Month: October 2012

As the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement, launched by Palestinian groups in 2005, has grown, some strategies and targets have attracted more controversy than others. The academic boycott campaign is one which is still rejected or viewed with ambivalence by some who would otherwise support other forms of boycott, such as goods produced in West Bank settlements.

Before looking at the specifics of the case for an academic boycott, it is important to place it in the context of BDS as a whole, a campaign the tactics of which are increasingly adopted internationally in response to a call from Palestinians for civil society action to help end Israeli impunity and contribute to the realisation of the Palestinians’ rights. At the heart of BDS is the reality of Israeli apartheid and exclusionary policies, a direct link between these crimes and the need for accountability, and the principle of international solidarity.

The same logic is at play when it comes to the question of the institutional complicity of Israeli universities with colonisation, occupation and apartheid, of which there are numerous examples (useful information can be found in this 2009 study).

The Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, for example, has strong ties to the Israeli military and defence manufacturers, including drone-specialists Elbit Systems. Technion’s researchers’ list of credits includes thedevelopment of a remote-controlled bulldozer for use by the IDF in the Occupied Territories.

Tel Aviv University, meanwhile, has boasted of its role “at the front line of the critical work to maintain Israel’s military and technological edge”, citing both “classified” research, as well as “55 projects” funded by the R&D Directorate of the Ministry of Defence. Tel Aviv University campus includes land belonging to Sheikh Muwannis, a Palestinian village ethnically cleansed and destroyed in 1948. The faculty club is the home of the former village sheikh.

At the University of Haifa, the National Security Studies Centre talks about “a special programme of graduate studies in national security and strategic studies” that “has by now trained hundreds of senior officers in the Israeli Defence Forces” and is the reason for “a warm and active relationship” between the university and the IDF. At Bar Ilan University, one joint initiative with the government grants teaching certificate scholarships to “outstanding fighters” in order to harness their values “for the benefit of Israel’s next generation”.

These are just a few of the many ways in which Israel’s academic institutions collude with the state in the colonisation of Palestine: “The entire nation is complicit in the occupation, and there is no safe haven in the libraries and laboratories within the Green Line.” This reality is at the heart of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, launched in 2004, with its call for boycott joined by the general BDS declaration the following year.

Common objections

There are a few consistently-raised objections to the academic boycott campaign. One such issue is the claim that it constitutes an attack on academic freedom. Firstly, it is unclear why the institutions of academia should be exempted from the same questions of complicity and responsibility that other sectors of society face. Leading boycott activists Omar Barghouti and Lisa Taraki have addressed this question directly:

We think that the freedom that Israeli academics appear keen to preserve is the freedom to continue being scholars, i.e. to have an uninterrupted flow of research funds, to continue to get grants to be released from teaching, to take sabbaticals, to continue to be able to write, engage in scholarly debate, and to do all the things respectable academics are supposed to do. But can they or should they be able to enjoy these freedoms (which sound more like privileges to us) without any regard to what is going on outside the walls of the academy, to the role of their institutions in the perpetuation of colonial rule?

The reality for Palestinians under military occupation means numerous restrictions on the ability of faculty and students to conduct academic life, including the permit regime and obstacles to freedom of movement. Just recently, Israel’s High Court supported the state’s refusal to allow Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to attend West Bank universities. It is these attacks on ‘academic freedom’, part and parcel of Israel’s apartheid regime, which BDS strategies are intended to challenge.

A second, frequently heard objection is that academic boycott targets, harms and alienates the most ‘progressive’ sector of Israeli society – professors committed to Palestinian rights and a ‘just’ solution. But this is not an accurate picture. From several thousands of Israeli academics, sporadic initiatives aimed at defending, for example, the right of Israelis to refuse military service in the Occupied Territories, typically gain the support of a few hundred individuals (see this petition).

In fact, when Israeli academics have protested against government policies, it is often in the context of defending themselves or their colleagues, including concern for how Israeli academia will be viewed internationally. So in 2008, protests about restrictions on Palestinian students from the West Bank being allowed to enter Israel for studies were expressed in terms of both “academic freedom” and, in the words of Hebrew University professor Moshe Ron, that the policy helps “those who are trying to impose an academic boycott on Israel”.

The same argument has been deployed in the case of Ariel settlement’s college, where those opposed to it being granted university status have claimed that the upgrade “makes [the anti-boycott] case much more difficult to make”. Prof. David Newman, who has “spent much of [his] time during the past five years rebutting attempts by foreign academics to impose an academic boycott on Israel”, is similarly worried about the impact of the current struggle over Ben Gurion University’s Politics Department.

Sadly then, the dissident role of Israeli academia is exaggerated (both disingenuously, and also by wishful thinking), particularly when it comes to challenging and resisting the systematic and institutionalised mechanisms of Palestinian displacement, subjugation and dispossession. A few may genuinely speak up against apartheid, but the majority are silent, or worse. Even Meretz and Labour-voting ‘leftists’, for example, have no problem teaching in a West Bank colony.

A third charge is that the academic boycott campaign is hypocritical, given the links enjoyed by UK (or US, etc.) universities to national militaries, arms companies and other human rights abusers. This is a version of the ‘But what about X’ argument routinely deployed to attack BDS and ignores the fact that BDS, including academic, is a strategy (not a principle) being pursued in light of a call from Palestinians. Furthermore, BDS initiatives on campuses can often end up feeding into, and strengthening, efforts to challenge domestic militarism and links with imperialism and war profiteers.

Fighting against the boycott

Despite the academic boycott campaign being in its infancy, it has already caused enough concern so as to prompt different forms of pushback. As early as 2006, there was a meeting between Britain’s then-education secretary Alan Johnson and Israel’s education minister “to discuss anti-Israeli sentiment on university campuses” and an academic boycott in particular.

Two years later, the Britain-Israel Research and Academic Exchange partnership (BIRAX) was established, with media reports noting how the initiative’s focus on “junior academics” was “not coincidental” and aimed at influencing the boycott debate in the unions. Announcing further funding in 2010, UK Foreign Office Minister Ivan Lewis said that support for BIRAX was “a tangible example of [the government’s determination to oppose boycotts against Israel”.

Another example of pushback is the establishment of Israel studies centres – “a different way to fight academic boycotts“, in the words of Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz. Academic boycott initiatives have, according to professor Ilan Troen, director of the Israel Studies Centre at Brandeis University, influenced positively “the willingness of donors to give funds toward this cause”.

Conclusion

With significant amounts of money and resources being invested in combating an academic boycott through various initiatives, campaigners know that they face an uphill battle, but one that is an important part of global Palestine solidarity.

At a Knesset committee meeting in May attended by a delegation from the UK-Israel Life Sciences Council (LSC), the Chief Scientist at Israel’s Ministry of Science, Prof. Ehud Gazit, related how “during the dark days of the beginning of the calls for boycott”, he went to a conference at the University of Nottingham where he found “no dispute, no boycott”, nothing “about the conflict”, and Israel “portrayed as a normal country”.

Unwittingly, however, Gazit here points to the significance of the boycott campaign. There is nothing ‘normal’ about military occupation, apartheid, and settler colonialism – and as long as Israel continues such practises, then an approach of isolation and accountability must be our response to the Palestinian call for solidarity.

RAMALLAH – On Monday, Yossi Beilin sat alongside Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas  in a convention hall in Mukataa, and waxed nostalgic. “We used to work without the Americans,” he said. “Clinton heard about Oslo two weeks before the White House ceremony.” Abbas, a bitter smile on his face, corrected him. “A week before,” he said.

Some 19 years after that historic event, the despair in Ramallah has never seemed deeper. It is ingrained in the faces of Abbas and his advisers, who met on Sunday with the delegation of the Geneva Initiative, which include Knesset members, mayors, and political activists from Labor, Kadima, Meretz, and the Likud. MKs from Shas had also planned to attend, but cancelled at the last minute. On the eve of elections, a picture with Abbas could only do damage.

The Palestinian delegation was at a loss. Last year’s United Nations Security Council move failed, and the move planned for this year isn’t garnering international interest. When Abbas spoke before the UN General Assembly two weeks ago, the hall was half empty. The average Palestinian has also lost hope in the peace process. He’s given up hopes of ending the Israeli occupation, and has directed his frustration over the economic crisis at Abbas and his Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad.

The upcoming Israeli elections only served to enhance the depression in Mukataa. As the Likud campaign focuses on the Iranian issue, the Labor party on the price of cottage cheese and cucumbers, and as Yair Lapid pushes the amorphous idea of “a new method,” the Palestinians understand that they do not interest the Israeli public, or its elected officials.

“Never have I felt more desperation in the Palestinian streets than I feel today,” said Yasser Abed Rabbo, the secretary of the active committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and the frustration could be seen on his face as well. “When I talk today about the two state solution, people look at me like I’m crazy, like I’ve said that [Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman is the Secretary General of the Geneva Convention,” continued Abed Rabbo.

The head of the Palestinian negotiation team, Saeb Erekat, doesn’t stop smiling, but displays the same despair. He says that he recommended to Abbas that he return the keys to Netanyahu. “The Palestinian Authority is broken anyway, so we might as well make it official,” he said.

Will this despair plant the seeds of a third intifada? Abbas stressed on Sunday in front of the MKs that a return to terror is not an option, though he hinted that a continuation of the deadlock could lead to further deterioration. “No one knows what could happen if the Arab Spring reaches us,” he said. “It has reached Jordan, and look what has happened in Syria – there is chaos everywhere.”

His advisers are even more pessimistic. “The Palestinian citizen sees that the national political process is completely blocked, so he focuses on his day to day life,” said Abed Rabbo to the MKs. “But eventually he’ll forget, and it will blow up in our faces.”

Abbas is in despair over Netanyahu. “He has ruined the two state solution,” stressed Abbas. “Now there are more and more Palestinians talking about one state.”  He is steadfast in his determination to approach the UN General Assembly, to attain observer-state status for Palestine. Apparently, this will happen in late November. The day after, he told the MKs, he will resume negotiations with Israel, without any preconditions.

When asked of his opinion on a possible return to politics for former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and why the two of them didn’t reach an agreement, he places the blame on internal Israeli issues.

He mentioned his constant contact with Olmert, and even revealed that he called him two weeks ago from New York. One of his advisers said that the conversation focused mostly on praising the former prime minister for his interest in peace, but not in politics.

But the evidence of Abbas’ longing for Olmert’s return to politics rests on the fact that he did not hesitate to alter history concerning the negotiations they held in 2008.  In an interview with the Washington Post in 2009, Abbas said that an agreement wasn’t reached because the differences between the two positions were too great.

On Sunday, he sounded completely different. “During Olmert’s time we had successes,” he remembered. “We didn’t reach an agreement, but we reached understandings on all of the core issues… I’m sure if there was more time, maybe two more months, we could have reached an agreement… he left, and when Netanyahu showed up, he denied the understandings, and decided to return to the beginning.”

The MKs and political activists urged Abbas to try and influence Israeli public opinion before the elections. “The peace process is not playing a central part in these elections and that’s a bad sign,” said MK Daniel Ben Simon (Labor).

Attorney Shimon Chazan, a veteran Likud persona from Holon, had his own idea. “I invite you into Israel,” he said to Abbas. “Come like Sadat, and speak to the people. You can have an influence.”

Ron Pundak, one of the architects of the Oslo agreements was more specific. “In November, there will be a memorial ceremony in Rabin Square. Come talk to the Israelis,” he proposed. Yossi Beilin joined in. “State that you are prepared to speak in the Knesset following the elections, “ Beilin said. “That could change everything. People will talk about it. Everyone will look forward to it.”

Abbas listened to the Israeli guests, but grew impatient as time went on. He lifted up a small booklet that was distributed to all of the attendees at the meeting, and proceeded to provide details on the Palestinian stances on every issue pertaining to the peace process. “What is unclear?” he asked, while waving the booklet in the air as anger, frustration, and doubt continued to mount. “Look at it. Netanyahu should look at it. Anything else, I can’t clear up. The ball is in the Israeli court. If you want two states, act accordingly,” said Abbas.

Five Gaza militants killed in air strikes: BBC

The deaths come amid a surge in cross-border violence between Israel and militants in Gaza

Four Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip at the weekend killed five militants, Palestinian officials say.

Two militants died and two other people were injured near Deir al-Balah on Sunday, ruling Hamas officials said.

Israel’s military said it had targeted a “terrorist rocket squad”.

On Saturday evening, an air strike killed the leader of a Gaza-based Salafist group and another militant in Jabalia and, a few hours later, another militant was killed in Khan Younis.

The Salafist leader killed in Jabalia, Hisham al-Saedni, was hit on a motorcycle. Israel said it was responding to a rocket attack on southern Israel.

Saedni, 43, is said to have headed the Mujahideen Shura Council.

On Friday, a rocket apparently fired by the same group landed in the courtyard of a residential building in the southern Israeli town of Netivot. No-one was injured.

There has been a flare-up in violence across the border recently, with Palestinian militant groups firing rockets into Israel and Israel carrying out a series of air strikes against targets across the Gaza Strip.

EDITOR: A new attempt at rewriting history

Israel has spent seven decades in rewriting the history of the Middle East, not content with having changed its course. The Mizrahi Jews, many who have been residents of Palestine for hundreds of years, and well integrated into the region, have not been amongst the adherents of political Zionism originally, which was a European phenomenon, historically based on the masses of Jewish proletarians living in Poland, Russia and some other East European countries. When in 1948 Israel finds itself in urgent need of labour and canon fodder after the war, great effort is being put into alienating Arab Jews living in the various Arab countries of the Middle East from their environments, so as get them to leave and immigrate to the newly-founded state. In this, all mans are thought to be fine, including throwing bombs into Jewish synagogues and meeting places, in order to frighten the Jewish community into leaving, such as was the case in Iraq, where Jews have lived for over 2500 years, well before the Arab conquest of the region. The most important religious and juridical creation of the diaspora – the Talmud – was written and finalised in what is today Iraq, after all, and Jews were in no hurry to leave Baghdad – they have been fully integrated into the society, and had actually formed the bulk of the Iraqi middle class, as well as its most progressive sections, such as the Iraqi communist party. This is a historical would still festering in Israel; after their arrival in Israel, the Jews from the Arab countries were incarcerated in transit camps (Ma’abarot) for decades, and have suffered systemic and rabid racism, including, in the case of the Yemenite Jews, the forced removal of their children, which were passed to adoptive Ashkenazi families. The ‘heritage’ of the period is still rife in Israel, with much frustration and anger very much alive in the Mizrahi communities across Israel, where the past suffering has produced the still current second-class citizenship of the so-called development towns. The leadership of Israel has been exclusively Ashkenazi, though the Mizrahi Jews are the majority within the Jewish citizens of Israel, a situation which continues to fire anger and foment dissatisfaction and disaffection in Israel. The power structure of the state is not built on class, historically, but on ethnicity, with Ashkenazis ruling the roost, the Arab Jews being the majority Jewish ethnicity coming well below them, then the Ethopian Falsha black community, with the Palestinian citizens of Israel (some 21% of the total) making the bottom rung. Obviously, the rest of the Palestinian people are people of no status whatsoever, without citizenship, standing, or human rights, or the protection of the law.

Instead of treating this community of Jews from the Arab countries as the potential bridge towards the Arab peoples around Israel, and thus building peace and reconciliation, they were treated as inferiors, and as partly belonging to the ‘hated enemy’, thus closing an important gateway into the future. Now it seems that rewriting history even further is necessary, in order to cover up the crimes of the past once again.

Israel campaign throws spotlight on Jewish refugees from Arab lands: BBC

By Yolande KnellBBC News, Jerusalem

After the creation of Israel in 1948, Jews from across the Arab world fled to the new state

At the edge of Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem, elderly men sit playing backgammon – or shesh besh as it is known locally – wearing looks of intense concentration.

It is a scene which can be found in coffee shops across the Middle East, such as in Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Iraq. In fact many of the men here are Jewish Israelis who originally came from those Arab countries.

“We stayed in Baghdad until 1951, when we moved to Israel,” Vardika Shabo says. “They hated the Jews in Iraq. They killed many of us in 1948. They took our belongings and burned our houses.”

“We left with nothing except our suitcases. No money. We left the house, my parents’ shops. Everything that we had, we left.”

Another man, Baruch Cohen, left Qamishli in North-Eastern Syria in 1963. He tells me he was 13 when his father led a group of 97 Jews out of the area. They left secretly to avoid unwanted attention and were helped across the border into Turkey.

From there safe passage to his new home was arranged by the Jewish Agency, a government body which brought Jews from the Diaspora to live in Israel.

“We were persecuted. The regime was very cruel to the Syrian Jews,” says Mr Cohen. “We escaped with just the clothes on our backs. It was like the exodus from Egypt in the Bible. We lost our lands and came here as refugees.”

Vardika Shabo came from Iraq over 60 years ago

According to Israeli government figures, 856,000 Jews fled Arab countries in four years after the state was created in 1948. Officials say they lost billions of dollars’ worth of property and assets.

A new government campaign aims to raise awareness of their plight. More controversially it aims to equate it with that of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who lost their homes in Israel. It insists that both cases are part of the same core issue that must be addressed by any future peace talks.

“The problem of refugees is probably the most thorny and painful one. Everyone agrees without solving this we won’t be able to achieve true peace nor normalisation in the Middle East,” says Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.

“We have to, ahead of time, understand that refugees are not only on one side of the border but both sides. There are Arab refugees and there are also Jewish refugees and we should use the same yardstick for them all.”

Mr Ayalon spoke at the first special conference on the issue at the UN headquarters in New York last week. He suggests that an international fund could be set up to deliver compensation for both sets of individuals.

‘I am a Refugee’

Palestinian leaders though are angry at the “I am a Refugee” campaign, which they see as an Israeli attempt to create a new obstacle for any future peace efforts.

“This is not an issue in the negotiations that we agreed on with them – they include Palestinian refugees, Jerusalem, borders, settlements, water and security,” says chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat.

“They continue loading issues to the overloaded wagon of complexities in order not to have a solution.”

He suggests Israel’s timing is designed to coincide with the latest plans to ask for the UN General Assembly to admit Palestine as a non-member state. This will enable the Palestinian leadership to pursue Israel through the international courts.

“These people are destroying the two-state solution and that is why we are going to the UN in order to preserve it,” Mr Erekat says.

The refugee issue has proved so difficult that it was put off by the two sides to be tackled as part of any eventual final status discussions under the Oslo Accords in 1993.

It has been a key Palestinian grievance since 1948. Palestinians argue that their “right to return” is enshrined in UN resolution 194 passed that year, which states that “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date”.

Israel says that such a move would obliterate the country’s Jewish majority.

Painful memories

While Jews from Arab countries are now naturalised citizens of Israel, many Palestinian refugees remain in camps; most are in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

At al-Jalazun refugee camp on a rocky hillside near Ramallah in the West Bank, 86-year-old Ahmed Safi lives with his family in a small, overcrowded house. His grandchildren have just arrived home from the local school run by the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.

Um Hazem holds up the keys she says belonged to her original home in present-day Israel

“We had a huge house in Beit Nabala in Ramla [in present-day Israel],” Mr Safi says. “All the family lived there. Our life was very nice. We had work and a good income, but when we left we couldn’t take anything with us because we were scared and we left in a hurry.”

His wife, Umm Hazem jangles some large keys, which she sees as symbols of her right to return.

“You see these? I grabbed them from the cupboard and took them with me. I couldn’t take anything else as I had my new baby in my arms,” she says.

“We want our home back. Even if they came and filled this house with money, it would never compensate. I miss our house in Beit Nabala. The Jews destroyed it but the land is still there, we are still here. We know it’s our home, it’s our country and there’s no place like home.”

Analysts warn that the latest moves by Israel, to place the Jewish refugee issue firmly on the agenda, and by the Palestinians to change their UN status are likely to further delay any resumption of peace talks, which stalled nearly two years ago.

EDITOR: Racism rules!

Even the Israeli government had to admit that its own treatment of the African migrants was inhuman, but this will not change the way they are treated, of course…

Continue reading October 15, 2012

Meron Benvenisti was my first editor. At the beginning of the 1980s, Ariel Sharon established more than 100 settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. At the beginning of the 1980s, Meron Benvenisti founded a Jerusalem-based information center to monitor the settlements Sharon established. At the beginning of the 1980s, I was a very young, very enthusiastic young volunteer in Peace Now, which thought ‏(rightly‏) that the settlements Sharon was establishing and that Benvenisti was monitoring were going to lead Israel to perdition. Thus I found myself working for the tempestuous Meron.

In a small apartment on the edge of Jerusalem’s Rehavia neighborhood, he would roar in a booming voice while I documented every new settlement in the territories, every new road in the territories, every industrial zone. He would shout and rant while I noted a land expropriation and another land expropriation and yet another land expropriation. The country’s leading journalists came and went. And the leading American journalists came and went and foreign embassies requested information, whose compilation was funded ‏(barely‏) by foreign foundations. But after the melee subsided, I cast my gaze on the man who caused a media storm by claiming that the occupation was irreversible. An overgrown boy, I said to myself. An overgrown − and delightful − boy.

He was born in 1934 in Jerusalem, went to a kibbutz ‏(Rosh Hanikra‏) for self-fulfillment and left the kibbutz. He studied at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem ‏(history of the Crusades‏), and left the Hebrew University. He joined Teddy Kollek ‏(Tourism Ministry, Jerusalem Municipality‏), and left Teddy Kollek. After he ceased to be deputy mayor of the city and after failing to enter the Knesset, he went to Harvard and earned a Ph.D. in conflict management and founded the West Bank Data Base Project in Jerusalem, to document the establishment of the settlements. Betwixt and between, Benvenisti wrote books about the Crusaders, about Jerusalem, about the conflict and about cemeteries. For 18 years he wrote a column in this newspaper. He now divides his time between Caesarea and the city in which he was born, where he will be buried and for which he grieves.

I plead guilty to having a weakness for Meron. I love his volcanic temperament and I love his authenticity and his unbearability. I love his sabra quality and his earthiness, and I love the intensity of his tragic romanticism. Benvenisti is not only an out-of-the-box person; he is an out-of-the-system, out-of-the-mold, out-of-every-convention person. Being irresponsible, immature and unrestrained, he does not feel a commitment to any solution or any stream of thought. Being all chutzpah and provocation and quarrelsomeness, he does not belong to any group. But it’s precisely that lone-wolf intellectual wildness that makes him so fascinating. Serious and not serious, logical and illogical, Meron Benvenisti contains within him all the contradictions and all the vicissitudes and all the irreconcilables of the land with which he is engaged in a relentless wrestling match.

It has been 10 years since we last met. The man who opens the door for me is older and less healthy than the man I knew. After two major heart operations, he is thinner, softer and a bit more conciliatory. When I enter, he does not tell me what he thinks about my articles and my path and my worldview. Instead, he gives me a gift: a short letter written in a refined hand that my mother’s aunt wrote to his father in the village of Zichron Yaakov 92 years ago. Surprisingly, this delicate letter is what opens the subversive autobiography ‏(“The Dream of the White Sabra,” 2012, Hebrew‏) of the subversive Zionist I have come to listen to. Because, when all is said and done, what’s important for this subversive Zionist to say is that he is from here. From within. From this land. From the guts of the story against which he rails.

***

What is it you are saying, Meron? That we are South Africa? That we are white settlers like the Boers and are suppressing the natives like the Boers and that we are doomed to collapse like the Boers?

The comparison to South Africa is wrongheaded, simplistic and dangerous. There was something there which does not exist here: biological racism. The whites there were only 17 percent, and the blacks 83 percent. But on the other hand, the whites and the blacks shared the same religion and lived with one another and the blacks were not expelled. So, I do not accept the allegation that Israel is an apartheid state. Even what is happening in the territories is not exactly apartheid. But what is taking shape here is no less grave. This is a master-nation democracy; in German, a “Herrenvolk democracy.” We are a country that behaves like a full-blooded democracy, but we have a group of serfs − the Arabs − to whom we do not apply democracy. The result is a situation of extreme inequality.

There is a society here of settlers who dispossess others by seizing their place and pushing them out and creating a unilateral power system of migrant rule. That system cannot survive. Ultimately, the good Israelis will not be able to sustain the tension between their liberal values and the brutality of the reality amid which they live. They will leave. They are already starting to leave. Therefore, what’s needed is a transition to a different paradigm. The Jewish nation-state is doomed. It will implode. In the end, the only way to live here will be to create an equality of respect between us and the Palestinians. To recognize the fact that there are two national communities here which love this land and whose obligation is to channel the unavoidable conflict between them into a process of dialogue for life together.

Just a minute. You are saying more than I can take in. I have no argument with you about the settlements and the settlers. But that is exactly why the solution of two states for two nations was devised. That is exactly the reason that the majority of Israelis are ready for a partition solution. It will take time, it will be hard, but in the end we will have a Jewish-democratic nation-state here and they will have a Palestinian nation-state there. That is the way, it is the only way.

It is time for you and your friends in Tel Aviv to understand: it is impossible to divide this land. Impossible. You cannot tell the Arabs to forget about Jaffa and Acre. They will not forget. And you cannot get any Palestinian to sign off on “the end of the conflict.” They will not sign. And the Green Line, which was the great alibi of the left, no longer exists. The Green Line is dead. The separation fence: that is truly apartheid. Separation is apartheid. Tel Avivans don’t want to understand this, but the Land of Israel is whole. It is a single geopolitical unit. It follows that the partition of the land is impossible. It is as impossible geographically and physically as it is psychologically. What’s impossible is the solution you are proposing. Even in Spain and Canada and Belgium, the binational structures are breaking up and falling apart. So, do you expect that in the Middle East, of all places, the Jewish fanatics and the Palestinian fanatics will be able to live under one roof?

You’re dreaming, Meron. You are more divorced from reality than any Tel Aviv leftie.

First of all, I am not proposing solutions. That is not my job. I am saying that the dominant paradigm is a lie, and I am fighting it. I am proposing an alternative paradigm of equality with honor. I am bringing a different terminology and a different way of looking at reality; because the “villa in the jungle” approach won’t work. If you bring about a coerced and unjust division, you will end up with a Palestinian state that is crippled, hurting and angry, which will turn violent. The right wing is correct about that. You saw what happened in Gaza. The disengagement solved nothing and brought Hamas to power. And in the future, you are liable to get something worse than Hamas in the West Bank. That is why division is not a solution to the problem − it is an exacerbation of the problem. It’s true that the Middle East is not a comfortable place. But you came to live in the Middle East. So, what will you say now: “Sorry, it was a mistake, so pack your bags and leave”?

I am not about to pack my bags and leave. I do not have a foreign passport and I will not have one. I am a native son. I am native-born. I am from here. That is why I know that two national communities emerged in this land, both of which are an integral part of it. There are two national communities here that live together in the same place, one within the other. In this situation, partition is not an option. There was a time when it was possible, but no longer. This country is a shared land, a single homeland.

Fine, I get it. Now let’s go back. To the bedrock. Was Zionism born in sin?

Zionism was not born in sin, but in illusion. The illusion was that we are coming to a land in which there are no Arabs. And when we figured it out, we pulverized the country’s Arabs into five different groups: the Arabs of Israel, the Arabs of Gaza, the Arabs of the West Bank, the Arabs of Jerusalem and the refugee Arabs. We succeeded in creating a divide-and-rule system that made it possible for us to rule them and to preserve hegemonic power between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.

I do not want to say that Zionism is racist, but a constellation of traits developed here that is generally identified with racism, albeit without the biological element. We are imbued with a combination of hatred for the goy, which we inherited from our forebears, and hatred for the other whom we encountered here. The result is what we see today. Among a large segment of the public, there is an element of racism vis-a-vis the Arabs, but I would not categorize us all as racists. I would say that what characterizes us collectively is ethnic hatred, ethnic recoil, ethnic contempt and ethnic patronizing. Instead of progress, Zionism brought reaction. It became a movement of dispossession based on nonuniversal, non-egalitarian values.

When did this deviation by Zionism occur − in 1967 or in 1948?

In June 1948. How so? Because that was when state institutions were created here that were supposed to operate according to universal values. That was the moment at which the Zionist revolution was supposed to stop behaving by means of revolutionary force and bring into being a normal Western state. But [David] Ben-Gurion, who until that moment was the head of an ethnic group, did not internalize the fact that he was no longer the head of an ethnic group. He transformed the nascent state into the continuer of the ethnic struggle. Thus, the Arabs who remained within the boundaries of the state were immediately subjected to ethnic discrimination. Discrimination was institutionalized by means of the Military Government, land expropriations, budgetary inequality and the continued existence of organizations such as the Jewish National Fund and the Jewish Agency, which served only Jews.

But in 1967, that distorted situation, which was implicit in the state, underwent a quantum leap. Now it was no longer the Judaization of Galilee but the implementation of a wild policy of dispossession across the Green Line. Seizure of land, settlements, bypass roads: the creation of a declared situation of one law for Jews and another law for Palestinians. Oslo was a purported attempt to stop the rampant situation. There was mutual recognition between the nations, which is important. But in practice, it turned out that it was not Yossi Beilin who shaped the process but those who saw in Oslo an opportunity to continue the occupation indirectly and conveniently. Thus, a neocolonialist situation was created in the territories. We enjoy maintaining a captive market there which enriches us all.

At present we are talking about 350,000 settlers; or, if you also take Jerusalem into account, 550,000 settlers. So, everyone now understands what I said 30 years ago: it is irreversible. Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni can say whatever they like − it is irreversible. There is no way out of this mess.

Zionism, which did not undergo a metamorphosis in 1948 and did not desist in 1967, became a kind of revolution-in-progress and thereby became like the other revolutions-in-progress of the 20th century. It forged a situation that a liberal democrat cannot live with and cannot accept. This is a situation that cannot endure indefinitely.

I will tell you where you differ from the Zionist left. For most of us, the key concept is the “State of Israel.” As we see it, the Zionist enterprise was intended to bring into being a place where the Jewish people would constitute the majority and enjoy sovereignty. If there is no majority, there is no sovereignty and no democratic-Jewish state; there is no point to all this. It’s more convenient to live as a minority in Manhattan. But for you the basic concept is the “Land of Israel.” In that sense, you resemble the right wing and the Palestinians. You have a soil fetish. You come from the soil and you live the soil and you speak in the name of the soil.

It’s true that I live the story of the soil. I live the whole land and I am mindful of all the people who live here. That is how I know that the land cannot tolerate partition. And I know the land is hurting. The land is angry. After all, what two great monuments have we built here in the past decade? One is the separation fence and the other is [architect Moshe] Safdie’s terminal at Ben-Gurion Airport. The two monuments have something in common: they are intended to allow us to live here as though we are not here. They were built so that we would not see the land and not see the Palestinians, and live as though we are connected to the tail end of Italy. But I see all the fruit groves that were demolished in order to build the fence. I hear the hills that were sliced in two in order to build the fence. The heart weeps. The heart weeps in the name of the soil. For me, the soil is a living being. And I see how this conflict has tortured the soil, the homeland. I grieve for the torments of the homeland.

For years, we built against the Arabs. We dried the Hula Valley and we wrecked Jerusalem and we tore apart Judea and Samaria. But afterward, the Arabs started to build against us. They are no better than we are. We raped the soil and they raped the soil, and now the soil is violated. But I know that in the end it will be the soil that laughs at us: because we cannot exist without it and it cannot exist without us.

In the past, there were so many nations that thought they had succeeded in wresting control of the land. None of those nations was willing to share the land; they wanted the land for themselves and tried to seize it the way you seize a mare. But that noble untamed stallion shook them all off. The point is that if you want to live here, you cannot live alone and you cannot live without listening to the soil. You need to know that the soil breathes and the soil remembers. If you do not understand that, you are not truly a native son. Not truly a native. Your place is not here.

Now we have reached the heart of the matter: nativism. You have a nativist obsession, Meron. And I must tell you that there is something dangerous about your worship of the soil and your admiration for the natives, something undemocratic and illiberal and unenlightened. Why this contempt for migrants? What is the justification for rejecting those who seek a haven here? I discern in you a hidden preference for the Palestinian story over the Israeli story because you are enthralled by the fact that the Palestinians are natives here.

I am drawn to the Arabs. I love their culture, their language, their approach to the land. Our love of the land is an acquired love. Look at the heritage project of [Education Minister] Gideon Sa’ar and [cabinet secretary] Zvika Hauser: it is kitsch. First we defined some sort of theoretical Land of Israel and then we fell in love with the concept, and then we destroyed everything that did not fit the concept. We destroyed the Palestinian landscape, dug to find the remnants of Herod and King David in order to justify our existence, and we came up with a landscape of asphalt and malls that even we do not like. “Man is a tree in the field” − that is not us. Our love of the land is a love that we imposed on the land and foisted on the land. With the Arabs, it is the opposite. Their love for the land truly sprang from the soil. Love of the fig, of the tree, of the house.

It’s true that we have managed to mess them up, too. They are doing terrible things in Ramallah. But I love their love of the homeland. I love what [Palestinian national poet] Mahmoud Darwish writes about it and what [Israeli writer] S. Yizhar writes about it. I see a great closeness between Darwish and Yizhar. And I believe in a future in which the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Darwish and Yizhar live together. Because, as Yizhar wrote: Deep down, the soil does not forget. Only those who are capable of listening to the unforgetting silence of this tormented soil, from which everyone begins and to which everyone returns, Jews and Arabs, has the right to call it homeland. I believe in that with all my heart. In my perception, anyone who does not believe it is not a Zionist.

After everything you have said here, about the masters and the dispossessors and the suppressors, do you still consider yourself a Zionist? Is there such a thing as a Zionist who is against the Jewish nation-state? Is there such a thing as a Zionist who is in favor of a binational state?

Look, despite everything, Zionism is a success. It created a Jewish national community here that is alive and kicking. It forged a Jewish-Israeli nation that was not here. That’s why everyone wants to be a Zionist − to be part of the success. And I will not give all kinds of Revisionists and Likudniks the pleasure of saying that they are Zionists and I am not. In my view, the Revisionists and the Likudniks are good only in verbiage. They’re all talk. Look at this prime minister: All he knows how to do is spout verbiage. To go to the United Nations and speak excellent English and show some ridiculous drawing. In this matter he is totally his father’s son. With them it’s all verbiage. With them there is no coping with real life. And it disturbs me deeply that these Likudniks were able to transform the tremendous project of the working Land of Israel into something flawed. Because, despite all my criticism, I am very proud of my kibbutz past. I am very proud of the United Kibbutz Movement and of socialism, and of everything we succeeded in doing. I am thrilled to hear the “Internationale” and to sing the “Internationale.” What were the Revisionists, after all? A few thousand breakaways who purport to claim that they expelled the British. The only thing they were good at is talk. Only talk.

And it’s the same with the Mizrahim [Jews of Middle Eastern or North African descent]. I do not accept all this Mizrahi whining. Because, what would the Mizrahim have done if we had not been here to take them in? What would they be worth? What would have happened to them if we had not created the Israeliness to which they connected and turned into some sort of cartoon? If it had not been for us, the Mizrahim would have remained a potpourri of migrant cultures. True, we made plenty of mistakes. But we made a heroic decision to take them all in. And by that decision we effectively committed suicide. Our Hebrew-Israeli culture dissolved under the flood of immigration. That is why we now have Likud governments and constantly hear Mizrahi whining. But I do not accept either the one or the other. I am proud of being a white sabra. And I will not allow anyone to expel me from the Zionist camp. I am one of the founders of this place. I am from the Zionist Mayflower. I will not allow anyone to treat me as a non-Zionist.

So, on the one hand you are a Zionist, but on the other hand you want full justice and full equality for the Palestinians. How does that work in the real world? Do you evacuate settlements or not? Do you take in refugees or not? Do you accept the right of return or reject it?

The settlements are of no interest to me. Lawbreakers should be expelled. The rule that should be applied in Judea and Samaria is full equality between the Jewish settlers and the Palestinians. After 45 years it is no longer possible to hide behind the term “military occupation.” There is no such thing as military occupation that is not temporary. But in the same degree that the settlers live there, the Arabs have to return to their villages here. There are 140 Palestinian villages inside the State of Israel on which no communities were built but were turned into nature reserves and national parks. Some of them, at least, can be rebuilt. The people of Ikrit and [Kafr] Bir’im [in Upper Galilee] have to be allowed to return to their lands. There is no justification for Kibbutz Baram to occupy so much pastureland. The Palestinians have to be allowed to pray in the abandoned mosques. And every time people make billions from lands that belonged to Arabs, a certain percentage should go for the refugees. The Palestinians should be given a share of the profits that are raked in when all those huge malls are built on lands of kibbutzim and moshavim [cooperative villages]. And certainly the quarter of a million “present absentees” who live in Israel should be given their rights: to build a home, be hooked up to the power grid, not to have to live in “unrecognized villages.”

Don’t be so frightened of the Palestinian villages and mosques that I am talking about. There is no cause for the demographic fear. Most of the refugees don’t even want to return. We need to break down the highly charged question of the right of return into a series of acts of conciliation that address the trauma and move toward some sort of more equitable arrangement. I do not believe that it will be possible to live in one state according to the principle of one person-one vote. If so, the side that gets a majority will exploit its majority to seize the power centers and suppress the other side. We need to find a structure that will not be either a Jewish nation-state or a Palestinian nation-state, but a shared framework in which the two nations will go on squabbling − but on a foundation of equality. A foundation that consists of my acknowledgment of their story and their acknowledgment of my story, with an attempt to find some sort of reasonable balance between the two.

When did all this happen to you? After all, your father was one of the first of the Zionist educators who taught local geography [in Hebrew: “knowledge of the land”] and preached love of the land. You were a student leader of Mapai, the ruling party at the time and the forerunner of today’s Labor Party. The deputy of Teddy Kollek and one of the unifiers of Jerusalem. When did you suddenly cut yourself off from the umbilical cord of the Zionist establishment and become an anomalous figure who promotes weird ideas that infuriate both the right and the left?

The subtitle of my book is “An autobiography of disillusionment.” And that is exactly what it is. I went through an interesting process. My father wanted me to be one of the cornerstones of this country. He wanted the small soles of the feet of his son to touch this soil and no other. He tried to forge in me − and in many thousands of others whom he taught − a feeling of absolute belonging to the Land of Israel. And he succeeded. That is why I went to Kibbutz Rosh Hanikra in the 1950s and experienced the transcendent feeling of working in the banana groves − without noticing that in order to plant the banana trees, I was uprooting olive trees, thousands of years old, of a Palestinian village. That is why in the 1960s I bribed Arabs to remove hundreds of graves from the Muslim cemetery on the Tel Aviv shore so that it would be possible to clear the land on which the Hilton now stands. After the Six-Day War, I was with Teddy [Kollek] and “Chich” [Maj. Gen. Shlomo Lahat, afterward mayor of Tel Aviv] when we decided together to remove the 106 families of the Mughrabi neighborhood to create the large plaza of the Western Wall. I remember to this day the bulldozers and the clouds of dust that rose into the air and the old woman who was buried under one of the houses.

In all those cases and during that whole period I was a go-getter. I did not understand the meaning of what I was doing. But when I started to deal with the Arabs of East Jerusalem, I began to understand. I saw that the problem is not only the individual rights of the Palestinians but also their collective rights. And when I monitored what Arik Sharon was doing when he established 120 settlements in the West Bank, I suddenly realized that it’s irreversible. Finished. The Green Line is finished and the hope of a Jewish state here is finished. After all, the notion of a “Jewish-democratic state” is an oxymoron, and the two-state solution is no solution. And the terms the left uses − “peace,” “occupation,” “Green Line” − are lying, stock phrases. Their only purpose is to give Israeli liberals the good feeling that they are not responsible for the injustice and the dispossession and the terrible deeds their country is doing. I decided that I was no longer going to take part in that fraud. I would not take part in the left’s conceptual [population] transfer. I am not David Grossman of “The Yellow Wind,” who went to describe the occupation in the West Bank like some Captain Cook describing the life of the natives in some remote country. I am not Ze’ev Sternhell, who is constantly waiting for the arrival of some deus ex machina by the name of Barack Obama to force on Israel a peace that will not happen.

The fact is that, in the end, because my father so much wanted me to be a native, I am truly a native. And as a native, I see all the natives who live here − both the Israeli natives and the Palestinian natives. I am not afraid of them and do not flinch from them and do not patronize them. I believe that there is a possibility that they will find some imperfect way to live in the one common homeland.

Strangely, you are less pessimistic than many of the left-wing veterans. You, of all people, are not saying that the country is finished and all is lost. Do you feel that your generation succeeded or failed?

My generation both succeeded and failed. Mostly failed. Look, I belong to the population group that was here in 1948 − people who were 6 years old or more before the state’s establishment, and who were therefore shaped by prestate Zionism. Now I am an extinct species. But when you look back, you see that we played a tremendous part in forging this society and this national community. At the same time, you see that we lost all the wars we fought. We lost the war of creating a new person and creating a new culture and creating a new society. All in all, it came out pretty crappy for us. Everything was debased. And we, because of our bourgeois way of life, let the other forces take over in Israel and vanquish us. And the reason they vanquished us is that they were more steadfast in their goal and we were more pampered.

Living in Jerusalem today, I live in a bubble. Jerusalem outside my bubble is a city that has disintegrated completely. It is on its last legs. It does not exist. And it is too painful for me to see that. When I travel around the country today, I don’t understand exactly what is happening. Everything is different. Not what we wanted it to be; not something I can understand.

But all of that pales in the face of our huge achievement in establishing a Jewish-Israeli national community here which, despite everything, is alive and kicking. That is why I do not accept the whining of the Mizrahim and I also do not accept the white whining of the veteran Israelis.

It was not by chance that I titled my autobiography “The Dream of the White Sabra.” As the white sabra, I am not ashamed of anything. I made mistakes and I admit the mistakes, but in the end I am proud to be a son of the founding fathers. I of all people feel myself to be a Zionist. Sometimes it even seems to me that I am the last Zionist.

A video shot last week and uploaded to Youtube in recent days shows an Israeli policeman punching an East Jerusalem resident in the face, despite the latter being handcuffed and lying on the ground.

Police arrested Hassan Afifi on suspicion of hurling rocks and assaulting security officers after Friday prayers last week at the Temple Mount compound. In the video, shot by a passerby,  two policemen are seen apprehending Afifi and handcuffing him. Then, one of the policemen punches Afifi in the face.  A short time beforehand, one of the officers is seen in the video demanding that the camera be turned off.

Since it was posted on Youtube three days ago, the video has already been watched nearly 90,000 times.

The incident took place after a tense week at the Temple Mount, during which more than 20 Muslim Jerusalem residents were arrested on suspicion of disturbing the peace, throwing rocks and attacking policemen.

Following his arrest, Afifi was taken in for interrogation and released on Tuesday after posting bail. Palestinian news sites carried pictures of Afifi after his release, which show that his face is bruised and his eyes are swollen.

The police said the matter is under investigation.

Raja Shehadeh: ‘Every aspect of Palestinian life is affected by the occupation’ – video: Guardian

EDITOR: Standing up and being counted

While most Israeli academics have shamefully kept their silence about the McArthyte actions of the CHE (Council for Higher Education) in Israel, in its haste to close down the BGU department of Politics and Government, there is a small but significant minority who have signed a petition distancing themselves from the CHE action.

PROTECT ACADEMIC FREEDOM | שמרו על החופש האקדמי

1,101 signatures

Opened on September 22, 2012

עברית אחרי אנגלית(Hebrew follows the English text)

We, faculty members of academic institutions worldwide, express our deepest concern regarding the latest events vis-à-vis the Department of Politics and Government at Ben Gurion University, including the decision of the Evaluation Committee of the Council for Higher Education (CHE) to close the department to student registration, the practical implication of which is the department’s closure. We feel that academic freedom in Israel’s higher education system is under severe attack, and that the closure of this department is the first case, but certainly not the last – unless this current trend is stopped.

This small department at Ben Gurion University has become a target of ultra right-wing groups such as “Im Tirtzu”, due to the personal political opinions of some of the department’s members. The distinguished CHE Evaluation Committee recently proposed a series of changes to the department, primarily to strengthen the core areas of Political Science within the curriculum and to encourage the recruitment of new staff in these areas. Already within the original report of the Committee Prof. Galia Golan, who wrote the report’s “minority opinion,” expressed her concern with regard to the report’s demand for “balance”, as it may harm the academic freedom of the faculty members.  Nevertheless, the department has gone to great lengths to meet the Committee’s requirements. Following the changes made by the department, the Committee expressed its satisfaction at the changes and even proposed that, in light of these changes, the subject of closing down the department’s registration should be removed from the agenda.

It is therefore extremely surprising that the CHE’s Subcommittee for Quality Assurance is now recommending that new steps be taken that will lead to the effective closure of the department. This latest proposal implies that the goal – to close the department – was marked in advance, without regard to any academic problems; the means of so doing were determined later-on.

As far as we know, there exists no precedence for the CHE’s closing of an academic department. Rigorous assessment of the current situation reveals that there is no real basis for taking such a step in the case of the Department of Politics and Government at Ben Gurion University.

We call on the Council for Higher Education to reject the proposals of the Subcommittee for Quality Assurance, and to provide the department with the appropriate means to continue in its growth and development.

http://isacademyunderattack.wordpress.com/

אנו, חברות וחברי סגל במוסדות אקדמיים מכל רחבי הארץ, מבקשים להביע את דאגתנו העמוקה מהאירועים האחרונים בעניינה של המחלקה לפוליטיקה וממשל באוניברסיטת בן גוריון, כולל הצעת ההחלטה של ועדת הערכה של המועצה להשכלה גבוהה (מל”ג) לסגור את המחלקה לרישום סטודנטים, שפרושה בפועל סגירת המחלקה. אנו חשים שהחופש האקדמי של מערכת ההשכלה הגבוהה בישראל נמצא תחת מתקפה קשה, וכי סגירת מחלקה זו מהווה מקרה ראשון, אך ודאי לא אחרון, אלא אם כן תיעצר המגמה העכשווית.

מחלקה קטנה זו באוניברסיטת בן גוריון הפכה למטרה לארגוני ימין קיצוני כמו “אם תרצו”, עקב הדעות הפוליטיות הפרטיות של כמה מחבריה. ועדת הערכה מכובדת של המל”ג הציעה לאחרונה סדרה של שינויים במחלקה, בעיקר כדי לחזק את תחומי הליבה של מדע המדינה בתכנית הלימודים ולעודד גיוס חברי סגל חדשים בתחומים אלו. כבר בדו”ח המקורי של הועדה ניתן למצוא “דעת מיעוט” שנכתבה על ידי פרופסור גליה גולן, ובה היא מביעה את דאגתה מהדרישה ל”איזון” העלולה לפגוע בחופש האקדמי של חברי המחלקה, העומד בבסיסה של כל פעילות מדעית. אף על פי כן, המחלקה והאוניברסיטה השקיעו אנרגיה רבה כדי לעמוד בדרישות הועדה. בעקבות השינויים שעשתה המחלקה הביעה הועדה המלווה את שביעות רצונה מהשינויים ואפילו הציעה שלאור שינויים אלה יש להסיר את נושא סגירת הרישום למחלקה מעל סדר היום.
מפתיע על כן מאד שועדת המשנה להבטחת איכות של המל”ג ממליצה כעת על צעדים חדשים שיובילו אפקטיבית לסגירת המחלקה. ההמלצות החדשות מרמזות שהמטרה -לסגור את המחלקה- סומנה מראש, ללא קשר לכל בעיה אקדמית וכי האמצעים נבחרו לאחר מכן.
ככל הידוע לנו, אין תקדים לסגירת מחלקה אקדמית על ידי מל”ג. הערכה קפדנית של המצב הנוכחי מלמדת שגם אין בסיס אמיתי לנקיטת צעד כזה במקרה של המחלקה לפוליטיקה וממשל באוניברסיטת בן גוריון.
אנו קוראים לכן למל”ג לדחות את ההצעות של ועדת המשנה להבטחת איכות, ולתת למחלקה את האמצעים המתאימים להמשיך בהתפתחותה.

http://academyunderattack.wordpress.com/

Israel was still investigating Saturday’s incident, but Hezbollah quickly emerged as the leading suspect because it has an arsenal of sophisticated Iranian weapons and a history of trying to deploy similar aircraft.

The Israeli military said the drone approached Israel’s southern Mediterranean coast and flew deep into Israeli airspace before warplanes shot it down about 20 minutes later. Israeli news reports said the drone was not carrying explosives and appeared to be on a reconnaissance mission.

Military officials would not say where the drone originated or who produced it, but they ruled out the Gaza Strip, which is ruled by Hamas, a group not known to possess drones. That left Hezbollah as the most likely culprit and suggested the drone may have flown with the blessing of Iran. Tensions are high between Israel and Iran over Tehran’s suspect nuclear program.

“It is an Iranian drone that was launched by Hezbollah,” Israeli lawmaker Miri Regev, a former chief spokeswoman for the Israeli military, wrote on her Twitter feed. “Hezbollah and Iran continue to try to collect information in every possible way in order to harm Israel.”

She did not offer any further evidence and was not immediately available for comment.

Hezbollah officials would not comment on speculation that the group had launched the drone.

Israeli media published maps based on military “estimates” that claimed to show the route taken by the drone. The maps said the aircraft took off south of the Lebanese coastal city of Sidon, headed south and then turned east over the Gaza Strip and into Israel. Some Israeli reports also claimed the drone was made in Iran.

The Israeli military said it began tracking the aircraft over the Mediterranean but waited until it was over an empty, desert area to bring it down in order to avoid casualties on the ground.

Sunday’s Israeli air raids, buzzing over pro-Hezbollah villages in southern Lebanon, appeared to be aimed at reminding the guerrilla group of Israel’s air superiority.

At times of heightened tensions, the Israeli air force often carries out mock raids over Lebanese territory. Israel has U.S.-made F-15 and F-16 warplanes, but it was not clear exactly what type of planes were flown Sunday.

Lebanon’s national news agency said the planes flew low over the market town of Nabatiyeh and nearby villages.

With a formidable arsenal that rivals that of the Lebanese army, Hezbollah is already under pressure in Lebanon from rivals who accuse it of putting Lebanon at risk of getting sucked into regional turmoil. Confirmation that Hezbollah was behind the drone would put the group under further strain internally.

Hezbollah, a powerful Shiite group committed to Israel’s destruction, has long served as an Iranian proxy along Israel’s northern border. The two sides fought a brutal, month-long war in mid-2006. Hundreds of people were killed, and Hezbollah fired several thousand rockets and missiles into Israel before the conflict ended in a stalemate.

Hezbollah has attempted to send unmanned aerial vehicles into Israel on several occasions dating back to 2004. Its leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, has claimed that the group’s pilotless aircraft were capable of carrying explosives and striking deep into Israel. The last known attempt by Hezbollah to use a drone took place during the 2006 war, when Israel shot down an Iranian-made pilotless aircraft that entered Israeli airspace.

Since the fighting ended, the sides have been locked in a covert battle against one another.

“The war between Hezbollah and Israel was not extinguished at any moment, be it in the media or at the intelligence level,” said Ibrahim Bayram, an expert on Shiite affairs who often writes about Hezbollah for Lebanon’s An-Nahar newspaper.

“Israel is always trying to breach Hezbollah’s security and in return Hezbollah is also working day and night to breach Israel’s security,” he added.

Hezbollah has accused Israel of assassinating a top Hezbollah operative in 2008 in Syria. The group and Lebanese officials say they have broken up several Israeli spy rings inside Lebanon over the past few years.

Israel, meanwhile, believes Hezbollah, with Iranian backing, is behind a string of attempted attacks on Israeli diplomatic targets in India, Thailand and the former Soviet republic of Georgia, plus a deadly bombing earlier this year that killed five Israeli tourists in a Bulgarian resort. Last week, Israel announced the arrest of an Arab citizen it accused of spying for Hezbollah, the latest in a string of such cases.

Many speculated that the aircraft was trying to gather intelligence on Israel’s secretive nuclear reactor in the southern desert town of Dimona. Foreign experts believe the facility houses an arsenal of nuclear weapons, a claim that Israel neither confirms nor denies.

“It’s quite a long distance, indicating a high level of sophistication,” said Shlomo Brom, a retired Israeli general who is now an analyst at the Institute for National Security Studies, an Israeli think tank.

The drone flight also came against the broader backdrop of rising tensions between Israel and Iran.

Israel accuses Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons, which it believes would threaten its existence, given the repeated calls by Iranian leaders for the destruction of Israel. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

Israeli leaders have repeatedly held out the possibility of attacking Iranian nuclear facilities if they conclude that international sanctions and diplomacy have failed to curb the Iranian program.

Iran, in turn, has threatened to retaliate if it is attacked, raising the possibility of Hezbollah unleashing more rockets and missiles into Israel.  Hezbollah has not said how it will react to an Israeli attack on its benefactor.

Iran recently claimed it now has drones capable of carrying missiles as far as 2,000 kilometers, or 1,250 miles, putting much of the Middle East, including Israel, within distance. The aircraft appeared to be similar to the American RQ-170 Sentinel, one of which went down in Iranian territory last year. Iran said it was building a copy of the RQ-170 in April.

Iran frequently makes announcements about its strides in military technology, but it is virtually impossible to independently determine the capabilities of its weapons.

Yiftah Shapir, another analyst at the INSS, said Saturday’s incident may have been meant as a warning to Israel. “The drone could be a message that they have the capability to pull this off, and do so perhaps with weapons,” he said.

He said Israel likely allowed the drone to fly so far into its airspace, instead of shooting it over the sea, in order to analyze its capabilities before taking it down.

Palestinians: One man killed in IAF strike on Gaza: Haaretz

IDF says it targeted 2 Gaza members of an al-Qaida-inspired group identified as having been involved in rocket attacks and an infiltration from Egypt.

Members of Palestinian armed factions stand guard during a news conference held to mark the second anniversary of Israel’s three-week offensive in Gaza, in Gaza City December 27, 2010. Photo by Reuters

Israel’s military says it has fired on two Gaza members of an al-Qaida-inspired group identified as having been involved in rocket attacks and an infiltration from Egypt.

Palestinians say one man was killed.

The military said they were involved in “extensive terrorist activity,” including an attack in June where two gunmen crossed into Israel from the Sinai desert and killed a civilian.

Israel did not say whether it hit the two. Ashraf al-Kidra, a Palestinian health official in Gaza said one man was killed and another injured Sunday when their motorcycle was hit by aircraft in the south of the Hamas-controlled territory.

Israel and Hamas have mostly kept an unwritten truce since a short war over three years ago. Attacks have persisted but at a much lower rate.

Last month, the IAF killed two Palestinian militants and seriously wounded another in the Gaza Strip. The dead were members of the extremist group Islamic Jihad, said Ashraf al-Qedra, spokesman for Gaza’s Health Ministry.
They were riding in a car in the city of Rafah near the border with Egypt when their vehicle was struck by two rockets, al-Qedra said.

Diamonds from Africa, ginger from the settlements: Haaretz

By opposing the marking of products from the settlements, Jerusalem is telling European consumers they should not make a distinction and in this way is exposing all Israeli produce to a boycott.

By Gideon Levy | Oct.07, 2012

Europe is waking up. The foreign ministers of that continent will soon issue regulations that will oblige products from the settlements to be marked as such. Good morning, Europe. Jerusalem, as usual, is fuming; it always fumes when anyone dares to mention the settlements. Jerusalem is in favor of boycotts but of course not those against Israel. It is in favor of economic sanctions but, heaven forbid, not against the settlements. The truth is that Jerusalem can calm down. This is merely a minimal step, of symbolic importance, unavoidable, but not anything that will bring about a change. Perhaps they will buy less ginger from Tekoa in the supermarkets of Paris’ 16th arondissement but the settlement enterprise will continue to flourish.

Of course, every consumer with a conscience in the world is entitled to know whether he is buying blood diamonds from Africa; sneakers manufactured in the sweat shops of Asia; perfumes tested on animals; stolen goods, or products from stolen lands. Europe owes this to its citizens; they should know what they are buying. Just like they should know what the components and nutritional values are of every item, it is their right to know what their moral and legal values are. After that, every consumer can decide for himself whether to smear his body with cream from the occupied shores of the Dead Sea or to drink Merlot wine from the occupied Golan Heights. It is difficult to understand how the consumer organizations in Europe did not demand this obligatory information until now.

Israel should actually welcome this step. If it is so convinced that the settlement enterprise is justified, why complain about marking the products it produces? On the contrary, if the enterprise is so justified, perhaps marking the goods will lead to greater consumption? Being angry might still hint that Israel is ashamed of its settlements. The settlers should have marked their products a long time ago; just as blue-and-white products give rise to pride among many consumers in Israel and abroad, so the settlements’ produce should give their producers a feeling of pride. But Israel and the settlers know that this is a problematic enterprise, to put it mildly, and that is why they are so determined to hide the source of products from the occupation. By revealing this Israeli embarrassment, Europe has already achieved something important. But this achievement is not sufficient. Another conclusion can be deduced from the response by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. He was quick to attack the Europeans’ intentions and said it was proof of “a lack of understanding of the reality in the field.”

And once again, Lieberman is correct: The “reality in the field” is that the occupied territories long ago became an inseparable part of the one country – the Green Line has become blurred, and is as though it had never existed. That being the case, there is no longer any point to making products that come from the territories; all of Israel gives them its backing, whether by agreement or by remaining silent. Therefore, the conclusion to be drawn from Lieberman’s preaching is that Europe must not make distinctions or separate between things. Do not mark what comes from the settlements. If you want to try to influence Israel, to put pressure on it to end the occupation, boycott all of its produce. Jerusalem that opposes marking products from the settlements tells European consumers that they should not make a distinction. In this way, it is exposing all Israeli produce to a boycott.

But we can be confident that Europe will once again be scared by the “anger” of Jerusalem, to which will probably be added the holy ire of Washington as well. That is how Europe always conducts itself. At a time when public opinion on the continent is becoming more critical and even more and more hostile to Israel, this finds no resonance in the policies of the governments there. This gap is inconceivable in democratic countries. Fear of the past and fear of America descend upon the leaders of the continent and paralyze them.

In the midst of Operation Cast Lead, they all came to cheer on then-prime minister Ehud Olmert but did not bother to go to Gaza to see what it looked like. Now perhaps they will fulfill their duties, and use fine and weak print to affix the Mark of Cain, as required, on the products from the territories. Well done, Europe.

We are being marked: Haaretz Editorial

European Union is preparing legislation to oblige stores to designate products coming from Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Haaretz Editorial | Oct.07, 2012 | 1:59 AM

A law passed in August requires South African merchants to label goods produced in the West Bank as from “the Occupied Palestinian territories.” Photo by Bloomberg

While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu basks in the worldwide interest he aroused when he marked the red line on his Iranian bomb drawing, the international community is displaying growing interest in marking the Green Line between Israel and the occupied territories.

A few weeks after South Africa’s government decided to label products made in the territories Israel conquered in June 1967, the European Union is preparing legislation to oblige stores to designate products coming from Jewish settlements in the West Bank. This is to make it easier for consumers who wish to avoid the purchase of merchandise produced in occupied territory.

At the same time, an inquiry committee appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council has begun, despite Israel’s protests, to examine the settlements’ impact on the Palestinian population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The foreign ministers of the donor states to the Palestinian Authority expressed profound displeasure at a recent meeting over steps to drive the Palestinians off area C with the intention of keeping it for the settlers’ exclusive use. The area, which is under full Israeli security control, encompasses some 60 percent of the West Bank.

Israel says labeling the settlements’ products constitutes discrimination on a national and political basis. But the same government argues that building and expanding the settlements is not a violation of international law and that the West Bank settlement of Ariel must be treated the same as Tel Aviv. Why, then, is inscribing the Ariel industrial area on a product seen as “discrimination,” while denoting that a product comes from Tel Aviv would presumably be regarded with indifference?

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s self righteous claim, that the new regulation would harm the Palestinians who make a living working in the settlements’ factories, is especially outrageous. No regulation harms the Palestinians more than the settler Lieberman’s sitting on their land.

Barak Ravid reported in Haaretz on Friday that the Foreign Ministry fears the European regulation would encourage a complete boycott on settlement-made products and even a boycott on merchandise produced within the ’67 lines.

These “fearful” officials had better explain to their political superiors that those who refuse to mark the border between Israel and occupied territory, according to the delineation accepted the world over, should not be surprised if tomorrow the world also erases that same border.

EDOTOR: Five Broken Cameras – an extraordinary film!

Do what you can to see this film  very difficult to catch it, though it has won quite afew awards. It is due on DVD soon, and when out, I shall puta link to the site for purchasing it. Gideon Levy, who else, is shaming Israelis into watching it. Unfortunately, the Israeli special unit of hackers have managed to hack all the TouTube versions of the trailer. Obviously, they have a job to do…

The documentary that should make every decent Israeli ashamed: Haaretz

No moments of reprieve in the probing documentary by Emad Burnat and Guy Davidi, “5 Broken Cameras,” which chronicles the struggle in the West Bank Palestinian village of Bil’in.

By Gideon Levy | Oct.05, 2012 | 10:40 AM |  1

Guy Davidi, director of 5 Broken Cameras, in Bi’lin Photo by Tomer Appelbaum

The soldiers arrive in the dead of night. They kick, they smash, they destroy. They break in, rudely awakening an entire house and its inhabitants, including children and babies. One officer pulls out a detailed document and declares: “This house is declared a ‘closed military zone.'” He reads the order – in Hebrew and in a loud voice – to the sleep-dazed, pajama-clad family.

This young man successfully completed his officers’ training course. Perhaps he even believes, deep down, that someone has to do this dirty work. And he reads out the order solely to justify why the father of the household, Emad Burnat, is forbidden to film the event on his own video camera.

There are no moments of respite or reprieve in the probing documentary by Emad Burnat and Guy Davidi, “5 Broken Cameras,” which was screened, among other places, at the Tel Aviv Cinematheque last weekend after collecting a number of international prizes and having been shown on Channel 8.

This documentary should make every decent Israeli ashamed of being an Israeli. It should be shown in civics classes and heritage classes. The Israelis should know, at long last, what is being done in their name every day and every night in this ostensible time of no terror. Even in a West Bank village like Bil’in, which has made nonviolence its motto.

The soldiers – the friends of our sons and the sons of our friends – break into homes in order to abduct small children, who may be suspected of throwing stones. There is no other way to describe this. They also arrest dozens of the organizers of the popular weekly protest at Bil’in. And this happens every night.

I have often been to this village, to its protests and to its funerals. Once or twice I joined the Friday demonstrations against the separation fence that was built on its land to enable Modi’in Ilit and Kiryat Sefer to rise on its olive groves. I have breathed the tear gas and the stinking “skunk” gas. I have seen the rubber bullets that wound and sometimes kill, and the violent behavior of the soldiers and the police toward the demonstrating inhabitants.

Yet nevertheless, what I saw in this film shocked me more than all those hasty visits. The apartment buildings of Modi’in Ilit are swallowing up the village, just like the wall that was built here on their land. The inhabitants decided to embark on a struggle for their property and their existence. With a mixture of naivete, determination and courage – and, now and then, some exaggerated theatricality – the residents undertake various gimmicks, with the help of a handful of Israeli and international volunteers.

This struggle has even won a partial victory: Only in its wake did the High Court of Justice order the dismantling of the wall and its relocation to a different place. Even the High Court, which usually automatically accepts the positions of the security establishment, understood that a crime was being committed here. Together with Bil’in and, to a large extent, inspired by it, more villages began to conduct a determined popular struggle every Friday – which continues to this day – against the wall, half an hour’s drive from our homes.

This documentary proves that, for the locals, the reality of the occupation is that there is no such thing as nonviolent struggle. For the information of those who preach nonviolence (from the Palestinians ): The Israel Defense Forces soldiers and the Border Police will ensure that it becomes violent. Just one thrown stone, despite the pleas of the demonstration organizers, will suffice; just one verbal altercation will also suffice to open the most advanced weapons arsenal in the world – to pull the pin, to release the gas, the rubber bullet and the skunk gas, and sometimes the live fire, and to cut off the impossible dream of a nonviolent struggle.

Anyone who watches this film understands that it is very difficult to face the wall, the settlement project and the soldiers – all of which scream “violence” – and remain nonviolent. Nearly impossible.

Five times Burnat’s cameras were destroyed. Three times by the soldiers, once in a traffic accident opposite the separation wall, and once by the ultra-Orthodox and violent settlers – the “hilltop youth,” who break into homes even when the court prohibits this. “You are not allowed to be here,” says an ultra-Orthodox settler to a villager trying to get to his stolen land.

The truth is that Burnat’s cameras were damaged many more times; the film depicts only those incidents in which the equipment was rendered totally unusable. The cameras’ ruined parts are displayed as evidence.

But something much deeper has been broken here. A reality has been broken by broken cameras. These cameras documented a reality unfamiliar to most Israelis. They documented a slice of life, about which most Israelis prefer to be oblivious. In so doing, they have also proved that, in a place where hardly any courageous journalism remains, there are at least courageous and impressive documentaries. In a place where hardly any journalists remain, there are important documentary filmmakers like Burnat and Davidi.

After the vast majority of the local media decided not to report on the occupation any more, films like “5 Broken Cameras,” Ra’anan Alexandrowicz’s “The Law in These Parts,” and Mir Laufer and Erez Laufer’s “One Day After Peace” – all the harvest of just the past few months – are filling the role intended for the media, and excellently.

Anyone who some day wants to learn what was happening here during these cursed decades will hardly find what he is looking for in the newspaper and television archives. He will find it in the documentary movie archive, which is rescuing Israel’s honor.

“5 Broken Cameras” has already been shown in many countries, at festivals and commercial screenings. Davidi and Burnat documented the routine of the occupation. The IDF and Border Police come out looking bad. Even understatement and restraint cannot but describe them except as storm troopers.

Burnat’s voice, which accompanies the film, is one of the most restrained voices you have heard concerning the occupation, without rabble-rousing and without hatred. This is how they look in reality. Go see this film and form your own impressions.

There have been other films about Bil’in and while this one is relatively small scale, it is extremely personal. Burnat’s wife, who wants to keep him away from the camera and danger, and his young son, who has grown up in this reality, star in it along with the leaders of the struggle. There is only one person killed here: Bassem Abu-Rahma, a charming young man, loved by the children, who called him the Elephant – the needless victim of an alleged murder by a soldier in April 2009.

However, it is the non-deadly routine depicted in the movie that is so appalling. The camera breakers in it are breakers of the rule of law and of democracy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has boasted to the world about how enlightened Israel is, apparently has not seen this film. Otherwise, he would not be able to talk about enlightenment.

Anyone who behaves this way in his dark backyard cannot boast about what happens in his enlightened show window, with all that high tech and democracy. Anyone who knows what is happening in Bil’in and the other villages understands that a state that behaves in this way cannot be considered democratic or enlightened. Someone has to make Netanyahu watch this film, just so he will understand. .

This week I drove to Bil’in with one of the two directors, Guy Davidi (Burnat was away on another trip overseas ). Davidi once lived in the village for several months, but prior to our trip hadn’t visited for over a year.

Ostensibly, nothing had changed. A Palestinian village drowsing in the afternoon. However, one thing was different: A large hill planted with olive trees has been liberated. In the place where the security fence had been, there is now only a dirt track. The barrier was removed and the hill was returned to its owners. The olive trees are dying after years of neglect, and the soil is scarred by all the earthworks carried out there. But still, some of the territory has been liberated.

The security fence has been replaced by a high concrete wall, but this has been moved several hundred meters to the west. Behind it, cranes continue to build Kiryat Sefer (aka Dvir ). In the liberated territory, they are already building a tiny playground for the village children. Only remnants of the burned tires and dozens of IDF gas-canister shells lying on the ground from the ongoing weekly demonstrations here testify that the struggle has not ended. It has not been completely successful. But if there were any justice, it would have been.

Israeli newspapers this summer are filled with angry articles about the push for an international boycott of Israel. Films have been withdrawn from Israeli film festivals, Leonard Cohen is under fire around the world for his decision to perform in Tel Aviv, and Oxfam has severed ties with a celebrity spokesperson, a British actress who also endorses cosmetics produced in the occupied territories. Clearly, the campaign to use the kind of tactics that helped put an end to the practice of apartheid in South Africa is gaining many followers around the world.

Not surprisingly, many Israelis — even peaceniks — aren’t signing on. A global boycott can’t help but contain echoes of anti-Semitism. It also brings up questions of a double standard (why not boycott China for its egregious violations of human rights?) and the seemingly contradictory position of approving a boycott of one’s own nation.

As president of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, I have always remained open and impartial to the wide diversity of opinions within our academic faculty and their right to free speech, no matter how controversial their views or writings may be.

However, I strongly believe a call for a worldwide boycott of Israel written by a Ben-Gurion University faculty member, Neve Gordon, that appeared in The Times oversteps the boundaries of academic freedom — because it has nothing to do with it.

On the 30th anniversary of the publication of “The Color Purple,” we speak with author, poet and activist Alice Walker about her groundbreaking novel and its enduring legacy. Set mainly in rural Georgia in the 1930s, the book tells the story of a young, poor African-American woman named Celie and her struggle for empowerment in a world marked by sexism, racism and patriarchy. The novel earned Walker a Pulitzer Prize in 1983, making her the first African-American woman to win the Pulitzer for fiction. Walker explains the origin of the book’s title and explores some of its central characters and their connection to her own family history. [includes rush transcript]

Interview with Alice Walker

We continue our conversation with the legendary poet, author and activist, Alice Walker, who has also been a longtime advocate for the rights of Palestinians. Last summer, she was one of the activists on the U.S. ship that attempted to sail to Gaza as part of the Freedom Flotilla aimed at challenging Israel’s embargo of the Gaza Strip. Alice Walker also serves on the jury of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, an international people’s tribunal created in 2009 to bring attention to the responsibility other states bear for Israel’s violations of international law. Walker describes her upbringing in the segregated South, then goes on to discuss today’s segregation in the Occupied Territories. “The unfairness of it is so much like the South. It’s so much like the South of 50 years ago, really, and actually more brutal, because in Palestine so many more people are wounded, shot, shot, killed, imprisoned. You know, there are thousands of Palestinians in prison virtually for no reason,” Walker says. [includes rush transcript]

AMY GOODMAN: But you have refused, Alice, to have your book translated into Hebrew for an Israeli publisher. Can you talk about your decision and who the publisher was?

ALICE WALKER: Yes. Well, actually, it was already published there in 19-I don’t know, 80-something. And at that time, there was no cultural boycott of Israel for its apartheid practices and its persecution of the Palestinian people. But now there is a boycott, and so I respect that boycott in the same way that I respected the boycott when there was apartheid in South Africa. And we were contemplating sending the film there, and I lobbied against it.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the parallels you make.

ALICE WALKER: Mean apartheid ones? Well, first of all, in Israel and the Occupied Territories, there’s this gigantic wall, which is, I think, the most offensive symbol of the apartheid. It not only segregates the Palestinians from the Israelis, but they also, at the same time, have stolen so much Palestinian land. I mean, they’ve essentially stolen what was all of Palestine. And it’s just horrible to see the treatment of the people. I mean, the checkpoints are dreadful. We went through some of them. And the way the Palestinians are treated is so reminiscent of the way black people were treated in the South when I was growing up. And it’s an intolerable situation. And that our country backs this treatment by standing with Israel through thick and thin is just unbearable.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to a clip of South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu talking about apartheid, talking about South Africa and talking about Israel.

DESMOND TUTU: Coming from South Africa and going-I mean, and looking at the checkpoints and the arrogance of those young soldiers, probably scared, maybe covering up their apprehension, there’s no way in which I couldn’t say-of course, that is a truth. It reminds me-it reminds me of the kind of experiences that we underwent. I mean, I was bishop of Johannesburg and would be driving from town to Soweto, where we lived, and I would be driving with my wife, and we’d have a roadblock. And the fact of our having to have passes allowing us to move freely in the land of our birth, and now you have that extraordinary structure that-the wall. And I do not, myself, believe that it has improved security, breaking up families, breaking up-I mean, people who used to be able to walk from their homes to school, children, now have to take a detour that lasts several-I mean, it’s-when you humiliate a people to the extent that they are being-and, yes, one remembers the kind of experience we had when we were being humiliated-when you do that, you’re not contributing to your own security.

AMY GOODMAN: Retired South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Alice Walker, your response?

ALICE WALKER: Well, I’m very happy that Desmond Tutu speaks out on this issue, because so many people are afraid to speak at all. And I think this is very dangerous. I think that wherever there is this kind of oppression, wherever you see people who are being humiliated, it’s our duty as human beings and as citizens of the planet to speak. You know, that’s all we can do: speak, at least.

AMY GOODMAN: You were in Gaza. Our producer Anjali Kamat in 2009 interviewed you while you were there. I want to play a clip of that.

ALICE WALKER: It’s shocking beyond anything I have ever experienced. And it’s actually so horrible that it’s basically unbelievable, even though I’m standing here and I’ve been walking here and I’ve been looking at things here. It still feels like, you know, you could never convince anyone that this is actually what is happening and what has happened to these people and what the Israeli government has done. It will be a very difficult thing for anyone to actually believe in, so it’s totally important that people come to visit and to see for themselves, because the world community, that cares about peace and cares about truth and cares about justice, will have to find a way to deal with this. We cannot let this go as if it’s just OK, especially those of us in the United States who pay for this. You know, I have come here, in part, to see what I’m buying with my tax money.

AMY GOODMAN: That was the Pulitzer Prize-winning author Alice Walker in Gaza in 2009. Last summer, she was one of the activists on the U.S. ship that attempted to sail to Gaza as part of the Freedom Flotilla aimed at challenging Israel’s embargo of the Gaza Strip. Dubbed The Audacity of Hope after President Obama’s bestselling book, the U.S. ship was stopped by Greek authorities just as it set sail.

Alice Walker spoke<http://www.democracynow. <http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/6/audacity_of_hope_inside_report_aboard>
org/2011/7/6/audacity_of_hope_inside_report_aboard <http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/6/audacity_of_hope_inside_report_aboard> > to Democracy Now! producer Aaron Maté from the ship as it was being turned back.

ALICE WALKER: It feels really good to know that the world is watching, that there are people on this earth who care about the people of Gaza so much that we all got out of our houses and into our various cars and planes, and we made it to this boat, and we actually tried to cross the water to get to the people of Gaza, especially to the children, who need to know that the world is here and the world cares and the world sees and a lot of us love them, and we do not agree that they should be brutalized and harmed.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Alice Walker speaking on the Freedom Flotilla. She is now serving on the jury of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, an international people’s tribunal created in 2009 to bring attention to the responsibility other states bear for Israel’s violations of international law. The Russell Tribunal will be holding its fourth international session in New York October 6th. You’re going to be there, Alice Walker.

ALICE WALKER: I will be there. Yes, I will be there with some wonderful people, including Angela Davis, Cynthia McKinney, Mairead Maguire-

AMY GOODMAN: The Nobel Peace Prize winner.

ALICE WALKER: Stéphane Hessel-yes, lots of wonderful-Michael Mansfield, a lot of really good people.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky will also be-

ALICE WALKER: Noam Chomsky will be there, Dennis Banks.

AMY GOODMAN: And what will you do?

ALICE WALKER: Well, we will hear testimony about why it is that nothing seems to move. The U.N. makes resolutions, you know, and they’re ignored. And there are so many resolutions. The one that particularly pains my heart is Resolution 194-I think that’s the number-which says to Israel that you cannot keep the Palestinians, who were forced out of their homes-you cannot prevent them from returning to their homes. And I’m such a believer that people need to have a place to live that is theirs, that they should never be run out of their own place. And if they are run out, they should be able to return there. And this, with so many other resolutions, was ignored and has never been addressed. And the United States is complicit, because it backs Israel no matter what. And I think this is corrupting, I think for our young people especially, to see that, you know, justice in this case is just never even thought about.

AMY GOODMAN: You make comparisons to the South. Talk about your growing up and about your family.

ALICE WALKER: Well, my family was a poor farming family, and we lived under absolute segregation. Although, even though, you know, all of the hotels and the motels and the restaurants and the water fountains, all those things were segregated, we didn’t have segregated roads, which you do have in the Occupied Territories, roads that only Jewish settlers can use, and the Palestinians have these little tracks, you know, these little paths, often, you know, obstructed by boulders. And that is how they’re supposed to move around, for the most part. And the unfairness of it is so much like the South. It’s so much like the South of, you know, I don’t know, 50 years ago, really, and actually more brutal, because in Palestine so many more people are wounded, shot, killed, imprisoned. You know, there are thousands of Palestinians in prison virtually for no reason.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you feel like public opinion is changing in the United States?

ALICE WALKER: I feel that public opinion is changing, and I think it’s because people have decided that, you know, we’re all in such danger. We’re all in harm’s way now, and people are awakening to the fact that unless we take care of each other, nobody is safe, there will never be safety.

AMY GOODMAN: Alice Walker, we’re going to break, and then I want to ask you about your thoughts on President Obama, on the election, and I’d like to ask you to read your newest poem. Alice Walker, the award-winning author, poet, activist, is with us for the hour. Stay with us.