In unprecedented ruling, court lets Israeli Arab visit an enemy state: Haaretz

The High Court of Justice on Tuesday granted permission for Israeli Arab writer Ala Halihal to visit Beirut, despite opposition from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Interior Minister Eli Yishai.

Generally, it is forbidden for Israeli citizens to visit Lebanon, considered by Israel to be an enemy state. According to the petitioners, this High Court decision marks the “first time since 1948 that an Israeli citizen is permitted to visit a state defined as an enemy state.”

In their decision, the justices said that the there is no existing information to negate the petitioner’s claim, adding that in their refusal to approve his travel, the authorities did not weigh all the relevant considerations in this unique case, the ruling said.
The court ruled after Netanyahu on Monday refused to allow Halihal to attend an international conference of Arab authors in Beirut. The court had asked Netanyahu for his response to Halihal’s petition requesting to overturn Yishai’s refusal to allow him to travel to Beirut.

Halihal’s petition was submitted by the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. The attorneys argued that the government’s refusal to allow Halihal to travel violates his constitutional right to leave the country and his rights for freedom of employment and freedom of expression, as well as his due process rights for a fair hearing.
The petition was submitted by Adalah Attorneys Haneen Naamnih and Hassan Jabareen.

Halihal on Monday traveled to London to await the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Halihal is a Palestinian Arab citizen of Israel. He was born in the village of Jish in the Galilee in the north and lives currently in Acre.

Sarkozy: Israel strike against Iran would be disastrous: Haaretz

French President Nicolas Sarkozy told the American news network CBS on Tuesday that an Israeli military attack against Iran would be “disastrous” and that Israel must understand that “we are determined to ensure its security.”

Hours before U.S. President Barack Obama opened a landmark summit of 47 nations on nuclear security in Washington, Sarkozy told CBS’s Katie Couric that “I would not want the world to wake up to a conflict between Israel and Iran, quite simply because the international community has been incapable of acting.”

“I consider the fact that Iran should get its hands on a nuclear weapon – a military nuclear weapon…dangerous and unacceptable. Unacceptable, quite simply. President Obama has wanted to stretch out his hand in order to show clearly to the Iranians that it was not they who were the target, but their leadership,” Sarkozy went on to say.
Advertisement

When asked whether he thought sanctions could really deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the French president replied that “I believe in the effect of sanctions, because I’ve been very impressed by the courage of the Iranian people. Those young kids, those women who went down into the streets of Tehran and major Iranian cities. What a fantastic example of courage they gave us…We can’t afford to be less courageous than they were.”
Following talks between Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao, Obama’s top China adviser Jeffery Bader said that China shares U.S. concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, and that the country had agreed to direct its officials to work on a United Nations sanctions resolution against Tehran.

Bader added that Obama and Hu, meeting on the sidelines of the nuclear security summit, talked at length about Iran and discussed nuclear non-proliferation.

Obama stressed to Hu the need to act urgently against Iran’s nuclear program, and Hu agreed that Beijing would help craft a UN resolution, Bader said.

The White House had hoped the one-on-one meeting would help determine whether China was serious about moving forward with the United States, Britain, France, Russia and Germany in forging a new round of UN sanctions on Iran.

“The resolution will make clear to Iran the cost of pursuing a nuclear program that violates Iran’s obligations and responsibilities,” Bader told reporters after the meeting. “The Chinese are actively at the table in New York.”

Bader said the two presidents agreed that their delegations should work on a Security Council resolution on a new round of Iran sanctions “and that’s what we’re doing.”

Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said the United States still expects a UN resolution by this spring.

Bader said Obama’s meeting with Hu “was a sign of international unity” on Iran. Western powers want to deter Iran from what they see as a drive to develop nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists its program has only peaceful, civilian purposes.

China, which holds veto power in the Security Council, had recently shown an increased willingness to pressure Iran while signaling it remained reluctant to take some of the toughest measures proposed by Washington and other Western powers.

Iran on Tuesday expressed doubts that China will back the U.S. and European drive for renewed sanctions.

Following the meeting, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said that President Hu had told Obama in “positive and constructive” talks on Monday that Beijing wanted to resolve bilateral economic friction through consultations.

China and the United States also “share the same overall goal on the Iranian nuclear issue,” Ma said in a written statement after the two leaders met on the sidelines of a nuclear security summit in Washington. Ma provided no details on the talks and repeated China’s standard call for “dialogue and negotiations” with Iran.

Speaking to reporters afterwards, Obama made no mention of his talks with Hu but said he expects the 47-nation summit to make progress toward locking down loose nuclear material.

“It’s impressive. I think it’s an indication of how deeply concerned everybody should be with the possibilities of nuclear traffic, and I think at the end of this we’re going to see some very specific, concrete actions that each nation is that will make the world a little bit safer,” Obama said.

Speaking to ABC’s Good Morning America on Monday, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev said that while he supported sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program he felt those sanctions should not harm the Iranian people.

On the subject of imitating new sanctions against Iran geared at forcing it to abandon its nuclear program, the Russian president said that “it’s not whether it’s a good thought or bad thought, I’m talking about something else.”

“The sanctions is a tricky thing which works seldomly. You yourself were busy with politics, and you know that sanctions is not without conditions,” Medvedev said, adding but sometimes you have to do that.”

“What kind of sanctions? We have spoken about that with President Obama yesterday. Sanctions should be effective and they should be smart,” the Russian President said.

“They should not lead to humanitarian catastrophe, and the whole Iranian community would start to hate the whole world. And we’re worried that there are a significant number of people which have radical opinions. Do we want that radical thought to be sent to the whole world?,” Medvedev said.

However, the Russian president did not rule sanctions altogether, saying that they “should be smart.”

“They should force or obligate the Iranian leadership to think about what’s next. What could sanctions be? It could be trade, arms trade. It could be other sanctions,” Medvedev said, adding that “sanctions should let the country understand that all who impose sanctions have the same opinion.”

Medvedev said that any new sanctions “should not be paralyzing. They should not cause suffering. Aren’t we in the 21st century? That’s why if we’re going to develop our cooperation in this direction we have a chance to succeed. Better would be to go without sanctions and achieve things politically.

Earlier Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad condemned Obama’s nuclear summit, calling it humiliating to humanity.

Israel warns citizens to leave Sinai amid terror fears: BBC

Tens of thousands of Israelis routinely holiday in the Sinai
Israel has issued an “urgent” warning to its citizens to leave Sinai in Egypt amid fears of a terrorist plot.
The prime minister’s office said it had “concrete evidence” that terrorists were planning to attempt to kidnap Israelis in the peninsula.
Israel took the unusual step of calling on families of the Israelis who are visiting Sinai to contact them.
It fears that Palestinian militants will transfer hostages to Gaza through tunnels under the border.

Leave immediately and return home
Israeli anti-terror office
The warning by Israel’s security agencies came after a rumour that an Israeli had been kidnapped in Sinai. The Israeli emergency service Zaka later said that rumour was untrue.
“According to concrete intelligence, we anticipate an immediate terror activity to kidnap an Israeli in Sinai,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said on Tuesday.
Tens of thousands of Israelis routinely take holidays in Sinai over the Passover holiday. Most have returned after the week-long festival.
A few hundred were reported to have remained.
Egyptian police have been searching Sinai for any missing Israelis but found no evidence that anyone was missing.
Past attacks
In unusually strong wording, the Israeli anti-terror office called on “all Israelis residing in Sinai to leave immediately and return home”.
Families of Israelis in the peninsula were urged to contact them and update them on the travel warning.
Israel’s anti-terror office has a standing travel advisory telling Israelis to stay out of the Sinai desert because of the threat of terror attacks.
In 2004, suicide bombers attacked Egypt’s Taba Hilton Hotel, just across the Israeli border, and several campsites popular with Israelis. Dozens of people were killed and hundreds wounded.
Israel controlled Sinai from its capture in the 1967 war until returning it to Egypt in 1982. The desert is just across the border, and its seaside resorts are popular with Israelis.
Sinai has been the scene of number of terrorist attacks, including bombings in the resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh in 2005 and Dahab in 2006, which killed dozens.

Continue reading April 13, 2010

Breaking NEWS!!!

Israelli PM Netanyahu pulls out of US nuclear summit: BBC

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has cancelled a planned visit to a summit on nuclear security in Washington next week, Israeli reports say.
Mr Netanyahu made the decision after learning that Egypt and Turkey intended to raise the issue of Israel’s presumed nuclear arsenal, Israeli radio said.
Mr Obama is due to host dozens of world leaders at the two-day conference, which begins in Washington on Monday.
Israel has never confirmed or denied that it possesses atomic weapons.

Netanyahu cancels trip to U.S. nuclear summit: Haaretz

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu canceled a planned trip to Washington, where he was scheduled to participate in a nuclear security summit hosted by U.S. President Barack Obama, government officials said.
Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor will take Netanyahu’s place in the nuclear summit.

Obama has invited more than 40 countries to the summit, which will deal with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups.
Netanyahu was due to arrive in Washington on Monday evening and was set to take part in three or four conference sessions the follwoing day, before returning to Israel on Wednesday.
Officials said the PM canceled the trip over fears that a group of Muslim states, led by Egypt and Turkey, would demand that Israel sign up to the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT.
A senior government official told Haaretz that that Israel was “disappointed” with developments in the run-up to the conference.

“The nuclear security summit is supposed to be about dealing with the danger of nuclear terror,” the official said. “Israel is a part of that effort and has responded positively to President Obama’s invitation to the conference.”
The official added: “But that said, in the last few days we have received reports about the intention of several participant states to depart from the issue of combatting terrorism and instead misuse the event to goad Israel over the NPT.”

One hundred eighty-nine countries, including all Arab states, are party to the NPT. Only Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea are not.
Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons but operates a policy of ‘nuclear ambiguity’, never publicly confirming or denying their existence.
Many Muslim countries have voiced alarm at alleged nuclear programs in Israel and Iran, and have repeatedly called for an agreement to ban nuclear weapons from the region.
In late March the Arab League called for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons during a closed-door sessio, calling for a review of the 1970 NPT in order to create a definitive plan for eliminating nuclear weapons .
They also called on the UN to declare the Middle East as a nuclear-weapons-free region.

BREAKING BDS NEWS!

Mira Awad, a Palestinian singer from inside Israel, has cancelled her scheduled performance, together with Jewish Israeli singer Achinoam Nini,  in the UK sponsored by the Zionist Federation to celebrate Israel’s 62 years of  “independence” on Nakba Day.
Awad published a letter today in Al-Ittihad, the newspaper of the Israeli Communist Party, saying that she would “never” perform for Israel’s “independence,” not in London nor anywhere else.

EDITOR: The Israeli Fascists March Onwards

So now there is another idea – those we do not like, say the Israeli fascists, will be stripped of their citizenship. What a marvelous idea, isn’t it? There will be problem, however, as those undesirables will be citizens of no country, and will not be able to gain entry anywhere, of course. Maybe a Final Solution? All options are on the table with those guys.

Israeli lawmaker: ‘Strip those who hurt state security of their citizenship’: Haaretz

Israeli citizens found to be undermining state security should be stripped of their citizenship, the chairman of the Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee said Thursday, referring to the recently released espionage affair involving journalist and former Israel Defense Forces soldier Anat Kam.

Earlier Thursday, a Tel Aviv district court judge lifted a months-long gag order revealing that Anat Kam, a journalist and ex-soldier, was suspected of “serious espionage” for allegedly giving classified information to a reporter from Haaretz regarding the IDF’s rules of engagement.

Referring to the newly uncovered case, Yisrael BeiteinuMK David Rotem said that he intended to submit a correction to the corrections law in the upcoming Knesset session, which would deny those convicted with hurting state security of their national insurance as well as of prison educational privileges.
“Even though the bill was prepared before the affair being discussed in recent days, this is a classic case in which it would deal,” Rotem said, adding that the Kam case was an “extremely severe case, in which penalty must be served in full, both to Anat Kam who stole the documents and the journalists who published them.”

The Yisrael Beiteinu MK also said that “anyone who dares hurt and slander state security should pay for it,” adding that he intended to strip anyone found guilty for such charges of their citizenship, saying that “citizenship requires loyalty.”
Rotem’s comments was another of several responses to the newly revealed story, both inn Israel and abroad.
Earlier Thursday, human rights group B’Tselem said that the Israeli government was overlooking the serious allegations indicated in the documents leaked in the Anat Kam affair, while choosing to investigate the leak itself.

The lifting of months-long gag order earlier Thursday revealed that Anat Kam, a journalist and ex-soldier, is suspected of “serious espionage” for allegedly giving classified information to a reporter from Haaretz regarding the IDF’s rules of engagement.
In a statement released just hours after the gag order was released, B’Tselem said that with “the lifting of the gag order over the Anat Kam affair, B’Tselem would like to reiterate that this case deals with documents which indicate that the military has been conducting assassinations in the West Bank in the guise of arrest operations, thus contradicting Israel’s official statements and in violation of a High Court ruling.”

“The last official assassination initiated by Israel in the West Bank was in August of 2006. Since then, Israel had stated that, given the opportunity, IDF forces would arrest wanted Palestinians,” B’Tselem added.
The human rights group also stated that “in spite of these declarations “B’Tselem research has shown that in many cases soldiers have been conducting themselves in the territories as if they were on a hit mission, as opposed to arrest operations.”
“What the journalist Uri Blau had uncovered supports B’Tselem’s claims in this matter,” the human rights group said, adding that with the leaking of the affair “authorities rushed to investigate the leak and chose to ignore the severe suspicions of blatant wrongdoings depicted in those documents.”

Also Thursday, Mohamed Abdel Dayem, Middle East and North Africa program coordinator at the N.Y.-based organization Committee to Protect Journalists, told Haaretz he questioned the length of breadth of the blanket gag order, lifted after many international media outlets, not bound by it, already released details regarding the affair.
“It is disturbing to happen in a democratic country – people outside Israel reported that it happened and as a journalist, when you have pieces of information you have to confirm it with the source when possible,” Abdel Dayem said.

“And then the source can’t talk because of the gag order, if they talk under the gag order they might face additional legal action,” he added saying that the judicial decision to gag the story was “artificially creating a roadblock on the way to full and proper reporting of the story. That’s the kind of thing that shouldn’t happen in democratic society.”
Abdel Dayem also told Haaretz “There were so many alleged in this story it was hardly a story. And frankly, it was reported outside Israel all over the place,” also saying that all one needed to do was “open the internet and read everything you need about it. But somehow Israeli journalists weren?t allowed to write about it inside Israel.

“The whole rationale for gag order is no longer intact ? the Israeli judiciary had rationale to issue this gag order, but it was out of the window once the story was leaked,” Abdel Dayem said

EDITOR: Land of Extremism

It has been quite clear for some time that Israel has become even more extreme than Iran. After all, Iran has never attacked another country, has not occupied it, and did not rule it brutally for decades. Now it is clear that even in the cultural sphere, Israel is more limited than the Islamic Republic. Well, this is how it is when you have a Jewish Republic, which at the same time wishes to also be the ONLY DEMOCRACY in the Universe…

OK in Iran, shunned in Israel: film about Muslim born a Jew: The Independent

By Jerome Taylor, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Israeli film distributors have snubbed a controversial British comedy about a Muslim man who finds out he was born a Jew.
The Infidel, which was written by Jewish-born comedian David Baddiel and is having its UK premier tonight, is an irreverent culture clash comedy about a devoted Muslim father who discovers he was adopted and that his original parents were Jewish.
In a bid to discover more about his new found identity, the father figure, Mahmoud Nasir seeks out his neighbour Lenny, a drunken Jewish cab driver who begins teaching his new friend how to be Jewish.
For a low-cost British comedy made for little more than £1million it has received impressive global interest. Distribution rights have already been sold in 62 different countries, including a host of Muslims states in the Middle East which are known for their strict censorship rules.

But not a single distributor has come forward to show the film in Israel because of fears that it might cause upset within some sections of the Jewish community.
In contrast Israeli distributors have been happy to buy the rights to Four Lions, a soon to be released religious themed comedy about a hapless homegrown terrorist cell who plan a series of suicide bombings in London.
Uzma Hasan, one of the film’s producers, told The Independent: “It’s strange. We’ve had interest from all over the world. We first pitched the film to distributors at last year’s Cannes Film Festival and we hadn’t even started shooting. All we had was a ten second pitch “Muslim man finds out he’s a Jew” and people jumped on it straight away, especially in the Middle East. But for some reason the Israeli distributors just haven’t picked it up.”

As long as it passes the various censorship bureaucracies in each country, The Infidel should soon be showing in the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Lebanon, Oman, Iran and Saudi Arabia. There has even been a request from a cinema in Iraq to screen the film. The rights for Four Lions have also been sold across a number of Muslim countries in the Middle East.
Gianluca Chacra, the Dubai-based distributor Front Row Entertainment who acquired rights for The Infidel to the entire Middle East region outside of Israel, said: “We hope this movie will bring in a clear message of tolerance and therefore respect and a sign of peace in this region.”
Despite the potentially controversial nature of its subject, the film’s producers have always insisted that The Infidel treats religion with respect.

“The comedy is about relationships between communities, stereotypes, ideas that Muslims have about Jews and Jews have about Muslims,” said Baddiel. “Essentially it’s culture clash comedy. In my film there are virtually no jokes about, as it were, religion itself. I treat religion fairly reverentially because it suited the narrative to do so.”
English stand-up comedian Omid Djalili, who is from an Iranian Baha’i family and plays the lead role Mahmoud Nasir, added: “Maybe Israeli distributors want the character to be a Jew
throughout the film or perhaps they are concerned the film will be seen as anti-Semitic. We don’t know. There’s still an offer to buy it for Israeli audiences, but they’re unsure.”

This is not the first time that the film has had trouble with distributors. According to Baddiel, BBC Films helped develop the film’s script but pulled out following the so-called Sachsgate scandal.
“The BBC has become very morally concerned about anything that might offend so it became clear that they weren’t going to do it,” said Baddiel.
A BBC spokesperson last night denied that the decision to pull out was related to Sachsgate. “BBC Films have a number of scripts in development at any one time, and we are not able to invest in many of them for what can be a variety of creative reasons,” she said.

Prior to its release the film was shown to a number of Jewish and Muslim organisations, none of whom have so far raised any complaints.
“People who have seen the film are rather surprised that towards the end of the film there seems to be some sort of resolution which seems to involve a sort of warmth towards religion,” said Baddiel. “Without giving the end away, the main religious characters have to go back to their religious texts – both the Qur’an and the Old Testament – to find a way through their religious confusion. That might imply a sort of pro-religious ending.”

Continue reading April 8, 2010

1050 Days to the Israeli Blockade of Gaza:

Somebody tell O’Bummer!

Help to stop the next war! Support Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of the Israeli regime

Support Palestinian universities – spread the BDS campaign – it is what people under the Israeli jackboot ask you to do

Any army fighting against children, has already lost!

Israeli War Criminals – to the International Criminal Court, NOW!

Make Zionism History!

One year since the Gaza Carnage by Israel’s murderers! We shall

not forget!

Demand the destruction of Israeli WMDs NOW!

EDITOR: Killing, stealing and lying – the perfect combination

Apart from all the other violent crimes committed against Palestine and Palestinians in the last six decades, Israel has also fought against the Palestinian economy without respite. Until the 90’s, it was not even allowed to operate a bank in the OPT, and since then Israel has been delaying or canceling many of the payments due to the PNA, making life impossible for all Palestinians. The added offence is the fact that much of this funding comes from donors, intending it for Palestine, and then it ends in Israeli hands. Does this way of fighting a weak and disenfranchised people remind you of anything else in recent history? No prizes for the right answer. This the way that money destined for Palestine has been financing the occupation for decades. It may be international piracy, but it is not even commented upon in the democratic, liberal western world, so keen on ‘peace’.

Israel seizing hundreds of millions of shekels meant for Palestinian services: Haaretz

For the past 15 years, Israel has been channeling hundreds of millions of shekels it had collected in the West Bank into its state coffers. The move is considered illegal, since international law prohibits an occupying power from appropriating the fruit of economic activity in an occupied territory.

Following protests by military lawyers, the deputy attorney general has ruled that the practice should be stopped and ordered an inquiry into whether the Civil Administration in the West Bank should be compensated retroactively.
“Following staff work by an interministerial team composed of representatives of the Finance Ministry, Justice Ministry and Civil Administration, it has been agreed that the … said fees will be entered into the Civil Administration’s budget. The technical aspects of the affair will be sorted out in the coming weeks.”

The funds in question are collected by the Civil Administration, overwhelmingly from Israelis. They include fees and levies for various activities such as royalties from quarries and levies on public auctions. The sums are estimated in the hundreds of millions of shekels, sometimes reaching as much as NIS 80 million a year.
Until the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, the funds were transferred to the Civil Administration to be used for operational expenses as well as for infrastructure and welfare services for Palestinians in the territories. The Oslo Accords dictated the closing down of the administration, the funds in question were reclassified as income to the Israel Lands Administration and were redirected to state coffers.

The Civil Administration, however, continued to operate in Area C of the West Bank, working on infrastructure, planning and construction. The funds are still channeled to the state, although international law prohibits an occupying power from appropriating the fruit of economic activity in an occupied territory. Funds collected in American-occupied areas of Iraq, for example, are channeled to the United States, and, except for 5 percent that goes to Kuwait, are returned for direct investment in Iraq.

Budget ramifications
Recently, a lawyer at the Military Advocate General’s Office said the transfer of such funds to the state was improper. Because the issue is complex and has budget ramifications far beyond the military, the authorities entrusted the inquiry to Deputy Attorney General Malchiel Blas.
He ruled that the direct transfer of the funds to the state budget should cease. A team that includes officials from the treasury, Justice Ministry and Civil Administration is now examining the implications of Blas’ decision.

At the team’s meetings, the Civil Administration has requested that the money again be directly channeled to its coffers. The Finance Ministry, by contrast, proposed that a fund be set up for the money, which would be divided among various ministries investing in the territories, such the transportation, agriculture and industry, trade and labor ministries.
Another question facing the team is whether the Civil Administration should be compensated for the funds it lost to the state. The Finance Ministry is strongly opposed, and claims that in the past 15 years the state has invested in the West Bank, apart from the settlements, more than double the amount it has collected. The government will make the final decision.

“This income was registered as part of state income, and the Finance Ministry budgeted all the activities of the Civil Administration and the military in the area out of the state budget,” the Justice Ministry said in a statement.
“Recently … it turned out that the issue should be arranged in a way that would make it obvious that the income should be registered as part of the Civil Administration’s budget, as authorized by the Knesset.”
The Finance Ministry said: “It should be noted the question of whether the funds are registered as state income or Civil Administration income is a technical question, because at the end of the day the State of Israel invests in the area amounts considerably larger than the fees it collects.

Israelis must integrate to survive: The Guardian CiF

The increase in ultra-Orthodox Jews and Arabs is a social timebomb that threatens the Jewish state’s long-term survival
If you’re interested in Israel’s future, all you need to know is one statistic: among Israeli kids in their first year at primary school, about half are Arabs or ultra-Orthodox Jews. And their portion is expanding. Looking forward, a very different Israeli society is emerging, with its Jewish secular core shrinking. Alas, as this scenario matures the country is going to face growing difficulties in defending itself and sustaining its economy.

Israeli Arabs and ultra-Orthodox Jews are exempt from military service, and are under-represented in the workforce. As their relative weight in society keeps growing, Israel risks security and economic implosion, since fewer and fewer soldiers and employees will protect and provide for an expanding population of welfare recipients. The Jewish state’s long-term survival depends on reversing the trend of non-participation among its Arab and ultra-Orthodox citizens.

The country’s leaders are aware of the social timebomb on their hands. General Gabi Ashkenazi, the IDF chief of staff, warned that given the demographic trends, “within a decade or two, only few will be drafted”. The finance minister, Yuval Steinitz, argued that tradition and fear lead Arab women and ultra-Orthodox men to stay at home or study the Torah, respectively. “We must expand employment in these populations,” he said. A senior government economist puts it more bluntly: “We carry an elephant on our backs, and it’s getting heavier. We have perhaps 15 years to deal with this problem, or the elephant will bury us under its weight.”

Throughout its 61-year history, Israel went through several phases of social change fuelled by successive waves of Jewish immigration – Holocaust survivors, Sephardic Jews from Arab and Muslim countries, a million immigrants from the former Soviet Union, tens of thousands from Ethiopia. But the pool of new immigrants has dried, and the current change is purely domestic, stemming from the high birthrates of Muslim Arabs and ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, designed a melting-pot society that brought Jews from many diasporas and turned them into Hebrew-speaking Israelis. Ben-Gurion promoted an ideology of “statehood”, putting national symbols and organs – and the IDF in particular – above tradition and religion. But he left out the non-Zionist groups: the Arabs, suspected of disloyalty and spared of conscription, and the ultra-Orthodox, who sought to preserve their peculiar way of life through educational autonomy and draft exemption.

Over time, both groups’ weight and influence have grown. The ultra-Orthodox lobbied successfully for child-support incentives and for exemption from teaching “core curriculum” – math and English – in religious schools. The Arab community has demanded more equality, but unlike their ultra-Orthodox counterparts, Arab parties have never been part of the governing coalition.

But special treatment comes with a price. At the personal level, freedom from military service extends your youth, but also bars opportunity. In Israel, the military serves as the basis of networking. Our Oxford and Cambridge are the elite army and air force units. (Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his key political ally, defence minister Ehud Barak, served together in the special forces.) An Arab or ultra-Orthodox seeking a job, even with an academic degree, stays out of the club and often faces prejudice and discrimination in the workplace.

At the national level, the growing influence of previously marginal groups fuels social tension and calls for oppression, especially during quiet periods in the external Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel’s third-largest political party, Israel Beitenu – led by the foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman – campaigned for imposing loyalty oaths as precondition for citizenship, aiming at Israeli Arabs. Lieberman had previously suggested transferring Arab-populated parts of Israel to a future Palestinian state.

Anti-Orthodox activists seek to curb their adversaries’ birthrate through cutting child support incentives. It works: a recent Bank of Israel study found that expanding child-support incentives in the 1990s influenced a higher birthrate among Arab and ultra-Orthodox families. Subsequent cuts when Netanyahu was finance minister have reduced it. The anti-Orthodox also demand to impose the “core curriculum” in all state-funded schools, arguing that ignorance of math and English sentences you to unemployment, or to low-level jobs.

Netanyahu agrees. Speaking at a recent business conference, he called to teach math, English, and even Chinese in all Israeli schools, in order to prepare kids for the modern job market. “We should tap the great talents among the ultra-Orthodox and minorities (Arabs), who are currently not partners in our knowledge industry,” he said. How? The key is education and get-a-job incentives, Netanyahu told me recently. “I already gave them sticks” – welfare cuts – “and now it’s time for carrots,” he said.

But Netayahu’s politics interfere with his economics. The ultra-Orthodox parties are his loyal coalition partners. Their price for making him a second-time prime minister was more child-support incentives. Netanyahu rightly wants them to study the “core curriculum”, but he would not risk his job by confronting them. And the Arab community would not trust a right-wing government where its nemesis, Lieberman, is a key player.

What can be done? Coercing the Arabs and ultra-Orthodox into military service and employment is not going to work. It will only increase social tension. Recognising it, Israeli politicians, economists, and public policy experts are confused. They have little to offer beyond small steps to encourage integration and workforce participation, noting the difference between Arabs – who want to work, but find it hard to land jobs – and the ultra-Orthodox, whose cultural norms prefer Torah study to employment.

There are encouraging signs, however, driven by economic necessity. Hundreds of ultra-Orthodox at draft age volunteer to technical jobs in the military, which they view as a route for future careers. They receive Glatt Kosher food and serve in men-only units. And Arabic accents are heard more often in previously “Jewish” workplaces (noted examples are drugstores and call centres). In the recent Israeli Big Brother production, an Arab contestant has made it to the finals.

But Israel can’t wait until these humble beginnings develop into a wider social revolution. Saving the country from implosion demands a sea change in perceptions and elimination of inter-“tribal” hatred and prejudice. We at the mainstream must change our view of the growing minorities and treat them as the next frontier of economic opportunity and growth. If they prosper, we will all prosper. Therefore, we must change our habits too: recruit Arab and ultra-Orthodox employees; buy from minority businesses; and make personal acquaintances to overcome group stereotypes. Our leaders should transcend petty politics and focus on social integration as a key domestic goal. If we want Israel to survive and prosper, we have no other choice.

Continue reading April 7, 2010

Islamic Jihad may halt rocket attacks on Israel: The Independent

By Catrina Stewart, Tuesday, 6 April 2010
A spokesman for Islamic Jihad in Gaza has said that the militant group has agreed to stop firing rockets against Israel amid fears of a brewing conflict in the enclave.

In an interview with Islamic Jihad radio, Daoud Shihab said the group “stopped the rocket fire into Israel for internal Palestinian purposes – first and foremost to help end the siege on the Gaza Strip.” Mr Shihab is a senior figure within Islamic Jihad. But suggesting a possible division within the group, Islamic Jihad’s offer of a ceasefire was later denied by Nafez Azzam, one of the group’s leaders, on its website.

Ismail Radwan, a Hamas official, said yesterday that Islamist groups had agreed to co-ordinate their resistance efforts, but he refused to be drawn on whether they had agreed a ceasefire. Tensions are high in Gaza after Israel mounted missile attacks last week and an official threatened a second offensive if rocket attacks do not cease.

EDITOR: Lies again!

The IOF has of course never stopped lying, and by right, this should not be news any more; however, this case is just too much… first the soldiers shoot live ammunition at peaceful demonstrators and murder two of them, then the IOF denies any such deeds, and in the end, of course, they blame the soldiers. Those who killed, and those who lied, should all be prosecuted for murder!

Israeli military criticises troops who killed youths: BBC

The Israeli military has criticised its own soldiers for killing four young Palestinian demonstrators in the West Bank in March.
The Palestinians, one of whom was 15 years old, were shot in the space of 24 hours in two incidents near Nablus.
Israeli Defence Force commander Maj Gen Avi Mizrahi said the incidents were “an unnecessary operational occurrence with dire consequences”.
The IDF will now decide whether to take disciplinary action against soldiers.
X-ray
Mohammed Qadus, 15, and Osayed Qadus, 20, were killed during protests on 20 March in which stones were thrown at soldiers near an Israeli settlement.
Palestinian and human rights groups said the young men were killed with live ammunition.
They produced an X-ray image that appeared to show a bullet lodged in the skull of one of the victims.
The IDF initially denied the allegation, saying troops had been given clearance to use rubber coated anti-riot ammunition.
Tuesday’s report says the IDF were “unable to verify the autopsy”.
Later two men were killed near a military checkpoint.
The IDF investigation said the soldiers opened fire on one man who had attacked them with a broken bottle.
They shot a second man when he raised a sharp object after the first man was shot, the investigation said.
Maj Gen Mizrahi said commanders on the ground should have managed the situation differently and the second man was far away enough for them not to have had to open fire.
Palestinians say the account is false and the men were killed in an unprovoked attack.
The BBC’s Tim Franks in Jerusalem says it is unusual for the Israeli army to criticise its soldiers this quickly and this openly.

EDITOR: Dan David Prize 2010

This year, this prize was awarded to Maragret Atwood and Amitav Ghosh. This is a sure way of getting international authors to visit and praise Israel profusely. There is deep shock that those two important autors have agreed to recieve this prize, in the wake of the Gaza masacre, and from the brutal regime  in Jerusalem. The first two letters to Atwood are quoted Below:

Greyson letter to Atwood[1]

April 5, 2010
Margaret Atwood
c/o McClelland & Stewart
75 Sherbourne St., 5th Floor
Toronto, ON
M5A 2P9
Dear Margaret:
Back in 1981, I remember vividly that when the Toronto police raided several
bathhouses and arrested 300 men, you agreed to speak out at a hastily arranged benefit —
the first public figure to do so. Your courage meant a great deal to our gay community
then, and your words were typically memorable: “Why on earth would the police object
to cleanliness?”
I understand you’re going to Israel in May, to accept the Dan David Prize at Tel
Aviv University. Will you find words for the Gaza students who wrote to you yesterday,
44 miles down the coast, asking you to refuse the prize? Will you mention the ongoing
seige of Gaza, and the larger occupation, whose check points and security wall have
reduced the region to an apartheid state? Will you mention the two unarmed teenagers
Mohammed Qadas, 16, and Asaud Qadus, 19, who were shot by Israeli army snipers last
week? His aunt says that Mohammed had gone out to buy ice-cream. Why on earth
would the army object to ice-cream?
I write today as a fan, someone who’s life was changed on reading A Handmaid’s
Tale, someone who still treasures my rare edition of The Journals of Susanna Moodie.
For decades, you’ve been an extraordinary role model for so many of us, embracing the
role of artist as a figure of conscience. You’ve consistently spoken out against a host of
injustices, even as you engaged with the complexities of each issue. In May, will you
decline this prize, in recognition of the growing boycott movement which is trying to
contribute to peace in the region? Will you at least speak out against the war crimes
committed a year ago? Will you perhaps donate a portion to a writers group in Gaza?
Will you at the very least acknowledge the complexities that this award, and this conflict,
represent? Or will you remain silent, making us wonder: why on earth would Margaret
Atwood of all people object to complexity?
Sincerely,
John Greyson
Associate Professor, filmmaker

York University, Toronto

Bresheeth letter to Margaret Atwood

April 5, 2010

Margaret Atwood
c/o McClelland & Stewart
75 Sherbourne St., 5th Floor
Toronto, ON
M5A 2P9
Canada

Dear Margaret,

I have recently learnt that you are to travel to Israel in May, to be awarded the prestigious Dan David prize. In any other circumstances, I would be both enormously pleased and proud for you and for us all. Like so many others (probably many millions) I was moved and influenced greatly by your writing. Your writing appeared at the historical juncture it was most needed, and was welcomed by us all for its courage, the challenges it offered, and the committed feminism which has never become ossified, never turned into a dogma but remained live and real.
The wide recognition your work has received worldwide has affected the life of many, not just women, but of feminist men such as myself. As you have become more than a mere teller of stories, and always were the master (sic) of social narratives, what you do and say carries an enormous weight, something you must be aware of more than anybody.
I am writing to beg you, as an Israeli Jew who is totally committed to Palestine and the human and political rights of the Palestinians, to give all of us your courageous support we have grown to expect and respect, and to take the unlikely stance of refusing this prize. I fully realize how difficult such a request must be for you; the recognition and international fame, not to mention the funds, surely means a lot to a writer who lives by her pen alone, and I do not for a moment wish to overlook this. So what right have I, or for that matter, anyone else, to ask you to deny yourself this mark of appreciation and honour, which I myself am sure you more than richly deserve?
I am asking personally for this great sacrifice on your part, as one of many Jews, and increasingly also Israelis, who recognize a historical duty to stand up and be counted, to stand with the Palestinians against their brutal oppressors, after many decades of an iniquitous and inhuman military occupation, with no end in sight. I am asking you also as a fellow artist, as an independent filmmaker, and as someone whose family was wiped out in Poland by the Nazis. As such, I am bound to disagree with what Israel, and Israeli society, has done in my name for so many years, to no avail but with much suffering caused. Israel is not a tyranny – it is a democracy, for Jews only, of course, and it calls itself a Jewish democracy, which I am sure you will agree is a difficult concept; I would argue it is an oxymoron. I am making this point because by receiving this prize, you will by definition tying your name to this militarized, brutalized and brutalizing society, denting any rights to the Palestinians, exiling them from their land, and killing numerous civilians through a combination of racism, nationalism and Orientalism for the crime of their identity.
This society depends on all of us for its continued violence – it depends on our silence, on our being co-opted, on our international acceptance of the ‘deeds done’; we should never agree to support it, I believe, until it radically changes all its practices and beliefs, and agrees to treat Palestinians as human beings with full rights. The change needed is deeper than that required by the South African society. Would you have travelled to South Africa during apartheid? I cannot believe so, and yet you may travel to a state which uses all the modern technology of warfare against helpless, impoverished and terrorized civilians, like the almost two millions trapped in Gaza? Of course, while Israel keeps doing that, no Israeli will be free; A people oppressing another people cannot itself be free.
By going there now, you would add your immense moral authority to a state of military thugs, a state founded on inequality and plunder, a state which continuously unsettles and terrorizes the Middle East, yet presents itself as a victim! Your support is crucial for Israel – it needs liberals from all over the world to cleanse its image, to help it argue its case, to present it as a normal society – all of which is behind its relentless efforts and expense in luring internationally-renown authors, artists and intellectuals to its halls of culture, to receive prizes for their work which supports humane values…
I would put it to you that you would not have travelled to Chile under Pinochet to receive a literary prize; why would you do so now in Israel?
By refusing this prize, you would be giving moral support for the struggle for just peace in the Middle East, and for the human and political rights of the Palestinians. I put it to you that the courage required for such a deed is the courage your own work have displayed and exemplified over the decades for us all! The refusal of this prize would indeed cement your humane record in a unique way, giving hope to a people whose hope was brutally murdered.

Dear Margaret – please do not forsake us!

Sincerely yours,

Prof. Haim Bresheeth
University of East London
UK

Jonathan Ben-Artzi: Peace for Israelis and Palestinians? Not without America’s tough love: IOA

By Jonathan Ben-Artzi, The Christian Science Monitor – 1 April 2010
Providence, R.I. — More than 20 years ago, many Americans decided they could no longer watch as racial segregation divided South Africa. Compelled by an injustice thousands of miles away, they demanded that their communities, their colleges, their municipalities, and their government take a stand.
As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Today, a similar discussion is taking place on campuses across the United States. Increasingly, students are questioning the morality of the ties US institutions have with the unjust practices being carried out in Israel and in the occupied Palestinian territories. Students are seeing that these practices are often more than merely “unjust.” They are racist. Humiliating. Inhumane. Savage.
Sometimes it takes a good friend to tell you when enough is enough. As they did with South Africa two decades ago, concerned citizens across the US can make a difference by encouraging Washington to get the message to Israel that this cannot continue.
A legitimate question is, Why should I care? Americans are heavily involved in the conflict: from funding (the US provides Israel with roughly $3 billion annually in military aid) to corporate investments (Microsoft has one of its major facilities in Israel) to diplomatic support (the US has vetoed 32 United Nations Security Council resolutions unsavory to Israel between 1982 and 2006).
Why do I care? I am an Israeli. Both my parents were born in Israel. Both my grandmothers were born in Palestine (when there was no “Israel” yet). In fact, I am a ninth-generation native of Palestine. My ancestors were among the founders of today’s modern Jerusalem.
Both my grandfathers fled the Nazis and came to Palestine. Both were subsequently injured in the 1948 Arab-Israli War. My mother’s only brother was a paratrooper killed in combat in 1968. All of my relatives served in the Israeli military for extensive periods of time, some of them in units most people don’t even know exist.
In Israel, military service for both men and women is compulsory. When my time to serve came, I refused, because I realized I was obliged to do something about these acts of segregation. I was denied conscientious objector status, like the majority of 18-year-old males who seek this status. Because I refused to serve, I spent a year and a half in military prison.
Some of the acts of segregation that I saw while growing up in Israel include towns for Jews only, immigration laws that allow Jews from around the world to immigrate but deny displaced indigenous Palestinians that same right, and national healthcare and school systems that receive significantly more funding in Jewish towns than in Arab towns.
As former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in 2008: “We have not yet overcome the barrier of discrimination, which is a deliberate discrimination and the gap is insufferable…. Governments have denied [Arab Israelis] their rights to improve their quality of life.”
The situation in the occupied territories is even worse. Nearly 4 million Palestinians have been living under Israeli occupation for over 40 years without the most basic human and civil rights.
One example is segregation on roads in the West Bank, where settlers travel on roads that are for Jews only, while Palestinians are stopped at checkpoints, and a 10-mile commute might take seven hours.
Another example is discrimination in water supply: Israel pumps drinking water from occupied territory (in violation of international law). Israelis use as much as four times more water than Palestinians, while Palestinians are not allowed to dig their own wells and must rely on Israeli supply.
Civil freedom is no better: In an effort to break the spirit of Palestinians, Israel conducts sporadic arrests and detentions with no judicial supervision. According to one prisoner support and human rights association, roughly 4 in 10 Palestinian males have spent some time in Israeli prisons. That’s 40 percent of all Palestinian males!
And finally, perhaps one of the greatest injustices takes place in the Gaza Strip, where Israel is collectively punishing more than 1.5 million Palestinians by sealing them off in the largest open-air prison on earth.
Because of the US’s relationship with Israel, it is important for all Americans to educate themselves about the realities of the conflict. When they do, they will realize that just as much as support for South Africa decades ago was mostly damaging for South Africa itself, contemporary blind support for Israel hurts us Israelis.
We must lift the ruthless siege of Gaza, which only breeds more anger and frustration among Gazans, who respond by hurling primitive, homemade rockets at Israeli towns.
We must remove travel restrictions from West Bank Palestinians. How can we live in peace with a population where most children cannot visit their grandparents living in the neighboring village, without being stopped and harassed at military checkpoints for hours?
Finally, we must give equal rights to all. Regardless of what the final resolution will be – the so-called “one state solution,” the “two state solution,” or any other form of governance.
Israel governs the lives of 5.5 million Israeli Jews, 1.5 million Israeli Palestinians, and 4 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. As long as Israel is responsible for all of these people, it must ensure that all have equal rights, the same access to resources, and the same opportunities in education and healthcare. Only through such a platform of basic human rights for all humans can a resolution come to the region.
If Americans truly are our friends, they should shake us up and take away the keys, because right now we are driving drunk, and without this wake-up call, we will soon find ourselves in the ditch of an undemocratic, doomed state.
Jonathan Ben-Artzi was one of the spokespeople for the Hadash party in the Israeli general elections in 2006. His parents are professors in Israel, and his extended family includes uncle Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Ben-Artzi is a PhD student at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

Continue reading April 6, 2010

Israel allows commercial goods into Gaza: The Independent

Gaza border official says Israel has allowed a commercial shipment of shoes and clothes into the blockaded Palestinian territory for the first time since 2007.
Raed Fattouh says 10 truckloads of shoes and clothes entered the Hamas-run strip Sunday. He says many of the goods were damaged after more than two years in storage.
It was the first non-humanitarian shipment of such items, though an Israeli army spokesman says Israel allows such items into Gaza occasionally as part of UN-coordinated aid shipments.
Gaza has been under a strict Israeli and Egyptian blockade since Hamas seized control of the area in 2007. There are shortages of many basic goods and merchants rely on smuggling tunnels under the Egyptian border.

EDITOR: Call for disarmament by Blix

Though not dealing mainly or only with Israel/Palestine, this has an important bearing on the conflict.

A Season for Disarmament: NY Times

Hans Blix, April 4, 2010
STOCKHOLM — The financial crisis and global warming have had the world’s attention in recent years. Thanks to President Barack Obama’s initiative, perhaps the season for nuclear disarmament has finally arrived.

On Thursday, President Obama will meet Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Prague to sign a nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia that will reduce their arsenals by 30 percent.

The new treaty will be received positively. There will be praise for the Obama administration’s attitude toward arms control and disarmament and for Russia’s readiness to join hands with the United States.

Though not achieving the drastic cuts in nuclear arsenals and delivery vehicles that the world is longing for, the U.S.-Russian treaty is important and encouraging. Coming after Bush administration policies that nearly sent the two states into a new Cold War, the new treaty constitutes the resetting of an important button. It preserves arrangements for confidence-building mutual inspections and sets the stage for negotiating more far-reaching cuts.

We should be aware, however, that a next step of deeper reductions will hardly be attainable unless there is agreement on extensive cooperation on missile defense. Russia is deeply suspicious that the missile shield could enable the United States to launch an attack on any target in Russia while itself remaining immune to any such attacks. Further bilateral disarmament will also be impeded if Russia feels that the NATO alliance seeks to encircle it by expanding its military cooperation through membership or otherwise with more states neighboring Russia.

The signing on Thursday will take place one year after President Obama’s presentation in Prague of a detailed program for the revival of global nuclear arms control and disarmament. Later this month he will be the host in Washington of a large summit meeting that will focus on nuclear security. In May, the operation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will be the subject of review at a conference in New York in which nearly all governments in the world will take part. The review that took place in 2005 ended in acrimony and some predicted the end of the treaty.

Through adherence to the nonproliferation treaty that was concluded in 1970, states have committed themselves to stay away from nuclear weapons or to move away from these weapons. If all states had joined and fulfilled their commitments, the treaty would have led by now to a world free of nuclear weapons. This has not happened, of course. The number of nuclear weapons, which peaked at more than 50,000 during the Cold War, is still over 20,000 — most of them in the United States and Russia. The number of states with nuclear weapons has gone from five to nine since 1970.

There is also frustration at the lack of progress on many important items relevant to the treaty. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has not entered into force because the United States, China and a number of other states have not ratified it. The negotiation of a convention prohibiting the production of enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons remains blocked at the Geneva Disarmament Conference. The Additional Protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency for strengthened safeguards inspections remains unratified by a large number of states, including Iran.

Some items are bound to attract much attention at the nonproliferation treaty review conference in May. One is that 20 years after the end of the Cold War, the obligation of five nuclear-weapon states under the treaty to negotiate toward nuclear disarmament has not led us anywhere near zero. Another grievance — especially among Arab states — is that Israel has nuclear weapons and has refrained from adhering to the treaty. A third is that the treaty has been violated by several states. Although Iraq and Libya have been brought into compliance, North Korea has not and Iran and perhaps others might be aiming to ignore the treaty.

Hans Blix was the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997 and chief U.N. arms inspector for Iraq from 2000 to 2003.

Continue reading April 5, 2010

Communal Groups Mobilize Against ‘Delegitimizers’ of Jewish State: Forward

Targets See New Push as Effort To Discredit Legitimate Criticism
By Nathan Guttman
Published March 31, 2010,
Organizer: CODEPINK’s Nancy Kricorian says she does not aim to delegitimize Israel.
The term, used to describe a broad spectrum of anti-Israel protests, has become a major rallying point for the American Jewish community and is the up-and-coming cause for Jewish organizations.

In particular, supporters of this emerging advocacy effort point to the campaign to boycott, divest from and sanction — BDS — Israel as a primary marker distinguishing “delegitimizers” from genuine critics. It’s a campaign that has gained traction on the left in recent years. And in the past few months, pro-Israel advocates have begun to mobilize against what they perceive to be efforts to delegitimize Israel as a Jewish state, whether via BDS or other means.

“The delegitimization and BDS movement is nationally coordinated, and it requires a national response,” said William Daroff, the Jewish Federations of North America’s vice president for public policy. “We need to move forward as a community to counter this cancerous growth.”
But while supporters of Israel see the fight against delegitimization of the Jewish state as a new frontier in the pro-Israel battle, critics believe that the term is used mostly to discredit opposition to Israeli policies.

“To be frank, the ‘de-legitimization’ issue is a fraud,” historian Tony Judt, director of New York University’s Remarque Institute, wrote in an e-mail to the Forward. Judt, a harsh critic of Israel, said: “I know no one in the professional world of political commentary, however angry about Israel’s behavior, who thinks that the country has no right to exist…. ‘De-legitimization’ is just another way to invoke antisemitism as a silencer, but sounds better because [it’s] less exploitative of emotional pain.”
Judt has written that he believes Israel’s settlement policies have made a binational one-state outcome to the Israel-Palestinian conflict all but inevitable — a stand that has led Israel advocates to label Judt himself a delegitimizer.

In the past year, JFNA and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs adopted resolutions calling for communitywide action against delegitimization. And the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s executive director, Howard Kohr, outlined a plan to fight Israel’s delegitimization by demanding the state’s admission into international bodies, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

A March 10 meeting in New York marked the most significant attempt yet to formulate a communitywide response to this perception of delegitimization. Israeli officials and participants from major Jewish organizations and federations discussed the possibility of creating and funding a mechanism to track and respond to what they see as delegitimization efforts.

As a first order of business, participants raised the need to educate the Jewish community about the issue.

“Members of our community need to be knowledgeable and need to be able to answer to these allegations,” said Martin Raffel, JCPA’s senior vice president. “There is no one-size-fits-all solution. We will have to have tailored responses for each constituency.”
But seeking a response to delegitimization requires a clear definition of the problem. An in-depth study released in March by the Reut Institute, a Tel Aviv-based think tank, identifies delegitimization as an organized movement and goes to great lengths to define the elusive term in a way that draws a line between what authors of the 92-page report see as legitimate criticism of Israel and forms of protest that fall under the delegitimization category.

“We are asking people to go into the nuances. We need to keep in mind that not everyone is an Israel hater, but not everything is Israel’s fault,” said Gidi Grinstein, Reut’s founder and president.
The think tank’s paper defines delegitimization as criticism that “exhibits blatant double standards, singles out Israel, denies its right to exist as the embodiment of the self-determination right of the Jewish people, or demonizes the state.”
But, as Grinstein pointed out, identifying Israel’s delegitimizers can be tricky, since most do not see themselves as denying Israel’s right to exist.
“The effectiveness of Israel’s de-legitimizers, who represent a relatively marginal political and societal force in Europe and North America, stems from their ability to engage and mobilize others by blurring the lines with Israel’s critics,” the Reut paper states.

Would the students who disrupted the February 9 speech of Israeli ambassador Michael Oren at University of California, Irvine be delegitimizers? For most activists in the Jewish community, the answer is clear.
“They definitely are,” said Michael Kotzin, executive vice president of Chicago’s Jewish federation. “Instead of asking [Oren] about Israel’s policy, they are denying him the right to speak.”
Kotzin said that many of those pursuing the delegitimization agenda are naive and are exploited by activists who deny Israel’s right to exist.

According to Israel supporters dealing with the issue, the key is focusing not on the protesters’ actions but on their intentions, even if they do not acknowledge these intentions publicly.
“You need to dig under the surface and see what drives them,” Grinstein said. “Most of the students who protested Oren’s speech don’t understand the subtleties and believe they are not engaged in delegitimization, but those organizing them are.”

Nancy Kricorian of CODEPINK, a women’s anti-war group, might be seen as such an organizer. Kricorian coordinates CODEPINK’s boycott campaign against Ahava cosmetic products because the products are manufactured on a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank. But she rejected the thought that she was seeking to delegitimize the state. “This is only a way of changing the subject,” said Kricorian. “All we want is [for] Israel to respect human rights and international law. I don’t see how that delegitimizes Israel.”

At the same time, the broad-based coalition of Palestinian civil society groups that launched the BDS movement in 2005 declares that one of its goals is to promote the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes they lost — sometimes through mass expulsion — during Israel’s 1948 War of Independence. A 1948 United Nations Security Council Resolution endorsed this right, but Israel rejects it on the grounds that the flood of returnees would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
Reut and advocates for Israel argue that singling out Israel and demanding that it adhere to higher human rights standards than its adversaries is another form of delegitimization.

Yet, a higher standard for Israel is something that Judt, for one, unapologetically upholds. “People will say, ‘Why are we picking on Israel? What about Libya, Yemen? Burma? China?’” he writes in the March 25 issue of the London Review of Books. “Fine. [But] Israel describes itself as a democracy, and so it should be compared with democracies, not with dictatorships.”
As a country in “a difficult relationship” with its neighbors, Israel should be allowed a “certain margin of behavior,” Judt acknowledged in his email. But Israel’s relative strength compared to other regional nations gives it “even less excuse for criminality, law-breaking or violence than they do,” he said.
Amos Guiora, a law professor and former Israeli army senior military counsel, objected that Israel is judged by double standards even when compared with other Western democracies. Guiora, noted that attacks by German and American forces in Afghanistan that caused heavy civilian deaths received less censure from the international community.

“By what standard does Israel want to be judged?” Guiora asked. His reply was, “By a standard in which you judge countries that are in a very, very special situation.”
Those seeking to distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from delegitimization cite another criterion: the labeling of Israeli policies as “apartheid.”
Yet, in recent years mainstream Israeli leaders have used the word to describe the danger the country faces if it does not resolve its conflict with Palestinians.

Recently, Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister and Labor Party leader, said bluntly, “If millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”
Grinstein warned that fighting delegitimization must not devolve into hasbara, or public relations. The struggle, he said, is both about confronting those who question Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and making sure Israel pursues a path of seeking peace and an end to the occupation.
The Reut document states, “Clearly, an Israeli and Palestinian comprehensive Permanent Status Agreement that establishes a Palestinian state and brings about an ‘end of conflict’… would weaken the grounds of Israel’s de-legitimization.”

EDITOR: No More Rockets? Oy Vey…

Terrible news, this! If indeed there will be no rockets, it will be even more difficult to justify the next attack… but, not to worry, they will find seven different ways to do so. They always do.

Report: Islamic Jihad to stop rocket fire on Israel: Haaretz

Islamic Jihad on Sunday announced that it would cease firing rockets into Israel, Channel 10 news reported.
An Islamic Jihad spokesman, Daoud Shihab, made the announcement in an interview on Islamic Jihad radio, during which he reportedly said the militant group, “stopped the rocket fire into Israel for internal Palestinian purposes – first and foremost to help end the siege on the Gaza Strip.”

According to the Channel 10 report, Shihab went on to say that Islamic Jihad does not intend to reverse this decision, but clarified that “if Israel once again attacks Gaza, no one will be able to prevent the resistance operatives from responding to the attacks.”

An anonymous Islamic Jihad official later denied the attacks would stop, according to Israel Radio.
A senior Egyptian official involved in brokering past truces between Gaza militant groups and Israel said in a statement that the Egyptians had on Sunday stepped up diplomatic pressure on both parties to reduce tensions in the coastal strip.
“Egypt has conducted extensive calls at the highest level with both Israel and the Palestinian factions to contain the escalating tension in the Gaza Strip in order to prevent a deterioration of the situation,” the official said.

Meanwhile, Hamas spokesman Ayman Taha on Friday told the BBC that Hamas is working to curb rocket attacks against Israel by Gaza militants.
“The government in Gaza is in charge of the situation, and it does know clearly who launches rockets,” Taha told the BBC. “It is working hard to deter any faction from acting individually.”
Earlier this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov urged Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal to stop militants in the Gaza Strip from firing rockets against Israel.
Lavrov made his request in a telephone conversation, which, according to Russian news agencies, covered a variety of issues regarding the Middle East.
The Russian foreign minister told Meshal that the recent increase in rocket fire was unacceptable.

Meshal responded by reiterating Hamas’ declared stance that it was not interested in an escalation of tensions with Israel and would continue to try to maintain calm in the area.
However, days later, on Saturday, Meshal said that all options against Israel remain open, including war, according to Channel 10 news.
“We will do everything to obtain the rights stolen from us, including confrontation with the enemy,” said.

EDITOR: The great apologists rides again

Jacobson, a hopeless case of apologism for Israel, is again speaking of the terrible antisemitism, which he has been hoping and pining for for some time now, and at last he seems to capture it in his gun-sight… When calling Israel arrogant and speaking of war crimes is supposedly antisemitic, then surely we should all sop speaking and writing altogether, and if possible, stop thinking. For some people, no amount of Israeli brutalities will ever make the slightest difference.

Howard Jacobson: Peace becomes possible now that Israel is being treated like a grown-up: The Independent

Anti-Zionism of the sort that peppers letters pages has much to answer for
Taking the long view, it’s been a good few weeks for Israel. It won’t look that way, of course, to those who view the country from an extreme position – whether zealots unwilling to believe Israel can ever do a thing wrong, or zealots unwilling to believe it can ever do a thing right.

Nothing will assuage the passions of these fevered men, or deflect them from their mutual fascination; they are locked in a lewd embrace, each needing the heat of the other’s body to keep his own alive. But to the rational and the fair, it’s been a few weeks full of promise.

Call nothing certain, but Obama’s strict line with Netanyahu over the resumption of building in Ramat Shlomo appears to have woken the latter to an awareness, if not yet the practice, of realpolitik – realpolitik, paradoxically, being an acceptance that a concessionary spirit as often as not trumps principle.

The argument has been advanced that the houses in Ramat Shlomo are not to be confused with settlements on disputed land, that they are the completion of a project that has been going on for years without complaint, and in a part of Jerusalem not covered by the settlement freeze – a municipal not an international matter, in other words, a bit like the holes in the roads of Boris Johnson’s rubbish-dump London. To which the answer, since this is a family newspaper in which we ought not to resort to swearing, is “Tough!”

Where peace is the prize – and it can’t be a good few weeks for any party in which peace is not brought a little closer – such topographical niceties are not only brutally irrelevant, they are counterproductive. Never mind the rights and wrongs of it, in politics you must sometimes swallow your conviction of rectitude, just as in human relations you must sometimes accept that what looks right to you looks wrong to someone else.

Fanatical and uninformed anti-Zionism of the sort that peppers the letters pages of serious newspapers has much to answer for morally and intellectually, but the most serious charge against it is that while it satisfies the self-righteousness of its propounders, it does little to help those it calls victims, and still less to persuade those it calls oppressors.

Weary of the one-sidedness of international condemnation, successive Israeli administrations have turned away and pursued their own course, confident at least that America will go on winking at the obduracy into which it has been backed. With every misattribution of motive, with every lazy libel, that obduracy has grown stronger. As an observer one can feel it hardening one’s own heart. Malign misrepresentation leaves no room for subtle dialogue. Thus, many who would have been critical of the occupation in their own terms – which does not mean seeing it as Hamas or Ahmadinejad see it – are deflected from the real conversation and must expend their energies confuting the prejudices of scoundrels.

The recent Biden/Netanyahu spat has broken the enchantment. Never mind that the poorly taught and easily led will go on twittering about apartheid and genocide even if Israel pulls down every house it has ever built and moves its population on to Dizengoff Beach tomorrow – the argument now is between grown-ups. This is how you talk to friends. This is how you treat enemies. To gain A you must forfeit B, no matter that you think you have the paperwork to prove it’s yours. He who would win a bit in the long run must lose a bit in the long run too.

It’s far better for Israel to be in an argument with a specific country over a specific issue than to have its actual, never mind its spiritual existence, forever undermined by ideologues hunting in packs with misquotations in their pockets. So I see the expulsion of an Israeli diplomat by our Foreign Secretary as more good news.

This, too, has been couched in the language of sanctimony, the inviolability of British passports blah blah, the crime of targeted assassinations, but that’s an allowable hypocrisy. A state must say one thing while its citizens believe another. We all love targeted assassinations in our hearts, so long as it’s the right target and it isn’t our passport that’s been purloined to do it – a sophisticated parley with our consciences which we don’t require our government to reflect. From a newspaper, though, we expect a tone which at least acknowledges that we face both ways in matters such as these. So I was surprised to see a Guardian editorial reading like a 19th-century Foreign Office reprimand to a recalcitrant colony that had forgotten it was of the wrong caste and colour to be getting uppity.

“Both events in London and Washington,” the editorial said, “are the marks of an arrogant nation that has overreached itself.”

Let’s leave aside what’s arrogant and what’s not. What we call arrogance is almost always a cover for fear. And Netanyahu struts like a man whose fears run deep. But how can the rift with the American and British administrations reflect in any way on Israel as a “nation”? Did Mrs Thatcher’s taking back the Falklands make us an arrogant “nation”? Does our being in Afghanistan say anything about us as a “nation” at all? Some of us are pleased we’re there, some aren’t, and some don’t give a damn either way. We are not, as a nation, of one mind or heart in very much, if anything, we do. To imply otherwise would be to charge us with a collective flaw, and we all know what the word is for doing that.

It’s precisely because they are free of slurs of this sort, without unsavoury ethnic or socio-religious overtones, that Washington and London’s arguments with Israel are to be welcomed. They address political differences. Obama and Miliband have squared up to a country not a “nation”, they have taken issue with decisions made by the government of Israel, and not that unvariegated figment of disordered imaginations, “the Israeli people”, and thus they have liberated the entire debate from the question of what Balfour intended, whether the Holocaust has been exploited, who is and who is not a Zionist, etc, etc. And give or take the odd misguided editorial, letters from the usual suspects, and the on-line vituperation that clings like a spider web to the coat-tails of other people’s articles, such has been the liberated spirit of public commentary ever since Biden kept Netanyahu waiting for dinner.

Allowing that tomorrow is a terrifying place, we can take some hope from this. An Israel treated like other countries, held accountable for its political, not its supposed aetiological or genetic failings, is a country from which much might be expected, including peace.

Continue reading April 4, 2010