Feed aggregator

Today Ta’anit Tzedek sponsored an incredibly informative and thought-provoking conference call with Sari Bashi, Executive Director of Gisha Legal Center for Freedom of Movement.  We were also joined by Reut Katz of Physicians for Human Rights – Israel who shared information about the medical infrastructure in Gaza and the difficulties faced by Gazans needing medical treatment

Toward the end of the call, I asked Sari why the crisis in Gaza always seemed to be so central to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Her incisive response:

I think Gaza is a bit like the canary in the coal mine. What is being done now in Gaza is being done to a lesser extent in the West Bank and we will see some of the terrible effects in the West Bank as well if we continue on the path we are on. The concern about Israel’s behavior in Gaza is that it is exercising control without taking responsibility. It is controlling people’s lives by controlling movement and access but it is not taking responsibility for the effects of that control on a million and half civilians who need to be able to access all of the things we’ve been discussing.

In the West Bank that process is also underway. Israel is dividing up the West Bank between Jewish areas, where the settlements are, and Palestinian areas – and it is slowly disengaging from responsibility for what happens in the Palestinian areas without giving up on control of those borders and of movement and access. And it can’t be both ways: either Israel continues to control movement and access but takes responsibility for that control or if it wants to disengage from responsibility it must let go of control – and that also means letting go of checking for security reasons what leaves and enters Gaza and the West Bank.

Click here to hear the call in its entirety. The conversation begins at 1:38 minutes and includes several questions from participants.

To mark our July fast day Ta’anit Tzedek – Jewish Fast for Gaza is sponsoring “Myths and Facts About the Siege of Gaza,” a conference call with Sari Bashi, Executive Director of Gisha: Legal Center for Freedom of Movement on Thursday, July 15 at 12 noon EST.

Since Israel’s easing of its blockade of Gaza, international pressure to end the siege has eased as well. Does this “easing” in fact represent actual change for the people of Gaza? What kinds of good and services are Israel allowing in? What is the status of Gazans’ freedom of movement? What are the current effects of the blockade on the lives of residents?

To help us better understand these questions, we turn to Gisha, one of Israel’s leading human rights experts on the siege on Gaza. Founded in 2005, Gisha seeks to protect the freedom of movement in the Occupied Territories, offering legal assistance and public advocacy to protect the rights of Palestinian residents. Because freedom of movement is an essential precondition for the exercising of other basic rights, Gisha’s work also helps residents of the Occupied Territories gain access education, jobs, family members and medical care.

Gisha’s work in Gaza has been critical in this respect. I’ve long been referring folks to their website Gaza Gateway, an essential resource that present credible information about the amount of traffic that Israel allows to pass through the Gaza Strip border crossings. I also highly recommend Gisha’s publications for critical, up-to-date reports on the effects of the siege.

Call-in info:

Phone Number: 1.800.920.7487
Participant Code: 92247763#

As with our call last month, we will be offering the opportunity for Q&A during the call.

Click here for a recent Gisha article, “Unraveling the Closure of Gaza.” Click on the clip above to watch “Closed Zone” – a brief animated film about the basic effects of the siege created for Gisha by Yoni Goodman, Director of Animation for “Waltz with Bashir.”

More than one Israeli politician has commented that there is “no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” Fair enough. During Ta’anit Tzedek’s monthly conference calls with Gazans we heard over and over that Gazan citizens do not want this crisis to be viewed as a humanitarian issue.

For instance, journalist Sami Abdel-Shafi told us in March that he believed casting Gaza as a humanitarian case is ultimately harmful to Gazans (80% of whom are dependent on foreign aid to survive). That is to say, the longer Gazans are kept dependent on humanitarian largess, the longer Gaza will successfully be kept isolated from the international community:

As long as the so-called “humanitarian” classification continues, I’m afraid we can stay like this for years. But the key is, why leave a population of more than 1.5 million people almost completely deprived of being educated and being developed and of the opportunity to be effective contributors to the regional economy, in addition to the economy of the world?

The answer (as I’m sure Abdel-Shafi well knows) is that this is precisely the point. The blockade of Gaza has never been about Israel’s security. From the very beginning, its aim has always been the isolation of Hamas through the collective punishment of Gazans.

Of course Israel has long tried to make the case that its blockade was initiated to keep weapons out of Gaza, but this justification has grown increasingly hollow over the years. (The surreal revelation that coriander was on the “forbidden list” is perhaps the most infamous example.)

I’ve noticed that even Israel has become less and less inclined to defend the blockade on security grounds.  This past week, it was reported that Israel’s defense establishment is urging the government not to cave in to growing international pressure and permit Palestinians to export goods from the Gaza Strip.  As one defense official put it, “If this happens, we will lose all of our leverage over Hamas.”  When I read this, I couldn’t help but think about Abdel-Shafi’s comments. What possible security benefit could Israel gain with this kind of economic warfare?

On a more heartening note, I just read in the Israeli press that “reliable sources” report that Obama will insist on a full lifting of the blockade when Netanyahu visits Washington in two weeks. According to the report, the President considers the continuing travel ban on Gazans to be (you guessed it) “collective punishment.”

Here’s hoping…

Yesterday Ta’anit Tzedek hosted an incredibly powerful conference call with journalist/blogger Ashley Bates, who spoke to us from Gaza City. If you didn’t make the call, you can listen to it yourself by clicking here. Ashley’s personal testimony provided an extremely important antidote to the misinformation about Gaza that we’ve heard bandied about – particularly since the flotilla crisis.

At the opening of our conversation, I asked Ashley to address the claims of the Israeli government that “there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza” and that no one is starving as result of Israel’s blockade. I also asked her to address press reports that cite the upscale Roots Restaurant and well-stocked market stalls in Gaza City as proof that things are not nearly as dire as critics are claiming.

Ashley validated the reports that these kinds of goods are indeed available in the more affluent areas of Gaza. She added, however, that the only ones who can afford them are internationals such as herself or a relatively small number of affluent Gazans. She pointed out that the Gazan economy has completely collapsed as a result of the blockade, causing widespread unemployment and poverty for an overwhelming number of citizens. Ashley herself can afford to live a relatively comfortable life in a rented Gaza City apartment. Unlike most Gazans, she could purchase her own electric generator – so she is unaffected by the daily eight hour blackouts that are a familiar part of life in Gaza.

Ashley said that she saw no signs of starvation, but it was clear to her that the nutritional needs of Gazans are not being met. Eight out of ten Gazans are on some form of international aid. In the refugee camps, Gazans are essentially living on diets devoid of fruits and vegetables. As a result, anemia and malnutrition is on a sharp rise – particularly among children.

She also witnessed considerable numbers of homeless Gazan families, whose homes were destroyed during Israel’s military assault in December 2008. The majority of them have moved in with relatives or friends and live in very cramped quarters. Others rent apartments they cannot afford, relying upon the largess of landlords. Still others are forced to live in unstable, partially destroyed residences or in tents next to the rubble of their former homes (see pic above).

Ashley said she was not qualified to to comment as to whether this all constitutes a “humanitarian crisis.” She did, however, call it “a crisis of human dignity” – and it is clear to her that these circumstances are a direct result of the blockade.

It is also becoming clear to me that the world is becoming less and less inclined to buy the Israeli government’s calculated misinformation campaign about the blockade. Yesterday, blogger Richard Silverstein posted an extremely telling e-mail missive that the Israeli PR org The Israel Project recently sent out to its members:

Subject: In the “messages that fail” department, please see this…
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:36:40 -0400
From: Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi
To: Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi

As to research on saying that there isn’t a “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza and that no one is starving, we will have that on what Luntz and Greenberg are testing next week. But you don’t need that data to know it is a complete dead-end of a message. Reporters and leaders all over Washington are complaining about this and some say they see Israel and cold and heard hearted. Given that 6 more flotillas are headed to Israel (including one of Jews from Germany and one of Jews from the UK) we need to make sure we understand this well.

Watch this from Jon Stewart. Watch to the end and listen to how they react to when Krauthammer uses the message…ouch!

http://vimeo.com/12350665

Clearly we need to be saying that “While no one is starving in Gaza because Israel delivers so much aid, there IS suffering in Gaza. We want the suffering to stop. That is why Iran-backed Hamas must stop using supplies for rockets and Hamas must release Gilad Shalit. Hamas must be accountable for their actions and for the suffering they are causing their OWN people.”

On a good note, the topic in the US tonight will shift to energy. Alternative energy is obviously a great topic for Israel as Israel has much to say that could help on this.

Thanks!

Jennifer

Spin notwithstanding, it’s an amazing admission. (You know, it’s often occurred to me that if Israel spent just a fraction of the time and energy it spends on public relations to actually own up to its responsibility for this crisis, we might see some real progress toward a resolution).

In the meantime, thank God for sane witnesses such as Ashley Bates. Please listen to the call.

The next Ta’anit Tzedek fast day is Thursday, June 17 and to mark the occasion we’re sponsoring a conference call with freelance journalist Ashley Bates.

Ashley has been living in and reporting from Gaza for the past several months and as I’ve written before, her pieces offer invaluable, in-depth perspectives of life under the blockade. Her articles have appeared in Jerusalem Post, Jerusalem Post Magazine, Global Post, Huffington Post, Columbia Journalism Review, and Ha’aretz and she posts regularly on her blog Dispatches from Gaza.

Of course Israel’s recent raid on the Freedom Flotilla has recently put the blockade back on the mainstream media radar screen. Misinformation about this crisis has been on the increase – and it is all the more critical to hear from those such as Ms. Bates: reputable sources of information about life on the ground in the Gaza Strip.

The conference call will take place Thursday, June 17 at 12 noon EST.

Call-in info:

Access Number: 1.800.920.7487
Participant Code: 92247763#

We are thrilled that Ashley will be able to join us for this important and critical conversion. Please join us.

More odds and ends re the flotilla fallout:

- In contrast to the Israeli characterization of flotilla participants as jihadist thugs, pictures released by Turkish newspaper Hürriyet show activists actually protecting and aiding injured Israeli Navy commandos. (H/T to Ali Abunimah for the link).

- Flotilla participant Jamal Elshayyal (a British citizen and producer for Al Jazeera English) has written an extensive account of his experiences on the night of the raid. While there no way to verify his testimony, it does square with numerous other eyewitness reports. At the very least, it underscores the need for a credible international investigation to get to the bottom of what actually happened aboard the Mavi Marmara:

After spotting the warships at a distance, (at roughly 11pm) the organisers called for passengers to wear their life vests and remain indoors as they monitored the situation. The naval warships together with helicopters remained at a distance for several hours.

At 2am local time the organisers informed me that they had re-routed the ship, as far away from Israel as possible, as deep into international waters as they could. They did not want a confrontation with the Israeli military, at least not by night.

Just after 4am local time, the Israeli military attacked the ship, in international waters. It was an unprovoked attack. Tear gas was used, sound grenades were launched, and rubber coated steel bullets were fired from almost every direction.

Dozens of speed boats carrying about 15-20 masked Israeli soldiers, armed to the teeth surrounded the Mavi Marmara which was carrying 600 or so unarmed civilians. Two helicopters at a time hovered above the vessel. Commandos on board the choppers joined the firing, using live ammunition, before any of the soldiers had descended onto the ship.

Two unarmed civilians were killed just metres away from me. Dozens of unarmed civilians were injured right before my eyes.

One Israeli soldier, armed with a large automatic gun and a side pistol, was overpowered by several passengers. They disarmed him. They did not use his weapons or fire them; instead they threw his weapons over board and into the sea.

After what seemed at the time as roughly 30 minutes, passengers on board the ship raised a white flag. The Israeli army continued to fire live ammunition. The ships organisers made a loud speaker announcement saying they have surrendered the ship. The Israeli army continued to fire live ammunition.

- Finally, click above for a deeply disturbing clip of journalist Max Blumenthal interviewing participants at a recent Israeli rally in front of the Turkish embassy. I’m not sure what made me sadder: the callous celebration of an incident that led to the deaths of nine civilians or the “us against the world” siege mentality expressed by so many Israelis on the street.

From a piece I’ve just posted in the Huffington Post:

As I read the myriad of reactions to the Gaza Freedom Flotilla tragedy last Sunday, I’m struck by one recurring theme: the sense of astonishment that these activists responded to the Israeli Navy with violence.

In other words, they didn’t act according to the script. They didn’t behave like proper practitioners of civil disobedience. The implication: if they had responded like the non-violent activists they were purported to be, this whole tragedy could well have been avoided.

There’s only problem with this calculus: non-violent Palestinian protests have actually been ongoing throughout the Occupied Territories for years – and the Israeli military has been responding to them with much the same kind of brutality that was used against the passengers of the Mavi Marmara.

Click here to read the article.

For a full, updated list of rabbinical signators to this letter, visit the Ta’anit Tzedek Blog.

Dear Friends,

In the wake of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla tragedy, we once again feel the need to raise our voices as rabbis in the Jewish community.

According to press reports, we now know that at least 9 people have been killed and many more have been injured when Israeli Navy Seals boarded a boat that held 600 people in the middle of the night – conducting a military operation against civilian activists in the midst of international waters.

We also know that the essential aim of the Freedom Flotilla was to carry humanitarian aid to those who have been severely suffering under the effects of Israel’s crushing blockade of Gaza. We call upon our community not to turn away in denial or blame those of good will and good purpose who risked their lives to relieve the beleaguered people of the Gaza strip.

We lift up our voices and call upon Israel to conduct an independent, transparent, and credible investigation of this incident. We also call upon the government of Israel to open the gates of compassion and allow these ships to dock so that they may deliver humanitarian aid to the 1.5 million citizens of Gaza. In so doing, we note the overall context of oppression in which this incident has occurred and call upon the government of Israel to turn away from the policies of occupation, siege and indifference to international law.

Our silence now is an act of betrayal to the values we purport to live by and to the words of the prophet we read every Yom Kippur:

Is this the fast I desire? A day for people to starve
their bodies? Or bow their heads like a bulrush
or wear sackcloth and smear oneself with ashes…
No! This is the fast the Lord desires:
Unlock the fetters of oppression
Untie the cords of the yoke
Let the exploited go free, break off every chain.
share your bread with the hungry,
Shelter the poor in your own house
clothe the naked and do not ignore your own kin.

As rabbis, we believe all human beings are our kin. We cannot abide the suffering inflicted upon the people of Gaza.

We lift up our voices and say: Unlock the fetters of oppression. Untie the cords of the yoke. Open the gates.

Moshe Yaroni, writing in Realistic Peace:

The bottom line is that Israel raided these ships with commandoes, and the end result was a great deal of needless bloodshed. And apparently, according to the IDF spokesperson, as reported by journalist Gregg Carlstrom, they couldn’t even wait to do it until the ships had passed out of international waters, which makes it, if no explanation is forthcoming, an act of piracy as well.

Israel crossed a line today, in a way not dissimilar (though certainly of a much smaller scope, thankfully) to the line they crossed in their massive attack on Gaza in 2008-09. Whatever Israel’s detractors have said over the years, this incident, like Operation Cast Lead, was far beyond anything Israel has done in the past.

This was a shocking massacre, and there’s no way to pretty that up. These were people engaged in direct action of civil disobedience. True, the siege on Gaza should simply be lifted, but being that it’s there, yes, Israel can be expected to take action to stop the flotilla. But this doesn’t just go above and beyond and justification, it zooms light years past it.

Ashley Bates reporting on the reaction inside Gaza:

Many of the International Solidarity Movement activists living in Gaza gave interviews with the press, including Bianca Zimmit, an activist from Malta who was shot in her thigh by Israeli troops during a demonstration against the buffer zone last month. Here’s the link to a previous blog post I wrote about this incident and here’s the link to a blog post I wrote about a Palestinian demonstrator who was killed the week after Zimmit was shot.

“I’m surprised that Israel would go this far with internationals,” Zimmit said… “The reality is that they are doing this sort of thing every day with Palestinians—farmers and fishermen are killed every day….I don’t know why [Israeli citizens] would oppose these ships. Because they don’t understand what’s happening? Because they don’t understand the daily reality of the siege? The siege hurts the people, not the [Hamas] government. The poor people are bearing the brunt and are the hardest hit.”

The final word goes to the always eloquent Emily Hauser:

It doesn’t matter if the activists were armed — I’m pretty sure they were, to some degree. It doesn’t matter if they were entirely pacifist in their behavior — I’m pretty sure they weren’t. It doesn’t matter if they were planning for an armed confrontation, or merely fairly certain it might happen, or even if they were naive enough to think that when Israel turned them away (I’m pretty sure they knew they wouldn’t get to their destination) that it wouldn’t involve violence.

What matters is the blockade they were symbolically trying to break.

What matters is the roughly 300,000 refugees in Gaza who live in abject poverty — a 200% increase since early 2007, according to UNRWA — because of Israeli policy. What matters is the fact that many of the 1.4 million people living in Gaza must make do with 8-12 hours a day without electricity — up from 6-8 hours before the start of the year — because of Israeli policy. What matters is the “ongoing deterioration in the social, economic and environmental determinants of health” that the World Health Organization wrote about in January (back when people were still only dealing with 6-8 hours of daily power outages) — including 27 people who died while waiting for permission to leave Gaza to receive treatment — because of Israeli policy.

What matters is the blockade — what matters is the occupation.

In the wake of Israel’s military attack against Gaza flotilla activists (latest death toll: 14-20), I’ve been scouring the Israeli press to find any semblance of soul searching over how things could have come to this.

To my sorrow, all I’m finding is an analysis of the “tactical mistakes” made by the IDF and the public relations fallout of this tragic attack. In the meantime, there’s the same old defensive posturing from the government:

Jerusalem Post:

The defense minister also called on Arab and Palestinian leaders not to let this “provocation by irresponsible people” ruin the progress made in proximity peace talks…

Israeli Navy commander Vice-Admiral Eliezer Marom said Monday that IDF soldiers that raided Mavi Marmara acted with “perseverance and bravery…”

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said that the flotilla of ships “was an armada of hate and violence…”

I have no doubt that the reaction of the American Jewish community will be just as defensive, if not more so.  As for me, I’ll be hoping against hope that we’ll start to hear different kinds of reactions:

- That the Freedom Flotilla was not simply a movement of provocateurs seeking to “delegitimize” Israel, but a group of activists mounting an act of civil disobedience to bring attention to 1.5 Palestinian citizens who are suffering under a crushing blockade.

- That mounting a military operation against civilian activists in international waters was bound to be futile, illegal, and yes, even immoral.

- That for all our concern over an organized “delegitimization campaign” against Israel, it may well be that Israel is actually delegitimizing itself through oppressive acts such as this.

Last January I participated in a panel discussion on Jewish blogging sponsored by the Committee for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine. I was honored to join two of my favorite bloggers in the world, Adam Horowitz of Mondoweiss and Cecilie Surasky of Muzzlewatch, for what turned out to be an extensive and incredibly thought-provoking conversation.

CJPIP has just uploaded a video of the program to their website. Click here to watch.

From a piece I’ve just posted in the Huffington Post:

I’ve noticed an interesting pattern in Alan Dershowitz’s recent HuffPo columns.

On April 21 he smeared Jeremy Ben Ami and the pro-peace, pro-Israel lobbying group J Street, putting words in Ben Ami’s mouth and saying that J Street has “gone over to the dark side.”

On May 4 it was Rabbi Michael Lerner, a leading figure of the American Jewish left, and editor of Tikkun Magazine. Dershowitz accused Tikkun of “McCarthyism,” disregarded the recent attack on Lerner’s home, and characterized Lerner’s criticism of Israeli policy as “blood libel.”

In between the two, Dershowitz lambasted Judge Richard Goldstone, the highly regarded international jurist who prepared a UN report on Israel’s Gaza War. He labeled the report as “evil” and attacked me and a group of American rabbis for having the temerity to find merit in Goldstone’s work – we are “bigoted,” apparently, and “ignorant,” and are – yes – leveling a “blood libel” against the Israeli government. Most recently, Dershowitz hit a new low when he went on Israeli television and compared Judge Goldstone to Dr. Joseph Mengele.

When a Jew starts to accuse rabbis of blood libel; when an American shouts “McCarthyism” at an American magazine editor whose life is dedicated to dialogue; when a professional, highly experienced lawyer accuses a world-renown jurist of “evil,” equating him with the Nazi “Angel of Death,” and uses Star Wars terminology against a legitimate, widely-supported political lobbying group – well, it adds up, and it indicates one thing: Desperation.

Click here to read the entire article.

Had the pleasure of meeting Yonatan Shapira for lunch in Evanston yesterday.  If you’ve never heard of him, Yonatan was an officer in the Israeli Air Force and flew hundreds of missions over the territories in a Blackhawk helicopter squadron during the course of his eleven year career. Following a targeted bomb assassination of a Hamas leader that killed fourteen civilians in Gaza, he became a prominent Israeli “refusenik,” authoring the Pilot’s Letter – a 2003 statement signed by 27 Israeli pilots who publicly refused to fly missions over the Occupied Territories.

Since that time, Yonatan has gone on to co-found “Combatants for Peace” a prominent organization in the growing Israeli Refusenik movement. A few years ago he gained some more notoriety for writing and performing “Numu, Numu,” a powerful protest song written in the form of an ironic “Lullaby to Pilots.”   (More recently, he’s become the object of a pop love song that’s currently making the rounds on Israeli radio – Richard Silverstein has the story on that in Tikun Olam).

I had known of Yonatan’s refusenik activism, but during our lunch conversation I was surprised to learn that he is also very active in supporting non-violent Palestinian actions in Sheikh Jarrah, Bi’ilin and throughout the Occupied Territories. (He was, in fact, arrested last January at a demonstration in Sheikh Jarrah.) He told me that this work has been transformative for him, explaining that as an IDF officer and even as a leader in the Israeli peace movement he has always been socialized to step forward and lead the way. He said he’s come to realize that the most important way he can serve now is to “stand behind” Palestinians in their non-violent campaign for liberation.

He told me numerous stories about his experiences at demonstrations. He mentioned that the IDF is increasing their crackdown on protesters, that they hire infiltrators to throw stones at the army to given soldiers the a pretext to open fire. None of it succeeds, of course: quite the opposite. The Palestinian non-violence movement is growing steadily – a “White Intifada” that  Yonatan believes has already begun. As a IDF officer himself, he explained the Israeli military mentality – that army commanders truly believe they have the power to “outlaw” these protests through the sheer force of their military might.

Yonatan also mentioned that as part of his support of non-violent Palestinian activism, he has also signed on to the internal Israeli movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) known as “Boycott from Within.”   Now that is the new definition of bravery: a high ranking Israeli Air Force veteran who comes from a military family (his father was a fighter pilot during the Six Day War) has now firmly put himself on the front lines of a global non-violence campaign initiated by the very people he himself had once been trained to attack.

I assumed that Yonatan would be made a virtual pariah for his public stands. He replied that as a military man he understands how soldiers think and generally knows how to engage them in dialogue even when they strongly disagree with him.  He also mentioned that his family is supportive of his work – his father “is not quite there yet” but respects his activism and his mother is “the most active of them all.”

Click below for Yonatan’s “Lullaby for Pilots:”

My April 27 post featured a dialogue with my Israeli friend David Melman. Here’s his latest response, below. (Now we’ve officially begun a series!)

I’ll post a response to his response shortly.

Dear Brant,

Although we do have some agreement in regards to dire need to improve the desperate humanitarian condition in Gaza, it appears that we indeed have some very large gaps in our understanding of the fundamental issues.

Historically, as you stated, it is easy to understand the position of the Palestinian community and why they opposed Jewish settlement and the Zionist goal of establishing a sovereign national Jewish homeland. (I would add that some parts of the Palestinian leadership went beyond this basic opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state, as demonstrated by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, who was anti-Semitic and aligned with Nazi Germany.)

While you clearly empathize with the motivating factors for Palestinian/Arab resistance to a sovereign national Jewish homeland, it is less clear that you identify with:

1)       The basic right of  the Jewish people to a national homeland in Israel that is on par with the Palestinian right for statehood

2)       The extremely desperate situation that existed for the Jewish people and the Yishuv during this period, given the need to provide a home for the tens of thousands of holocaust survivors from Europe.

Although the 1947 UN partition plan was problematic from the Yishuv perspective due to its lack of territorial continuity, nonetheless the Yishuv rejoiced and accepted the plan as the best course to lead to the establishment of a Jewish state. The Arab/Palestinian side flatly rejected it.  After the UN partition plan was approved, violence ensued, initiated by both sides.  Although some outright atrocities were committed by Jews such as Deir Yassin, it is important to note that these acts were condemned by the mainstream Jewish leadership. After Ben Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel on May 14 1948, the armies of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria invaded Israel.

Was the post partition-plan violence and subsequent War of Independence a war of survival for the Jewish state as I claimed, or could it have been avoided as you questioned? Given the extreme Palestinian/Arab opposition to a Jewish state, short of abandoning the immediate goal of creating a Jewish state, I don’t see how it could have been avoided.

But I’m not an historian, and I’m sure you have “facts” to counter my “facts”.  But Brant, what really disturbs me is that I sense you are questioning whether the creation of a Jewish state in a territory with an indigenous Palestinian population is justified, given that inevitably, conflict would ensue.

My response is a resounding “yes”.  We, the Jewish people, also have a historic, religious, and cultural attachment to the land and right to our national homeland.   Israel has absorbed Jews seeking to return to their homeland from the ashes of Europe, from Arab countries, Ethiopia, the FSU, America, etc.  This is why Lori and I have chosen to make Aliyah, and why we send our children to serve in the army to defend our right to live here.

I recommend reading Saul Singer’s “Stop Palestinian denial of Jewish peoplehood” (http://www.bitterlemons.org/issue/isr2.php).  I agree with his contention that a fundamental obstacle to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today “is not just the glorification of terrorism on the Palestinian side, it is the denial of Jewish peoplehood, of Jewish history and of any legitimate Jewish connection to any part of Israel.”

Now this does not mean I support disproportionate force in Gaza causing unnecessary suffering, discrimination against Israeli Palestinians, Jewish settlement in the territories, etc.  We need to constantly work toward an accommodation with the Palestinians which I hope will someday lead toward the establishment of an independent Palestinian state living peacefully by our side.  As I wrote in my previous letter, there is a consensus in Israel for a 2-state solution.  But this dream must be shared by both sides, to become a reality.

In Friendship,

David

In my last post, I cited a comment from a longtime friend of mine who has been living in Israel for the past twenty years. By way of introduction: his name is David Melman and he lives with his family in a small community village in the Upper Galilee. My friendship with David goes back to our undergraduate days at UCLA, where our mutual connection to Israel was always an important aspect of our relationship. Despite the long distance and the passage of time, our families have remained close.

David and I have been in communication since his first comment to my blog. I’ve asked him if he would be willing to allow me to post our dialogue and he graciously agreed. Click below for his comment, followed by my response.

Dear Brant,

As an old friend of yours, I certainly know that you do not “hate Israel” and you are not an “Israel basher” with intent to harm Israel.

Nonetheless, I am very saddened to hear that you no longer have “Jewish pride in Israel and in Zionism itself”. This is very evident in your writings.

I can’t agree with you more in terms of the human suffering the Palestinians have endured and continue to endure. It is good that you have raised awareness in the Jewish community to this real tragedy on the ground.

But I don’t accept your premise that Zionism and the creation of our national state bear the moral responsibility for the Palestinian suffering, and that there is “something fundamentally problematic with the Zionist enterprise itself”.

Had Arab states accepted Israel’s creation in 1948 rather than attack with the goal of destroying her, history would have played out differently, both for Israel and the Palestinians. Israel was not established based on the ideology of disenfranchising the Palestinian people. Yes, Israel conducted immoral acts during the war, such as driving many Palestinians out of their villages. But do not forget that this was a war of survival that was forced on her. Israel never had the goal of conquering and occupying the West Bank and Gaza. The 6-day war was also a war of survival.

Oppression of the Palestinian people is not part of the Zionist dream. I have no doubt that Israelis would overwhelmingly support a Palestinian state in the West Band and Gaza if Palestinian leadership would recognize Israel and agree to live peacefully by her side. Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan to the credit of its brave leaders Sadat and Hussein. If only the Palestinian leadership would could show such courage. This situation in Gaza would change overnight if Hamas would recognize Israel, agree to cease all hostilities and terrorism, and return Gilad Schalit.

The Israeli government and military apparently believes the blockade of Gaza is needed to ensure Israeli security. Tactically this may prove to be a wrong decision in terms of Israeli security, and to your credit, I am becoming a believer that it is also morally wrong to cause such extreme hardships for the entire population in Gaza.

But again, I believe what motivates Israel’s actions in Gaza is not its desire to cause suffering, but its desire to protect its citizens. I’m also sure the army could have done more reduce innocent casualties in the last year’s incursion into Gaza to stop the incessant rocket fire, but this is not because the military guidelines were to harm innocent people, but to the contrary. I know there are stories as well where soldiers put themselves in greater danger in order to protect possible harm to innocent civilians.

Just yesterday I read that Israel evacuated a Palestinian in Gaza who needed medical treatment in an Israel hospital, while Hamas released a cruel video showing Noam Schalit wandering in Gaza until he finds his son Gilad in a coffin.

I support your right and indeed, obligation, to speak openly and honestly about Israel, even when it means criticizing Israeli government policy. Israel is a very open democracy. As you often find and cite in your blogs, there is plenty of open criticism of our government policy here in Israel.

Brant, what I find lacking in your blogs is the larger context to the situation. Israel faces two very hostile entities whose main goal is to harm Israel: Hezbollah in the Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Both are radical Islamic entities sponsored by Iran who do not seek compromise or any kind of peaceful co-existence with Israel.

What I think we can agree on is that Israel should strive to find ways to reduce the suffering in Gaza without sacrificing its security.

Furthermore, I think with a little effort, you can find stories of things happening in Israel which do provide you with a source of Jewish and Israeli pride. Such stories would provide a welcome positive addition to your very thought-proving criticisms of Israeli policy.

Still your friend,
David

______________________________________________________________

Dear David,

Thank you so much for your generous and thoughtful comments.  Given the sensitive nature of of the issues I’m raising, the respect and friendship inherent in your words mean a great deal to me.   I’m also all too aware that anything regarding Israel has directly personal significance for you and your family.

It’s obvious that my own feelings have recently been going through something of a transformation – but as I tried to express in my last post, there are many, many things about Israel that will always fill me with pride.  I suppose the reason that I don’t seem to exude love for Israel in my writings lately is that my anguish over Israel’s oppressive treatment of Palestinians has come to eclipse that pride. It’s not easy for me to write that, but it’s really the only way I know how to put it.

I was so glad to read that we are largely in agreement about the tragedy of Palestinian suffering. I was especially gratified – and moved – to read that you are coming to believe that Israel’s current actions in Gaza are “morally wrong.”  I know you don’t admit these things lightly.  It’s obvious to me, however, that we disagree over the essential background of this tragedy.

You and I were both raised with the conventional Zionist narrative of Israel’s founding.  Indeed, I have long accepted the version of these events in way you describe them:

Had Arab states accepted Israel’s creation in 1948 rather than attack with the goal of destroying her, history would have played out differently, both for Israel and the Palestinians. Israel was not established based on the ideology of disenfranchising the Palestinian people. Yes, Israel conducted immoral acts during the war, such as driving many Palestinians out of their villages. But do not forget that this was a war of survival that was forced on her. Israel never had the goal of conquering and occupying the West Bank and Gaza. The 6-day war was also a war of survival.

To make a long story short, I’ve come to question this particular narrative. I’m just not sure any more that it’s as simple a matter as “if only the Arab states had accepted Israel’s creation in 1948…” I don’t think we Jews can so blithely discount the Palestinian narrative (which, I will grant, has its own mythic simplicities as well).

The conventional Zionist narrative holds that Palestinians were purely and simply rejectionist because they could not abide a Jewish presence in their land. But I’m no longer sure that it’s really that straightforward.  I’m becoming increasingly less dismissive of the original Palestinian concern over the Zionist settlement of Palestine. After all, as the Arab inhabitants saw it, the essential goal of the Zionist movement was to extend Jewish sovereign control over as much of historic Palestine as possible.  (I’m especially mindful of what this must have meant to an indigenous Palestinian community that had endured a succession of empires – and were finally given the promise of self-determination by the British following the defeat of the Ottomans at the end of WW I).

Though according to our narrative, the 1947 UN Partition plan was eminently fair and equitable, I’m now trying to understand how this plan must have been experienced by the Arab residents of Palestine. Despite the fact that Jews were a clear minority in terms of population and owned only 6% of the land, the UN plan gave 55.5% of Palestine to the proposed Jewish state (which would have contained 400 Arab villages within its new borders). Given that indigenous Palestinians, without their consultation, were set to lose more than half their land to a minority settler population who sought political control over it, I can certainly understand the reasons behind Palestinian resistance to partition.

In reading the work of the new Israeli historians, the revelation that continues to affect me the most – and one that was never part of my Zionist education – was that between the date of the partition vote in November 1947 and the declaration of the State of Israel (and the exit of British troops from Palestine) in May 1948, a civil war was fought between the Yishuv forces and Palestinian military irregulars.  It was during this time that Jewish forces began to forcibly expel Palestinian resident from their villages – including large swaths of territory that were intended to be part of the new Palestinian state according to the Partition Plan.  The Arab states did not join the fight until May 1948, at which time the Yishuv forces had already begun to gain the upper hand (and the Palestinian refugee problem was well under way.)

Without going into more historical detail, here’s the long and short of it: I’m not so sure that this war was, as you put it, a “war of survival that was forced on Israel.”  (I’m also not sure it was that simple in the case of 1967 either, but let’s save that one for another conversation, if we’re up for it.)

David, I do agree with you that “oppression of the Palestinian people is not part of the Zionist dream.”  I don’t think that oppression of another people could ever have been the essential design of Israel’s founders. But I now wonder: was it an inevitable by-product?  I can’t help but question whether or not it was ever possible to establish an exclusively Jewish state in a country as historically multicultural and multi-religious as Israel/Palestine without engendering conflict. And I’m no longer sure whether it’s possible under the circustances for the Jewish state to maintain political dominion over this land without increasingly wielding its power oppressively toward its non-Jewish inhabitants.

Given what I’m coming to accept about the circumstances of Israel’s founding, I’ve become increasingly more sensitive to the impact of these circumstances  upon Israeli society – the increasing militarization, the all-encompassing emphasis on national security – and the increasing need to demonstrate Israel’s overwhelming might in order to “ensure” her security.

The war in Gaza last year was something of a turning point for me in this regard. I read and watched the news obsessively, as the IDF used such devastating military force toward 1.5 million inhabitants squeezed into a tiny 140 square mile strip of land. I’m sure, as you point out, that there were individual examples of humanitarian efforts by Israeli soldiers, but I also believe that these actions took place between a larger and more oppressive context.

When I asked myself why Israel was using such disproportionate force (and why the IDF was repeatedly targeting schools, factories and essential parts of Gazan infrastructure that had nothing to do with the firing of Kassams), the only answer I could think of was that Israel’s strategy was simply to beat the enemy into submission.  To bring Hamas (and the citizens who elected them) to their knees through the sheer power of greater military might.

If this is indeed the case – if this is Israel’s essential strategy – then I don’t believe she will ever find the safety and security it so desperately seeks. It will only cause greater and greater humanitarian misery for Palestinians while  further alienating Israel from the outside world. And this, as you say, was never, ever part of the Zionist dream.

At any rate, these are kinds of questions I’ve been asking myself these days. And while I might not have many solid answers, I feel compelled to continue to ask them.  I realize that those who know me only from what they read on my blog must think I have precious little love in my heart for Israel.   But I have to tell you, David, it means a great deal to me that you know me well enough to know better.

I can only hope that I can find a way to ask these questions in such a way that makes it clear they truly come from a place of Jewish love and Jewish  conscience.

Your Friend,

Brant

If you want to cut through the morass of misinformation being disseminated about the siege of Gaza, you should read Gaza Gateway – a website created by Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement.

GG presents essential information on Gaza Strip border crossings by carefully monitoring the amount of traffic that Israel allows to pass through.  They also provide critical background information, such as the amount of goods allowed through relative to the needs of the population of Gaza.

I particularly recommend GG’s latest post – an ironic piece they call “How to Market Gaza as an Israeli Success Story: The Complete Guide.” It was apparently inspired by a recent report by the Government of Israel that summarized Israel’s “humanitarian activities” for the Gaza Strip in 2009/2010.

Here’s a taste:

Take things out of context. When you say that, “41 truckloads of equipment for the maintenance of the electricity networks were transferred”, you do not need to mention that those spare parts were waiting for many months for clearance, and that, at the end of 2009, the Gaza Electricity Distribution Company reported that 240 kinds of spare parts were completely out of stock or had dipped below the required minimum stock. Likewise, “There was a significant increase in the number of international organization staff entering the Gaza Strip” does not require explanation that, were the productive sector in Gaza not almost completely paralyzed, so many aid workers would not be needed and the number of aid recipients would not be so high. You also don’t need to explain that the high number of staff you quote might be misleading, since it’s likely you are counting individual entrances and not unique visitors (the same international aid workers enter and exit multiple times per month).

Demonstrate impartiality. Present the transfer of 44,500 doses of swine flu vaccine as having nothing to do with you. There is always a chance people will forget it is a border-transcending epidemic and that the head of the Gaza District Coordination Office himself said an outbreak in Gaza would endanger Israel.

Make it look like you are paying the bill. Use vague language such as “In 2009, Israel continued to supply electricity to the Gaza Strip”. Count on the fact that most people don’t know that Israel charges full payment for the electricity by deducting the amount from the VAT and taxes it collects for the Palestinian Authority via import into its territory.

And here’s a PS on my last post:

The Associated Students of UC Berkeley met Wednesday evening to debate and vote on whether or not to override their Presidents veto of the divestment resolution. After a marathon nine hour session, the vote came up short. As the evening ended, they voted to table a final vote on the bill. So it’s stay tuned…

I’m sure many of you have been following the huge communal dust up that has been swirling around a resolution recently passed by the Associated Students of UC Berkeley. Known as SB118, it calls for the ASUC to divest its holdings in General Electric and United Technologies because of “their military support of the occupation of the Palestinian territories.”

The bill further resolves:

(That) the ASUC will further examine its assets and UC assets for funds being invested in companies that a) provide military support for or weaponry to support the occupation of the Palestinian territories or b) facilitate the building or maintenance of the illegal wall or the demolition of Palestinian homes, or c) facilitate the building, maintenance, or economic development of illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territories (and)

(That) if it is found that ASUC and/or the UC funds are being invested in any of the abovementioned ways, the ASUC will divest, and will advocate that the UC divests, all stocks, securities, or other obligations from such sources with the goal of maintaining the divestment, in the case of said companies, until they cease such practices. Moreover, the ASUC will not make further investments, and will advocate that the UC not make futher investments, in any companies materially supporting or profiting from Israel’s occupation in the above mentioned ways.

On March 18, after eight hours of dialogue and deliberation, the resolution passed by a vote of 16-4. After a barrage of criticism from Jewish community and Israel advocacy groups, the resolution was vetoed by the President of the ASUC on March 24. As things currently stand, the veto can be overridden by 14 votes. The final decision will be made on Wednesday April 14 at 7:00 pm (PST).

The most prominent Jewish statement of condemnation against the resolution came in the form of a letter co-signed by a wide consortium of Jewish organizations (including J Street, the ADL and The David Project) that called the bill “anti-Israel,” “dishonest” and “misleading.” Supporters of the resolution have mobilized as well: Jewish Voice for Peace recently responded to the consortium’s letter with a strong public statement and other prominent public figures, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Naomi Klein have voiced their support of the Berkeley resolution.

As I’ve written in the past, I do believe that the longer Israel’s intolerable occupation continues, the more we will inevitably hear an increase in calls for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). I’m certainly mindful of what these kinds of calls mean to us in the Jewish community – and I know all too well how the issue of boycott pushes our deepest Jewish fear-buttons in so many ways. Despite these fears, however, I personally support the ASUC resolution.

While I understand the painful resonance that boycotts historically have had for the Jewish community, I truly believe this bill was composed and presented in good faith – and I am troubled that so many Jewish community organizations have responded in knee-jerk fashion, without even attempting to address to the actual content of the resolution.

It is also unfair and untrue to say that this resolution is “anti-Israel.” The bill makes it clear that it is condemning a crushing and illegal occupation – and not Israel as a nation. The wording of the resolution leaves no doubt that its purpose is to divest from specific companies that aid and abet the occupation – and not to “demonize” Israel itself. If a group of students oppose the occupation as unjust, then why should we be threatened if they ask their own organization to divest funds that directly support it? This is not demonization – this is simply ethically responsible investment policy.

Why, many critics ask, are the Berkeley students singling out Israel when there are so many other worse human rights abusers around the world? To answer this, I think we need to look at the origins of the BDS movement itself. This campaign was not hatched by the Berkeley students, or even by international human rights activists. It was founded in 2005 by a wide coalition of groups from Palestinian civil society who sought to resist the occupation through nonviolent direct action.

In other words, BDS is a liberation campaign waged by the Palestinian people themselves – one for which they are seeking international support. By submitting this divestment resolution, the Berkeley students were not seeking to single out Israel as the world’s worst human rights offender – they are responding to a call from Palestinians to support their struggle against very real oppression.

The JVP statement (see above) makes this point very powerfully:

Choosing to do something about Israel’s human rights violations does not require turning a blind eye to other injustices in the world as these groups suggest; but refusing to take action because of other examples would indeed turn a blind eye to this one. Now is the time to support Palestinian freedom and human rights. Berkeley students have done the right thing. Others should follow suit and divest from the occupation, as part of their general commitment to ethical investment policies.

I believe that the actions of these Berkeley students represent an important challenge to those of us who believe that Israel’s occupation equals oppression. Quite simply, we cannot stay silent forever. Sooner or later we will have to ask ourselves: when will we be willing to name this for what it really and truly is? When will we find the wherewithal to say out loud that this policy of home demolitions, checkpoints, evictions, increased Jewish settlements, and land expropriations is inhumane and indefensible? At the very least, will we be ready to put our money where our moral conscience is?

I know that this debate is enormously painful. And I respect that there are members of the Jewish community who disagree with this campaign. But I must say I am truly dismayed when I witness the organized Jewish community responding to initiatives such as these by simply crying “anti-Semitism.” For better or worse, we are going to have to find a better way to have these conversations. Because whatever happens with the ASUC resolution tomorrow, we haven’t heard the end of this movement by a longshot.

This summer, in fact, the Presbyterian Church General Assembly will be taking up a number of resolutions related to Israel/Palestine, including one that recommends divestment from Caterpillar because the company knowingly supplies Israel with bulldozers that are used for illegal (and deadly) home demolitions in the West Bank and Gaza. I’m sad to see that the organized Jewish community is already gearing up for another major confrontation…

If you would like to write a letter to the UC President and UC Berkeley Chancellor before the April 14 vote, click here.

Addendum (April 14): UC Berkeley Professor Judith Butler has written an incredibly eloquent defense of the resolution that she will reportedly read today to the ASUC Student Senate before their override vote. Click here to read it in full.

For an in-depth eyewitness view of life in Gaza, you’ll do no better than, Dispatches from Gaza, a new blog just launched by a young journalist named Ashely Bates.  Ashley has been in Israel/Palestine on on a three month internship for Ha’aretz and in late March she entered Gaza to write free-lance. She’s pitching her articles to various publications - in the meantime her extensive reportage is available via her blog.

Ashley is an amazing and accomplished young woman. Before getting her journalism degree from Northwestern University, she spent two years working for the Peace Corps in Jordan (where she became fluent in Arabic.) She currently works as the Program Director for the Chicago area co-existence program Hands of Peace, which is where I originally had the pleasure of meeting her.

Bookmark her blog. It offers the kind of on-the-ground reportage from Gaza that you will never, ever find in the mainstream media.

An example:

I met today with a soft-spoken village man named Abu Ala’a who is suffering from a serious but treatable spinal condition which is causing him to slowly loose sensations in his limbs. He walks with a limp and can barely feel his left leg. His condition has reached a critical point, and if does not get emergency surgery within the month, he could suffer permanent paralysis, according to his doctor. The Gazan health ministry has requested permission from the Israeli, Egyptian and Jordanian authorities to have him treated abroad, because doctors in Gaza do not have the skills and equipment necessary for the delicate and dangerous operation.

Abu Ala’a wanted me to print his story in an Israeli newspaper because he hoped Israeli civilians might read my article and press the Israeli government to grant him a medical visa. He’s also considering one final, desperate option. “If there’s no other way, I’ll go through the tunnels,” he said, looking at the ground. “I know it’s dangerous, but not more dangerous than the danger of being disabled for the rest of my life.”