U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel last week was met with controversy when Israel’s Interior Ministry announced plans for 1,600 new homes in east Jerusalem, prompting Biden and the U.S. administration in Washington to strongly criticize the announcement.  The controversy arose just as Israel and the Palestinian Authority were set to resume indirect peace talks.

Headlines in Canadian  media on March 10 were almost uniform: “Biden condemns Israel over new homes” (National Post); “Biden condemns Israel’s latest settlement plan” (Ottawa Citizen); “Biden condemns Israeli settlement expansion move” (Edmonton Journal); “U.S. hits Israeli east Jerusalem plan” (Winnipeg Free Press); “Biden slams new Israeli settlements” (Toronto Sun).

The Toronto Star carried two reports by Olivia Ward. Her lead story, “Middle East talks stumble,” dealt with Biden’s reaction to the housing issue.  Ward’s second story, “Washington ‘committed’ to ensuring Israel secure,” described the main thrust of Biden’s visit – to assure Israeli leaders that the United States will do everything necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and, thereby, also to  convince Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Globe and Mail was alone in placing Biden’s comments on Iran front and centre.  In Paul Koring’s story, “Biden aims harsh words at Iran on visit to Israel,” he confined Biden’s reaction to the housing announcement to the latter part of the report.

In Israel, media analysis and comment was harshly critical of the Interior Ministry’s move, especially its timing while Biden had just begun his visit and, as some commentators noted, was blindsided.

The March 10 Jerusalem Post editorial “Dysfunctional government” called the Interior Ministry’s announcement “a staggering example of diplomatic obtuseness” and added that “the timing of the announcement immediately threatened the ‘proximity talks’ in which Netanyahu has stressed Israel has a profound interest. It united the Palestinians, the Arab world and much of the international community in a chorus of anti-Israel condemnation.”

In his Ha’aretz column “Broken glass,”  Ari Shavit wrote that “The [Iranian] threat against Israel is unprecedented. Our need for the United States is unprecedented. At this critical juncture, any national interest should be subservient to the supreme interest of strengthening this alliance.”

In “Visiting Biden slams E. J’lem housing plan” (March 10) Ha’aretz reporters noted that Netanyahu told Biden  that he did not know in advance about the decision to authorize the additional construction.

They added: “Netanyahu also told Biden that the planning and building councils are not under the government’s direct authority, and that his administration tries not to interfere with their work. ‘No one was seeking to embarrass you or undermine your visit,’ the prime minister reportedly said. ‘On the contrary – you are a true friend to Israel.’

“Nevertheless, a high-ranking official in Jerusalem said, Netanyahu has ‘no problem’ with construction in Jerusalem and has no intention of apologizing for building there.”

On March 10,  CBC News Network’s News Now host Carole MacNeil interviewed Mark Regev, Netanyahu’s spokeperson.

MacNeil: “Is your prime minister embarrassed that he didn’t know about this [housing announcement]“?

Regev:  “Well let’s say it wasn’t our finest hour.  But anyone who works in a democratic system [knows that] only in totalitarian countries does the central government control every aspect of society.  When you have local governments, when you have different ministries, these things are bound to happen.  Obviously you want to try to keep it to a minimum…The most important thing is that…we want to move forward in the peace process, we want to deal with the issue of Iran to make sure they don’t go nuclear – there’s a whole series of issues where Israel and the United States – and also Canada – are working together to try to deal with these challenges.”

This column recently argued that housing and settlements, though an important final status issue, are not “the” key impediment to progress as much of the world claims, and that other more critical final status subjects need to be examined.

However, with incidents like the controversy described above, “settlements” is all the international community is likely to remain fixated on in the foreseeable future.

The Davis Food Co-op, a successful, member-owned cooperative with a nearly forty year history and over 9000 member-owners, requires that member-sponsored initiatives be both “legal and proper” to qualify for a ballot vote.  In February, the Co-op ruled that the boycott initiative might put the Co-op in legal jeopardy, but Monday’s unanimous rejection of the boycott took the important step of listing over a dozen reasons why a vote that determined what members could and couldn’t buy at the Co-op represented an improper use of the organization’s initiative process.

These reasons included:

• The initiative would demand that the Co-op “accept the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions for Palestine (BDS) Campaign’s characterization and judgment of Israeli actions as fact”, and require the Co-op to “accept the Global BDS Campaign’s tactics as our own”, thereby allowing Global BDS to determine the Co-op’s compliance with its principles and policies. In essence, the Board said that it would be forced to turn over the Co-op’s “management and operation” to a political movement whose objective has nothing to do the continued viability of the Co-op.

• The initiative runs counter to the Rochdale Principles, upon which the cooperative movement was founded. Specifically, the initiative violates the basic principle of political and religious neutrality and the idea that cooperatives should avoid the dangers of meddling in political and religious affairs.

• The initiative demands the Co-op  make a judgment about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of actions or policies of the Israeli government, particularly with respect to extraordinary actions taken by such government that have been invoked in the name of its national security—a judgment the Co-op Board feels unqualified to make.

“This was a terrific result,” says Shulamit Glazerman, a Co-op member involved with fighting against the boycott effort.  “During the months that the boycott drive was active, the BDS campaign generated regular complaints from patrons who resented having the Middle East conflict imported into their organization.”

“For over ten years the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign has tried to hijack well-respected organizations like universities, churches, municipalities and unions with bait-and switch tactics that attempt to stuff their anti-Israel propaganda message into the mouth of a well known institution,” says Jon Haber, who tracks the BDS movement on his anti-divestment blog .  “The Davis Co-op now joins a long list of organizations that have rejected these efforts by overwhelming margins.”

All Jewish organizations in Davis, as well as many in neighboring Sacramento, supported the opposition campaign, led by the Davis Interfaith Coalition for Peace and Justice in the Middle East (PJME).

For further information, contact:
Jon Haber (JonHaber@aol.com)

The State of Israel appreciates and esteems US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s warm remarks regarding the deep bond between the United States and Israel and the US commitment to Israel’s security.

Regarding the commitment to peace: In the past year, the Government of Israel has proven its commitment to peace in both word and deed, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 14 June 2009 Bar-Ilan University speech, the dismantling of hundreds of checkpoints and roadblocks in Judea and Samaria, and the decision to suspend new construction starts in Judea and Samaria for ten months, which Secy. of State Clinton defined as, “unprecedented.”

By contrast, the Palestinians have raised preconditions for the resumption of the diplomatic process, such as they have not done in the past 16 years. They are waging an assault to delegitimize Israel in international institutions via the Goldstone report. They are also continuing to incite towards hatred and violence; included in this is the decision to dedicate a square in Ramallah after the woman terrorist responsible for murdering 38 Israelis.

Prime Minister Netanyahu again calls on the Palestinians to enter into the tent of peace without preconditions because this is the only way to reach an agreement that will ensure peace, security and prosperity for both peoples.

I would like to provide some insights into the recent developments in Israel-US relations.  It is important to flag some key points for understanding the current situation.

Last week, during the visit to Jerusalem of US Vice President Biden, Israel’s interior ministry announced the approval of 1600 new housing units of the city’s Ramat Shlomo neighbourhood.  The timing of the announcement was an obvious error.  Prime Minister Netanyahu has been forthright and unequivocal in apologizing to Vice President Biden for the inappropriate circumstances surrounding the announcement.

The American reaction has been inappropriately harsh, given that the substance of the announcement did not violate the US-Israel understanding on settlement building. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s formulation of a 10-month settlement freeze in the West Bank, which excludes the Jerusalem municipality, was endorsed by the American administration and hailed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as an “unprecedented” step. The Ramat Shlomo neighbourhood straddles the Green Line and reflects the Israeli consensus that Jerusalem is a united city; it is not a settlement in the middle of the West Bank.

It is particularly distressing that a disagreement of this nature would distract the United States from confronting the urgent threat of Iranian nuclear proliferation. The harsh tone of the American reaction undermines Israel’s security and emboldens its enemies, leading them to believe that the strategic relationship between Israel and the US is significantly weakened.

Further, the intense focus on Israel ignores completely the Palestinian Authority’s glorification of terrorists (naming a square after a terrorist responsible for killing 37 civilians in a single operation) and incitement to violence,  particularly as it relates to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Putting all the onus on Israel is counterproductive and only serves to encourage these actions. In the coming days, as diplomatic tempers calm, there is hope that all parties, Israel, the Palestinians, and the United States as mediator, will rededicate themselves to a process leading to meaningful resolution of the conflict.

* * *

For further information and analysis please click here to read the Ha’aretz Middle East Security Survey, and here to read a more detailed report by Robert Satloff from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Jew haters and ‘free’ speech
The Toronto District School Board has Israeli Apartheid Week figured out, unlike our universities
By Lorrie Goldstein, Senior Associate Editor
Toronto Sun, March 14

Common sense from educators when it comes to dealing with Jew haters and Jew baiters is so rare that when it happens, it should be applauded.

That occurred March 2 when Toronto District School Board education director Chris Spence, following a motion by Trustee James Pasternak and discussions with senior staff, issued the following statement regarding Israeli Apartheid Week.

“Our educational goal includes the building of understanding, trust and co-operation among groups and individuals in the TDSB. The event called ‘Israeli Apartheid Week’ has the effect of fostering ill-will and disharmony among groups and individuals. The Government of Ontario and the opposition parties have unanimously adopted a resolution condemning ‘Israeli Apartheid Week.’ The Toronto District School Board therefore affirms that ‘Israeli Apartheid Week’ and its activities are not permitted to take place on school or Board property, or as part of any activity under the jurisdiction of the TDSB.”

See? No muss, no fuss. No crazies screeching Jew-hating is protected by free speech.

Plus, the board now has a sensible precedent in place banning, should anyone ever propose them, an Islamic Terrorism Week, or Muslim Honour Killing Week, or Black Crime Week, or anything similarly malicious.

Admittedly, it’s easier for a school board to deal with Israeli Apartheid Week than a university because we agree children need to be protected from things adults don’t.

For example, if your colleague tells you the Holocaust was a hoax and he can prove it, he’s entitled to his repugnant views. However, if a Grade 6 history teacher says that to his class, there could and should be official sanctions against him.

Consequences

Those who argue this should fall under “free speech” don’t understand what it is. Free speech is the right to state your views without being censored, harassed, imprisoned, tortured or killed, but it doesn’t mean people are unaccountable for what they say, or for the context in which they say it. Speech has consequences.

Further, free speech isn’t absolute. You can’t falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theatre. You can’t libel or slander someone, in the sense they have civil remedies.

Under the Criminal Code, you can’t preach genocide or willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, or threaten individuals.

The problem when universities deal with Israeli Apartheid Week — which started at the University of Toronto in 2005 and has spread to about 40 universities — is that their (usually) liberal administrations often disappear up their politically correct behinds defending “free speech.”

Free speech isn’t the issue. The appropriate use of publicly-funded institutions is.

At a university, the fact a group holds an Israeli Apartheid Week that may engage in one-sided attacks on Israel lacking context (i.e. security threats and terrorism) and that much of what is said is offensive to many Jews, and others, isn’t a valid reason to shut it down.

Free speech applies. Israel isn’t above criticism and universities are places where we especially value freedom of inquiry, debate and controversial, even offensive, views.

(Sadly, universities don’t have a stellar record of defending free speech when it matters. Say in Nazi Germany where many academics, far from resisting this appalling evil, became its apologists and scientists, conducting medical experiments that were actually torture.)

A university is a publicly-held trust and is accountable to society for how Israeli Apartheid Week (or anything else) is conducted. For example, that events are peaceful. That participants don’t threaten those who challenge their views or try to shut down their activities. (This also applies to those who oppose Israeli Apartheid Week.)

University administrators who defend “free speech” regarding IAW events, even as the cops have to be called in, miss the point.

Demanding, with sanctions, appropriate conduct from all members of the university community isn’t suppressing free speech — it’s doing their jobs. If they don’t do it, they’re shirking their responsibilities.

If anyone on campus defies reasonable standards of conduct, they can rent a room off campus, on their own dime, and Jew hate to their heart’s content.

But not at a publicly-funded university and not under the false flag of “free speech.”

CIC Commends the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Quebecois for Denouncing Israeli Apartheid Week and Condemns the NDP for Refusing To Do So

Ottawa, Ontario
March 12, 2010

The Canada-Israel Committee is deeply appreciative of the motion introduced in the House of Commons by Conservative MP Tim Uppal (Edmonton–Sherwood Park) – and supported by the Liberal Party – condemning ‘Israeli Apartheid Week’, an odious event that takes place annually on university and college campuses across Canada.

The CIC also notes a similar motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois also denouncing the use of the term apartheid to describe Israel.

“The use of the term apartheid to describe Israel is scurrilous and completely false and serves to intimidate and ostracize Jewish students on campus. The attempt to compare Israel, a democracy that provides full rights to its Arab minority population, is part of a larger concerted campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel. The CIC is particularly grateful to Conservative Member of Parliament Tim Uppal for introducing and stewarding the government motion” stated Moshe Ronen, CIC National Chair.

Finally, Mr Ronen condemned the NDP’s House Leader Libby Davies for not only scuttling any good faith attempt to reach all-party consensus on the issue, but publicly taking credit for it.

“Libby Davies’ utter disregard for the plight of students who are bullied and intimidated on campus in Canada is staggering and unacceptable. This is not an issue of free speech. In fact, the Israel Apartheid Week stifles dialogue, does not constitute legitimate criticism and is simply hateful. Absent an unambiguous disavowal on the part of Jack Layton, the party’s leader, we will have to assume that her positions reflect NDP policy and draw our own conclusions”, stated Ronen.

In “Fanning the winds of war” (Winnipeg Free Press, March 2) Samuel Segev wrote about how, following the appointment of Robert Ford as the first U.S. ambassador to Syria in five years, the Obama administration was counting on Damascus to distance itself from Tehran and to stop arms transfers to Hezbollah.  However, neither is remotely likely to happen. As a result, the United States appears to be naïve about the influence it can yield.

Syrian President Bashar Assad “has no incentive to weaken his ties to Tehran,” Segev noted.  “On the contrary, he believe[s] his continued ties to Tehran would only increase his value and would increase the American incentives.”  (Ford will assume his posting following U.S. Senate confirmation, which seems assured. Yet, apart from his presence lending prestige to Assad’s regime, it’s not clear what the United States gains.)

Assad underscored this determination to stand by Iran by hosting a summit late last month with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah – a meeting that featured prominent denunciations of both U.S. Mideast policy and, of course, Israel.  Moreover, in response  U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s calls on Damascus to free itself from Iran’s grip, Assad increased not only the quantity of Iranian arms to Hezbollah but also their quality, including advanced surface-to-surface missiles.

Segev quoted Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, who spoke in Washington on Feb. 26: “Lebanon is a member of the UN and is also now a member of the UN Security Council. But Lebanon has also a ‘private’ army [Hezbollah], not subordinated to the state and this militia has an arsenal of 45,000 missiles and rockets that can hit targets anywhere in Israel. We cannot accept this.”

Israeli analysts have expressed surprise that the United States has been under some sort of illusion that Syria could be pried away from its alliance with Iran.  They point out that during previous negotiations with Israel, Syria never indicated its willingness to break this bond.  So why not take Syria at its word?

Assad is not the only one to assert his ties with Iran.  Damascus-based Hamas head Khaled Meshal has been moving closer to Iran.  Following the Damascus summit, he was Ahmadinejad’s guest of honour in Tehran  at a conference on ‘Islamic and National Solidarity with the Palestinian People,’  during which calls for Israel’s destruction figured prominently.  Hamas policy has consequently become even more extreme (Meshal, for instance, has renounced previous talk of a  long-term truce along the 1967 borders with Israel).

Into this toxic assembly of Assad, Meshal and Nasrallah – with Ahmadinejad and gang close at hand  – Ford plans to inject his presence.  And this comes at a time that the international community, including foremost the UN,  has all but given up on pursuing Assad as the prime suspect in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri,  the event that prompted the United States to pull its ambassador from Damascus.

Providing an ostensibly different perspective, in “Report: Syria willing to consider gradual approach to peace” (Ha’aretz, Mar. 2),  Akiva Eldar related how Gabrielle Rifkind, a “conflict resolution specialist” with the Oxford Research Group,  told him that according to Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, whom she met in Damascus last December, Syria is serious about peace with Israel.  This would involve stages of Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights in exchange for a “form of normalization” according to Rifkind.  This of course sounds very encouraging to western ears.

Yet on the crucial issue of Syria’s ties with Iran and Hezbollah Eldar wrote: “[Muallem] said that [Syria] will not negotiate any change in its relationship with Hezbollah and Hamas until after the Golan is returned. ‘Key questions, such as Syria’s support for Hamas, Hezbollah and its policy to Iran , would only be answered after withdrawal,’ [Muallem] said.”

Only after Israeli withdrawal?

In short, enough said.

* * *

No to be missed – from the Economist’s Feb. 27 “Lexington” column “Is Barack Obama tough enough?” about Obama’s policy of relying on drone attacks against in Pakistan:

“For some reason, his habit of blowing up alleged terrorists and bystanders from the air causes less global outrage than the smothering of a lone Hamas operative, allegedly by Israel, in a hotel room in Dubai.”

Israel is a complicated country, without set borders, without clear distinctions between religion and nationality, without clear separation between church (or synagogue) and state.

It is a diverse society that fears for its life, forced to identify people who threaten its existence as enemies. It is paranoid to the point that it is hesitant to take some risks to achieve peace with its neighbours, paranoid that it often cannot accept criticism from those who tremendously care about it.

But as columnist Leonard Stern noticed about anti-Israel activism at Canadian universities, Israel is also the only country in the whole Middle East and surrounding region where I am able to live as an openly gay, human rights activist.

Israel is the only country in the region that I am not under threat of punishment or death because I am who I am. It is the only place within a thousand miles where no one can fire me because of who I am. True, Israel does not yet have same-sex marriage, but it is the place among 20 countries in the region where the courts have provided great protection for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered rights (LGBT), both personal and as couples.

Israel is the only country in the region that could send a transgender singer to represent it in the European song contest and rejoice with her in the streets when she honoured the country with the first prize.

Israel’s gay rights movement is a model of how much can be achieved through persistent dialogue. Sometimes hard, at times frustrating, but never stopping. We criticize the Palestinian Authority for its treatment of LGBT people, and we criticize the Israeli government over its hesitation to give humanitarian aid to Palestinians who escape the death threats of an Islamic homophobic society in Gaza and the West Bank.

The LGBT community can be a bridge, perhaps small, but solid, between Israelis and Palestinians. Accusations and boycotts serve no purpose in building bridges. Knowing each other, looking at our faces, into our eyes and souls, we are determined to keep talking, no matter what. This can be the LGBT community contribution.

Mike Hamel,

Tel Aviv, Israel

The writer is chairperson of the Aguda, Israel’s leading gay rights organization.