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?

Prominent Israeli Writers, Law Professors, and Intellectuals Back "Breaking the Silence"

On the front page of the print edition of yesterday's Haaretz, the following advertisement appeared:

"Enforce the Law in Hebron!

"For the past three years activists of the "Breaking the Silence" organization have been conducting tours in the city of Hebron.

"More than 5000 people have participated in one of the 300 tours that the organization has conducted in the last three years. The aim of the tours, conducted by veterans who have served in the city either as regular or reservist soldiers, is to expose to the Israeli public what is happening in the city of the patriarchs. This activity has encountered from the outset violent opposition from the setters in the Hebron, and has had to overcome difficulties from the security forces. Over the last few days, certain persons in the Israeli Police, including the commander of the Hebron District, Avshalom Peled, have called the activists, "provocateurs," "militants," and "lawbreakers." Assertions such as these, which aren't supported with any real facts or evidence, arouse the suspicion of political persecution. The background for these absurd statments is the weakness of the police, and its unreadiness to discharge the state's commitment, within the framework of the petition against obstructing the tours, submitted recently to the High Court of Justice. In response to the state's commitment to the court to permit a renewal of the tours, the settlers increased their attacks, and they continue to obstruct physically the tours. Caving in to the settlers's violence, the police have prevented the tours from being conducted. As always in Hebron, violence pays.

"We demand that the Israeli Police retract their scandalous and unsubstantiated assertions.

"We demand that the Israeli Police enable "Breaking the Silence" to conduct the tours in Hebron.

"We demand that the Israeli Police enforce the law with respect to the Hebron settlers.

"We call upon the Israeli public to take part in these important tours and to see for themselves the horrible reality in Hebron."

[Signed] Shulamit Aloni, Michael Ben Yair, General (res.) Shlomo Gazit, Ruth Dayan, Michal Zamora Cohen, A. B. Yehoshua, Prof. Yirmiyahu Yovel, Shomo Cohen (former chairman of the Israeli Bar Association), Amos Oz, Sami Michael, Colonel (res.) Paul Kedar, Yair Tzaban, Yehoshua Kenaz, Prof. Mordecai Kremnitzer, Judith Karp, Yair Rotloy, Yossi Sarid

Police: Leftists in Hebron More Dangerous than Right-Wing Counterparts

The police, working in tandem with the settlers, are doing their best to demonize "Breaking the Silence" and "Bne Avraham" as outside agitators and provocateurs.

Why do I say "working in tandem with the settlers." Consider this:

Ynet has a video documenting the "illegal" demonstration in April. From the narration, it appears that the video was shot by the police. Aside from the fact that it merely shows a sit-in and nothing more, the video was shot by settlers, not the police.

In the Ynet article,a "senior Shai District Police official" is reported as saying,

"Organizations such as Bnei Avraham (which is committed to 'disturbing the occupation, disrupting the segregation and apartheid regime') and Breaking the Silence are wolves in sheep's' clothing",

Now that's a picturesque metaphor, isn't it? And wouldn't you know, it is taken almost directly from the Hebron's settlers' petition last Thursday to the High Court of Justice. You can read the appeal here

אנחנו טוענים שהמשטרה יודעת אל נכון וגם הפרקליטות יודעת אל נכון, שאנשי השמאל הקיצוני הם בעצם נמר בעור של כבש

All right, so the settlers' appeal has "tiger" rather than "wolves". But it is hardly coincidental that the "senior Shai District Police official" uses the same language as Orit Struck, the settler's spokesperson and legal representative.

And now a curious fact about the settler's video of the Breaking the Silence demonstration:

Surprise! None of the leaders of Bne Avraham or Breaking the Silence are in the video! You see, the famous "demonstration" that took place in April was really a the end of a tour organized by the BTS folks for other activists groups against the Occupation. The people who staged the non-violent sit-in were none other than the Anarchists! (In the article the police say that BTS are worse than the Anarchists. Actually, what they meant to say was that the Anarchists are worse than the Anarchists!)

All right, so maybe in retrospect the idea of holding a tour for all the leftwing activists in Hebron was a bit de trop. But if you have to kick anybody out of Hebron for being a nuisance, at least kick out the right guys! (Don't get be wrong; I am a big fan of the Anarchists. Look at what they have done in Bil'in)

There is a simple and reasonable solution to all this. The Breaking the Silence organization has agreed to do tours, and no demonstrations, in coordination with the police. The State's Attorney's Office agreed. That was the compromise. (By the way, the April demonstration only became one when the police would not allow the tour to continue.) You know what else? Limit the number of people who can tour. You know what else? Make sure that the people on the tour are not anarchists or other leftwing activists.

The police/settlers don't want this, of course, And can you blame them? I mean, if you lived in a town like Tombstone, where the bad guys are in charge, and can do what they like with impunity, would you want to allow the good guys to have tours for the world to see what you are doing?

Anyway, as I have written before, this has got to be win-win for Breaking the Silence. If the guys are allowed to have the tours, they win. If they are prevented from having the tours, they win. They are getting more publicity for less effort than they have had in the three years they have of getting the tours.

Last but not least, a big yashar koah to Meretz MK Zahava Galon and to Peace Now for speaking out against the police. Peace Now's Yariv Oppensheimer has called for the suspension of Avraham Peled, the Hebron District Commander and the settlers' unofficial spokesperson.

Stay tuned.

Settlers, with the help of the Police, Stop “Breaking the Silence” Tour Again

Once again, the Hebron settlers proved that, in the Wild West Bank, they are the bosses. After the High Court of Justice ruled that Breaking the Silence can conduct their tours, provided that they are coordinated with the police, the settlers said, "Ain't no way they are coming in here" and blocked the bus for two hours. The police arrived and did not interfere, except to shorten the route of the tour to 500 meters. The BTS guys said, "Forget it," and they turned around and went home.

The settlers, for their part, have appealed to the High Court of Justice to disallow the tours. I should point out that the tours do not go on the settlers' property, nor do they involve, generally, more than small groups (There was one exception to that.) As a matter of fact, the tours have been conducted for several years, without incident. The trouble started after the settlers attacked a group of visiting German parliamentarians last spring, calling them Nazis, which prompted a diplomatic incident and an Israeli government apology.

Of course, if the rule of law prevailed in Hebron, the police would remove the settlers who are protesting, arrest them (or at least warn them), and allow the tour to go on. But let's face it – at the end of the day, the settlers are the law, and the police their lackeys. You can read about it here in Hebrew.

By the way, all of this plays into the hands of "Breaking the Silence." I have been on one of those tours. Basically, they take you to empty Palestinian streets which have been closed because of the settlers. With all due respect, it is not the most exciting thing in the world. Sometimes I think that Barukh Marzel, Itamar Ben Gvir, and Noam Federman are being paid by "Breaking the Silence" , in addition to their regular jobs as Shin Bet informants. After all, what better "action" can you have for foreign journalists, human rights activists, American Jews, and the other people who go on the tours, than having a lot of crazy settlers verbally abusing the "Breaking the Silence" folks, preventing their tours, while the police and army stand idly by, in violation of the High Court of Justice's ruling?

Another Argument Against the Two State Solution

When Palestinians have grievances against Israel, they basically have four ways to try and solve them: a) seek redress through international forums (never works); b) stage protests (almost never works); c) blow up Jews (works occasionally, but is a tricky strategy); d) grovel before the master (works occasionally).

When Israelis have grievances against Palestinians, they have quite a few methods at their disposal, ranging from mild to severe economic and military pressure.

Today Haaretz reported here that Israel once again held up the transfer of PA tax funds. Those are funds collected by Israel for the PA from Palestinians. They don't do this out of the goodness of their heart; they do this because the Palestinians are not allowed the structures to do so themselves under the (defunct) Oslo agreements. Israel actually enjoys this privilege. For if the PA wants their tax money, they have to make sure not to offend their Israeli masters.

Why did the Israelis hold up the tax funds this time? Well, one would suspect that it was because of widespread Palestinian protests and work-stoppages, right? No, that wouldn't work, would it, since Israel could care less about Palestinian protests. Oh, well, perhaps it was a response to all the terror emanating from the West Bank? No, that can't be it, since there is virtually no terror coming from the West Bank. It can't be because of Gaza, since Gaza is under siege.

No, the real reason was that the Palestinian prime minister got uppity. I mean, he had the chutzpah to call on the European Union not to upgrade its relations with Israel. And why not? Because of the human rights violations on the West Bank and the ongoing expansion of settlements. And doggone it, that OFFENDED the Israeli authorities who decided to teach Fayid a lesson.

I am not making this next quote up. An Israeli official said.

"We're not an unfeeling ATM," one official told him. "We too are permitted to get angry when such scummy things are done to us."

Oh, the humanity of that official! He is not an unfeeling ATM machine. Can you imagine if Israel actually had ATM machines with feelings like that of the official? Like Seinfeld's Soup Nazi they would shout, "Hey, you didn't punch my numbers the right way; no money for you!"

If Israel was so upset by what Fayyad did, wouldn't it be more appropriate for them to communicate their displeasure to him, instead of depriving the PA employees the salaries paid by their own tax money?

So why is this an argument against the two-state solution? Simple. Whatever state the Palestinians have, they will be under the thumb of Israel. Sure, Israel may not have all the cards they have now, but they will have most. And you can bet your sweet bippie that the PA will never have the sort of power over Israeli civil service that Israel has had for years over the PA's civil service.

Mind you, this is how the government acts when it is miffed by a Palestinian minister, one, I may mention, who has been universally praised for his honesty and ability. I shudder to think what it would do against a country that had economic and military control over it....

Maybe lob mortar shells?

Short Takes Before Shavuot

1. Shavuot celebrates the giving of the Torah to the Jewish People on Mount Sinai. It is also the agricultural feast of the first fruits. In the last few years, some people have observed the custom of staying up all night and going to lectures on Judaism. Even secular Jews have started attending some of these talks. Not yours truly. I will stay home and learn texts till midnight, go to sleep, and go to shul at 6:30 in the morning. Then I will come home, read, and take it easy until lunch, when the children and grandchildren are coming over. I don't get the custom of staying up all night, since it usually wrecks people for the next day (not to mention for the morning prayer service.)

2. Despite the unusually gloomy picture, small victories can be celebrated (and larger losses mourned.) On Thursday, the High Court of Justice ruled that "Breaking the Silence" can resume their tours of Hebron and the West Bank. As their attorney, Michael Sfard, pointed out in Thursday's Haaretz here, these tours had been suspended after a group on one of the tours was attacked by the Hebron settlers. The government lost this one. Of course, now the settlers are going to ask the High Court to suspend the tours, but they don't have a chance there. Unfortunately, Gisha lost its petition to the High Court to bring relief in Gaza.

3. Speaking of Michael Sfard, I am reading the new book by him and by Shaul Arieli, of the dovish Council for Peace and Security. The book is called in Hebrew Homah u-Mehdal, "Wall and Failure" (a play on the phrase Homah u-Migdal, "Wall and Tower," the watch-cry of the Zionist settlements. The book's title in English translation is "The Wall of Folly." Anyway, this is the first book-length treatment of Israel's land-grab wall. Basically, Sfard shows how illegal the wall is and Arieli shows how the wall damages Israel's security. Since nobody in the world who is not Israeli or a Zionist thinks that the land-grab wall is legal, much of Sfard's part of the book is like shooting fish in a barrel. But I will speak more about the wall later. (The reason why I don't call the land-grab wall a "security fence" is because it has nothing to do with Israeli security. In fact, there is no evidence that it has increased Israeli security, since there is no evidence linking the wall with the drop in suicide bombing. Those who argue that the wall stops suicide-bombing are guilty of the elementary post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. But I have discussed this elsewhere. There is abundant evidence, of course, that the route of the wall was chosen to annex land, both to the settlements today and to Israel tomorrow, despite Israeli denials. Even the High Court has accepted that evidence.

Needless to say, the book is being translated into English. You can read about it here

4. A fascinating book that I have been waiting to appear for a long time is Chaim Gans's book, A Just Zionism: On the Morality of the Jewish State. I will have a lot to say about that book after the Shavuot holiday. Stay tuned.

5. And Walt and Mearsheimer are appearing at Hebrew University this week, the guests of the Department of Political Science. After the disgusting ritual of the candidates at AIPAC last week (see Jon Stewart for his take), they will have a lot to talk about.

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.

 

 

 

Reprint: Why I Still Support Obama

[Note to readers: I recently changed some things on the Magnes Zionist splash page (or whatever it is called), and I bumped from the "top post" sections, the post below, written over five months ago. I am reproducing it here for its "historical value" and because of Obama's AIPAC speech yesterday, which upset progressives. I will restore it to the "top posts" section later.

Needless to say, some things have changed in the interval, but my perspective on Obama has stayed the same. Since January I read Obama's books and became interested in the candidate and a more enthusiastic supporter -- but not because of his Middle East positions. The skepticism on that score has remained. But it is helpful to recall that Obama yesterday spoke the same way that he has spoken for a long time now.

My heart genuinely goes out to folks like Rob Malley, Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimeh, and Rev. James Wright, who now have to be tucked away in order for Obama to win the general election. I am particularly upset for Khalidi and Abunimeh, who had reason to believe that this guy would be different. Although they are grown-up enough to know to deal with their disappointment, it must hurt a little. It sure hurts me.]

I have no illusion that Barack Obama will be any better (i.e., worse) for Israel than Hillary or any of the Republican contenders for the nomination. When he gave the "pro-Israel" (i.e., anti-Israel) speech at AIPAC last March, I wasn't surprised. When he sent a letter last week to the UN Security Council claiming that the Kassam rockets had "forced" Israel to increase the siege on Gaza, I wasn't surprised either. If he manages to pull off the impossible and upset Hillary, he will sound more and more "pro-Israel" and less and less balanced. I would like to think that all this is just rhetoric to get elected, but I am more realistic than that. The best I can hope for is a return to the liberal-Zionist position.

As I have written here before, the "moderate" position in the Democratic party -- and, indeed, in the liberal press and much of America -- is liberal Zionist a la Clinton, Dennis Ross, etc. To expect the Palestinians and their allies to have the clout in the US that the Jews have is wishful thinking. To be a Palestinian moderate in this country, you have to appear to be either a liberal Zionist, or somebody who has no problem with Zionism. So Palestinian groups like the American Task Force on Palestine have to buy into the two-state solution a la Clinton or Geneva, whereas a voice like the Electronic Intifada's Ali Abunimah is considered extreme, at least for now. Abunimah wrote last March a very poignant article on Obama's conversion to a "pro-Israel" stance as he became a mainstream national politician. His tone was one of profound disappointment, since he knew Obama before the Chicago politician had to pander to the Lobby. But Abunimah wasn't surprised at Obama's conversion. Nor was I.

So why do I still support Obama?

For one thing, since I don't believe that US policy towards Israel will change in any event -- unfortunately -- then there seems no reason not to prefer a progessive like Obama over a liberal hawk like Hillary for other reasons.

Second, I have been told that one of my personal "heroes" -- Rob Malley -- has become associated with the Obama camp. Malley co-wrote with Hussein Agha the seminal NYRB article that challenged the Israeli spin on Camp David -- and that provoked the response from Benny Morris (one of my favorite bigots) and Ehud Barak (a bigot, without Morris's charm) to utter the infamous remark about Arab "mendacity".

But most important, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And Obama's enemies within the Jewish camp -- the liberal-hawk-neocon-chorus of zealots who advocate policies that destroy the Jewish state morally and physically, while they celebrate their tough-Jew mafia morality -- over here in the diaspora, of course -- are getting nervous about Obama. It's not that they don't want to go on record blasting the first serious African-American contender for president -- they abandoned all appearances of concern for social justice in favor of ethnic loyalty a long time ago. It's that they have to view anybody who considers the Palestinians to be human as an existential threat to the State of Israel. That is why they go after Jimmy Carter, who did more for the State of Israel than the world Jewish community ever did, or why liberal hawks like Richard Cohen, still smarting from Alvin Rosenfeld's chutzpah of coupling his name with that of Tony Judt, feel compelled to call Obama on the carpet for not actively dissociating himself from his Chicago church's minister. Look how the rightwing Jews went after Condi Rice for daring to compare the Israeli treatment of Palestinians with Southern discrimination against blacks (the Palestinians should be so lucky.)

I once wrote a column urging American Jews to vote Republican so that when a Democrat is elected, he would not have any political obligations to the Jews. That, of course, was a liberal fantasy. But more and more "pro-Israel" supporters will leave the Democratic party for the Republican, and that is just dandy in my eyes -- because there are a whole lot of progressive Democrats out there who are not Jewish, who support Israel and the Palestinians, and don't see why one people should get more than the other. When Jonathan Tobin, the rightwing Krauthammer-wannabee who edits the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent, writes an article critical of Obama on Israel, how can any real supporter of Israel not vote for Barack?

No doubt true lefties out there -- and not wimpy liberals like yours truly -- will have a lot of reasons to find fault with Obama. They will back a marginal candidate with no hope of winning, and I am sympathetic with that...after all, that's what I do in Israel, when I vote for Hadash.

Still, if for no other reason, Obama needs support from progressives now across the board -- and Jewish progressives should be part of that rainbow coalition for change which gave him South Carolina.

We can worry about his "pro-Israel" positions later.

The Silver-Lining in Obama’s AIPAC Speech

Progressive Jewish bloggers like Phil Weiss and Robert Dreyfuss in the Nation have found the silver-lining in Obama's predictable and depressing talk before AIPAC. Obama closed his speech with the following:

In the great social movements in our country's history, Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down south together. They marched together. They bled together. And Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were willing to die alongside a black man--James Chaney--on behalf of freedom and equality.

Their legacy is our inheritance. We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer. This is a bond that must be strengthened. Together, we can rededicate ourselves to end prejudice and combat hatred in all of its forms. Together, we can renew our commitment to justice. Together, we can join our voices together, and in doing so make even the mightiest of walls fall down.

Note to Obama campaign: playing the "Jewish-Black-civil-rights-coalition" card will get you a landslide Jewish vote in November.

For years many Jews in the US have looked with nostalgia at a period when they were the good guys -- not only in their own communities, or for the State of Israel, but for the civil rights of black people. Of course, the Jewish support for civil rights was not universal, unequivocal, or at all costs. It was one thing to deplore segregation in the South. but quite another to encourage open housing. It was one thing to fight racial discrimination and quite another to allign with other whites in the Ocean Hill-Brownsville controversy of the late sixties. Good blacks were those who behaved well and dressed well like Dr. King, Jr. (before he started to comment about Vietnam), and believed in integration. Not-so-good blacks were those who dressed and talked like Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture) – the black power advocates who resented Jewish paternalism and saw the Jewish role in institutionalized white racism. Would it be churlish to recall that not all Jews were enthusiastic about Jews like Andrew Goodman and Michael Scherner going down to Mississippi?

Obama knows all this, of course. He knows quite a lot about the splits and fissures with the Jews during the waning days of the civil rights movement. But his belief in black-white coalitions is fundamental for him. The person who hired him as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago first was a Jewish leftwinger. Part of Obama's success in Chicago, and now in the Democratic primary, has been because Jewish liberal fat- and not-so-fat cats believe in his message.

Obama knows that saying "Some of my best friend are Jews" won't win him any points. But saying, "Some of the black people's best friends have been Jews" will. This is going to be a powerful message, especially since that message hasn't been heard since the late sixties. Even Podhoretz and the Commentary crowd will want to be reminded by Obama of the pre-Ocean Hill-Brownsville golden age. For the subtext is: I am here today because of what you people did for my people out of the goodness of your heart, and the morality of your tradition.

What Jew wouldn't kvell to hear that?

The Death of Liberal Zionism in America?

Well, perhaps not. But you gotta wonder when the only panel of "intellectuals" speaking about Israel at the AIPAC convention consists of…three neocons and a liberal hawk!

Yes, that's right. A plenary session panel composed of Natan Sharansky (russian ethnonationalist and Shalem center neocon), Michael Oren (historian and Shalem center neocon), Ruth Gavison (law professor and Israeli neocon), and Leon Wieseltier (liberal hawk literary editor of the New Republic) was held at the AIPAC convention Monday night to discuss Israel at 60. Now I know Leon. Any panel in which he is the leftwinger has got to raise some eyebrows. What does this say about the place of liberal Zionism at AIPAC? Is Michael Walzer in cherem?

The old fashioned Abba-Eban-Peace-Now-Amos-Oz liberal/socialist Zionism is no longer suitable for the AIPAC crowd. AIPAC has been hijacked by the liberal hawk/neocons. I don't even to expect to find many liberal hawks there. It's a neocon show.

As such, it is SOOOO unrepresentative of American Judaism. I can't say it better than Richard Silverstein, who writes

AIPAC is like a fun house mirror.  You stand in front of it and watch as your entire body is distorted out of all proportion.  That's the relation of AIPAC to the real American Jewish body politic.  If AIPAC is a fun house mirror that would make its annual convention a carnival sideshow.

Sure, it hurts a bit to see goyim who should know better kowtowing to the loonies of the right. But it feels good when only rightwing intellectual ideologues frequent the place.

The Chutzpah of Hope

For the last five minutes I have been on the verge of tears. I simply cannot get over the latest news alerts I am reading on the web. Before that I received an email from a dear friend, a prominent Obama fundraiser, the one who yanked me onto the Obama bandwagon around six months ago. He sent me this from the AP

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Barack Obama has effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates.

The tally put Obama over the top Tuesday, ahead of the results from the day's final primaries in Montana and South Dakota. The Illinois senator becomes the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House. Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic contest and now faces Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona for the presidency.

I never thought I would feel this way again about a political victory. I have been disappointed so many times in the past – usually when the candidate I favored won! Since the assassination of Rabin, I have lived in one long nightmare – made livable only by the fellowship of good people around the world, Jews, Palestinians, and all the rest. In Israel our politicians wallow in corruption, sexual harrassment, rapaciousness, superciliousness, chutzpah.. Rabin was no angel – but look who has come after him.

Sure, I know that I will be disappointed when Obama becomes president. I certainly have no illusions about Obama's Middle East policy. And I will be upset by his speech before AIPAC on Wednesday.

But for the first time in years I have hope. You see, I have read both of Obama's books – books that he actually wrote. His intelligence shines through on every page. When I talk to my Jewish friends, especially in Israel, about Obama, it turns out they know virtually nothing about him. It is always, Iran, blah-blah-blah, Reverand Wright, blah, blah, blah, middle-name Hussein, blah, blah, blah. I have yet to meet somebody who is a Democrat, who knows a lot about Obama, and who doesn't support him – unless she is a woman with first loyalties to Hillary (which I understand totally.) All right, that last line was not fair There are folks who genuinely like Hillary, and I would have supported her for president. But Senator Clinton, you are no Barack Obama.

Yes, there are many reasons to predict a McCain victory in the Fall. If you don't know them, Shmuel Rosner will be happy to tell you them. But I am hopeful. A lousy economy, an unpopular sitting president, a dumb and immoral war that was mightily botched with no end in sight…one would have to go way back in history to find circumstances so propitious for change.

And my fundraiser friend hasn't been wrong yet. He was part of Obama's brilliant campaign, and he guarantees a brilliant strategy for the Fall. I asked him two weeks ago during shul, and within earshot of Joe Lieberman, what does Obama plan to do against an aggressive and vicious McCain campaign. "Jerry," he told me "We are going to flatten McCain like a pancake. He won't know what hit him." All right, so maybe he is exaggerating. Maybe it won't be a landslide victory, or even a pretty one. But Obama is going to do it.

I am getting my hankie ready for the inaugural speech. I cannot wait to hear the Chief Justice swear in Barack HUSSEIN Obama. What a day that will be for America! What a day that will be for the world!

Some Thoughts on Blogging and the Haaretz Brouhaha

Cecile Surasky's Muzzlewatch has published a letter by Haaretz's editor Dov Alfon responding to concerns over the recent changes at Haaretz. That site also has letters from Amira Hass and Dorothy Naor (the latter was the basis of my post from yesterday, since I didn't know whether Dorothy wanted to go public). I would love to hear a statement from Meron Rapoport but I don't want to bother somebody who was fired. I am a blogger, not a journalist.

Alfon speculated that the rumors about Haaretz had originated from extreme rightwing circles. Oy, so now he has outed me!

What does this mean? Within a week, a casual conversation between an activist and me starts a mini-brouhaha that ends with the major players making statements. That's the power of the web. (The threat of cancelling subscriptions to Haaretz did not hurt either.)

That gives my ego a rush, but it also makes me think of issues like...blogger responsibility.

Last week I heard a rumor and posted it. Journalists don't publish rumors (well, they do, but they are not supposed to.) They do fact checking. They get confirmations before they go public. That's journalistic ethics.

But bloggers aren't journalists. Sure, they shouldn't publish rumors that will hurt private individuals and hide behind some sort of freedom of blogging. But the point of my posting a rumor was, as I made clear in my original post, to try to clarify things. Some times attempts are made to verify a story before posting it. Some times it is not possible for a blogger.

The risk is, of course, that people will remember the rumor and not get the clarification. Well, that's a risk. But it seems to me that people know not to take blogger news as the final word. We are there to get things out in the world.

Frankly, I am happy that the editor of Haaretz got five emails on a single day querying him about what was going on at the paper. I know that if I had sent him an email identifying myself as a pseudononymous blogger, I would have waited a long time for a response.

Still, I would like to assure my readers that the bloggers I am friendly with (and whom I have never met in person) are responsible folks who do their best to get things right, and who will retract when they haven't.

PS. Coincidentally, I renewed my subscription to Haaretz yesterday.

The Personnel Changes at Haaretz (Provisionally) Explained

Last week I reported a troubling rumor that Meron Rapoport, a fine investigative reporter for Haaretz, had been fired. I also heard that Amira Hass was not returning to Haaretz, and this suggested to me that a new political wind was blowing at the only Israeli paper worth reading.

As always, things are more complicated.

Sources close to some Haaretz journalists now report that there has been a definite shift of late, but more financial than political. The focus of the newspaper is now less on politics and more on business and finance.

Several months ago Haaretz reduced the size of two separate sections, News and Opinion, and combined them into one. It expanded its business coverage, especially its financial coverage in its supplement, The Marker. Its Tel-Aviv readership, especially in the business community, is not necessarily interested in human rights issues in Gaza. So while there will be still some reporting of that, not as much.

Personnel changes: Meron Rapoport, whose investigative reporting is no longer needed, apparently, is out. Tamar Rotem may also be out. Amira Hass is on a year's leave of absence. She intends to return, but nothing is certain. Gideon Levy continues to write the Twilight Zone column, but it has been moved from the prominent Musaf (Magazine) section to Friday's This Week section. Levy is also doing television reviews (!) and writing on other issues. Akiva Eldar continues to work for Haaretz, but less space is alloted to him.

Is this political censorship? Not really. Will the paper become more rightwing? As far as I know, there are no signs of that. But it will become less leftwing because of the shift of focus.

My source (and her Haaretz sources) claim that the change of orientation is that of the publisher's, Amos Schocken. He obviously is not in the business of publishing a human rights report but a profitable newspaper. Shocken has repeatedly shown that, as publishers go, his heart is in the right place. Part of this has to do with the slide of Israeli society into vast popular culture. I came back from the Hebrew Book week noting the proportionately smaller output of challenging books.

All this is a pity. Meron Rapoport, in particular, will be sorely missed.

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.

More on Meron Rapoport and Haaretz

Well, although I googled "Amira Hess" in Hebrew before I posted the story below. I didn't google "Rapoport." I should have: his departure from Haaretz already appeared on Monday here:

Apparently, Rapoport is one of three reporters associated with former editor David Landau who are leaving Haaretz. Landau appointed him news editor. His departure may be filed under the headline "New Editor Shakes Things Up at Haaretz."

David Landau was a good editor (I am sorely tempted to add, "for a liberal Zionist.") He was to be congratulated inter alia for bringing in Rapoport. I haven't noticed an ideological shift with the changing of the guard, but, then again, I haven't been looking. Before Meron Rapoport came over to Haaretz, he worked at Yediot Aharonot as a desk editor. He was fired from that position after he published Moti Gilat's story under the headline, "Sharon Did Not Speak the Truth"

Haaretz has been a courageous, if elitist, newspaper. Let us hope that this will not change. I certainly hope that Rapoport will continue to write his exposes.

Haaretz Rumored to Have Fired Amira Hass and Meron Rapoport

I just heard rumors that two of Haaretz's best investigative journalists, Amira Hass and Meron Rapoport, will no longer be employed by the newspaper.

Amira Hass, Israel's prize-winning journalist, has been on sabbatical from Haaretz and will not be returning (according to the rumors.) I don't know anything more than that, including whether the decision was a mutual one.

The rumors about Rapoport are more disturbing. Hass is an established journalist and will land on her feet. Rapoport is not as well-known but has his finger on the pulse of events going on in the army and in the territories. He is an extraordinary and valuable resource on exposing the sins of the Occupation. From what I have heard, he was fired, pure and simple.

That's all I know, folks. I would love to get emails from Rapoport and Hass saying that the report of their firings has been greatly exaggerated. I will update you on this as the facts become known.

By the way, if you are wondering about Gideon Levy, I am told that as a member of Haaretz's editorial board, he has sufficient clout with the publisher. On the other hand, I would have said the same thing about the others.

Back Home to Baka, But Please Keep Commenting

I won't be posting or responding for a few days since I am flying home to Jerusalem tomorrow. I have received some critical comments on my "Baka Lefties" and "Finklestein's Deportation" posts, and I will respond to them. I have also received privately some nice comments on the post about the Ninty-Four Year Old Supporter of Obama.

Thank you all.

Finkelstein's Deportation and the Reaction of Progressive Jews

God punishes Jews who observe the Sabbath with a zillion emails when the Sabbath is over.

So I learned that Norman Finkelstein was deported from Israel after the rest of the Jewish blogosphere had reported on it. Still, I may be the first sabbath-observant progressive blogger to report on it, since Gershom Gorenberg and Haim Watzman, the other progressive orthodox Jewish bloggers, have nothing on it on their South Jerusalem site.

So here's my take on the deportation. As readers of this blog know, I have gone to bat for Finkelstein before, not because I agree with everything he says, but because he has been hounded mercilessly.

In brief, Norman Finkelstein was declared persona non grata and deported from Israel after he was detained at the Ben-Gurion airport and questioned about his meetings with Hizbollah. So say the reports in the Israeli media. For news read ynet

It's hard to make sense of this. Was he deported because he was considered a security threat? That would imply that the Israelis were nervous that he could report on Israel to Hizbollah in such a way as to compromise Israeli security. That is the most charitable explanation of Israel's actions. If that is the correct one, then the Israel Secret Services are simply crazy.

Another explanation is that Israel was upset with Finkelstein because he had openly consorted with and supported an enemy, and that there is no obligation of any county to let in foreign nationals who do this. The security business was just a pretext. If that is the correct explanation, then Israel is acting as we Israelis have come to expect of it -- as an authoritarian regime that picks on the weak, in this case, foreign nationals.

A third explanation is that Finkelstein was barred because he is a high-profile critic of Israel, even without the Hizbollah business. Israel regularly bars the entry of pro-Palestinian academics who come to show support for activists. I really hope that Israel hasn't stooped that low in Finkelsteins's case, but I wouldn't be surprised.

There is a way to determine which explanation is correct. Perhaps Noam Chomsky can be convinced to visit Israel. Finkelstein has written nothing that Chomsky substantively disagrees with. And Chomsky met with Nasrallah and praised Hizbollah. I doubt that Finkelstein is out ahead of Chomsky on the Hizbollah contact business.

Would Israel bar Noam Chomsky from visiting? No blanking way -- the man is too powerful a force in intellectual circles. The embarrassment would be too great. Chomsky is a protected high-profile critic.

Israel can go after Finkelstein because it knows that he won't have the support that a Chomsky would have. And that is what all this boils down to -- picking on a weak out-of-work academic who occasionally talks and writes like an annoying New York Jew. Heck, I even know Jews who call themselves progressives who wouldn't go to bat for Finkelstein. Everybody has his or her Finkelstein story to tell. So who will support him, besides the Palestinians who have been encouraged by a New York Jew who goes to bat for them? Does anybody besides a few socialist Brits and Palestinian supporters care that Finkelstein was barred from going to visit his B'Tselem activist friend in Hebron?

Listen up, Jews -- and I mean some of the progressive Jews who are hesitating on this one. Titbayeshu lakhem -- Shame on you! How can you profess skepticism about who is right here, when you know that the Israeli track record on truth-telling is a lot worse than Finkelstein's? How can you take a position opposed to that of the moderate Association for Civil Rights in Israel that has reportedly condemned the deportation?

If you are a progressive Zionist, the default mode must be to support Finkelstein until you have conclusive evidence that he constitutes an existential threat to the state of Israel And since you can never see that evidence, you have no reason to trust even a High Court decision against Finkelstein. Because the High Court has proven unreliable time after time in these matters. Its default mode is to back the security establishment. (Occasionally -- just occasionally -- it comes through.)

Frankly, I am surprised by the reaction of some of those who call themselves "progressive," who profess to hate Bush, who cry about the loss of civil liberties in this country, and then take a "wait-and-see" attitude about who is right in this affair, or who don't want to go to bat for Finkelstein because he annoys them, or because he said, "We are all Hizbollah." Criticize him, by all means, for kowtowing to the fundamentalists, but what does that have to do with the price of felafel?

Look, I don't understand why Chomsky and Finkelstein celebrate Hizbollah. OK, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that, and I don't think Hizbollah or Hamas should be demonized. But lionized? Please...as a modern orthodox Jew, I would be happy to put all the fundamentalists on a boat and send them out to an uninhabited island where they duke it out (More likely, they will find out how much they have in common.)

But that's not the point. The point is that the ongoing hounding of Norman Finkelstein should make any decent human being vomit. Let the guy alone. Let him publish his books and keep his website. Why shouldn't he be allowed to see the West Bank for himself and to visit his B'Tselem friend in Hebron?

By the way, it is not just Finkelstein who is being barred from Hebron Michael Sfard, is now representing the "Breaking the Silence" organization, which has been barred by the police from conducting its tours in Hebron.

Progessives should unite on this one. And if you don't want to join, then at least think hard before you write against.

One Elderly Jew's Passionate Support of Obama

Over the past few months I have had some interesting discussions with a 94-year old Jewish supporter of Barack Obama. The supporter, a prominent real estate developer, was one of the pillars of the Jewish community in his prime. A past president of the local Federation, the Jewish Community Center, and a board member of a big conservative shul, he has led a long and active life of service to the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. I should also mention that he is a life-long liberal, who only once wavered in his support for Democrats, and that was when he supported John Anderson over Jimmy Carter in 1980. (He has come to respect Jimmy Carter in his post-presidency.)

I asked him how he came to support Obama. After all, he seemed to be bucking the demographics: white, elderly, Jewish former businessmen aren't supposed to be in the Obama camp. This is what he told me:

About a year and a half ago, I was given Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope. I didn't know anything about him, except that he had given a good speech at the Democratic Convention. Well, I read that book, and I was amazed by his life story, and by his vision for America. On the strength of that book I decided to support the campaign, and I have continued to do so. If anything, I have become more disenchanted with Hillary Clinton, who has run a negative campaign. She comes nowhere near Obama. Most of the people who don't support him don't really know anything about him.

What about his views on Israel?

All the candidates have similar views on Israel. His is just as positive as the rest.

Are you nervous that, well, as an African-American, he may not always be so favorable to Israel, or for that matter, to the Jews.

Let me tell you something. One of the reasons I support him is because he is an African-American. All my life I have supported the cause of racial equality. For years I gave money to the NAACP. I remember growing up, working in my father's grocery market, which was in a black neighborhood. I was very friendly with a group of young blacks, so much so that they asked me to be a counselor of their group. I said, "But I am not like you." They said, "It don't matter, Bernie, we like you." Once they told me they were going to Hagerstown, and they insisted I go with them, which I did. I believe in treating fairly all people, regardless of their race and their religion. I have believed that all my life.

You know, McCain is pretty moderate, compared with Bush. I suppose you could live with him as president.

I could live with him, but I couldn't support him. He is not, in my opinion, a very bright man. Of course, I respect him for being a prisoner of war -- I served in World War II. But that doesn't mean that he would be a good president.

Joe Lieberman supports him.

Well, I don't like him much either. He should start voting more like a Democrat and stop supporting people like Bush.

You know, I heard that you talked about Obama at the family seder last year.

Yes, I did. When they got to the part of the Haggadah called "Barekh", I said, "Not Barekh, Barack!"

Recently, this elderly gentleman has been suffering from clinical depression, which makes him pessimistic and anxious about Obama's chances. He worries a lot. So I have been trying to cheer him up and give him hope, with a little help from a friend, who is a prominent fundraiser for Obama.

And with a little help from the candidate himself. You see, when Obama heard about Bernie, he sent him a copy of the book he liked so much, The Audacity of Hope. And to help him fight his depression, the candidate inscribed it:

To Bernie,

Keep Dreaming Big Dreams

Barack Obama

Thanks, Barack.

And may you soon recover from your depression, Dad.

Yehezkel Dror's Defence of Jewish Fascism in the Forward

"Fascism" means many things to many people, and is, I grant, an overworked term. Leftists cry "fascist" so many times that it is hard to tell a real fascist when you see one. So for the purposes of this article, let me define "Jewish fascism" as a belief that the existence of a Jewish state trumps all values, especially moral ones; that individual and collective morality must be submerged to the interests of that state. In Zionist historiography, "Jewish fascism" is identified with the revisionists, but that is arguable. Jabotinsky, like so many others, often talked the fascist talk, but was ambivalent. Labor Zionists did not like to talk openly like Jabotinsky, since they were socialists, but their tactics confirmed his strategy. In recent years, Jewish fascism is associated with neocons like Poldheretz and Ruth Wisse, who opens her book on Jewish Power with a story implying that a live immoral Jew is better than a dead Jewish mensch, something that even Judah Halevy wouldn't have believed.

Yehezkel Dror, a professor emeritus of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a recipient of the Israel Prize, has written a not-so-brilliant defence of Jewish Fascism in the Forward, of all places. The argument is a familiar one and contains the familiar elisions: the state of Israel = the Jewish people, so the survival of the former is the same as the survival of the latter, or at least a necessary condition. Dror doesn't even bother to raise the question whether the state of Israel is good for the survival of the Jews; he holds that truth to be self-evident. The fact that more Jews have died as Jews since 1945 because of the Jewish state than of any other cause doesn't faze him. The fact that not a single Jew has been rescued by the Jewish state that wasn't previously endangered by it doesn't cross his mind. He could argue, of course, that Jewish existence is more certain than it was a century ago. But he doesn't; he just takes it for granted.

But let's grant him the point that the survival of Israel = the survival of the Jews. The question is what can be done in order to ensure that survival? And it turns out that Dror, like many other intellectual fascists, wimps out at this point. He allows that it is legitimate to criticize policies of the state, so long as they are unreasonable, or do not advance the state's interests. Who is to judge what they are? Well, Dror, I suppose, and other like-minded individuals; certainly there is no good argument why Israeli-style democracy is essential for the survival of the state. A fundamentalist theocracy a la Iran would do just as well.

No, for Dror the issue is between realpolitik and liberal morality; chuck the latter, he says, in favor of the former. All right, in that case we have chucked neoconservatism and liberal interventionism, and we are back with Walt and Mearsheimer's thesis that US unlimited support for Israel is against the US interest. Look, I have no problem with realpolitik (sorry guys), but why say that it has anything to do with Judaism or with Jews? Once again, Dror has no argument for a liberal democratic state; he believes in it precisely because of the values with which he was inculcated.

Are state's moral agents? That is a long philosophical discussion that I can't go into. But whether they are or whether they are not, states that allow widespread immorality generally are not stable over time. If Dror wants to argue that liberal morality is in the Jewish state's interest (for one thing, it is a stabilizing factor, for another, it eases a small state like Israel's acceptance in the family of nations, that is one thing. And I imagine he would agree to that. But it is a sign of his intellectual poverty that he can't see that that conclusion is undermined by his main claim.

The truth is that folks like Dror, Podhoretz, and Wisse attempt to provide moral justifications for Israel's actions. When they think they can't, they resort to the Jewish Fascist strategy of Israel's "survival" trumping all considerations. The form of their argument is: either Israel's actions are moral, or morality doesn't count.

Of course, as I said, none of this has anything to do with Judaism. I suppose that it does have something to do with all those Jewish kings in the Bible who identified their own interest with the interest of their people, and were promptly disabused of that idea by the prophets. Prophetic Judaism doesn't count much with the Jewish fascists. Jewish fascism is the latest version of Jewish zealotry that goes back to Reuven and Shimon, who would massacre an entire people to avenge the lost honor of their sister Dina. For them, the clan's survival trumped all morality. To Azure's editor David Hazony, the brothers were just engaging in realpolitik.

My response -- the Jewish response -- is Israel's last word: Be-sodam al tavo nafshi. "I will not participate in their councils." Jewish zealotry is as Jewish as felafel, my favorite Palestinian dish.

Baka Lefties

Hell hath no fury like a settler criticized by the liberal Zionist.

The settler looks disdainfully at the liberal Zionist and says, “We are doing in Judea and Samaria what you guys did for a century throughout the Land of Israel.” If the Zionist leftie happens to live in a formerly Arab neighborhood, like Jerusalem's Katamon, Baka, Talbieh – or in Sheikh Munis, the Arab village where Tel-Aviv University sits today -- the settler gloatfully throws this at him: “You guys are worse than we are. At least we built settlements on land where nobody ever lived. You live in Arab houses."

At this point, the liberal Zionist generally sputters in outraged response: “There is no comparison. Where we live is internationally recognized, albeit de facto, as part of the state of Israel. Even the Palestinian national leadership has recognized Israel’s right to the lands within the pre-67 borders, or at least it doesn’t demand more than this. What was done by a Zionist movement in pursuit of independence, and during a war, cannot be compared to the actions of a sovereign state after independence and during peace time. Moreover, the actions of the settlers thwart the possibility of a two-state solution.” Some may even add that they are willing to move out of their formerly Arab neighborhoods in the case of a peace settlement, provided they get fair compensation.

Yada, yada, yada....

All this is well and good when discussing the behavior of states and their citizens. But I want to talk in this post about personal morality,. And I will start with myself.

I am a Baka Leftie. I live in that part of South Jerusalem that Gershom Gorenberg and Haim Watzman write so elegantly from and about in their South Jerusalem blog. Baka was a Palestinian middle to upper-class neighborhood before 1947; after the war it was used to house Jewish immigrants from North Africa. Some of those original immigrants still live in Baka, although many have died or moved elsewhere. The neighborhood has been undergoing “gentrification” for over two decades, with a lot of the old properties bought up, at outrageous prices, by American and French absentee owners. Local residents, less well-off, have purchased flats in the shikunim (“projects”) that are slowly being renovated, at least on the outside. These owners include a fair number of liberal American Jews who made aliyah in the seventies and the eighties. Not all the lefties are Anglos. Aging Peace-Now activists like the philosophers Avishai Margalit and Menachem Brinker live in Baka, though you won’t seem them frequenting synagogues like Yedidya, Shira Hadasha, bastions of the Anglo-orthodox left, or Kol ha-Neshama of the Anglo-reform left.

Now I don’t live inside an Arab house, but I do live on top of one; my flat was built around ten years ago on somebody’s roof. Needless to say, the Palestinian owner of the roof didn’t get a penny from the purchase. I have no idea who he or she is/was. I can console myself with the idea that I am not living inside his house. But so what -- I am living on a roof that does not belong to me, utilizing air rights that don’t belong to me.

So how do I justify this to myself morally? The answer is that I can't. It took me thirty years to realize that there is no justification. Of course, there are a lot worse things than what I am doing, but that doesn't make me feel better. Robert Fulghum said it best: One of the things we learn in kindergarten is not to take things that don’t belong to us. Living in a house which was taken from the owners is stealing. It’s that simple. True, others do it all the time. But so what?

After forty years it is time that the "Baka Lefties" get together and discuss the problem, critically and honestly. Preferably that discussion should be with Palestinian groups.

Several years ago I privately began inquiries with Palestinians to see if I could find the original owners of the house on which I live. What would I have done had I found them? Well, first of all, I would have apologized for living on top of their house. Second, I would have tried to come to a a financial understanding with them that would not prejudice any future claims they would have to state-compensation. And third, and more basically, I would ask their permission to live on top of their house.

I did all this without telling anybody, including my family, who gave me hell for not involving them. I wasn't very successful. Since then I heard that an acquaintance of mine, who lives in Talpiyot, had successfully done the same thing. I am not at the liberty to divulge his name, especially since I haven’t spoken with him about it. But when I was making my inquiries as to the owners, I was encouraged by the Palestinians with whom I was in contact (with the notable exception of the London-based Salman Abu Sitta, who told me to give up the whole project, and just support a group like Zochrot.)

I think the time has come to organize. There is now a critical mass of Baka Lefties –and not just Baka Lefties, but Israelis of all sort, who, I believe, would be willing to try to attempt some sort of encounter between settlers and refugees. Perhaps we should try to work through Zochrot; perhaps somebody has a better idea of proceeding.

But we must stop saying that this is only a matter for the government. If we wait for the government to do something about the injustice, we will die waiting. And, frankly, as bad as I feel about living on top of somebody else’s house, without his or her knowledge, or permission, I feel a lot worse about living out my life and dying there.

Liberal guilt? You bet. But I am tired of hearing facile raitonalizations. I see no reason why I have to wait for other people in order for me to do the right thing.

Help me out here, ye gang of agin' sixties activists! Let’s do something about this thing before we are sent to Baka old-age homes -- which also belong to Arab refugees.

Shabbat Shalom

Leon Uris' Influence on Barack Obama

Jeffrey ("You-Can-Dump-On-Israel-As-Long-As-You-Are-A-Liberal-Zionist-Like-Me") Goldberg has an interview with Obama in Atlantic.Com that will trouble Obama supporters who are under the illusion that the US can still be an honest broker in the Middle East. On the same day when my Shabbas-minyan-mate Joe Lieberman wonders out loud why a Hamas spokesman welcomes an Obama presidency, a wary Goldberg goads Obama into expressing his undying admiration for the Jewish state.

JG: You’ve talked about the role of Jews in the development of your thinking

BO: I always joke that my intellectual formation was through Jewish scholars and writers, even though I didn’t know it at the time. Whether it was theologians or Philip Roth who helped shape my sensibility, or some of the more popular writers like Leon Uris. So when I became more politically conscious, my starting point when I think about the Middle East is this enormous emotional attachment and sympathy for Israel, mindful of its history, mindful of the hardship and pain and suffering that the Jewish people have undergone, but also mindful of the incredible opportunity that is presented when people finally return to a land and are able to try to excavate their best traditions and their best selves. And obviously it’s something that has great resonance with the African-American experience.

In that paragraph, and in the entire interview, you see why Walt and Mearsheimer's thesis of an Israel Lobby is so, well, irrelevant. There is an Israel Lobby in America, and it is called America (minus some leftwing churches and Muslims). So why should anybody be surprised that Obama goes on and on about his understanding for Israel, with just a few words about the Palestinians. (Goldberg, who apparently is spooked by goyim talking about Palestinians, never brings up the subject.) This is all Obama has to say about the Palestinian people.

When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: “Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you’re waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.” I’ve said this in front of audiences where, if there were any doubts about my position, that’d be a place where you’d hear it.

So there you have it -- according to Obama, the Israelis get a country whose "security is non-negotiable", whereas the Palestinians get, if they are good, "a country that can function."

That could be any liberal Zionist speaking, and it will play big with Obama's target audience, the Jewish liberals like my sister-in-law who are still nervous about him.

There is, of course, the ritual Goldberg defamation of Jimmy Carter in his best Alan Dershowitz manner:

JG: What do you make of Jimmy Carter’s suggestion that Israel resembles an apartheid state?

Funny, Jeff, but I never heard Jimmy Carter suggest that Israel resembles an apartheid state. I did hear him express his fear that the West Bank may resemble de facto a system of apartheid because of separate roads, separate laws, and separate water resources for settlers and natives. I have heard you suggest somewhat similar thing sans the "A"-word. Of course, you are a Jew and Carter isn't.

It is no surprise that Obama stays squarely within the American liberal Zionist consensus on Israel. I have said from the beginning that he will disappoint, and that there is a lot more to this election than Israel.

But maybe not all is bleak if he brings in a diverse Middle East team. Before the last presidential election, I had lunch with a prominent neocon intellectual and military historian, a man who had been a high-profile supporter of both Iraq wars. I asked him who he was voting for, and he said, "John Kerry". When I expressed surprise, he said, "Look, I may have some misgivings about Kerry. But I know the people he is working with, and they are intelligent -- unlike the Bush folks who were responsible for the fiasco in Iraq."

That may be true of Obama, though, frankly, I don't have the hutzpah -- sorry, the audacity -- to have much hope on this one.

Rob Malley "Sacked" from Obama Campaign? Puleeze!!!

Leave it to Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz's out-of-touch rightwing US correspondent, to fall for a cooked-up story from the London Times about Rob Malley's being "sacked" from the Obama campaign. Rosner "reported" the story here. Since Malley never served in the Obama campaign, he couldn't have been sacked from it. He has acted as an informal advisor in the past and no doubt he will in the future, along with several others. Because of the McCain's campaign effort to tie Obama with Malley, Malley formally "severed all ties" on Friday with the campaign. This is nothing more than a media gimmick to puncture McCain's campaign. As for McCain, well, he obviously has "lost his bearings," not because he is old, but because he is dumb.

The London Times story was that after the McCain campaign pointed out that Malley talked with Hamas, he was fired. I suppose that the Brits can be forgiven for completely misinterpreting the following remark of Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr. Obama

Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future

So if Malley never had a formal role in the campaign, then how can he be "sacked" from it? Note that LaBolt didn't say that Malley hadn't given advice in the past nor would he in the future, only that he wouldn't play a role in the campaign. It's comforting to know that Malley won't be overseeing campaign strategy for Obama. Duh!

I can't blame the Brits for manufacturing news. But Rosner, who could pick up the phone from his Suburban Maryland home and call Malley, should know better. His pathetic attempts to deflate Obama (usually with question marks, so as to appear as if he himself doesn't necessarily buy the rumors, e.g., "Will Jews support Obama?" or "Is International Support Hurting Obama?") haven't reaped any fruit.

The McCain folks are trying to dig up Obama's past associations with -- God forbid --Rashid Khalidi to smear him with the Jews. Well, I am on record saying that I hope the Jews don't vote for Obama, so that he can elected without our help and then not be beholden to us. But the truth is that Jews will vote overwhelmingly for Obama -- mark my words -- much to the chagrin of the rightwingers, and to the detriment of the Palestinians.

As Obama's political career has taken off, he has distanced himself from the Palestinians to win elections and to get the Jewish vote. That's just what politicians do. When the Palestinians have the political clout that the Jews do, then things may change, but when will that happen?

For Obama's abandonment of the Palestinians after initial expression of sympathy, see today's Times. But anybody who reads the Electronic Intifada has known about that for some time.

As for "talking to Hamas"...everybody knows that Hamas is a major player, and that the United States (and the Quartet) erred by boycotting the democratically-elected Palestinian Authority. You don't need Rob Malley to understand the drift of the following passage:

"...in setting rigid, all-or nothing preconditions for engagement after the [Palestinians parliament] election, US diplomacy was perceived as confusing the positions of Hamas as a movement with the actions of the elected Palestinians government. The preconditions adopted by the Quartet closed off diplomacy."

That is a direct slap at US and Israeli policy of non-engagement with the Hamas-led PA government. And it is not made by Rob Malley, but by Daniel C. Kurtzer and Scott Lasensky in their book, "Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace." (p. 72)

Dan Kurtzer will no doubt play a major role in the Middle East policy of the Obama administration -- but McCain's Jewish Republicans find Malley easier to go after now.

Man, are they aiming at the wrong guy. Ed Lasky at the American Thinker rightly senses that Kurtzer's views differ significantly -- and, in his eyes, dangerously -- from the views of previous administrations under which Kurtzer served. That is because those administrations failed abysmally in their Middle East policy. Still, don't expect anything but a change in tone from an Obama administration on the Middle East, Kurtzer or no Kurtzer.

Still, that will be welcome.

The Liberal Wimp's Guide to Celebrating Yom ha-Atzma'ut and Remembering an-Nakba

Of all people, Bradley Burston in Haaretz summed up a lot of my feelings on this, the 60th anniversary of founding of the State of Israel, and the commemoration of the Nakba. Of course, I reject totally his symmetry between us and them. But he obviously is not in the mood for celebrating. Read the article here

The other day I was asked whether I recite the Hallel prayer with a blessing on Yom ha-Atzma'ut. That is traditionally a demarcator between enthusiastic religious Zionists and more halakhically cautious ones; of course, the ultra-orthodox don't recite it at all. This is what I told the questioner: There is a famous midrash on the parting of the Red Sea, where the Almighty rebukes the angels who are singing His praises by saying, "My creatures (i.e., the Egyptians) are drowning, and you sing a song of praise?" Now God may allow recently-freed slaves to rejoice over the downfall of their oppressors. But surely not that is not the ideal. And when those who are drowning in sea are not oppressors but innocent victims of, according to the Zionist narrative, Jewish liberation -- then how can any decent person rejoice?

The answer is that despite the sixty-year old (100 + year old?) Nakba, there are some positive elements to the Jewish state founded sixty years ago, that imperfect regime that engaged (and engages) in ethnic cleansing and dividing up the spoils of war. In fact, they are too numerous to mention.

So here's the liberal wimp's list of things to do to celebrate Israel's Independence Day:

1) If you can't have a mangal (barbecue) at least eat felafel. It's a good Palestinian dish that Israeli Jews have -- what else? -- appropriated from them. When you eat it, have a special kavannah that you are eating it for the sake of uniting the Palestinian and the Israeli Jewish people.

2) If you live outside of Israel, don't attend any of the community celebrations honoring sixty years of Israeli independence. Or if you do, hand our t-shirts that say, "Happy Birthday, Israel" on the front, and "Remember the Nakba" on the back. Be prepared to run fast.

3) Buy five copies of the powerful English translation of S. Yizhar's Khirbet Khizeh and send it to family and friends. This is a short powerful book that brings home the Nakba in a way that Elie Wiesel's Night brought home the Holocaust to me forty years ago.

4) Honor the Palestinian and Jewish activists who labor day and night to bring justice to the Palestinians inside and outside of Israel. "The day is short and the labor is long." There are so many groups whose work allows wimpy liberals like me to sleep a little better at night. May God bless them all.

But a special blessing this year to Gabi Eldor, of the Jaffa Arab-Jewish theater, Yosef (Pappe) Allo, a Jerusalem activist, Sa'id el-Uqbi, a peace activist, Sherry Bashi, Gisha (organization that works to provide access for Palestinians, Beni Gefen, peace activist, Alon Lee Green, labor activist, Giora Segal, educator and teacher; Yigal Ezrati, the Arabic-Hebrew Theater in Jaffa, Lilia Pether, foreign worker activist, Ehud Shem Tov, Social TV. (Please forgive the misspellings. These activists were honored by lighting the torches at the Alternative Torch Lighting Ceremony sponsored by Yesh Gvul

5) Give a donation to the Obama campaign. All right, I know this one is cheezy. And I don't have many illusions. But of all the candidates, he has the most potential to do something, which I don't believe he will do, to bring justice, which I don't believe will happen, to the Palestinians.

That's all. Note that I didn't post this until the day was over. My bad.

Judah Magnes -- The Forgotten Prophet

There is a series in Haaretz called, "1948 Diaries," which today featured Judah Magnes's Zionist activities to prevent the unilateral establishment of a Jewish state. I have reproduced the article below. Unfortunately, this is a very busy week (month) for me, so I have to be a bit brief on comment.

But one of my occasional readers, bar_kochba132, has asked that even if Magnes was right, what was the alternative? I will let him say it in his words:

A continuation of the British mandate seemed not to be in the cards, because Britain was bankrupt and they were going to pull out of their main base in Egypt anyway, so Palestine had less and less strategic importance to them (once they had to give up the Suez Canal). One possibility was a UN Mandate, but those have been problematic. A unitary state would have likely lead to a Lebanon-type situation with an ongoing civil war, with the Arabs jealous of Jewish economic dominance. So what did Magnes think was the solution?

Oy, I simply can't answer that important question now. And, needless to say, 1948 is not 2008. But here it is in brief:

Magnes was a pragmatist and a tireless diplomat. As I have said before, he should be distinguished from Buber, Simon, and the Brit Shalom crowd. Before the establishment of the state, he pushed for a binational state, and was encouraged by the minority UNSCOP that called for a federal state. The latter solution was also rejected by the Arab States; some of the Arab side were prepared to allow the Jews to have minority rights and a certain degree of cultural autonomy, but not parity of any sort. As the article states, Magnes was prepared for a temporary UN mandate or trusteeship, and he was also in favor of postponing the implementation of partition (as was the US State Department). Following the establishment of the State of Israel, he argued for a federation of several states with a joint army, economic and foreign policies.

The tragedy of Magnes was that his ideas were, I believe, right in principle, but their timing was wrong. Neither the Zionists nor the Arabs were willing to listen, and he understood quite well the logic of their positions.

After the semester is over, I will post a fascinating debate between Aubrey (Abba) Eban and Judah Magnes that appeared in Commentary in 1948. He called then for a United States of Palestine. Who would have thought sixty years ago, and in a much altered situation, that so much of that debate is relevant?

1948 diaries: Saving the Jews from themselves

By Ofri Ilani

Judah Magnes, a founder of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and its first president, was in poor health on April 13, 1948. The 70-year-old Magnes knew the end was near, but that didn't stop him from flying to Washington, D.C., in an effort to end the violence in the soon-to-be-born State of Israel. He represented almost no one other than a group of peace-seeking professors, but was nonetheless able to access and influence the American administration.

He had access because the State Department wanted to slow down partition, and they wanted Magnes to influence Truman. It didn't work.

The details of this forgotten period during Israel's struggle for independence are revealed in excerpts of Magnes' diary, published here for the first time, which describe the Zionist leader's attempt to convince the president of the United States to force a cease-fire and prevent both the implementation of the partition plan and the establishment of a Jewish state.

When the United Nations passed the partition plan on November 29, 1947, not all the Jews celebrated in the streets. A group of intellectuals, most of them Hebrew University lecturers, believed that the war that would break out in the wake of the establishment of a Jewish state would bring disaster down on the Jews and the Arabs alike. Magnes, a Reform rabbi, pacifist and anti-imperialist who was known for his opposition to World War I, was one of the most important Zionist leaders of his era. He was a leading figure in the New York Jewish community and was a key liaison between the Zionist leadership and the American administration. He moved to Israel in 1922 and came out in support of the establishment of a single, binational state for Jews and Arabs, with a government comprised of representatives from both peoples.

Magnes' personal diary, which he wrote in English, discusses his despair at the violence as the British Mandate came to an end, intermingling those accounts with descriptions of his worsening health and his nightmares.

On April 12, 1948, Magnes wrote in his diary: "For more than a generation I have been pleading for peace, conciliation, understanding. How can I not and stand before the world and say: 'Friends, stop the bloodshed. Understanding is possible.' This is the moment I have been preparing for all these years."

The American consul told Magnes that if no trusteeship were formed by May 15, Palestine would enter a period full of "very grave danger with bloodshed," Magnes wrote the same day. "Great need of courageous, constructive attitude such as mine," he wrote. "Therefore time come for me and others selected... or me alone to come to U.S. in order to cooperate." Magnes expressed the hope that if a state were declared, the United States would impose sanctions on Israel, saying that there can be no war without money or ammunition.

On April 13, Magnes was informed that 34 Hebrew University and Hadassah hospital employees were killed in an attack on a convoy to Mount Scopus. All told, 77 people were killed in the attack, many of them Magnes' friends. But Manges was no less shocked by the massacre than he was by the circumstances that preceded it: Four days earlier, the Irgun and Lehi pre-state Jewish underground militias killed more than 100 Palestinians at Deir Yassin.

At the funerals of those killed in the convoy attack, Magnes condemned the cruelty of both sides, and was denounced as a traitor by many members of the Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine).

"Unlike other Zionist leaders, like [David] Ben-Gurion, Magnes' diaries are not just a political document," says Hebrew University Prof. Aryeh Goren, who is researching and editing Magnes' writings. "His writing is very personal - he shares and talks about his misgivings and his weaknesses."

Magnes considered himself to be a follower of Mahatma Gandhi and the prophet Jeremiah, and opposed all forms of nationalism that are based on military force. The Ihud (Unity) association he established with several others is seen as the flagship group of left-wing Zionists regarding all that pertains to Jewish-Arab relations. Its members were attacked by nearly all the political parties in the pre-state period, and were described as defeatists, ghetto-like and anti-patriotic.

A long study of the Ichud was published by Prof. Joseph Heller in Hebrew a few years ago. Unfortunately, it is only in Hebrew, and the author can't afford to have it translated into English. (I should mentioned in passing that the author does not share Magnes's views, or thinks that they would have worked.)

"Magnes predicted that even if we win the war, there would then be another war, and another one. It would never end," says Goren. "When the battles of the War of Independence began, he tried to halt the implementation of the UN decision and advance the idea that was promoted then by the American State Department, that the UN would freeze the partition decision and in the interim force both sides into a trusteeship with a temporary government, until the conditions suit another arrangement. Magnes thought that this was an opportunity to stop the turn of events, in the hope that in the meantime there would be understanding and it would be possible to talk."

Magnes died several months after the establishment of the state. His loss was not only a great loss to the Jewish people but to Zionism and the State of Israel. He is virtually a forgotten figure. And the reason for that, aside from the obvious one that he went against the master narrative, is that, as an American and a reform Jew, he was an outsider in a country founded by Russian Jewish nationalists on a European socialist model. In a sense, the failure of Magnes was the first of countless failures of liberal Zionist American Jews to have an impact on the country. His writings have never been translated into Hebrew, and, aside from Heller's book, very few have studied him.

But his time will come

Now the Hebron Settlers Are Attacking the Road Map Implementation Monitor

Haaretz is reporting that the Hebron settlers successfully disrupted the visit to Hebron by General William Frasier, the new road map implementation monitor. They managed to get one of their jeeps into his motorcade, whereupon his security people's car hit the jeep and a fight broke out between the settlers and the security people. The general and his people left the place immediately.

Apparently the settler hooligans don't discriminate -- or they believe that General Frasier is a crazy leftwing self-hating Jew.

Police Bar "Breaking the Silence" Tour Group From Entering Hebron

This just in from Haaretz: The Israeli police in Hebron (a.k.a. the military wing of the Hebron settlers) have prevented Bne Avraham/Breaking the Silence from giving tours of Hebron. These tours have been going on for three years without much incident. But emboldened by their violence last week, the Hebron settlers (a.k.a. the pseudo-Jews, or the Judaeo-Nazis) have convinced the police that the balagan the settlers make can be avoided by barring the "outside agitators."

I know, I know, this is small potatoes compared with some of the other stories from Haaretz, such as the millions of liters of raw sewage that are polluting and poisoning the water of the Gazans, due to the ongoing siege of Gaza, or the humiliation of Palestinians by Border Police.

The Hell only gets worse. Happy Birthday.

Still, with any luck, Michael Sfard will get a court order instructing the police to allow the tours to go on. And if the courts rule against the group, well, heck, I will be back at the end of May, and I will be happy to drive to Hebron and give the same tour.

Leftist group: Police barring us from monitoring Hebron settlers By Mijal Grinberg, Haaretz Correspondent

The group "Shovrim Shtika" (breaking the silence) said that the police have recently begun barring the organization from touring Hebron to monitor the actions of settlers. The main reason for this, according to the group, is the fact that the police has surrendered to the policies of the settlers in Hebron and Kiryat Arba.

The police, for their part, describe the "Shovrim Shtika" tours as a "platform for extreme left-wingers to enter the Jewish territory and create an imbalance in the area." The police maintain that they have not done anything that deviates from the law.

An altercation erupted Thursday between activists and settlers from Hebron and Kiryat Arba. Yehuda Shaul of "Shovrim Shtika", who has been organizing tours of Hebron for three years, said that he arrived in Kiryat Arba and turned with his group to show them an outpost outside the settlement and was then stopped at the entrance by a group of settlers who surrounded the vehicle he was in.

The right wing activists tell a different story: Noam Arnon said he and his friends were among the few people at the scene who did not surround the vehicle. He said that the car shaul was in had driven backwards in efforts to run over another activist.

A police officer who arrived at the scene forbade the group from touring Hebron, even though the tour was already coordinated with the Israel Defense Forces and the police, and despite the fact that the settlers can travel freely anywhere in the area.

According to Shaul, this was the third such incident this week. He explained that this kind of restriction was a part of a growing trend. Attorney Michael Sfard said that the police behavior in these incidents has become "the executing arm of the Jewish settlement in Hebron, and if this behavior doesn't change, legal action will be taken."

Are the Palestinians "Oppressed and Abused" by their Leaders

For my sins, I am a member of a listserve called the "Jewish Faculty Roundtable." Too much of the listserve is devoted to Israel, particularly the question of the so-called "anti-Israel climate" on campuses. It is good that Jews, especially wealthy Jews, believe that there is such a climate. For then they donate lots of money to universities, who then hire scholars of "Israel Studies," most of whom are center-left (if they are Israeli, they are usually more to the left.)

But on a recent post, Ed Halper, who is a professor of Ancient Philosophy at the University of Georgia, and a fine scholar, made the following remark about the "abuse and oppression" of the Palestinians by their leaders

The [Palestinian] leaders' intransigence, propagandizing, willingness to use ordinary Palestinians for cannon fodder, along with their theft of aid funds has done everything to prolong this conflict and prevent implementation of the only just and feasible solution, the self-determination for the two communities.

I cannot understand how people who claim to be leftists can turn a blind eye to this oppression.

Here's my response to this very bad argument.

First, change "Palestinians" to "Israelis", and change "theft of aid funds" to "fiscal corruption", and you have, arguably, an accurate description of Israel@60. So what?

Or, if you like, substitute "Americans," who, arguably, have been oppressed by their government for the last eight years. So what?

Or, if you believe that the Palestinians have been oppressed by their leaders -- I don't -- my question to you will be, so what?

It doesn't make a damn difference.

Because, you see, what the Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians, have in common is that their governments were elected in fair elections. The Palestinian elections were monitored by international observers. In each case, the people should have gotten what they deserved. If they voted the bums in, that's their headache.

But only in one case -- that of the Palestinians -- were the elections results overturned by outside interference. After supporting elections -- elections, I may add, that to a large extent, actually threw the corrupt bums out -- Israel arrested the elected officials that it did not like and imposed a siege on Gaza -- not because it was actually being attacked, but because the Palestinians had elected a group viewed by the US and Israel (and much of Europe), to be a terrorist organization.

Fair enough...but if you justify Israel's actions in the interest of Israeli security (what about Palestinian security?), you have automatically declared Palestinians territories to be, if not under occupation, than under the thumb of Israel. And therefore you have made the Israelis responsible for the governance of thsoe territories.

Indeed, it follows that the Israelis are responsible for the oppression of the Palestinians, even by their leaders -- for their leaders really have no power but serve at the whim of the Israelis.

In short, you can't have it both ways, but that is exactly what Israel, and its defenders want. They are willing to give the Palestinians autonomy as long as it is no threat to Israel.

If the Palestians feel "oppressed" by their leaders, then it is up for them to vote them out. To a large extent they did just that -- but that's when the "grownups" stepped in.