Antony Loewenstein

Eitan Haber writes in Ynet that the poor Jews are the victims of growing global cooling (he’s right, but it’s hard not to feel such pieces are designed to create sympathy for an occupying people):

The US still offers great support to Israel, and White House officials are angry over every statement from here that claims otherwise. However, as noted, only a deaf or a fool would not see what is happening. With a great measure of exaggeration, we can say that the US is throwing Israel to the dogs. And there are numerous dogs out there, just waiting for this opportunity.

For 42 years they have claimed that Israel is a rogue state that is rebelling against and laughing at the whole world, so now the time has come to show Bibi Netanyahu and his colleagues who shall have the last laugh. The result of this is that dozens of countries, including some that used to be sympathetic to Israel, have spoken out against us recently and will continue to do so. A thousand phone calls by Netanyahu will not put out this fire.

…

The world has grown tired of us; the same world that wishes to see quiet prevail despite Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence, it will be the same world, which is not necessarily right and isn’t responsible for its wrong decisions, which will soon try to impose some sort of sanctions against us (and the cancelation of the drill with Turkey is this type of sanction) similarly to the sanctions imposed on South Africa.

Google fans, hold your applause, as it looks like one of its founders backs the colonial project in Palestine:

Jewish Billionaire, Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google, donated $1 million to the so-called Hebrew national Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) which heavily encourages Jews around the world to immigrate to Israel and the United States.

The organization is one of the biggest supporters of illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

In 1979, Brin, at age 6, emigrated with his family from the former Soviet Union to the United States.

He said that HIAS helped his family leave the Soviet Union, and that his donation comes on the thirtieth anniversary of leaving Russia.

His current wealth is estimated by $16 billion.

Having just visited Aceh in Indonesia, this New York Times feature about the place is timely:

Just before noon prayers one recent Friday — a mandatory session for men — the Shariah police’s all-female brigade hopped onto a Toyota pickup to begin patrols. Dressed in olive uniforms, the officers hewed to the city center, away from the areas worst hit by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. They urged stragglers to hurry to the nearest mosque and exhorted the recalcitrant to yield to God’s authority.

“Dear followers of Islam, people of Banda Aceh,” blared a loudspeaker on the Toyota, “our city has applied Shariah. It’s almost praying time. Close all shops, stop all business activities. No more buying and selling.”

Aceh has long been know as “Mecca’s veranda,” because Indonesians used to travel here to board ships bound for Islam’s holiest city on their hajj, or pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. Aceh’s self-identity, if rooted in Islam, was always somewhat apart from the rest of Indonesia. Local forces fighting for autonomy, whether from Dutch colonizers or Suharto’s three-decade military rule, always demanded the freedom to carry out Shariah.

So as Aceh separatists and the central government forged a peace agreement in the last decade, Aceh won semiautonomy and the right to Shariah. The authorities began putting Shariah into practice in 2001, widening and reinforcing it every few years with legal revisions. The Shariah police, officially known as “wilayatul hisbah,” or the vice and virtue patrol, began operating in 2005 with 13 officers and now has 62, including 14 women.

The dust is settling after the J Street conference. Many thoughts continue to resonate and the challenges ahead. A good summary of proceedings is from blogger Richard Silverstein, who I was finally able to meet in Washington DC.

Where are the spaces for Jewish dissent? How willing is the Jewish mainstream to hear critical voices of Israeli criminality?

Here’s an interesting piece in the US News:

The most interesting bit I picked up about J Street in reporting on its inaugural conference this week: The liberal Jewish group is not seeking to influence President Obama’s Middle East policy. Rather, it wants to give him the political cover to pursue strategies in the region that he has already articulated, including restarting Israeli/Palestinian peace talks, insisting that Israel freeze settlements, and negotiating with Iran.

“Our primary mission is to open up political space,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s executive director, told me yesterday. “There has not been a political base of support for these positions, and our mission is to open space for policymakers to pursue what they know is right for America.”

Translation: J Street wants to give the Obama administration

Jewish political cover as more-hawkish Jewish groups voice skepticism or outright opposition to the president’s approach to Israel. Ben-Ami and his supporters want to counter the impression that all American Jews endorse everything Israel does.

Remind you of anyone?

Sounds similar to what groups like Faith in Public Life are trying to do, countering the impression that all Christians, particularly evangelicals, are right-wingers who are only about culture war issues. A big part of what they do is give Obama and the Democrats Christian political cover on issues like healthcare and climate change.

And newish groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good provide Roman Catholic cover for the White House and the Democrats.

That’s not to say that these groups are acting cynically or dishonestly. They truly feel that conservatives have monopolized the political discourse for too long.

The danger, of course, is that these outfits become appendages of the Democratic Party, the equivalent of what they say the religious right has become to the GOP. We’ll have to wait and see.

Unsurprisingly, Zionism’s radical fringe only knows how to smear opponents and clearly they fear J Street’s passion. Young people flocked to the event, keen to engage. Here’s Harvey Schwartz, chairman of the American Israeli Action Coalition:

As chairman of the American Israeli Action Coalition (AIAC), an organization that seeks to represent the 250,000 Americans living in Israel, I know many who have firsthand knowledge of J Street and understand the havoc it intends to visit upon Israel. We most respectfully disagree.

Israel is a dynamic, democratic country with a well-established history of feisty internal political discourse and sharp internal criticism of its various governments and policies. Were J Street an Israeli organization which engaged in such battles within Israel, The Jerusalem Post’s recognition of its right to do so would be eminently correct.

But that is not what J Street is or does. It is an American organization whose purpose is to vociferously criticize Israel and its policies (as well as lobby for the adoption of policies which are contrary to its best interests) before the US government. The American-Israeli community, having lived in the US, is keenly aware of the serious danger of such activities.

Most American-Israelis I have spoken to recognize J Street for what it really is – a radical, far left organization funded and supported by radical forces. A true wolf in sheep’s clothing. Indeed, J Street’s executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, just confirmed that truth by declaring at the J Street conference, “[w]e are here to redefine and expand the very concept of being pro-Israel.” Israel’s greatest enemies could not have articulated it any better.

What has Judaism become when alernative views are treated with such contempt?

I’m sceptical, but when the political elites aren’t really interested in bringing peace, alternatives must be found:

For many of its 300 million enthusiasts, Facebook is a convenient way to keep in touch with friends, track down old sweethearts and share drunken photographs with the world. But the global power of the social networking site is now being harnessed for a rather more laudable aim: the pursuit of world peace.

A joint project between Facebook and the Persuasive Technology Lab at Stanford University – called peace.facebook.com – is trying to bring together opposing sides in some of the most bitterly divided areas of the planet, encouraging online friendships between Jews and Muslims, US liberals and conservatives, and Turks and Greeks.

By tracking Facebook friendships and crunching the numbers, the site provides a daily snapshot of who is talking to whom and where.

This afternoon, for example, peace.facebook revealed that over the previous 24 hours, there had been 7,339 India-Pakistan connections; 13,790 Greece-Turkey connections, and 5,158 Israel-Palestine connections.

A click on the button for religious contact showed that over the same 24 hours, there had been 53,100 Christians and atheists in touch with each other, 1,250 Muslims and Jews talking, and 667 Sunni-Shia connections. In the US, meanwhile, the number of conservative-liberal connections was 27,896.

J Street talks about a Jewish democracy in the Middle East but these actions below in East Jerusalem, just the latest in a series of outrageous attempts by Israel to evict Palestinians from their rightful homes, is the sign of a nation utterly opposed to the rule of law:

And here’s yet more evidence, via The Palestine Note blog, of what religious, Jewish fundamentalism is doing to Israel:

In a very rare interview, Major Adrian Agassi, who serves as a judge for the Army courts in the West Bank, reveals some of his personal beliefs. Agassi told the Guardian that a peace agreement with the Palestinians “goes against nature”.

“When we [Israelis] say that this is a political conflict, then we lose the battle,” he told the Guardian, adding that it should be remembered that the ancient land of Israel is “given to us by the Bible, not by some United Nations.”

Agassi, one of the most important officials in the military courts wielding authority over large parts of the West Bank, says settling Jews on lands that made up ancient Israel stands above all other biblical commandments and only when it is done can they have “a promised land and a promised life.”

“You say that these lands ‘passed into Jewish hands’. Others would say that they came back into Jewish hands. Others would say that they are obviously ours, inherently,” he said. It was, he claims, a mistake to call it the State of Israel. “If we would have named it the State of Jews, the Arabs would have understood that this land belongs to the Jews.”

If Israel and the US believe that killing Palestinians is an acceptable part of doing business, they’re dead wrong:

Human rights lawyers and pro-Palestinian activists in a number of European countries hold lists with names of Israel Defense Forces soldiers allegedly linked to war crimes committed during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip. Existing legislation enables arrest warrants to be issued against these officers if they enter those countries.

Lawyers in Britain and other European countries have been collecting testimonies of Palestinians and other data from Gaza since January, which they maintain proves that war crimes were committed by the IDF during the offensive. The evidence is linked to IDF officers holding ranks of battalion commander and higher, who were in command during various stages of Cast Lead.

The other nations who have lawyers collecting information on the matter include the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium and Norway, whose laws, as well as Britain’s, allow the issuance of arrest warrants against foreign citizens suspected of war crimes.

Historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen writes in his new book Worse than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity:

The number of people who have been mass murdered [in the 20th century] is, conservatively estimated, 83 million. When purposeful famine is included, the number becomes 127 million, and if the higher estimates are correct the total number of victims of mass murder may be 175 million or more.

A welcome statement by Human Rights Watch on the dire situation in Sri Lanka:

The Sri Lankan government’s proposal to create a committee of experts to examine allegations of laws-of-war violations during the conflict between the government and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) is an attempt to avoid an independent international inquiry, Human Rights Watch said today.

The government made its proposal in response to a report by the US State Department, published on October 22, 2009, that detailed hundreds of incidents of alleged laws-of-war violations in Sri Lanka from January through May. According to conservative UN estimates, 7,000 civilians were killed and more than 13,000 injured during that period, the final months of fighting. “The government is once again creating a smokescreen inquiry to avoid accountability for abuses,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Only an independent international investigation will uncover the truth about this brutal war and ensure justice for the victims. The UN and US should not play along with the government’s pretense that it will conduct its own investigation.”

The JTA reports on J Street’s clear generational divide. Simply put, younger Jews are more ambivalent about Zionism and a two-state solution. They want independent thought and they oppose the Israel right or wrong crowd. Bring it on (and I heard this constantly over the last four days):

After all the arguing in recent weeks over J Street, one thing was clear at the inaugural conference of the self-described “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group: Even among the 1,500 delegates who attended the parley, there are crucial disagreements over what’s best for Middle East peace.

On some issues, judging from interviews with conference delegates and assessments by J Street officials of participants’ viewpoints, there appeared to be broad consenus, like the belief that the Palestinians deserve national rights or the United States needs to do more to push the Israelis and Palestinians toward negotiations.

On other issues, however, a stark generation gap was apparent.

Older conference goers appeared to be virtually unanimous in expressing support for a  two-state solution, calling themselves Zionists and saying that while they back more U.S. pressure on the parties, they reject cutting aid to Israel if it does not accede to U.S. demands.

But a number of delegates under 40, especially college students and recent graduates, appeared to be much more equivocal on the idea of two states for two peoples. Some were hesitant about identifying as Zionists, and some were open to the idea of making U.S. aid to Israel conditional on progress in the peace process.

The J Street conference in Washington DC is over. There is so much to say, reflections, criticisms, praise and exhaustion. Until I have the chance to fully re-engage, Mondoweiss have two good pieces about the event (here and here).

The challenges facing anybody in the US to seriously shift the dialogue was revealed once more with a speech a few days ago by Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-IL, who participated in a panel discussion titled, “The View from the Hill: Congress and the U.S. – Israel Relationship”. Other panelists included Reps. Bob Filner, D-CA; Steve Cohen, D-TN; Jared Polis, D-CO; and Charles Boustany, R-LA. The panel was moderated by Bob Franken.

Her remarks are below:

Thank you for inviting me to participate in J Street’s first national conference. I am always proud to join my friends and colleagues on this panel who are dedicated, as I am, to a peaceful and secure future for the Jewish State of Israel.

From the earliest minutes of her founding, the United State has supported Israel, and Israel in turn has been a reliable friend and the closest of allies in a dangerous but vital region of the world. A strong Israel is a matter of U.S. national interest as is an enduring peace in the region.

As a member of Congress and a Jew, it has been gratifying to me that U.S. Congressional support for Israel has been strongly bi-partisan, actually nearly universal, even when our politics has been fraught with partisan tensions. Financial assistance to Israel has always been widely supported. Joint strategic, economic and scientific endeavors that benefit both the United States and Israel are routinely enacted without controversy.

Still, after 61 years, Israelis live in a state of perpetual danger with only intermittent respite from deadly conflict. And so, as Israel’s best friend in the world, it is quite natural that we would be debating how best to most effectively to work toward long-term security. I believe that means actively working to achieve a negotiated two-state solution with the Palestinians. While no third party can execute such an agreement, it is clear that the United States can and must play a role if it is to happen.

In addition, long term security means working with Israel and other countries in the region to avert a nuclear arms race and to bring about a peaceful resolution caused by Iran’s nuclear program.

Palestinians are an after-thought, at best. Occupation doesn’t really exist.

Sydney Levy writes for Jewish Voice for Peace and argues against the issue of Israel facing a “demographic threat” from Arabs discussed here at the J Street conference. That’s called racism, peoples:

The Palestinians are of course non-players in this Jewish democratic drama. At most, they are a threat just for being there. At best, they are a minority that we must keep under demographic control.

Oh, but the Palestinians are playing their part well. You see, in the 1960’s Palestinians had an average of nine children per family. Now they only have four. (Phew).

Four children is a lot, but nine is a lot more, explains the kind demographer in case we cold not do the math. Audience laughs.

Now, I am Jewish and I am also a Latino man living in California–a state where we have a pluralistic demographic composition: not one group, not even non-Latino whites, amount to 50% of the population. If I were to hear white people bemoaning the demographic threat that the rise of people of color in the state represents, I would call it like it is, and that is racism, pure and simple. I have no use for the phrase demographic threat. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth and a sharp pain in my gut.

What we say matters a lot; that’s what we were told in this workshop. If we need to use racism to message ourselves as Pro-Israel pro-peace, there is something very wrong here.

Is this the best J Street can come up with?