Tag Archive for 'Gideon Levy'

FInding a way back to endless talking between Arabs and Israelis

Published on 19 March 2010 in Israel. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

Gideon Levy writes in Haaretz that Washington must back its recent comments to Israel with more than words:

Israel – addicted to the occupation, and showing symptoms of overdose and accumulated damage – has finally found a savior to rescue it from its plight. Israel’s redeemer hasn’t just stood idly by for 40 years, but has even facilitated the habit. However, it seems that change may at last be in the air.

It’s still too early to celebrate sobriety, and successful rehabilitation is by no means certain. This is a long, painful process, and the addict and its savior have yet to show adequate determination. The user is still dependent, kicking and screaming so much that the friend is likely to surrender in despair, to simply give in to pressure, having lost both interest and patience in the rehabilitation. But the measures taken by the Obama administration over the past few days prove that change is possible. Now the loyal friend must be encouraged not to give up, not to quit until the junkie is clean.

Bernard Avishai writes similarly in the International Herald Tribune:

The point is, there is a culture war in Israel now, and the only way the liberal side of it can mount an offensive is if America keeps the heat on. It is futile to treat Israel as if it were the embodiment of some big Jewish psyche in need of reassurances to regain trust in the world.

Israel has its enemies, of course, but it is not the fear of extinction that keeps it wedded to the status quo, which is a security nightmare in its own right. Rather, Israeli leaders have resisted plausible peace ideas because a large and hardened minority, perhaps a third of Jewish Israelis, regards peace as an end to the divinely self-enclosed way of life they have established in and around Jerusalem. The squishy, declining, more cosmopolitan and secular majority is unwilling to confront them for the sake of Palestinians — that is, not unless they have to in order to remain joined to the Western world.

Washington court reporter Jackson Diehl writes in the Washington Post that a group hug between the two sides may be on the horizon:

It’s beginning to look as though a week-long confrontation between the Obama administration and Israel over Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem may be winding toward a negotiated settlement. At least, that is what Israeli officials are hoping as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu prepares to reply to a series of demands relayed to him last week by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

If so, that will be a good thing for all sides in the Middle East — including the Palestinians. By seizing on the issue of Jewish settlement in Jerusalem, President Obama has, for the second time in a year, started one of the few fights that the United States cannot win with Israel. In so doing he has forced Palestinian and Arab leaders to toughen their own positions and threatened to create an impasse that would stop the indirect peace talks his diplomats just set up before they can begin.

According to press reports in both countries, Clinton demanded in a phone call last Friday that Netanyahu reverse the decision by a local council to advance the construction of 1,600 new units in a neighborhood called Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish neighborhood outside Israel’s 1967 borders. Fortunately the State Department has not confirmed that position officially — though it has now been adopted by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as a condition for proceeding with the talks.

Netanyahu would never take that step. First, he might be barred from doing so under Israeli law; more importantly, building new Jewish housing in Jerusalem is one of the few issues that virtually all Israelis agree on. No government would formally agree to suspend it — nor is such a suspension necessary to reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. Leading Israelis and Palestinians — including Abbas — have repeatedly agreed, beginning a decade ago, that as part of any final settlement Israel will annex the Jewish neighborhoods it has built in Jerusalem since 1967, as well as nearby settlements in the West Bank. In return Palestinians will exercise sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and receive compensatory land in Israel.

The Israeli hope is that rather than continue to press this self-defeating demand, Obama will accept Israeli assurances that the new neighborhood will not be constructed anytime soon; it is, in fact, two or three years from groundbreaking. Coupled to that would be an Israeli pledge to avoid publicizing further construction decisions in Jerusalem. The result would not be a freeze, but something like a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for settlements.

It’s not clear whether Obama will accept such a fudge. But Israeli ambassador Michael Oren, who has been deeply engaged in back channel talks between the two governments, told me Thursday morning that “the goal of both sides at this point is to put this behind us, and go forward with the proximity talks as quickly as possible.” Tensions had been reduced, he said, as it has become clear that Netanyahu’s government was taking Clinton’s message seriously — it has spent days formulating its response in marathon cabinet meetings. Apart from Jerusalem, it seems the two sides are close to an accord on other U.S. requests, such as how the indirect talks will be structured.

It is, after all, peace talks — and not a settlement freeze — that has been the administration’s main goal. Palestinian and Arab leaders, too, have been quietly frustrated with the debate on settlements — they believe the focus should be on the creation of a Palestinian state, not on the construction of a few more homes in an area they have already tacitly conceded to Israel. Obama reopened this toxic issue in what looked like a fit of pique following the announcement of Ramat Shlomo’s expansion during a visit to Israel last week by Vice President Biden. He would be wise now to quickly settle and move on.

Sane voices still exist in Israel, see below

Published on 8 March 2010 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

Two pieces from the weekend Haaretz newspaper that are worth sharing.

Gideon Levy:

The Israeli peace camp didn’t die. It was never born in the first place. While it’s true that since the summer of 1967, several radical and brave political groups have been working against the occupation – all worthy of recognition – a large, influential peace camp has never existed here.

…

Above all, however, the problem was rooted in the left’s impossible adherence to Zionism in its historical sense. In precisely the way there cannot be a democratic and Jewish state in one breath, one has to first define what comes before what – there cannot be a left wing committed to the old-fashioned Zionism that built the state but has run its course. This illusory left wing never managed to ultimately understand the Palestinian problem – which was created in 1948, not 1967 – never understanding that it can’t be solved while ignoring the injustice caused from the beginning. A left wing unwilling to dare to deal with 1948 is not a genuine left wing.

Avraham Burg:

Greater, unified Jerusalem is being torn apart. The Israeli – Jewish and Arab – capital is becoming the capital of the hallucinatory, dangerous fanatics. This is not the city of all its residents nor the capital of all its citizens. It is a sad city that belongs to its settlers, its ultra-Orthodox, its violent residents and its messiahs.

The easy steps for Israel to kill enemies in Dubai and make many more enemies in the process

Published on 18 February 2010 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

The case of murdered Hamas operative Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai has become a global story. Perhaps the likely culprits (Israel?) are happy about this – after all, the Hamas man is dead – but I doubt it. The Jewish state is once again in the spotlight, its blatantly illegal actions throwing light on the country’s behaviour.

Australian journalist Paul McGeough, author of the book Kill Khalid, about the failed Israeli assassination of Hamas leader Khalid Mishal, provides some historical context for the Mossad essentially harvesting fake passports to carry out its activities:

Now what happened when I came across in researching the Khalid Mishal incident was that quite often what the Israelis do is they borrow the details of a passport, either as a traveller who is going through Immigration.

Or they you know on a Kibbutz or somewhere like that, several of these people are living on Kibbutz’s. They get a friendly operative within the Kibbutz to borrow the passport or simply to purloin it and (inaudible) the details and then they use it to their own end.

Now the Mossad runs what they call their passport factory, Victor Piotrowski, the Canadian-Israeli former Mossad agent wrote graphically about this in his book where he saw thousands of passports from all different countries around the world stockpiled in the passport factory where they could be called upon as need be.

The Israeli press has been having a field-day with this story. Yossi Melman in Haaretz essentially becomes a spokesman for the Mossad itself:

Unless dramatic evidence is found to definitively prove an Israeli connection, it is likely that the State of Israel will emerge from this affair unblemished and the Mossad will continue enjoying a reputation of fearless determination and nearly unstoppable capabilities.

This story in Haaretz is perhaps the strangest of all (from a journalist on the paper who looks very similar to one of the alleged suspects of the killing):

Between the tomatoes and eggplants in my local supermarket yesterday, just as I finished loudly blowing my nose and cursing my recent allergy attacks, an elderly woman approached me and tapped my shoulder. “Good for you,” she said. “You showed those Arabs.”

I nodded in agreement, quickly put away the tissue and straightened my back. After all, my new position as a high-ranking Mossad agent requires a certain dignified mien.

The first phone call came at 8 A.M., when my mother asked gently if I had recently been abroad. Then others called, congratulating me on the outstanding cover story I’d chosen as Haaretz education correspondent, and asking why I hadn’t brought them cigarettes from the Duty Free in Dubai.

Walking the streets, I noticed people were looking at differently – or at least that’s what I told myself.

My wife, of course, was less impressed by my appearance in newspapers the world over as “Kevin Daveron,” a supposed Irishman named by Dubai police as commander of the assassination squad sent to eliminate Hamas strongman Mahmoud al-Mabhouh at his hotel in the emirate.

As usual, Gideon Levy provides the moral heart of the incident:

Only a few weeks have passed since the finest security pundits were wallowing in well-orchestrated magazine cover stories and articles of appreciation for the head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan. These pieces almost totally ignored his dark past in Gaza and Lebanon and adulated his adventurism. We have long forgotten that the Mossad is supposed to be an intelligence-gathering organization, not one that sows death, and that a lawful state does not operate hit squads. To the roars of approval by the pundits, Dagan has just been given another year on job, his eighth. Why? Partly because he’s a specialist at liquidation.

But we shouldn’t complain about Dagan. He has the right to propose reckless operations to his heart’s desire, of the kind that will earn him and his organization compliments and budgets. The responsibility for liquidations lies with the person who approves them, namely Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who learned nothing from the Khaled Meshal fiasco in 1997 and has struck again (if indeed Israel did it) – yet another margin note for the debate about whether Bibi has changed, whether there’s a “new Netanyahu.”

We can believe that the Mossad actually carried out everything that has been ascribed to it, and we can even agree that Mabhouh deserved to die. It’s also possible to understand the desire to take revenge and punish him, as well as the need to combat weapons smuggling into Gaza. We can also continue ignoring, as is our wont, the motive for terrorism: the Israeli occupation. But after the liquidation of Mabhouh with a pillow, we are left in a country that not only dispatches assassins, but in which no questions are asked afterward.

Israel as a “fascist state under the cover of Zionism”

Published on 7 February 2010 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

Gideon Levy in Haaretz:

How can we truly know what happened in the Gaza Strip without Breaking the Silence, and how can we know what is happening in the West Bank every day without B’Tselem? But Im Tirtzu doesn’t want us to know; it wants to cover our shame. That, to it, is patriotism, but in reality that is treason. How familiar the remarks sounded this weekend by Iran’s judiciary chief, Ayatollah Sadiq Amoli Larijani, calling for fighting human rights organizations in his country because they “confuse human rights with law and order.” Im Tirtzu and Maariv couldn’t have said it better.

If you will it, Naomi Chazan with the horn on her forehead is the beautiful face of Israel, infinitely more beautiful than Im Tirtzu, which tries to put horns on us all, the horns of a fascist state under the cover of Zionism.

Israelis love to have an enemy

Published on 15 January 2010 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

Larry Derfner in the Jerusalem Post defines his fellow country men and women as unified as a police state:

When we think of the economy, we think of “me.” But when we think of “us,” we think first and last of “them.” Of course, there are loads and loads of generous, public-spirited Israelis doing great things individually or in groups. But when we’re all together as a nation, all we see is the enemy. Stopping the enemy is the only national project we have left. It’s the only issue that gets people’s attention for more than a day.

As for the Jewish part of being Israeli, Judaism in this country is overwhelmingly tribal, to the point of belligerency. Israeli-style Judaism feeds this us-against-them mentality like nothing else except, maybe, the national cult of the military.

NONE OF this hard-assedness is new; it was always here. But until this past decade, it had competition from a less fearful, more open-minded, positive view of what it meant to be Israeli. There were people here who talked about building something besides West Bank settlements, fundamentalist yeshivot and border walls. They wanted to stop being obsessed with the enemy, they wanted to go out into the world, and they didn’t freak out every time somebody said we were treating the Palestinians badly, because they knew the critic had a point.

There were a lot of Israelis like this. They had huge demonstrations, political parties, leaders, ideas. Until this decade, there was a “peace camp,” too, not just a “national camp.” The two camps fought to determine this country’s direction, and it made for a great deal of creative tension in national life.

Until this decade, national life was interesting. Now it’s deadening. I go back to Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy’s quote from a couple of years ago: “There was a time when you’d ask two Israelis a question and you’d get three opinions. Now you only get one.”

When I try to explain Israel to Americans, I ask them to imagine that 80 percent of their fellow citizens were Republicans. Israel has become a one-party country – the war party.

We’re at war with the Middle East, with Europe, with liberal Jews in the Diaspora and with a pathetically small handful of dissenters at home. We trust no one. We see anti-Semites everywhere. We’d like to build an Iron Dome over this whole country to keep the world out.

There’s very little oxygen around here; everyone is breathing the air that everyone else has exhaled. This country has been stagnating for a decade. And we’ve never achieved such unity.

Settlers define the Israeli way of life

Published on 4 January 2010 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

Gideon Levy in Haaretz asks the settlers a few questions and knows he will never receive satisfactory answers. Occupation is their way of life, supported, funded and backed by the Western powers. Prove us wrong:

Try to get their opinion on how things will look here in another decade or two. For how many more years can 3.5 million people live without any civil rights? For how many more years will the world continue to turn a blind eye and remain silent? What will become of a state that is dependent on others like no other country? And what will happen when the Palestinians become the majority? The settlers will be evasive in their response. Make them give one.

Let’s ask and then try to understand. We will continue to indulge your religious whims and territorial lust, but give us an answer on where you think all this will lead. Will Jewish immigrants relocate to the territories by the millions? And if not? Will the Arabs continue to compromise, beg and submit? And if they don’t? Will the Palestinians live forever under apartheid conditions? And if they don’t? Will the world keep quiet and will America continue to act like Israel’s patron state? And if not?

Perhaps God will help. But what if he doesn’t?

Gideon Levy as a voice of sanity on Gaza anniversary

Published on 28 December 2009 in Israel. 5 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Gideon Levy in Haaretz on his scathing assessment of Israel’s deluded soul over its Gaza war:

Today it is more shameful to be an Israeli because the world, as opposed to Israelis, saw the scenes. It saw thousands of dead and injured taken in the trunks of cars to something between a clinic and a primitive hospital in an imprisoned and weakened region one hour from flourishing Tel Aviv, a region where the helpless had nowhere to run from Israel’s arsenal. The world saw schools, hospitals, flour mills and small factories mercilessly bombed and blown up. It saw clouds of white-sulphur bombs billowing over population centers, and it saw burned children.

The world refused to accept the excuses and lies of Israel’s propaganda. It was not prepared to compare Sderot’s suffering to Gaza’s suffering; it did not agree that the sulphur mushroom clouds were for self-defense, that the killing of dozens of police on a parade ground was legitimate, that telephoned warnings for people to leave their homes cleared Israel of criminal responsibility for the bombing of those homes.

The world saw the Israeli Goliath strike mercilessly at the Palestinian David.

The occupation is a daily source of justified fury

Published on 23 December 2009 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Gideon Levy in Haaretz on the Jewish state’s uncanny ability to cause terrorism:

It is not difficult to understand the agonizing decision facing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet ministers. It would be very hard to accept a negative decision on their part. Gilad Shalit must be freed at any cost, all the more so because the actual cost is lower than the one bandied about by those who oppose the release.

We’re dealing with the release of hundreds of Palestinians, about one-tenth of the Palestinians in prison. Some of them are political prisoners for all intents and purposes; some are women and youths.

The most murderous of them have, for the most part, already served long sentences. The overwhelming majority of them will not return to terrorist activity; rather they will want to spend the remainder of their life in freedom.

Yes, there will be more and more terrorists in the future, with or without the hundreds of released prisoners, if the occupation and abuse of the Palestinian people continues. This is the real infrastructure of terror, and it does not depend on those who will be released in the deal.

One generation of Palestinians after another will fight in its own way for its liberty and breed more and more terrorists. The only really effective way to reduce terror, if not to prevent it altogether, is to stop its operating engine – the occupation.

Will the real occupying Israel please stand up?

Published on 13 December 2009 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

The essential Gideon Levy in Haaretz wishes Israel would finally come out of the closet and admit what it really is:

Tomorrow will mark six months since the prime minister’s foreign policy speech at Bar-Ilan University. It’s now time for another historic speech. In the near future, the prime minister needs to convene the right audience, find a fitting site and deliver the speech of a lifetime. We don’t want peace, he should say, going down in history as the first Israeli leader to tell the truth, the whole truth. In contrast to the superficial “two states for two peoples” speech, this time his remarks will be full of significance, showing real intent. The speech will inspire a great deal of trust and more than a little sympathy for a man speaking the truth.

They won’t again be able to lambaste Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for tricks and verbal sleights of hand. There will no longer be a need for his tiring and ridiculous maneuvering. Instead of hopelessly contorting his face because of so many winks and nods, he will be able to stop winking in all directions.

In his speech we will hear what is going to happen. It will end Netanyahu and Israel’s deceptions. The truth is liberating. Such a step will free the prime minister from domestic and international pressure. There will be no further need to freeze construction in the settlements and in the next minute declare them “national priority zones.” There will be no further need to send apologetic inspectors on bizarre treks across the West Bank. No further need to rip up construction-freeze orders in front of the cameras and argue that we are a state of laws; that now there is a freeze, but it will be immediately followed by massive construction.

Jewish law infects every aspect of Israeli life

Published on 11 December 2009 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

The headline of Gideon Levy’s latest:

Let’s face the facts, Israel is a semi-theocracy

No entry, says Israel, because you’re Arab

Published on 30 November 2009 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Gideon Levy reminds us in Haaretz that only Israel gets away with discrimination on the basis of being Palestinian:

In no other city is access to holy places restricted according to the believer’s age, as Muslims who seek to pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque are restricted.

Please hold and cuddle us, begs pro-settler Jew

Published on 28 November 2009 in Israel. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , .

Australian-born Zionist Isi Leibler – a believer in ex-communicating ‘dissident” Jews – appears in the Melbourne Age to plead for poor, little Israel. The whole world hates her and it’s just not fair. We’re a thriving democracy, he claims. Oh sure, the Palestinians are “suffering” but it’s their own fault.

But the more spurious claim is about negotiating with Hamas:

Israel is admonished to negotiate with Hamas; would anyone seriously suggest that the US negotiate with al-Qaeda?

In fact, and Leibler knows this damn well, Israel is currently talking to Hamas to bring about a prisoner swap. Gideon Levy wrote this week:

Why is it permissible to talk to Hamas about the fate of one captive soldier and another several hundred prisoners, but forbidden to talk to them about the fate of two nations? Never has Israeli logic been so distorted. Now, when our hearts look forward to the deal’s implementation, when every human heart should look forward to Gilad Shalit’s release – and yes, to the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, some of them political prisoners for all intents and purposes, not just “terrorists with blood on their hands” – now is the time to finally rid ourselves of some of the foolish prohibitions we have imposed on ourselves and the entire international community.

It is now clear that there is someone to talk to. In Gaza and Damascus sit tough but reasonable statesmen. They are also concerned, in their own way, about the fate of their people, they too aspire to bring them freedom and justice. When the deal is implemented we will also discover that they can be taken at their word. Were it not for the fact that Israel is holding tens of thousands of prisoners – some who used base means to achieve a just objective – who are judged differently from Jewish murderers and criminals, perhaps Hamas would not have had to use the weapon of kidnapping.

If Leibler speaks for the mainstream Jewish community, it’s little wonder the world increasingly regards Israel as an irritant, at best.

Gideon Levy on Israel: we are in a coma

Published on 18 November 2009 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

Gideon Levy, a fine Israeli journalist, speaks to the Real News Network:

I know there is a change in the Jewish community in the United States, but it’s too little and too late…Israel, the Israeli society, is in a situation of coma for at least ten years.

Peres is the kind, gentle side of Israeli expansion

Published on 15 November 2009 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Gideon Levy in Haaretz:

[Israeli President Shimon] Peres is our beautiful and misleading face. Equipped with the ability to delude, one of the founders of the settlement movement has turned into Israel’s Mr. Peace. He travels the world, generating admiration for his physical stamina, scattering empty promises and slogans. He calls on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas not to resign, when he knows that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu contributed to this resignation by his rejectionist attitude. He calls on Bashar Assad to come to the negotiating table, knowing that the Syrian president is practically begging for peace. A call by the president for the prime minister to freeze settlements or respond to the Syrian challenge? Of course not. That might make someone angry. He only preaches morality to the whole world. A small man? Peres’ words.

J Street broadens public debate on Israel

Published on 13 November 2009 in Israel. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , .

My following article is published today in Online Opinion:

Distinguished South African judge Richard Goldstone wrote the UN report on Israel’s December/January war against the Gazan people. It detailed war crimes by both Israel and Hamas and demanded both entities fully investigate the serious charges of targeting civilians and infrastructure.

“Pro-Israel and pro-peace” lobby J Street, an 18-month-old group that held its first conference in Washington DC in late October, backed a bipartisan congressional resolution that slammed the Goldstone report and called on Washington to “oppose and work actively to defeat one-sided and biased action” in the UN regarding Goldstone’s recommendations.

Is this what J Street means when claiming it wants to “broaden the public and policy debate in the US about the Middle East?” In reality, Israeli crimes are shielded from accountability once again, further undermining its legitimacy.

After its four-day conference it’s clear the new “movement”, of which Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami speaks, is conflicted and desperate for change. The event attracted more than 1,500 people: from devoted Zionists to activists, anti-Zionists to 1948 fighters, Palestinians to Rabbis and bloggers, to the elderly. Many participants craved inclusion inside the tent, sick of spending years marginalised for not toeing a hardline, pro-settler, pro-Israeli government mindset.

J Street wants a two-state solution and “Jewish, democratic state” but many attendees, a vocal minority, felt deeply uncomfortable even with the concept of a Jewish state. Although most of the many panels did not engage on issues such as boycott, divestment and sanctions, a one-state solution, the siege on Gaza and complicit IDF soldiers in the West Bank, I heard countless audience members speak about the concept of justice for all, not Zionist benefits only for Jews.

Dan Sieradski, formerly of website Jewschool, said during an unofficial blogger’s panel that, “as a Jew we’re being asked to support the undermining of international law and human rights and blindly support Israel. That’s why many young Jews are turning against Israel.”

J Street allowed these discussions to take place but proscribed script boundaries on debate. Gaza and Hamas were largely ignored. Goldstone was slammed. The corrupt Palestinian Authority was praised as a partner in peace. Barack Obama was the only hope to bring peace.

Unlike the leading Zionist lobby group, AIPAC, which could never acknowledge that an Israeli occupation of Palestinian land even exists – something J Street did constantly, though always in the context of impeding a long-term future for a “Jewish, democratic state” – it was hard to escape the conclusion that Ben-Ami felt both invigorated and petrified with the passion unleashed at the conference. He told me that his views are “mainstream” and Jews wanted vigorous discussion over Israel and its future.

Praise is due for this sentiment. The toxic nature of American public debate over the Middle East has impeded honest appraisal for debates. Even during the J Street conference itself, countless politicians, such as Illinois Representative Jan Schakowsky, spoke about an Israel that doesn’t exist; an Israeli in their minds always striving for peace. The Palestinians were an after-thought at best, though some politicians did acknowledge the financial penalties from the Jewish community if politicians ever dissented from the official, Zionist line.

Nobody seemed to acknowledge the problem of America siding so strongly with one side in the conflict at the expense of the other. Most Palestinians I met in the West Bank and Gaza in July were under no illusion about Washington’s priorities and it wasn’t for their well-being.

The sickness within Israel society itself was not ignored. Ami Ayalon, former politician and head of the secret service Shin Bet, told a packed audience that the urgency of finding a two-state solution was lost on many Israelis and Americans. The alternative, he feared, was an increasingly radicalised society and religious, Jewish fundamentalism. He called, like Gideon Levy in Haaretz argued a few months ago, for a referendum in Israel on whether to end the occupation once and for all or maintain its apartheid infrastructure indefinitely.

The final day of the conference saw hundreds of delegates make their way to Capitol Hill to lobby politicians on key J Street talking points. It was stressed in the briefing notes that reaching a two-state solution “is both a fundamental American interest and essential to the survival and security of Israel as a democracy and home for the Jewish people.” The fact that half a million Jewish settlers now live on occupied Palestinian land surely makes such a prospect impossible.

The need for Jewish introspection over Israeli criminality is both essential and morally proper but angst-ridden deliberation won’t solve the Middle East crisis. Clear-headed acceptance of historical wrongs and Zionist culpability is the only way to tackle the impasse. J Street undoubtedly represents a fresh challenge to the stranglehold of doctrinaire Zionism. There is room in American life for diverse views on Israel, Judaism, Zionism and Palestine but talk is no longer enough.

J Street is a Zionist organisation and proudly so. That is its right. But let’s be clear about the desperate need to consider alternative thinking to the failed 1990s Oslo myths that talked about peace and reconciliation but merely accelerated the colonial project.

The situation has only worsened since.

Israelis believe in two states (in words but not in deeds)

Published on 13 November 2009 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Gideon Levy in Haaretz:

Along with opinion polls showing that most Israelis support a two-state solution, it appears that those who seek peace and justice are in a clear majority. Everyone is sitting cozily in the “painful concessions” lounge. But this of course is a delusion. As soon as the spotlights are turned off and the columnists finish their praises, the converts resume their routine without lifting a finger to advance what they preached.

Ehud Olmert strove for a so-called shelf agreement, built settlements and launched two unnecessary wars. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made lofty statements about a Palestinian state and didn’t agree even to a temporary settlement freeze. Mofaz suggests talking to Hamas, but it doesn’t occur to him to try to do it here and now. Let’s see him try to meet the elected prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh. And public opinion? It says yes to two states and votes for Likud and Avigdor Lieberman. In this great masquerade, Israel has raised denial and pretense to an art. The terrible price will be paid soon.

Terrorism is defined by the West Bank project

Published on 3 November 2009 in Israel. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

Just how many Jewist terrorists exist in Israel? As importantly, almost daily abuse of Palestinians in the West Bank by Jewish settlers is both ignored and defended by the Jewish state:

A senior Shin Bet official said Jewish terrorists that have not been caught are still at large and may be planning future attacks, Israel Radio reported on Monday.

The official’s comments follow the announcement on Sunday that settler Yaakov Teitel was arrested last month for allegedly killing two Palestinians and carrying out a string of bomb attacks.

Teitel is not mentally unstable, said the Shin Bet official, who described him as an extremist who firmly believes in his ideology and who acted carefully, decisively and with sophistication.

Gideon Levy reminds us that it is rare indeed for Israel to even investigate violence against Arabs. The entire settlement enterprise is a criminal act:

The parade of the self-righteous got underway Sunday night: Yaakov Teitel was described as a “foreign element,” “wild thorn” and “rotten apple.” Even if he acted alone, spoke and hallucinated in English, even if he was mentally disturbed, as his attorney claimed, it does not change the fact that Jack the Ripper from the West Bank settlement of Shvut Rachel – contrary to his predecessor in London – acted on ground that was fertile like no other.

Yes, the settlements and especially the illegal outposts where Teitel lived and hid his weapons, along with the Kahanist settlement of Kfar Tapuah where he got his start – these are the places for such dangerous nuts. This is their refuge, where they can hide arms without being bothered and go on hate-filled killing sprees without being seen.

It is no coincidence that a terrorist or killer has never risen from within Peace Now, Gush Shalom or Yesh Gvul. However, with God’s help, we have already seen two murderous terrorists from Shvut Rachel. Never has a leftist called for the death of someone who disagrees with him – and we must always remember this when we speak of left and right.

Yes, we must recoil from the entire group of settlers that again and again sprouts these cancerous growths. When a settlement is born out of sin, the sin of stolen land, the gun rests during the first act, the act of illegally confiscating the land. But you can count on there always being someone to pull the trigger in the final act.

Not everyone is a Teitel, and it’s clear that not every settler is a killer. But no special investigative team was assembled when a different killing spree got underway several weeks ago, which left an olive grove razed. Teitel’s fatal error was turning on other Jews. Had he been satisfied with acts of murder against the Palestinian population, he would never have been caught.

Teitel had an organized, all-embracing worldview: Death to Arabs, homosexuals, Christians, leftists, and Messianic Jews. They are all “Sodomites” who cannot be cleansed. Teitel set a price tag for everyone, just like others of his settler friends have also done. The difference is that the others only set price tags for Palestinians, so no one bothers to apprehend them. Teitel was “unbalanced” in exactly the same way as his companions. Speaking of which, has a Palestinian terrorist ever been declared “unbalanced”? Has the Shin Bet ever used the term “acted alone” to justify an uninterrupted, unsolved decade-long killing spree perpetrated by a lone Palestinian?

J Street is calling but are we really listening?

Published on 23 October 2009 in Israel. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , .

I’m on my way to the first J Street conference in Washington DC. Extreme Zionists in the US call the group “cranks“. Other so-called leading Jews in the US are equally spooked. What, some Jews meeting who don’t love the settlements and want to bomb every country in the Middle East? Lynch them!

Gideon Levy in Haaretz has his say:

Israel has been dealing one blow after another to the rest of the world. While China has still not recovered from Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s absence from the reception at its Tel Aviv embassy – a serious punishment for China’s support for the Goldstone report – France is licking its wounds after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “vetoed” a visit by the French foreign minister to Gaza. And Israel has dealt another blow: Its ambassador in Washington, Michael Oren, will boycott the conference next week of the new Israel lobby J Street.

China, France and J Street will somehow get by despite these boycotts, Turkey will also recover from the great vacationers’ revolt, and we can expect that even the Swedes and Norwegians will recover from Israel’s loud reprimands. But a country that attacks and boycotts everyone who does not exactly agree with its official positions will become isolated, forsaken and detestable: North Korea of today or Albania of yesterday. It’s actually quite strange for Israel to use this weapon, as it is about to turn into the victim of boycotts itself.

Israel strikes and strikes again. It strikes its enemies, and now it strikes out at its friends who dare not fall exactly in line with its official policies. The J Street case is a particularly serious example. This Jewish organization rose in America along with Barack Obama. Its members want a fair and peace-seeking Israel.

That’s their sin, and their punishment is a boycott.

The fact that Kadima leader Tzipi Livni has endorsed the conference is hardly something to celebrate. The woman has a long history of starting wars against the Palestinian people.

It seems that anybody who has any hesitation about J Street – including me, for the record – must be smeared by the self-proclaimed spokespeople of the American Jewish community. That suggests insecurity, not strength. Open debate about Israel/Palestine requires an honest reckoning of every issue, no hesitations, and J Street is simply a place for many of us to gather and discuss. And plan.

Here’s Daniel Luban in IPS with the run-down of the fear:

The basic premise of J Street is that it is possible to be both liberal and pro-Israel. If the hardliners succeed in destroying J Street, and with it any viable outlet for liberal pro-Israel sentiment, they will force the younger generation of American Jews — who are overwhelmingly Obama Democrats — to choose between support for Israel and liberalism. No doubt some will choose Israel, but far more will choose liberalism. And in that case Israel will face a predicament far bleaker than whatever it fears from J Street.

Nazis are everywhere, especially under Israeli beds

Published on 27 September 2009 in Israel. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , .

Gideon Levy in Haaretz reminds us that Israel is very happy to cheapen the memory of the Holocaust when it suits their needs:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cheapened the memory of the Holocaust in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday. He did so twice. Once, when he brandished proof of the very existence of the Holocaust, as if it needed any, and again when he compared Hamas to the Nazis.

If Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, Netanyahu cheapens it. Is there a need of proof, 60 years later? Or, the world might think, is the denier right?

And it is doubtful that any historian of stature would buy the comparison the prime minister made between Hamas and the Nazis, or between the London Blitz and the Qassam rockets on Sderot. In the Blitz, 400 German bombers and 600 fighter planes killed 43,000 people and destroyed more than one million homes. Hamas’ Qassams, perhaps the most primitive weapon in the world, have killed 18 people in eight years. Yes, they sowed great terror – but a Blitz?

Can Fayyad make a difference?

Published on 25 September 2009 in Israel. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , , .

My latest New Matilda column is about the favoured Palestinians in the West:

‘Moderate’ Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad may be popular with western leaders, but under his watch the gulf between rhetoric and reality is growing, writes Antony Loewenstein

The Western-backed Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, was interviewed earlier this month on ABC Radio National’s Saturday Extra. Host Geraldine Doogue opened her conversation with him with the following words:

“I’d like to introduce you now to a man you may not have heard too much about in Australia, but he is really coming into his political prime, and earning himself considerable international respect, because his basic day job is super-tough…[He’s] neither from the Fattah or Hamas parties, and he comes to this post via an unusual route, with an unusual suite of skills. He has a doctorate in economics from the University of Texas; he’s worked for the World Bank and as a private banker; and some argue that even the Israelis are enchanted by him, and he certainly seems to be presiding over some much-wanted economic successes.”

Such effusive praise is typical of the Western media’s response to Fayyad. Newsweek recently profiled Fayyad but included a telling caveat: “Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s unorthodox approach is winning plaudits from the West. That could be his undoing”.

The fact that some people see Fayyad as a source of hope for the Middle East is itself a reflection of how jammed the situation really is. This week’s brief meeting in New York between Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas will only confirm to sceptical Palestinians that “engagement” with Israel leads to never-ending meetings and photo opportunities. Hamas makes this exact point and they’re right. Israel refuses to cease settlement building and Washington is apparently unwilling to enforce Obama’s desire for a “settlement freeze”. No movement on Middle East peace talks actually means an ever-expanding occupation. The Palestinians lose every time.

Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy has even issued a challenge to Israel to conduct a referendum on the occupation on the grounds that while “most of [the Israeli public] says it supports the two-state solution … at the same time it votes for right-wing, centrist or pseudo-leftist parties that have no intention whatsoever of ending the occupation.”

Indeed, the vast gulf between rhetoric and reality has never been greater. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to announce the expansion of illegal colonies in the West Bank, the international community appears impotent to stop it. A European diplomat, quoted in JTA in early September, said: “It’s difficult to understand what the Israelis want when they announce that kind of thing. But it shouldn’t derail the process”.

Into the midst of this deadlock, Fayyad has recently announced that he will declare a Palestinian state in 2011 regardless of political progress with Israel. Reflecting this, Palestinian and European Union sources told Haaretz last week that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will resume shortly, “on the basis of an understanding that the establishment of a Palestinian state will be officially announced in two years … talks will initially focus on determining the permanent border between Israel and the West Bank”.

Fayyad has widely discussed building Palestinian institutions to convince the world that his population is ready for statehood. But there is absolutely no evidence that Israel will accept such a unilateral move. Furthermore, ongoing settlement building makes any viable state close to impossible.

But perhaps these practical obstacles are not so important, as Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab argues. “By offering a plan for a de facto Palestinian state, irrespective of the success or failure of any possible peace process, Fayyad has laid the groundwork. Some see his plan as little more than naive optimism and predict it will go the way of so many others. Others see in it a practical blueprint that will lay the administrative foundation for statehood.

“Regardless, for Palestinian political unilateralism to stand any chance of success, the ideological and physical division between Islamists and nationalists and the Gaza Strip and the West Bank must first be bridged. Without unity, there will be little incentive for Israel or the international community to view Palestinian political unilateralism as a serious measure.”

But according to Hasan Abu Nimah and Ali Abunimah, writing recently in the Jordan Times, Fayyad’s “vision” is an illusion which appeals only to those desperate to please the occupying power:

“What is really taking shape in the West Bank today is a police state, where all sources of opposition or resistance — real or suspected — to either the PA regime, or the Israeli occupation are being systematically repressed by US-funded and trained Palestinian ‘security forces’ in full coordination with Israel. Gaza remains under tight siege because of its refusal to submit to this regime…

“Many in the region and beyond hoped the Obama Administration would be a real honest broker, at last bringing American pressure to bear on Israel, so that Palestinians might be liberated. But instead, the new administration is acting as an efficient laundry service for Israeli ideas; first they become American ones, and then a Palestinian puppet is brought in to wear them.”

During my July visit to the West Bank and Gaza, I heard countless allegations of US-trained Fatah soldiers abusing and torturing opponents, including Hamas members. Washington — and Canberra — ignore these stories.

Although there is evidence to suggest that some Palestinians are supportive of the PA’s strategy — anything to make life under occupation more bearable — facts on the ground are moving in the opposite direction. These facts present some questions that Fayyad won’t be able to ignore. For example, even if his plan gets much further, how can an effective democracy be built under occupation? Why would the Israelis trust the Palestinians to exercise control over their lives? How keen are the Western-funded Palestinian elites to please their masters and whitewash the occupation? How meaningful is Fayyad’s talk of ending the occupation when he cannot even ensure the free the day-to-day movement of his own people?

Another interesting factor in the mix is the growing rumour that Fayyad is positioning himself to challenge Abbas in forthcoming elections — although he lacks a political base. He would probably garner Western support for such a move, but whether the Palestinians would reward a man who has made no progress in dismantling the occupation is questionable.

In support of the PA’s strategy under Abbas and Fayyad, some observers point to the fact that the Palestinian West Bank economy is growing, and there have been definite improvements to the lives of Palestinians on the West Bank. During my recent visit I noted fewer Israeli checkpoints and increased freedom of movement for Palestinians.

All of that might suggest to observers that the current PA strategy is correct. But while nobody should begrudge the improvement of Palestinian lives, without justice and viability, the leadership’s acceptance of the scraps of Israeli “generosity” will only lead to further strife. The plan is doomed to fail, as long as Palestinians remain one of the most aid-dependent people on the planet.

Gideon Levy told In These Times this month that the, “[Israeli] public has grown indifferent to the suffering of Palestinians under occupation” and the vast majority has no interest in knowing about IDF abuses in the occupied territories.

‘Moderate’ Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad may be popular with western leaders, but under his watch the gulf between rhetoric and reality is growing, writes Antony Loewenstein
The Western-backed Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, was interviewed earlier this month on ABC Radio National’s Saturday Extra. Host Geraldine Doogue opened her conversation with him with the following words:
“I’d like to introduce you now to a man you may not have heard too much about in Australia, but he is really coming into his political prime, and earning himself considerable international respect, because his basic day job is super-tough…[He's] neither from the Fattah or Hamas parties, and he comes to this post via an unusual route, with an unusual suite of skills. He has a doctorate in economics from the University of Texas; he’s worked for the World Bank and as a private banker; and some argue that even the Israelis are enchanted by him, and he certainly seems to be presiding over some much-wanted economic successes.”
Such effusive praise is typical of the Western media’s response to Fayyad. Newsweek recently profiled Fayyad but included a telling caveat: “Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s unorthodox approach is winning plaudits from the West. That could be his undoing”.
The fact that some people see Fayyad as a source of hope for the Middle East is itself a reflection of how jammed the situation really is. This week’s brief meeting in New York between Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas will only confirm to sceptical Palestinians that “engagement” with Israel leads to never-ending meetings and photo opportunities. Hamas makes this exact point and they’re right. Israel refuses to cease settlement building and Washington is apparently unwilling to enforce Obama’s desire for a “settlement freeze”. No movement on Middle East peace talks actually means an ever-expanding occupation. The Palestinians lose every time.
Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy has even issued a challenge to Israel to conduct a referendum on the occupation on the grounds that while “most of [the Israeli public] says it supports the two-state solution … at the same time it votes for right-wing, centrist or pseudo-leftist parties that have no intention whatsoever of ending the occupation.”
Indeed, the vast gulf between rhetoric and reality has never been greater. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to announce the expansion of illegal colonies in the West Bank, the international community appears impotent to stop it. A European diplomat, quoted in JTA in early September, said: “It’s difficult to understand what the Israelis want when they announce that kind of thing. But it shouldn’t derail the process”.
Into the midst of this deadlock, Fayyad has recently announced that he will declare a Palestinian state in 2011 regardless of political progress with Israel. Reflecting this, Palestinian and European Union sources told Haaretz last week that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will resume shortly, “on the basis of an understanding that the establishment of a Palestinian state will be officially announced in two years … talks will initially focus on determining the permanent border between Israel and the West Bank”.
Fayyad has widely discussed building Palestinian institutions to convince the world that his population is ready for statehood. But there is absolutely no evidence that Israel will accept such a unilateral move. Furthermore, ongoing settlement building makes any viable state close to impossible.
But perhaps these practical obstacles are not so important, as Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab argues. “By offering a plan for a de facto Palestinian state, irrespective of the success or failure of any possible peace process, Fayyad has laid the groundwork. Some see his plan as little more than naive optimism and predict it will go the way of so many others. Others see in it a practical blueprint that will lay the administrative foundation for statehood.
“Regardless, for Palestinian political unilateralism to stand any chance of success, the ideological and physical division between Islamists and nationalists and the Gaza Strip and the West Bank must first be bridged. Without unity, there will be little incentive for Israel or the international community to view Palestinian political unilateralism as a serious measure.”
But according to Hasan Abu Nimah and Ali Abunimah, writing recently in the Jordan Times, Fayyad’s “vision” is an illusion which appeals only to those desperate to please the occupying power:
“What is really taking shape in the West Bank today is a police state, where all sources of opposition or resistance — real or suspected — to either the PA regime, or the Israeli occupation are being systematically repressed by US-funded and trained Palestinian ’security forces’ in full coordination with Israel. Gaza remains under tight siege because of its refusal to submit to this regime…
“Many in the region and beyond hoped the Obama Administration would be a real honest broker, at last bringing American pressure to bear on Israel, so that Palestinians might be liberated. But instead, the new administration is acting as an efficient laundry service for Israeli ideas; first they become American ones, and then a Palestinian puppet is brought in to wear them.”
During my July visit to the West Bank and Gaza, I heard countless allegations of US-trained Fatah soldiers abusing and torturing opponents, including Hamas members. Washington — and Canberra — ignore these stories.
Although there is evidence to suggest that some Palestinians are supportive of the PA’s strategy — anything to make life under occupation more bearable — facts on the ground are moving in the opposite direction. These facts present some questions that Fayyad won’t be able to ignore. For example, even if his plan gets much further, how can an effective democracy be built under occupation? Why would the Israelis trust the Palestinians to exercise control over their lives? How keen are the Western-funded Palestinian elites to please their masters and whitewash the occupation? How meaningful is Fayyad’s talk of ending the occupation when he cannot even ensure the free the day-to-day movement of his own people?
Another interesting factor in the mix is the growing rumour that Fayyad is positioning himself to challenge Abbas in forthcoming elections — although he lacks a political base. He would probably garner Western support for such a move, but whether the Palestinians would reward a man who has made no progress in dismantling the occupation is questionable.
In support of the PA’s strategy under Abbas and Fayyad, some observers point to the fact that the Palestinian West Bank economy is growing, and there have been definite improvements to the lives of Palestinians on the West Bank. During my recent visit I noted fewer Israeli checkpoints and increased freedom of movement for Palestinians.
All of that might suggest to observers that the current PA strategy is correct. But while nobody should begrudge the improvement of Palestinian lives, without justice and viability, the leadership’s acceptance of the scraps of Israeli “generosity” will only lead to further strife. The plan is doomed to fail, as long as Palestinians remain one of the most aid-dependent people on the planet.
Gideon Levy told In These Times this month that the, “[Israeli] public has grown indifferent to the suffering of Palestinians under occupation” and the vast majority has no interest in knowing about IDF abuses in the occupied territories.
Wishing these difficulties away will not suffice — and nor will hoping the Palestinians simply accept whatever Bantustan they are given by the international community.

Wishing these difficulties away will not suffice — and nor will hoping the Palestinians simply accept whatever Bantustan they are given by the international community.