American Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has been working hard for weeks on a Middle East peace conference to be held in Annapolis, Maryland in November. There are solid reasons for her efforts. The United States has undeniably lost a great deal of support in the Middle East both because of its lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction and Saadam’s supposed ties to El Qaeda and its unbelievably clumsy conduct of the Iraq War. Most people in the region regard the United States not as the guarantor of democracy but as an imperialist power propping up corrupt regimes and favoring Israel in its conflict with those whom they regard as hapless Palestinian victims. Through these last six years of the Bush administration, the U.S. has disengaged from the peace efforts of the Clinton administration and given the Israelis free rein in dealing with the Palestinians. Now, however Secretary Rice is understandably anxious to restore American credibility, especially in the Sunni world, and the United State has once again, taken on the role of Middle Eastern peace maker.
As a long time advocate of peace in the Middle East, I would love to find cause for optimism but I see little reason to believe that a conference in November can accomplish much. First, there is little evidence of adequate American preparation. The real work of such a conference is not done at the meeting itself but for months beforehand, through policy papers, frequent meetings with the players and major understandings reached before the conference. Camp David, many experts agree, may have failed, in part, because of inadequate preparation but the experienced Clinton team did shuttle constantly between the key players in a manner we have not seen, at least openly duplicated by Ms. Rice and her associates. All we have seen are a series of meetings between Olmert and Abu Mazen, with the former urging agreement on a series of “principles” and the latter asking for commitments and progress towards a final accord.
A second reason for my pessimism is the state of the Palestinian Authority under Abu Mazen. The years of the second intifadah spent in counter-productive suicide bombings and armed conflict, the great division in Palestinian ranks between Hamas and Fatah, the continuing corruption of the latter, and the undeniable pressures of the Israeli occupation have left Palestinians with little more than a figurehead government. Yes, part of the blame for this state of affairs can be placed on Israel but regardless of how the blame is apportioned, it is difficult to understand how any Israeli government could rely on the undertakings of a now pathetic PA leadership. Moreover, both Israeli and Western observers are keenly aware that Hamas, through the instrument of terror, has a fearsome veto power over any peace agreement. If Israel was prepared to grant major concessions to the PA, then the threat from Hamas might decline but that does not seem likely.
Of course, Israeli society is also much divided on the issue of peace. We all know the broad outlines of what a final status agreement should look like, along the lines of Camp David or Geneva, but the settler movement will fight any attempt to sacrifice large areas of the West Bank, the religious will oppose compromise on sovereignty over the Temple Mount and many Israelis will oppose any division of Jerusalem. Prime Minister Olmert’s own Kadima Party is divided merely over rumors coming from the negotiations. The new Labor Leader Ehud Barak, is trying to burnish his security credentials and openly opposes a peace agreement until Israel can construct a system to counter short range rockets, in four years or so. He advises that no concessions should be made to a lame-duck Bush administration. Haunted by Camp David, Barak has taken a sharp turn to the right, to compete with Bibi Netanyahu. There is, then, no substantial peace constituency in the Knesset.
If Secretary Rice proves capable of moving Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab powers to the bargaining table, with a realistic possibility of a constructive agreement, even on interim steps, then I will be pleasantly amazed. She has not much to show for her own legacy or that of the Bush administration. We should all wish her well.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
JEWS FACE THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
There is a controversy raging among American Jews which may get even hotter in the coming days. The issue arises because the U.S. congress will once again be asked to vote for a bill recognizing the Armenian genocide of 1915. One might think that this would not be a difficult issue for the Jewish community but unfortunately several of the major Jewish organizations in the United States have seen fit to intervene against the bill.
First, let me explain to those of you who are not well acquainted with the events of 1915 that an overwhelming number of historians recognize that the Turkish government of the day engaged in the pre-meditated murder of between 1 and 1.5 million Armenians. Jewish holocaust scholars including Raul Hilberg, Elie Wiesel , Yehuda Bauer, Daniel Goldhagen and Deborah Lipstadt have all signed ads urging the congress to pass the resolution. The scholarship is overwhelming; including even some Turkish writers, but the Turkish government persists in its refusal to acknowledge responsibility. Armenian genocide denial is close kin to holocaust denial and as morally reprehensible.
The current bill in the Congress was introduced in January by Representative Adam Schiff of California and has wide Jewish support in both the House and Senate, from Democrats and Republicans. However, it is not clear if or when the bills will come to a vote. The Turkish government has been active in supporting opposition to the bill, hiring prominent lobbyists and meeting with Jewish leaders. This leadership was obviously reminded, at a meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister Abdula Gul, of Turkey’s good relations with Israel as well as with the United States, her support for her own Jewish community numbering approximately 40,000, and her record as a sanctuary for Jewish refugees over the centuries. It is difficult to say whether it was Turkish lobbying, their own sentiments, or possibly direct intervention from Israel which led the Anti-Defamation League, B’nai Brith International, the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs to pass along to members of congress a letter from Turkish Jews opposing the resolution, thus implicitly taking the side of Turkey.
It was the ADLs Abraham Foxman who was the most outspoken of the Jewish leaders, declaring that “this is an issue that needs to be resolved by the parties, not by us. We are neither historians nor arbiters.” One has never heard Foxman, a child survivor of the holocaust; make such a cavalier reference to the death of six million Jews. He has given further fuel to his critics by firing the ADLs New England regional director who had urged that the organization recognize the genocide. A former ADL regional board member condemned the firing as “a vindictive, intolerant, and destructive act” by an organization and leader whose “fundamental mission – is to promote tolerance.” Foxman has subsequently, following much criticism and a conversation with Elie Wiesel, to agree that the events of 1915 constituted genocide but continues to oppose the bill as counterproductive.
For her part, Israel has not made any public reference to the Armenian genocide and has carefully deleted such references from text books and even withdrawn support from international conferences at which the genocide would have been a subject for discussion. Before a trip to Turkey then-foreign minister Shimon Peres said of the genocide, that it was “a matter for historians to decide.” There are many prominent Israelis who deplore their government’s failure to act on a significant moral issue. However, in the case of a nation state, realpolitik often triumphs over morality. Israel obviously considers that her relations with Turkey are too important to be possibly undermined by taking the moral road, though Israelis from across the political spectrum have disagreed on the consequences of such actions.
Nevertheless, the American Jewish leadership is not and should not be tied to Israeli realpolitik. Individual morality cannot be waived in the interest of Israel, the United States or Canada. Perhaps if the Armenian genocide resolution is again defeated these same community leaders will be at pains to deny the influence of the Jewish lobby. Neither Israel nor the American Jewish community will be well served by a community leadership that abandons elementary standards of behavior for a misguided assessment of the needs of Israel or Turkish Jewry. Perhaps they should recall the infamous words attributed to Adolph Hitler, calling on his troops to pursue their destructive work he stated: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” As Jews, we are obliged to speak, and our voices must be heard on the side of justice and morality.
First, let me explain to those of you who are not well acquainted with the events of 1915 that an overwhelming number of historians recognize that the Turkish government of the day engaged in the pre-meditated murder of between 1 and 1.5 million Armenians. Jewish holocaust scholars including Raul Hilberg, Elie Wiesel , Yehuda Bauer, Daniel Goldhagen and Deborah Lipstadt have all signed ads urging the congress to pass the resolution. The scholarship is overwhelming; including even some Turkish writers, but the Turkish government persists in its refusal to acknowledge responsibility. Armenian genocide denial is close kin to holocaust denial and as morally reprehensible.
The current bill in the Congress was introduced in January by Representative Adam Schiff of California and has wide Jewish support in both the House and Senate, from Democrats and Republicans. However, it is not clear if or when the bills will come to a vote. The Turkish government has been active in supporting opposition to the bill, hiring prominent lobbyists and meeting with Jewish leaders. This leadership was obviously reminded, at a meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister Abdula Gul, of Turkey’s good relations with Israel as well as with the United States, her support for her own Jewish community numbering approximately 40,000, and her record as a sanctuary for Jewish refugees over the centuries. It is difficult to say whether it was Turkish lobbying, their own sentiments, or possibly direct intervention from Israel which led the Anti-Defamation League, B’nai Brith International, the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs to pass along to members of congress a letter from Turkish Jews opposing the resolution, thus implicitly taking the side of Turkey.
It was the ADLs Abraham Foxman who was the most outspoken of the Jewish leaders, declaring that “this is an issue that needs to be resolved by the parties, not by us. We are neither historians nor arbiters.” One has never heard Foxman, a child survivor of the holocaust; make such a cavalier reference to the death of six million Jews. He has given further fuel to his critics by firing the ADLs New England regional director who had urged that the organization recognize the genocide. A former ADL regional board member condemned the firing as “a vindictive, intolerant, and destructive act” by an organization and leader whose “fundamental mission – is to promote tolerance.” Foxman has subsequently, following much criticism and a conversation with Elie Wiesel, to agree that the events of 1915 constituted genocide but continues to oppose the bill as counterproductive.
For her part, Israel has not made any public reference to the Armenian genocide and has carefully deleted such references from text books and even withdrawn support from international conferences at which the genocide would have been a subject for discussion. Before a trip to Turkey then-foreign minister Shimon Peres said of the genocide, that it was “a matter for historians to decide.” There are many prominent Israelis who deplore their government’s failure to act on a significant moral issue. However, in the case of a nation state, realpolitik often triumphs over morality. Israel obviously considers that her relations with Turkey are too important to be possibly undermined by taking the moral road, though Israelis from across the political spectrum have disagreed on the consequences of such actions.
Nevertheless, the American Jewish leadership is not and should not be tied to Israeli realpolitik. Individual morality cannot be waived in the interest of Israel, the United States or Canada. Perhaps if the Armenian genocide resolution is again defeated these same community leaders will be at pains to deny the influence of the Jewish lobby. Neither Israel nor the American Jewish community will be well served by a community leadership that abandons elementary standards of behavior for a misguided assessment of the needs of Israel or Turkish Jewry. Perhaps they should recall the infamous words attributed to Adolph Hitler, calling on his troops to pursue their destructive work he stated: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” As Jews, we are obliged to speak, and our voices must be heard on the side of justice and morality.
Monday, October 1, 2007
ALI ABUNIMEH
I have now been subjected twice by the CBC to one Ali Abunimeh, a Palestinian-American who somehow picked up a posh English accent in the course of his studies. This gentleman is currently promoting a book titled “One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Credulous interviewers seem to accept him, at his word that he offers some new, perhaps helpful, view toward resolving the conflict but they mistake his purpose.
Abunimeh’s tone and his accent serve to mask his extremism. He is in fact urepresentative of the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza who advocate a two state solution, while he takes us back to the older, more militant demand, of one secular, democratic Palestinian state. Of course he never tells us on which planet his model of Arab democracy exists. He never tells us why even the most moderate Israelis would trust their lives and that of their children to his vision of a shared state in which Jews would soon be subject to a Muslim majority. More seriously, he never tells the Palestinians why they should enlist in perpetual conflict, for most of those who live in the West Bank and Gaza would recognize that Abunimeh offers a recipe for perpetuating the disaster of their current lives.
Abunimeh is offering a made in the diaspora solution that partakes of the same brand of extremism as that of those diaspora Jews who would fight to the last Israeli for all the lands of ancient Israel. We in diaspora communities can, at no personal cost, enjoy the luxury of extremisms which may further our own political or ideological goals. So, if Abunimeh offers nothing new, one must ask what his book and current promotion tour are all about, what is he seeking?
Ali Abunimeh is vying for leadership of the Palestinian diaspora. It is in their diaspora communities of North America and Western Europe that his message will resonate; it is in these communities that the so-called “right of return”, a non-starter for almost all Israelis,” is still cherished as an almost Koranic injunction. The Palestinian-American Professor Edward Said, who died in 2003, in his later years also advocated a one state solution and denounced the Oslo agreements because they did not embrace the right of return. Said’s death left a leadership vacuum, at least in the diaspora’s intellectual ranks and Abunimeh is attempting to fill it.
Thus, with his book of recycled early Arafat, with a Said veneer, Abunimeh launches a leadership campaign. Of course, on the way to his goal, he may snare some of the gullible who swallow his dubious logic. The more wary will understand that he offers not conflict resolution but conflict enhancement, with a program that Israelis can never accept, thus promoting more years of personal insecurity for Israelis and economic disaster for his Palestinian brothers and sisters.
Abunimeh’s tone and his accent serve to mask his extremism. He is in fact urepresentative of the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza who advocate a two state solution, while he takes us back to the older, more militant demand, of one secular, democratic Palestinian state. Of course he never tells us on which planet his model of Arab democracy exists. He never tells us why even the most moderate Israelis would trust their lives and that of their children to his vision of a shared state in which Jews would soon be subject to a Muslim majority. More seriously, he never tells the Palestinians why they should enlist in perpetual conflict, for most of those who live in the West Bank and Gaza would recognize that Abunimeh offers a recipe for perpetuating the disaster of their current lives.
Abunimeh is offering a made in the diaspora solution that partakes of the same brand of extremism as that of those diaspora Jews who would fight to the last Israeli for all the lands of ancient Israel. We in diaspora communities can, at no personal cost, enjoy the luxury of extremisms which may further our own political or ideological goals. So, if Abunimeh offers nothing new, one must ask what his book and current promotion tour are all about, what is he seeking?
Ali Abunimeh is vying for leadership of the Palestinian diaspora. It is in their diaspora communities of North America and Western Europe that his message will resonate; it is in these communities that the so-called “right of return”, a non-starter for almost all Israelis,” is still cherished as an almost Koranic injunction. The Palestinian-American Professor Edward Said, who died in 2003, in his later years also advocated a one state solution and denounced the Oslo agreements because they did not embrace the right of return. Said’s death left a leadership vacuum, at least in the diaspora’s intellectual ranks and Abunimeh is attempting to fill it.
Thus, with his book of recycled early Arafat, with a Said veneer, Abunimeh launches a leadership campaign. Of course, on the way to his goal, he may snare some of the gullible who swallow his dubious logic. The more wary will understand that he offers not conflict resolution but conflict enhancement, with a program that Israelis can never accept, thus promoting more years of personal insecurity for Israelis and economic disaster for his Palestinian brothers and sisters.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
YOU GO TOO FAR MR. DERSHOWITZ
Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor and one time defender of O.J. has more recently emerged as one of the toughest critics of books and authors he deems unfair to Israel. His first target was Norman Finkelstein, who was recently denied tenure by DePaul University in Chicago. I could not feel too sorry for Finkelstein whose own style is angry and polemical. I had first encountered Finkelstein when I read his attack on Prof. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s work, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. I found Finkelstein to be angry and destructive in his critique of Goldhagen which he wrote in a take no prisoners style. Evidently, not satisfied with trying to destroy the reputation of a young scholar, Finkelstein turned his guns on Dershowitz, who replied in kind. I learned little from either of them since they presented little or nothing in the way of new evidence to help me to learn more about the holocaust or Israel.
Dershowitz next attacked former President Jimmy Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Before I found time to read the book, I had been e-mailed the Dershowitz critique by several friends who likewise had not read the book but now thought they knew something. In addition people I met at Jewish functions were all attacking Carter because they had read Dershowitz. Ultimately, I read both and could make my own mind up. I hate the use of the word apartheid by Carter or his publishers as much as I loath the use of terms such as “Nazi” or “genocide” by thoughtless critics of Israel. “Apartheid” was probably used in the title to promote sales but it sets off useless debates, often by people who know very little about the old South African system, and it discourages many Jews from reading or listening.
Dershowitz also usefully pointed out some serious errors in Carter’s work. However, most books have errors and that does not stop intelligent readers from learning from them. Hundreds of Brandeis University students who respectfully listened to Carter, despite these attacks, gave him a standing ovation. At the least, they and subsequent University audiences learned that the former President had not turned anti-Semite or enemy of Israel. Carter could be read or heard by those who Dershowitz had not inspired to close their eyes or ears.
Prof. Dershowitz has most recently taken on Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer whose article and now a book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
has excited many Jewish critics of varying political stripes. From my own point of view some of the criticisms have merit but I do not regard the authors’ purpose as that of dredging up an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Intelligent readers of the book and its critics can decide for themselves just how strong the Israel lobby is in the United States, and certainly its existence and power cannot be denied.
However Dershowitz sank to a new low, when he stated that Presidential candidate Barack Obama had to repudiate his new foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brezezinski, a former National Security Advisor. Why, because Dr. Brzezinski had written in Foreign Policy that Mearsheimer and Walt “have rendered a public service by initiating a much-needed debate on the role of the ‘Israel Lobby’ in the shaping of U.S. foreign policy.” Dershowitz characterized this as an endorsement of “a bigoted attack on the American Jewish community.” Nonsense, Dershowitz has descended into guilt by association linking the authors of The Israel Lobby to Brzezinski and then to Obama. You may be interested to know that Dershowitz supports Obama’s rival, Hillary Clinton
The pattern is clear. Books critical of Israel or of some of its American supporters are to be subjected to destructive attack. They should not be subject to balanced criticism and consideration; rather they should be effectively eliminated, not by a book burning, but in a torrent of condemnation which serves to drown out critical voices.
Dershowitz next attacked former President Jimmy Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Before I found time to read the book, I had been e-mailed the Dershowitz critique by several friends who likewise had not read the book but now thought they knew something. In addition people I met at Jewish functions were all attacking Carter because they had read Dershowitz. Ultimately, I read both and could make my own mind up. I hate the use of the word apartheid by Carter or his publishers as much as I loath the use of terms such as “Nazi” or “genocide” by thoughtless critics of Israel. “Apartheid” was probably used in the title to promote sales but it sets off useless debates, often by people who know very little about the old South African system, and it discourages many Jews from reading or listening.
Dershowitz also usefully pointed out some serious errors in Carter’s work. However, most books have errors and that does not stop intelligent readers from learning from them. Hundreds of Brandeis University students who respectfully listened to Carter, despite these attacks, gave him a standing ovation. At the least, they and subsequent University audiences learned that the former President had not turned anti-Semite or enemy of Israel. Carter could be read or heard by those who Dershowitz had not inspired to close their eyes or ears.
Prof. Dershowitz has most recently taken on Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer whose article and now a book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
has excited many Jewish critics of varying political stripes. From my own point of view some of the criticisms have merit but I do not regard the authors’ purpose as that of dredging up an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Intelligent readers of the book and its critics can decide for themselves just how strong the Israel lobby is in the United States, and certainly its existence and power cannot be denied.
However Dershowitz sank to a new low, when he stated that Presidential candidate Barack Obama had to repudiate his new foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brezezinski, a former National Security Advisor. Why, because Dr. Brzezinski had written in Foreign Policy that Mearsheimer and Walt “have rendered a public service by initiating a much-needed debate on the role of the ‘Israel Lobby’ in the shaping of U.S. foreign policy.” Dershowitz characterized this as an endorsement of “a bigoted attack on the American Jewish community.” Nonsense, Dershowitz has descended into guilt by association linking the authors of The Israel Lobby to Brzezinski and then to Obama. You may be interested to know that Dershowitz supports Obama’s rival, Hillary Clinton
The pattern is clear. Books critical of Israel or of some of its American supporters are to be subjected to destructive attack. They should not be subject to balanced criticism and consideration; rather they should be effectively eliminated, not by a book burning, but in a torrent of condemnation which serves to drown out critical voices.
ISRAEL'S HIGH COURT VACILLATES
In two important, but strikingly different decisions the High Court of Israel ruled on the route of the security barrier in the area of Mod’in Ilit and the Palestinian village of Bil’in. Weekly protests had taken place there for over two years. The villagers have claimed that they were unjustly cut off from much of their agricultural land, without any security justification. They not only protested but took their case to the Israeli courts and were supported by Israeli human rights organizations and by Peace Now.
The first case challenged the routing of the fence and a three judge panel, headed by the Court’s President Dorit Beinisch, found unanimously for the villagers. Peace Now had long contended that the routing of the fence in certain areas constituted a land grab. Judge Beinisch pointed out that at Bil’in the government had actually ignored security considerations by building the fence through a valley, with the Palestinians occupying the high ground. She wrote that “the route of the separation barrier should not be planned based on the desire to include land earmarked for expanding settlements.” The court then ordered that the fence be moved within a reasonable period of time.
This ruling may constitute an important precedent. It in no way threatens the security of Israelis, quite the contrary, but it does recognize that the mask of security cannot be used for the unjust expropriation of Palestinian lands. In this instance the Court proved that it could be the major institutional bulwark of Israeli justice and democracy.
It is then, all the more surprising that a different panel of the court reversed course in its next decision affecting an adjacent area. Peace Now and the village council of Bil’in had petitioned the Court for the demolition of apartment construction in the Matityahu Mizrach neighborhood, east of the settlement. Whereas, only a year ago Justice Aharon Barak had issued an injunction against the project, the judges now have revoked the injunction despite recognizing “the very serious problem of mass building without any plans or permits.”
Much of the construction was built by Heftsibah, a company now in bankruptcy and with its CEO Boaz Yona presently in Italy trying to avoid extradition, for alleged corruption. The Court rested its decision on narrow technical grounds, that the petitions should have been filed in 1998 when the first plan for the neighborhood was deposited. It is possible that the Court deemed it easier to move a fence rather than to order the destruction of squatter occupied apartments. Still, it is a bewildering decision, standing along side the other Court panel’s ruling in the fence case. One can only guess that either the Court was trying to balance its two opinions or yielded to the settler’s usual tactic of creating “facts on the ground.” Still, the Palestinian villagers did get a half-measure of justice, which is more than they usually obtain.
On Tuesday, Sept. 25 Akiva Eldar, one of Israel’s most brilliant journalists speaks for Peace Now at the Gelber Auditorium, at 7:30P.M. His topic is “Rumors of Peace, Rumors of War: Israel’s Quest for Security in the ‘hood.”
The first case challenged the routing of the fence and a three judge panel, headed by the Court’s President Dorit Beinisch, found unanimously for the villagers. Peace Now had long contended that the routing of the fence in certain areas constituted a land grab. Judge Beinisch pointed out that at Bil’in the government had actually ignored security considerations by building the fence through a valley, with the Palestinians occupying the high ground. She wrote that “the route of the separation barrier should not be planned based on the desire to include land earmarked for expanding settlements.” The court then ordered that the fence be moved within a reasonable period of time.
This ruling may constitute an important precedent. It in no way threatens the security of Israelis, quite the contrary, but it does recognize that the mask of security cannot be used for the unjust expropriation of Palestinian lands. In this instance the Court proved that it could be the major institutional bulwark of Israeli justice and democracy.
It is then, all the more surprising that a different panel of the court reversed course in its next decision affecting an adjacent area. Peace Now and the village council of Bil’in had petitioned the Court for the demolition of apartment construction in the Matityahu Mizrach neighborhood, east of the settlement. Whereas, only a year ago Justice Aharon Barak had issued an injunction against the project, the judges now have revoked the injunction despite recognizing “the very serious problem of mass building without any plans or permits.”
Much of the construction was built by Heftsibah, a company now in bankruptcy and with its CEO Boaz Yona presently in Italy trying to avoid extradition, for alleged corruption. The Court rested its decision on narrow technical grounds, that the petitions should have been filed in 1998 when the first plan for the neighborhood was deposited. It is possible that the Court deemed it easier to move a fence rather than to order the destruction of squatter occupied apartments. Still, it is a bewildering decision, standing along side the other Court panel’s ruling in the fence case. One can only guess that either the Court was trying to balance its two opinions or yielded to the settler’s usual tactic of creating “facts on the ground.” Still, the Palestinian villagers did get a half-measure of justice, which is more than they usually obtain.
On Tuesday, Sept. 25 Akiva Eldar, one of Israel’s most brilliant journalists speaks for Peace Now at the Gelber Auditorium, at 7:30P.M. His topic is “Rumors of Peace, Rumors of War: Israel’s Quest for Security in the ‘hood.”
Monday, September 3, 2007
NOTHING TOO GOOD FOR THE SETTLERS: LUXURY ROADS ON THE WEST BANK
NOTHING TOO GOOD FOR THE SETTLERS: LUXURY ROADS ON THE WEST BANK
9/12/07
Recently, Shalom Akshav (Peace Now) issued a report on road construction to the West Bank settlements. It is another demonstration of the cost to Israeli society of maintaining settlements for approximately 3.5% of her population. In this instance, it costs lives.
Israel has long suffered from an epidemic of highway fatalities. On average, roughly 500 persons are killed on her roads each year, a number that can, of course, be deemphasized by citing population growth, kilometers traveled and other factors, or highlighted by comparing it to the much lower numbers of deaths attributable to war and terrorism. There are many factors governing the rate of traffic fatalities in particular countries, among them national culture, traffic enforcement, and drinking. However, it is undeniable that the condition of the highways plays a vital role. European nations including Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands have some of the best roads and the fewest fatalities. Central dividers are, for example, one simple method of reducing the number of head-on crashes and may cut the number of fatalities by half.
Israel understands this and the Transportation Minister promises to pursue the program of promoting safe highways providing “all the necessary means are received.” Thus, the Tel-Aviv – Haifa road and the Jerusalem – Tel-Aviv highway and others can be slowly improved if the budgets are not cut. Meanwhile, as the work drags on, needless deaths will occur. But, at the same time, large sums of money are being spent to build new roads to serve a few settlers.
Peace Now Secretary General, Yariv Oppenheimer, puts it this way: “The State spends at least $12,000 (50,000 NIS) for each settler’s vehicle, on infrastructure and new roads. While people in Israel get killed on a daily basis due to a shortage in funds for infrastructure, the settlers get luxury roads.” Separation barriers which were deemed not affordable for some of Israel’s main highways were constructed on a road in the southern Mount Hebron area. The High Court ordered the barrier dismantled when it found that it was built not to keep Palestinian cars off the road but to stop Palestinian shepherds from grazing their flocks close to settlements. The cost of building and then dismantling this “sheep barrier” was (80 million NIS) 18.5 million U.S. dollars.
One, particularly exasperating use of Israeli tax dollars, and one of the most costly projects underway is to the south east of Bethlehem. This is a road linking four small settlements with a total of 2500 people 500 cars will use this “Liberman Road”, so-called because one of the small band of settlers is Avigdor Liberman, who just happened to be Minister of Transportation when the project was initiated.
Peace Now’s study finds that current road construction projects on the West Bank require a minimum investment of $75,000,000 (315 million NIS). The share of investment devoted to West Bank roads in 2005 was 13.2% of the total highway budget and went as high as 17% in previous years. 33,279 settlers and 6390 vehicles will be served by the roads now under construction.
Nehemiah Strassler, economics editor of Haaretz sums up the matter: “It is true that not all Israelis drive carefully, responsibly and ‘in keeping with road conditions.’ Do they deserve the death penalty?” They, of course, do not and the vast majority of Israelis deserve their fair share of road building funds to assure adequate safety standards. The settlements continue to exact a high cost from Israeli society.
9/12/07
Recently, Shalom Akshav (Peace Now) issued a report on road construction to the West Bank settlements. It is another demonstration of the cost to Israeli society of maintaining settlements for approximately 3.5% of her population. In this instance, it costs lives.
Israel has long suffered from an epidemic of highway fatalities. On average, roughly 500 persons are killed on her roads each year, a number that can, of course, be deemphasized by citing population growth, kilometers traveled and other factors, or highlighted by comparing it to the much lower numbers of deaths attributable to war and terrorism. There are many factors governing the rate of traffic fatalities in particular countries, among them national culture, traffic enforcement, and drinking. However, it is undeniable that the condition of the highways plays a vital role. European nations including Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands have some of the best roads and the fewest fatalities. Central dividers are, for example, one simple method of reducing the number of head-on crashes and may cut the number of fatalities by half.
Israel understands this and the Transportation Minister promises to pursue the program of promoting safe highways providing “all the necessary means are received.” Thus, the Tel-Aviv – Haifa road and the Jerusalem – Tel-Aviv highway and others can be slowly improved if the budgets are not cut. Meanwhile, as the work drags on, needless deaths will occur. But, at the same time, large sums of money are being spent to build new roads to serve a few settlers.
Peace Now Secretary General, Yariv Oppenheimer, puts it this way: “The State spends at least $12,000 (50,000 NIS) for each settler’s vehicle, on infrastructure and new roads. While people in Israel get killed on a daily basis due to a shortage in funds for infrastructure, the settlers get luxury roads.” Separation barriers which were deemed not affordable for some of Israel’s main highways were constructed on a road in the southern Mount Hebron area. The High Court ordered the barrier dismantled when it found that it was built not to keep Palestinian cars off the road but to stop Palestinian shepherds from grazing their flocks close to settlements. The cost of building and then dismantling this “sheep barrier” was (80 million NIS) 18.5 million U.S. dollars.
One, particularly exasperating use of Israeli tax dollars, and one of the most costly projects underway is to the south east of Bethlehem. This is a road linking four small settlements with a total of 2500 people 500 cars will use this “Liberman Road”, so-called because one of the small band of settlers is Avigdor Liberman, who just happened to be Minister of Transportation when the project was initiated.
Peace Now’s study finds that current road construction projects on the West Bank require a minimum investment of $75,000,000 (315 million NIS). The share of investment devoted to West Bank roads in 2005 was 13.2% of the total highway budget and went as high as 17% in previous years. 33,279 settlers and 6390 vehicles will be served by the roads now under construction.
Nehemiah Strassler, economics editor of Haaretz sums up the matter: “It is true that not all Israelis drive carefully, responsibly and ‘in keeping with road conditions.’ Do they deserve the death penalty?” They, of course, do not and the vast majority of Israelis deserve their fair share of road building funds to assure adequate safety standards. The settlements continue to exact a high cost from Israeli society.
MIGRON AND GOD'S JEWISH WARRIORS
MIGRON AND GOD’S JEWISH WARRIORS 9/5/07
Many of us watched, with interest, CNN’s recent documentary hosted by their superb journalist Christiane Amanpour. Perhaps some Jewish viewers felt more comfortable watching her segment on Muslim fanaticism than they did seeing her portrayal of the religious settlers of the West Bank. She did not equate Islamist suicide bombers with the settlers but did find one common thread for Jewish, Christian and Muslim extremists. All of them proclaimed that they were following the message of their God, bringing the holy word directly into politics. Of course, CNN’s message is that this produces a politics on all sides which is rigid and uncompromising, for who can compromise God’s will.
Amanpour did not seek to determine the influence of the Jewish Warriors, on today’s state of Israel, but did show how the state constantly acquiesced in and even encouraged settlement expansion on Palestinian lands. Long time settlers winked and smiled at the subterfuges that had been used, masking a settlement as a military base, and the like.
Hanan Porath, a founder of the Gush Emunim, is contrasted to another veteran of the ’67 war, Yakov Barnea, who proclaims that the only Messiah he listens to is Handel’s. Leaders of the state do not themselves listen to God but they have certainly listened to the settlement movement, as it continues to expand not only established settlements, often on Palestinian owned land, but also almost 100 illegal outposts. These outposts, ruled as illegal not only by the American roadmap, but also by the Israeli courts, remain as evidence to the Palestinians and to the world that Israel is not following the path of peace.
The largest of these illegal outposts of God’s Warriors is Migron, begun five years ago, but now containing 43 families, 60 trailers and two permanent homes. It began at the end of 2001 when the IDF received a request to place a cellular antenna at the top of a hill, in order to improve communication, and with the potential to rescue terror victims. Brigadier General Ilan Paz, who granted the request, only realized later that he had been deceived, when the area was fenced and trailers brought in. The settlers’ trickery had worked once again, to establish an outpost on private Palestinian land. This was compounded by a government which invested 4 million (NIS) of public funds in this illegal enterprise.
In October 2006 Peace Now, acting for the first time with the rightful Palestinian landowners, petitioned the courts for the evacuation of the outpost. Talia Sasson who authored an outposts report, on the request of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared that “The establishment of unauthorized outposts involves the commission of crimes.” The issue now is whether the state has the desire or the will to confront the Migron “criminals”, more of God’s warriors, and those in the other illegal outposts. In response to Peace Now’s petition, the State admitted that establishment of the outpost was a mistake and admitted that Migron stands on private Palestinian lands. Finally this February the Supreme Court ordered the State to report within 60 days on the steps it had taken to remove the outpost. With a new Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, the State has asked for more time, in order for the Minister to master his dossier.
Migron and the other outposts are manifestations of God’s Jewish Warriors determination to realize the biblical imperatives of occupying, what they regard, as the entire ancient land of Israel. There is much discussion now of a deal between the settlers and the State whereby the former would leave a few dilapidated shacks in return for a broad government “laundering” of most of the outposts. In any case, the continuing failure of the State to deal with the outposts casts doubt on the intentions of a government which even now is negotiating with the Palestinians on the principles for ending the occupation. No Palestinian government can make peace with an Israel which continues to sanction the illegal occupation of their land. Olmert, Barak and all of Israel’s leaders must decide whether they govern in the interest of most Israelis, who desire peace and security more than land, or continue to bow to the threats of God’s Warriors.
Many of us watched, with interest, CNN’s recent documentary hosted by their superb journalist Christiane Amanpour. Perhaps some Jewish viewers felt more comfortable watching her segment on Muslim fanaticism than they did seeing her portrayal of the religious settlers of the West Bank. She did not equate Islamist suicide bombers with the settlers but did find one common thread for Jewish, Christian and Muslim extremists. All of them proclaimed that they were following the message of their God, bringing the holy word directly into politics. Of course, CNN’s message is that this produces a politics on all sides which is rigid and uncompromising, for who can compromise God’s will.
Amanpour did not seek to determine the influence of the Jewish Warriors, on today’s state of Israel, but did show how the state constantly acquiesced in and even encouraged settlement expansion on Palestinian lands. Long time settlers winked and smiled at the subterfuges that had been used, masking a settlement as a military base, and the like.
Hanan Porath, a founder of the Gush Emunim, is contrasted to another veteran of the ’67 war, Yakov Barnea, who proclaims that the only Messiah he listens to is Handel’s. Leaders of the state do not themselves listen to God but they have certainly listened to the settlement movement, as it continues to expand not only established settlements, often on Palestinian owned land, but also almost 100 illegal outposts. These outposts, ruled as illegal not only by the American roadmap, but also by the Israeli courts, remain as evidence to the Palestinians and to the world that Israel is not following the path of peace.
The largest of these illegal outposts of God’s Warriors is Migron, begun five years ago, but now containing 43 families, 60 trailers and two permanent homes. It began at the end of 2001 when the IDF received a request to place a cellular antenna at the top of a hill, in order to improve communication, and with the potential to rescue terror victims. Brigadier General Ilan Paz, who granted the request, only realized later that he had been deceived, when the area was fenced and trailers brought in. The settlers’ trickery had worked once again, to establish an outpost on private Palestinian land. This was compounded by a government which invested 4 million (NIS) of public funds in this illegal enterprise.
In October 2006 Peace Now, acting for the first time with the rightful Palestinian landowners, petitioned the courts for the evacuation of the outpost. Talia Sasson who authored an outposts report, on the request of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared that “The establishment of unauthorized outposts involves the commission of crimes.” The issue now is whether the state has the desire or the will to confront the Migron “criminals”, more of God’s warriors, and those in the other illegal outposts. In response to Peace Now’s petition, the State admitted that establishment of the outpost was a mistake and admitted that Migron stands on private Palestinian lands. Finally this February the Supreme Court ordered the State to report within 60 days on the steps it had taken to remove the outpost. With a new Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, the State has asked for more time, in order for the Minister to master his dossier.
Migron and the other outposts are manifestations of God’s Jewish Warriors determination to realize the biblical imperatives of occupying, what they regard, as the entire ancient land of Israel. There is much discussion now of a deal between the settlers and the State whereby the former would leave a few dilapidated shacks in return for a broad government “laundering” of most of the outposts. In any case, the continuing failure of the State to deal with the outposts casts doubt on the intentions of a government which even now is negotiating with the Palestinians on the principles for ending the occupation. No Palestinian government can make peace with an Israel which continues to sanction the illegal occupation of their land. Olmert, Barak and all of Israel’s leaders must decide whether they govern in the interest of most Israelis, who desire peace and security more than land, or continue to bow to the threats of God’s Warriors.
Friday, August 31, 2007
HEZBOLLAH IN WINDSOR
HEZBOLLAH IN WINDSOR
Recently a billboard went up in Windsor, Ontario prominently featuring the Lebanese terrorist leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. The sign baring the images of Nasrallah and other pro-Syrian leaders of Lebanon was soon removed following energetic protests from the city’s Lebanese Christian and Jewish communities. It was an insult, if not a provocation, flung in the face of all those who believe in furthering understanding between all the cultural communities of Canada. In addition, I believe, we should also understand the billboard as a signal that Canada hosts an active terrorism fan club.
Those who were responsible for the sign told the press that they were honoring the defenders of Lebanon, freedom fighters who fought to defend their country’s independence. There was, of course, not one word about the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, the Iranian supported build-up of rockets, the assassination of Christian leaders who desired Lebanese independence from Syrian domination, the determination of Nasrallah and his organization to destroy Israel, and Hezbollah’s responsibility for the 1994 bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Argentina. Nor was any heed taken of the fact that Hezbollah is proscribed as a terrorist organization by the Canadian government. According to one Christian Lebanese source, the Arabic on the billboard referred to guerilla fighting and certainly not to peace. While a billboard, of this sort, will anger most decent Canadians and not gain support for Hezbollah; I suspect it had another purpose.
Year after year, we have witnessed the rise of anti-Semitic incidents and the most notable feature of B’nai Brith’s findings has been that the majority of identifiable perpetrators have been Arab and Muslim young men. In the last few years we have seen several attempted synagogue, community centre, and Jewish school bombings in places such as Quebec City, Montreal, and Edmonton. All of the identifiable perpetrators have been young Muslim males. We do not know however, what inspires them to such acts. It is clear that anti-Semitic activity in Canada does increase when tensions rise in the Middle East; the Second Lebanon War did, for example, spark a rise in incidents. While one can understand, but not share, the partisan feelings that are provoked, at such moments, it does not explain the leap from feeling to action, from political sympathies with Israel’s opponents to criminal actions against Canada’s Jewish citizens and their institutions.
I think that the Windsor billboard was aimed not only at the general citizenry but also at Arab and Muslim youth. How inspiring it must be for those young people to see Nasrallah smiling down on them. It is, for them, another lesson learned, assuring them that these figures, reviled by most Canadians, are heroic and inspirational figures, to be emulated in their resistance to “the Zionist enemy”. The messages given to them by militant Imams in Wahabi mosques, the lessons learned in some Muslim classrooms, the abundant images of Israeli brutality on Al-Jazeera and other satellite television networks, and the jihadi web sites are reinforced by the billboard and may move some of these young people towards criminal and perhaps, in a few cases, even terrorist actions. Yes, the billboard was up for only a short time but it will be seen, in the milieu of militant Muslims, as an act of resistance against the massive power of the Zionist lobby. At least, I think that is the message which will be read on jihadi websites in the following days.
The Jewish community can be relieved that the sign was quickly removed, as can the Christian Lebanese. There may also be a positive outcome to this episode if it serves as a warning to Canadian Jews, law enforcement authorities and legislators. There is an enemy of Canadian values out there, but only from time to time does it reveal its public face, as it has in Windsor. We must not allow this incident to be understood as merely a product of a small number of misguided Lebanese-Canadian Muslims. Nasrallah’s evil smile will remain if we fail to take the issue of the rising anti-Semitic menace seriously.
Recently a billboard went up in Windsor, Ontario prominently featuring the Lebanese terrorist leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. The sign baring the images of Nasrallah and other pro-Syrian leaders of Lebanon was soon removed following energetic protests from the city’s Lebanese Christian and Jewish communities. It was an insult, if not a provocation, flung in the face of all those who believe in furthering understanding between all the cultural communities of Canada. In addition, I believe, we should also understand the billboard as a signal that Canada hosts an active terrorism fan club.
Those who were responsible for the sign told the press that they were honoring the defenders of Lebanon, freedom fighters who fought to defend their country’s independence. There was, of course, not one word about the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, the Iranian supported build-up of rockets, the assassination of Christian leaders who desired Lebanese independence from Syrian domination, the determination of Nasrallah and his organization to destroy Israel, and Hezbollah’s responsibility for the 1994 bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Argentina. Nor was any heed taken of the fact that Hezbollah is proscribed as a terrorist organization by the Canadian government. According to one Christian Lebanese source, the Arabic on the billboard referred to guerilla fighting and certainly not to peace. While a billboard, of this sort, will anger most decent Canadians and not gain support for Hezbollah; I suspect it had another purpose.
Year after year, we have witnessed the rise of anti-Semitic incidents and the most notable feature of B’nai Brith’s findings has been that the majority of identifiable perpetrators have been Arab and Muslim young men. In the last few years we have seen several attempted synagogue, community centre, and Jewish school bombings in places such as Quebec City, Montreal, and Edmonton. All of the identifiable perpetrators have been young Muslim males. We do not know however, what inspires them to such acts. It is clear that anti-Semitic activity in Canada does increase when tensions rise in the Middle East; the Second Lebanon War did, for example, spark a rise in incidents. While one can understand, but not share, the partisan feelings that are provoked, at such moments, it does not explain the leap from feeling to action, from political sympathies with Israel’s opponents to criminal actions against Canada’s Jewish citizens and their institutions.
I think that the Windsor billboard was aimed not only at the general citizenry but also at Arab and Muslim youth. How inspiring it must be for those young people to see Nasrallah smiling down on them. It is, for them, another lesson learned, assuring them that these figures, reviled by most Canadians, are heroic and inspirational figures, to be emulated in their resistance to “the Zionist enemy”. The messages given to them by militant Imams in Wahabi mosques, the lessons learned in some Muslim classrooms, the abundant images of Israeli brutality on Al-Jazeera and other satellite television networks, and the jihadi web sites are reinforced by the billboard and may move some of these young people towards criminal and perhaps, in a few cases, even terrorist actions. Yes, the billboard was up for only a short time but it will be seen, in the milieu of militant Muslims, as an act of resistance against the massive power of the Zionist lobby. At least, I think that is the message which will be read on jihadi websites in the following days.
The Jewish community can be relieved that the sign was quickly removed, as can the Christian Lebanese. There may also be a positive outcome to this episode if it serves as a warning to Canadian Jews, law enforcement authorities and legislators. There is an enemy of Canadian values out there, but only from time to time does it reveal its public face, as it has in Windsor. We must not allow this incident to be understood as merely a product of a small number of misguided Lebanese-Canadian Muslims. Nasrallah’s evil smile will remain if we fail to take the issue of the rising anti-Semitic menace seriously.
ACTING AGAINST EQUALITY; THE JNF LAND CONTROVERSY
ACTING AGAINST EQUALITY: THE JNF LAND CONTROVERSY
Wherever they have lived, Jews in the modern era have been in the forefront of the struggle for minority rights. In Canada the names of Bora Laskin, David Lewis, and Irwin Cotler have been prominent in the battles not only against anti-Semitism but against racism in general. In the United States we have only to think of the high profile roles of Jews in the struggle for civil rights. For me the iconic image of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel striding along side of Martin Luther King is an indelible memory. We, as a people, have adhered to the belief that the measure of a democracy is in its treatment of its minorities. It is a belief that has served us well. “For Jews,” said Rabbi David Forman, “the building of a society based on a prophetic vision of social justice, equality and humanity is predicated on a universal understanding of a Jewish moral code of conduct that has been refined and elaborated in the perspective of both the historical experiences and the literary tradition of the Jewish people.”
Given this perspective, I rejoiced in 2004 when Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that the state and its affiliated agencies, the Israel Land Commission and the Jewish National Fund, would be prohibited from discriminating against non-Jews in sales of lands. This meant, for example, that members of Israel’s large minority of Arab citizens could not be denied the right to purchase JNF lands. A court led, by then, Chief Justice Aharon Barak ruled that “the state’s obligation to act with equality extends to all of its activities. It therefore also extends to the allocation of state lands.” This was a decision, then, which gave the lie to those who condemned Israel as undemocratic, racist, or even an apartheid state. We could be proud.
It was then, with some dismay, that I received the recent news that the Knesset had passed, in first reading, but by a large majority, a bill that would reverse this decision and restrict the allocation of JNF lands only to Jewish citizens. Proponents of the legislation argued that over decades, Jewish people had deposited their coins in the little blue boxes of the JNF to buy land for Jews in Israel. It would thus be breaking a sacred trust with generations of givers to allow non-Jewish citizens to purchase these lands. One might have some sympathy for this argument, if it was true, but the largest share of JNF lands came not from the blue pushkies but rather from the so—called “vacated lands”, the Arab owned lands taken by the state, following the 1948 War of Independence. These lands, over two million dunam were added to the JNF purchased land of under a million dunam. In other words, Arab citizens of Israel will be denied access to lands which, for the most part, were Arab lands assumed by Israel not through purchase but by conquest.
There have been some voices raised against the new legislation. A spokesman for the leftist Meretz party declared that the “the Knesset is giving an excellent excuse for whoever would represent “Israel as an apartheid state which must be destroyed.” For its part, in a strong editorial, against the bill Haaretz mourned for the rule of law when In an instant, a racist Knesset can overturn [Supreme Court] rulings.” Professor Amnon Rubinstein, recognized as the “father of constitutional law” in Israel warns that if the law is passed that Israel’s international standing will be severely damaged and moreover that “it will contradict the basic constitutional principles of the state, especially the Basic Law on Human Dignity.” He has urged Prime Minister Olmert to amend the legislation and confine the discrimination on land purchases to the JNF purchased lands. Rubinstein is wise to consider international reactions. Israel can ill afford to disregard the sentiments of her allies.
One of the strongest arguments against this discrimination against Arab-Israeli citizens should be – security. The security fence now stands between most of Israel’s people and terrorist threats from the West Bank. Yet, within Israel approximately one-fifth of the population is an Arab citizenry which, for the most part, lives in peace with its fellow citizens. On many fronts, they are already discriminated against in education, social services, housing, etc. Israel should be careful not to further alienate a growing proportion of her own citizens, with the potential to create an enemy within.
My own hope, as always, is for Israel to be “a light unto the nations”. Israel’s democratic aspirations must not be undercut by a narrow and mean spirited nationalism or racism. We will hope that in the days to come the Knesset will reconsider this piece of odious legislation and not give ammunition to those who would condemn the entire Zionist enterprise as a species of racism.
THE COULON AFFAIR
THE COULON AFFAIR
Following Liberal leader’s Stephane Dion’s naming of candidate Jocelyn Coulon for the Outremont by-election B’nai Brith immediately demanded that the candidacy be revoked. The organization was not content with sharp criticism of Coulon but deemed his past words on the Middle East worthy of an over zealous response.
Coulon is a political scientist and former journalist who has expressed himself rather vigorously on Middle East issues. The essence of B’nai Brith’s case against him seems to be first that he has employed exaggerated rhetoric, linking Israel to the U.S. in “massacring Muslims”, “pulverizing Palestinian cities” and “murdering men, women and children.” Second, he has advocated talking to Hamas, a terrorist organization, third he has employed anti-U.S. rhetoric and finally that he labeled Israel’s actions in the second Lebanon War as “disproportionate”.
The basic question is not whether Coulon was right or wrong but rather does his record merit B’nai Brith’s exercise of its moral veto, which declares Coulon beyond the pale? That is,under what circumstances should a major organization of the Jewish community employ its maximum fire power, by not merely criticizing a candidate’s record but demanding his withdrawal from the race.
There are precedents for taking the extreme action which B’nai Brith has opted for, but they do not apply to this event. In the case of racist white supremacists and antisemites, both the American Anti Defamation League, the B’nai Brith and civil rights groups have acted against those bigots who have infiltrated the ranks of various parties in order to spread their vicious doctrines. Here in Quebec, Robert Libman and I, acting for B’nai Brith, made known the xenophobic record of PQ hard-liner Yves Michaud. It was not B’nai Brith but the entire National Assembly which then censured him. In other words, what I have termed the exercise of a moral veto was constrained to cases not of mere political differences but matters which impact on the very basis of a tolerant society.
Most of us in the Jewish community will take issue with Mr. Coulon on one or more or the issues that B.nai Brith has raised but they are points of debate rather than fundamental moral imperatives. I personally believe that some of Coulon’s rhetoric on Israel is “over the top” but it is hardly extraordinary. One can peruse the pages of newspapers from around the world, during the period of the second Lebanon War, and find many such expressions. Let’s face it, the dreadful television images of Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon provoked many reactions against Israel and some were not well balanced.
Mr. Coulon characterized Hamas as being also a social welfare organization and every student of Hamas understands that is an important foundation of its power. Coulon also advocated ending the isolation of Hamas whereas B’nai Brith, along with President Bush, holds that there should be no traffic with the axis of evil. I personally hold no brief for Coulon’s position but many thoughtful individuals, including leading Israelis, believe that it is unfortunately impossible, at least over the long run, to exclude Hamas from the political discourse. As for Coulon’s claim that the Israeli response in Lebanon was disproportionate, that is a matter hotly debated everywhere, including in Israel, where her own Winograd Commission has begun to voice similar sentiments.
My point, again, is not whether Coulon was right or wrong. His words show him to be a strong critic of Israel but he has maintained his support for Israel’s right to exist and in favor of the two state solution embraced by all Canadian political parties. B’nai Brith’s call on Dion to drop the Coulon candidacy was “disproportionate”. I believe B’nai Brith undercut its own credibility by employing a weapon which had previously been reserved for the most heinous cases or racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry. It would have been far better if B’nai Brith had tried to “engage” Coulon, rather than casting him as a major enemy, to be frontally attacked. Of course all of his views are subjects for debate and his opponents may see fit to do so. But the mass of the voters of Outremont, like most Canadians, will pay more attention to issues of the environment, health care and Afghanistan, and some, perhaps, ill chosen words on the Middle East will probably have no impact on the race
Following Liberal leader’s Stephane Dion’s naming of candidate Jocelyn Coulon for the Outremont by-election B’nai Brith immediately demanded that the candidacy be revoked. The organization was not content with sharp criticism of Coulon but deemed his past words on the Middle East worthy of an over zealous response.
Coulon is a political scientist and former journalist who has expressed himself rather vigorously on Middle East issues. The essence of B’nai Brith’s case against him seems to be first that he has employed exaggerated rhetoric, linking Israel to the U.S. in “massacring Muslims”, “pulverizing Palestinian cities” and “murdering men, women and children.” Second, he has advocated talking to Hamas, a terrorist organization, third he has employed anti-U.S. rhetoric and finally that he labeled Israel’s actions in the second Lebanon War as “disproportionate”.
The basic question is not whether Coulon was right or wrong but rather does his record merit B’nai Brith’s exercise of its moral veto, which declares Coulon beyond the pale? That is,under what circumstances should a major organization of the Jewish community employ its maximum fire power, by not merely criticizing a candidate’s record but demanding his withdrawal from the race.
There are precedents for taking the extreme action which B’nai Brith has opted for, but they do not apply to this event. In the case of racist white supremacists and antisemites, both the American Anti Defamation League, the B’nai Brith and civil rights groups have acted against those bigots who have infiltrated the ranks of various parties in order to spread their vicious doctrines. Here in Quebec, Robert Libman and I, acting for B’nai Brith, made known the xenophobic record of PQ hard-liner Yves Michaud. It was not B’nai Brith but the entire National Assembly which then censured him. In other words, what I have termed the exercise of a moral veto was constrained to cases not of mere political differences but matters which impact on the very basis of a tolerant society.
Most of us in the Jewish community will take issue with Mr. Coulon on one or more or the issues that B.nai Brith has raised but they are points of debate rather than fundamental moral imperatives. I personally believe that some of Coulon’s rhetoric on Israel is “over the top” but it is hardly extraordinary. One can peruse the pages of newspapers from around the world, during the period of the second Lebanon War, and find many such expressions. Let’s face it, the dreadful television images of Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon provoked many reactions against Israel and some were not well balanced.
Mr. Coulon characterized Hamas as being also a social welfare organization and every student of Hamas understands that is an important foundation of its power. Coulon also advocated ending the isolation of Hamas whereas B’nai Brith, along with President Bush, holds that there should be no traffic with the axis of evil. I personally hold no brief for Coulon’s position but many thoughtful individuals, including leading Israelis, believe that it is unfortunately impossible, at least over the long run, to exclude Hamas from the political discourse. As for Coulon’s claim that the Israeli response in Lebanon was disproportionate, that is a matter hotly debated everywhere, including in Israel, where her own Winograd Commission has begun to voice similar sentiments.
My point, again, is not whether Coulon was right or wrong. His words show him to be a strong critic of Israel but he has maintained his support for Israel’s right to exist and in favor of the two state solution embraced by all Canadian political parties. B’nai Brith’s call on Dion to drop the Coulon candidacy was “disproportionate”. I believe B’nai Brith undercut its own credibility by employing a weapon which had previously been reserved for the most heinous cases or racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry. It would have been far better if B’nai Brith had tried to “engage” Coulon, rather than casting him as a major enemy, to be frontally attacked. Of course all of his views are subjects for debate and his opponents may see fit to do so. But the mass of the voters of Outremont, like most Canadians, will pay more attention to issues of the environment, health care and Afghanistan, and some, perhaps, ill chosen words on the Middle East will probably have no impact on the race
ISRAEL AND THE DARFUR REFUGEES
Jews have been at the forefront of those seeking to end the tragedy in Darfur. Here in Canada Irwin Cotler, Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz and Professor Frank Chalk have tried to focus public attention on the genocide taking place in Sudan. This is as it should be. Our own historical experience makes us especially sensitive to the mass slaughter of innocents in Africa. There is, undoubtedly, a second reason for our interest in Darfur. We see an Arab government perpetrating major crimes against humanity while Israel, as usual, is singled out as the great human rights violator, a case of double standards carried to absurd lengths. Thus the Jewish interest in Darfur is not only in human rights; it is also an expression of self-interest in the defence of Israel, which has motivated our concern.
Now, however, the Darfur crisis has arrived on the borders of Israel. Some two to four hundred thousand have been killed but another two million have been dislocated from their homes and constitute one of today’s great refugee movements. Many of the refugees remain in Sudan and tens of thousands have made it to the impoverished nation of Chad where thousands have died in the refugee camps. Thousands more have found their way to Egypt, Sudan’s neighbor to the north but they have not been welcomed by this Arab nation with close ties to Sudan.
It is hardly surprising that some Darfurians have found now managed to enter Israel through her porous Sinai border. It is possible that some of them may be economic refugees rather than escapees from the genocide but all confront Israel with a dilemma. The number now in Israel is about 1400 and their presence has engendered a lively but painful debate. Israel’s government has vowed to deport most of them and Prime Minister Olmert met with Egypt’s president Mubarak and reached an agreement under which Egypt would accept the deportees while also undertaking to keep closer watch on their common border. Thus a nation founded, in large part, as a home for refugees, and a Jewish people which deplored the closed immigration policies of Canada and other western governments when our own people required a refuge now chooses to close the door on the survivors of Darfur.
Eytan Schwartz, a spokesman for an Israeli committee to aid the refugees declared: “We are a country founded by refugees; we are a people who were persecuted for thousands of years. We of all people should know what it’s like to be people of a nation that nobody wants to take in. That’s why we have a moral, historical obligation to take them in, even if they’re from an enemy country.” 63 MKs including Benjamin Netanyahu of Likud and Amir Peretz of Labor signed a student initiated petition to give sanctuary, at least to those now in the country.
However, to date, the narrow, even ethno-centric view predominates. Labor’s Avishay Braverman, a prominent economist, maintains that Israel cannot afford the burden, “we have our own problems with our own immigrants.” Meanwhile Jordan and Syria, both far poorer than Israel, have taken in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees.
“We don’t want to be the Promised Land for African refugees,” said Miri Eisin a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister, in a statement that, probably unconsciously, echoed the bigots of the 1930s who excluded Jews from the safety of Canada and the United States. I was also not happy to see that a recent Israeli poll shows that 47% favor the deportation of the Darfur survivors and only 39% would allow them to stay.
Of course, there is also the legitimate problem of Israel’s identity as a Jewish democracy. This, we would all agree, necessitates maintaining a Jewish majority on the one hand while, on the other, sustaining that democracy’s commitment to human rights which includes accepting a proper share of refugees from all nations. Jews in the diaspora should now be prepared to give material support to an Israel which, hopefully, in the words of Emma Lazarus, will also say “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free …send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)