Antony Loewenstein

British based intellectual Ghada Kharmi, who last visited Australia in 2007, writes that the Palestinian national struggle is facing a seminal moment in its history. Take care, she writes, the future is being written now:

The divergence of opinion and the ferment of ideas are indications that at this critical stage in Palestinian history, what is needed is not a peace process on better terms, but a pan-national debate about the future. The deepening gulf between the “outside” and the “inside” that I see here [in Ramallah] is the most dangerous threat to that future. The challenge facing the Palestinians involves all of them, not just the third living under Israeli occupation. Any political decision now must include Fateh and Hamas, the refugees and the exiles. That is why some of us are calling urgently for an international meeting of Palestinian leaders to work out the best way forward before it is too late. Israel, which has worked hard to fragment the Palestinians and diminish their cause to one of bickering over percentages of land on the West Bank, must not be allowed to succeed.

Independent Australian Jewish Voices (IAJV), which I co-founded in early 2007, continues to hum along and we have many plans for 2010.

A few weeks ago in the Australian Jewish News one-time journalist Michael Visontay – who has form in hand-wringing matters, sometimes feeling terribly pained about something or other in Israel but remaining utterly unwilling to do anything about it, a typical “liberal” Jew with no concept of what Israel really is today – wrote the following article:

The right to disagree with Israeli government policy has become, in many ways, even more controversial than the policies themselves. Over the past decade, a number of Jewish activists have railed against what they claim is a taboo, imposed by established pro-Israeli advocate groups, against any criticism of Israel.

First there was the Independent Jewish Voices in England, followed by similar groups in Europe and here, the Independent Australian Jewish Voices (IAJV). All these groups have attempted to widen the debate about the Middle East. But the English and Australian groups have touched a nerve and created a dilemma for many thoughtful, open-minded Jews.

In Australia, many people would like to see Israel’s policies more flexible, less aggressive and defensive, but they cannot bring themselves to support IAJV due to an underlying hostility in the group’s activism that unnerves them.

Now, a new group has emerged in America, called J Street -– the name referring to a missing street in the grid system of Washington DC, a nod to the missing voice in debate about Israeli policy. J Street is founded and supported by a broad range of American Jewish public figures.

Its call for more vigorous debate has attracted criticism from the heavy hitter of American Jewish advocacy, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

From a global perspective, however, the significant thing about J Street is that it is clearly, unequivocally pro-Israel. J Street’s charter on its website reads: “J Street is the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement. J Street was founded to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts peacefully and diplomatically. We support a new direction for American policy in the Middle East.

“J Street represents Americans, primarily but not exclusively Jewish, who support Israel and its desire for security as the Jewish homeland, as well as the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own.”

The IAJV’s statement of principles on its website reads: “We are Jews with diverse opinions on the Middle East who share a deep concern about the current crisis in the region, we are committed to ensuring a just peace that recognises the legitimate national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians with a solution that protects the human rights of all.

“We believe that Israel’s right to exist must be recognised and that Palestinians’ right to a homeland must also be acknowledged … We feel there is an urgent need to hear alternative voices that not be silenced by being labelled disloyal or ‘self-hating’ … in particular we are concerned that the Jewish establishment does not represent the full range of Jewish opinion.”

I have abridged the statement, but anyone who reads it in full on the website will notice that something is missing: a declaration that the IAJV is pro-Israel.

The IAJV recognises Israel’s right to exist, but does not say it is pro-Israel. This absence carries a significance far beyond words. It underscores the whole vibe, reportage, commentary and activism that has emanated from this group over the past few years. The group is characterised by a noticeable lack of empathy with Israel, beyond its criticism of successive governments and policy towards Palestinians.

There is no reason why any group of Jews has to declare itself pro-Israel, and the IAJV is entitled to be critical of the Israeli government. It refers to J Street on its site and sees the two as kindred spirits. But that absence of an underlying support for the country, the nation and the people permeates everything it does and says. Deep down, this is what rankles a substantial number of Australian Jews, and stops them from supporting the group.

J Street has illuminated why the temperature of discussion is so heated in Australia, why many have tried to ignore or dismiss the IAJV and why others have started their own response (such as The Sensible Jew, a blog started this year by two Melbourne women who wanted to present an alternative voice to both the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council and the IAJV).

Hopefully, J Street’s model can be used to help forge a new cast of public discussion in Australia. At the very least, it may loosen up a conversation that has been stifled by attention-seeking behaviour and name calling.

This week’s paper features the following letter in response:

Michael Visontay’s comparison of J Street and the Independent Australian Jewish Voices (IAJV) is both thoughtful and thought-provoking (AJN 13/11). But his analysis of why the IAJV “rankles a substantial number of Australian Jews, and stops them up from supporting the group”, in my view, fails to address two significant factors.

Visontay attributes the hostile attitude of many Australian Jews towards the IAJV to the group’s lack of an underlying support for Israel as both a country and a nation.

However, many Jewish Australians, from both the Centre and the Left, perceive the IAJV to be stridently anti-Israel in many of its public statements and activities, rather than merely lacking in empathy. Members of the IAJV may protest that this is not the group’s raison d’etre, but it is certainly the preoccupation of its most prominent spokespeople.

The second reason is because many of its members, especially those with a high public profile, have no apparent connection with Judaism or any facet of the Jewish community other than an accident of birth or family ties that they choose to parade when convenient.

A comparison of the membership of the J Street Advisory Council and the IAJV list of signatories is illuminating. J Street may be seen by some to be left-wing, dovish, avant-garde or naive, but it represents a large segment of the American Jewish community in all its glory and folly, whereas the IAJV represents a fringe, many of whom just happened to be born Jewish.

JONATHAN SLONIM
Caulfield North, Vic

Only a few words in response are required. It seems that many Zionists want to set acceptable boundaries of debate. So what if IAJV doesn’t say we’re “pro-Israel”? There are multiple ways to want to bring peace to the Midde East and many of our initiatives have included individuals who would proudly call themselves “Zionist.”

If you care about labels, then good for you. But what matters is ending the occupation and giving Palestinians full rights. Visontay and others need to come to terms with the fact that their silence and apathy over decades has allowed Israel to behave as it does. The occupation didn’t happen by accident. It required global, Jewish support. And now Israel has no intention of changing course.

Until there is a reckoning about all this and a mature debate that allows all views to be heard, internal angst and name-calling seems futile, at best.

Dr Ron Weiser, immediate past president of the Zionist Federation of Australia, has written before about the supposed threat J Street poses to Zionist aggression.

Here’s his latest gem, again on J Street and his seeming inability to understand why growing numbers of young American Jews are questioning Israel (it’s called decades of occupation and brutal wars in Gaza, mate):

J-Street represents that disconnect between the proud Jew who stands with Israel and for whose identity Israel is an integral part — and those who want to create a different image of Israel that makes them feel more comfortable amongst their peers and saves them the angst of correcting the false images that make them feel so doubtful of Jewish morality.

Israeli apartheid, with the world watching on:

The social, economic, health and educational gaps between Israel’s Jewish and Arab citizens are continuing to grow, mostly as a result of unfair government policies and prejudice from the Jewish population, a study published Wednesday has found.

Now in its third year, the Equality Index of Jewish and Arab Citizens in Israel, published by Sikkuy, the Association for the Advancement of Civic Equality, cites growing housing shortages and a looming welfare crisis as the main concerns facing the country’s 1.5 million Arabic-speakers.

“The index shows an alarming picture: that the gap between Jews and Arabs has increased by almost five percent in just two years,” commented Ron Gerlitz, co- executive director of Sikkuy.

Lawyer Ali Haider, the other co-executive director and editor of the annual index, told The Jerusalem Post that “the government simply does not provide the necessary budgets needed for the Arab population.

“More funds are provided for the Jewish population,” he said, adding, “Over the past few years we have seen more and more legislation passed against the Arab population and this attitude only encourages racism and mistrust among the Jewish population.”

Naomi Klein, recently speaking out against Israeli crimes in Palestine, goes back to her roots as a leading voice against rampant capitalism and here explains on Democracy Now! that it’s the duty of global citizens to challenge the supposedly accepted concepts of climate change:

[There is a] growing demand for the repayment of climate debt. This is really a relatively new framing for the climate crisis and is becoming predominantly from the developing world, led by the government of Bolivia and other Latin American governments, and it has been joined by the coalition of least developed countries which are primarily in Africa. And essentially what they’re saying is that the climate crisis as we know was created in the industrialized world. There is a direct correlation between industrialization (what we call development) and carbon emissions. In fact, 75% of the historical carbon emissions have been produced by only 20% of the world’s population. Then we have this cruel geographical irony, which is that the effects of climate change our felt overwhelmingly in the developing world, and the parts of the world that are least responsible for creating the crisis. According to the World Bank, 75-80 of the effects of climate change are being felt in the developing world. So, you have this inverse relationship between cause and effect.

It is in this context that we see a growing movement from the developing countries that really are on the front lines of climate change, saying that the rich world that created the climate crisis owes them a debt, owes them a tangible reparations for the creation of this crisis. And those reparations should be paid in three forms. First through deep emissions cuts in the developed world, in the rich world. At least 40% below 1990 levels- this is a figure we have heard a lot. In addition to this, they are saying the rich world, the G-8 countries, the industrialized countries, should pay for the costs, the huge costs, that poor countries face in adapting to climate change. In addition to that, they’re also saying that they would like to leapfrog over the dirty energies, the fossil fuels that are fueling the climate crisis. But they point out that this is expensive and more expensive to shift to cleaner green technology than it is to develop with cheap, dirty fuels, which is the way we did in the rich world. So, they are saying we will change, but we don’t think we should have to pay this additional cost because of our problem that is not of our creation. Essentially the climate debt arguments is the “polluter pays” argument, which is a familiar argument to people in the United States, its a basic principle of jurisprudence. Another way of putting this is “you broke it, you bought it”.

Here’s a fun job to have. Hannah Rosenthal, former head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, started this week as the State Department’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. Oh joy.

Tablet Magazine asks her to respond to critics (and note how many times she has to say she loves Israel, just to keep everybody happy):

My entire adulthood has seen the same thing over and over and over. I love Israel. I have lived in Israel. I go back and visit every chance I can. I consider it part of my heart. And because I love it so much, I want to see it safe and secure and free and democratic and living safely, where children don’t have to learn where every bomb shelter is. That’s my vision of what the future is, and if we keep the current policies and the current strategies that will not happen.

I don’t think questioning any policy, foreign or domestic, makes somebody an anti-Semite or an anti-anything. It makes them someone who wants a thoughtful discussion. I think J Street needs to be at the table, and I think other organizations representing many strategies all need to be at the table, because the status quo in the Middle East is totally unacceptable. And the people who are doing name-calling, and apparently taking me on—I have made a point of not reading them. My sister said I would need a bodyguard. I said it’s just the blogosphere.

Sometimes, certain stories need no introduction:

South Africa deported an Israeli airline official last week following allegations that Israel’s secret police, the Shin Bet, had infiltrated Johannesburg international airport in an effort to gather information on South African citizens, particularly black and Muslim travellers.

The move by the South African government followed an investigation by local TV showing an undercover reporter being illegally interrogated by an official with El Al, Israel’s national carrier, in a public area of Johannesburg’s OR Tambo airport.

The programme also featured testimony from Jonathan Garb, a former El Al guard, who claimed that the airline company had been a front for the Shin Bet in South Africa for many years.

Following Sarah Palin’s recent comments that illegal, Jewish settlements should expand in the West Bank (in a clear reference to the Second Coming), a former Australian Liberal Party MP Ross Cameron today challenges her on this:

American policy for the past 40 years has discouraged Israeli settlements in the disputed territories. Palin told Barbara Walters last week: ”I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead.”

I support Israel, but an argument based on population growth alone favours Palestinians (population growth of 2.8 per cent versus Jewish 1.7 per cent, not including the wish to return of 4.5 million Palestinian refugees) so Palin is hurting the cause she is trying to help.

How did the Grand Old Party find its base so infatuated with a likeable political dud?

Good on him. His reasons for opposing settlements may have more to do with the Palestinian demographic “threat”, but at least some conservatives are opposing the dangerous radicalism of Palin.

Resistance lives:

Several American Tamil activists protested in front of the midtown Manhattan New York State armory building where Victoria’s Secret catwalk event was being held Thursday evening. While celebrities were arriving to attend the popular event, the protesters highlighted the Corporation’s trade with Sri Lanka as aiding and abetting crimes against humanity, and war-crimes. “The New York Police attempted to harass the protesters, but we carried on our protest much to the dismay of the catwalk organizers,” said a protest organizer.

A new Australian film, My Tehran for Sale, has just been released and tells the story of young Iranians in Tehran struggling to survive in a brutal dictatorship. Shot largely undercover for security reasons, its appearance is a success in itself:

British photographer Rich Wiles, who had an exhibition about Palestine in Sydney earlier this year, writes for the BADIL Resource Centre for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights on the use of art to resist occupation:

In the summer of 2008, Shira’a Center in Dheisheh Camp hosted one of its annual summer camps. In common with most summer camps within Palestine’s camps, Shira’a’s programs combine recreational activities with programs aimed at strengthening the participants’ understanding of their rights.

Ayed Arafah is a young artist from Dheisheh whose practice reflects his identity. That is not to say that Arafah’s work is in anyway stuck in the past. In fact, far from it: his art represents progression and a contemporary vision without losing track of its roots and origins. Many of his public murals can be seen around Dheisheh and Bethlehem’s others camps but also in the city itself. During Shira’a’s summer camp Arafah worked with forty of Dheisheh’s youth, aged between 11-15 years old, to create new public murals around the camp. The murals often seen in the streets of refugee camps are laced with traditional patriotic symbolism – keys, maps of Palestine, tents, Handala, and other symbols of a similar ilk. Some of Arafah’s work follows these routes and he says that often organizers of these collaborative youth projects specifically request such images:

“People ask for keys, tents, Handala, the same politics and symbols. For me it’s important to keep Handala alive but we must also learn to work with him in new ways. If Handala is overused then he becomes nothing. We are trying to build skills in young people and create the space for them to think about politics in a new way.”

J Street head Jeremy Ben-Ami debated the Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee David Harris on CNN earlier this week. They disagreed on some key points (Harris believes Israel can solve the conflict on its own while Ben-Ami believes only Washington can) but this comment by Ben-Ami was the strongest statement:

The settlement enterprise is essentially the equivalent of a cancer eating away at the state of Israel. It’s a disease that needed to be stopped early, and unfortunately, it’s now taking over the chances of Israel’s survival as a Jewish democratic state. And so I think it has been a mistake on the part of lobbyists in America who have tried to help Israel and facilitate the continued settlement expansion.