Partners for Progressive Israel Blog

Another View of Hawking Controversy

noreply@blogger.com ("Partners" Blogmaster) — Thu, 16 May 2013 11:34:00 +0000

Graphic from Workers' Liberty website

The Alliance for Workers' Liberty is a small Marxist group, based in London, England, with "Third Camp," anti-Stalinist politics. Unusual for what most of us would regard as a left-wing fringe sect, it is not reflexively anti-Israel. It disseminates ideas through its Workers' Liberty website. The following provides a well-reasoned perspective on the Stephen Hawking "boycott" controversy, summarized on its website front page as "Stephen Hawking may be right not to attend an Israeli government junket, but an academic boycott of Israel is wrong." Here's the piece in full:

Hawking and the boycott

by Martin Thomas

Stephen Hawking's decision not to attend an 18-20 June conference in Jerusalem has caused much celebration among advocates of an academic boycott of Israel.
Hawking himself has made no statement on the issue, but the academic boycott campaign has published a letter from him to the organisers saying: "I have received a number of emails from Palestinian academics. They are unanimous that I should respect the boycott". They claim it as a boost for their line that academics, writers, and cultural figures of all sorts should boycott Israel and Israelis across the board.
Yet, as US professor Noam Chomsky said, in an interview done when he visited Gaza City in October 2012 to express solidarity with the Palestinian people:
"A call for an academic boycott on Tel Aviv University will strengthen support for Israel and US policy because it's not understood...
"In the case of any tactic, you ask yourself, what are its consequences, ultimately for the victims, and indirectly for the audience you are trying to reach... Those are the questions you ask if you care about the victims, if you don't care about the victims, you won't bother with these questions and you just do what makes you feel good".
The boycott has hit and will hit those Israelis most interested in communicating with leftish and liberal opinion across the world. It strengthens the Israeli right in its siege mentality. It undercuts work towards the solidarity between Israeli internationalists, Palestinian campaigners, and activists across the world, on which real progress towards Palestinian liberation depends.
A telling fact about the boycott campaign is that its most visible Palestinian proponent, Omar Barghouti, far from boycotting Israeli academia has been registered for Ph D study at Tel Aviv university.
The boycott has an ugly anti-semitic undertone, in that, to the (small) extent it gathers momentum, it marginalises and targets Jewish people across the world who, for reasons of family ties or Jewish identity, value links with groups inside Israel (but may yet be very critical of Israeli government policy). In real political terms it is a propagandist annexe to the Arab League boycott of Israel, and before it of the Jewish community in Palestine, a boycott in operation since 1945 which has never been a force for progress.
The twist to the story is that the conference Hawking has withdrawn from is not an academic conference. Israeli government supporters have accused Chomsky of encouraging Hawking not to attend, and if Chomsky did that he was right to do so.
The event is an Israeli government junket, the "Presidential Conference". Rather than debating questions of theoretical physics, it is billed as about blah-blah such as "whether the quality of leadership - in all realms of human activity - can make a difference. What is the desired dynamic in relationships between people and leaders in the face of powerful processes of change?"
It is chaired by Israeli president Shimon Peres and attended by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, none of them likely to have an interest in physics.
Hawking's attendance there would be more like his appearance in the TV ads for the financial services comparison website, "Go compare", than an academic connection with an Israeli physicist.

Urgent Call to Save Palestinian Village

noreply@blogger.com ("Partners" Blogmaster) — Tue, 14 May 2013 21:18:00 +0000

This is from Rabbis for Human Rights:
Letters Urgently Needed to Save Susya

Dear Friends and Supporters,

This is not just another annual "Shavuot Thoughts," but a request that you
take action to help save Susya... .

First of all, let me start by saying "Thank you" The combined efforts of RHR and our
coalition partners led to some 2,500 letters being sent to Ministers Lapid and Livni,
asking them not to send to the Knesset legislation that will lead to the forced transfer
of up to 40,000 Negev Bedouin, and the theft of much of their land.

Sadly, the Ministerial Committee did decide to send legislation, meaning that we
need at least 5,000 letters when we ask them next week to reconsider. We and
our coalition partners are succeeding in making an issue out of what had been
a non-issue in Israel, and that is an important start (Read Here, and Here).

However, before we return to the Bedouin, the military's Civil Administration in
the Occupied Territories is holding a hearing on Sunday that could determine the
fate of Susya. As a counter to settler demands to demolish Palestinian Susya, the
High Court granted us the opportunity to submit a building and zoning master plan
that would allow the residents of Susya to build legally on their lands – a plan that
should have existed long ago, but is almost inconceivable when the Israeli army
is given the "White man's burden" of planning for Palestinians.

To refresh your memory about Susya, you may wish to see the lastest chapters
of our Susya videoblog by award winning filmmaker Ibtisam Mara'ana and/or
read more background.

Then, write that letter!

Support for Stephen Hawking's Decision

noreply@blogger.com (Lilly Rivlin) — Tue, 14 May 2013 20:10:00 +0000

Sheizaf (rt.) at Partners' Israel Symposium last Oct.

As a result of Stephen Hawking's decision not to attend the President's Conference in Israel there are those who claim this shows that the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement is winning. Most recently, the Boston Globe had an editorial basically in support of Hawking's action, but more as an act of non-violent protest than a boycott action.

A couple of days ago, I posted Carlo Strenger's open letter of complaint to Hawking, published in Ha'Aretz. Here's a well thought-out response to Strenger by Noam Sheizaf, a good piece.

There's also this in the same venue by Larry Derfner, who calls his article "A Zionist Defense of Hawking."

Avnery: 2-State Solution is Only Solution

noreply@blogger.com ("Partners" Blogmaster) — Mon, 13 May 2013 12:44:00 +0000

Uri Avnery, the venerable 90-year old radical peace activist, published the following on May 11 (slightly streamlined here):

Avnery at demo

BY NOW this has become an intellectual fad. ... Hoisting the flag of the “one-state solution” means that you are young, forward-looking, “cool”.

Actually, this only shows how ideas move in circles. When we declared in early 1949, just after the end of the first Israeli-Arab war, that the only answer to the new situation was the establishment of a Palestinian state side by side with Israel, the “one-state solution” was already old.

The idea of a “bi-national state” was in vogue in the 1930s. Its main advocates were well-meaning intellectuals, many of them luminaries of the new Hebrew University, like Judah Leon Magnes and Martin Buber. They were reinforced by the Hashomer Hatza’ir kibbutz movement, which later became the Mapam party [a forerunner of Meretz].

It never gained any traction. The Arabs believed that it was a Jewish trick. Bi-nationalism was built on the principle of parity between the two populations in Palestine – 50% Jews, 50% Arabs. Since the Jews at that time were much less than half the population, Arab suspicions were reasonable.

... At the time, no one called it the “one-state solution” because there was already one state – the State of Palestine, ruled by the British. The “solution” was called “the bi-national state” and died, unmourned, in the war of 1948.

WHAT HAS caused the miraculous resurrection of this idea?

Not the birth of a new love between the two peoples. Such a phenomenon would have been wonderful, even miraculous. If Israelis and Palestinians had discovered their common values, the common roots of their history and languages, their common love for this country – why, wouldn’t that have been absolutely splendid?

But, alas, the renewed “one-state solution” was not born of another immaculate conception. Its father is the occupation, its mother despair.

The occupation has already created a de facto One State – an evil state of oppression and brutality, in which half the population (or slightly less than half) deprives the other half of almost all rights – human rights, economic rights and political rights. The Jewish settlements proliferate, and every day brings new stories of woe.

Good people on both sides have lost hope. But hopelessness does not stir to action. It fosters resignation.

... In the 1980s the respected Israeli historian Meron Benvenisti pronounced that the situation had now become “irreversible”. At the time, there were hardly 100 thousand settlers in the occupied territories (apart from East Jerusalem, which by common consent is a separate issue). ...

History is a hothouse of reversibility. Empires grow and collapse. Cultures flourish and wither. So do social and economic patterns. Only death is irreversible.

I can think of a dozen different ways to solve the settlement problem, from forcible removal to exchange of territories to Palestinian citizenship. Who believed that the settlements in North Sinai would be removed so easily? That the evacuation of the Gaza Strip settlements would become a national farce?

In the end, there will probably be a mixture of several ways, according to circumstances.

All the Herculean problems of the conflict can be resolved -- if there is a will. It’s the will that is the real problem.

THE ONE-STATERS like to base themselves on the South African experience. For them, Israel is an apartheid state, like the former South Africa, and therefore the solution must be South African-like.

The situation in the occupied territories, and to some extent in Israel proper, does indeed strongly resemble the apartheid regime. ... But in reality, there is very little deeper resemblance ... between the two countries.

David Ben-Gurion once gave the South African leaders a piece of advice: partition. Concentrate the white population in the south, in the Cape region, and cede the other parts of the country to the blacks. Both sides in South Africa rejected this idea furiously, because both sides believed in a single, united country.

They largely spoke the same languages, adhered to the same religion, were integrated in the same economy. The fight was about the master-slave relationship, with a small minority lording it over a massive majority.

Nothing of this is true in our country. Here we have two different nations, two populations of nearly equal size, two languages, two (or rather, three) religions, two cultures, two totally different economies.

...

THE PEOPLE who speak now of the “one-state solution” are idealists. But they do a lot of harm. And not only because they remove themselves and others from the struggle for the only solution that is realistic.

If we are going to live together in one state, it makes no sense to fight against the settlements. ... But the fight against the settlements is absolutely essential, it is the main battlefield in the struggle for peace.

Indeed, the one-state solution is the common aim of the extreme Zionist right and the extreme anti-Zionist left. And since the right is incomparably stronger, it is the left that is aiding the right, and not the other way round.

In theory, that is as it should be. Because the one-staters believe that the rightists are only preparing the ground for their future paradise. The right is uniting the country and putting an end to the possibility of creating an independent State of Palestine. They will subject the Palestinians to all the horrors of apartheid and much more, since the South African racists did not aim at displacing and replacing the blacks. But in due course – perhaps in a mere few decades, or half a century – the world will compel Greater Israel to grant the Palestinians full rights, and Israel will become Palestine.

According to this ultra-leftist theory, the right, which is now creating the racist one state, is in reality the Donkey of the Messiah, the legendary animal on which the Messiah will ride to triumph.

It’s a beautiful theory, but what is the assurance that this will actually happen? And before the final stage arrives, what will happen to the Palestinian people? Who will compel the rulers of Greater Israel to accept the diktat of world public opinion?

If Israel now refuses to bow to world opinion and enable the Palestinians to have their own state ..., why would they bow to world opinion in the future and dismantle Israel altogether?

Speaking about a process that will surely last 50 years and more, who knows what will happen? What changes will take place in the world in the meantime? What wars and other catastrophes will take the world’s mind off the “Palestinian issue”?

...

ASSUMING FOR a moment that the one-state solution would really come about, how would it function?

Will Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs serve in the same army, pay the same taxes, obey the same laws, work together in the same political parties? Will there be social intercourse between them? Or will the state sink into an interminable civil war?

Other peoples have found it impossible to live together in one state. Take the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia. Serbia. Czechoslovakia. Cyprus. Sudan. The Scots want to secede from the United Kingdom. So do the Basques and the Catalans from Spain. The French in Canada and the Flemish in Belgium are uneasy. ...

NO, THE two-state solution is not dead. It cannot die, because it is the only solution there is.

...
The above is about 90% of the full text of "The Donkey of the Messiah," published at the Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc) website.

Women's Rights Attacked (literally) by Haredim

noreply@blogger.com (Lilly Rivlin) — Fri, 10 May 2013 18:04:00 +0000

I am posting this because it is one more issue that Israel needs to contend with. I was on the Bd. of Women of the Wall many years ago when the group first began as a consequence of the first, and only International Jewish Feminists conference in 1988. I was on the conference planning committee. Though praying at the Wall is not my issue from the point of view of a need for religious observance, it is my issue regarding equality for women. This Jewish Week editorial is a good summary of what women are facing. --Lilly:

Don’t Waste Israel’s Moment For Change

Wed, 05/01/2013

Editorial

A growing number of American Jews have been following with increasing outrage the plight of the Women of the Wall, the small group of activists in Jerusalem seeking to pray as a group at the Kotel (the Western Wall) in prayer shawls, kippot and tefillin.
It’s embarrassing and shameful that they have at times been treated like criminals by the police, whose forceful behavior has only drawn greater attention to and sympathy for the women, culminating in a district court ruling this week that it was wrong to arrest them.
But the truth is that focusing on their treatment, disgraceful as it may be, has masked the far more serious offenses against women and non-Orthodox religious institutions by the state and its rabbinic authorities. ... Click link for entire editorial.

And there is a more recent Huffington Post story (click link below):
Ultra-Orthodox Haredim Attack Women of the Wall
Thousands of ultra-Orthodox jeered, spit and threw rocks at the 400 'Women of the Wall' who prayed at the Western Wall today, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Strenger on Hawking's Boycott of Israel

noreply@blogger.com (Lilly Rivlin) — Thu, 09 May 2013 14:26:00 +0000

First, the link to a news piece on Stephen Hawking's boycott of the Israeli Presidential Conference, and below, parts of an open letter from Carlo Strenger (a professor of psychology and Ha'aretz newspaper columnist).--Lilly

Dear Professor Hawking,

Carlo Strenger

... Given my respect for your achievement I am surprised and saddened by your decision, reported today by The Guardian, that you have cancelled your participation at this year’s President’s Conference in Jerusalem, and that you have joined those who call for an academic boycott of Israel. ...
... I have been opposed to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories for many years, and ... voiced this opposition with all means at my disposal. ...
This being said, I have always found it morally reprehensible and intellectually indefensible that many British academics have been calling for an academic boycott of Israel. This call is based on a moral double standard that I would not expect from a community whose mission it is to maintain intellectual integrity.
Yes, I think that Israel is guilty of human right violations in the West Bank. But these violations are negligible compared to those perpetrated by any number of states ranging from Iran through Russia to China, to mention only a small number of examples. Iran hangs hundreds of homosexuals every year; China has been occupying Tibet for decades, and you know of the terrible destruction Russia has inflicted in Chechnya. I have not heard from you or your colleagues who support an academic boycott against Israel that they boycott any of these countries.
... Israel was on the verge of a peace agreement with the Palestinian people when the second Intifada broke out. Daily Israelis were shredded into pieces by suicide bombings, and it is very difficult for Israeli politicians to convince Israelis to take risks for peace. ... Professor Hawking: how can you and your colleagues who argue for an academic boycott of Israel justify your double standard by singling out Israel? You are simply denying that Israel has been under existential threat for most of its existence. To this day Hamas, one of the two major parties in Palestine, calls for Israel’s destruction, and its charter employs the vilest anti-Semitic language. To this day hardly a week goes by in which Iran and its proxy Hezbollah do not threaten to obliterate Israel, even though they have no direct conflict with Israel about anything.
Singling Israel out for academic boycott is, I believe, a case of profound hypocrisy. It is a way to ventilate outrage about the world’s injustices where the cost is low. I’m still waiting for the British academic who says he won’t cooperate with American institutions as long as Guantanamo is open, or as long as the U.S. continues targeted assassinations.
In addition to the hypocrisy, singling out Israel’s academia is pragmatically unwise, to put it mildly. Israel’s academia is largely liberal in its outlook, and many academics here have opposed Israel’s settlement policies for decades. But once again, British academics choose the easiest target to vent their rage in a way that does not contribute anything constructive to the Palestinian cause they support.
Israel, like any other country, can be criticized. But such criticism should not be based on shrill moralism and simplistic binary thinking – something I do not expect from academics. The real world is, unfortunately a messy, difficult place. Novelist Ian McEwan is quoted in the Guardian as saying that "If I only went to countries that I approve of, I probably would never get out of bed … It's not great if everyone stops talking” when he was criticized for coming to Israel to receive the Jerusalem Prize for Literature in 2011. ...

[The British daily newspaper, The Guardian, is conducting an online poll entitled, "Is Stephen Hawking right to join the academic boycott of Israel?" Consider voting NO. The poll is just below the photograph here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2013/may/08/stephen-hawking-boycott-israel]

Trying to Understand Hamas

noreply@blogger.com (Paul L. Scham) — Thu, 09 May 2013 02:00:00 +0000

For the last few years I have had a somewhat idiosyncratic views on Hamas, even for someone on the Zionist left. To the dismay and raised eyebrows of friends with whom I usually see eye to eye, including some connected with Partners for Progressive Israel, I have maintained that Israel and the US must seek to engage Hamas and that a Hamas/Fatah reconciliation is necessary for peace. I’d like to explore these thoughts at some greater length in this posting.

Let's stipulate that Hamas's covenant is a bloodthirsty and anti-semitic document, deriving from selected Quranic and traditional Muslim brotherhood sources, with some spicy additions from European racist anti-semitism. You can explore it here. Let's also stipulate that there are very few Palestinians who welcome Israel's presence in the Middle East, but many who are prepared to coexist with it because they want to move on with their lives.

Where I differ with my comrades on the Zionist left is, I think, that I see ideology, even the most heartfelt, religion-based ideology, as likely to be flexible in the space of a generation. Law-based religions like Islam and Judaism can change rapidly - but they deny to high heaven that they are changing - and probably believe it themselves. Look at religious Zionism. Until the aftermath of the Six Day War they identified largely with the most dovish parts of the Labor party. The hawks - gathered around Rabbi Zvi Yehudah Kook at Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva - were a small fringe. Within twenty years they had taken over religious Zionism - and it's the doves who are fringe in religious Zionism - gathered around Kehillat Yedidya in Baka, in South Jerusalem.

Back to Hamas. I have little doubt that those who wrote the Hamas Covenant in early 1988 believed what they wrote. As a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, they took the ideology as they found it. They were animated by religious zeal and Palestinian nationalism - and rejection of the moderating trends in Fatah that few Israelis other than General (ret.) Yehoshofat Harkabi recognized. They wanted to continue resistance ("Hamas" is an acronym in Arabic for "Islamic Resistance Movement").

But an ironic thing started happening very soon. Hamas started recognizing the real world of Israeli power and offered truces and other signs of moderation. I wrote a long paper on Hamas in 2009, subtitled "Ideological Rigidity and Political Flexibility" with a Palestinian colleague, in which we documented this process. It was published by the US Institute of Peace; you can find it here.

Since then the process has, if anything, intensified, but it is anything but linear. Every few months a top Hamas leader says something favorable about the two state solution or even the Arab Peace Initiative, which is invariably followed by a partial or full retraction. This makes it clear that Hamas is internally torn; between those who think there are advantages in moderation and those who want to stick with the hardline political line. Neither is a trick and neither is the whole story. What they agree on is that Israel shouldn't exist and that Israel doesn't want a peace that Palestinians could live with. What would throw the organization into disarray is a credible process in which Israel showed it was ready to adopt a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders and a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. Then the divisions could no longer be papered over. But the hardliners seem to have little to worry about; such a process does not seem to be imminent, despite Secretary Kerry's arduous efforts.

I am not arguing that Hamas is composed of closet moderates or that it does not mean what it is saying; Hamas contains many political realists, not just fanatics. You do not have to be a religious fanatic to be skeptical that Israel will ever move out of the territories and allow a Palestinian state to exist. Ministers of the current and many past governments say it all the time.

Hamas represents about 25-35% of the Palestinian population; it's too big to ignore. Some portion of that fits the profile of those who will never be reconciled to Israel's existence. But it is a small portion; most of these have long since left Hamas and joined smaller, more militant organizations like Palestinian Islamic Jihad or al-Qaeda affiliates, and are fighting actively against Hamas. Hamas contains the comparative moderates, difficult as it is for Americans and Israelis to accept. Hamas has to keep looking over its right shoulder to be sure it's not alienating too much of its base.

Finally, in the last year, Hamas had to face a very hard decision, whether to keep allied with its old friends and weapon suppliers, Syria and Iran, or to go with the so-called Sunni Axis, led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are the main supporters of the Syrian rebels. They opted for the latter. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are principal supporters of the Arab Peace Initiative; they consider Bashar As'ad and Iran far more dangerous than Israel. That is a fundamental shift for Hamas; even though they denounced the latest moderation of the API, they will be under a lot of pressure to accept it if Israel ever does.

It is simply not possible for Fatah to accept a peace process without Hamas's acquiescence. Hamas is too big to ignore and, like Israel, it is not going anywhere. Cut off from the rejectionist front, i.e., Iran and al Quaeda-like jihadis, it is likely to accept a peace plan similar to the API, but it will not itself "recognize" Israel, nor will it do so before Israel does. I will discuss why I think this is the case in a subsequent column.

Thus, I think it is not helpful to write Hamas off as simply part of the problem. It must be understood in the changing context of the Middle East, in a clear-eyed manner. It has been changing; we have to encourage that process.

Some Rays of Hope

noreply@blogger.com ("Partners" Blogmaster) — Tue, 07 May 2013 14:31:00 +0000

Momentum is building for new Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, as indicated by these news articles, compiled by J Street's email News Roundup:

Keeping up marathon meetings, Livni and Kerry to parley, Times of Israel

Kerry will meet with Justice Minister Tzipi Livni in Rome this week, as well as Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh, in Kerry’s ongoing efforts to help Israel and the Palestinians reach a peace deal.

Lapid nixes Netanyahu-backed referendum on peace, Times of Israel

Yesh Atid announced its opposition to a national referendum on any future peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority, effectively stymieing the initiative, which was being championed by Prime Minister Netanyahu. [Yair Lapid has allied himself with Livni in opposing a referendum, which would give enemies of a peace deal a second opportunity to nix a two-state peace agreement with the Palestinians.]

Netanyahu quietly curbs settlement expansion, Reuters

Netanyahu has reportedly curbed new building projects in Jewish settlements, in an apparent bid to help US efforts to revive peace talks with the Palestinians.

No 'Freedom to Be Biased'; Multiculturalism Not Applicable for Ultra-Orthodox

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Wharton) — Fri, 03 May 2013 15:46:00 +0000

Over the last several years there have been increasing clashes in Israel between the general population and the Ultra-Orthodox leadership: over sex segregation on buses, ethnic prejudice in Orthodox schools (Ashkenazim refusing to let their children study with Sephardim), draft dodging, and more. Views expressed have been getting harsher and harsher -- and since the present government has been said to "boycott" the Ultra-Orthodox -- some people, including many leftists, have begun to wonder if the backlash against them is not exaggerated, and if perhaps Israelis should be more respectful of Ultra-Orthodox culture and more multicultural.

In my opinion, there is no exaggeration at all. Even the claims of the current government "boycotting" the Ultra-Orthodox are ridiculous. Let there be no misunderstanding: I do not support the current government. However, the Prime Minister, as the head of the largest party, has the right to choose his partners. Choosing not to include the Ultra-Orthodox in the coalition is as legitimate as choosing not to invite the left-wing parties, or the Arab parties, or any other party; none of them questions his right to do so -- except the Ultra-Orthodox.

It has also been said that one should respect the "right" of the Orthodox not to allow women to sit in the front of buses or be party representatives. Not so: any systematic exclusion, whether on the basis of gender, or ethnic origin, religion, or sexual preference is simply prejudice -- and illegal. It is a violation of the principles on which Israel was founded, of Israeli law, and of interenational agreements.

In response to my appeal to the National Election Committee that Ultra-Orthodox parties prohibiting women's participation disqualifies them from elections, Haredi representatives said that women were not interested in political parties. If that is so, I responded, why is such a
prohibition necessary? Similarly, attempts to ban women from sitting in the front seats of buses led the leadership to claim that women are not interested in sitting in the front of buses; why then whenever I dared to sit in the front section, did women immediately join me? Fortunately, in this case the Supreme Court intervened.

In the municipality, the Ultra-Orthodox demand, and often get, special budgets. There are budgets for education and then budgets for Ultra-Orthodox education; budgets for cultural events and then budgets for Ultra-Orthodox events, even budgets for sports activities and budgets for Ultra-Orthodox sports activities. The Ultra-Orthodox say that they have special demands and the municipality has to meet them. But while the Ultra-Orthodox are free to come to all of the general activities, there is no reciprocation; I was recently banned from attending an Ultra-Orthodox event that cost almost 200,000 USD to the city (and am currently suing the organizers). What is ours is theirs, and what is theirs is also (only) theirs.

Moreover, the Ultra-Orthodox leadership seeks to present their demands as legitimate because seeing to the needs of the general population is "anti-religious coercion" as if it were on balance with their religious coercion. Thus, for example, demanding that cultural centers be open on the Sabbath is "anti-religious". Yet there is no parallel: many Israelis want to enjoy their Saturdays outside of their homes - but do not force religious people to join them. No secular person would consider forbidding a religious one to go to a synagogue. There is no reason why the religious should forbid us to go out. This issue is now being put to the test as Meretz and other parties are challenging a decision to forbid the new "Cinema City" theater in Jerusalem from being open on Saturdays.

There is a rapidly growing number of fronts for conflict with the Ultra-religious, so much so that some people have begun to feel uncomfortable. They are concerned that the Ultra-Orthodox is a battered minority. Not so: the Ultra-Orthdox leadership refuses to recognize rights that are essential to a liberal democracy, and there should be no compromise on these.

Dershowitz & Olmert booed at NYC conference

noreply@blogger.com (Ralph Seliger) — Wed, 01 May 2013 11:32:00 +0000

When I saw the mostly right-wing constellation of speakers (e.g., Caroline Glick, John Bolton, Danny Danon) at the April 28th New York conference sponsored by the Jerusalem Post, I knew that I didn't want to attend. Two articles, one in the Jerusalem Post and another in the Open Zion blog, have confirmed that I was correct.

Alan Dershowitz wound up being one of two relative moderates booed by the audience as he presented a plan to restart peace negotiations with the Palestinians. The plan-- which he presented for consideration to P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas recently-- is not a be-all and end-all, but it's an honest attempt to get things started again. He proposes that Israel freeze construction beyond the settlement blocs and that the Palestinians not go to the International Criminal Court.

He advises against construction in areas of “reasonable disagreement,” but it's not clear if even he knows what these are. Would this mean a freeze in the Ariel bloc, a salient projecting deeply into the West Bank, which the Palestinians object to, or in East Jerusalem (where construction is proceeding aggressively), or in the E-1 corridor to Ma'aleh Adumim, an area of intense dispute?

The other unpopular speaker was former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who asserted dovish views that rankled most of the audience. Sigal Samuel's report in Open Zion, "Olmert plays the clown at Jerusalem Post conference," was mistitled. Olmert's speech was serious, even as he jousted in ironic terms with his hecklers. With the realistic concerns he expressed, one wonders why he wasn't more resolute when he was prime minister in going the extra mile needed for a peace agreement with Pres. Abbas that was within his grasp.

He still defends his overly aggressive Operation Cast Lead military campaign into Gaza. It is especially mysterious as to why Olmert did not send envoys to Washington, DC in January, 2009, to conclude negotiations under the good auspices of George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice during their last weeks in office, as told us last year by Yasser Abed Rabbo (and confirmed by Bernard Avishai).

Arab League Peace Plan Shows Flexibility

noreply@blogger.com ("Partners" Blogmaster) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:17:00 +0000

Finally, the Arab League has presented their peace plan in flexible terms on the border issue. This is a sign that Secretary of State John Kerry's energetic diplomacy toward a two-state peace agreement is bearing some fruit. The following summaries of two news articles are from J Street's daily News Roundup:

Arabs soften stance on Israel’s final borders, Associated Press

Speaking on behalf of an Arab League delegation to Washington with Secretary of State Kerry, Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani called for an agreement between Israel and a future Palestinian state based on the Jewish state's border before the 1967 Mideast War. But, unlike in previous such offers, he cited the possibility of "comparable," mutually agreed and "minor" land swaps between the Israelis and the Palestinians, moving the proposal closer to President Obama’s two-state vision.

Livni praises Arab League land swap endorsement, Times of Israel

Justice Minister Livni, Israel’s chief negotiator with the Palestinians, welcomed the Arab League’s announcement, saying, “It’s true that there is still a long way to go, and we can’t accept all the clauses as holy writ, but sometimes you need to look up over the difficulties and just say good news is welcome.”

It is also positive that Israel's chief negotiator, Tzipi Livni, is acknowledging this development, but we must remind ourselves that she is almost alone in Prime Minister Netanyahu's new cabinet as a voice for moderation and progress on peace with the Palestinians.

News article on my debate with Likud supporter

noreply@blogger.com (Ralph Seliger) — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:18:00 +0000

I'm in the middle, sharing a light moment at the debate. Photo is by NJJN reporter Johanna Ginsberg.

A lot more could have been said, both by the New Jersey Jewish News reporter and myself, but we faced limitations of space (in her case) and of time (in mine). This is the part of her article devoted to my debate with a Likud supporter (I comment further, below this):

Senior Edyt Dickstein moderated the April 16 debate between attorney Mark Levenson, chair of the New Jersey-Israel Commission and a pro-Israel activist aligned with Likud, and Ralph Seliger, a writer who blogs for Partners for Progressive Israel (formerly Meretz USA).
Seliger and Levenson disagreed considerably, not only in their positions but in their interpretations of the facts.
On the question of settlements, Seliger said that 1995 negotiations between Israel’s Yossi Beilin and Palestinian negotiator Mahmoud Abbas yielded an agreement that would have allowed the 75 to 80 percent of the settler population in three major settlement blocs to remain where they lived. That agreement, he said, was derailed by the assassination that year of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
“At the end, because of his assassination and the fact that Shimon Peres, his successor, was not as adept a politician, the agreement collapsed and the so-called peace process slowed to a crawl,” said Seliger. “The settlements were not the problem. The problem is settlement expansion. Now Palestinians do not know where it will stop.”
By contrast, Levenson said, “This so-called agreement Yossi Beilin reached with Abbas was not in a government framework.”
No one from the Palestinian side, Levenson added, “is saying, ‘We agree, we will give up these three blocs.’ That is part of the problem the Israeli government faces.”
Levenson also defended Peres.
“Shimon Peres was one of Israel’s greatest heroes and an international jewel who lent tremendous legitimacy to Israel. The only reason he was not elected after Rabin’s assassination was because a series of bombs catapulted [Benjamin Netanyahu] into the prime ministership. After the assassination, [Peres] had tremendous good will,” he said.
In turn, Seliger argued that the series of bombings was a response to the decision taken by Peres to target [Yihya] Ayyash, the Palestinian terrorist nicknamed The Engineer. The Shin Bet killed Ayyash in January 1996 with a bomb placed in a cell phone.

I had described the Abbas-Beilin agreement as a "framework agreement" in the form of a letter submitted to Rabin virtually on the eve of his assassination. I believe that this, along with newly positive polling data on his reelection prospects, explains Rabin's uncharacteristically buoyant mood at the great peace rally where he was murdered. Although (as my opponent indicated) this was not a ratified "government" agreement, it was significant and has shaped understandings about a two-state solution ever since. The reporter did not note that Levenson initially confused this with the unofficial Geneva Accord of 2003.

The following links to my latest Tikkun blog post, which begins with this debate and moves to an important tangential issue: Terror in Boston: Personal Malaise Meets Global Jihad.

Strange IDF Tactics for Controlling Palestinians

noreply@blogger.com ("Partners" Blogmaster) — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:10:00 +0000

National Public Radio's "This American Life" features this story on its April 19th broadcast:

Mapping the Palestinians

Download

Transcript

Israeli soldiers routinely burst into West Bank Palestinian homes in the middle of the night, rousing the inhabitants and taking snapshots of their male children. This is part of a data collection process known as "mapping." But then IDF commanders reportedly throw out the data. A reporter tries to find out what this is all about.

A green glow stick

Other tactics mentioned are glow sticks randomly tossed into homes at night and the ritual of the "mock arrest" (someone is randomly taken from home at night, handcuffed and held in a military vehicle, without explanation, for a half hour or more until returned later that night). It turns out that these are all ways of asserting Israel's presence: getting inside people's heads that the army is always there.

Pro-Likud debater exploits Boston Marathon bombing

noreply@blogger.com (Ralph Seliger) — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:44:00 +0000

Last Tuesday, on Yom Ha'atzmaut (Israel Independence Day), I debated an American supporter of Likud in front of 200 students at the Kushner Academy yeshiva high school in Livingston, New Jersey. It was a very pro-Israel, modern Orthodox environment, in which the day was entirely given over to celebrating Israel's 65th birthday.

Everyone -- including my opponent -- was polite and friendly, and the teachers repeatedly exhorted the students to be civil and open to hearing a view they may disagree with. Three boys came up to me after to shake hands and tell me that they were perhaps the only "liberals" in the school.

The debate consisted of the two of us responding briefly in turn to a few questions composed by a student (a young woman identified to me as active in AIPAC), with a couple of follow-up rebutal arguments. I don't feel that I adequately emphasized the urgency of Israel's need to negotiate a two-state solution, but I think I succeeded in conveying that one can care about Israel's welfare while holding dovish views on solving the conflict.

Although personable, my opponent was loose in his interpretations and misinformed on relevant events in Palestinian-Israeli relations. I mentioned the 1995 Abbas-Beilin framework agreement to exchange territories to compensate the future Palestinian state for Israel's retention of the "settlement blocs" contiguous with Israel; he confused this with the Geneva Accord of 2003 and also had a muddled recollection of the Taba conference in 2001. He even referred to the Boston Marathon bombing of the previous day, before we knew anything about the perpetrators, as if
this were relevant to our debate. I don't recall his exact words, but he insinuated that it proved how violent and undependable "they" are, by which he must have meant Muslims, Arabs and/or Palestinians.

Mind you, the extremist Jihadi script is out there; it's a behavioral model for disaffected and maladjusted individuals to embrace for meaning in their lives. From what we know of the Tsarnaev brothers, this seems to be true of the older brother, with the younger pushed along by the overpowering force of the older’s personality. I'm impressed with JJ Goldberg's thoughtful piece on this in The Forward, "The Deadly Identity Crisis Along Islam's Borders."

And before the story of the Tsarnaev brothers broke, Goldberg noted the bitter ideological division in how Americans look at the issue of terrorism. He statistically compared Islamist/Jihadist versus “white” Christian terrorist incidents in recent years: "Seeing Our Own Bitter Division Through the Prism of Boston Marathon Bombings."

Obama in Jerusalem: Following Sadat's lead?

noreply@blogger.com (Ralph Seliger) — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:15:00 +0000

Tony Klug, a veteran British Mideast policy analyst and peace activist, invokes the historic 1977 visit to Jerusalem of Egypt's President Anwar Sadat, in extolling the potential of Pres. Obama's recently concluded visit. The following is excerpted from his article, "Obama in the Footsteps of Sadat," recently published at the "Open Democracy" website (I conclude beneath it with a reader's comment plus an observation of my own):

. . . Shortly after his visit in November 1977, in an article in New Outlook, I noted that President Sadat had accomplished, in one brief journey, what years of threats, military action and blanket boycotts had monumentally failed to achieve.

If there was a turning point during his visit, it was when he proclaimed “we really and truly welcome you to live among us …”. . . . The psychological effect ran deep.

The euphoria of the Egyptian president’s visit . . . galvanized the Israeli public and sparked off new political currents within the country, most notably the grassroots Peace Now movement. . . . In the face of the sustained momentum, a begrudging Menachem Begin eventually was impelled to withdraw from every centimetre of Egyptian territory. . . .

. . . [I]f the Sadat initiative was his model, President Obama may – possibly – have accomplished something rather more profound and far-reaching by his visit than simply laying down the law, which anyway would almost certainly have been repudiated by the dominant forces in the recently assembled Israeli government.

In his [Guardian] column, Ian Black observed that President Obama pulled off the trick of “appealing to ordinary Israelis over the heads of their leaders”. Thirty-five years earlier, in my New Outlook article, I had similarly noted that President Sadat appealed “at one and the same time to Premier Begin and his government and over their heads direct to the people of Israel”. The question now is just how far will that distant echo reverberate today?

. . . Obama is now a key player and a sizeable portion of Israeli public opinion will be looking to the US president for continued direction. The impetus must not be lost. Like Sadat before him, it is imperative that Obama, together with his spirited secretary of state John Kerry, keeps his foot on the pedal and not disappoint the constituencies within Israel he has inspired, generated or revived. Irreversible progress needs to be made while he is still in office. . . .

I share Tony Klug's hopes and general view. But among the online comments from readers (including the usual range of nay-sayers), I am struck by the wisdom of a statement from a person identified as "Efraim":

It seems to me that Obama's speech differed from Sadat's speech in one very fundamental way. Sadat came to settle the conflict between Israel and Egypt. The conflict at the moment is between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples and not between Israel and the USA. What is needed is not a Sadat-like speech from Obama but a Sadat-like speech from Abbas.

And it seems to me that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas blew an opportunity for a Sadat-like initiative by not making a more conciliatory speech at the United Nations last year, when he spoke in support of the General Assembly resolution for Palestinian statehood status. Instead of emphasizing that the resolution (which we supported as an organization) was finally fulfilling the UN partition resolution 181, which in Nov. 1947 had called for two states -- Jewish and Arab -- in the Mandate territory of Palestine, he spoke bitterly of ethnic cleansing and the like.

One cannot entirely blame him, of course; the oppressive weight of the occupation and the ongoing rush of settlement expansion does resemble a slow-motion campaign of ethnic cleansing. But the UN resolution was meant to mark a new beginning and Abbas' speech did not rise to that occasion.

This is the problem with Palestinian reluctance to endorse the "two states for two peoples" formula of the Israeli peace camp. We can understand their concern (overblown but real) that endorsing Israel as a Jewish state abandons their kin who are citizens of Israel, but they are showing that they do not understand what we mean by a "Jewish state" -- wrongly claiming that a Jewish state must be either theocratic or exclusively Jewish. (One may recall our disagreement on this point with Hanan Ashrawi, when we visited her in Ramallah, last October.)

Liberal Philosophers on Jewish State: It's like Norway

noreply@blogger.com ("Partners" Blogmaster) — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:38:00 +0000

Norway's flag

In celebration of Yom Ha'atmaut, Israel Independence Day, the Manhattan JCC hosted a program moderated by Jane Eisner, editor in chief of the Jewish Daily Forward, with philosophers Moshe Halbertal and Michael Walzer, discussing: "Can you be a liberal and a Zionist? How does Israel navigate its identity as a Jewish Democratic State?" (This event was similar in subject matter, but neither in tone nor format to another we've discussed.)

Halbertal is (among other things) a professor at Hebrew University and the New York University School of Law. Walzer is an emeritus professor at the Institute for Advanced Study (in Princeton, New Jersey) and recently retired as co-editor of Dissent magazine (the socialist/social democratic journal originally founded by Irving Howe).

Both are known as liberal supporters of the State of Israel, who are also critics of right-wing government policies. Halbertal has been a consultant to the Israel Defense Forces on its code of conduct, while Walzer is famous for his writings on "Just War Theory."

The following is a summary of their discussion, paraphrasing their words:

Prof. Halbertal began by listing four principles defining Israel's Jewish character:

The Jewish right of self-determination (the essence of Zionism).
The Law of Return: actualizing the fact that Jews now have a home, remedying their historic misfortune of exile and homelessness.
Public symbols attached to Israeli life: e.g., the Hebrew language, conformity with the Jewish calendar (Shabbat, holidays, etc.).
Its public education is dedicated to schooling students in Jewish culture(s).

Prof. Walzer:
It's important to emphasize that Israel is not a religious state (e.g., not like an Islamic state). But it's also true that Jewishness is inextricably linked with religion; for that reason, it's a hard struggle to disentangle religion and state.
He drew an analogy between Israel and Norway, which left its union with Sweden in 1905 to preserve its language and culture. The Norwegian state became "an engine for generating Norwegian culture."

Walzer

There was some cross discussion about religious symbols forming the basis for national flags. This is true of Israel's flag, but also a number of Christian-majority states that use crosses and Muslim countries that employ crescents or Koranic quotations for their flags. Halbertal pointed out that Norway's flag also embeds a cross. [Blogmaster: It's not clear, however, that the Norwegian cross has religious significance, because it's lopsided on the right.]

Walzer continued:
It's wrong to assume that because Jews for many centuries have not had a state of their own, that they had no politics. The kehilla (organized Jewish community) took responsibility for governing its people on civil and communal matters, and representing their interests, wherever permitted by the non-Jewish state order.
But Israel as a state must also be responsible for its non-Jewish citizens and residents; this is essential for a liberal democratic state.

Halbertal:
Arabic must remain an official language and Israeli public schools with Arab students should help reproduce their culture. This is one way that Israel as a nation-state doesn't necessarily undermine its democracy.

The speakers were asked by moderator Jane Eisner if Israel must choose among three options: retaining the entire land of Israel (i.e., including the West Bank), a Jewish state and a democratic state.

Walzer:
Yes, Israel can only choose two of these three. It cannot remain Jewish and democratic while retaining control of the West Bank.

Israel inherited the "millet system" from the Ottoman Empire: Muslim, Jewish and Christian courts adjudicate family law. But this causes many secular Israeli Jews to go to Cypress to marry, a situation that's "crazy."

Moderator Eisner, as she turned for his response on religion & state, pointed out that Prof. Halbertal is a kippa-wearing Orthodox religious Jew.

Halbertal:
The state should not adjudicate Jewish religious issues. The Knesset must be separate from the Beit Knesset (synagogue). Legislating for Jews to observe Shabbat (e.g., by curtailing public transportation) undermines Judaism. Judaism should not be officially defined by Jewish Orthodoxy, something that alienates most Israeli Jews.

In the Q & A that followed, Halbertal advised American Jews who are unhappy with many Israeli policies that Israelis need to hear that they are not always in the wrong and that moving toward two states is not without risks. Otherwise, he said, these criticisms are not taken seriously by most Israelis.

'Israel at 65: Is Zionism still alive?'

noreply@blogger.com (Hillel Schenker) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:37:00 +0000

In honor of Yom Ha'atzmaut, this piece I published today is listed currently as the Top Blog at The Times of Israel, an interesting choice on behalf of the editors:

Is Zionism still alive?

Hillel Schenker says legitimate Zionism ends at the 1967 borders, one state is not an option and time is running out for the two-state option.

Chag Sameach,
Hillel

Some Thoughts on Zionism Today

noreply@blogger.com (Paul L. Scham) — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 16:33:00 +0000

With Yom Ha’atzma’ut, Israel’s 65^th Independence Day, around the corner [April 15], these are some thoughts about the significance of Zionism today.

There are frequent complaints, usually on the center-right of the American Jewish political spectrum, about the poverty of ideas in modern Zionism. I agree; I don’t see how anyone could maintain otherwise with a straight face. There are no great ideas because – surprise! – the Zionist movement has been gone for well over 40 years, although few Israelis (or American Jews who care about Israel) have wished to recognize its departure. As my grandmother used to say, “It’s like cupping a corpse” to try to find new ideas in and for a movement that had a glorious life, but is now our past, not our future.

The State of Israel and the Jewish people should hold a grand, if belated, funeral and move on. Unlike the vast majority of political, let alone ideological movements, Zionism succeeded in its basic aim of rejuvenating the Jewish people in its ancient homeland. Along the way, it revived Hebrew, allowed the Jewish people to recover from the Holocaust, revolutionized the internal and external perception of Jews individually and collectively, and laid the basis for Israel becoming a regional superpower. Most other ideologically based movements either never achieved power, or collapsed after 12 or 70 or so horrendous years. And despite our enemies’ rhetoric, it was not evil – though serious mistakes and misjudgments were made, and remain. In many respects, Zionism was astoundingly successful.

Of course, if it ceases to cling to the Zionist crutch, Israel will have to become more k'chol hagoyim, like the other nations, in many respects. It will have to come to terms with being a normal state but also with problems of considerable scale, most inherited from its entry on to the world stage in an unprecedented manner. But it will have to recognize there is no "Zionist solution" to today's problems, since they are completely different from those faced by the early Zionists, whether intellectuals or chalutzim (pioneers) or both. The issues of daily life, whether of an individual or a society, can rarely be solved with heroic means.

Zionism quietly died some time after 1949, and was certainly gone by the Six Day War. After its demise, the state it had created proceeded to make its own way, pretending it was being guided by the heroic ideas of the deceased. But every child has to move beyond his or her parents’ solutions and recognize that eventually they die, or have died. Israel has not yet done so.

So, of course there are no heroic ideas. A state is cumbersome, has many competing interests, and is run by politics, all of which are anti-heroic. There are no more worlds or even lands to conquer; rather the question is what to give up in order to create normality with the neighbors, and especially with those who were displaced by Zionism's eruption onto the world stage, something we have yet to come to terms with. It is also time to give up some of the illusions that allowed the heroism to flourish, such as the myth that we are always innocent victims. One of the goals of Zionism was to rid ourselves of our victimhood, but many still cherish it.

But giving up land and recognizing illusions are not usually seen as heroic, essential as they are. Success in withdrawal will be denounced as surrender by many of those who hold on to the past. Paradoxically, only failure will be cheered by those who believe they can resurrect Zionism's golden age. Failure means more war, and the hope of those who want peace to fail is that another heroic war will change everything. But it won't. The last heroic war was in 1967, unless you count 1973, which was heroic only in that Israelis fought desperately to prevent defeat. But, later, we found out that even our enemies didn't expect to defeat us; Sadat made war in order to make peace. A heroic war for him, perhaps, but not for us; except for the heroism of individual soldiers.

Every few years one organization or another announces a renewal of Zionism and invites a new group to make aliyah. Aliyah (Jewish immigration to Israel) is a concept that predated Zionism and will survive it. There are a variety of reasons that Jews make aliyah, ranging from honest enthusiasm for the task of building a Jewish state (religious or secular) to hope of economic improvement, to out-and-out flight for one’s life. But aliyah is now a personal decision; Israel does not need aliyah to survive, as the Yishuv did in earlier times.

So there will be no more great ideas coming from the Zionist movement. Rather, we should borrow an idea from the Irish and, instead of sitting shiva and mourning, we should have a wake and celebrate the magnificent life of the deceased, though not forgetting its faults and mistakes. Then, we not-larger-than-life Israelis and Jews can try to struggle out from Zionism's shadow. Zionism R.I.P; Long live the State of Israel!

'No Fireworks' at Debate on Israeli Democracy

noreply@blogger.com ("Partners" Blogmaster) — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:40:00 +0000

Readers may recall blogger Ralph Seliger's concerns about this event, obliged to move from one Manhattan synagogue to another. It took place on the evening of April 4.

Reports indicate an attendance of about 150 to 200, constituting a standing-room-only crowd in Congregation Beit Simchat Torah's modestly-sized sanctuary. Many if not most of the attendees were from Jews Say No and the Jewish Voice for Peace --- groups with which many (but not all) of the organizers are affiliated.

But the event itself went off rather tamely. We link here to two accounts:

One is by Doug Chandler, a correspondent for New York's Jewish Week newspaper.
This second one is by Alex Kane, writing for the well-known anti-Israel website, Mondoweiss.

Bernard Avishai plugs worthy project

noreply@blogger.com (Ralph Seliger) — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:33:00 +0000

I expect to contribute something on Kickstarter, to advance this project. Perhaps some of you will as well? This is Bernard Avishai's pitch:

I am writing to ask your help in bringing an important documentary film project to conclusion.
J Street is the most compelling story in contemporary American Jewish life and promises to be among the most transformative regarding American Middle East policy. J Street: The Documentary seeks to tell it fully—and from the inside.
For the past three years, film-makers Ben Avishai and Ken Winikur have enjoyed extraordinary access to J Street internal meetings, national conventions, and local community debates, many fraught with controversy. They’ve also conducted searching interviews with J Street founder Jeremy Ben-Ami, as well as with such players and observers as Ehud Olmert, Amy Ayalon, Tom Friedman, Lawrence Wilkerson, and Alan Dershowitz. In all, they’ve filmed over 200 hours, at the national office in Washington, D.C., in local chapters around the US and in Israel. You can see a trailer, and a full explanation of the film’s intention, by following this link: http://www.jstreetdoc.com/.

To be clear, this is an independent production, which I have had the privilege of advising closely. Our intention is to air the film as a national television broadcast, in the US and abroad. Ben and Ken have been making hour-long documentary films for fifteen years, producing nationally televised documentaries on subjects as diverse as “The Spear of Christ” and crime boss Whitey Bulger, all broadcast on Investigation Discovery and The History Channel; they collaborated on producing all of the films for the Holocaust Museum in Skokie, Illinois. (Yes, Ben is my son.)
Ben and Ken presented J Street: The Documentary to the International Documentary Film Festival in Amsterdam. Israel’s YES docu cable service has provisionally committed to running the final result, while other public television networks, from Norway to Japan, have expressed strong interest in the finished product. Ben and Ken need a rough cut to present to television programs on American and Canadian public TV, HBO, etc., a number of which have also expressed interest.
Which brings me back to this appeal. Obviously, films are expensive propositions. Ben and Ken have had to raise their funds thus far from film foundations and private philanthropists. They now require $35,000 to finish the rough cut. Ultimately, they’ll need an additional $125,000 to finish: buy archival footage, licenses, color correction, sound mix—all the costs of completion, usually subsidized in part by the media outlets that buy the film’s rights.
Ben and Ken have therefore decided to raise their remaining funds through Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1922576882/j-street-the-documentary ), a novel web-based site, that allows diverse people to support the film as a kind syndicate, all making relatively small donations: $25, $100, $250—whatever a supporter can afford.
The virtue of Kickstarter for Ben and Ken is obvious: it provides a way to source their remaining funds from widening circles of progressive voices supporters who may not have a great deal of money, but who understand the importance of the J Street story and want the film’s producers to maintain journalistic independence.
The virtue of Kickstarter for supporters is the knowledge that our pledges will not actually be charged to our credit cards (or Paypal accounts) unless Ben and Ken meet their base goal of $35,000. In other words, your contribution will help bring this project to its culmination—or there will be no contribution.
So please click this link to the film’s Kickstarter page now, watch the short trailer, read the treatment—and contribute all you can. Ben and Ken have only one month to raise their $35,000 goal. So do contribute right away. Also, please send this email immediately to anyone you think would be interested in kicking in. And by all means put it on your Facebook page or your blog.
It is our hope to reach the primary goal in a few days. We also hope to raise additional funds to bring this cut to the level of refinement public television and other media outlets require. You can track how well we are doing on the same Kickstarter site where your contribution is made.
My best, and thanks,

Bernard Avishai

Gershon Baskin on Hamas

noreply@blogger.com (Lilly Rivlin) — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 10:53:00 +0000

Gershon Baskin

As far as I'm concerned this is a new way of thinking from Gershon Baskin. I do not recall his being so adamant that
Hamas is not, I repeat, is not a likely partner for peace negotiations. There are those on the "liberal left" for lack of a better word, die hards believing that the two-state solution is still viable, and those who have advocated negotiating or at least talking to Hamas. Baskin was one of those who persisted in back channel discussions with Hamas. Read this piece, (I've copied much of it below). Lilly

.... The division of the Palestinian house is more than just a struggle for power between opposing political parties. ... It is most fundamentally a struggle over vision, worldview and political direction.

Abbas has stated clearly that he supports reconciliation but that it must take place on his terms. This refers to his demand that Hamas rescind the use of violence, thereby dropping the armed struggle ..., that it adhere to agreements made between the PLO and Israel (meaning most particularly the continuation of security cooperation between Palestinian Authority forces and Israeli security forces) and that Hamas fully recognize Abbas’s right and determination to negotiate peace with Israel.

Hamas, particularly from the vantage point of newly reelected politburo leader Khaled Mashaal, seeks to merge Hamas into the PLO and eventually take over the body which is recognized world-wide as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

Initially, the merging of Hamas into the PLO would require Hamas to at least implicitly recognize Israel and the Oslo peace process and its agreements. All of the signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinians have been between the government of Israel and the PLO representing the Palestinian people. According to Mashaal’s strategy this might be a tactical move in which swallowing the implicit recognition of Israel would be acceptable because after taking over the PLO he could have the movement nullify the agreements and the security arrangements with Israel.

During Mashaal’s historic visit to Gaza after Pillar of Defense in December 2012 he delivered one of the most extreme rhetorical attacks against Israel’s right to exist, and presented Hamas’ vision of a Palestinian Islamic republic from the River to the Sea. Several months before, Mashaal had appeared on CNN and expressed support for a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders.

After Mashaal’s visit, I phoned one of the Hamas leaders in Gaza and asked: Which was the real Khaled Mashaal – Gaza or CNN? He responded that I should understand the context; his first visit to Gaza, the leader coming home to his country, etc. I responded that if Mashaal is a leader and really does support the vision he expressed on CNN then he would begin to lead his people away from the lie that they will defeat Israel and that Palestine will be built on the ruins of the Jewish state. I heard him on CNN and I heard him in Gaza. He was more convincing in Gaza.

I DO not believe that reconciliation between the PLO and Hamas is possible. Or rather, as long as there remains the possibility of an Israeli-Palestinian negotiated peace agreement there is little real possibility for real reconciliation between those two Palestinian movements. ...

Palestinian public opinion polls and research demonstrate that Hamas has only minority support. The Hamas victory in the 2006 elections was technical (due to the electoral system) – Hamas has never had a majority of support inside of Palestine and not even within Gaza.

While a clear majority of Palestinians support the idea of reconciliation, the conceptual framework that they have is a situation where Hamas is no longer Hamas, in terms of ideology, .... This is simply unrealistic. Until now, Hamas has not been willing to compromise on its ideology, particularly refusing to completely forgo the armed struggle. Hamas is not willing to allow the Ramallah security forces to retake their positions in Gaza and their authority over the Hamas military forces. Newly re-elected Hamas leader Maashal, however, is repeating his call for support for a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders and has once again begin to talk about non-violent resistance. ... If Hamas is moving towards the PLO position, then reconciliation may be possible, but without these fundamental changes, there is no real possibility for unification.

... The Palestinian state will include the West Bank and Gaza – but it will only be implemented in Gaza when the regime that rules there accepts the terms of the agreement. ...

Is Israel at root of Holocaust fatigue?

noreply@blogger.com (Ralph Seliger) — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:15:00 +0000

This year, April 7-8, marks Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. This solemn day is commemorated annually by Jews around the world, recalling that from June 1941 until the end of the Second World War in Europe in May 1945, one-third of the world's Jewish population perished in a systematic campaign of annihilation. And this indelible fact still has reverberations today, but I wonder if the ongoing acrimony of crises and issues related to Israel is producing a weariness about the Holocaust.

I ponder this in the light of a frenetic output of recent films about the Holocaust and its impact upon ensuing generations, as the survivors and even their progeny face mortality. These films appear on public television or have short runs in cinema art houses, but many (including some very worthy efforts) never make it beyond the Jewish and general film festival circuits. Perhaps they are just flooding in at a rate that the commercial market cannot accommodate, but I wonder.

Over a year ago, I saw a fairly good fiction film at the Manhattan JCC; its US distributor has been trying unsuccessfully, so far, to find regular venues. I've recently seen two films at the New York Jewish Film Festival: one is a documentary on a young artist whose life and death parallel Anne Frank's, and another is a based-on-fact treatment of a Jewish Oskar Schindler kind of hero --- a gripping story. Neither seems to be going anywhere commercially.

You may read my article about these two films at the Jewish Currents website. It was originally
accepted for publication by Tikkun, but after submission, I was told that it should be relegated to its blog, because it didn't "have much to teach our readers." I was stunned that portraits of two special victims of the Holocaust wouldn't be reason enough for an article.

Is this a backlash to what people may experience as overkill on this subject? Or is the public (maybe even many Jews) specifically tired of what may be called "Jewish dramas," whether involving the Holocaust or Israel in some way? Perhaps the answer is unknowable.

P. S. I see that a new documentary has just been released, "No Place on Earth," about five Jewish families who survived in a Ukrainian cave for over 500 days. This is reminiscent of the experience of relatives of mine who hid in a farmer's sub-basement, what they called a bunker, for about 18 months among a group of about 30. One of these cousins -- who endured in the bunker as a young child and is now a retired physician living in beautiful Santa Barbara, California -- tried to produce a film about this a number of years ago. Edward James Olmos, a star of "Battlestar Galactica," was mentioned as the narrator, but the project has not come to fruition.

The Lesser-Known Victims of Terrorism

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Wharton) — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:29:00 +0000

Most people who write about terrorism focus on its immediate victims, the horrible and tragic deaths and injuries, the heartless terrorists themselves and those who send them. Others write about the effects on the general population, clutched by fear. As a Jerusalemite, I have experienced enough waves of terror to understand how this feels and can condemn the violence and try to be of some comfort to the victims who survive and the families of those who did not.

But although the particular focus of terrorism is on innocent civilians, all wars have brought about great suffering on the "home front". From Atilla the Hun through the blitz on London (30,000 Londoners killed) and up to the carnage in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria, civilians have always come under fire.

Yet these days it becomes more apparent to me that other victims of terror are less known. All surveys confirm a sharp increase in racism over the last decade, and over the last several years a very worrisome increase, especially in Jerusalem, of racist attacks. In the last several weeks an Arab woman (wearing a head scarf) was attacked by Jewish women at a train stop in Kiryat Moshe, a religious neighborhood in Jerusalem. A pair of women, one Arab (also, apparently identified by a head scarf) and one Jewish had the car they were driving stoned by young religious boys, also in Kiryat Moshe.

What makes terrorism a particularly dangerous and upsetting form of war is the nature of the perpetrators. Since the terrorists are unlabeled, unmarked and virtually unidentifiable, not only does the general level of fear grow -- but so does the suspicion. Anyone who looks like he might be a terrorist, speaks Arabic, or is dressed like one would expect of a terrorist, is immediately suspect. This is not to say that there isn't plenty of racism in Israel in any case, or that the constant warring wouldn't have its effect regardless, but the fear and the terrible experiences add a level of fear -- or an excuse for it.

This is tragically ironic, because Israeli Arabs have traditionally remained extremely quiet even in times of war. Transcripts of Cabinet meetings in 1967 and 1973 revealed great surprise and satisfaction that Arab citizens did not, as some had feared, take advantage of the situation to complicate internal matters. Similarly, the wars in Lebanon and Gaza failed to provoke any outbursts on the part of Israeli Arabs: although largely still opposed to being drafted, they have not in any way posed a threat from within -- again, despite fears and accusations otherwise.

Yet all the distrust remains and is exacerbated by every terrorist act and every act of violence. Israel's new ultra-right government poses a threat to our neighbors and to our relations with them; meanwhile the random attacks of rockets by terrorists across the border and the even more insidious attacks from terrorists within is no less fearsome. The tensions create an atmosphere within Israel that should be given greater attention. The lesser known victims are Arab Israelis, who are suffering from a permanent status of suspect, and from Israeli society, which is turning on itself.

We must do all we can to prevent the violence in our neighborhood, the Middle East, from finding its way into our home.

Seeing History in Obama's Jerusalem Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Hillel Schenker) — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 08:45:00 +0000

This is from my latest blog post at The Times of Israel, "From Malcolm X to Barack Obama":

President Barack Obama was not the first great black orator I had the opportunity to hear.

Palestine-Israel Journal website

As a teenager, an appearance by Malcolm X, the controversial and feisty fighter for the rights of black Americans at Brooklyn College left an indelible mark on my memory. ...

Unfortunately I missed the opportunity to hear Dr. Martin Luther King’s memorable “I have a dream” speech at the March on Washington in 1963 ..., because of my responsibilities in the Hashomer Hatzair progressive Zionist youth movement, though many of my friends were there, and I was there in spirit. This was just a month before I came on aliya to a kibbutz.

In 1984, I happened to be in the U.S. on a Peace and Justice Tour, together with others from hot spots around the world who believed in non-violent conflict resolution. Reverend Jessie Jackson, who stood alongside Dr. King in many of the civil rights struggles, had decided to run for president, and I traveled to the troubled city of Newark, New Jersey, to hear him speak before an almost all-black audience. You could feel the excitement in the air, the sense of empowerment and hope glistening in the eyes of the young people who were there, clearly inspired by the fact that a black man was running for the nation’s highest office. ...

Fast forwarding to 2013 and the Binyanei Hauma International Convention Center last Thursday, I was privileged to be one of the very small percentage of non-students to be present at President Obama’s electrifying speech. ... I’m sure that the experience of being present and hearing Obama’s profound, beautifully built and moving speech, will be a formative moment in the life of many of the young Israeli students in the audience, and may influence their life choices. ...

Click here for entire article.

A Very Different Interfaith Seder

noreply@blogger.com (Paul L. Scham) — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:30:00 +0000

Last week, I joined about 40 other Jews, Muslims, and Christians at a third Passover Seder. Now, I realize some Jews (especially Israelis) would consider that a cruel and unusual punishment, but I assure you it wasn't; in fact, I subject myself to it every year.

Even more unusual than the company was the venue—a mosque. In fact, the Seder took place at one of the largest and most influential mosques in the country, the ADAMS Center (an acronym for the All Dulles Area Muslim Society), in Northern VA, not far from D.C. The participants came from a variety of backgrounds: secular and religious Muslims, Jews affiliated with various groups, some Christian pastors and laypeople. The theme was peace and two states, but by no means did we see eye to eye on everything.

This was the tenth time this Seder has been held, and the fifth at ADAMS. I've been involved since the beginning, because the main organizer, Andrea Barron, is an old friend of mine, whom I met in Israeli-Palestinian peace work in the early days of the First Intifada. But this isn't your usual anodyne interfaith Seder, where all is prescribed by ritual and controversial topics are avoided. Far from it.

Read more at Open Zion