The State of the Jews » Middle East

In defense of Judge Goldstone, sort of

admin — Tue, 11 May 2010 05:47:04 +0000

My upcoming Australian Jewish News column:

In defense of Judge Goldstone, sort of

By Haviv Rettig Gur

Judge Richard Goldstone, the namesake of the report that convinced much of the world that Israel had indeed committed war crimes in Gaza, is getting a bad rap.

Not about the Goldstone Report, to be sure. That document, when you actually take the trouble to read it, is a collection of hearsay about Israeli brutality that fails to challenge the Palestinian witnesses but somehow still manages to conclude, unequivocally, that Israel violated the most sacred laws of human morality.

But, you know, that was last year. Water under the bridge.

Now, Judge Goldstone is facing a barrage of criticism in the Jewish world for his role as an enforcer of the law under the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Some details of his apartheid-era judicial rulings came to light last week in an expose published by Israel’s largest daily, Yediot Ahronot. The article blasted Goldstone for sentencing 28 blacks to death and enforcing – allegedly happily – the country’s racist laws, including jailing two young black men for possessing a video tape of a speech by an associate of Nelson Mandela and acquitting four police officers who had harassed a white woman believed to be sleeping with a non-white man.

For his part, Goldstone noted that he only sentenced two men to death, each time for a brutal murder, as was mandatory by South African law at the time, while the remaining 26 were failed appeals during his tenure on the Transvaal supreme court.

Reactions to the news came fast and furious. Jeffrey Goldberg commented that “this new report suggests not only that Goldstone is at best intermittently principled, but that he knew his old hanging-judge record would one day catch up with him.”

Alan Dershowitz declared that Goldstone’s defense that his death penalty convictions were in keeping with the law was not unlike that of the sadistic Auschwitz doctor Josef Mengele.

Elan Steinberg, vice president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, continued the Holocaust theme by calling Goldstone’s response “sadly reminiscent of the long discredited so-called ‘Nuremberg defense’ – ‘l was only obeying orders.’”

On the facts, Goldstone probably has a stronger case than his detractors. His acquittal of the policemen, for example, was explicitly made because of errors in the legal proceedings against them. And even at his most egregious Goldstone’s death sentences are not different from the norm of some of the world’s strongest democracies even today. Japan, for instance, or the United States.

As South Africa’s former chief justice Arthur Chaskalson told me last week, Goldstone “was regarded by everyone who knew him as a liberal judge.”

It was Goldstone, Chaskalson noted, who in the 1980s declawed the infamous Group Areas Act by giving the courts discretion over the forced evictions of people living in the wrong racial districts.

So which is it? Is Goldstone the guilt-ridden former enforcer of legislated racism or a hero who once held the line against the worst offenses of a bad regime?

My answer: neither. He’s something much simpler. He’s a joiner.

Once, at the start of his career, Goldstone had to choose how he would behave in an immoral system. He chose to join it, and then by most accounts worked to correct it from within.

At the end of his career, he had to make that choice again. Once again, he chose to join. This time it was the UN Human Rights Council, which since its inception four years ago has devoted 82% of its censures to Israel alone and this year went to the trouble of praising Sri Lanka for defeating the Tamil Tigers in a war that cost 20,000 civilian lives.

In order for law to be the impartial arbiter of disputes, it needs certain fundamental institutions: the unbiased judge, an independent judiciary, a clear hierarchy of appeal, an elected legislature that assures that law emanates from the society to which it is being applied.

But the UN has none of these, because it is not in any sense a legal body. It is a political one that operates by mob rule.

Yet the effect of Goldstone’s report has been to attach the prestige of “law” to a non-legal public lashing of Israel commissioned by and for a political body already irredeemably prejudiced against Israel.

Goldstone himself insists that his report is not admissible as evidence in a court of law. It was merely “fact-finding,” he says. But who cares about the legal niceties when Goldstone himself seems to violate them in his report’s spectacularly adamant conclusions about Israel’s heinous violations of human rights law?

And so the question remains. Is he naïve? Or, as with apartheid, is he happily wielding a racist stick in the service of a higher cause?

Or maybe he’s still, as in his youth, simply a joiner.

Report: PA shuts down only Christian TV broadcaster in West Bank

admin — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:51:12 +0000

The PA last week shut down the West Bank’s only Christian television broadcaster, according to AsiaNews.

The Palestinian National Authority has shut down Al-Mahed “Nativity” TV for operating without a licence. Samir Qumsieh, owner and general manager of the Christian broadcaster, slammed the decision. After 14 years on the air and despite a long list of “thank you letters” by grateful viewers, Palestinian police raided the broadcaster’s offices yesterday at 2 pm. Waving an order by the Interior Ministry, they put the station off the air.

Contacted by AsiaNews, Mr Qumsieh said he was baffled by the order, which for him was “unjustified”.

According to unconfirmed reports that reached AsiaNews, the closure appears to be financially motivated. Palestinian authorities demanded money, a “licence” that was not paid.

In a letter addressed to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, Mr Qumsieh slammed the unjustified closure of the Christian TV station because of the “lack of a licence”.

Hat tip: Elan Miller.

Egypt renegs on Maimonides goodwill

admin — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:20:56 +0000

Zvi Mazel, former ambassador to Egypt, writes in The Jerusalem Post:

All was in place for an impressive ceremony that would have shown the world that Jews and Muslims could rejoice in harmony over a site dedicated to a man held in veneration by both. Maimonides had been the personal physician to Saladin, and for centuries Jews, Muslims and Copts had come to his yeshiva in search of healing. As work was nearing completion, it was agreed with the Egyptian authorities that the small Jewish community of Cairo would organize a dedication ceremony on March 7.

And then the Egyptians had a change of heart. The head of the Antiquities Department stated that it was an Egyptian site. Let Jews hold a religious ceremony discreetly and among themselves; the official inauguration by the Egyptian authorities would take place a week later. That the decision was both ludicrous and impractical did not occur to them until it was too late.

People living there were ordered to close their shops, their doors and their windows and not set foot outside. Security personnel checked invitations and barred journalists from entering. A reporter from a popular daily who tried to interview me was driven away none too gently. A similar fate met a New York Times correspondent. The event was to be kept strictly private – or so hoped the Egyptian authorities. They presumably had not heard of cellphones and other sophisticated recording and transmitting equipment.

(After the jump, Egypt doesn’t miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Also video of the dedication of the beautiful synagogue and yeshiva.)

Meanwhile, the Egyptians who had hoped that the ceremony could be held under wraps were in for a rude awakening. Some of the guests had given interviews to various media in the course of the event. Not many hours lapsed before a video was aired on CNN, and later on the news on Israel’s Channel 2; the Chabad Web site published dozens of photos.

The press in Cairo reacted angrily. Articles and editorials found fault with the presence of the Israeli ambassador, simultaneously bemoaning the amount of money squandered on restoring a Jewish site and declaring the fact that it was a purely Egyptian monument.

Zaki Hawas, head of the Antiquities Department, waded into the fray and declared that “‘Ben Maimon’ would not be handed over to the Jews” and that special measures would be taken to prevent Israelis from visiting in order not to offend Egyptian feelings, in view of the Israeli government’s position on the “Ibrahimi Mosque,” the name given by the Muslim to the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. He added that he had been surprised by the large scale of the event, the participation of the Israeli ambassador and the fact that alcoholic drinks had been imbibed. Therefore, he said, he had taken the decision to cancel the grand opening planned for March 14.

So it goes.

Still, if modern politics don’t take away anything of the awe and wonder at the thought of seeing Maimonides’ actual synagogue and study, here’s a video from the dedication.

Ha’aretz: Stupid or dishonest?

admin — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:21:02 +0000

It’s no secret Ha’aretz represents the left-wing fringe in Israeli politics, with columnists who openly question Jewish statehood and a reflexive assumption of Israeli responsibility for anything that goes wrong in the region.

Still, even for Ha’aretz, this is crazy. In an editorial titled: “Netanyahu, the US has given you a second chance. Use it.” the paper tries to argue that (a) the Americans are offering a “second chance” that, presumably, may not return, (b) “the US had demanded that Netanyahu … agree to deliberations on all the core issues,” and (c) that “Netanyahu will commit a grave error if he is tempted to continue the damaging clash with Obama, and if he uses the pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), to enlist the president’s political enemies to advance the positions of the Israeli right wing.”

The degree of disinformation contained in this piece is staggering, and begs the question: Are Ha’aretz’s savvy editors so disconnected from reality, or are they knowingly lying to advance their politics?

First, the Americans aren’t offering a “second chance.” What happens if Netanyahu declines? Cancels his trip? Will the US start bombing Tel Aviv? What does “second chance” even mean? After all, the Palestinians have been getting second chances for 17 years, and have yet to compromise on a single issue.

Second, Ha’aretz knows but is obfuscating the fact that the Israeli government has agreed, again and again, to begin negotiations. It is the Palestinians who continue to refuse, on the apparently correct assumption that delay works in their favor, since Ha’aretz types will always urge the Israeli government to give in for the sake of getting the Palestinians to negotiate over, um, what we’ve just surrendered.

Would that this strategy worked. Unfortunately, it will most likely end up in disaster. The Israeli government has real limitations – especially on issues like Jerusalem and refugees, where the Palestinians have been unable to bend even over the Temple Mount, and the Israeli public unable to give ground on such fundamental questions. Pressuring the Israelis to acquiesce, at every turn no matter the cost, is a sure-fire way to bring real Israeli rejectionists to power, the kind unseen since the early 1990’s. If Ha’aretz is simply a cheerleader to every Palestinian demand, it enables their rejectionism – which, after all, remains the unsolved problem everyone likes to ignore.

Third, why would Netanyahu be “tempted to continue the damaging clash with Obama?” This whole time, he’s the one trying to dial it down, while Hillary and Obama worked feverishly to keep the flames burning. As Ha’aretz itself reported.

And as for enlisting the aid of the pro-Israel lobby “to advance the positions of the Israeli right wing,” Ha’aretz is consciously and inexcusably propagating the conspiratorial lies about AIPAC’s allegiances. AIPAC officially supports a two-state solution and negotiations to that end. But why would Ha’aretz care?

Is the Palestinian Diaspora part of the solution?

admin — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:42:04 +0000

This is worth following. Could an affluent, Western Palestinian Diaspora be part of the solution?

Here’s an attempt to create some kind of ‘Palestinian Agency’:

The state of Palestine does not exist; the courts are still not working, local government has numerous problems, not to mention health care, education and infrastructure. Representatives of Palestinian communities abroad have come to Bethlehem to kick off the independent “Palestine Network.”

“Welcome to your second home,” announces Ramzi Khoury, executive director of the Palestine Network. “You are representatives from 23 countries who have chosen to be engaged in building this Palestinian state and not just talking about it. This is a do tank, rather than a talk tank. This is not a political club.”

…

“If you want to build a democratic state, you need to tackle all the sectors of that state,” Khoury says. “So doctors need to come down here and revamp our health system, engineers need to come here and help us build, lawyers and judges need to come and help us create an independent judiciary and a state of law, and we need educators.”

The Palestine Network is not just another charity or source of funding. The Palestinians have many economic backers. In 2008, global financial aid to the Palestinian Authority exceeded $2 billion, including about $526 million from Arab countries, $651m. from the European Union, $300m. from the US and about $238m. from the World Bank, according to the Arab League’s 2009 economic report.

The founding conference, sponsored by the governments of Germany and Belgium, was held in the opulent Convention Center on the outskirts of Bethlehem, hub of Palestinian culture and tourism.

The network’s goal is to use expertise from Palestine’s diaspora communities to develop the local economy, judiciary, education and health infrastructures in what will be the future state.

Why, in Palestine, is Baruch Goldstein a hero?

admin — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:31:24 +0000

Why do the Palestinian Baruch Goldsteins rule the Palestinian public square? What possible conclusions are we supposed to draw from the decision to name a Ramallah square after Dalal Mughrabi, “who led the worst terror attack in Israel’s history when she and other terrorists hijacked a bus and murdered 37 civilians in 1978″?

And why is Ramallah doing it on the anniversary of the attack?! I know this blog has a handful of readers in Arab lands. Anyone care to explain?

From Palestinian Media Watch:

Not only does [the Ramallah municipality] still intend to name the square after the terrorist, but the date chosen for the inaugural ceremony is this Thursday, March 11, the 32nd anniversary of the terror attack.

…

Headline: “Preparations for inauguration of Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi Square complete”
“The El-Bireh Municipality has completed construction work at the Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi Square in the Um Al-Sharait region, and has commenced preparations for its inauguration this Thursday, the anniversary of Mughrabi’s Martyrdom. The mayor, Jamal Al-Tawil, said that… this year the municipality will celebrate the inauguration of the Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi Square in order to commemorate her memory and her sacrifice as a Palestinian woman who resisted the occupation. City Council member Aida Abu-Ubeid said that the square is considered a symbol of the sacrifice of the Palestinian woman. She also noted that flowers and trees will be planted there, and that a picture of the Shahida Dalal Mughrabi will be placed at the center of the square.”
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 7, 2010]

There has been no public comment from the Obama administration about the PA’s honoring of the terrorist.

Can Dubai happen again?

admin — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:17:13 +0000

Only if you’re willing to get caught:

The spread of technology of the kind that uncovered the Dubai operation has permanently altered the rules, wrote Yossi Melman, Haaretz’s intelligence correspondent. “The conclusion could be that the era of heroic operations in the style of James Bond movies is close to its end.”

Inspired by Dubai’s success, neighboring Abu Dhabi announced Wednesday that it would spend more than $120 million to blanket the city with surveillance cameras.

Today, said Gad Shimron, a field operative for the Mossad in the 1970s and 1980s, agents risk leaving electronic footprints everywhere: credit card charges, passport information in airport computers and easily traced cell phone calls. As Dubai demonstrated, they must also plan for the possibility that law enforcement will be able to put the pieces together.

Go ahead, pressure Israel

Haviv — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:59:34 +0000

Henry Siegman, former head of the American Jewish Congress, continues his effort to punish and pressure Israel into more concessions toward the Palestinians. Writing in The Nation, he warns:

Israel’s relentless drive to establish “facts on the ground” in the occupied West Bank, a drive that continues in violation of even the limited settlement freeze to which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu committed himself, seems finally to have succeeded in locking in the irreversibility of its colonial project. As a result of that “achievement,” one that successive Israeli governments have long sought in order to preclude the possibility of a two-state solution, Israel has crossed the threshold from “the only democracy in the Middle East” to the only apartheid regime in the Western world.

Don’t believe it. Siegman’s vision suffers from a disparity between the real Israel and the Israel he believes he knows.

For example, he argues that “it is now widely recognized in most Israeli circles–although denied by Israel’s government–that the settlements have become so widespread and so deeply implanted in the West Bank as to rule out the possibility of their removal (except for a few isolated and sparsely populated ones) by this or any future Israeli government unless compelled to do so by international intervention, an eventuality until now considered entirely unlikely.”

Really? When over 80% of settlers live on 5% of the West Bank, most of it adjacent to the Green Line, when the popular reaction to the Disengagement from Gaza was an overwhelming yawn – no Galilee bed-and-breakfast and no Tel Aviv beach was empty during those two ostensibly traumatic weeks in August 2005.

The settlements can be removed, and the vast centrist Israeli mainstream that has so far escaped the notice of an ignorant world media will implement this removal. But only when it knows that the Palestinians won’t use the withdrawal from the West Bank the way they used the one from Gaza.

In short, Siegman is not a serious observer of Israel.

In 2008, he wrote another piece in the Nation seeking to prove Israel’s dishonesty in peacemaking. His sole proof: the settlements. Always the settlements.

It would be one thing if Israeli governments had insisted on delaying a Palestinian state until certain security concerns had been dealt with. But no government serious about a two-state solution to the conflict would have pursued, without letup, the theft and fragmentation of Palestinian lands, which even a child understands makes Palestinian statehood impossible.

I’m a big fan of American Jews taking Israel to the cleaners. I am genuinely mystified at their failure to protest the corrupt Israeli rabbinate’s efforts to define who is Jewish, or the complete absence of education about the Diaspora in all 12 years of an Israeli’s schooling, or the lack of Israeli support for Diaspora education while Israel joyfully drinks up American Jewish love and money with barely an acknowledging nod.

But the criticism on the peace process is not serious, and is repeatedly disproven by events. To insist on punishing Israel at this stage, Siegman must ignore the simple glaring fact that the Palestinians are refusing to prove the Israelis’ intransigence through, um, negotiating.

Yes, there are settlements. And yes, the settlement movement is a serious constituency with a resonant narrative. So it would be excruciatingly difficult for Netanyahu to take on the entire far-right unless he can show the mainstream that there is a reason to do so.

But it is also true that the settlers have lost every time they were challenged – in Sinai, Gaza and the current extra-Jerusalemite freeze. The broader culture war within Israel over the past two decades has left them marginalized politically. It is only Palestinian brutality that has left the majority of the settlements intact.

To seriously suggest further punishment of Israel without giving even casual consideration to the simple fact that the Palestinians have yet to concede anything in 17 years of negotiations – not even simple rhetorical gestures such as recognition of the Jews’ right to self-determination – is either stupid or willfully disingenuous.

You don’t trust Netanyahu? Fine. But right now, it isn’t Netanyahu that has to prove his good faith and capacity for peacemaking.

Pressure Israel all you want. As Obama has discovered in recent months, the Palestinians will only up their demands and push off the inevitable compromise.

The trouble and promise of the rules of war

Haviv — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:51:47 +0000

Ultimately,the laws of war are an Israeli strategic asset.

That’s my take-away from a beautiful and heartbreaking description of war’s moral complexity published yesterday in the Wall Street Journal. Well worth the read:

Five years ago, a particularly gruesome image made its way to our television screens from the war in Iraq. Four U.S. civilian contractors working in Fallujah were ambushed and killed by al Qaeda. Their bodies were burned, then dragged through the streets. Two of the charred bodies were hung from the Euphrates Bridge and left dangling.

This barbaric act left an impression that our military did not forget: In a special operation earlier this year, Navy SEALs captured the mastermind of that attack, Ahmed Hashim Abed. But after he was taken into custody in September, Abed claimed he was punched by his captors. He showed a fat lip to prove it. Three of the SEALS are now awaiting a courts-martial on charges ranging from assault to dereliction of duty and making false statements.

…

Rules of war are important. They are something to strive for as they separate us from our distant ancestors. But when only one side follows these rules, they no longer elevate us. They create a very unlevel field and more than a little frustration. It is equally bizarre for any of us to judge someone’s behavior in war by the rules we follow in our very peaceful universe. We sit in homes that are air-conditioned in the summer and warmed in the winter. We have more than enough food in our bellies and we get enough sleep. The stress in our lives won’t ever match the stress of battle. Can we honestly begin to decide if a soldier acted in compliance with rules that work perfectly well on Main Street but not, say, in Malmedy or Fallujah?

The question is important and well-portrayed, but I don’t think it’s entirely relevant to Israel’s situation. For one thing, the IDF has succeeded in repeatedly defeating its nonconventional enemies without great civilian casualties on either side. (30,000 of some of the best-trained infantrymen on Earth were fighting in densely-populated Gaza for a whole month, and even Hamas says that fully a third of the Palestinian dead were its fighters, who were operating at the time from within populated neighborhoods. If civilians were the target, as Goldstone and Hamas claim, then the IDF is rather frighteningly incompetent.)

But there’s another reason to obey the laws of war, besides the simple demonstration that you can still win while obeying them: for Israel’s adversaries, civilian dead are a weapon of great strategic significance. In fact, Hamas has no other strategic lever over Israel than forcing it into killing Palestinian civilians by targeting Israel’s own civilians. Neither act is tolerable for Israel politically and internationally, so creating this catch-22 – utterly ignored by Goldstone, incidentally – is the essence of Hamas’ strategy.

You can only de-incentivize Hamas’ particularly vicious brand of warfare by exacting a price for aggression without “giving” them Israeli or Palestinian civilian deaths.

With this thinking, a scrupulous adherence to the laws of war is not just morally important, but strategically advantageous.

Maybe that’s why the IDF, for all the criticism it faces abroad, has actually done better in avoiding civilian deaths than similar armies fighting in places like Helmand or Fallujah.

Now from Apple: Poke Ahmadinejad in the nose

Haviv — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:28:46 +0000

This is an ad for an iPhone app by an Israeli news portal called “Walla!” The iPhone is newly-arrived on Israel’s shores and has caused a stir in local media. I don’t know if Apple came up with this campaign, but since they’re very controlling with this stuff, I’ll let them get the credit.

Poking Ahmadinejad in the nose is a brilliant way to get Israelis interested in iPhones, imho. The tagline reads “To Touch the News.”

What more can Bibi do just to start negotiating?

Haviv — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:22:41 +0000

I have written about the automatic credibility gap that Israeli leaders face in the international arena, where the world questions the Israeli commitment to peace even when it is demonstrable – and often fails to take the Palestinians to task when they flatly work against accommodation and reconciliation.

But what more can Netanyahu do to overcome this distrust?

Isn't the surging Palestinian economy proof that Bibi wants peace? Pictured: A Palestinian man sells sandwiches in Gaza City during Eid al-Adha festivities. (Photo accompanying WSJ article quoted below)

Ha’aretz’s Ari Shavit points out:

Unlike Rabin [in 1995], Netanyahu now accepts the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state. Unlike Rabin, he is issuing orders prohibiting construction throughout the Jewish West Bank. Netanyahu has crossed the Rubicon, on both ideological and practical levels, and reinvented himself as a centrist.

All this just to bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table, which they still refuse to do.

In a must-read in today’s Wall Street Journal, British analyst Tom Gross explains the results of Netanyahu’s pro-peace policies, especially the recent dismantling of hundreds of roadblocks and other measures to jump-start the Palestinian economy.

(True, Keith Olbermann once called Tom “the worst person in the world” for basically supporting military action against Iran’s nuclear program – for what it’s worth, Olbermann misquoted him – but Tom is also a passionate supporter of Palestinian independence and democracy.)

The piece is worth reading in full. Here are some choice parts:

Wandering around downtown Nablus the shops and restaurants I saw were full. There were plenty of expensive cars on the streets…

And perhaps most importantly of all, we had driven from Jerusalem to Nablus without going through any Israeli checkpoints. The government of Benjamin Netanyahu has removed them all since the Israeli security services (with the encouragement and support of President George W. Bush) were allowed, over recent years, to crush the intifada, restore security to the West Bank and set up the conditions for the economic boom that is now occurring…

The shops and restaurants were also full when I visited Hebron recently…

Life is even better in Ramallah, where it is difficult to get a table in a good restaurant. New apartment buildings, banks, brokerage firms, luxury car dealerships and health clubs are to be seen. In Qalqilya, another West Bank city that was previously a hotbed of terrorists and bomb-makers, the first ever strawberry crop is being harvested in time to cash in on the lucrative Christmas markets in Europe…

Palestinian economic growth so far this year—in a year dominated by economic crisis elsewhere—has been an impressive 7% according to the IMF, though Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayad, himself a former World Bank and IMF employee, says it is in fact 11%, partly helped along by strong economic performances in neighboring Israel…

The truth is that an independent Palestine is now quietly being built, with Israeli assistance. So long as the Obama administration and European politicians don’t clumsily meddle as they have in the past and make unrealistic demands for the process to be completed more quickly than it can be, I am confident the outcome will be a positive one.

Ahmadinejad accepts criticism, but not in Farsi

Haviv — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:31:03 +0000

What can I say? My friend David Keyes has something against tyrants:

It’s hard to believe in light of this Internet repression, but Iran’s president is himself a blogger. “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Personal Memos” is the place where he goes to vent and stay in touch with the common folk. He says he allots himself 15 minutes a week to write on his blog, but admits that at times he exceeds this limit.

Ahmadinejad wrote of his blog that “The magnitude of the reception and acclamation from the viewers was beyond expectations.” It is a half truth at best. The English version of the site is full of scathing critiques by readers. Nicholas from the United States writes “You’re one of the most stupid president [sic] ever. I’m sure about half of the comments posted on this blog are just totally fake and used as propaganda.” Gary from Great Britain adds “Why would anybody want to listen to you. You’re suppressive.” Jack opines: “I hope someone puts a bullet in your head very soon.”

What sort of tyrant allows for open debate and harsh critique on the front-page of his own blog? Someone who has clearly studied the playbook of Yasser Arafat. The Palestinian leader mastered the art of offering platitudes about peace in English while simultaneously rallying his people to jihad in Arabic.

I asked one of Britain’s leading Iranian bloggers to help me translate the Farsi version of Ahmadinejad’s Memos. His homepage in Farsi contained not a single negative comment by readers. The closest one gets to criticism is “Homayan” who wrote prior to the June election: “Last night by seeing your supporters in the streets I realized that you will win. I wanted to say as someone who opposed you to congratulate you . . . I had a lot of criticism but I feel none of them are that important to stop me from voting for you. It’s interesting to me how you turned your opponent into your supporter.” One Canadian-Iranian student gushed: “I am proud to be the citizen of a country who has a brave President like Ahmadinejad.”

Though the Islamic Republic of Iran desperately wants to be seen as a world power, all the military parades, blustering rhetoric, and menacing threats cannot drown out the fact that the government in Tehran is terrified of men and women typing on computers.

Costa Rica: Sure Palestine can be disarmed, like us

Haviv — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:45:43 +0000

As many have noted following Binyamin Netanyahu’s June speech at Bar Ilan University, it’s not a crazy demand on the part of the Israelis that the new state of Palestine be disarmed. Besides the traumatic experience of the Gaza withdrawal, where land vacated by Israel quickly became the launching pad for incessant attacks on Sderot, there is actual precedent for disarmament in the international arena – both Costa Rica and Iceland have no militaries, and it has served them well.

Oscar Arias (Wikipedia)

Now, Costa Rica’s president Oscar Arias, a Nobel peace laureate and supporter of Palestinian independence, agrees.

In an interview with the Israeli news website YNet over the weekend (The English article is here, but the Hebrew one has the full quote I translated below), he says:

“In my conversations with the Palestinians, I’m trying to suggest a crazy idea – get rid of your army. In practical terms, this isn’t really a crazy idea, because we did it 61 years ago, and we have only benefited from it. In my opinion, a small state, a poor state like Palestine doesn’t need an army. Clearly not everyone will agree with me, but it takes a bit of courage to make such a decision and I hope the Palestinian Authority will have the courage to take this step.”

YNet’s Netanel Shlomovich adds:

The Costa Rican president’s position [on disarmament] will likely make the Netanyahu government happy, but not on all issues. During Arias’ term, Costa Rica established diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority and even recognized a Palestinian state. Yet President Arias doesn’t understand why these actions constitute a controversial decision.

“Over a hundred nations have recognized a Palestinian state. This was the vision of the United Nations from the partition agreement of 1947 that called for the establishment of two states. Very few people will disagree with the idea of two states,” [Arias said].

What pro-gay, pro-Israel and Brazilian looks like

Haviv — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:57:52 +0000

Looks like a fun party.

Anti-Ahmadinejad protest in Rio de Janeiro last week, where demonstrators carried Brazilian, Israeli and gay pride flags.

Hat tip: Tom Gross.

Is Sari Nusseibeh in hiding for suggesting Jews belong in Jerusalem?

Haviv — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:42:15 +0000

I don’t know yet, but the right-wing Arutz Sheva says so:

Middle East expert Mordechai Kedar said Monday that Dr. Sari Nusaiba of Birzeit University, north of Ramallah, has had to go underground in the wake of an article that claims an historical connection between the Jews and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Interviewed on Arutz Sheva’s Hebrew news journal, Dr. Kedar said that Nusaiba would not be the first prominent Arab to publicize the link.

Dr. Kedar said that Haj Amin El-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, declared in 1929 that the site’s association with King Solomon’s Temple was beyond all doubt, even though he would become part of the Nazis’ efforts against the Jews.

Why Palestine must be negotiated, not declared

Haviv — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:35:02 +0000

Am I the only pessimist left standing on this business of a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood?

The Atlantic Wire, the blog section of the Atlantic magazine, juxtaposes my view on this with three other commentators extolling the idea. For the record, I wrote that unilateral statehood would give the Palestinians nothing while freeing Israel’s right-wing government from its standing obligations.

The other commentators, on the other hand, didn’t even try to deal with the question in strategic terms.

Yossi Sarid, as is his wont, is hopeful and optimistic to the point of irrelevance: “When he declares independence, Abbas should call upon the Jews living in the state of Palestine to preserve the peace and to do their part in building up the new country as full and equal citizens, enjoying fair representation in all of its institutions.”

Juan Cole is inexplicably paranoid: “Since the Netanyahu government is about the least likely government to negotiate a Palestinian state within 1967 borders you could imagine, the Palestinians are giving up any hopes that talks will lead anywhere. Moreover, since Netanyahu has secret plans to thousands of further Israeli houses on Palestinian land in the next few years, time is short.”

This is just plain weird. First of all, Netanyahu doesn’t need “secret plans.” There are perfectly non-secret construction plans available for public viewing in the Housing and Construction Ministry. Second, the non-negotiable Palestinian demands aren’t just about borders, but also about refugees, Jerusalem and other issues. Third, on Cole’s doubts about Netanyahu’s intentions, he would do well to remember that both Sinai and Gaza – two withdrawals that included dismantling settlements and resettling thousands of Jews – were carried out by right-wing governments.

Finally, Chris Hedges seals the debate by comparing Palestine to all sorts of non-comparable places: “It worked in Kosovo. It worked in Georgia. And it will work in Palestine.”

But it didn’t work in Chechnya or Kurdistan, and worked only partially in Scotland and the Basque country – because these are all completely different situations.

Consider: Unlike in Kosovo, Israelis have been willing to withdraw from Palestine for over a decade (according to Tel Aviv University’s annual Peace Index). Unlike in either Georgia or Kosovo, Palestine has Hamas waiting in the wings to take over. Unlike in either Georgia or Kosovo, Israel is neither Russian nor Serbian in its intentions or in its political capacity for brutality.

Besides, supporting unilateral independence implies a trust in the current Palestinian leadership to get it right – to build institutions, to construct a national economy. Does Hedges trust them to do this?

The occupation is bad, undemocratic and temporary – even according to Israel’s own laws. But should the PA, which has suffered for almost two decades mainly from its own corrupt and incompetent leadership, unceremoniously jettison the entire Oslo process in the hope that more UN pressure will give them independence and prosperity? Will the need to negotiate over Jerusalem, refugees and borders disappear because Cuba, Sweden and Russia recognize Ramallah and Nablus as a “state” rather than an autonomous “authority?”

Are Obama's settlement demands good for Israel?

Haviv — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:41:04 +0000

We’ve already noted that the Obama administration’s demands for a settlement freeze wreaked havoc on the peace process by undermining the moderate Palestinian leadership.

The demand was ridiculous – Obama wanted not just a geographic freeze to the size of settlements, which Bibi Netanyahu gave him, but a demographic freeze. Israel was not to build kindergartens for the 960 children born each year in settlements. And “settlements” included Jerusalem.

No Israeli leader, on Left or Right, could agree to this as a pre-negotiation concession. And once uttered by the Americans, no Palestinian leader could demand any less. By undermining the Palestinians, Obama has set back all of us.

Dr. Alex Yakobson

Or so I believed.

But now I’m starting to wonder if my thinking on this may have been premature. Yes, the Obama administration goofed as only self-righteous fools can. But maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

Dr. Alex Yakobson of Hebrew University, my teacher on these issues and a family friend, made some important points in Ha’aretz last week, suggesting that acceding to Obama’s demands now would leave Israel better off strategically even in the short term.

First, he notes, the American public’s support for Israel is strong and getting stronger:

…According to the poll, 64% of Americans continue to believe that Israel is serious about reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians. By a 3:1 ratio, the American people express more sympathy with Israel than with the Palestinians: 45% to 15%.

This support, however, is based on the perception that Israel genuinely sought and continues to seek peace. The settlement debate, says Yakobson, is getting in the way:

The support of a majority of Americans is still a much more important factor than all the attacks on Israel and the calls for a boycott. The American people would never have awarded such support to a country they viewed as not pursuing peace.

This is an asset of enormous importance, and it should not be wasted on a dispute with the Obama administration over the expansion of the settlements. The settlements are the main cause for questioning Israel’s desire for peace and its willingness for a two-state solution. Even among our best friends in the United States and elsewhere, the great majority disagrees with Israel over this issue.

…

There is no real gap between the Obama administration’s positions on the settlements and those of the Bush administration. The only difference is that Obama has decided to focus public and diplomatic attention on this issue. From the moment this happened it became clear – beyond any ideological or political dispute – that it is an essential Israeli interest to find a way to reach an agreement with the Americans on a formula for a settlement freeze.

He concludes:

Such a prolonged and public dispute with the United States over the settlements harms Israel. It is a battle where even victory would be a serious defeat. Netanyahu understands America well enough to know that. The question is whether such a critical national interest is a good enough reason in his eyes to confront the extremists within his coalition and party.

Devil’s advocate for a moment: What can Bibi give Obama on settlements without paying an exorbitant political price? And is it worth the trouble just to make the Palestinians willing to talk?

Bostrom 'rethinks' organ trafficking story

Haviv — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:40:53 +0000

According to JTA, Aftonbladet journalist Donald Bostrom, who spectacularly accused Israeli soldiers of running a massive organ-trafficking operation preying on Palestinian youngsters, is “reconsidering” his story.

Aftonbladet's Donald Bostrom

Donald Bostrom cancelled a scheduled appearance at a conference in Beirut after a visit to Israel in which he participated in dialogue on the issue, according to Army Radio. Bostrom was in Israel last month for a media conference in Dimona.

The Beirut conference was set to be an anti-Israel hate fest, according to reports.

“The visit to Israel and the fact that I was part of a fair dialogue made me rethink the whole issue,” Bostrom reportedly told associates, according to Ha’aretz.

In an article published in August in the popular Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, Bostrom reported that Israel seized young Palestinian men and returned them to their families with missing organs.

The story, which ran under the headline “They plunder the organs of our sons,” also cited the recent arrest of a New York rabbi accused of trafficking in human organs.

During the Dimona conference Bostrom admitted that his only proof of the organ stealing came from the allegations of the Palestinian families.

Check out what Ha’aretz military reporter Anshel Pfeffer recently did to Bostrom’s story.

Summing up Fort Hood

Haviv — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:32:46 +0000

It’s all been said, but I’ll say it again. It’s important. There are two points to be made about the November 5 rampage at Fort Hood, it seems to me.

One, it was an evil attack by a man who saw himself serving a radicalized interpretation of Islam that seeks the destruction of the liberal world. No, Major Nidal Malik Hasan didn’t suffer “secondary PTSD” from counseling vets. Since when do psychiatrists exhibit PTSD-based outbursts of violence from hearing patients? How can anyone even suggest this seriously?

Second, and equally important, Major Hasan is not an example of the danger Muslims pose to America, but of the lack of that danger. Much like with its Jews, Buddhists and other religious and ethnic minorities, American Muslims are so integrated into the larger liberal individualistic American society that Hasan is, in fact, the freak aberration from the norm. In showing clearly the face of Islamist terrorism, Hasan is a stark reminder that America’s Muslims are nothing like him.

Yes, Hasan represents an outright evil, an evil that has to be challenged and destroyed.

But no, he does not represent American Muslims. In fact, the surprising lack of American Muslim terrorism – millions of Muslims produced a small handful of actual or attempted attacks – is the real story.

Is there any other way to see this story?

What's so bad about unfairly targeting Israel?

Haviv — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:20:38 +0000

The following handful of posts are from the past week or so. It’s been a hectic period, so apologies for the scant posting.

First, there’s this Nov. 3 Foreign Policy article, which reports that “Whichever side of the fence you fall on, there’s no denying it: There’s a politics to human rights.”

Human Rights Watch reports (Amazon)

The crux of it is the authors’ statistical analysis of human rights reports produced by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Both organizations’ advocacy focuses inordinately on states rich in indigenous media, possessing large economies and boasting democratic institutions.

Yet these lists were also notable for the countries they did not include. When we used data on poverty, repression, and conflict to identify some of the worst places on earth, we found that few of these countries were covered much by either Amnesty or Human Rights Watch.

The reasons, the authors find:

At first, this seemed puzzling; why would the watchdogs neglect authoritarians? We asked both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty, and received similar replies. In some cases, staffers said, access to human rights victims in authoritarian countries was impossible, since the country’s borders were sealed or the repression was too harsh (think North Korea or Uzbekistan). In other instances, neglected countries were simply too small, poor, or unnewsworthy to inspire much media interest. With few journalists urgently demanding information about Niger, it made little sense to invest substantial reporting and advocacy resources there.

…It’s easier to sell people what they already want than to try create new demand, and businesses that do too much of the latter will quickly run into trouble.

The human rights groups defend themselves thus, according to the authors:

In response, the watchdogs say they call ‘em as they see ‘em, reporting as best they can on the misdeeds of democracies and authoritarians alike. Apologists who cry foul are being defensive and insular, refusing to acknowledge the seamy underside of their favored regimes. Fair point indeed.

Fair point? Why is this a fair point? They are demonstrably ignoring dictatorships and “some of the worst places on earth” in favor of media attention. Why do the article’s authors let them get away with the excuse that they are “reporting as best they can on the misdeeds of democracies and authoritarians alike,” when the whole point of the piece is that they do not, in fact, report on democracies and authoritarians alike whatsoever?

And why do the protestations of some Israelis or Americans constitute the “defensive and insular” protests of “apologists?”

I, for example, think Israel’s government is making a whole series of terrible mistakes on a vast range of issues, from religious personal status law to West Bank law enforcement to an imploding, nearly third-world education system. I have written about all these and more. But I also think human rights groups often behave like politicized news hounds who only have the courage to take on countries already so free and self-critical that their reporting is largely redundant.

Try this exercise. Take away Amnesty International’s criticism of Israel. Did anything change? Did Israel just get away with anything? Did Israel’s internal critics suddenly stop speaking? Now take away Amnesty coverage of Niger (what little there is) and ask yourself this: What’s left?

We already have a media – hostile, neutral and supportive alike – telling us Israel’s rights and wrongs. We need Amnesty and HRW to point the finger precisely at Niger. That they fail to do so, that they choose to follow in the media’s wake rather than step in front and bring attention to humanity’s most desperate members, is a far greater indictment of their work than the banal accusation of being “anti-Israel.”

Hat tip: Shmuel Rosner.

Anshel Pfeffer tackles Daniel Bostrom

Haviv — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:10:32 +0000

Anshel Pfeffer makes quick work of Aftonbladet journalist Donald Bostrom’s claims to innocence over the brutal blood libel he published about Israeli soldiers stealing and trafficking in Palestinian youths’ organs.

Donald Bostrom (Aftonbladet)

Asked at the conference why he had accused the IDF of killing Palestinians for their organs, he replied: “I never wrote that and didn’t claim that IDF soldiers killed Palestinians to harvest their organs. I wrote that Palestinian families are claiming that is the case.”

He accused the media of distorting his report and accusing him of antisemitism for political purposes.

“It is known that there is an international problem of organ trafficking and I mentioned many countries, including Israel. My report has one conclusion, that we should continue investigating the Palestinian allegations.”

But then Anshel, a smart left-leaning Ha’aretz military reporter and a friend, does something absolutely despicable. He quotes Bostrom’s original story:

Anshel Pfeffer

In Aftonbladet Bostrom wrote that while the Israeli government was running a campaign encouraging Israelis to sign organ donor cards, “young Palestinian men started to disappear from villages in the West Bank and Gaza. After five days, Israeli soldiers would bring them back dead, with their bodies ripped open. Talk of the bodies terrified the population of the occupied territories. There were rumours of a dramatic increase in young men disappearing, with ensuing nightly funerals of autopsied bodies. I was in the area at the time, working on a book. On several occasions I was approached by UN staff concerned about the developments. The persons contacting me said that organ theft definitely occurred but that they were prevented from doing anything about it.”

Bostrom wrote that he had interviewed “many” Palestinian families whose sons had been killed in this way but in the report he specifically mentions only one family.

Who me? Organ trafficking? I was just repeating what “the population of the occupied territories,” “UN staff,” “rumours of a dramatic increase in young men disappearing,” “many” Palestinian families, and “nightly funerals of autopsied bodies” were saying. I never claimed it was true!

Iran's new minister of media: Holocaust denier

Haviv — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:05:14 +0000

The Teheran Holocaust Denial Conference, December 2006, organized by Ramin (www.terrorism-info.org.il)

In case you missed it, Tom Gross caught it on Wednesday:

Not only did Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, today say that negotiating with the United States would be a “naive and perverted” thing to do (Khamenei revealed President Obama has approached him several times through oral and written messages which he has not replied to).

Not only did Israeli commandos today intercept a ship carrying hundreds of tons of Iranian weapons intended for Hezbollah in Lebanon – the biggest ever seizure of arms on their way from Iran to its client terrorist militia, Hezbollah, which Iran plans to use as one element in its attempt to wipe the Jewish state off the map (BBC story and video here).

Mohammad Ali Ramin
Not only did Iran brutalize pro-democracy demonstrators once again on the streets of major Iranian cities today (there are several videos if you scroll down here from France 24, and a report here by BBC Persian).

But in addition Iran has appointed as its new deputy culture minister, in charge of media and communications, Mohammad-Ali Ramin, who previously served as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s top advisor on Holocaust matters and is known as “the brain” behind the president’s strategy of Holocaust denial.

Incidentally, an interesting piece on the possible philosophical roots of Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial ran in the Forward last month. You should read it.

Britain discovers that the PA tortures

Haviv — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:06:41 +0000

Media analyst Tom Gross has noticed a remarkable news item in the British press today. Britain just noticed that British-funded PA forces engage in torture of their political opponents.

The UK’s Mail on Sunday reports:

The British government is sending police and intelligence officers to the West Bank to try to stop a wave of brutal torture by Palestinian security forces funded by UK taxpayers. Their mission is to set up and train a new “internal affairs” department with sweeping powers to investigate abuse and bring torturers to justice.

On Saturday a senior official from the Palestinian Authority, which runs the West Bank and its security agencies, admitted that torture, beatings and extra-judicial killings have been rife for the past two years, with hundreds of torture allegations and at least four murders in custody, the most recent in August. British detectives will also train the Palestinian police and Preventive Security forces in how to question suspects without torturing them. Britain spends £20 million a year funding the forces responsible for the abuse.

In the West Bank city of Nablus, Nasser al-Shaer, a former academic from Manchester University who was deputy prime minister in the short-lived Hamas Palestinian Authority government elected in 2006, said many of those released from detention in recent months were telling the same story – of torture, including beatings, being suspended from the ceiling, and electric shocks.

Tom adds:

Now none of this is new. In spite of what the paper says, it has been continuing not just for the past two years, but since Yasser Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and took over most of the West Bank in 1993. What is new is that a major newspaper (The Mail On Sunday is one of Britain’s highest-circulation respected newspapers) is reporting on it.

How to tell when someone really and truly hates Israel

Haviv — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:34:08 +0000

Here’s a hint: when completely unrelated aspects of his life, such as what he’s having for lunch, is understood as a struggle against the Zionist entity.

Rejecting Israel through humus

Case in point: Lebanon’s industrialists are still trying to deny Israelis the right to claim humus as an Israeli food.

“Lebanon is trying to win a battle against Israel by registering this new Guinness World Record and telling the whole world that hummus is a Lebanese product, its part of our traditions,” said Fady Jreissati, vice president of operations at International Fairs and Promotions group, the event’s organizer.

The event is the cooking of the world’s largest humus bowl – 2,056 kilos of the stuff. According to organizers, the previous record was held by Israel, though “It was not clear what the former Israeli record was, and organizers gave conflicting reports on when it was made.”

About this time last year, the Lebanese Industrialists Association began preparing a lawsuit against Israel for “stealing” Lebanon’s most famous cuisine – not actual humus, mind you, but the Lebanese menu, the recipes.

The president of the Lebanese Industrialists Association, Fadi Abboud, accuses Israel of “stealing” its northern neighbor’s cuisine by marketing dishes such as humous – found across the Middle East – as its own.

Abboud says that while Lebanon is partly to blame because it has never registered its main food trademarks, Israel’s adoption of these dishes causes it major losses.

The Jerusalem Post quoted an Israeli Arab humus seller agreeing wholeheartedly with the Lebanese move:

Making the record-setting bowl of humus

“It is the right thing to do. The Israeli people are taking a product that does not officially belong to them. It originates among the Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese people,” he said.

This isn’t about copyright law or marketing advantage – as it was with Greece’s legal battle in the EU over feta cheese. It’s about denying Israel’s legitimacy in the region.

And it’s a lie, because more than half of Israelis come from Muslim and Arab countries, with the largest groups from Iraq – which has excellent humus – and Morocco. What’s more, the Jews lived in Iraq longer than the Arabs, and in Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria since Roman times at least. The Yemenite sabih, a pita filled with humus, eggplant, eggs, salad and spices, is an originally Jewish dish. The name itself, SABIH, is a Hebrew acronym for “schug, beitza, hatzil” – pepper sauce, egg, eggplant.

So who owns humus? And why deny our Baghdad-born Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor Fuad Ben-Eliezer, or for that matter my half-Iraqi half-Turkish neighbor Roni, any ownership over the food they have eaten their entire lives, and that their great-grandparents had eaten in their day?

On marriage and racism

Haviv — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:46:05 +0000

Phil Weiss is angry that Israeli law has no mechanism for intermarriage, since there is no civil marriage and the religious hierarchies that handle personal status law do not recognize intermarriage. He learned of this dark reality, though not its source or reasons, from Shlomo Sand.

I pointed out that Israel’s marriage laws, like its divorces, burials, etc., are not constructed against Muslims or Catholics, but in the old Ottoman confessionalist models, which are agreed upon by everybody.

Now he returns to accuse me of misrepresenting the essential evil of this system:

Well I’m reading Shlomo Sand’s great book now and Gur is I believe misrepresenting the reality. Sand makes it clear that a bar on intermarriage was no leftover accident of history. “In 1953 the political promise to bar civil marriage in Israel was given a legal basis. The law defining the legal status of the rabbinical courts determined that they would have exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce of Jews in Israel. By this means, the dominant socialist Zionism harnessed the principles of the traditional rabbinate as an alibi for its fearful imaginary [sic] that was terrified of assimilation and ‘mixed marriage.’”

It sometimes amazes me that someone can launch a years-long cultural attack against an entire society without knowing some really basic facts about it, such as the degree to which its “ethnic democracy” is a common phenomenon, or the mechanisms for marriage, or the fact that its marriage laws that effectively forbid intermarriage are supported by the minority religions more than by the Jews.

Of course, the problem is not with the singular fact of the year of the passage of the law, but with the thick layer of deconstruction slathered over it by Sand. The law formalized the already-existing Ottoman system, preventing the state from having to take away from the Muslim minority its generations-old sharia courts. The Muslims, Druse and Christians were not predisposed to give these up for a new Israeli jurisprudence. This wasn’t accomplished by Israeli racism – by and large the Druse are admired by Israeli Jews, but still demanded their own courts – but by a cultural commitment of Israel’s religious groups to maintain their traditional collectivist identities.

I neglected to note – and this is important for Weiss to consider – that I am no supporter of the rabbinate. I have done everything in my power, including Jerusalem Post editorials, interviews, etc., to advocate against Israel’s established rabbinate. My own father is a Reform rabbi. My wife’s father is an Orthodox rabbi. When we married in Israel in March 2008, it was in a wedding unrecognized by the state of Israel because neither of our fathers (who together officiated) were recognized rabbinate officials. We refused to invite a state rabbi to our wedding. Our legal standing is through a quickie civil marriage conducted in a Baltimore courthouse a few weeks earlier.

I don’t like this system. I think the “state church” of Israel has utterly politicized Israeli spirituality and collectivized Israeli religious identity. Without getting into the real suffering the haredi-controlled rabbinate is causing to agunot and would-be converts, the greatest tragedy is that the politicization of religiosity has had the effect of making Israel a spiritual wasteland. I yearn for the day – and I teach in a high school program and premilitary academy to bring it closer – when Israelis look to American Jews to discover how to construct authentic personal spiritual journeys.

But for all that, it’s simply not the reality to claim that the system was born primarily as a means of preserving Jews from religious intermarriage. That misunderstands the motivations of the early years of the state, and ignored some of the most basic identity structures of Middle Eastern religions – where religion is more akin to tribes than to the individualistic confessional faiths of the United States.

Consider: How much is the Sunni-Shi’ite split in Iraq to do with theological difference, and how much tribal? Are the Christians of Syria merely a confessional difference, or a collective tribal one? Or the Druse in Israel, who have an intermarriage rate estimated at 1% despite commonly dating Jews during our shared military service, and who live in their own villages apart from the Arabs or the Jews – are they primarily an American-style religion or a Middle Eastern tribe?

Weiss doesn’t prove anything by quoting the date of the passage of the law and then Sand’s ideological interpretation. He must show not that the Jews of Israel identify collectively like all other Middle Easterners, but that their personal status laws go beyond that and are motivated by a special prejudice against minorities. Since he can’t prove it, he interprets it.

I grew up with these attitudes in American Jewish life. They’ve faded a lot since I was a kid. But in Israel they were memorialized in law. Later Sand writes that even the liberal secular Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak said, “A Jewish state is one in which Hebrew Law plays an important part, and in which the laws of marriage and divorce of Jews are based on the Torah.”

Here is Weiss’ main mistake: believing that at their core Jews are the same in the US and Israel, and therefore the values of one can easily judge the other. American Jews have transformed into a Protestant-style individualistic faith. Israelis, perhaps 60% of whom hail from the Muslim world, have transformed the notion of Jewishness into a Middle Eastern religion-affiliated national collective that draws more from Muslim world identities than from Zionist ideology.

This is a vast gap in the basic structures of identity, and the two communities (which are together 80% of all Jews) will have to start learning about each other in order to begin to understand each other better. In the meanwhile, it’s not legitimate to offer cheap and easy indictments of the other community. Israelis are fond of saying that American Jews are either disappearing or living on “borrowed time.” Both are false, and come from an Israeli misunderstanding of what it means to live one’s Jewishness as Americans. Some Americans (still a small minority) believe Israeli Jewish nationhood is somehow a warping of the essentially religious nature of Jewishness. True, it’s a deep change, but no deeper than the American spiritualization of Jewish identity. After all, the shtetl Jew was not merely an autonomous citizen with a spiritual affiliation. He was part of a feudal corporate system that identified Jews as a distinct group with distinct living areas and separate legal obligations.

Jews have been many different things in different periods, and both Americans and Israelis are new kinds of Jews. Neither is “wrong.”

As for Aharon Barak, again, this is a twist of the truth. Some of the influence of Halacha in Israeli law includes, for example, viewing the prostitute as the victim, and the pimp and client as its perpetrators. That Israel draws from millenia of Jewish legal thought is not bad, as long as it is subject to oversight over the question of equality and the Basic Laws.

There are more responses to my claims in the comments on Weiss’ site, but I can’t respond to them because I’m awaiting approval as a commentor. These include the claim that what I wrote about “German ethnic origin” in article 116 of the German constitution isn’t there at all. This is a strange complaint. Google it. It’s there. (Search “right of return” on Wikipedia to find it easily.) It refers to East European German-speakers in the post-war period who had nowhere else to go – but had never been citizens of Germany.

Another comment responds to my statements about Israeli marriage law by bringing up the debate over Palestinian family reunification across the Green Line. This is an important question – the Supreme Court decided it on one vote – and I’m happy to get into it if that’s necessary. It continues to be debated to this day. But it has nothing to do with marriage law. Can we stick to one topic at a time?

Israel's weird marriage laws actually common in Middle East

Haviv — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:06:35 +0000

Ron Kampeas weighs in on my anti-Sand ranting with an interesting contribution about Middle Eastern marriage:

…the Associated Press just ran a story on how Israelis and Lebanese share a tradition of taking their vows to Cypus in order to circumvent confessionalist strictures.

Not only that, but in this neighborhood, the AP reports, Israel and Lebanon actually are progressive for recognizing the Cyprus marriages.

As Ron notes, this kind of cross-border reportage makes AP invaluable:

No one does across the border, collaborative stories better (see the pile of co-bylines at the end.) I remember the thrill of AP, about 1993, introducing IM technology into its content management system; and then, of instantly conversing with staffers in Beirut that until then had been little more than bylines to me.

Anti-Israel, with a dash of intellectual pretense

Haviv — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:31:22 +0000

Beware the labels, the simplistic jargon laid over a complex reality. That’s my takeaway from online comments I read over the weekend that reached truly weird conclusions about, well, me, by falling in love with lingo and abandoning all semblance of self-critical reflection.

Philip Weiss

In a long joyful reflection on a Shlomo Sand lecture at NYU, American Jewish anti-Zionist blogger Philip Weiss describes the “high” of discovering a deep narrative for his long-held political beliefs.

Of all the events I’ve covered surrounding Jewish identity and Israel in the last year, none has given me so much pleasure as the lecture last night by Shlomo Sand at NYU on the Invention of the Jewish People.

Weiss’ joy surrounds Sand’s new history of the Jews – a history that rips away the old “Zionist” narratives and replaces them with a new story: the Jews are Khazars and Yemenites and Bergers. There’s no such thing as “Jewish peoplehood.” Israel is founded on a lie.

I’m all for intellectual stimulation, and I love new theories based on new historical evidence. Unfortunately, in Sand, I got neither. As Weiss points out:

Sand offered very little by way of evidence. You will find that in his “boring” book, he said. This was an aria not a chalktalk.

Will you? Or will you find more historical surmising based on partial records and incomplete theories? Elsewhere, Weiss reports Sand saying that:

…at the supposed time of the Exodus, the Egyptians also controlled Canaan. The kingdom of David and Solomon was not a kingdom at all, but a small settlement around Jerusalem.

I have a professor cousin who believes that King Solomon didn’t even exist. Sand isn’t radical in his historical reconstructions. In fact, his “discoveries” are really just run-of-the-mill and johnny-come-lately academic theories.

His error is not in the theories themselves, but in pretending to hold newly-obtained truths that spectacularly affirm his preexisting politics. It is this sleight-of-hand effort that transforms this project – like Weiss’ own pretense to scholarship – from honest critique to mere political hypocrisy.

How else to explain the confusion reflected in Weiss’ account. He quotes Sand:

“I don’t deny Jewish identity. I’m not fighting against someone’s identity. There is identity of homosexuals. They are not a people. We are composed of a lot of identities.”

Shlomo Sand

But then quotes Sand again:

“I am anti-racist. And an anti-anti-semite,” he said. “But look at me, do you think I hate the Jewish?” More devil eyes flashing. “I don’t hate myself… I hate the Jewish people? But that doesn’t exist. How can I hate something that doesn’t exist?”

So the Jewish identity he is emphatically not fighting against – does not exist. Did you get that?

You can argue Jewish nationhood is antithetical to, oh, Jewish religiosity (as do some haredim) or universal liberal values (as do some on the radical left). But faced with millions of people that believe that they personally constitute a Jewish nation, does it make any kind of sense to say it doesn’t exist?

Identities are decided by the people who hold them, not by the politicized professors who oppose them.

Leaving identity behind, we then have another example of what I am beginning to call the anti-Israel “errors-by-labeling.” Here, Sand creates a definition of democracy which, well, removes much of the free world from the democratic camp.

When Sand said that Israel was not a democracy, and a Zionist called out, “It is a flawed democracy,” Sand bellowed. No: a democracy is founded on the idea that the people are the sovereign, that the people own the state. That is the first principle of a republic going back to Rousseau. Liberalism and civil rights are not the core. Yes, Israel is a liberal society. It tolerates Shlomo Sand’s heresy, for instance, and puts him on TV. But it is a liberal ethnocracy.

His theories on Ashkenazim carrying Khazar blood – interesting. His theories on Jewish roots of the Palestinians – fascinating. But this? This is just stupid.

Sand's book

Why? Because most democracies are ethnic democracies. Most of the free states of this planet define a specific ethnos or nation whose interests they serve. Examples: Ireland, Finland, Germany, Romania, Georgia, Italy, Spain. All are constitutionally devoted to a single ethnicity, which is defined in their constitutions as a group that is not equal to the sum of their citizens.

Israel’s “ethnocracy” is the standard among democracies, not the exception. In fact, only two states share Sand’s view that the state belongs to the sum of its residents or citizens: the US and France.

A good example is in a survey of the “rights of return” of various democracies – a right granted to non-citizen “affinity Diasporas.” Such a “right of return” is not the province only of Zionists (or of the future Palestine). In fact, it is shared by these fine states:

There is Germany (link is PDF), whose constitution, in article 116, recognizes something called “German ethnic origin” as a grantor of automatic citizenship.

India allows “Indians by descent” easier access to full citizenship than other residents.

And Finland, which despite defining itself as a “state of all its citizens” still grants special naturalization rights to ethnic Finns who have lived for centuries in areas under Russian or Czarist sovereignty.

Lithuania’s constitution is explicit (article 32.4) that “Every Lithuanian person may settle in Lithuania” – a right granted not to absentee citizens (which would be obvious), but to non-citizen ethnic Lithuanians.

How about democratic Armenia? Article 14 of its Constitution states: “Individuals of Armenian origin shall acquire citizenship of the Republic of Armenia through a simplified procedure.”

Or Bulgaria, whose constitution (Article 25.2) states: “A person of Bulgarian origin shall acquire Bulgarian citizenship through a facilitated procedure.”

Or Greece, whose constitution (article 108) decrees that:

The State must take care for emigrant Greeks and for the maintenance of their ties with the Fatherland. The State shall also attend to the education, the social and professional advancement of Greeks working outside the State.

It was Greece that granted automatic citizenship to Ukrainians after the fall of the Iron Curtain merely because they belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church.

Even Israel’s national religion – something I have written against often – is not unusual among the democracies. Both Greece and Ireland place a single national religion above others and give it constitutional status that has made it synonymous with national identity. Thus Greece’s constitution assures us that:

The prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ. The Orthodox Church of Greece, acknowledging our Lord Jesus Christ as its head, is inseparably united in doctrine with the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople and with every other Church of Christ of the same doctrine, observing unwaveringly, as they do, the holy apostolic and synodal canons and sacred traditions.

Similarly, the Preamble to Ireland’s constitution:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
…
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

And on and on. If Israel’s “ethnocracy” is not democratic, we need a whole new set of words. Because then neither is India, Japan, all of Eastern Europe, Ireland, Germany or Mexico.

What do we learn from this latest example of intellectual laziness? Beware unfounded labels, and call out those who use them.

Kasparov: Don't be so sure about Russia

Haviv — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:20:09 +0000

Russia is not on our side when it comes to Iran, according to chess champion and anti-Putin dissident Garry Kasparov.

Washington’s conciliatory steps have given the Kremlin’s rulers confidence they have nothing to fear from Mr. Obama on anything that matters.

And nothing matters more to Mr. Putin and his oligarchs than the price of oil. Even with oil at $70 a barrel, Russia’s economy is in bad straits. Tension in the Middle East, even an outbreak of war, would push energy prices higher. A nuclear-armed Iran would, of course, be harmful to Russian national security, but prolonging the crisis is beneficial to the interests of the ruling elite: making money and staying in power.

The Obama administration’s foreign policy has directed a great deal of optimism and good will toward friends and foes. Such a cheery outlook is commendable as long as it does not clash with reality. Unfortunately, there were several clashes in the past week.

…

Like many Russians, I was encouraged by Mr. Obama’s inspirational speech in Moscow last July, but he must know there is more to statesmanship than printing money and making speeches. Inflated rhetoric, like inflated currency, can lead to disaster. The goodwill bubble Mr. Obama is creating will burst unless there are real results soon.

Israelis have something against Goldstone

Haviv — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:49:14 +0000

Judge Goldstone

Another day, another survey, this time demonstrating the obvious: Israelis have something against the Goldstone Report.

Sixty-one percent of Jewish-Israeli respondents—compared to only 22% of the Arabs—answered that they know what the report’s main conclusion is. Among the Jewish interviewees who responded that they are aware of the report’s main conclusion, there was almost total unanimity (93.5%), that the report was biased against the IDF.

So do I:

Does it matter if his tribunal was not, strictly speaking, “judicial” if everyone everywhere believes that its judgments have judicial status? Does it matter that in acting upon ostensibly “objective” criteria for deciding the “lawfulness” of Israeli and Palestinian actions during Cast Lead, Judge Goldstone created a text that would only ever serve as ammunition against Israel?

Do judges have a responsibility to take into account the ramifications of their decisions and actions?

Goldstone is distraught over the UNHRC’s utterly biased final decision. Yet he himself could not take on the original HRC mandate for his commission until, as he says, it was changed from the original biased resolution.

“Are you in the habit, Judge Goldstone, of accepting commissions whose political agenda you must first expunge so that the mandate meets the most elementary standard of fairness?”

Why Obama is optimistic about peace

Haviv — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:32:54 +0000

Yes, I know it’s hard to understand from the perspective of an Israeli on the ground, but the Obama administration is strangely optimistic about the prospects for peace. Administration officials have told me as much with a straight face.

David Makovsky

According to David Makovsky, who probably knows what he’s talking about when explaining these people, there are real reasons for this optimism. I interviewed him in the wake of the publication of his newest book, written with Dennis Ross, Obama’s NSC pointman on the Middle East, Myths, Illusions and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East.

Could he be right?

Where does this optimism, which is apparently shared by the Obama administration, come from? Are the Americans impervious to the experiences of the past 16 years of peacemaking?

Don’t believe everything you read in the papers, says Makovsky. “Sometimes the news is what isn’t reported.”

What isn’t being reported is the quiet revolution taking place in the West Bank under Salam Fayyad, one that should impress even the more fatalist of cynics, he adds.

The Hamas takeover in Gaza in 2007 “was an unbelievable wakeup call that made the PA understand that Hamas is coming to the West Bank if they don’t get their act together.” For the Israelis, too, “the alternative to Salam Fayyad is not the Hadassah women of Brooklyn. It’s Hamas that will pick up the pieces.”

This has created a whole new willingness to work together that has not been seen since Oslo.

“Since 1996, [in the wake of the Hamas terror attacks of that year,] we’ve been hearing about the ‘revolving doors’ of the Palestinian security services – that the Palestinians arrest the Hamas guys and let them go. They’re not doing that anymore. There are 800 Hamas prisoners in [PA jails in] the West Bank.”

In the religious sphere, too, “they’re moving imams out of the mosques. There are 1,800 mosques [in the West Bank] and the PA is slowly changing their imams” from those sympathetic to Hamas’ message of destroying Israel to others more willing to compromise in order to end the conflict.