Montreal Protests

These are now about more than tuition. They have become a cry for social solidarity and against the whole neo-liberal agenda.

Beinart Is Not WrongBut the Emphasis is Twisted

Today I heard Peter Beinart and Daniel Gordis interviewed on the CBC radio show "The Current." (You can listen to it yourself here.) The topic was whether or not Israel's illiberal policies are alienating young North American Jews. This may have been an appropriate discussion to have at my synagogue, but the fact that the CBC chose to air this particular topic on its premier national news magazine is odd, to say the least. Here is a comment I submitted to The Current.

I just heard your interview with Peter Beinart and Daniel Gordis on how anti-liberal values will or will not alienate Diaspora Jews from a connection with Israel. As a synagogue going Canadian Jew (and also an Israeli citizen who has served in the Israeli military) I was fascinated by the discussion, but surprised that this, of all things, is the aspect of Israel/Palestine conflict that CBC chose to discuss on air.

Surely, for most Canadians, the crux of the Israel/Palestinian issue is not – and should not be - how Israeli policy will affect Jewish continuity in the Diaspora, but rather how it will or will not bring peace and justice – most specifically how the injustices of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, and the daily suffering it bring to the Palestinians, can be ended.

Peter Beinart correctly pointed out that Israel’s policy in the West Bank are odious and undemocratic. As he alluded to in the on air interview, and states more specifically in his book, Beinart calls the occupied terrifies “undemocratic Israel.” He correctly points out that Israel is a democracy for only half of the people under its control – maintaining a 45 year long military occupation of several million Palestinians: one that privileges Jewish settlers over indigenous Palestinians in dozens of ways, most significantly in granting Jews the vote while denying it to Palestinians in neighbouring villages and neighbourhoods. Yet Beinart’s major problem with this is not that it is simply unjust unfair and the cause of huge suffering to the Palestinians, but rather that such actions will alienate young Jews in North America. Such narcissism is sadly too common in the current Jewish community – which not so long ago was more known for its commitment to universal justice, and progressive values.

Finally I would point out that Beinart says toward the end of the interview – and I am paraphrasing here – that he opposes those that want Israel to become a “secular bi-national state” that loses it’s legally binding Jewish character. But isn’t that exactly the kind of state that Canada claims to be – founded on bi-nationalism, secular (with no privileging of religion), and multi-cultural: where all ethnic religious groups can survive and thrive: develop their cultures and practice their religions together. If it’s good enough for Canada – and, I might point out, most Canadian Jews strongly support this multi-cultural vision of Canada – why isn’t it appropriate for Israel?

On the other hand voicing any criticism of Israel on CBC is so rare that I guess I shouldn't complain. But its just odd that they need the cover of it being a conversation about whats good for the Jews to make the topic kosher for broadcasting.

When Does Anti-Israel Activity become Anti-Semitism?

Paul Donnachie

When do anti Israel actions become anti-semtism?

Unfortunately this questions will become more and more pressing in the coming years, as the Israeli occupation becomes more and more entrenched and as the world gets more and more fed up with it. Many "anti-Israel" activists will in fact cross the line into anti-semitism and many Jews will consider any anti-Israel expression to be, ipso-facto, anti-semitism . This does not have to be the case, and it behooves all Jews and all progressives to clearly understand the difference.

A recent legal case in Scotland, may be a case in point.  According to an article in Haaretz:

"Pro-Palestinian activists are planning to take a year-long legal battle which has brought into question the connection between anti-Israel protest and anti-Semitism to the European Court of Human Rights. The Scottish High Court refused to take into account the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories when upholding on Tuesday a previous ruling that an attack on a Jewish student's room last year was racially-motivated. 

The appeal was over the case of an American exchange student from Yeshiva University, Chanan Reitblat, who was studying for one term at St Andrews University in eastern Scotland. Last March, two fellow students entered Reitblat's room to visit a friend of theirs who had shared the room and passed out drunk. They noticed a large flag of Israel that Reitblat had on his wall, and one of them, opened his trouser, rubbed his hands over his genitals and then rubbed them over the flag. Reitblat claimed that they had called him a terrorist and one of them urinated in the sink. 

Five months later, a local Sheriff's Court convicted one of the students, Paul Donnachie, of a racist "breach of the peace" and sentenced him to a 300 pound fine and 150 hours of community service. ...."

Unfortunately, though the court may have come to the right conclusion, it did not publish its reasons, and therefore the dividing line between legitimate protest and racism is still not clearly drawn.

"But Donnachie did not accept the Sheriff's ruling saying, "This is a ridiculous conviction. I'm a member of anti-racism campaigns, and I am devastated that as someone who was fought against racism I have been tarnished in this way." ...

... Donnachie appealed to the Scottish High Court of Criminal Appeal, claiming that while his behavior towards Reitblat was personally unacceptable, his conduct had not been racist or anti-Semitic, but rather a legitimate political protest against Israeli policies, ... [claiming] that there had been a miscarriage of justice when the Sheriff refused to hear ... the conditions in Israel and the Occupied Territories. On Tuesday, the three judges of the High Court in Edinburgh refused to overturn the verdict and sentence ....

The ruling has been hailed by Jewish organizations in Britain.... “The Jewish Community and Jewish Student Community welcome today’s definitive court ruling that abusing a Jewish student due to his identification with Israel is criminal and racialist in nature. Interest in or identification with Israel and support for its legitimate welfare and right to exist is an integral part of Jewish identity of the mainstream Jewish community.” ... 

The head of Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Mick Napier, said following the High Court ruling that "we will continue to pursue this case through every possible legal avenue, including the European Court of Human Rights. The initial conviction was absurd, all the hostilities by Donnachie were against Israeli state symbol." 

Napier insisted there was nothing anti-Semitic about the attack. .... 'A national flag is a political symbol and an Israeli flag is provocation to people who see it as a symbol of a terrorist state.' " 

So who is right? When does political protest become racism? Is the official British Jewish Community response correct when they say: "Interest in or identification with Israel and support for its legitimate welfare and right to exist is an integral part of Jewish identity of the mainstream Jewish community.” and therefore it should be immune from criticism or acts of protest? Or is the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign correct when they say "A national flag is a political symbol and an Israeli flag is provocation to people who see it as a symbol of a terrorist state", and therefore is a legitimate target for protest?

* * *

Actually that is a trick question. As is usual in such cases, the statements issued by the parties are meant by each side to frame the issue so as to put their own point of view in the best light. Attacking a flag is NOT racism, and just because most Jews believe something or even view it as part of their religion (sic) does not make it immune from criticism.

Yet Mr. Donnachie is nevertheless guilty of performing an anti-semitic act. He did this, in my opinion, not when he "opened his trouser, rubbed his hands over his genitals and then rubbed them over the flag." That is legitimate (though tasteless and stupid) political protest. (The fact it was in a private room and involved genitals may have made him guilty of some other crimes, but certainly not racism or anti-semitism.) Where Donnachie crossed the line into racism, was when he conflated Israel and a particular Jew, when - according to Reitblat - Donacchie and his friend "called him a terrorist and one of them urinated in the sink."  (For the record, Donacchie denies calling Reitblat a terrorist. See here.) Imagine if a Zionist student leader had done the same to a Palestinian student in his dorm room?

I wish the court had published its reasons. It seems to me that that would have helped clarify the line between legitimate anti-Israel protest and anti-semitism. Attacking state symbols is not racism. Attacking individuals by attributing to them [supposed] characteristics of the state, and then acting on that attribution to abuse those people - that crosses the line into anti-semitism.

Perhaps if the court had published its reasons we could have been spared the following: an all too typical,  school yard taunt issued by the Israel Embassy re this incident.

The Israeli Embassy in London said following the ruling that "it means that a man who rubs his genitals and waves them around cannot be considered taking part in political protest. It is doubtful that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign can conform to this new level of political discourse.""

As is often the case lately, the Israeli foreign ministry misses the point and just makes itself look ridiculous. At least Donnachie had the excuse of being drunk.

Just In Time For Holocaust Memorial Day

Thursday was holocaust Memorial Day, and this new product appeared for sale at Urban Outfitters. The latest Auschwitz chic.

 "Tasteless" is the most generous thing you can say.

 Is this anti-Semitism? Not particularly. It is just the amoral nature of modern capitalism as manifest in this one corner of the fashion industry.

If you want to see the original try this link:

http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban/catalog/productdetail.jsp?id=24268690

though I am not too sure how long it will remain active. At $100 per, these may sell out any day now.

Is the Two State Solution Dead?Don't Tell It To Shaul Mofaz

This is interesting? Shaul Mofaz, the new head of the Kadima party - Israel's largest opposition party, has come out strongly in favour of the two state solution - including 100% compensation for any land Israel would retain within the West Bank in a peace deal with the Palestinians. Its basically the "Obama formula" - the 1967 borders with adjustments based on land swaps.

According to the NY Times:

“I intend to replace Netanyahu,” Mr. Mofaz, 63, said in the party chairman’s office, so new to him that behind his desk there was still a poster for Ms. Livni. “I will not join his government.”

Then: “The greatest threat to the state of Israel is not nuclear Iran,” but that Israel might one day cease to be a Jewish state, because it would have as many Palestinians as Jews. “So it is in Israel’s interest that a Palestinian state be created.”

...Mr. Mofaz says he would start with an interim Palestinian state on 60 percent of the West Bank and negotiate the rest.

Mr. Mofaz says Israel should keep the West Bank settlement blocs but give the Palestinians 100 percent of their territorial demands by swapping land. He believes that borders and security can be negotiated in a year, and that tens of thousands of settlers would leave their homes with the proper incentives. Those who remain would be forced out.

What is interesting is: first that Mofaz - who everyone believed was to the right of Tzipi Livni and would try to merge Kadima into the Likud - is apparently not so right wing after all; and second that he believes he can win an election on such an aggressively pro-two-state platform.

I am sceptical he can convince enough Israelis to vote for him based on this platform - and I am sceptical he can reach a peace deal with the Palestinians while still keeping the major settlement blocks of Ariel and Ma'aleh Adumim which sit deep within the West Bank.

So I will wish him luck, but I wouldn't relax and count on Mofaz being the solution.

The Two Most Important Articles On Israel In A Long Time

Noam Sheizaf at 972 has just published the two most important articles on Israeli attitudes to "the conflict" in recent memory. You can read them here and here. You should read them. Now.

* * *

What is so brilliant, and telling, about Noam's analysis is that it is just stating the obvious. He clears a way all the spin and bull. I can tell you it is true, because I lived in Israel for 15 years and it was as true in the 1980's as it is today. Its as true as the nose on your face. ... Read the articles. They are short. I am not going to summarize just to save you a few clicks.

* * *

Sheizaf's conclusions are uncomfortable, if like me you think the status quo in Israel/Palestine is immoral and - in the long run - disastrous for the Jewish People and for Israel. (Of course part of Noam's point is that most Israeli's are not overly concerned with morality, or the long run.)

Noam's ultimate conclusion, that only outside pressure can move Israel from the status quo, is similar to the postion I heard from Yair Tzaban - a leader of the left wing Sheli party (later merged into Meretz) back around 1979. Tzaban said - to us young idealistic party volunteers - that peace (and justice for Palestinians) would be a long time coming, and would only come when "the Great Powers" jointly decided it was in their interests to impose it. This because it was not in Israel's material interests (perhaps his Marxism was showing) to relinquish the West Bank, and it was not in the Arab's power to make it in Israel's material interest. When we asked, "if that is that case what is the role of an Israeli pro 'peace and justice' political party like Sheli", he answered that our role was to keep alive the idea and the positive aspects of peace, equality, justice within the Israeli consciousness, so that when it was imposed Israelis would not be so opposed to it as to fight it tooth and nail - or at least our role was to bring about some split on the issue in Israeli public opinion so that not everyone fought the imposed solution tooth and nail.

Tzaban later went on to become a minister in the government of Yitzhak Rabin - so maybe he changed his opinion somewhat. But of course we now know that Rabin's peace initiatives have come to naught. Tzaban is now retired and in his 80's. I wonder what he would think of Sheizaf's analysis.

Sheizaf's piece has received considerable attention. Carlos Strenger, writing in Ha'aretz , calls it "brilliantly analysed." But he shys away from the conclusion that ONLY outside pressure can help. He calls, instead, for a series of "practical" (and unilateral) half measures that might mitigate the worst effects of the occupation. The problem, in my opinion, with Strenger's analysis, is that Israelis are only marginally more likely to agree to these ideas than to any other proposals to change the status quo - and as Sheizaf shows Israelis see little value in changing the status quo. Of course Sheizaf's position and Strenger's are not mutually exclusive - if you are an Israel thinking of strategies to change things: in that case you can hope for / work for outside pressure, and you can hope for / work for half measures to mitigate the occupation. (Though openly calling for outside pressure may lose you credibility with most Israelis - credibility you will need if you wish to win them over to the half measures position.)

But living in the Diaspora I don't face that particular dilemma . While I wouldn't oppose Strenger's suggestions, I wouldn't build my own positions on Israel around them or make them the centre of my advocacy. Better to take Tzaban's position, and keep the hope and vision alive for a principled solution, while hoping - ala Sheizaf - that somehow effective outside pressure is brought to bear.

But like Sheizaf (though obviously less so), I am emotionally and personally tied to Israel, so I - somewhat contradictorily I admit - hope the pressure is both effective yet not severe. It is a sad conundrum, if you are emotionally tied to Israel and if like Sheizaf and Tsaban you think that outside pressure is the only thing that will break the status quo.

Just In Time For Passover Shopping:Beinart Calls for Boycott of Settlement Products

Peter Beinart has an important article in today's NY Times, calling for Jews (and others) to boycott goods and services from the occupied territories. I could quibble with some of his points, (and I may do so later) but his gist, and the fact that it is published in the NY Times are important. Ken Yirbu.

In 2010, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel called the settlement of Ariel, which stretches deep into the West Bank, “the heart of our country.” Through its pro-settler policies, Israel is forging one political entity between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — an entity of dubious democratic legitimacy, given that millions of West Bank Palestinians are barred from citizenship and the right to vote in the state that controls their lives.

In response, many Palestinians and their supporters have initiated a global campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (B.D.S.), which calls not only for boycotting all Israeli products and ending the occupation of the West Bank but also demands the right of millions of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes ....

The Israeli government and the B.D.S. movement are promoting radically different one-state visions, but together, they are sweeping the two-state solution into history’s dustbin.

It’s time for a counteroffensive — a campaign to fortify the boundary that keeps alive the hope of a Jewish democratic state alongside a Palestinian one. And that counteroffensive must begin with language.

Jewish hawks often refer to the territory beyond the green line by the biblical names Judea and Samaria, thereby suggesting that it was, and always will be, Jewish land. Almost everyone else, including this paper, calls it the West Bank.

But both names mislead. “Judea and Samaria” implies that the most important thing about the land is its biblical lineage; “West Bank” implies that the most important thing about the land is its relationship to the Kingdom of Jordan next door. ...

Instead, we should call the West Bank “nondemocratic Israel.” The phrase suggests that there are today two Israels: a flawed but genuine democracy within the green line and an ethnically-based nondemocracy beyond it. It counters efforts by Israel’s leaders to use the legitimacy of democratic Israel to legitimize the occupation and by Israel’s adversaries to use the illegitimacy of the occupation to delegitimize democratic Israel.

Having made that rhetorical distinction, American Jews should seek every opportunity to reinforce it. We should lobby to exclude settler-produced goods from America’s free-trade deal with Israel. We should push to end Internal Revenue Service policies that allow Americans to make tax-deductible gifts to settler charities. Every time an American newspaper calls Israel a democracy, we should urge it to include the caveat: only within the green line.

And I might add, Jews should not buy settlement produced goods for Passover - the holiday of freedom, after all. Passover wine from non-democratic Israel would be particularly inappropriate on Passover. See my previous post on boycotting such wine for details of what not to buy.

Israel - Iran Love Fest?

Didi Reider at +972 reports on an Israel-Iran solidarity movement on Facebook. The image above and the one below where sent by an Iranian and an Israeli respectively, and are part of many more posted there.

Reider adds his own thoughts:

So what does it all mean? Quite simply, that neither party has any appetite for a war right now. As an Iranian first strike on Israel is not even on the cards right now, Iranian opposition to war may come as no surprise. But it’s important to stress the Israeli opposition to war reflected above is also far from an abstract “make love not war” one. A recent survey found a whopping 50 percent of Israelis were totally opposed to an attack on Iran, even if the diplomatic efforts to stall the nuclear program failed. 43 supported the move, .... An earlier survey that specifically asked if Israel should attack on Iran on its own found 65 percent of Israelis were opposed.

Although I’m normally very cynical on just how much leaders care for public opinion when making a decision to go to war, we should remember Netanyahu is first and foremost a populist and that this is an election year.... In this situation, such campaigns might – just might – add a few grams of pressure on Netanyahu to stay his hand.

Read the full article and see more images at +972.