by Omar Barghouti, a leader of the international movement to boycott Israel

Open Letter to Rabbi Doug Kahn

Executive Director of the Jewish Community Relations Council

It has recently come to my attention that pending the advice of a working group of which you were a member, the Jewish Community Federation has chosen to itself boycott groups advocating a Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) program targeting Israel. As one of the founding members of the global BDS campaign, I cannot but note the irony of your use of boycott as a tool to suppress views that support the boycott against Israel. I can only conclude that you do approve of the efficacy and appropriateness of boycotts, as a non-violent form of activism and a catalyst for change, but condemn them when the change they set out to achieve is related to ending Israel’s occupation as well as its grave violations of international law and Palestinian rights.

For years, Palestinian civil society has been advocating the tool of boycotts, divestment and sanctions, or BDS, as a means of challenging Israel’s impunity and redressing the wrongs done to the Palestinian people by the violent and oppressive Israeli policies and actions. Wouldn’t you agree, given you in-principle embrace of boycotts, that this effective, non-violent form of struggle is far superior, morally speaking, to the “tactics” of white phosphorous, Walls, siege, forced displacement and apartheid?

However, while we may agree on the methods, I think there we hold sharply conflicting views about who the targets of a boycott should be and what violations of human rights would necessitate such methods. The Jewish Community Federation has chosen to flex its boycotting muscle to intimidate and muzzle dissenters and to suppress free speech by cutting off funds to (and negate the acceptability of) progressive Jewish activists and intellectuals who dare to believe that the Jewish community in the US is not a monolithic herd, and who put their commitment to human rights and their moral consistency obligations ahead of any perceived “tribal” allegiances. Through its sweeping threats, the JCF is in fact attempting to stifle the richly diverse views of Jewish Americans that seek to challenge, via BDS-related tactics, the legitimacy of Israel’s occupation and its egregious infringements of international law and human rights.

Is there any reasonable argument that can justify your position in support of a boycott against a documentary about a brave young human rights activist called Rachel, who was crushed to death by a bulldozer demolishing a Palestinian home? Isn’t it more appropriate, ethically speaking, to call for divestment from the company that manufactures this bulldozer knowing well its use in violations of international law? Isn’t the state that uses such bulldozers, among other means, on a regular basis to demolish thousands of Palestinian homes and impose other egregious forms of collective punishment against millions of Palestinian civilians a more worthy target for boycott?

Those such as Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu, and many leading international cultural figures, academics, trade unions, NGOs and social movement actors who endorse the Palestinian civil society advocated BDS campaign believe that boycotts ought to be used not to suppress those who reveal the truth and stand up to injustice and oppression but, on the contrary, to end oppression and impunity. Boycotts ought to be used to bring about just peace, security and equal rights for all human beings irrespective of their identities.

Perhaps we can discuss the merits of our respective positions by engaging in a public debate, another hallmark of civil society. Though friends and colleagues in the Bay Area have searched long and hard, they have had such difficulty finding someone willing to debate whether boycotting Israel is justified or not. I turn to you because I see that you at least in principle agree on the appropriateness of boycott as a tactic. A debate, by definition, will allow both sides to be equally expressed without any a priori bias towards one position or the other. One possible title for this debate can be: BDS is counterproductive to the pursuit of just peace in the Middle East. Obviously, your side would defend the motion, while I would oppose it.

There is a room reserved at UC Berkeley’s Law School this Wednesday night, March 3^rd at 6:30 If you agree, this will be a good chance to have a civil, mutually-respectful debate before the public. If you cannot make it, I hope that you can suggest a colleague of yours who can participate in such a debate to explain your Federation’s position.

If this is agreeable to you, colleagues in the Bay Area can get in touch with you or those you suggest to iron out the details.

Sincerely,

Omar Barghouti

Here in one of the most cosmopolitan, diversity-friendly and culture-loving places on earth, there is a new litmus test for Jewish identity and it has absolutely nothing to do with religious practice, cultural expression, personal history or the values you embrace. Membership in the Jewish community has been officially reduced to one and only one question- do you UNCONDITIONALLY love Israel?

Do you love Israel so much that you are willing to stand by and do nothing as it destroys itself and everyone it controls by repeatedly violating international law, sending its youngest citizens to enforce the 43-year occupation of another people,  imprisoning them, killing them with impunity, denying them the right to health and education and work and claiming it’s all in the name of security while taking more Palestinian land and water and trees each day.

In other words, are you willing to love Israel to death?

If the answer is YES, you’re in! If the answer is NO, and you have the chutzpah to embrace the principled, creative, peaceful methods of Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, and Gandhi as a way to pressure Israel to  help provide true democracy for all Israelis and Palestinians, then you’re out!

Prompted by the controversy over the showing of the film Rachel at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, the federation just announced this stunning set of McCarthyite policy guidelines which seek to sever any public ties that ANY Bay area grantees -including progressive synagogues and arts and educational organizations-  have with groups that support Boycotts, Divestment or Sanctions in whole or part, or who “delegitimize Israel” (according to who exactly? The judges who hold the Federation purse strings, that’s who).

It’s meant primarily to banish one of the Bay Area’s largest Jewish organizations,  Jewish Voice for Peace, which supports divestment from companies that profit from the occupation, from the institutional Jewish world, but it will impact the ability of Jewish organizations to partner with Christian, Quaker or Muslim groups, many of which support some sort of BDS.

It is also specifically identifies groups or individuals, so that ideological dossiers will have to be developed to make sure panelists can be certified kosher before appearing on Jewish stages in the Bay Area.

Jewish filmmakers and thinkers like The Yes Men, Udi Aloni and Naomi Klein; poets like Adrienne Rich or playwrights like Tony Kushner and Wallace Shawn who, like Klein and Rich, sit on JVP’s advisory board; or even journalists like Time’s Joe Klein, are now banished from the institutional Jewish world here- unless they agree not to talk about Israel at all, then they’re fine.

Of course, it won’t matter in the end. Incredibly creative Jewish life forms are growing everywhere. In fact, an entire young generation of young Jews if growing up asking why Jewish institutions that seek to police free expression are even relevant to their lives? And supporters of various elements of nonviolent resistance, BDS, are already inside most major Jewish institutions.

In fact, it’s got to be a source of tremendous embarrassment that Dan Sokatch, the head of the New Israel Fund, was the head of the Federation until just a few months ago. The New Israel Fund would likely not be allowed to co-sponsor an event with a Federation grantee according to these guidelines because they serve as fiscal sponsor to the group that maintains the most important global database used for the BDS movement.

Here is the unintentionally humorous statement which begins by asserting the respect for diversity within Jewish life.

The Jewish Community Federation’s (JCF’s) core values include an abiding commitment to a secure Jewish community here and abroad, to the strong democratic Jewish State of Israel, and to mutual respect and diversity within Jewish life.   Consistent with its core values, the JCF funds a full spectrum of organizations that sustain and grow our community through pluralistic expressions and wide-ranging perspectives that affirm a broad and inclusive tent vital to a strong and dynamic Jewish community. This policy applies only to the grantor-grantee relationship between the JCF and other entities.

The JCF does not fund organizations that through their mission, activities or partnerships:

1. endorse or promote anti-Semitism, other forms of bigotry, violence or other extremist views;
2. actively seek to proselytize Jews away from Judaism; or
3. advocate for, or endorse, undermining the legitimacy of Israel as a secure independent, democratic Jewish state, including through  participation in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in whole or in part.

These principles also apply to grants from the JCF’s Endowment Fund.

In order to be eligible for funding, organizations that engage in Israel-related programming are required to produce documentation such as their policies, procedures, guidelines, and mission statement that demonstrate consistency with the JCF’s core values or – in the absence of such documentation – to abide by this policy and to initiate a process to develop organizational guidelines, policies and procedures consistent with it. There can be no uniform set of policies or procedures that is applicable to every organization.  Organizations are expected to adapt this policy to their unique circumstances.

This policy is not intended to discourage the presentation of a wide range of perspectives aimed at appealing to a broad cross-section of the community.    The JCF and our community are well-served by fostering diverse expressions through our cultural, educational, religious, social service and community relations institutions, and by promoting a strong commitment to civil discourse.

The JCF will review its policy and supporting guidelines with each grantee, address questions unique to that grantee, and explain how implementation of the policy and guidelines can be a benefit to the grantee and the community.  The JCF will also be bound by this policy in its own programming, partnerships and co-sponsorships.

ENFORCEMENT OF POLICY

In the event of a perceived violation by a grantee of the JCF policy, the CEO of the JCF  and its President and Officers will promptly review the situation, speak to the grantee, obtain the facts, understand the context, make a determination as to whether a grantee has violated the policy and – if it is determined that a grantee has violated the policy – take appropriate steps consistent with this policy. Where a grantee’s overall body of work has been consistent with the JCF’s core values, the grantee will be urged to swiftly address concerns that have been raised as a result of a specific program.

The JCF reserves the right to suspend funding and sponsorship, particularly in any case where it determines, in its sole discretion, that an egregious policy violation has occurred, there has been a sustained pattern of violating the policy, or insufficient remedial measures were implemented.

INTRODUCTION TO GUIDELINES

The Jewish Community Federation (JCF) has a long and proud history as a funder of arts and other diverse community organizations which seek to inspire and celebrate Judaism and Jewish life.  The JCF recognizes that art, by its very nature, may express a political statement, provoke a range of emotions, or promote ideas that are potentially controversial.  The JCF believes the community and our institutions will be well-served by establishing guideposts that help ensure consistency with the JCF’s core values and which are not aimed at squelching creativity, diverse expressions or critique around controversial topics.

Grantees are strongly encouraged to consult with the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) in advance of potentially controversial programs that could contain any of the elements described in the scenarios below.  Organizations ultimately make their own decisions, but broad consultation can help avoid conflicts with the policy, minimize surprise or polarization, and allow for the sharing of experiences before programs are set in stone.  To ensure broad consultation, when there is a question whether a particular program may violate the policy or on the interpretation of the policy, JCRC will consult with the JCF’s CEO, President and officers.

The following guidelines are intended to assist grantees with respect to programming as it relates to the policy statement.

GUIDELINES ON POTENTIALLY CONTROVERSIAL ISRAEL-RELATED PROGRAMMING

Programs Generally in Accord with JCF Policy

The following kinds of programs are generally in accord with the policy statement, but early JCRC consultation is strongly encouraged and the programming should be presented within an overall program strategy that is consistent with JCF’s core values:

1. Dialogue groups (i.e. non-public exchanges)
2. Private meetings
3. Presentations on topics other than the Middle East and Israel, that are not used to promote a BDS agenda or provide a forum for leaders of groups that espouse views inconsistent with JCF’s core values
4. Presentations by organizations or individuals that are critical of particular Israeli government policies but are supportive of Israel’s right  to exist as a secure independent Jewish democratic state and that do not espouse views inconsistent with this policy.
5. Panel discussions, speaker series intended for the same audience, cultural presentations, or educational programs portraying a range of diverse perspectives that, on balance, are consistent with JCF’s core values
6. Programs that are open to the community and welcome attendees regardless of their individual views
7. Participation in broad-based community coalitions on non-Israel-related issues provided that the coalitions do not become vehicles for undermining the legitimacy of Israel
8. Artistic presentations (displays, exhibits, films, performances) that may include critical perspectives of Jewish life or Israel and that, on balance, are consistent with JCF’s core values

Programs Not Consistent with JCF’s Policy

In addition to the specific areas covered by the policy statement, the following kinds of programs are not consistent with the policy statement:

1. Panel discussions, speakers series, cultural, artistic or educational programs that as an overall experience – i.e. based on the entire body of work – endorse or prominently promote the BDS movement or positions that undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel
2. Individual programs that endorse the BDS movement or positions that undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel
3. Co-sponsorship or co-presentations of public programs on Middle East issues with supporters of the BDS movement or others who undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel

actively seek to proselytize Jews away from Judaism; or

advocate for, or endorse, undermining the legitimacy of Israel as a secure independent, democratic Jewish state, including through  participation in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in whole or in part.

Hasbara (explanation) follows the misguided notion that if Israel could only ‘explain’ itself, people would understand the context for the images they see on TV and the reports they read in the press about the horrors of the attacks on Gaza and the ongoing Israeli occupation. Under this philosophy, Israel need not change its behavior one bit, just spend more resources hoping the world will finally get it.

The new ads, targeted to the Israeli public, present three theoretical myths that people are said to have about Israel. The Globe and Mail explains,

The commercials, part of an initiative called Making the Case for Israel, were first seen this past weekend, and are aimed at the large number of Israelis who travel abroad each year. One ad says people around the world think camels are a common form of transportation in Israel, another alludes to the belief that the Israeli diet consists of kabobs grilled over a primitive barbecue, while a third notes that Independence Day fireworks are often mistaken for military action.

Yuli Edelstein, Israel’s Minister of Hasbara and Diaspora Affairs explains,

“We decided to give Israelis who go abroad tools and tips to help them deal with the attacks on Israel in their conversations with people, media appearances and lectures before wide audiences. I hope we succeed together in changing the picture and proving to the world that there is a different Israel.”

Mr. Edelstein has called the Israeli tourists recruited to this campaign ‘the Israeli Public Diplomacy Forces,’ a clear reference to the Israel Defense Forces, the country’s military.

Each one of the three commercials contains a sad irony that cannot be easily explained with more Hasbara.

A special prejudice appropriation prize goes to the fake-BBC commercial, where a fake-reporter shares with you a supposed myth about Israel: “This is the camel. The camel is a typical Israeli animal used by the Israelis to travel from place to place in the desert where the live. It is the means of transport for water, merchandise, and ammunition. It is even used by the Israeli cavalry.”

Whoever heard of a myth of Israelis riding camels?

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) on the other hand points to the “the tired stereotype of the Arab world as a place of deserts and camels, of arbitrary cruelty and barbarism,” and its consequences:

Dr. Shaheen remembers being taught in his Lebanese American home to be proud of his family’s Arab heritage. But at school, he remembers teasing, taunts and epithets: “camel jockeys,” “desert niggers,” “greasy Lebs.”

Oh, but for purposes of Hasbara, these appropriations of prejudice do not matter.

The remaining two fake commercials cannot help but remind me of Gaza.

Here’s the fake French-language newscaster: With a background of Israeli airforce planes flying above a city and leaving behind a white streak and of a multitude of fireworks noisily lighting the evening sky, the newscaster says, “We have just learned that at this moment war noises have been heard in several Israeli cities. Our special correspondents report shootings and strong explosions which can be heard throughout the whole country.”

The strong explosions being heard throughout the land bring to mind this January 10/09 witness account from Israel’s war on Gaza (Sleep hard to come by in bombarded Gaza):

At 12:15pm I’d noted and photographed the white stream of chemical clouds billowing over large expanses of eastern Gaza…

And later at 3:20 am:

In the hospital room where I tried to sleep between an ambulance shift and morning obligations, the tank shelling and firing is in the room, landing on my pillow.

It’s the shells, which crack and blast. The staccato gunfire. The drones’ whine, in menacing pitches. The fighter plane’s sudden, thundering presence.

The drone ramps up the decibels, a train wreck of disharmony.

And the inevitable whoosh before the explosion, an F-16 launch which erupts a crater where someone’s house, or a market, or a mosque once stood. The blast an hour ago was a market, another nurse tells me. “It was a beautiful market, sold everything, everything we need,” she says.

I have saved the Spanish-language fake commercial to the end because it tops the cake, so to speak. Here’s the fake Spanish-language newscaster: ‘In Israel in the majority of the homes there is neither electricity nor gas, so that Israelis continue using primitive cooking methods such as bbq.”

You gotta be kidding me! This looks like a bad joke, when you compare to the Palestinian reality, not the Israeli myth. From last year’s The Atlantic’s In Gaza, Eating Under Siege:

And then there’s the question of fuel for cooking. The borders sometimes allow cooking gas to enter, sometimes not. As the power facilities have been bombed several times, electricity is very sporadic. Many families have small generators, but most of the gasoline for these must also be piped in through the tunnels, which is very expensive. Faced with the frequent impossibility of finding any kind of fuel for cooking, many families have recurred to their grandmother’s memories, fashioning traditional adobe ovens on the roofs and balconies of their modern apartment buildings.

Lest you think that these were Gaza’s temporary troubles in 2009, I give you 2008:

Umm Jamal Al Baba, a 60-year-old from Rafah camp, stands visibly tired in a queue of hundreds for bread. “I can no longer make bread in my house - there is no gas for cooking, no electricity.”
Now that rice had disappeared under the siege, or priced out of the reach of most people, bread means survival for Palestinians in Gaza Strip.
In Gaza, It’s Darkness at Noon, IPS, Jan 23, 2008

and yes, 2010:

Cooking gas rationing continues…
(UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Occupied Palestinian Territory, February 2010 report)

If the commercials are bad, imagine the talking points for the Israeli traveler. Peace Now secretary-general Yariv Openheimer complained that the new Israeli government website were these videos are housed contains information that would move Jewish Israeli public opinion towards an uncompromising right. According to the JPost,

He noted that the site does not encourage advocating the two-state solution, it talks about the need to keep Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights, and it suggests that evacuating settlers would harm their human rights.

Let’s see how these ideas are developed by the Israeli tourists who choose to join the “Israeli Public Diplomacy Forces.”

– Sydney Levy

I wrote last month about the Reut (pronounced Ray-OOT) Institute’s report on what they see as the new existential threat to Israel. No longer military, the report said, the primary threat to Israel is political. Israel must fight a “delegitimization network” of peace and human rights groups based largely in four international “hubs”: Toronto, Madrid, London and the San Francisco Bay Area (where Jewish Voice for Peace is located.)

(Now, more of the report is available on-line, including a cool animated PowerPoint! Read terrific in-depth pieces on the new material by Ali Abunimah and Richard Silverstein.)

There are many astonishing elements of the report. One is the blame it places on others including the global left for the increasing political viability of a one-state solution. In fact it is Israel’s never-ending expansion of settlements that has made a two-state solution seem more and more unlikely by the day, not the global human rights movement. What groups like Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) seek to delegitimize is the occupation and massive inequality and human rights violations committed against Palestinians, not Israel itself. Even most Palestinians, polls show, want their own viable state over a one-state solution. (JVP is neutral on the issue of one state or two or three for that matter, supporting any resolution consistent with international law which is largely supported by both parties.)

If the Israelis really wanted the Palestinians to have a state of their own, they could have made it happen years ago and the entire world would have cheered, and since 2002, they would have had full relations with all their Arab neighbors. But instead, the Israeli government has used endless peace negotiations as a way to expand settlements while keeping the international community at bay.  If the one-state solution marks the greatest existential threat to Israel, as the Reut report suggests, the Israeli government has no one to blame
but itself. The global peace and justice movement is the symptom, not the cause.

Secondly, the report actually dares to suggest “sabotage” of groups like Jewish Voice for Peace who are part of an international peace and justice  human rights network and who actively support Israeli and Palestinian activists on the ground (our sites include: www.December18th.org, www.FreeEzra.org, www.TheOnlyDemocracy.org etc..). We take this very seriously. Perhaps this is the way NGOs are
increasingly handled in Israel, especially under Netanyahu. But it’s certainly not how the government, and especially a foreign government, is expected to respond to law- abiding NGOs here in the United States (Ahem, Cointelpro and other efforts notwithstanding). And frankly, we won’t stand for it.

Plus it’s just a stupid idea.

How a report that says in one breath that Israel’s future lies in branding itself as a high-tech, eco-conscious and cultured democracy while simultaneously suggesting “sabotage” and “attacks” on law-abiding peace groups is stunning.  Instead of driving a wedge between “soft” and “hard” critics of Israel, as the report suggests, promoting these kinds of war-like responses against human rights groups will backfire and turn the most casual critics of Israeli policies into supporters of much harsher measures. This, after all, is
the primary legacy of Cast Lead, Israel’s massive attack on Gaza’s entrapped population.

If the Reut Institute really wanted to offer some helpful advice on how Israel might stop the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, they might start by advising the Israeli government to end the
occupation.

Dear Friends,

On Monday, Feb. 15th, Cinema du Parc received an email insisting that CJPME’s Photo Exposition, Human Drama in Gaza, be immediately removed from the Cinema.  The email was from a legal representative of Gestion Redbourne PDP Inc., the owners of the building housing Cinema du Parc.  The Cinema has hosted dozens of expositions in the past three years, and this is the first time that such action has been taken.  This move on the part of Redbourne seems entirely political, to muzzle the message of Human Drama in Gaza.

If you live outside Montreal, click here to protest this action.

If you live in Montreal, click here to protest Redbourne’s action and to support the Cinema and the Exposition.

More Info

CJPME’s Human Drama in Gaza Photo Exposition features 44 photos, taken before, during and after last winter’s 22-day assault on Gaza by professional photographers from Israel, Palestine, and the West.  Produced by CJPME, and funded through private donations, the Montreal stop at Cinema du Parc is the first in a series of cross-Canada shows.

The Montreal Exposition began on Friday, Jan. 15th and was originally scheduled to continue through through Sunday, February 28th. The Exposition is open from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on weekdays, and from 3:00 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on weekends.  All the photos and captions used in the Exposition can be found here, and a video trailer introducing the Exposition can be found here.

Cinema du Parc has been great partner in the hosting of the Exposition in Montreal, and is standing its ground in the face of Redbourne’s action.

Cross-posted at Huffington Post

By JVP Executive director Rebecca Vilkomerson and  Jesse Bacon, JVP Board Member and co-editor of theonlydemocracy.org.

Over the last week there has been a significant outcry in Israel and in some Jewish circles in the US about an ugly, anti-Semitic, and sexist ad campaign against the US-based New Israel Fund (NIF), a key funder of Israeli civil society and human rights groups.

The originator of the campaign, the far-right group Im Tirtzu (meaning “if you will it,” which is a fragment of a famous sentence of Herzl’s about the founding of Israel,) has drawn condemnation across more of the political spectrum than usual. What has caused the most outrage is a picture of an evil-looking Naomi Chazan, board president of the NIF, with a horn coming out of her head, a classic anti-Semitic trope. But more attention should be paid to the text of the ad: “Without the New Israel Fund, there could be no Goldstone Report, and Israel would not be facing international accusations of war crimes.”

This breathtaking leap of logic blames the allegations of possible war crimes not on the fact that they took place, but that they were investigated and written about–in a report, it should be said, that also accused Hamas of possible war crimes. This is the crux of the argument of the campaign against the NIF, and by extension the Israeli human rights organizations that it funds: Telling the truth is less important than defending Israel. And by extension, Israel should be able to do whatever it wants, up to and including killing civilians, as long as it doesn’t become a public relations problem.

These anti-democratic attacks on any person or organization that dares to criticize Israeli policy — attacks which go all the way to Israel’s Knesset where Tzipi Livni’s Kadima party just withdrew a proposal to investigate the New Israel Fund in lieu of a Foreign Affairs Committee investigation — are rightly alarming to anyone who cares deeply about promoting a healthy Israeli democracy.

Clearly, the civil liberties of Israelis, that is, Jewish Israelis, are still viewed at least in some quarters as precious, even as the rights of Palestinians are ignored. As Didi Remez reported from the court room after the arrest of Israelis at a protest against Palestinian evictions in Sheikh Jarrah, the prosecutor announced grandly, “freedom of movement is still a basic right” to general laughter in the courtroom, and so had to add, “I mean for Israeli citizens.”

But this is not a question for Israeli Jews alone.

The growing McCarthyism in Israel is proportionate to the rise of the Palestinian-led non-violent protest movement against the Wall in places like Sheikh Jarrah, Bilin, Nilin, Nebi Saleh, Al-Masara, and seemingly an additional village each week. It’s also a reaction to the growth of the worldwide Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement which is gaining victories and new adherents every day, strengthened in part by unassailable data published by Israeli human rights groups. Just as in Apartheid South Africa’s day, Israel’s society seems to be turning more bluntly racist and repressive as it faces mounting challenges from all sides. The sumud (steadfastness in Arabic) of the Palestinian people in their non-violent resistance is a potent weapon against the Israeli Occupation, and Israel has responded by cracking down not only on the occupied Palestinians but also on the civil rights of Israelis who show any solidarity or sympathy.

The protest movement has been growing even as there has been a dramatic increase in repression against Palestinian villages that are being punished, not only by tear gas, sound bombs, and rubber bullets, but by nighttime raids and accelerating arrests of leaders of the movement. This is a testament primarily to the fortitude of countless Palestinians who feel they have no choice as they lose their lands and livelihoods to the path of the Wall and settlement expansion, but also to the unwavering support of the Israeli and international solidarity movement, which continues to be present at each and every protest and court hearing.

The controversy over the NIF is part of a continuing and accelerating trend within Israel of the silencing of dissent. That many Jewish groups and some Israeli Knesset members are defending Israel’s democracy is laudatory. But where is the chorus of voices when Palestinians are the subject of racist attacks in Israel? Where is the outrage when Palestinian freedom of movement and freedom of speech and freedom to live without arbitrary arrests, destruction of property and loss of life continues to be ignored every day?

The attacks on democratic expression inside Israel are directly related to the Occupation and the lack of equality, along ethnic lines, of Palestinians and Jews in both Israel and in the Occupied Territories. Would perpetual Occupation be just fine if Israelis could just keep on living on their side of the Wall, attempting to emulate a quiet European lifestyle? Much as most Israelis might want that–Im Tirtzu, you might say–it cannot be. The two stories, of Palestinians and Israelis, are too intertwined.

Our organization, the U.S.-based Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), works with partners on the ground in Israel and Palestine who fight for real democracy. Months ago they alerted us to the increased crackdowns on democracy rights activists. This week we are launching a new blog, theonlydemocracy.org, to highlight the voices of both Palestinians and Israelis who continue, against such tremendous odds, to fight for human rights and equality for all people.

At JVP, we speak out on the loss of democracy on all sides. We speak for Palestinian political prisoners, and we speak out for the Shministim, high school seniors who refuse to enter the military. We speak out for Goldstone, and we speak out for BDS campaigners and protestors against the Wall who are arrested without charge. We hope that anyone troubled by the attacks on NIF will join us.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Right-Wing U.S. Groups Target Israeli Universities (trueslant.com)
• American-funded NGOs clash in Israel (trueslant.com)

One wonders when the Anti-Defamation League or the Simon Wiesenthal Center will start a commission to investigate why in some progressive quarters, being called a self-hating Jew has started to become a point of pride. And why, worse, others simply shrug off charges of Jew-hater. Perhaps it is because the wielders of such venomous charges are so ridiculous, such caricatures in their reflexive protection of an Israel that has no accountability, that any thinking person immediately knows the wackos are at it again.

This shift in the culture is nothing to rejoice about. In fact, it’s something of a worst-case-scenario for those of us truly concerned about the fate of Jews.

Wacko Exhibit A: Andrew Sullivan. I’m loving the newly unleashed (former AIPAC and later, liberal pro-Israel Israel Policy Forum) MJ Rosenberg now that he’s gone over to Media Matters. His whole piece is a fun read:

By M.J. Rosenberg - February 9, 2010, 10:20AM

I knew that Andrew Sullivan’s abandonment of the hard right position on Israel was driving his old buds at the New Republic crazy.

Andrew was once TNR’s wunderkind, the youngest editor in its history. Smart, cool, Oxford educated and a gentile Zionist. (Sullivan himself has written that he was pro-Israel long before he got to TNR).

Sullivan left TNR and its whacked out publisher, Marty Peretz, on good terms although Sullivan must have known that there was one condition for remaining on those good terms: he must never attack Israel’s policies.

But, after Gaza, the increasingly liberal Sullivan could not take it anymore. He remains pro-Israel but was, and is, utterly disgusted by Israel’s behavior in Gaza. Plus, he can’t stand the neocons.

And so the break with TNR had to come. And here it is from Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor and bosom buddy of publisher Peretz.

Here’s my summation. “Andrew Sullivan always had theological problems with Jews because they don’t get the Trinity. For awhile he laid that aside. But now his virulent hatred of Israel and people like Krauthammer has caused him to revert to who he originally was. He is a Jew-hater.”

The title of the piece is “Something Much Darker: Andrew Sullivan Has A Serious Problem.”

It’s a classic. I know most of you won’t read the whole piece. Wieseltier’s prose is impenetrable. But try.

I hope Sullivan is not bothered by the Wiesel’s diatribe although I suspect he may be. No one likes being called an anti-semite or a racist. But consider the source: the TNR ghetto where every gentile is either a current Jew-hater or a future one.

God, it must drive Peretz and the Wiesel nuts that their once fair-haired (and now no-haired) boy is one of the most influential thinkers in America while they have been relegated to that microspace where Michael Goldfarb, Jonah Goldberg, and John Podhoretz reign supreme.

Exhibit B: Van Jones who had the temerity to go to the West Bank and actually report what he saw! And for that, he is being attacked by at least one blogger as a “Jew-hater”. The damning quote according from a 2002 radio interview?

Van: I came over here very concerned about Israeli children living in fear.. nobody is winning here.. WHAT I’VE SEEN HERE GOES FAR BEYOND WHAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR SAFETY.. ABSOLUTE HOUSE ARREST FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN A CITY.. 24/7 FOR WEEKS AT A TIME.. NONE OF THIS COULD RATIONALLY BE CONCEIVED OF AS DEFENSE.. I HAVE BEEN A LIFELONG OPPONENT OF ANTI-SEMITISM.. NOW NOT TO SPEAK OUT HERE IS ANTI-SEMITIC. WE OWE IT TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.. AND PALESTINE.. TO PUT AN END TO THESE KIND OF ABUSES.. THERE IS NO DIVISION BETWEEN US POLICY TOWARD IRAQ AND TOWARD ISRAEL-PALESTINE.. THE US GOVERNMENT ON THE WRONG SIDE OF SANITY..

And this proves he hates Jews? Really?

Given the undeniable disaster thus far known as Obama and company’s efforts to make peace in Israel and Palestine, it is meaningful that the balance of power is shifting globally. As good as the AJC may be at invoking real forms of anti-Jewish hatred  to shut decent people up about Israel, they won’t get the welcome reception they’ve had here in the US. Meanwhile, since it’s absolutely clear that Israel won’t give Palestinians the rights to which they are entitled without pressure, let’s rejoice that finally, the question may not have to be resolved in the halls of Congress after all.

MIDEAST:

Pro-Israel Lobbies Work on Europe

David Cronin

BRUSSELS, Feb 2 (IPS) - Defenders of Israel’s aggressive stance have for many years been recognised as a powerful force shaping United States foreign policy. A less well-known fact is that the pro-Israel lobby has been making a concerted effort to strengthen its presence in Europe.

The lobby’s determination to make an impression on European Union policy-makers was exemplified by a new booklet published on Jan. 28.

Titled ‘Squaring the Circle?: EU-Israel Relations and the Peace Process in the Middle East’, the booklet advocates that EU should “rebalance its priorities” and pursue closer relations with Israel regardless of whether progress is made in resolving the conflict with the Palestinians.

Unlike the plethora of publications on EU affairs that quickly fade into obscurity, there are good reasons to believe that this one will not go unnoticed in the corridors of power.

First, it was published by the Centre of European Studies, the official think-tank for the network of Christian Democrat and conservative parties that dominate European governments.

Secondly, its author, Emanuele Ottolenghi, has already demonstrated his capability to catch the eyes of politicians by penning several pamphlets for Labour Friends of Israel, a group that boasts of the top figures in Britain’s ruling party among its members.

Ottolenghi is the director of the Transatlantic Institute. Also styling itself as a think-tank, this Brussels-based institute was set up by the American Jewish Committee (AJC) in 2004.

“The AJC is the foreign policy wing of the Israel lobby,” says Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, a researcher in Scotland’s University of Strathclyde, who monitors the activities of hawkish pro-Israel groups for the website neoconeurope.eu “The two places that it has decided to focus on most are Latin America and Europe. This is because it has a sense that American power might be in decline.”

The AJC has been successful in convincing the EU that many criticisms of Israel can be considered as a general slur on Jews. In 2005, the EU’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (which has been subsequently renamed the Fundamental Rights Agency) published a working definition on anti-Semitism, admitting that it had been drawn up in consultation with the AJC and the like-minded Anti-Defamation League.

According to this definition says that criticisms of Israel, which contend that the establishment of that state was a “racist endeavour” or which compare Israel’s attacks on the Palestinians to the behaviour of the Nazis during the Second World War, should be considered as anti-Semitism. Ottolenghi’s new booklet invokes that definition to call on the EU to declare campaigners critical of Israel ineligible for funding from those sections of Union’s budget dealing with the promotion of human rights and democracy. It is “curious,” he argued that EU financial support has gone to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) “whose work depicts Israel as a racist society and an apartheid regime.”

“In other words, EU Commission money is helping certain NGOs spread a message that, according to another EU agency, is considered to be anti-Semitic and thus against EU values,” he wrote.

Ottolenghi has been active, too, in urging the EU to adopt a tough line against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. His book ‘Under a Mushroom Cloud,’ which was published last year, posited the theory that Arab leaders are unconcerned by how Israel had developed nuclear weapons of its own decades before Iran started work on its nuclear programme.

“Arab leaders sleep soundly under the shadow of Israel’s nuclear umbrella; it is Iran’s nuclear quest which gives them nightmares,” Ottolenghi wrote. “They know - they have always known - that Israel’s military prowess serves its survival and does not seek to impose a political diktat on its neighbours. The same cannot be said of Iran, with its hegemonic ambitions, and its desire to refashion the region.”

Yet since the book was published Arab governments sponsored a resolution on Israel passed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The resolution noted that Israel is the only state in the region that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a 1968 agreement designed to curb the spread of nuclear weapons. This was the first such call directed at Israel approved by the IAEA, an official body of the United Nations, in 18 years.

Along with the AJC, several other pro-Israel lobby groups have opened new offices in Brussels over the past decade. These include the European Jewish Congress and B’nai B’rith. Another group, the European Friends of Israel (EFI), has been formed as a cross-party alliance of members of the European Parliament (MEPs).

During Israel’s offensive against Gaza last year, the EFI circulated briefing papers that defended the killing of Palestinian civilians. According to the EFI, it was impossible for Israel to avoid civilian deaths because Hamas, a Palestinian resistance movement, had ordered its members “to discard uniforms and dress in regular clothes that made them indistinguishable from the civilian population”.

Michael Gahler, a German Christian Democrat MEP who describes himself as pro-Israel, said that such lobby groups have “always been very influential” in Europe. Gahler argued, though, that the groups should not ignore the widespread opposition in Europe to Israeli actions in the occupied Palestinian territories. “They should be here and listen,” he told IPS. “They should not only be a loudspeaker.”

Luisa Morgantini, a former vice-president of the European Parliament and a veteran Palestinian solidarity activist, said that all forms of racism and anti-Semitism must be opposed.

But Morgantini also suggests that pro-Israel groups are exploiting the history of Jewish suffering in Europe to dissuade its modern-day politicians from taking robust action against Israeli oppression in Palestine. “They are using the holocaust as blackmail,” she said. “It is time for us to stop this blackmail.”

-Cecilie Surasky

The banned poster below. This year’s divestment version of the same poster here.

The Only Democracy in the Middle East™ has struck again: the English editor for the independent Palestinian news agency Maan, American Jared Malsin, was detained along with his girlfriend at Ben Gurion airport on his return to Israel from a European vacation.  During the detention it became clear that the Shin Bet intended to expel him from Israel as a security risk.  It provided no justification whatsoever.  And when Malsin notified the U.S. embassy of his predicament and they called to inquire, security officials lied by claiming neither individual was in custody and that they were probably “enjoying a night on the town in Tel Aviv” and had simply forgotten to notify them.

Actually, the immigration department did have a justification, exactly the one you’d expect from….China or Iran: Malsin apparently wrote news stories that “criticized the State of Israel.”

Really. But my favorite part of this story, which evolves by the minute, is that Malsin, a Yale graduate, apparently first came to Israel through Birthright, the program that gives free plane tickets to Israel to young Diaspora Jews in an effort to win their everlasting love. In my book, becoming a journalist who accurately covers the assault on democracy is the perfect way to show your everlasting love. It’s the only way to make it better. But that’s just me. I wonder if Malsin knew he’d become the subject of his own story.

-Cecilie Surasky