Monthly Archives: February 2010

An Israeli Voice of Sanity on Iran

4 Replies

Avner Cohen asks exactly the right questions in a Ha’aretz editorial:

What if our leaders and pundits had reacted to the Iranian nuclear program in a completely different way than they actually have? What if they had not viewed an Iranian bomb as an “existential threat” and instead treated it as something that, even if it became a reality, would be a major global political problem, but not a military threat – because Iran (like every other nuclear state) would never be able to use a nuclear bomb as an operational military weapon?

What if Israel had treated Iran’s nuclear project as an exhibitionist, even childish, attempt by a nation mired in a deep identity crisis to exploit the prestige and mystique of nuclear power to create a national ethos of technological progress at home, as well as a diplomatic miracle cure that would enable it to challenge the West and move to the center of the international stage?

And his answers are spot on. Click here to read.

Tel Aviv: “One of Your Own Kind, Stick to Your Own Kind…”

18 Replies

In past posts I’ve raised questions about the implications inherent in the establishment of a Jewish state – and the problems that invariably seem to arise in relations with Israel’s non-Jewish citizens and residents.

How do we American Jews  react, for instance, when we read that Israel is concerned about a “demographic threat” to the Jewish state? (That is to say, what would we say if  our President raised questions about the “demographic threat” of a particular minority group to the “American character” of our country?)

And now:  what would we say if an American city funded a campaign to discourage girls from dating or marrying boys from another ethnic group?

From Coteret (an Israeli news/media aggregator):

Maariv reported reported on February 23 that the Tel Aviv municipality  launched  a “counselling program” to “help”  Jewish girls who date and/or marry Arab boys.

Grassroots and governmental campaigning against interfaith mingling is  nothing new in Israel…But this is the first time officially sanctioned racism, funded by taxpayers, has come to Tel Aviv, Israel’s liberal heartland.

I’m not asking these questions to “bash Israel.”  I’m genuinely concerned by certain realities that seem intrinsic to ethnocracies. If we truly do cherish values inherent to American civil democracy, how do we react to news such as this?   Do we simply put these values on the shelf out of our desire for a Jewish state?  Or can we understand these kinds of measures in a way that is consonant with our most essential civic beliefs (beliefs, by the way that have been quite kind to the American Jewish community)?

And if not, then how will we respond?

The Politics of Archaeology Unearthed

17 Replies

This just in from AP:

An Israeli archaeologist said Monday that ancient fortifications recently excavated in Jerusalem date back 3,000 years to the time of King Solomon and support the biblical narrative about the era.

If the age of the wall is correct, the finding would be an indication that Jerusalem was home to a strong central government that had the resources and manpower needed to build massive fortifications in the 10th century B.C.

Just dig a little deeper, however and the plot thickens even more. The researcher in question is Eilat Mazar (above), an old school Israeli archaeologist whose essential goal is to prove the historical veracity of the Bible.  She’s made no bones (sorry) about this over the years.  In a 2006 interview with Moment Magazine, she made this very telling comment:

One of the many things I learned from my grandfather was how to relate to the biblical text. Pore over it again and again, for it contains within it descriptions of genuine historical reality.  I work with the Bible in one hand and the tools of excavation in the other. That’s what biblical archaeologists do. The Bible is the most important historical source and therefore deserves special attention.

The only problem with this is that the Bible is not a history book – it’s religious literature.  There certainly may be kernels of historical fact to be found in these narratives, but I’d say it’s exceedingly problematic for an archaeologist to assume ipso facto the historical veracity of the Bible.  Mazar’s comment that she works with a Bible in one hand and her tools in the other speaks volumes about her fundamental bias.

It’s also noteworthy that Mazar worked until recently for the Shalem Center, a partisan Israeli think-tank.  Among other things, the Shalem Center believes archeology should support “the claim that the Bible can be viewed as a work whose historical narrative is in large part accurate, and (strengthen) the ancient connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel.”

It’s striking to compare Mazar’s approach to that of Israel Finkelstein, who comes from a new school of Israeli archaeologists who are aren’t driven by political ideology and are willing to go wherever their research takes them.   In a nutshell, Finkelstein and his colleagues have argued convincingly that it’s impossible to say much of anything about ancient Israel until the 7th century BCE (around the time of the reign of King Josiah). This casts doubt on the historical veracity of the Biblical narrative from the period of the Patriarchs/Matriarchs through the reigns of David and Solomon. These claims have largely been accepted as normative by most mainstream archaeologists outside of Israel.

If you are interested the current thinking of Israeli researchers who are unfazed by nationalist bias, I highly recommend Finkelstein’s 2002 book (with Neal Asher Silberman), “The Bible Unearthed.” Also check out this 2001 piece from Salon, which explores the deeper socio-political implications of Israeli archeology.

Ajami: A Review

1 Reply

Just saw “Ajami,” the Israeli entry for Best Foreign Language film, over the weekend. I recommend it highly, though it’s not a movie for the emotionally faint of heart.

“Ajami” is a crime drama with a “Babel”- like structure – it unfolds in five chapters, each telling a separate narrative from the point of view of different characters. It portrays a powerfully claustrophobic world, in which ordinary people struggle to better their lives against exceedingly tall odds.

Almost everyone in this film is trapped in some sense. At least two of the film’s protagonists are literally house-bound: one is being targeted for murder by a Bedouin gang and the other is a resident of the occupied West Bank working on the other side of the Green Line. Another character, an Israeli policeman, is searching in vain for his brother who has gone ominously missing. There are also two fatally star-crossed love affairs: one between a Palestinian and a Jewish Israeli and another between an Arab Muslim and an Arab Christian.

More than anything else, I experienced this film as a portrait of ethnic and religious communities in constant, tragic collision with one another. At times, it’s sometimes difficult to keep all of the complicated rivalries straight. There is tension between Bedouins and Palestinian Arabs, Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinian residents of the Occupied Territories, citizens of Arab Jaffa and citizens of Jewish Tel Aviv, Arab Muslims and Arab Christians. The Israel portrayed here is not simply a Jewish state – it is nothing less than a simmering multi-ethnic powder keg.

As a portrait of Israeli society, it’s a decidedly non-redemptive vision. You watch the drama play out, knowing deep down that nothing good will possibly come of any of this. And yet what I loved about this film its genuine heart. You can’t help feel a deep compassion for the humanity of these characters, no matter how flawed or broken they are. Even though it’s technically a crime drama, there are really no heroes and villains in “Ajami” per se – just ordinary, imperfect individuals doing their best to survive under increasingly dire circumstances.

I’m sure there will be those who understand this film as a reflection of the hopeless political situation in Israel/Palestine. But I think the true genius of the film is how it works on so many levels: as a crime thriller, a family drama, or a slice of socio-political commentary. Whichever way you choose to take it, it’s not a pretty picture. As befits a film directed jointly by a Jewish Israeli and a Christian Palestinian, however, it’s an exceedingly courageous statement.

What the US Should Do About Iran

2 Replies

Some of you may have noticed that I’ve been engaging in a bit of lively back and forth with one reader over my 2008 Yom Kippur sermon on Iran. I haven’t posted on Iran in some time, but that certainly doesn’t mean I’m not following developments there with great interest.

I do believe the Islamic regime’s increasingly brutal crackdown on human rights is a sign that it is taking the challenge of the Green Movement very, very seriously.  For our part, the the US administration appears somewhat paralyzed – issuing tepid statements, wary of throwing too much support to the Greens lest they get accused of meddling in Iranian politics yet again.  Meanwhile, the regime-change drumbeats of the right continue to grow ominously louder and louder.

Still, it would be mistaken and foolhardy to assume the only choice we have is between doing nothing and doing too much. In this regard, I commend to you this very insightful and helpful article by Dr. Trita Parsi and Alireza Nader of the National Iranian American Council.

Here’s my edited version:

(Between) the extremes of doing nothing and doing everything, there is a middle ground: providing the Iranian pro-democracy movement with breathing space, rather than engaging in risky and imprecise exercises that would directly involve America as an actor on the Iranian scene. The United States can achieve this through a few simple steps.

First, the United States should tread carefully when it comes to issuing military threats. Under the shadow of a foreign military threat, the uphill battle of the Iranian pro-democracy movement becomes even steeper, as the Iranian regime is quite adept at exploiting foreign threats to stifle criticism at home…

Second, the United States should avoid sanctions that put a burden on the Iranian people, rather than the Iranian government. Broad-based sanctions that hit the entire economy hurt common citizens far more than the powerful elites. Any new sanctions should demonstrate not only international discontent with the conduct of the Tehran government, but also an effort by the United States to keep from harming average Iranians…

Third, Washington should slow down the diplomatic process. Negotiation with Iran in and of itself is not the problem; engagement doesn’t legitimize the Iranian government, as only the people of Iran can do that. But in spite of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s latest offer to accept the International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear deal, Iran remains in political turmoil. It is questionable that Tehran can make enduring decisions on issues of this magnitude under these circumstances…

Fourth, the international community, including the White House and U.S. State Department, should be vocal in excoriating Iran’s human rights abuses. Condemning abuses should not be confused with interfering in internal Iranian affairs…The Iranian government is, perhaps surprisingly, very sensitive in this area, due to its ambition to be perceived as a regional leader. This sensitivity should be utilized to make advances on the human rights front in Iran…

Finally, Washington should exercise patience and view Iran as a long-term factor in shaping U.S. national security interests across the Middle East. The green movement will not and cannot adjust its action plan to suit the U.S. political timetable. But if patience is granted – which includes avoiding a singular focus on the nuclear issue at the expense of all other considerations – Washington will access a far greater potential for change.

Thank You, Rep. Baird

3 Replies

Yet another American political voice calls to lift the Gaza blockade. From yesterday’s NY Times:

The United States should break Israel’s blockade of Gaza and deliver badly needed supplies by sea, a U.S. congressman told Gaza students.

Rep. Brian Baird, a Democrat from Washington state, also urged President Barack Obama’s Mideast envoy to visit the Hamas-ruled territory to get a firsthand look at the destruction caused by Israeli’s military offensive last year.

Rep. Baird’s statement on Gaza, from his website:

(Rocketing) from Gaza doesn’t necessarily mean that any response, regardless of scope, target or impact on civilians, is necessarily justified, moral or strategically prudent.  This kind of misleading duality itself reflects the thinking, on both sides, that can make peace so hard to achieve and violence so easy to justify.  The fact is, there were and are many alternative responses possible and it is a false dichotomy to suggest, as some have, that if one criticizes the actions taken by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank then one is necessarily ignoring the rocket attacks from Gaza or somehow siding with or enabling terrorists.

In my judgment what has happened in Gaza and what goes on in the West Bank every day endangers U.S. integrity and security and ultimately strengthens hard line extremists at the expense of moderates and to the detriment of long term Israeli security.   I also believe, having traveled and met with people throughout the region, that this adverse effect is not confined to Palestine but extends to varying degrees throughout the Islamic world and beyond.

I understand that people may disagree strongly with this perspective, but I am certainly not alone in expressing it.  Many people have contacted my office to convey support for what we have said about our visit and this includes many friends of Israel within our own country.

Click here to thank Rep. Baird for his courage.

Elie Wiesel Can’t Have it Both Ways

14 Replies

Elie Wiesel has long walked the tightrope between pious pronouncements of universal Jewish conscience and unabashed political advocacy. He’s been trying to have it both ways for years, but it seems to me that his balancing act is becoming more and more transparent.

Last week, as Wiesel unveiled an anti-Ahmadinejad ad with other Nobel Prize laureates, he blasted the Goldstone report, calling it “a crime against the Jewish people.”  Leaving aside the issue that he took this opportunity once again to speak on behalf of the entire Jewish people, I’m still somewhat staggered that Wiesel, of all people, would use such charged Holocaust rhetoric in such a patently political manner. (I think Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olam hit it right on the head when he asked, “What was the last event in world history you can recall being a ‘crime against the Jewish people?'”)

If this wasn’t enough, now I read on Max Blumenthal’s blog that Wiesel’s foundation received $500,000.00 for one speech he delivered at the church of fundamentalist Christian Zionist John Hagee (whom he referred to as “my dear pastor.”) Yes, this is the same John Hagee who publicly sermonized that Hitler was sent by God to create the Holocaust so that Jews would emigrate to Israel.  It’s simply astonishing to me that so many Jewish leaders are perfectly willing to cozy up to the likes of Hagee even after it has become so patently clear that his views are way off the rails. (That’s Wiesel, above, with Hagee, right, and Israeli minister Uzi Landau, left).

As far as I’m concerned, Justice Richard Goldstone is precisely the kind of courageous Jewish moral hero that Wiesel himself purports to be: someone committed to advocating for universal human rights even when doing so might mean holding our own community painfully to account.  As for Wiesel, I’m finding his words and actions increasingly craven. No one begrudges him his opinions – but it’s time he dropped the pretense that he’s somehow beyond the political fray.

More Join the Call to Lift the Blockade

2 Replies

When Brian Walt and I initiated the Jewish Fast for Gaza last year, advocating for a lifting of the Gaza blockade was not a particularly popular thing to do. I’m gratified to see that situation is beginning to change.

I’ve already reported on the Ha’aretz editorial; and now MJ Rosenberg, a respected Mideast analyst/columnist has recently made a forceful call to end the blockade as well.  In the political arena, 77 members of the British House of Commons have done the same through the introduction of an Early Day Motion. Here in the US, 54 members of Congress recently wrote a letter to President Obama that called for a lifting of the blockade, citing its dire strategic and humanitarian effects:

The unabated suffering of Gazan civilians highlights the urgency of reaching a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we ask you to press for immediate relief for the citizens of Gaza as an urgent component of your Middle East peace efforts.

Several American Jewish organizations have publicly supported the letter and I was happy to learn that J Street actively lobbied members of Congress to sign on.  Take a look at all 54 signatories of the letter – if your Rep is not on the list, please consider contacting him/her to express your disappointment. (For my part, I’m very disappointed that my Rep, Jan Schakowsky – an active and vocal supporter of J St. – chose not to sign on).

Finally, if you agree with the sentiments expressed above, please sign on as a supporter of Ta’anit Tzedek – Jewish Fast for Gaza. Our next fast day is Thursday, February 18.

Rosenberg: BDS May Be Inevitable

6 Replies

MJ Rosenberg, a Mideast analyst I’ve respected for years, has just written a powerful blog post entitled, “Are Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations Finished?”  His words are particularly meaningful, I believe, coming from someone who is firmly ensconced in the mainstream liberal Zionist camp.

He opens with an all-too familiar concern: that Israel’s suicidal path of settlement expansion will soon make the possibility of a viable Palestinian state impossible (if it hasn’t already).

Then he takes this concern to its next logical conclusion, articulating what most two-staters are generally too frightened to say out loud:

What would happen is that the Palestinians would go to the United Nations, to the European Union, and even to the United States to seek ..consequences. And these would most likely come in the demand for sanctions. There is already a burgeoning BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement that is seeking to bring down the occupation the way a similar movement brought down apartheid.

Is this what Israelis want? Do they really want those concerned about the occupation to be forced to turn to an option this extreme?

I know that the last thing I want is a successful international movement that would boycott and sanction Israel as if it was apartheid South Africa. But it’s probably inevitable unless Israelis come to their senses and begin the process of ending the occupation while the decision is still theirs to make.

In other words, sooner than later we’ll have to choose between a Jewish state and basic, fundamental human rights.  It’s not the first time we’ve heard sentiments such as this, but when they come from people like Rosenberg, it’s a sign that the lines on this issue are inexorably shifting.

The Sick Slandering of NIF

11 Replies

In my last post I addressed the sliming of J Street.  I’m so sorry to report on yet another slanderous campaign against a respectable Jewish organization.

The New Israel Fund, a institution that has long supported social justice efforts in Israel is now being viciously attacked by a right-wing ultra-nationalist group called Im Tirtzu (a shadow organization that apparently has connections to Christian Zionist leader Pastor John Hagee).

The most sickening aspect of their campaign is a full-page ad run in the Israeli press attacking NIF President Naomi Chazan. (See right: the anti-Semitic overtones of this image are truly astonishing, especially coming from a group that purports to support the State of Israel.)

This issue has been well covered in the Jewish blogosphere. For more info I recommend reports by Noam Sheizaf in Promised Land and Richard Silverstein in Tikun Olam. Click here to read a response by NIF CEO Daniel Sokatch – I also encourage you to click here to support the NIF.

(Yesterday, I received an email from a congregant that read “what the hell is going on in Israel?”  I’m asking the very same question…)