the region a population density of 10,665 per square mile.

Just google “Gaza most densely populated” and you find pages and pages of quotes from around the world from those who say that it is the most densely populated “place” or area” in the world”. There is only one link cited that says that Gaza is NOT the most densely populated” from, guess who, CAMERA.

But just a minute, let’s give CAMERA a little support in its attack on Ha’aretz. I did a little of my own research and guess what I found in this article on a Sears News page about the Sears Tower in Chicago. "The Sears Tower turns into a city of 10,000 'residents' every morning." Being somewhat of a researcher myself (and a math major in college) I also found that the square foot area footprint of the Sears Tower was designed to be 55,000 square feet. A few strokes on my reliable handheld calculator and, what did I find? During every work day there are approximately 5,000,000 people per square mile in the Sears Tower. . Take that, Monaco!!.

I just received a cover letter from B’Tselem enclosing a newspaper insert addressing Israel’s continued control over the Gaza Strip. The letter notes, “The situation in Gaza is more dire than ever. Some 1.5 million Palestinians are living under dismal conditions as health, education and economic conditions continue to deteriorate. Israel bears a large measure of the responsibility for this situation. The insert shows the far-reaching control that Isarel continues to exercise in the Gaza Strip, affecting all aspects of daily life.

Now here’s someone who, fortunately for him, will not incur the wrath of CAMERA,
“But the full picture of what comes next in Gaza remains open. It is one of the most densely populated places on earth, grinding poverty abounds, and the unemployment rate approaches a staggering 60 percent.”

But, just in case CAMERA has not gotten around to attacking this miscreant journalist, I am taking the opportunity of “ratting” on him by printing Gaza: Yesterday, today and tomorrow by Micah D. Halpern, September 5, 2002

"I recently spent a day in Gaza. This was by no means my first visit to Gaza. There was a time when I used to go there just for fun, to relax and enjoy the beach. Those days are probably gone forever. It might very well have been my last visit to Gaza outside Israel's small borders. It was a fascinating visit. I'll tell you why. The day was a kaleidoscope of contradictions - some of the most beautiful and serene seashores I have ever seen careening against some of the worst squalor and poverty known in this world. Almost 7,000 Jews living in their enclaves, about 1,300,000 Palestinians fenced into theirs. I came away spinning and over stimulated…. Gaza is the most densely populated area in the world. Hong Kong is the most densely populated city, but Gaza is the most densely populated area. It is very small and it is home to several major Palestinian cities: Gaza City, sister city Jabaliya, Khan Yunis and Rafiah. There is no urban sprawl in Gaza, nothing like Mexico City. Gaza is dust and sand. Gaza is poverty and sewage. And many, many people."

What do YOU think was the substance was in the comments by Amram Mitzna and Yitzhak Laor? Do you really think they were trying to win the Pulitzer Prize for Writing about Geography?

What difference does it make where the Gaza Strip ranks in the list of densely populated areas?

Isn’t the “substance” - the issue, the focus, the heart - the inhuman and inhumane living conditions of a really really large number of people living in a really really small area?

Here is what CAMERA did in this case. It attempted to attack the credibility of Ha’aretz by pointing out what it has decided is an inaccuracy by forcing one interpretation of a phrase. The inaccuracy was not at all a significant fact. It did not in any way detract from the point of, or the substance of what was being said. (Were I had been able to find the entire op-ed in the Ha’aretz archives, I believe I would have been even certain of this.) CAMERA issued and publicized a demand that the paper run a retraction. CAMERA tried to divert the attention, and the eyes, of its readers from the issue - the wrongdoing of the Government of Israel for disengaging from its responsibilities in Gaza.

How to Counter CAMERA Obscura - Speak the Truth and Support Justice

2007-11-07T07:16:00.000-08:00

Today is Day 14,452 of the Maintenance of the Immoral and Illegal West Bank Settlements and more than 40 years since the start of the immoral and illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Micah.6:8 “He has told you, O man, Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God

Whenever I am asked "what we can do", I invariably return to an article by Starhawk which was first published in the Sept/Oct 2002 issue of Tikkun Magazine entitled
"Loving the Jewish Community Means Supporting Justice".

In this blog I attempt to point out how the teachings of Judaism are inconsistent with the actions of the Government of Israel in the occupied territories as well as how we might respond. Starhawk does this so well that I am taking the liberty which I have not done in a while of simply reprinting the entire article.

I believe that were we to take Starhawk's advice and Speak the Truth and reach out as she suggests, we would be able to: shred the curtain that CAMERA and others have tried to draw across the occupied territories; shed light on the gross violations of Palestinians human rights being carried out by the Government of Israel; and support the calls for the a demand that the Government of Israel end the occupation.

What do you think?

Deuteronomy 16:20 – “Justice, justice shall you pursue that you may live and inherit the land which God gave you” and the footnote in the 1980 Hertz Edition “(T)here is international justice, which demands respect for the personality of every national group, and proclaims that no people can of right be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or spiritual heritage.

Loving the Jewish community Means Supporting Justice

Supporting justice in the current crisis in the Middle East is not easy. The issues are painful for any Jew to face. Criticizing Israel comes at a huge emotional cost for all of us who were raised to love her. And when we do, we meet a wall of denial, hostility, and rage. Yet if we truly love Israel and the Jewish people, we must speak and act against the policies of the Israeli government.

The Israeli occupation of Palestine is a huge injustice. I have recently returned from spending time in occupied Palestine. I have witnessed the siege of the Balata refugee camp, seeing with my own eyes the level of ongoing repression and humiliation that the occupation entails. I could detail the abuses I saw, and what may be worse, the way the occupation is a constant, relentless assault on any sense of hope or safety, any possibility of normal life.

What I want to tell now, though, is not this story of oppression, but what happens when we tell this story. We expect to receive the usual denunciations and death threats from the opposition: Tikkun has received plenty of these threats, many of them directed against its editor, Rabbi Michael Lerner. What hurts even more, though, is the criticism that comes from friends and allies who tell us that we are being too provocative, arousing too much anger and hate, not being loving enough toward the Jewish community.

The question is, how can we be truly loving to the Jewish community under these conditions? Real love speaks truth, even if that truth is unwelcome. Real love challenges the beloved to be her or his truest possible self. We cannot love the Jewish community by condoning injustice or colluding with abuse. The most unloving thing we could do for Judaism is to accept its identification with current Israeli policies.

Loving the Jewish people may mean calling them to our deepest and fullest understanding of God. If the Jewish God is truly a God of Justice, it's the ultimate insult to Judaism to imply that He would condone and sanction a great injustice. A Jewish state cannot be sustained by unjust actions and remain Jewish.

If Judaism is the worship of one God who created the whole universe, we cannot imagine that God cherishes only the Jews. A monotheistic God must also be the father/mother of the Palestinians, for how could a loving God who is All create a people separated from God? A God who is God of the Jews and not of the Arabs would be merely a tribal godlet, a cosmic football fan rooting always for only one team. To worship such a God would truly be idolatry. We cannot love Judaism by accepting a diminished concept of God; we cannot accept God as being any less than the great, pulsing, life-generating force of creativity and compassion that reverberates through all human beings and through the universe.

Loving the Jewish community may also mean challenging what it means to be a member of that community. Who decided that "real Jews" support Ariel Sharon, while those who dissent are somehow less Jewish? The essence of anti-Semitism is the portrayal of the Jews as one monolithic whole. Real Jews are actually hugely diverse -- politically, spiritually, and culturally. One of the loving things we can do for the Jewish community and to counter the very real anti-Semitism that does exist is to embody that diversity, to be a strong, loud, clear, and Jewish voice that can also champion the rights of Palestinians to peace and hope and life.

It would not be loving toward the Jewish community to allow certain factions to silence all criticism of Israel by screaming "anti-Semitism." For the more we use that charge to fend off valid criticism, the more we undercut its power and validity, and the less likely we are to be listened to when we face true anti-Semitism.

Real anti-Semitism does exist, but so does Jewish racism against Palestinians. And it would not be loving of the Jewish community to allow that prejudice to continue unchallenged, to accept the picture of the Palestinian community as a monolith of mindless hate. When we see the Palestinian community as an undifferentiated enemy, we fall into hopelessness and despair, for how can we make peace with"animals"? The truth, however, is that the Palestinians are not some mindless force of evil, they are real human beings. Among their community, just as in the Jewish community, are people who hate and people who love; broad-minded, tolerant people and narrow, prejudiced people; people who love war and people who want peace; people who want to die and those who want to live. The more we can see the Palestinians as real human beings, the more hope we can find in the situation. We can then begin to strategize about how to foster a climate that discourages hate, instead of feeding it as the current policies do. We can begin to envision the possibility of a just peace and reconciliation.

When Jewish peace activists speak out in a truly loving way, we will undoubtedly be met with anger, rage, even real hatred. But we are not creating that hate. I can think of no way we can speak in a truly loving voice that will not evoke anger, because we are saying things people do not want to hear, speaking truths that challenge comfortable assumptions and self-righteousness and that which is always hardest to face, the justifications that we use to ease our conscience when we know we are doing wrong.

In Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," he writes about the criticisms he received from fellow ministers for being too confrontational and provocative. And he says that nonviolence is not about avoiding conflict, but about heightening it until those who have always refused to negotiate are forced to do so. He too preached love, but had to withstand the venomous hate of the Southern segregationists. And yet the movement he was part of succeeded in changing a deeply entrenched, oppressive system. Nonviolence is the art of provoking confrontation that can lead to change, the willingness to directly confront oppression and absorb violence without retaliating or passing the violence on, and the belief that ultimately truth will win and even bitter opponents will reconcile.

Political change almost always comes through some level of conflict and confrontation, violent or nonviolent, because, as King also says, those who hold power and privilege rarely relinquish it voluntarily.

Essentially, we are asking the Jewish community to give up its position of privilege, both because it is morally right to do so, and because it is ultimately in our community's self-interest to do so. That message challenges our self-conception as victims. We have been victims over and over again for 2000 years; in this case, however, we have also become the victimizers, and no one enjoys having that pointed out. The only way to break through this denial is to tell the truth, strongly and clearly but with compassion, and then withstand the storm that results.

People give up privilege when it becomes too costly and uncomfortable to hold on to it. A nonviolent strategy for change involves causing discomfort, making the inherent violence in the system visible and arousing moral condemnation of the violence, dramatizing the injustice, heightening the social and political costs of continuing the system, and ultimately undermining the legitimacy of the current system and its supporters. We break through the wall of denial by making it too uncomfortable for people to shelter behind it.

Our task is not to convince those who are actively and bitterly opposed to us. They will be the last to change.

I see the task as threefold:

Mobilize Jews who oppose the occupation to become more visible, vocal, and active, to take greater risks and become a strong, cohesive, and powerful voice for justice.

Provide a rallying beacon for all those who are uncomfortable with the current situation but have not yet formulated a position. We must show how current policies run counter to true Jewish ideals and interests and set new terms for the debate.

Provide information and education to those who are not informed, and create
enough drama and urgency that the apathetic have a reason to want that information. And, please, stay alive and healthy while doing so. We've had enough martyrs!

So, let's imagine some possibilities:

Suppose we continue to speak out honestly, fearlessly, and lovingly, without worrying about the reactions we'll get.
Many people will respond negatively, vilify us, spread vicious rumors and lies, etc.

But we'll simply continue to speak the truth, without retaliation, without wasting our energy defending ourselves against ridiculous allegations, just saying with deep compassion, "I know many people don't want to hear this truth, but my God is a God of justice and only the path of justice leads to a viable future for the Jewish people."

For every person ready to brand us traitors, there are probably ten people out there who are confused, who sense that there is something deeply wrong and don't know what to do or say about it, or who already know it's wrong and just feel hopeless and despairing. This group includes many Israelis as well. Staunch Zionists won't be convinced, but the vast legions of these Jews who are already uncomfortable about the issue will hear us and think, "Thank God there is a Jewish voice actually telling the truth!" Then the next task will be to get them to coalesce into a coherent force that can be a counterweight to the current self-defined "mainstream" Jewish community.

If we can do that, the world will see that Jews are not a monolithic voice on this issue, that there is a strong Jewish movement for justice. It will help undercut the very real anti-Semitism that is resurging today, and strengthen the position of those who deplore both anti-Semitism and the injustice of the occupation. It will also give some hope to the Palestinians, and encouragement to those within their community who don't want to hate Jews, who do separate Israeli policy from Judaism, who still yearn to believe in the possibility of peace. It will lay some groundwork for future reconciliation, and help strengthen the Israeli peace movement.

This is an optimistic scenario, but I believe it is perfectly possible.
Perhaps this is once again an era of prophecy. This is a time when we need to speak with a moral voice, in the voice of those ancient prophets calling the community to a deeper and fuller conception of God. Tikkun has begun the work of Isaiah and Jeremiah -- it is time for more of us to join their ranks.

Starhawk is a life-long peace and social justice activist and author of nine books including The Fifth Sacred Thin and Webs of Power: Notes from the Global Uprising (New Society) www.starhawk.org

CAMERA Obscura - ICAHD and Jeff Halper - Part 2

2007-11-06T09:50:00.000-08:00

As I said in a previous post, in a response to one of my posts about ICAHD and Halper, I was referred to an article by CAMERA .

I have always been intrigued by CAMERA but resisted reading any of its material. I decided to look at this article and attempt to analyze it. In the first article I addressed its comments on house demolitions and the ability of Palestinians to obtain building permits. I appreciate the messages from Zionism on the Web which allowed me to elaborate on some of my points.

THE UPROOTING OF ONE MILLION OLIVE TREES

From one of my six part series on this Blog entitled Take Your Olive Branch and Shove it!

“Olive trees are very significant culturally and economically for Palestinians. Jewish Israeli settlers (JIS) attack Palestinians, uproot olive trees and fence off Palestinian olive tree groves. IDF soldiers and Israeli civilian authorities, in general, support the actions of the JIS, protect them while arresting Palestinians and bring few criminal charges against the JIS. …In addition, Palestinian farmers in the West Bank now face over 500 physical obstacles and closures including the separation wall that is being constructed by the GOI which restrict their movement and often prevent them from accessing their trees.”

Moving right along, the CAMEAR article quotes Jeff Halper as saying

“since 1967 Israel has uprooted or cut down a million olive and fruit trees”.

And says,

“Halper's claim that Israel has ‘uprooted a million olive or fruit trees’ is also ridiculous, considering the huge increase in olive production.”

As I will comment on below, CAMERA in 2005 produces some figures from ’67-’93 and says that because there was increase in production.

What is this supposed to mean? Is the avid reader of CAMERA supposed to believe that because there was an increase in olive production, this “proves” that there was NO uprooting of ANY olive trees? Or perhaps the avid reader would think that because of the increase there might have only been 100,000 olive trees uprooted? Or maybe only 17?

CAMERA made this bold statement that the claim about olive tree uprooting is “ridiculous.”

CAMERA has to have been aware of the intense efforts of a number of organizations to plant olive trees of Palestinians uprooted by Jewish settlers and the IDF. They had to have read articles in Haaretz and other media outlets about the uprooting of olive trees. They must have been aware of the facts of uprooting of olive trees and intimidation of Palestinians trying to harvest their olives by Jewish settlers which led the Supreme Court of Israel to severely criticize the lax approach displayed by the police and security personnel in their law enforcement work against violent settlers, and to rule that the closure of territory to Palestinians, to protect them from settlers, is akin to granting a prize for violence and to issue an order to the Israeli security forces to protect Palestinian farmers and their property.

If Jeff Halper’s claim that one million olive trees have been uprooted since 1967 is ridiculous, why does CAMERA not provide the reader with its facts? I am not impressed by the argument that something is ridiculous. When I was in law school I learned to rarely use the words “clearly” or “obviously” about anything. That is what CAMERA did. One substitute for “ridiculous” would be statistics. What does CAMERA’s research (and there is no doubt that CAMERA has some very talented researchers working for it) show are the number of olive trees of Palestinians uprooted since 1967?

Suppose it is ONLY 10,000. What then? Would CAMERA justify that?

Forget the violations of international law, human rights law, UN Resolutions for the moment. How would CAMERA respond to my allegation that actions of Jewish people in uprooting olive trees violates Deuteronomy 20:19 which says, “When you besiege a city … you shall not destroy its (fruit) trees … You eat of them, do not cut them down; for man’s life depends on the trees of the field.”

THE INTIFATAS ARE “HARDLY THE FAULT OF ISRAEL"

It also quotes Jeff Halper as saying

“the Palestinians are left today with scorched earth …no agriculture”.

In this May 12, 2005 article CAMERA then devotes much space to showing that from 1967 to 1993 (that’s correct, citing in a 2005 article production data ending in 1993), that indicate a substantial increase in production of olives and vegetables and potatoes to “prove” that there is indeed agriculture.

Has anything of note happened in the last 15–20 years?

Oh, the article goes on to note

“There is no doubt that the Palestinian economy was harmed by the first intifada and the second intifada, but that is hardly the fault of Israel.”

How harmed was it, CAMERA?

I have been told that the role of CAMERA is to simply point out inaccuracies it finds in the media. It just provides the facts and CAMERA should be supported if it presents the truth.

This last statement by CAMERA about the intifadas being hardly the fault of Israel. That is such a bold opinion. There are some people who believe that blame for the violence can be placed on BOTH Israel and the Palestinians and that there MIGHT have been some actions by the Government of Israel that could have had some role in caused the uprisings of the Palestinians.

Such a statement by CAMERA is both gratuitous since Jeff Halper said nothing in that quote about the intifada and not at all believable.

I think the process of analyzing this article by CAMERA is a worthwhile endeavor but it is likely that I will not devote much time to reading its material when I finish this effort. My analysis so far has raised serious doubt about whether CAMERA is, indeed, "promoting truth".