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.

Related posts:

1. Israelis have something against Goldstone
2. Amnon Rubinstein on the humor in Goldstone
3. So we lied…one more Goldstone link

THE LIST:

1. Dr. Sandor Kepiro – Hungary

Sandor Kepiro (Alliance)

2. Milivoj Ašner – Austria

Milivoj Asner (l), Croatian Ustashi victims (r) (The Sun)

3. Samuel Kunz – Germany

4. Adolf Storms – Germany

5. Klaas Carel Faber – Germany

6. Karoly (Charles) Zentai – Australia

Charles Zentai (Deutsche Welle)

7. Soeren Kam – Germany

Soeren Kam (About.com)

8. Peter Egner – United States

Peter Egner (Seattle Weekly)

9. Algimantas Dailide – Germany

Algimantas Dailide (About.com)

10. Mikhail Gorshkow – Estonia

Not on the list, possibly dead:

Alois Brunner – Syria

Alois Brunner (Deutsche Welle)

Dr. Aribert Heim – Location unknown

Aribert Heim (Deutsche Welle)

Related posts:

1. Could the Holocaust have been predicted?
2. Bostrom 'rethinks' organ trafficking story
3. Iran's new minister of media: Holocaust denier

Can’t say I blame them.

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.

Related posts:

1. Ha’aretz: Stupid or dishonest?
2. Is the Palestinian Diaspora part of the solution?
3. Why, in Palestine, is Baruch Goldstein a hero?

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.

Related posts:

1. Why, in Palestine, is Baruch Goldstein a hero?
2. Extra! Extra! A Jewish story leads YNet!
3. Iran's new minister of media: Holocaust denier

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?

Related posts:

1. What more can Bibi do just to start negotiating?
2. Why Palestine must be negotiated, not declared
3. Are Obama's settlement demands good for Israel?

Almost anyone who lived through the period of the Holocaust, observing it from either near or far, will readily testify that information concerning the Nazi murder of the Jews, when it first came out, seemed absolutely unbelievable—impossible. In retrospect, however, as we look back on the exact sequence of events that led to the tragedy, we tend to conceive of it as the culmination of a predetermined and unavoidable march of destiny. Such a complete turn-about in our attitude to past events is hardly unique, but in the case of the Holocaust the contradiction is an especially flagrant one because the contradictory attitudes are so emphatic. The enormity of the crime being committed by the Nazis, as intelligence of it began to filter into the countries outside the occupied areas, placed it beyond belief. Yet once it became evident that the unbelievable had indeed occurred, it began to seem altogether necessary and inevitable. Now the question, often put in a self-torturing way, is, how could we have overlooked the signs that unmistakably foretold the impending tragedy?

So begins a remarkable essay by Hebrew University sociologist Jacob Katz. Worth a read.

Related posts:

1. Top ten Nazis still alive
2. The history-shattering power of hatred
3. Is the Palestinian Diaspora part of the solution?

In the ten short minutes I have been given, I’d like to try to offer what I believe is the Jewish public’s perspective on the issue at the heart of this conference. I am not an academic, but a journalist. Less an investigator of facts than an observer of public assumptions and beliefs.

It is from that perspective that I want to bring something to the attention of the scholars, activists and politicians gathered here – what I believe may amount to the central lesson that the world’s Jews have drawn from the Holocaust. You cannot understand Jewish politics and political structures of our day without, I believe, understanding this central lesson.

The Holocaust marks the crowning genocide of the bloodiest century in human history, in part because it was the most philosophically purposeful and intellectually sophisticated mass murder ever seen. But for Jews it is about more than the murder alone, about more even than six million Jewish lives and those of millions more enemies of the Nazi regime.

It is about the history-shattering power of hatred. The dead are already dead. But this capacity for hatred lives on.

Zionism is often spoken of as the Jewish national movement. This is a simplification that leads to misunderstanding its significance. Zionism is a huge spectrum of competing and even mutually exclusive movements – liberals, Marxists, religious messianists, revisionists. What they all shared, the core notion at the heart of Zionism – and this was the contribution most prominently of Theodor Herzl – is a sociological analysis, a theory about the structure and development of identity in modern times.

According to this theory, developed at the end of the 19th century, the complex destabilizing processes of industrialization, urbanization, the breakdown of old communities and identities throughout Europe, created new forms and structures of identity, most prominent among them the nationalisms of the 20th century.

The Jews who founded the Zionist movement viewed these new collectivist identities with fear, because they believed these new ideas contained within them deepseated capacities for brutality and murder.

This was not about Jews, but about all modernizing societies and all minorities. The Zionists feared for the future of their brethren in Europe, but Herzl also spoke about the peoples of Africa and the Muslim world passing through the traumatic crucible of modernization.

Horribly, catastrophically, the Zionists were right. In the name of national identity, Europeans collaborated in conscious, planned, industrial mass murder for several long years. Neither European liberalism, “civilization” or Christianity stood in the way of this murder. Everybody knew, many actively joined in.

The Holocaust demonstrated most starkly what the Zionist movement already knew from the bloody pogroms of the late 19th and early 20th century: that human beings are not rational beings, that they think and act out of images and associations that are often more real to them than reality itself. Humans do not live well with logic. They live stories.

Thus, said the Zionists, nothing the Jews can say or do will change the powerful image of themselves in the minds and cultures of the surrounding societies. Only Jewish power, self-made Jewish independence, will guarantee the Jews survival.

In 1897, 90% of the world’s Jews were Europeans. Today that figure is perhaps 10%. Europe, for a thousand years the cradle of the largest Jewish civilization and greatest concentration of Jewish genius and achievement, is now mostly empty of Jews. Africa and Asia, too, realized the Zionists’ nightmare as country after country forcibly caused the evacuation of millennia-old Jewish communities, though by then the Jews had a refuge to which they could flee.

And so, if the Jewish people as a whole could speak here, I believe it would offer what is essentially Zionism’s most basic message and the idea that motivated the radical new Jewish survival strategy of statehood.

The Jews would offer a warning to the nations of the world: your history can be as profoundly shaped by your hatred as by your achievements and heroes. An ancient European people, one of Europe’s most accomplished and old, was utterly erased by the emotional and intellectual power of hatred. The burned flesh of our grandparents is proof that whole nations can be erased, continents destroyed, libraries burned and intellectuals corrupted by the power of hatred, by the images and stories that people can tell themselves about others. If it can happen to us, it can happen to you.

And at the heart of this hatred, the Jews would say, is the mobilizing power of identity.

Unlike with communism, no universalist redemption, however warped, underlay the Nazi project. Unlike dictators such as Franco or Saddam Hussein, no political ambition lay at its core. No demands were made of the Jews except their death.

We must urge and beg the nations of Eastern Europe not to accept the uniqueness of our experience, but the uniqueness and deforming effects of hatred itself in its purest form. We do not insist that the Holocaust was unique because it cannot happen to others. We insist it was unique because it can happen to others.

The identity-based massacre of the Holocaust is a human potential. There is nothing unique about Germans that allowed them to commit such a crime, as we discover in the history of the widespread Lithuanian mass murder of their Jewish neighbors, or the story of Rwanda.

Identity-based hatred is a historical force of unimaginable power, and the Holocaust is merely the greatest demonstration of its potential. We ignore it, we seek to dilute its message, to compare it with mere political evils like dictatorship or oppression, at our very grave peril.

This message, simple, clear, actionable, needs to become the banner of political activities being explored at this conference.

Related posts:

1. Could the Holocaust have been predicted?
2. NYT politely calls Shlomo Sand a liar
3. A new Jewish lobby for Europe

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.

Related posts:

1. What more can Bibi do just to start negotiating?
2. Costa Rica: Sure Palestine can be disarmed, like us
3. Why Palestine must be negotiated, not declared

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.

Related posts:

1. Ha’aretz: Stupid or dishonest?
2. Is the Palestinian Diaspora part of the solution?
3. Costa Rica: Sure Palestine can be disarmed, like us

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.

Related posts:

1. The trouble and promise of the rules of war
2. Now from Apple: Poke Ahmadinejad in the nose
3. What more can Bibi do just to start negotiating?

When Sheldon Adelson was feted like a head of state at 2008’s lavish star-studded President’s Conference – because he had paid for it – popular Yediot Ahronot columnist Nahum Barnea said (I’m paraphrasing), “someone bought my country’s birthday for $3 million.”

Now, Israel is accepting money from the Rothschild Foundation to conduct “emergency repairs” at the President’s House – the official residence of our head of state.

There’s something disturbing in this trend of allowing others, even well-meaning Jews, to finance Israel’s basic symbols of sovereignty.

It’s not as though we are a frugal nation. Millions of shekels are spent each year on unnecessary ministries (not satisfied with several ministers-without-portfolio, this government actually has a deputy minister-without-portfolio), hundreds of millions of shekels on one ugly bridge in Jerusalem and redundant, politically-inspired “projects” that eat up huge chunks of the budget of the Education Ministry.

If we can’t pony up $500,000 for “emergency repairs” at the President’s House or $3,000,000 for the national birthday party, then we don’t actually care about either.

Try to imagine the White House holding off on urgent repairs until they got matching funds from the Ford Foundation.

From eJewishPhilanthropy:

Israel’s Cabinet is expected to approve today acceptance of a $500,000 grant from the Rothschild Foundation to carry our emergency repairs at Beit Ha’Nassi, the official residence of Israel’s President. This will cover approximately half the cost of needed structural repairs caused by years of neglect at the complex. The Ministry of Finance has issued the necessary sign-offs.

Completed in 1971, with no infrastructure updates since, the complex suffers from – among other things – faulty wiring, serious mold issues, and a lack of adequate facilities for official receptions and press coverage. Last year, Peres was able to secure government approval for a $3 million grounds overhaul paid for by the Jewish National Fund prior to the visit of Pope Benedict XVI.

Assuming approval, work is planned to begin immediately.

Related posts:

1. Yet another conversion disgrace by Israeli officials
2. American Jewry impresses once more
3. On Sand and Israeli intermarriage

Related posts:

1. 'Even if American olim come, Israel is doomed'
2. Who are Diaspora Jews to tell us Israelis who is Jewish?

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.

Related posts:

1. What more can Bibi do just to start negotiating?
2. Are Obama's settlement demands good for Israel?
3. Why Obama is optimistic about peace

Rabbi Daniel S. Brenner, who directs one of the largest post-birthright programs in North America, begs to differ.

The JPost published a short letter from him. I’m publishing the full text (which he emailed me).

Post-birthright programs, he says, are “invisible” beside the thousands of birthright buses crisscrossing Israel. But they’re there, and they’re huge.

Birthright Israel’s Post-Trip Doubling Effect

Rabbi Daniel S Brenner

In his opinion piece on December 30th, 2009 Haviv Rettig Gur writes regarding Taglit- Birthright Israel “these connections are wasted if they are not directed at new Jewish experiences back home.” He ends the piece with a short question: “Where’s the follow-up?”

The work of “follow-up” is not as apparent to the public eye as the sight of hundreds of Taglit- banner buses on Israel’s roads. But since I have the pleasure of working with a young staff who have succeeded in providing new Jewish experiences to over fifty thousand Taglit-Birthright Israel alumni in North America during the past year, I have the opportunity to see the follow-up every day. Here is one example:

In 2009, the total number of Taglit-Birthright Israel North American trip participants for 2009 was just shy of 19,000. In the last few months, we have worked with volunteer leaders from those buses to host over 12,200 young adults for home-hospitality Shabbat meals in North America. 93% of our NEXT Shabbat meals involved some or all of the core ritual elements of Shabbat. More importantly, we found that nearly every volunteer felt that this was a positive Jewish communal experience and wanted to host again and get more involved in their local community. By the end of 2010, volunteers from this group of 19,000 trip participants will have hosted over 30,000 young adults for a NEXT Shabbat event.

This particular program is one of four areas of focus for Birthright Israel NEXT that begin on the trip and flow naturally into involvement post-trip (the others being Hebrew language learning, deepening the Israel connection and encouraging community involvement). In addition to the Shabbat program, Birthright Israel NEXT runs ulpanim for young adults in ten North American cities, works with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through local consulates in select cities to deepen ties to Israel, and has involved thousands of post-college young Jewish adults by partnering with local Jewish and Israel-focused organizations (we linked up with thirty-two such organizations in the last year). It is through these four areas (and through many partners) that we are on track to involve 100,000 young Jewish adults in our programming in 2010.

These figures do not count the “ramping up” of programs from our on campus partner Hillel and from our colleagues at MASA, two organizations who have certainly devoted significant energy to “Birthright follow-up” in the last two years. Nor do they include the work of forward-thinking Federations, like the CJP in Boston, that have adopted new models on campus that are delivering follow-up success.

Gur asks the right questions, but I would like to offer a counter-analysis. Those young adults who go on Taglit-Birthright Israel trips and then get involved in Birthright Israel NEXT or with campus-based partners are actually doubling and in many cases quadrupling the overall impact of the trip. In our programs, we see young Jewish women and men come off of their Israel trips with a spark of energy that causes them to reach out to their friends (most of whom have not gone to Israel) and involve them in Jewish life. As a result they are transforming their social circles and injecting Jewish content and Jewish experiences in ways that they never did before. Our job at NEXT is to work within these social circles and to provide critical initial steps that will help grow sparks into new commitments. Those commitments, however, ultimately require the active engagement of young adults by the entire Jewish community. We hope to partner with many more community-based organizations, both established and emerging, as we continue to grow.

Although it is often unseen, Taglit-Birthright Israel participants are quietly transforming their generation in North America and every Jewish organization has the potential to benefit from their renewed passion for Israel and for Jewish life.

Rabbi Daniel S. Brenner
Executive Director
Birthright Israel NEXT

Related posts:

1. Haredi protesters: Young, bored and violent
2. Is it wrong to worry about assimilation?
3. CNN, Guardian fail to understand Masa fiasco

Regardless of the mistakes in this article or the debate raging at JPost about aliya, I urge you to delve into Ben-David’s research and advocacy, a good sample of which was published this Friday in Ha’aretz.

I leave the post up only because I’m loathe to change (too much) the original record. But Ben-David says he emphatically does not mean to discourage aliya, and that his words were misunderstood and taken out of context.

ORIGINAL: First, the JPost claimed aliya from America won’t come. Now Ha’aretz is reporting that even if it does, Israel is doomed.

Here, Ha’aretz reports on a lecture by Prof. Dan Ben-David about how Anglo aliya won’t reverse the destructive social trends that everyone seems to be ignoring.

The boost in Anglo immigration in 2009 will not help ensure Israel’s survival as a Western and Jewish democracy over the next two decades, a leading economist told an astonished crowd of lone immigrant soldiers on Wednesday. “It feels strange to say this to people who chose Israel, but our current trend means fewer people will come here and more will leave as our position deteriorates.”

He told the crowd that Israeli society’s situation is “unsustainable” because of a “growing group which does not work, does not study and does not produce.”

This group, of course, are large swaths of the Arab and Ultra-Orthodox minorities.

If you don’t know Ben-David’s research, you’re seriously behind the curve. Forget the peace process – this stuff is what will make or break Israel’s future.

Related posts:

1. Are Obama's settlement demands good for Israel?
2. Bostrom 'rethinks' organ trafficking story
3. Why Obama is optimistic about peace

Of course, the story is negative, predicting a shrinking Diaspora and a demographic crisis in Israel. But at least we’ve discovered how to punch through Israeli media’s deep disdain for Jewish issues: wait a decade, make it grim.

Here it is, preserved as evidence of this rare event:

Related posts:

1. Bostrom 'rethinks' organ trafficking story
2. Who are Diaspora Jews to tell us Israelis who is Jewish?
3. A new Jewish lobby for Europe

Two Charedi news websites closed down this week and a wave of resignations has hit other sites following the strictest rabbinical ruling against the internet to date.

A letter signed two weeks ago by some of the most senior rabbis of the Charedi community in Israel, including Rabbis Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Aharon Leib Steinman and the leaders of the main Chasidic sects, reiterates a “severe prohibition of private usage of internet in every home”.

But it particularly singled out the ostensibly Charedi websites which have flourished in recent years, supplying insider news and gossip to tens of thousands of eager readers.

These sites, according to the letter, disseminate “lies and terrible impurity”, besmirch the community and cause many to “use the filthy internet which has caused many to commit many serious sins of the Torah of a nature that should not be mentioned”.

The result so far is that two websites, which had invested large sums in design and a team of reporters and editors, have already closed down. Other sites which are trying to hold out have suffered a rash of resignations by editors and writers who are afraid of the consequences of defying their rabbis.

Hat tip: Religion and State in Israel

Related posts:

1. Jimmy Carter: Sorry if I 'stigmatized' Israel
2. Haredi protesters: Young, bored and violent
3. Who are Diaspora Jews to tell us Israelis who is Jewish?

Emmanuel Navon

He expresses beautifully the consensus feeling among most Israelis. Shlomo Sand may be sexy in a certain foreign milieu, but he is so radically disconnected from the Israeli discourse and Israeli identity that no one even bothers to challenge him here. The Jewishness of the Israeli state is so obvious, and ethnic Jewish identification so universal that Sand is little more than a circus curiosity in this country. Only abroad, among those profoundly ignorant and exceedingly loud about Israel, can he find his groupies.

Navon’s latest captures the hypocrisy of the likes of Tony Judt and Sand, and should be read by, well, Judt and Sand. Unfortunately, their academic credentials don’t seem to drive them to self-critical reflection.

One wonders what happens when Navon and Sand pass each other in the hallways of Tel Aviv University.

Anyway, here’s Navon:

The understandable frustration with the intractability of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has led some people to suggest that, for the conflict to abate, one of the two protagonists must give up. But what if both sides prove relentless forever? A Freudian answer to that question has recently been devised by (you guessed it) Jews: explain to the Jews (but not to the Palestinians, Heaven forbid), that they don’t actually exist, and they will stop fighting for their “imagined self.”

It is logically undisputable that there would be no Israeli-Palestinian conflict if there were no Israelis or no Palestinians (or both); that there would be no anti-Semitism if Jews didn’t exist (though even that is debatable); and that there would be no car accidents if cars hadn’t been invented….

This is the underlying argument that Shlomo Sand is promoting in his book The Invention of the Jewish People. A historian of modern French and European history at Tel-Aviv University, Sand is no expert in the Ancient Middle East and in Jewish history. His book has been dismissed and ridiculed by scholars of Jewish history as a cheap and embarrassing piece of falsifications and propaganda. Even Tony Judt (also an expert on modern European history, and also an anti-Zionist Jew), had to admit that Sand’s contribution to the knowledge of Jewish history “is at best redundant” (”Israel must unpick its ethnic myth,” Financial Times, 7 December 2009). Judt does not dispute that Sand’s book is academically sloppy, but he argues that this sloppiness is irrelevant (if not forgivable): What counts, according to Judt, is the point that Sand is trying to make.

For Judt, “the perverse insistence upon identifying a universal Jewishness with one small piece of territory … is the single most important factor accounting for the failure to solve the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio.” In other words, one of the central tenets of Judaism is “perverse” and is “the single most important” reason for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So Jews must abandon one of their strongest beliefs –a belief that gave them hope and helped them survive throughout two millennia of exile. On the other hand, the fact that Islam holds that a land that was once ruled by Muslims must be “liberated” from “infidels” is not a problem. Nor is the fact that the Palestinians insist on invading Israel with millions of descendants (or alleged descendants) of the 1948 refugees, or that they deny the very existence of the Jerusalem Temple. The problem is not Muslim theology or Palestinian myths. The problem is Jewish faith.

Related posts:

1. Is there nothing to Israel besides politics?
2. NYT politely calls Shlomo Sand a liar
3. On marriage and racism

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.

Related posts:

1. In defense of Judge Goldstone, sort of
2. So we lied…one more Goldstone link
3. Landau: 'How Goldstone shut down debate within Israel'

Shameless plug: A conversation on how the Jewish people may be falling apart.

Related posts:

1. 'Even if American olim come, Israel is doomed'
2. Who are Diaspora Jews to tell us Israelis who is Jewish?
3. Anti-Israel, with a dash of intellectual pretense

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

Related posts:

1. Ahmadinejad accepts criticism, but not in Farsi
2. What pro-gay, pro-Israel and Brazilian looks like
3. Ahmadinejad…not a Jew

First is Jimmy Carter’s extremely short apology “for any words or deeds of mine that may have” caused Israel to be “stigmatized.”

You know, like putting “apartheid” on his book cover (a book which, incidentally, sells alongside Ilan Pappe on Amazon), or accusing the Israel lobby of being something other than a legitimate expression of a particular American grassroots feeling, or willfully forgetting any Palestinian culpability for their condition, etc. ad infinitum.

Notice how Carter never actually admits to doing anything wrong, but merely apologizes in case his actions “may have” had immoral results. As any rabbi will tell you around Yom Kippur time (no worries, still nine months away), the first step of forgiveness is acknowledgment of culpability. Carter hasn’t done that yet.

In a letter released exclusively to JTA, the former U.S. president sent a seasonal message wishing for peace between Israel and its neighbors, and concluded: “We must recognize Israel’s achievements under difficult circumstances, even as we strive in a positive way to help Israel continue to improve its relations with its Arab populations, but we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel. As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so.”

Related posts:

1. Thank you Tony Judt
2. Is there nothing to Israel besides politics?
3. Anti-Israel, with a dash of intellectual pretense

The latest “MAKOM Hot Topic” on Ha’aretz’s website:

If the Freakonomics guys liked it, then there really must be something behind the fascinating book Start-Up Nation. In the book, Senor and Singer explore reasons why Israel has more companies on NASDAQ than any country other than the US, and the highest number of start-ups per capita than anywhere else in the world.

To the liberal mind, the success of the book and its subject matter, ought to give cause for concern. First, it would seem to be an attempt to draw attention away from Israel’s political failings – in its very apolitical-ness, it is political. Second, it hints that business and hi-tech success is the pinnacle of Jewish endeavor. Third, it would seem to credit the Israeli army with much of this success. Fourth, and most importantly, the book draws attention to an Israeli and – dare we say it – Jewish exceptionalism.

This would then beg the question: Can we express pride about anything? Is any Israeli collective achievement – so long as it isn’t peace with the Palestinians – to be frowned upon?

Are these guys for real? The book “ought to give cause for concern” because, possibly, “any Israeli collective achievement” is bad if it doesn’t concern the Palestinians? So, for example, democracy? Or the rescue of the Muslim world’s expelled Jews or Europe’s tattered refugees? Or how about cures for some cancers? Or Yehudah Amichai’s poetry? Or simply surviving the 20th century, an achievement in no way guaranteed at the century’s start? Or being the only country in the Middle East that has more Christians, not less, than 60 years ago?

How about this question for a hot topic: What kind of obsessive advocacy leads someone to suggest that an entire society is nothing more than a single political process? Is MAKOM dangling dangerously off the edge of the Israeli discourse, about to fall off?

Related posts:

1. Ha’aretz: Stupid or dishonest?
2. Thank you Tony Judt
3. Are Obama's settlement demands good for Israel?

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)

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.

Related posts:

1. Go ahead, pressure Israel
2. Why Palestine must be negotiated, not declared
3. Britain discovers that the PA tortures

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.

Related posts:

1. Now from Apple: Poke Ahmadinejad in the nose
2. Iran's new minister of media: Holocaust denier
3. Ahmadinejad…not a Jew

Oscar Arias (Wikipedia)

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].

Related posts:

1. Report: PA shuts down only Christian TV broadcaster in West Bank
2. Is the Palestinian Diaspora part of the solution?
3. Why, in Palestine, is Baruch Goldstein a hero?

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

Hat tip: Tom Gross.

Related posts:

1. Now from Apple: Poke Ahmadinejad in the nose
2. Iran's new minister of media: Holocaust denier
3. Ahmadinejad…not a Jew

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.

Related posts:

1. Ha’aretz: Stupid or dishonest?
2. Is the Palestinian Diaspora part of the solution?
3. What more can Bibi do just to start negotiating?

In his wonderful “History of Zionism,” Walter Laqueur chides the post-Zionist historians by saying that what is true in their work is not new, and what is new is not true. Shlomo Sand, former campus radical turned publicity-hound professor and wanna-be destroyer of Jewish nationhood, seems to have written his book precisely to fit that description.

Patricia Cohen of The New York Times explains:

Mixing respected scholarship with dubious theories, the author, Shlomo Sand, a professor at Tel Aviv University, frames the narrative as a startling exposure of suppressed historical facts.

…

Professor Sand, a scholar of modern France, not Jewish history, candidly states his aim is to undercut the Jews’ claims to the land of Israel by demonstrating that they do not constitute “a people,” with a shared racial or biological past. The book has been extravagantly denounced and praised, often on the basis of whether or not the reader agrees with his politics.

…

Since Professor Sand’s mission is to discredit Jews’ historical claims to the territory, he is keen to show that their ancestry lines do not lead back to ancient Palestine. He resurrects a theory first raised by 19th-century historians, that the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe, to whom 90 percent of American Jews trace their roots, are descended from the Khazars, a Turkic people who apparently converted to Judaism and created an empire in the Caucasus in the eighth century. This idea has long intrigued writers and historians. In 1976, Arthur Koestler wrote “The Thirteenth Tribe” in the hopes it would combat anti-Semitism; if contemporary Jews were descended from the Khazars, he argued, they could not be held responsible for Jesus’ Crucifixion.

By now, experts who specialize in the subject have repeatedly rejected the theory, concluding that the shards of evidence are inconclusive or misleading, said Michael Terry, the chief librarian of the Jewish division of the New York Public Library. Dr. Ostrer said the genetics also did not support the Khazar theory.

See also the argument I had with Philip Weiss over Sand’s quixotic effort to destroy the basic narrative of Israeli identity: “Anti-Israel, with a dash of intellectual pretense.”

Related posts:

1. Thank you Tony Judt
2. On marriage and racism
3. On Sand and Israeli intermarriage