A Note and Request to My Readers who Receive My Posts in Their Email

The email version of my posts is generated around a day after I write it. So when I wrote in my post below that the US media had not covered the story of the boats that arrived in Gaza, that was true when I looked at Google News. Apparently I checked a bit early because there was an article later in the New York Times here, as well as in a few other papers.

The lag may have something to do with deadlines, but the fact remains that there were more pieces in the European media about the boats, and at earlier times, than in the US media. And I don't think that is explained merely by American parochialism and time-zones. US newspapers rarely write about Israeli human rights violations; occasionally you will see an article about the settlements or the security fence; less frequently, something about Gaza. In my message below I said "ask Walt and Mearsheimer" but what I really meant to say is that the the US media is anchored deeply in the Zionist consensus; on this you can see my post here.

Don't get me wrong; some of my best friends and family are political Zionists. But until people know what really goes on over here, the suffering will continue.

And now my request -- if you get my posts via email, can you just drop me a line telling me so at jeremiah.haber@gmail.com. For reasons that baffle me I cannot determine how many people subscribe via email.

Thanks.

A Gut Vokh (A Good Week) – Welcome to Gaza, S.S. Liberty and S.S. Free Gaza

Nice news greeted me when I turned on my computer as soon as Shabbat was over in Israel – the S.S. Liberty and S.S. Free Gaza made it to Gaza. Israel decided not to stop the boats, lest that attract more publicity for the voyage. For Israel's reaction, see here. For the BBC account see here

So, welcome to Gaza, activists. I hope that others take up the idea. Yours was a small symbolic gesture, but such things are meaningful, especially for the Gazans.

I note, unsurprised, that virtually none of the US media have picked up the story yet. And I don't think it is because of the Joe Biden story, either. Mind you, the initiative came from the US, and US activists were behind getting the boats. So why are stories like this ignored in the US, despite the fact that there is clear human interest of breaking the Naval blockade of Israel?

Ask Walt and Mearsheimer.

Michael Oren’s Purim Torah in June

If you need to have a good laugh before Shabbat, read Michael Oren's take on the Israel-Hamas truce/cease-fire agreement in the Wall Street Journal here

I have no problem with the title, "Israel's Truce with Hamas is a Victory for Iran." I am sure that Oren would have liked Israel to repeat America's success in Iraq with a "rolling, multi-month operation."

No, what amuses me so much is Oren's narrative of the "tragedy". Here is what he writes:

"The roots of this tragedy go back to the summer of 2005 and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The evacuation, intended to free Israel of Gaza's political and strategic burden, was hailed as a victory by Palestinian terrorist groups, above all Hamas.

"Hamas proceeded to fire some 1,000 rocket and mortar shells into Israel. Six months later Hamas gunmen, taking advantage of an earlier cease-fire, infiltrated into Israel, killed two soldiers, and captured Cpl. Gilad Shalit.

"Hamas's audacity spurred Hezbollah to mount a similar ambush against Israelis patrolling the Lebanese border, triggering a war in which Israel was once again humbled. Hamas now felt sufficiently emboldened to overthrow Gaza's Fatah-led government, and to declare itself regnant in the Strip. Subsequently, Hamas launched thousands more rocket and mortar salvos against Israel, rendering parts of the country nearly uninhabitable.

"In response, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) air strikes and limited ground incursions killed hundreds of armed Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel earned international censure for collateral civilian deaths and "disproportionate" tactics. Israel also imposed a land and sea blockade of Gaza, strictly controlling its supply of vital commodities such as a gasoline. But the policy enabled Hamas to hoard the fuel and declare a humanitarian crisis."

Like most Israeli apologists, Oren denies the Jews effective agency in their encounter with the Palestinians. Jews almost never take the initiative; they only respond. Hence it is wrong to look for the roots of the tragedy in the Israeli support of Hamas during the eighties by the Israelis, or the war against Hamas during the nineties, or the response of the Israelis to the Second Intifada, which crippled Fatah, or the sanctions against Hamas after they won democratic elections promoted by the US and Israel. These points are unimportant because the Palestinian actions and attitudes toward Israel are independent of anything Israel may do to them; they are born of MUSLIM ANTISEMITISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM that needs no external impetus. From Oren's account, it would seem that Israel never fought against Hamas before 2007, or even pressured them. Only after Hamas took over the Gaza strip – "emboldened by Israel's failure in Lebanon" (apparently, Hamas has no internal-Palestinian agenda, either)-- did Israel launch air strikes.

Oren doesn't talk about targeted assassinations, or sanctions, or shelling, or incursions, or about Israel's virtually complete control over the economic life of the Gaza strip. He doesn't talk about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza from 2000 on. He doesn't talk about Israel's kidnapping soldiers (or violating Lebanese sovereignty with fly overs.)

The Gaza evacuation is the exception that proves the rule -- because that was a deliberately unilateral move that excluded the Palestinians. Oren can make a silly statement about Hamas leaders being able to walk freely in Gaza while children in Sderot cower in bomb shelters. If there are Hamas leaders like that, it is only because the four previous generations of Hamas leaders were blown apart by Israeli shells.

I know enough not to listen to Oren's new and revisionist history. I read the papers when the events happened. But some Israelis actually believe this junk.

I am going to keep Oren's article for when Obama pulls out of Iraq. Now, that will be a victory for al-Qaeda, right?

Shabbat in Kibbutz Saad

Thursday night my wife's nephew got married to a wonderful young lady, who lives in Kibbutz Saad. The wedding was in the kibbutz, and our family was invited to spend Shabbat there.

Kibbutz Saad was founded in 1947 by German orthodox Jews; it is one of the oldest religious kibbutzim in Israel. During the 1948 war it relocated to the other side of the road, and over the years, it became known for its produce, especially its carrots. My nephew's bride's grandfather was a founding member of the kibbutz and still lives there. Her father is one of the kibbutz leaders; her mother is a noted orthodox feminist (No, that is not an oxymoron, though everything is relative.)

My family was a bit nervous about going to the wedding. After all, Saad is within the range of Kassam rockets and mortal shells from Gaza, and has been shelled quite a number of times over the last seven years. On Friday morning, after the wedding, 4 mortar shells fell in the area, 1 in Kibbutz Kfar Azza, around a kilometer away. We weren't at Saad at the time, but two of our children were, and they heard the big boom. (There is an article in today's YNET about folks from Kfar Azza leaving the kibbutz for the Shavuot holiday, which starts Sunday night; the kibbutz is about a kilometer from Saad. Read about it here.) If you are in Gaza, and you are firing rockets, it makes more sense to aim at Kfar Azza, since it is closer. But they often miss. Everybody knows about Sderot, since that town is in the news all the time, but the firing is not just against Sderot. On Friday three other shells fell in the area around, doing no serious damage; the day before an Israeli was killed.

Of course, it is insane that the "border war" – really, a war of our indiscriminate shelling of civilians vs. their indiscriminate shelling of civilians, continues unabated for years. I am not going to point fingers in this post, although readers know where I would point. People on both sides of the border are psychologically rattled, although, let's face it, the Gazans' suffering is incomparable to that of the Israelis by any measure. But it is no picnic for the Israelis within rocket range.

We came, held our breath and left. When we got out of range, we breathed a collective sigh of relief. I can imagine what it would be like to live under constant threat of having a mortal shell land on your house. I cannot imagine what it would be like to live in Gaza where, in addition, to all the other daily problems of scarcity of food, polluted water, unemployment that is a result of the Israel's open-ended siege, one also has to live in constant fear not only of rockets and mortar shells, but helicopter shooting, planes, tanks, etc. I am told that people can adapt to the most horrible situations. But it is still incomprehensible.

 

 

 

Academic Boycotts, Anyone?

Last Fall I posted my opinions pro and con the academic boycott against Israel. See it here. In brief: I am pro, if it works; con, if it doesn't. My "default mode" is academic freedom, but academic freedom is conditional on other freedoms and is not absolute. That's a philosophically respectable position, but so is absolutism. The views of those who are absolutely opposed to limits on academic freedom cannot be easily dismissed. They and I will argue over where and when to draw the line.

So I expect the absolutists on the left and on the right to come out loud and clear against the curtailment of academic freedom for Gazans. Some, such as Natan Sharansky, have done so already here Rabbi Melchior of the religious left-leaning Meimad party, has even drawn comparisons between historical attempts to prevent Jews from studying and the Israeli government's attempt to bar Gazans from studying. He is the only religious Tzadik in Sedom (righteous person in Sodom) on this issue.

Not everybody is an absolutist like Sharansky and Melchior. Yuval Steinitz was quoted as saying,

We are fighting the regime in Gaza that does its utmost to kill our citizens and destroy our schools and our colleges. So I don’t think we should allow students from Gaza to go anywhere. Gaza is under siege, and rightly so, and it is up to the Gazans to change the regime or its behavior.”

It would have been more appropriate (and truthful) for him to say:

It is in Israel's long-term security interest to have Islamist regimes on our borders who will blow up Jews and bomb out towns. That way we can arouse the sympathy of the world and control Gaza and the West Bank forever. For this reason we helped create Hamas. The last thing we want is the creation of a strong and decent Palestinian civil society which will put pressure on Israel to compromise

But, frankly, Steinitz -- who has a phd in philosophy, which just goes to show that you can study that discipline and still have a mushy brain -- doesn't see where his reasoning leads to.

It was one thoughtful blogger, a "Wisconsin Yankee" sociologist currently in Israel, who pointed out that Steinitz's reasoning was precisely the same as those who advocate an academic boycott against Israel -- i..e, those who argue that the curtailment of academic exchange is a legitimate tactic in order to change a repressive and unjust government.

The Wisconsin Yankee is on the side of the absolutists. Does this mean that I am on the side of (shudder!) Yuval Steinitz and the boycotters, who obviously are not absolutists on academic freedom?

The answer is yes and no. Yes, I am not an absolutist; no, I still think are mistaken when they defend the curtailment of academic freedoms. I have written about how the academic boycott against Israel has not yet worked; it has backfired precisely because it provokes the absolutist response. I am waiting to see how the boycott tactic will development. My hunch is that we shall return to the boycott at a later date and that, ultimately, it will be implemented with the approval of many. Till then, I will write nothing against it.

With respect to the educational boycott against Gaza, the question again is tactical. If Israel genuinely want a two-state solution, it will support policies that will help encourage that. So allowing Gazans to attend institutes of higher education is a no-brainer policy that even a Sharansky can favor. The fact that Gazans have been prevented for seven years to do precisely that shows how abysmally short-sighted Israel's policy is.

It also shows how liberals will wake up only when they read about unjust policies in the New York Times. The Fullbright fellowship cancellation is just the latest of oppressive measures against the Palestinians in Gaza, including not allowing Gazans to pursue post baccalaureate higher education.

I should also mention that here is a big difference between a call for a limited boycott from a voluntary association, and a military curtailment of civil rights, including the right to education.

The March to Folly in Gaza

Israel lost the war in Lebanon before it started; it has now lost the war in Gaza before it started. There is no way that Israel can stop the Kassam and Grad Katyusha rockets from being fired because they are highly portable. It can, of course, do damage to missile-factories and to launchers, but unless it were to sit in Gaza for months, perhaps, years, it could not end the missiles.

It can reduce the level of fighting to a relatively low-level conflict, which is in its interest. As long as Kassams are being lobbed at Sderot on a relatively infrequent basis, Olmert has no pressure to include Hamas or Gaza in peace negotiations. Of course, he will be voted out of office, but that is inevitable anyway; Sharon is the only prime minister in recent memory who was not voted out of office.

It seems that the military strategy is to kill a lot of civilians, but not too many, and then to lie about it. That makes the Palestinians hurt (deterrence) while keeping the world off Israel's back. Thus Gabi Ashkenazi said that 90% of the Palestinian casualties were militants. B'Tselem has said that it is close to 50%. In cases like these, the IDF lies for the sake of Israel's image.

If Israel wants to stop the Kassams -- and I sincerely doubt it -- then they will have to pay a diplomatic price to Hamas, just as they had to pay a diplomatic price to Hizbollah. The price will be lower, and the talk will be quiet, but it will be there. Tzipi Livni can go around saying that there will be no compromise with Hamas -- fine and dandy -- but there will be in the future, just as there has been in the past.

Israel must enter into agreements with Hamas just as they have entered into agreements with Hizbollah. Call them "understandings"; call them what you will, but as long as Hamas has the power and support that it does, then it is a player.

What we are seeing in Gaza is what we have seen in Iraq. Although the Iraqis were upset with Saddam Hussein, and very upset with the anarchy of the occupation, they blame the foreign occupiers in addition to blaming rival sectarian groups. Israel is in a no-win situation, the same no-win situation she has been in since the failure of Oslo (and before.) Both sides may take a pause from the fighting and lick their wounds. But as long as the Kassams are being fired, and as long as Israel fails to stop them militarily, the Israeli public will not accept Olmert's excuses. Killing Palestinians makes most Israelis I know feel good -- revenge is a natural emotion -- but not stopping the Kassams make them feel worse. Being shelled by little pishers like the Palestinians (or the Hizbollah) drives them crazy, the same way that being stung by mosquitoes drive elephants crazy. And killing Palestinians, though it helps to ease the pain, just doesn't heal the wounds of national pride. That is why the Israeli public believes that Israel lost the second Lebanon war, despite Israel's rampant destruction of Lebanon. True, the two situations are not the same, and Israel had less understanding from the world about Lebanon than it does about Gaza. But that understanding will evaporate quickly. When it comes to Israel, the line about "disproportionate use of force" is now hardwired into every diplomat's brain.

An Israeli Joke That Sounds Better in Hebrew

Two Israeli Jews meet each other on the street:

-Oy, Shimon, this business in Sderot is awful. How come we can't stop those Kassam rockets?

-Nu, we are afraid of the Americans. Now here's what we should do. We should drop leaflets over Gaza saying that we will give them five days to stop the Kassams. We wait five days, and then if the Kassams don't stop, we bomb the hell out of them.

--Why wait five days? Why not bomb them now?

--Nu, there's no need to exaggerate.

I was reminded of this joke when I read one of the Letters to the Editor in Haaretz today, which seriously proposed "Shimon's" solution. From the style and tenor of the letter, it seems to have been written by an older gentlemen. He may have sent it by email, but I like to think that he typed the letter, put in an envelope, went to the post office, and sent it Haaretz to do his little bit for the security of the Jewish state.

I hope I don't exaggerate if I suggest that this sums up the moral reasoning of many Israelis.

I don't mean to say that most Israelis advocate "bombing the hell out of Gaza". Many would approve of less drastic measures, such as cutting off their electricity and fuel supply. But the reasoning goes like this: "We could, if we wanted to, flatten Gaza. The reason that we don't is that we are Jews, and therefore generous, and exceedingly moral, and while we would be justified in taking such drastic measures -- such is the world we live in -- that is not what Jews do."

That is probably the self-image of most people claiming to be moral. But as a Jew among Jews, I am most familiar with the Jewish version.

For much of their history, the Jews have suffered from what I call "moral chauvinism", the belief that they are morally superior to others. It is an affliction that affects all civilizations -- it certainly affected Christianity and Islam -- but I am most familiar with the Jewish version, which may be particularly intense, primarily because the Jews lacked other ways to assert their superiority. As the Talmud says, the Gentiles may have Wisdom, but only the Jews have Torah, which is the moral and spiritual code par excellence.

Without power, moral chauvinism is relatively harmless. But combine it with power, and a religious or a nationalist ideology, and you have a recipe for disaster.

One of the most fascinating aspects of David Ben-Gurion's personality was his deeply-held moral convictions, and his belief in Judaism's fundamental morality. Unlike some of his Israeli contemporaries, he did not chafe at what he considered to be the moral requirements of Judaism, or of humanity as a whole. This is, I believe, what brought him close to Judah Magnes, whom he admired, and who admired him. But, like so many other Jews, he refused to be held account morally by the goyim, and he was always able to justify his actions (though not always the actions of his close associates); his regret, when shown, was always too little and late (His disciple, President Shimon Peres, has followed him closely in this; witness his expressions of regret this past weekend for the massacre of the Kfar Kassem villagers by the IDF a half-century ago.)

The difficulty with the appeals to morality is that in wartime, what seems "reasonable", or "morally justifiable," or "a moderate response" is tremendously skewed. That is why we have international laws and conventions on war. One can hardly think of an aggressor state in modern times that did not have a battery of judges, lawyers, and philosophers, who would patiently and convincingly attempt to justify the aggressions of their clients. International law and conventions on war attempt to provide a neutral space in which arguments can be heard and decided.

Of course, even with international law, the offending states have lawyers, and the system of justice and sanctions is often ineffective. Look at the case of Israel's security/land grab fence/wall that was condemned roundly by the International Criminal Court but still stands today. But as bad as the situation is, the alternative is to return to the utter lawlessness of the twentieth century, and who wants to go back there?

There may come a day when a state is restrained by acting immorally because such action is recognized as illegal, and sanctions will ensue. Until then, I recommend that we be highly skeptical of moral and legal arguments that are offered by the attorneys for the defense. Some of the most brilliant minds are prone to self-serving legal theories -- Haaretz had an item yesterday which showed how Israeli professor of law, Ruth Gavison, had wondered aloud before the Winograd Commission about "modifying" international human rights restraints in order to shorten conflicts, even if that meant greater civilian deaths and property damage. (The full article in English will appear here, God willing, in a few days.)

I see no essential difference between Shimon of our joke and Prof. Gavison, the former head of the Israeli Association of Civil Rights, and a potential Supreme Court Justice. Both use self-serving justifications for doing what is evil and illegal. This is what happens to the moral judgment of people when states are at war. Look at what has happened to the US during the Bush presidency.

The problem is that Israel has been at war for over sixty years. Imagine what the US would be like in such a situation.