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.
If you are looking for ways to translate your outrage over Arizona’s anti-immigrant law into action, here is a list of companies based in Arizona that you should consider boycotting. Some prominent examples include:
– Arizona Diamondbacks, Location: Phoenix, Arizona
– Best Western International, Inc., Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona
– Cold Stone Creamery. Headquarters: Scottsdale, Arizona
– Grand Canyon
– P. F. Chang’s China Bistro. Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona
– PetSmart. Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona
– Sky Mall, Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona
– U-Haul. Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona
– US Airways. Headquarters: Tempe, Arizona
Click here to send a strongly worded message to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Click here to read a letter signed by 90 prominent organizations and individuals in the American Jewish community that was delivered this morning to congressional leaders. And if you live my home state, I encourage you to check out the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights website for more information and action opportunities.
While the American Jewish conversation on Israel-Palestine is filled with horrid and divisive rhetoric, it is heartening to read that a wide and diverse array of Jewish organizations have spoken out decisvely against the new Arizona anti-immigrant law:
The new law has been criticized by an array of Jewish groups, including the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Simon Wiesenthal Center, National Council of Jewish Women and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a public policy umbrella group comprised of the synagogue movements, several national groups and scores of local Jewish communities across North America.
Gideon Aronoff, the president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, who supports legislation like Schakowsky’s and that of Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), said he is working actively with other Jewish organizations to draft a broad statement condemning the federal government’s failure to enact comprehensive reform. HIAS also is coordinating with its partners in Arizona and anticipates that rallies, the filing of amicus briefs and other actions may be warranted in the near future.
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.
In his full-page ad in the NY Times, Elie Wiesel’s states that “Jerusalem is above politics.” This is either a statement of incredible naivete or a blatant attempt to make an exclusive Jewish claim over the city. I’m leaning toward the latter, because Wiesel then goes on to write in the very next sentence:
It is mentioned more than six hundred times in Scripture—and not a single time in the Koran.
That’s what I call using religion for patently political purposes.
Wiesel then goes on to write:
Contrary to certain media reports, Jews, Christians and Muslims ARE allowed to build their homes anywhere in the city.
Wiesel is either being fed misinformation or else he is purposely trying to mislead the public. Either way, his claim is simply not true. Please watch the film clip above very carefully and you will understand why.
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.
Ta’anit Tzedek’s next monthly fast day is Thursday, April 15. To mark the occasion we’ll be sponsoring the second monthly phone conference of our new initiative, Resisting the Siege: Conversations with Gazans.
This month our call will spotlight the Popular Achievement Program in Gaza – a project of the American Friends Service Committee. This remarkable program works with 14-17 year old Gazan children, instilling values of civic engagement and empowerment to achieve positive social transformation and sustainable development in their communities. As you can see from the clip above, these kinds of programs demonstrate the critical importance of strengthening Palestinian civil society. Initiatives such as the Popular Achievement Program – not blockades and bombs – are the true key to security for Gazans as well as Israelis.
On our call we will be joined by Popular Achievement director Amal Sabawi and two teenage program participants, Sarah and Roba Salipi, who will discuss how they live with the daily challenges of life in Gaza.
Here’s the call info:
Thursday, April 15, 12:00 pm EST
Toll Free Number: 1-800-868-1837
Direct Dial Number: 1-404-920-6440
Conference Code: 775326#
For those of you who live in the Chicagoland area, Ta’anit Tzedek will also be sponsoring a program, “Dignity Under Siege,” an evening of interfaith reflection, conversation and action on behalf of the citizens of Gaza. Our featured speaker will be Mark Braverman, a longtime advocate for peace and justice in Israel/Palestine and author of the recently published “Fatal Embrace: Christians, Jews, and the Search for Peace in the Holy Land.”
The gathering will take place at the Evanston Galleria, 1702 Sherman Avenue, Evanston, at 7:30 pm. Check the Ta’anit Tzedek website for more info.
Jewish settlement in Silwan, East Jerusalem (photo from Activestills)
The words “Next Year in Jerusalem” seriously stuck in my throat at seder this year.
I know that these words are largely a spiritual metaphor. I know that for centuries of Jewish history these words referred to a messianic vision of the future and not literal immigration. Still, given the political realities of the day, it’s just so very to difficult to separate spiritual metaphor from literal facts on the ground.
It was enormously difficult for me to proclaim “Next Year in Jerusalem” together with Jews the world over knowing that right now in Yerushalayim Shel Mata (“earthly Jerusalem”), non-Jewish residents are being evicted from their homes and the construction of Jewish residences are increasing with utter impunity. By any other name this would be called “ethnic cleansing,” and I have no trouble saying so.
Many will claim that Jews have a right to build houses anywhere that they please. That is not the issue. This issue, of course, is that Palestinians in Israel do not. Others will say that the government is only building in parts of Jerusalem that “everyone knows” will be always be part of Israel anyway. This is, in fact, exactly what Netanyahu claimed in his address at the recent AIPAC Policy Conference:
Everyone knows that these neighborhoods will be part of Israel in any peace settlement. Therefore, building them in no way precludes the possibility of a two-state solution.
This claim is hogwash. If you would like to know why, please read this article by Danny Seidemann and Lara Friedman, who understand the recent history and politics of Jerusalem better than just about anyone:
What Netanyahu really means is that East Jerusalem land falls into two categories: areas that “everybody knows” Israel will keep and where it can therefore act with impunity, and areas that Israel hopes it can keep, by dint of changing so many facts on the ground before a peace agreement is reached that they move into the first category.
It is an approach that can be summed up as: “what’s mine is mine, and what you think is yours will hopefully be mine, too.” It discloses with stark clarity the underlying principle of Netanyahu’s Jerusalem policies: the status of Jerusalem and its borders will be determined by Israeli deeds rather than by negotiations. More bluntly, who needs agreement with Palestinians or recognition of the international community when “everybody knows”?
And it is an approach that we see today on the ground, where Israel is doing its best — through construction, demolitions, changes in the public domain — to transform areas of East Jerusalem that have always been overwhelmingly Palestinian into areas that everybody will soon recognize as Israeli, now and forever. This is happening in the area surrounding the Old City, in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods like Ras al Amud and Jebel Mukabber, and it is now starting to target areas like Shuafat and Beit Hanina.
The notion that a peace process can survive such an Israeli approach in Jerusalem is not rational. The notion that Israel can be taken seriously as a peace partner while acting this way is farcical. And the notion that the United States can be a credible steward of peace efforts while tolerating such behavior is laughable.
Next year in a Jerusalem for all of its citizens…
Orly Halpern’s very wise piece in Foreign Policy:
For years now, official Israel has been scaring its people into believing Iran is near the ‘point of no return’ and the day it reaches it will be doomsday for Israel (of course, Israel’s estimated ‘point of no return’ dates continuously pass, prompting it to make new ones). But the Israeli establishment knows that there is no existential threat, that the Iranian regime is radical, but not suicidal; that if it is building weapons of mass destruction (WMD), it is in self-defense.
So why all the hype? Why the deception? The reasons are many, but they come down to money, politics, and security.
In other words:
Money: Israel’s military establishment is inflating Iran’s existential threat in order to obtain a bigger military budget.
Politics: Israeli politicians are using Iran to divert attention away from “thorny domestic problems at home.”
Security: Israel claims that Iran might share its nuclear know-how with “non-state actors.”
On this last point, Halpern concludes:
If Israel really does fear this prospect it needs the help of its allies, either to pressure or persuade Iran. So when Vice President Biden comes to town it is best not to embarrass him with the announcement of settlement expansions and then insist on making more announcements that deepen the rift; when Turkish television broadcasts a television series depicting Israel in an ugly manner, best not to humiliate the Turkish ambassador on Israeli television; when the Secretary General of the UN visits, best to send someone to greet him at the airport, and not just the security guards; and when Israel wants to make a revenge assassination for the killing of Israeli soldiers, best to let it go, rather than use fake passports of your allies (or don’t get caught).
Israel’s recent behavior is not conducive to achieving its stated goals. It must reassess its priorities and decide whether a settlement in the West Bank, the humiliation of diplomats, and the killing of an arms smuggler are more important than its security.
At the end of the day, Israel needs help if it wants to remain the only kid on the block with a big stick.
Ta’anit Tzedek – Jewish Fast for Gaza has begun a new initiative: “Resisting the Siege: Conversations With Gazans.” On each monthly fast day (the third Thursday of every month) we will convene a conference call featuring a Gazan Palestinian who will discuss his/her experience of life in Gaza, the effects of the siege, and how we can best support efforts to lift the blockade.
Our next conference call will take place this Thursday, March 18, at 1:00 pm EST and will feature Sami Abdel Shafi (above) an independent political analyst and writer who lives in Gaza. In addition, we will hear from Cindy and Craig Corrie whose daughter Rachel was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in 2003 as she tried to protect a Gazan Palestinian home from demolition.
In an article he wrote for The Guardian last December, Mr. Abdel Shafi wrote eloquently about the nature of the crisis facing Gaza:
Almost nothing has been more deceitful than casting Gaza as a humanitarian case. This is becoming exponentially more problematic a year after the war. Gaza urgently needs far more than merely those items judged by the Israeli military as adequate to satisfy Gaza’s humanitarian needs. This list of allowable items is tiny compared to people’s needs for a minimally respectable civil life.
Gaza is not treated humanely; the immediate concerns about the situation have clearly given way to long-term complacency, while failed politics has now become stagnant. The humanitarian classification conceals the urgent need to address this. Moreover, many in the international community have conveniently resorted to blaming Palestinians for their political divisions, as though they were unrelated to Israel’s policies – most notably Gaza’s closure after Israeli disengagement in 2005.
I also encourage you to read this piece, in which Abdel Shafi discusses the challenges facing the Palestianian Authority during this latest incarnation of the peace process.
The Corries (left) will be joining our call from Haifa where they are currently participating in the hearing of a civil suit they have brought against the Government of Israel. Following Rachel’s death, the Israeli government promised the Bush administration a thorough, credible and transparent investigation of Rachel’s killing. Now seven years later, no such investigation has taken place.
On a recent interview with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman, the Corries spoke at length about their seven year quest in search of justice and accountability for their daughter’s death:
This is a culmination, really, of seven years of our family searching for some sort of justice in the killing of Rachel. And we’ve tried to do that through diplomatic means, and we’ve asked for a US-led investigation into Rachel’s killing. We also understand that the Israelis, through Prime Minister Sharon, promised President Bush a thorough, credible and transparent investigation of Rachel’s killing. But, by our own government’s measure, that has not happened. So we’re left with simply a civil lawsuit.
So, we’re accusing the state of Israel of either intentionally killing Rachel or guilty of gross negligence in her killing seven years ago. And so, we’re seeking—the only thing you can seek in a civil case is damages. You know, so it’s really a very small part of the story that’s gone on in our lives. But it’s critical to have our time in court.
Our motivation for that was largely that it is an avenue which we understood we would be able to pursue and get information. So, through the discovery process, we were hoping to get a good deal of information. We have gotten some, but they’ve used sort of secrets of state to keep us, block us, from getting other evidence into court. But we’re going forward, and we’re very hopeful that we will get a fair trial.
Today is, in fact, the seventh anniversary of Rachel Corrie’s death. I strongly encourage you to check The Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice website to learn how you can honor her memory. We might also heed the words of Craig Corrie (again, from the Democracy Now interview):
(One) other very specific thing that people could do, and I’m calling for people to do—the US government has come out against the blockade or the continued occupation and siege on Gaza. The children that were behind the wall that Rachel stood in front of are still under a state of siege. And I think that, very specifically, people around the world and certainly in this country could write, call or fax the White House and say, not only should we be working to have the Israelis lift that siege, but if they continue to be unwilling to do so, then the United States should come in there, work out a way that they could come in and—the Berlin airlift, it sent a message to the world about our ability to protect people around the world and our willingness to do so. If we did something similar by sea to the Gaza Strip, it would change the view of Americans around the world for maybe another fifty years. It is something that’s doable, and it’s something that the people out, your fans, could actually physically do and ask the White House to do that.
To participate in the conference call:
Dial-in Number: 1-517-417-5200 (caller pays any phone charges)
Participant Access Code: 860453
Questions for Conference Call: If you would like to suggest a question for Mr. Abdel Shafi or for Cindy or Craig Corrie, please email your question to rabbrianwalt@gmail.com or ravboaz@comcast.net no later than Wednesday night.
Shalom Rav 
