Jewish Peace News

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

AIPAC scandal

An AIPAC-related intrigue has come to light. The National Security Agency (NSA) recorded a conversation that took place several years ago between a suspected Israeli agent and Rep. Jane Harman (a Democrat from California). In the conversation, Harman agrees to pressure the Justice Department to "reduce espionage related charges" against two AIPAC officials. In return, the suspected Israeli agent would help get Harman appointed chair of the Intelligence Committee.

This deal was known, or at least suspected, in 2006. An FBI investigation was begun, but ended for "lack of evidence." What is new is first, that a recording of this conversation has surfaced (the recording came from of a court-approved wiretapping of the suspected agent); and second, that it appears that the FBI investigation against Harman was not dropped for lack of evidence after all. Rather, it was dropped because then-attorney general Alberto Gonzales intervened to get the charges dismissed, so that Harman, a big cheerleader for the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, could be free to defend it (this was at the time when news of the program was breaking in the New York Times).

The deal was ultimately unsuccessful, from the standpoint of the players involved: Harman never got her committee appointment after all, and the two AIPAC officials (Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman) still face trial (in June) – lest we be tempted to draw conclusions about the omnipotence of AIPAC. What happens next remains to be seen.

There is lots of information about this at:

http://innovation.cq.com/liveonline/54/landing
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/20/harman/print.html
http://static.cqpolitics.com/harman-3098436-page1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/us/politics/21harman.html?hp

Judith Norman

................................................................
--------
Jewish Peace News editors:
Joel Beinin
Racheli Gai
Rela Mazali
Sarah Anne Minkin
Judith Norman
Lincoln Shlensky
Rebecca Vilkomerson
Alistair Welchman
------------
Jewish Peace News archive and blog: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com
------------
Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to http://www.jewishpeacenews.net

Monday, April 20, 2009

Holocaust Memorial Day, Durban II, and the occupation

Tomorrow is Holocaust Memorial Day, the official day for commemorating the victims of the Nazi genocide. Today, at the Durban II conference in Geneva, Holocaust-denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a keynote address. Even before he spoke, the fact that he was given this world stage illustrates the absurd setting in which we - all of us - try to navigate the complicated dynamics of racism, human rights, nationalism, morality, and of course genocide in the early 21st century. That there are deniers of the Nazi genocide of Jews and others is a fact; that they are world leaders granted legitimacy on the topic of racism & oppression, such as on the stage at Durban, is a terrible shame. On the other side, many people and politicians who call themselves Israel supporters use the history of the Holocaust to shade Israel's human rights abuses and. What we need is not more blunt-force polemic, but careful, sensitive analysis that emphasizes and perpetuates livable lives for all. What do we learn
from the Nazi genocide? If the only answer is that it existed, that is something - but it's not good enough.

Here are three good thinkers to listen to today:

1) Cecilie Surasky of Jewish Voice for Peace is at the Durban II conference. Her reports are invaluable. You can see them here: www.muzzlewatch.com. Surasky's last post said she was on her way to the Holocaust Remembrance event taking place in Geneva tonight, so we can expect a post about that soon, too. Check Muzzlewatch.com regularly for her updates.

2) Gideon Levy wrote a useful and important column on comparisons between the occupation and the Nazi genocide. He says, "There is no one absolute evil. Comparison between the Israeli occupation and Nazism is like comparing an elephant to a fly," but, he continues, "Israel in 2009 is beginning to resemble 1930s Germany more and more." Racism against Palestinians inside of Israel bears resemblance to the 1930s. And fenced-in Qalqilya, the West Bank Palestinian city, looks "a concentration camp" - which is "not an extermination camp." Here's the article: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1079368.html

3) Roger Cohen wrote another exciting column in the New York Times. He's on a roll; check his back columns to read his courageous, smart insight into Iran, Israel, and U.S. policy. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/columns/rogercohen/index.html). Today he writes about Germany, Israel, and moving on after World War II. He notes that "uncertainty does not so much hang over the country as inhabit its very fiber." Notions of fear and vulnerability permeate (and are invoked by politicians and spokespeople for Israel) - yet Israel is strong: it has a nuclear arsenal, peace with Egypt and Jordan, and a "cast-iron security guarantee" from the U.S. So what would moving on from the Nazi genocide look like for Israel? Cohen ends with this message "Closure is the overcoming of horror. It is the achievement of normality through responsibility. It cannot be attained through the inflation of threats, the perpetuation of fears, or retreat into the victimhood that sees every act,
however violent, as defensive." (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/opinion/20iht-edcohen.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=roger%20cohen&st=cse)

These sources are three among many who honor and draw lessons from the horror of the Nazi genocide while insisting that we act boldly for full human rights. We need to hear more of their voices and amplify them.

Sarah Anne Minkin

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Yitzhak Laor & Yagil Levy on Soldiers' Testimonies

In the first op-ed below, Yagil Levy sees nothing new about the type of wanton, excessive violence reported recently by Israeli soldiers following Israel's assault on Gaza. It has been practiced, he says, since before the state's foundation. Soldiers' violence levels, he goes on to claim, are crucially (though not exclusively) affected by the competitive culture within the military. The internal dynamic within a given unit either encourages and worsens, or tends to contain, violence levels. According to Levy, competitiveness is fiercer—making excessive violence more rampant—among conscripts whose future and chances of social mobility depend heavily upon their military service. This is the case, he says, for conscripts from the social periphery, including the lower classes and religious Jewish-nationalist groups (and settlers' groups among them).

Levy thus ascribes higher levels of wanton violence to units staffed mainly with working class and religious conscripts than to units staffed mainly with middle class conscripts. While it conforms comfortably with prevalent stereotypes, such an hypothesis requires careful factual support, which the op-ed fails to mention or refer to. On one reading it can be understood to clear the (supposedly more liberal?) middle class of charges of brutalization. "It's not us, it's them" this hypothesis implies—the less educated, immoderate, etc. poor and religious fanatics, an implication which I find untrue and problematic.

This claim also constitutes the link between Levy's observations on violence and a topic he has been studying for years now, that is, the gradual shift in the sociological makeup of Israel's army. The op-ed reiterates Levy's findings that the army is steadily losing middle class conscripts and is, accordingly, disproportionately staffed today by conscripts from the social periphery. Due to this fact, Levy claims, competition has intensified within the ranks of the military and combat units lack the (middle class) troops who would presumably feel free to opt out of the competitive dynamic, opposing and restraining unnecessary violence.

In a later op-ed, Yitzhak Laor comments on the dismissal of the soldiers' testimonies to immoral, unwarranted violence, by the military and the incoming Minister of Defense. In agreement with Levy that there's nothing new about such violence by the Israeli security forces, he outlines a history of its dismissal and points out the pattern through which Israeli society evades its own inhumanity: A contradictory combination of tautological rejection (it's unthinkable so it simply can't be true) and projection ("we" don't do such things without good reason so "they" had to have been guilty and given us good reason).

Laor is looking at and including those parts of society that Levy claims would have stemmed the violence had they been better represented within the army's ranks. He sketches an account of the highly selective narrative constructed by Israel's hegemony, which serves to automatically clear the army and society of any charges of excessive violence or immorality. "The entire system," he says, "education, the army, the Shin Bet and of course, the media and literature - rule out any talk of struggle or of being sane and not belonging, it even rejects the possibility that something within it is fundamentally immoral. In other words, it is the privileged classes viewed by Yagil Levy as key to containing immoral violence, who create the mechanisms through which such violence and immorality are both whitewashed and perpetuated.

Rela Mazali

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076219.html

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m

Last update - 02:46 03/04/2009
It's the same violence
By Yagil Levy

The disclosure of testimony by graduates of the Yitzhak Rabin pre-military academy at Oranim Academic College about the conduct of the army during Operation Cast Lead drew three responses.

The first regarded the testimony as something anomalous that required investigation. The investigation, as usual, was sent to the Military Police Investigation Unit, which found the suspicions baseless.

The second was an attempt to link the improper behavior patterns with the prominent presence of rabbis with the soldiers, and the materials they disseminate to them.

The third reaction, which sums up the previous two, involved pondering the question of why the Israel Defense Forces have relinquished their traditional values. The implication was that if the scum was cleaned away, the ranks would no longer be defiled.

That is not necessarily so. An army by definition is a violent organization. The question is, what restrains the use of violence?

The rules of engagement give the officers and soldiers broad autonomy, and thus great deal responsibility. The soldiers' tendency toward violence does not merely stem from the values they bring with them from home or from ideological persuasion. An important role is played by the competition the soldiers feel for their status in the unit, the importance that their status in the army plays in determining their status in the civilian environment from which they came, and the degree of competition among the army's various units.

An army is a competitive environment no less than a violent one. The competitiveness is especially strong when the number of conscripts drops and when the fighting units are manned by a large percentage of soldiers from the social periphery and religious groups that move from the fringes to the mainstream.

An achievement in the military field is especially significant for someone who enlists in the army in order to gain social status or to leave an ideological mark and not merely to fill a basic civic duty, which is what motivates (now diminishing) parts of the established middle classes. An accomplishment is measured through the test of militancy.

The army itself intensifies this competitiveness; in its attempts to market itself among the public of potential conscripts, it increases the exposure given to the units and turns them into brand names. What is important in the testimonies that were disclosed is not the preciseness of detail about the use of fire but rather the enthusiasm to employ violence. As someone said: "Everyone went upstairs and fired together, they were really excited as if it were fun - we're shooting." In a competitive environment, it is more difficult to restrain violence. The key question is whether the units have a critical mass of soldiers who have heightened sensitivity and who can restrain their colleagues and if necessary report about irregularities in the chain of command. The change in the composition of the army makes this less likely in relation to the army of the first Lebanon war and the first intifada.

The late appearance of "breaking the silence," after four years of fighting in the territories, bore witness to that. The meeting of graduates of the Rabin academy and their attempt to influence (retroactively) the army's conduct outside the formal army channels also testifies to this.

When a critical mass of soldiers of this type is lacking in the ranks, the action takes place outside the army and not within it. In both cases graduates of relatively established groups, who do not feel that the test of how they fight is definitive for their status in their own eyes or in the eyes of others, act toward restraining the army and do not flinch from dealing with criticism that raises eyebrows about their patriotism. Even inside the army one can discern different patterns of behavior between units that differ from the point of view of their social profile.

This is not a new phenomenon. The IDF of the present decade is in certain aspects more controlled and restrained than the army of the 1950s which carried out the retaliation raids, and than the IDF of the War of Independence or the organizations that preceded it.

The youths in the Palmach also operated in an environment that was competitive compared with other organizations. The way in which the Palmach generation competed for its place as compared with other groups led to a nurturing of excessive aggressiveness.

It was only when this generation and its successors became established that it became possible, after the Six Day War in 1967, to hold "siah lohamim," a frank discussion among soldiers about the fighting, which was critical at that time. According to recent reports, today's fighters brand their actions through T-shirts with nationalistic and sexist slogans.

The Palmach fighters did not put slogans on their shirts, but they could enjoy a song by Haim Hefer which spoke of the castration by the Palmach of an Arab who was suspected of raping a Jewess. The style has changed but not the substance.

Prof. Levy is a member of the faculty at the Open University

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1078410.html

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m

Last update - 10:15 14/04/2009
The most moral army in the world. Fact
By Yitzhak Laor

On June 19, 1977, the Sunday Times marked the 10-year anniversary of the occupation with a wide-ranging expose on the torture of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. The report concluded that torture was so widespread and systematic that it was impossible to dismiss these deeds as "'rogue' cops exceeding orders. It appears to be sanctioned as deliberate policy."

Israel's denial was, of course, adamant. No Israeli newspaper addressed the accusations directly. Our ambassador in London said the morality of the prophets does not permit torture, and therefore these charges were baseless. It was Menachem Begin of all people, who had just formed his government, who expressed shock and ordered the Shin Bet to cease and desist.

Yet the logic of occupation and the defense establishment were stronger than the shock of the former underground leader. Then came the Bus 300 affair and Izat Nafso, the Circassian Israel Defense Forces officer convicted of espionage in 1984, and it reminded all of us that the Sunday Times report was more accurate than the denials, and was more accurate even than Begin's good intentions.

On the other hand, every Israeli poll about torture or atrocities would reveal, beyond a shadow of a doubt, simple truths: first, this can't be so; second, it is right; third, they started it.

Anyone who thinks this logic belongs solely to bizarre internet talkbackers needs to read Ehud Barak's initial reaction to the soldiers' testimonies from Gaza: "The IDF is the most moral army in the world." Fact.

Even the shelling of towns along the Suez Canal during the war of attrition, during bombardments of targets deep within Egyptian territory, included the destruction of a school during the school day and a steel factory during the workday, all under prime minister Golda Meir, and chiefs of staff and generals from the Labor movement. Not even this changed Israel's self-image by one iota, and it is doubtful whether live Al-Jazeera broadcasts can do so, either.

Aided by a carefully crafted narrative (by intellectuals on the Zionist left) we have been built as a nation that makes no room whatsoever for a contradictory private narrative, or at least an argument about sacred cows. Everyone is marching to the same drummer. The symbols are always ready. Anything that did not fit the "nationalist" template was rejected. Exodus? Good enough for us. The Struma affair? Only for advanced researchers. Deir Yassin? It was not "us" who did it, but "dissidents." The massacre of Sasa, Tiberias or Lod? A non-sequitor. Qibya? Forget about it! Sabra and Chatila? That can be remembered (Christians killing Muslims).

Ehud Barak is right. By all measures, we are the most moral. Because we have no peers.

And yet, perhaps the defense minister is referring to acts committed by the Americans. Their army really committed more horrific atrocities in the last 60 years, from Korea to Vietnam, Panama and Iraq. But it is in this context that the time has come to address the misdeeds taking place here, those committed by the state and its army against those it rules, including soldiers infected with a vicious virus, all with the approval of a collective unmatched in the democratic world.

All the atrocities committed by the IDF always take place under the purview of "the compulsory conscription law," which is not only a law in the sense of income tax or driving on the right side of the road, but is a sanctified commandment. Only "crazies" do not go to the army, do not dip their hands into the ceremonial blood. This is the supreme, traditional norm of Israeli society, and it covers up everything, both in denial and in acceptance of one's punishment.

Not only does the entire system - education, the army, the Shin Bet and of course, the media and literature - rule out any talk of struggle or of being sane and not belonging, it even rejects the possibility that something within it is fundamentally immoral. Thus it is natural for the defense minister to sum up the current round of denial by praising the Military Advocate General: "I am happy that these are the findings, and it turns out once again we are correct when we say the IDF is the most moral army in the world, from the chief of staff to the last soldier."

Yes, this is the reality, one no satire can beat, even the words of Golda in Hanoch Levin's 1970 "Malkat Ha'ambatiya": "I've been examining myself for 71 years and God knows I discovered in myself a justice. And every day I am surprised anew. Right, right, right, and right once again. Once I took a nap in the afternoon and I said to myself, 'What if I do something stupid while napping? So did I do something stupid while napping? I'm the last person who does something stupid while napping!"

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Hebron-ization in Real Time

This article, from last week's Haaretz, was prominently placed on the front page of the well-read weekend section. It reviews the process of settlement and dispossession in Silwan, the Palestinian village in East Jerusalem just outside the walls of the Old City, which has been re-named "The City of David" by those seeking to annex it to West Jerusalem.

Agressive settlement by Jewish settlers, backed by foreign money passing through a shadowy public/private NGO; the acquiescence and support of the government; arrests and harrassment of the current residents; and building up bogus archaeological and biblical claims; while slowly and deliberately creating facts on the ground--this has all been done before. Silwan is being Hebron-ized before our eyes.

The article alludes, though not specifically, to the Israeli and Palestinian coalition of archaeologists, academics, residents, community activists, and lawyers who are fighting this process. Two years ago, no one had heard of Silwan, and now, as Akiva Eldar says, it is "The Very Eye of the Storm."
Whether that will save it from the fate of other Arab localities that have been slowly erased is up to all of us.

--Rebecca Vilkomerson

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076058.html

The Very Eye of the Storm
Akiva Eldar

Jawad Siam pulled out a brochure issued by the Jerusalem municipality heralding development plans for his place of residence, the village of Silwan in East Jerusalem. He pointed to the map in the brochure, where the neighborhood's streets were marked. "You see this, Hashiloah Road?" he asked. "All these years, it was called Ein Silwan Street. 'Ma'alot Ir David' Street? That was Wadi Helwa Street. The street next to it, 'Malkitzedek,' used to be Al-Mistar Street."

From two small rooms, not far from the Old City walls, Siam and his colleagues in Silwan's Ein Helwa neighborhood committee, as well as a small group of Jewish friends, are waging a tenacious struggle on one of the world's most volatile battlefields. As he sees it, the "conversion" of the street names, the settling of Jews there with the encouragement of rightist organizations, and the municipality's intention to demolish dozens of buildings in the neighborhood, are merely a prelude to an eventual transfer plan. The real goal, he believes, is the expulsion of Ein Helwa's 5,000 residents, part of a goal of reducing the Palestinian presence in the area.

Silwan, which the Israeli authorities call the City of David or Kfar Hashiloah, lies in the heart of the "holy basin" surrounding the Old City. Here is where Jewish-Palestinian struggles over houses, religion and culture are steadily multiplying: Right-wing organizations keep taking over yet another building and another site, sometimes with the municipality's assistance; straw men tempt Palestinians into selling their homes; petitions to the Supreme Court come on the heels of allegations of libel; archaeologists clash over these organizations' control of antiquities' sites in the area; and the police try to undermine every official Palestinian activity, including cultural ones.

According to the so-called Clinton initiative, presented during the 2000 Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Silwan was supposed to become part of the future Palestinian capital. The international community remains concerned about the ongoing attempt to upset the holy basin's delicate balance. Many diplomats tour the area and send detailed reports back to their home capitals.

For years, this balance was preserved by a moderate mayor (Teddy Kollek) and cautious governments (like that of Yitzhak Rabin). In September 1996, the combination of a right-wing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and a right-wing mayor, Ehud Olmert, led to the opening of the Western Wall tunnel. This "festive" event culminated with bloody disturbances in the territories, in which 16 Israeli soldiers and more than 60 Palestinians were killed.

The current blend of the old-new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Jerusalem's relatively untried mayor, Nir Barkat, as well as the fact that several government ministries (infrastructure, construction and housing) are in the hands of right-wing parties, may herald an increase in the level of tension in the city as a whole and in the holy basin in particular. Last year, before the local elections, Barkat took a well-publicized tour of Jerusalem's Palestinian neighborhoods, accompanied by activists from right-wing organizations, including David Barry, the head of the Elad organization, which promotes Jewish settlement in the city's eastern part. As mayor, one of his first acts was to resume the construction of 230 apartments for Jews in Abu Dis (Kidmat Zion). He also issued demolition orders for dozens of illegal buildings in Silwan that house hundreds of Palestinian residents.

In the meantime, due in part to American pressure, the municipality has frozen the plan to demolish the buildings in the area it calls Gan Hamelekh (David's Garden). "The mayor's approach to upholding and enforcing the law has nothing to do with city residents' national identity," city hall said in a statement two days ago. "He intends to continue upholding the law in the west and east of the city without bias. The enforcement policy in the Gan Hamelekh area was examined by the courts, which found nothing wrong."

The hand of God?

In an article published on the Arutz Sheva Web site, Matti Dan, chairman of the Ateret Cohanim organization, was quoted as saying, "God promised Jerusalem to us. Our generation is responsible for fulfilling the victory of the Six-Day War and strengthening settlement in Jerusalem."

The article tells of 43 sites that Dan and his friends have "redeemed" from Palestinians in the Old City's Muslim and Christian quarters. About a decade ago, Ateret Cohanim began expanding its activity outside the Old City walls, by taking over abandoned properties - both buildings and land - that belonged to Jews before 1948. Thus Jews settled in Silwan, the Mount of Olives (Beit Orot), Sheikh Jarra (Shimon Hatzadik), Ras al-Amud (Ma'aleh Zeitim), Abu Dis and A-Tur. According to data from the Ir Amim organization for an equitable and stable Jerusalem, about 2,500 Israelis now live in the holy basin and the Old City (not including the Jewish Quarter), about 400 of them in the City of David and a similar number in Ras al-Amud.

"The hand of God is clearly visible here," Dan boasted. "The Saudis and the Europeans are investing millions in East Jerusalem in order to stop us, and we're standing up to them alone." The same article quotes Ateret Cohanim sources as saying that, "There is a consensus about Jerusalem ... also in the highest places, even if this is somewhat obscured. We receive full backing that isn't reported in the newspapers. Even those who say otherwise in the media open their doors to us when it's about building Jerusalem."

City Engineer Uri Sheetrit first gave the order to demolish the illegal buildings in Silwan in 2004, explaining that the reasons had nothing to do with urban planning. "Jerusalem's beginnings lie in the City of David tel. These remnants have much international and national value and give the city its standing as one of the world's most important cities," he said. "Emek Hamelekh - together with the City of David tel - constitutes a complete archaeological unit." The experience of recent years shows that Jews will settle in places that Palestinians have been forced to leave.

These kinds of declarations infuriate attorney Daniel Seidemann of Ir Amim. In a recent opinion, he wrote that the planning and building laws have become the main means for reducing Palestinian living space in East Jerusalem: Since 1967, Israel has appropriated 35 percent of the land in East Jerusalem in order to build 50,000 apartments for Jews; at the same time, not a single new neighborhood has been built for the Palestinians, despite the fact that their population in East Jerusalem has nearly quadrupled. During all those years, only 600 apartments were built with government support in the existing Palestinian neighborhoods. The Palestinians' natural growth rate in the city means that 1,500 new apartments are needed every year.

According to Seidemann, most of the lands still in Palestinian possession cannot be built upon due to bureaucratic delays heaped on by Israel. The construction potential within the Palestinian neighborhoods has been practically exhausted. Even Palestinians who live in an area for which there is an approved master plan end up so frustrated by the legal, economic and bureaucratic obstacles that they eventually resort to the risk of building without a license. East Jerusalem is the only place in Israel where a unit from the Interior Ministry, rather than the local authority, operates for the purpose of enforcing building laws (vis-a-vis the Palestinians, that is). Thus, even when the municipality freezes the house demolitions, they are still carried out by order of the Interior Ministry.

Archaeological takeover

In addition to staking their claim in the residential neighborhoods in and around the Old City, the organizations Elad and Ateret Cohanim have begun taking over the numerous archaeological sites scattered throughout the area. The City of David national park lies south of the Old City. "Today, 70 percent of the hill in the City of David is in Jewish hands, and the idea is to acquire buildings on the Mount Zion hill next to it, in order to create a continuum with the Jewish Quarter," Elad founder Barry said in a recent interview.

In 1998, the Environmental Protection Ministry ordered the Israel Nature and Parks Authority to place the park's management in the hands of Elad, which argued that it had acquired a majority of the lands there. The order was issued in defiance of protest from the Antiquities Authority, which was upset about the idea of a sensitive archaeological site being run by a politically motivated organization. To this day, it is not clear why the ministry decided to act as it did. Dalia Itzik, who was the environment minister at the time, said this week that she does not recall the matter. The INPA says its standard practice is to transfer sites located on private lands to the landowners' management. However, last year, then-construction and housing minister Ze'ev Boim wrote that the territory of the park given to Elad is not owned by it, but instead belongs to the state and the Jewish National Fund.

At the end of 2000, the national park was returned to the INPA's jurisdiction. The state prosecutor informed the Supreme Court that it had not been proper to grant authorization to Elad, and so it was annulled. But in 2002, the INPA once again transferred most of the park's assets to the control of Elad, including the Herodian tunnel beneath the Armon Hanatziv ridge and the visitors' center in Ya'ar Hashalom (the Peace Forest). The Authority could not provide an explanation for this decision.

The registrar of nonprofit organizations says the symbiotic relationship between Elad and the INPA is also evident in the fact that Elad's Evyatar Cohen, the director of the visitors' center, is also the director of the INPA's Jerusalem district. An INPA spokeswoman responded that Cohen first went through a "cooling-off" period after his activity in the Elad organization. The symbols of both bodies also appeared not long ago on a sign announcing the construction of a new information center on the Mount of Olives, outside the bounds of the national park. Following an inquiry from Peace Now, the INPA's symbol was removed.

Archaeologists opposed to Elad's activity say the organization's guided tours of the site, given to many Israel Defense Forces soldiers, emphasize the place's Jewish history. Prof. Benjamin Z. Kedar, chairman of the board of the Antiquities Authority, recently confirmed that Elad is "an organization with a declared ideological agenda, which presents the history of the City of David in a biased way." In response, the organization said that most visitors are accompanied by its guides and that any guides who expressed themselves politically were dealt with severely.

According to the High Court petition recently filed by Peace Now, at least, Elad is building a shopping center and events hall within the bounds of the park, under cover of the archaeological excavations in the area of the park known as Henyon Givati. In the wake of the petition, the court has ordered all work on the site suspended, apart from the excavations.

Elad claims that "Henyon Givati is a private area and the rights to it are registered in the land registry." In response to a request from Meretz city council member Pepe Alalo, Yossi Havilio, the Jerusalem municipality's legal counsel, said this week that he has asked the official in charge of municipal assets to confirm whether city hall, which leased the lot for 30 years (until 2006), had indeed transferred the rights elsewhere and why.

Bleak reality

This week, in a small room in the local community center, Jawad met with several Israeli archaeologists who offer tourists with guided tours meant to exposed them to the bleak reality in Jerusalem. They composed an open letter to Supreme Court Justice Miriam Naor, who turned down their request that she issue an injunction against a continuation of the "development works" in the neighborhood, which they believe are designed to improve the lives of the Jewish residents. She determined that it would be unsafe to stop the work, now that it is under way.

"Imagine how you would feel," they wrote the justice, "if one day you were to fall under the power of a group of new residents, whose civil status is higher than your own and that of your family, and who enjoy heavyweight economic backing, including that of the municipal authorities, and have guards stationed outside their homes day and night who roam the streets, armed, and frighten your children."

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Jewish Peace Activists Defend German Critic of Israel

We've sent out a press release to more than 800 contacts regarding the statement "On Anti-Semitism, Boycotts, and the Case of Hermann Dierkes: An Open Letter from Jewish Peace Activists." A copy of the press release is attached and pasted below.

Since the statement has been made public, further people have been telling us that they'd still like to sign. Therefore, we have set up an on-line petition site where peace activists of Jewish background can add their names. The site is www.gopetition.com/petitions/dierkes-letter.html

The petition calls on Jews to sign, but everyone can help in spreading the word.

Thanks!
Steven Shalom and Racheli Gai

For immediate release

Contacts:
Stephen R. Shalom, stephenrshalom@gmail.com (973) 801-2377
Racheli Gai, racheli@sonoracohousing.com, (520) 407-1432

Jewish Peace Activists Defend German Critic of Israel
Calling for a Boycott of Israel for its Treatment of Palestinians is not Anti-Semitic

Montclair, NJ, April 8, 2009 -- More than 370 Jewish peace activists from around the world signed a statement defending German politician Hermann Dierkes against charges of anti-Semitism.

Dierkes, a left-wing politician with a distinguished record of fighting for social justice, called for a boycott of Israeli goods as a means of putting pressure on the Israeli government to end its oppression of Palestinians. For this he has been subjected to vicious denunciations for anti-Semitism.

The signers of the statement -- from Israel, Germany, the United States, and several other countries -- expressed their objection to those "who use charges of anti-Semitism to attempt to squelch legitimate dissent."

The signers have differing views on the wisdom and efficacy of a general boycott, some favoring it, some preferring a more selective boycott focused on the occupation, but all agree that a call for a boycott of Israel has nothing in common with the Nazi policy of "Don't buy from Jews."

"It is no more anti-Semitic to boycott Israel to end the occupation," the statement declared, "than it was anti-white to boycott South Africa to end apartheid."

Among the U.S. signatories are Phyllis BENNIS; Stephen Eric BRONNER; Leslie CAGAN; Noam CHOMSKY; Daniel ELLSBERG, Melanie KAYE/KANTROWITZ; Joanne LANDY; Zachary LOCKMAN; Frances Fox PIVEN; Adrienne RICH, Matthew ROTHSCHILD; Sami SHALOM CHETRIT; Jerome SLATER; and Howard ZINN.

Among the foreign signers are Tikva HONIG-PARNASS, Adam KELLER, Lea TSEMEL, and Michel WARSCHAWSKI (Israel); Daniel BENSAÏD and Michaël LÖWY (France); Naomi KLEIN (Canada); Felicia LANGER (Germany); and Moshe MACHOVER and Eyal WEIZMAN (UK).

"We gathered these names in just a week," said Stephen R. Shalom, a professor of political science at William Paterson University, one of several individuals who initiated the letter in response to their outrage at the accusation of anti-Semitism levelled at Dierkes. "We've been getting a constant stream of additional names of people who want to add their names to the statement." They can do so at.

Racheli Gai, an Israeli-American peace activist, noted that " "There is real anti-Semitism in the world, and -- like all forms of racism -- it must be vigorously denounced. But frivolously making charges of anti-Semitism makes fighting the real thing harder, because it cheapens its meaning, and renders the motivations of even those who are making the charge legitimately suspect." As the statement concluded, "The Holocaust was one of the most horrific events in modern history. It is a dishonor to its victims to use its memory as a bludgeon to silence principled critics of Israel's unconscionable treatment of Palestinians."

Hermann Dierkes, a former city counsellor in the German city of Duisberg representing the Left Party, said the accusations of anti-Semitism hit him very hard. "Because I am well aware of the German inextinguishable heritage of fascism and the genocide of the European Jews, I feel especially obliged to fight against racist prejudices and oppression. Human rights are indivisible for all individuals and peoples of the world. The right of self-determination has to be guaranteed for the Palestinian people too. This is a precondition to gain peace for the whole region."

Among the many messages of solidarity he has received thus far, said Dierkes, "what moved me most was the open letter, signed by more than 370 Jewish peace activists from so many countries, including Israel."

The full text of the open letter is given below. The full list of initial signatories is at the petition site. The developing list of additional signers can be seen at www.gopetition.com/petitions/dierkes-letter/signatures.html.

*********

On Anti-Semitism, Boycotts, and the Case of Hermann Dierkes:
An Open Letter from Jewish Peace Activists

We are peace activists of Jewish background. Some of us typically identify in this way; others of us do not. But we all object to those who claim to speak for all Jews or who use charges of anti-Semitism to attempt to squelch legitimate dissent.

We have learned with dismay the allegations regarding Hermann Dierkes, a trade unionist and leader of the Left Party (DIE LINKE) in the German city of Duisburg. Dierkes, in response to the recent Israeli assault on Gaza expressed the view that one way people could help Palestinians obtain justice would be to support the call of the World Social Forum to boycott Israeli goods, so as to put pressure on the Israeli government.

Dierkes has been subjected to widespread and vitriolic denunciations for anti-Semitism, and accused of calling for a repeat of the Nazi policy of the 1930s of boycotting Jewish products. Dierkes responded that "The demands of the World Social Forum have nothing in common with Nazi-type racist campaigns against Jews, but aim at changing the Israeli government's policy of oppression of the Palestinians."

No one has made any claims of anti-Semitism against Dierkes for anything other than his support of the boycott. Yet he has been accused of "pure anti-Semitism" (Dieter Graumann the Vice-President of the Central Jewish Council), of uttering words comparable to "a mass execution at the edge of a Ukrainian forest" (Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung editorialist Achim Beer), and of expressing "Nazi propaganda" (Hendrik Wuest, General Secretary of the Christian Democratic Party).

We signatories have differing views on the wisdom and efficacy of calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. Some of us believe that such a boycott is an essential component of a campaign of boycott, divestment, and sanctions that can end the four-decade-long Israeli occupation; others think the better way to pressure the Israeli government is with a more selective boycott focused on institutions and corporations supporting the occupation. But all of us agree that it is essential to apply pressure against the Israeli government if peace and justice are to prevail in the Middle East and all of us agree that a call for a boycott of Israel has nothing in common with the Nazi policy of "Don't buy from Jews." It is no more anti-Semitic to boycott Israel to end the occupation than it was anti-white to boycott South Africa to end apartheid. Social justice movements have often called for boycotts or divestment, whether against the military regime in Burma or the government of Sudan. Wise or
not, such calls are in no way discriminatory.

Violence in the Middle East has indeed led to some acts of anti-Semitism in Europe. There was a call to boycott Jewish-owned stores in Rome that was widely and appropriately condemned. We deplore such bigotry. Israel's crimes cannot be attributed to Jews as a whole. But, at the same time, a boycott of Israel cannot be equated with a boycott of Jews as a whole.

An acute and disturbing form of racism rising in Europe today is Islamophobia and xenophobia directed at immigrants from Muslim countries. Dierkes has been a champion in defense of the rights of immigrants, while some of those who accuse all critics of Israel of being anti-Semitic often participate themselves -- like the Israeli government and state -- in such forms of racism.

The Holocaust was one of the most horrific events in modern history. It is a dishonor to its victims to use its memory as a bludgeon to silence principled critics of Israel's unconscionable treatment of Palestinians.

Monday, April 6, 2009

The Assault against Gaza -- More Facts

A medical fact-finding mission on Israel's assault against Gaza, continues to indicate the urgent need for an independent, international investigation.

The communique below describes the mission, quotes briefly from its report, to which it also links, and lists three pressing practical conclusions entailed by the mission.

Rela Mazali

-------------------------------
Subject: Physicians for Human Rights-Israel and the Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS) published today its special report on the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip, 27.12.2008 – 18.01.2009

Independent fact-finding mission of medical experts commissioned by Physicians for Human Rights-Israel and the Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS) published today its special report on the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip, 27.12.2008 – 18.01.2009

In their report, the experts detail 44 testimonies by civilians who came under attack and by medical staff who were prevented from evacuating the wounded. The report provides first-hand evidence regarding the broader effects of the attacks on a civilian population that was already vulnerable on the eve of the offensive.

To download the Report click here

The experts collected samples of human tissue earth, water, grass and mud suspected to be contaminated by unidentified chemicals. These were sent by the team to laboratories in the UK and South Africa for analysis.

During the military operation in January, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel called for an external independent investigation into the events, for the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip and for the opening of the Crossings.

Five independent experts in the fields of forensic medicine, burns, medical response to crises and public health, from Germany, Denmark, South Africa and Spain, immediately answered the call and traveled to Gaza between 29 January and 5 February 2009 for their first fact-finding investigation, and then to hospitals in Egypt, where some of the most seriously wounded were being treated.

The medical experts are: Professor Jorgen Thomsen from Denmark, expert in Forensic pathology; Dr. Ralf Syring from Germany, an expert in Public Health in crisis regions; Professor Shabbir Ahmed Wadee from South Africa, an expert in Forensic pathology;Professor Sebastian Van As from South Africa, an expert in Trauma surgeryand Ms. Alicia Vacas Moro from Spain, an expert in International health.

From the conclusion of the report:

"...Besides the large-scale, largely impersonal destruction that the team witnessed and heard of, it was especially distressing to hear of individual cases in which soldiers had been within seeing, hearing and speaking distance of their victims for significant stretches of time, but despite the opportunity for 'humanisation', had denied wounded people access to lifesaving medical care, or even shot at civilians at short range..."

One of the testimonies in the report describes the aftermath of an attack. Muhammad Saad Abu Halima had lost two brothers and a young sister; his wife and daughter were wounded. He told the delegation his experience of evacuation:

"…We were going down the street Kamal Adwan, and we had almost reached the school when the soldiers halted us. A tank appeared on the street and stopped close to the school. The soldiers were occupying the second floor of a building which was only 20 meters away from the street. They could see that we were all wounded and dirty from the explosions, because the tractor was open at the back. They shot at us, killing my cousins Matar Saad Abu Halima and Muhammad Hikma Abu Halima, who were driving us to the hospital. The soldiers ordered us to get out of the tractor, and they asked me to take off my clothes. I did it and they checked all my body. I think they were looking for explosives, but we were all injured and in pitiful conditions. How could we think of carrying explosives when my younger siblings and my own children were dying? Then, when I was almost expecting death, they shouted at me: "you can get dressed and go". They did not allow us to use the tractor.
I held my sister Shahed in my arms … but the soldiers said that the baby was already dead, so they forced me to leave her in the car. I tried to help my wife Ghada, who was completely burned, and they forced us to walk to the hospital. For about 300 meters the soldiers were shooting at our feet as we walked, raising so much dust that the wounds of my wife became full of dirt. After a while we saw a lorry on the road. It was overcrowded with people going to the hospital after the heavy attacks, but they made us room and we arrived at Shifa' Hospital…."

Another testimony in the report tells the story of the Abed Rabbo family. Souad Abed Rabbo, 54, told the team that the soldiers called to the family to exit their house. She, her daughter-in-law and her three granddaughters exited the house holding white flags:

"Outside the house there was an Israeli tank. It had come from the west towards the house that was facing north. It was 11.30 – 12.00. The tank was in the garden about ten meters from her, when she stopped to receive permission to leave unharmed. On her right side were the three girls; behind her was the daughter in law close to the door of the house. The soldier on the tank never replied. They were looking into each others´ eyes for 7-10 minutes, when suddenly a soldier opened fire and shot the granddaughter of the witness, Souad, in the neck and chest. She died immediately. They also shot Amal. She was hit in the chest and abdomen, and the interviewee saw her intestines come out. Amal died a little later. The daughter in law ran immediately into the house and was not hurt. The witness Souad Abed Rabbo was hit twice, as she turned around in a clockwise movement. She was hit in the left arm and in the left buttock. She did not see who shot. She assumed that the shots were fired from
gun(s) not from the tank, but she was not certain. She saw three soldiers on top of the tanks holding weapons…Samar was hit in the chest with the bullet coming out of the back…at the time of the interview she was in a hospital in Belgium suffering paralysis."

In their concluding remarks, the experts say:

"The underlying meaning of the attack on the Gaza Strip, or at least its final consequence, appears to be one of creating terror without mercy to anyone. Nearly all the people we spoke to slept cuddled together with the other members of their family in a central room of the house during the three weeks of attack. No one knew where or when the next bomb or explosion would occur. It appears that the wide range of attacks with sophisticated weaponry was predominantly focussed on terrorising the population. ..."

Hadas Ziv, Executive Director of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel:

The military was well aware that such an attack on a densely populated area would exert a terrible toll on the civilian population. It was the Israeli Army's responsibility to secure a way for the civilian population to flee the zone of combat.
At the moment, three things need to be done:
- A rigorous, transparent, and independent investigation should be conducted, one in which the victims' voices will be heard. The newly appointed investigative committee of the Human Rights Council is an important step in this direction. We hope Israel will fully cooperate with it.
- There is also an urgent need to open the Crossings and to allow the rehabilitation of Gaza.
- Israeli society needs to understand and assert its responsibility to end the culture of impunity so that such severe violations of international law and medical ethics will not occur in the future.

For further information please contact:
Tami Sarfatti 0546995199 email: tami@phr.or.il

Jeff Halper: An unhelpful discourse on Israel / Middle East News Service

http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2009/03/31/an-unhelpful-discourse-on-israel/

The following article was written by Israeli/American peace activist Jeff Halper for the Australian Jewish News. The paper refused to run the piece, despite spending weeks attacking Halper and his supporters in its pages.
The type of dynamics Halper describes in the essay, where organized Australian Jewry comes to the "rescue" of an idealized Israel - an "Israel" which has nothing to do with Israel as a real country, doesn't seem unique to Australia. It's certainly the case in the US, and I suspect in other countries as well, that the Jewish diaspora latches on to an imaginary Israel for its own needs, even while Israel puts Jewish diaspora to its own
unholy uses.

Racheli Gai.

Middle East News Service:
Jeff Halper: An unhelpful discourse on Israel

The uproar in the organized Jewish community over the prospect of my speaking in Australia is truly startling to an Israeli like me. Granted, I am very critical of Israel's policies of Occupation and doubt whether a two-state solution is still possible given the extent of Israel's settlements, but this hardly warrants the kind of demonization I received in the pages of The AJN. Opinions similar to mine are readily available in the mainstream Israeli media. Indeed, I myself write frequently for the Israeli press and appear regularly on Israeli TV and radio.

Why, then, the hysteria? Why was I banned from Temple Emmanuel in Sydney, a self-proclaimed progressive synagogue? Why did I, an Israeli, have to address the Jewish community from a church? Why was I invited to speak in every university in eastern Australia yet, at Monash University, I was forced to hold a secret meeting with Jewish faculty in a darkened room far from the halls of intellectual discourse? Why, when the "leaders" of the Jewish community were excoriating me and my positions, did the Israelis who attended my talks express such appreciation that "real" Israeli views were finally getting aired in Australia, even if they did not all agree with me? Given the support my right to speak evidenced by most of the letters published in The AJN, this all raises disturbing questions over the right of Australian Jews to hear divergent views on Israel's conflict with the Palestinians held by Israelis themselves.

It raises an even deeper issue, however. What should be the relationship of Diaspora Jewry to Israel? Whatever threat I represented to the organized Jewish community of Australia had less to do with Israel, I suspect, than with some damage I might to do to the idealized "Leon Uris" image of Israel which you hold onto so dearly. This might seem like a strange thing to say, but I do not believe that you in the Diaspora have internalized the fact that Israel is a foreign country as far from your idealized version as Australia is far from its image as kangaroo-land. Countries change, they evolve. What would Australia's European founders think – even those who until very recently pursued a "White Australia" policy – if they were to see the multi-cultural country you have become? Well, almost 30% of Israeli citizens are not Jews, we may very well have permanently incorporated another four million Palestinians – the residents of the Occupied Territories – into our country and, to top it off
,
it's clear by now that the vast majority of the world's Jews are not going to emigrate to Israel. Those facts, plus the urgent need of Israel to make peace with its neighbors, mean something. They mean that Israel must change in ways Ben Gurion, Leon Uris and Mark Leibler never envisioned, even if that's hard for you to accept.

Yet I see this as a positive thing, a sign of a healthy country coming to grips with reality, some of it of its own creation, even if it means that Israel will evolve from a Jewish state into a state of all its citizens – a bi-national or democratic state. Rather than "eliminating" Israel, this challenge is in fact a natural and probably inevitable development. It will not be easy, but if you can become multi-cultural, so can we.

But that's our problem as Israelis. What's your problem? Why should discussing such important issues for Israel be the cause of such distress for you? Because, I venture to say, you have a stake in preserving Israel's idealized image that trumps dealing with the real country. In my view, Israel is being used as the lynchpin of your ethnic identity in Australia; mobilizing around a beleaguered Israel is essential for keeping your kids Jewish. I would go so far as to accuse you of needing an Israel in conflict, which is why you seem so threatened by an Israel at peace, why you deny that peace is even possible, why a peaceful Israel that is neither threatened nor "Jewish" cannot fulfill the role you have cast for it, and thus why you characterize my message as "vile lies."

This, to be honest, is the threat I represent. Only this can explain why rabbis, community "leaders" and Jewish professors choose to meet me secretly rather than have me, a critical Israel, in their synagogues or classrooms. This is all understandable. You do need a lynchpin if you are to preserve your identity as a prosperous community in a tolerant multi-cultural society. I would just question whether the real country of Israel can fulfill that role, or even if it's fair to Israel to expect it to.

We are different peoples. Israel can no more define Diaspora Jewish life than you can define Israel. Rather than knee-jerk defense of an imaginary place, you need to develop a respect for Israel and Israeli voices, a respect that will come only when you start regarding Israel as a real country. And you have to get a life of your own. You have to develop alternative Diaspora Jewish cultures and identities. Ironically, after all I have said, the Israeli government will resist that, for it uses you as agents to support its policies, often extreme right-wing and militaristic policies that contradict your very values of cultural pluralism and human rights. Remember: Israel does what it does in your name. Unless you take an independent position, you are complicit.

What befell me in Australia is just a tiny piece of a sad story of mutual exploitation: you using Israel to keep your community together, Israel using you to defend its indefensible policies. Perhaps something good can emerge from all this: robust discussion on the nature of Israeli-Diaspora relations. I'm going home to Jerusalem. You have to let Israel go and get a [Jewish] life.

Jeff Halper is the Director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, a peace and human rights organization dedicated to achieving a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians. He can be reached at <jeff@icahd.org>