Israel is a supposedly secular nation with an increasingly fundamentalist minority. Enjoy:
Around 1,000 demonstrators marched Saturday evening outside the Prime Minister’s residence in Jerusalem to protest Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz’s decision to allow the continuation of single-sex bus lines that serve the Haredi community.
Protestors held signs that read “Israel is not Tehran” and “Free Jerusalem.”
Noam Chomsky, speaking last week at Harvard, says that the Islamic Republic has every right to fear American foreign policy and is therefore acting rationally to protect itself:
No one in their right mind wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons. If they’re not developing a nuclear deterrent, they are crazy.
A curious and rather disturbing story in Haaretz:
It is not easy to scare Simone Dinah Hartmann, but lately she has been fearing for her life. Although she resides in serene Vienna, Hartmann is not convinced the law enforcement officials in Austria are sufficiently aware of the dangers threatening her. Her concerns come in the wake of the racist and anti-Semitic neo-Nazi Web site alpen-donau.info (in German) recently posting her photograph accompanied by derogatory comments – basically marking her as a target for assassination.
Hartmann, an energetic and opinionated woman in her thirties, is the driving force behind Stop the Bomb, an international organization which for several years has been waging an aggressive campaign against firms and governments in Europe that maintain commercial ties with Iran and thus assist the regime of the ayatollahs in promoting its nuclear program. The organization’s goal is to get European countries to reduce, if not discontinue, their ties with Iran – in the hope that economic pressure will cause Iran’s leaders to abandon their plan to manufacture nuclear weapons.
Stop the Bomb is a coalition of Jewish and non-Jewish groups and activists – including Iranian opposition organizations – operating mainly in Austria and Germany, with small branches in Spain, France and England as well. Among other things, its members organize demonstrations, distribute flyers and send letters to politicians, executives and other shapers of public opinion. Initially, Stop the Bomb struggled to make an impression, with very few people paying it any attention. But its activities are gradually gaining exposure, especially after its leaders managed to spark some media interest.
What is the effect of Washington’s recent decision to allow web companies such as Google and Yahoo to operate in closed societies, such as Cuba and Iran?
The growing global effectiveness of Israel Apartheid Week is pleasing.
Suffice to say, this doesn’t please Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz:
Every year at about this time, radical Islamic students—aided by radical anti-Israel professors—hold an event they call “Israel Apartheid Week.” During this week, they try to persuade students on campuses around the world to demonize Israel as an apartheid regime. Most students seem to ignore the rantings of these extremists, but some naïve students seem to take them seriously. Some pro-Israel and Jewish students claim that they are intimidated when they try to respond to these untruths. As one who strongly opposes any censorship, my solution is to fight bad speech with good speech, lies with truth and educational malpractice with real education.
Accordingly, I support a “Middle East Apartheid Education Week” to be held at universities throughout the world. It would be based on the universally accepted human rights principle of “the worst first.” In other words, the worst forms of apartheid being practiced by Middle East nations and entities would be studied and exposed first. Then the apartheid practices of other countries would be studied in order of their seriousness and impact on vulnerable minorities.
Under this principle, the first country studied would be Saudi Arabia. That tyrannical kingdom practices gender apartheid to an extreme, relegating women to an extremely low status. Indeed, a prominent Saudi Imam recently issued a fatwa declaring that anyone who advocates women working alongside men or otherwise compromises with absolute gender apartheid is subject to execution. The Saudis also practice apartheid based on sexual orientation, executing and imprisoning gay and lesbian Saudis. Finally, Saudi Arabia openly practices religious apartheid. It has special roads for “Muslims only.” It discriminates against Christians, refusing them the right to practice their religion openly. And needless to say, it doesn’t allow Jews the right to live in Saudi Arabia, to own property or even (with limited exceptions) to enter the country. Now that’s apartheid with a vengeance.
The second entity on any apartheid list would be Hamas, which is the de facto government of the Gaza Strip. Hamas too discriminates openly against women, gays, Christians. It permits no dissent, no free speech, and no freedom of religion.
Every single Middle East country practices these forms of apartheid to one degree or another. Consider the most “liberal” and pro-American nation in the area, namely Jordan. The Kingdom of Jordan, which the King himself admits is not a democracy, has a law on its books forbidding Jews from becoming citizens or owning land. Despite the efforts of its progressive Queen, women are still de facto subordinate in virtually all aspects of Jordanian life.
Iran, of course, practices no discrimination against gays, because its President has assured us that there are no gays in Iran. In Pakistan, Sikhs have been executed for refusing to convert to Islam, and throughout the Middle East, honor killings of women are practiced, often with a wink and a nod from the religious and secular authorities.
Every Muslim country in the Middle East has a single, established religion, namely Islam, and makes no pretense of affording religious equality to members of other faiths. That is a brief review of some, but certainly not all, apartheid practices in the Middle East.
Now let’s turn to Israel. The secular Jewish state of Israel recognizes fully the rights of Christians and Muslims and prohibits any discrimination based on religion (except against Conservative and Reform Jews, but that’s another story!) Muslim and Christian citizens of Israel (of which there are more than a million) have the right to vote and have elected members of the Knesset, some of whom even oppose Israel’s right to exist. There is an Arab member of the Supreme Court, an Arab member of the Cabinet and numerous Israeli Arabs in important positions in businesses, universities and the cultural life of the nation. A couple of years ago I attended a concert at the Jerusalem YMCA at which Daniel Barenboim conducted a mixed orchestra of Israeli and Palestinian musicians. There was a mixed audience of Israelis and Palestinians, and the man sitting next to me was an Israeli Arab, who is the culture minister of the State of Israel. Can anyone imagine that kind of concert having taking place in apartheid South Africa, or in apartheid Saudi Arabia?
There is complete freedom of dissent in Israel and it is practiced vigorously by Muslims, Christians and Jews alike. And Israel is a vibrant democracy.
What is true of Israel proper, including Israeli Arab areas, is not true of the occupied territories. Israel ended its occupation of the Gaza several years ago, only to be attacked by Hamas rockets. Israel maintains its occupation of the West Bank only because the Palestinians walked away from a generous offer of statehood on 97% of the West Bank, with its capital in Jerusalem and with a $35 billion compensation package for refugees. Had it accepted that offer by President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak, there would be a Palestinian state in the West Bank. There would be no separation barrier. There would be no roads restricted to Israeli citizens (Jews, Arabs and Christians.) And there would be no civilian settlements. I have long opposed civilian settlements in the West Bank, as many, perhaps most Israelis, do. But to call an occupation, which continues because of the refusal of the Palestinians to accept the two-state solution, “Apartheid” is to misuse that word. As those of us who fought in the actual struggle of apartheid well understand, there is no comparison between what happened in South Africa and what is now taking place on the West Bank. As Congressman John Conyers, who helped found the congressional Black caucus, well put it:
“[Applying the word “Apartheid” to Israel] does not serve the cause of peace, and the use of it against the Jewish people in particular, who have been victims of the worst kind of discrimination, discrimination resulting in death, is offensive and wrong.”
The current “Israel Apartheid Week” on universities around the world, by focusing only on the imperfections of the Middle East’s sole democracy, is carefully designed to cover up far more serious problems of real apartheid in Arab and Muslim nations. The question is why do so many students identify with regimes that denigrate women, gays, non-Muslims, dissenters, environmentalists and human rights advocates, while demonizing a democratic regime that grants equal rights to women (the chief justice and speaker of the Parliament of Israel are women), gays (there are openly gay generals in the Israeli Army), non-Jews (Muslims and Christians serve in high positions in Israel) and dissenters, (virtually all Israelis dissent about something). Israel has the best environmental record in the Middle East, it exports more life saving medical technology than any country in the region and it has sacrificed more for peace than any country in the Middle East. Yet on many college campuses democratic, egalitarian Israel is a pariah, while sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, terrorist Hamas is a champion. There is something very wrong with this picture.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee: “Iran is not currently an existential threat to Israel. However, Iran has to potential to develop an existential threat to Israel, and we are taking action to prevent this.”
An Iranian friend sent the following cartoon, drawn by Mana Neyestani, on International Women’s Day:
An ad by US veteran’s group VoteVets that argues for Congress pushing a clean energy bill to stop the US backing fundamentalist regimes in the Middle East. Putting aside the fact that American troops are largely being attacked in places like Iraq because they’re occupying another people’s land, there is no doubt that the over-reliance on foreign oil is a problem for many nations around the world:
Paul Howes is national secretary of the Australian Workers’ Union. He loves Israel like it’s a woman he’s dying to take to bed. In other words, any flaws are utterly ignored.
His latest piece, in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph, totally backs Israel’s murder of a Hamas operative in Dubai:
Let’s be clear: the death of al-Mabhouh is a positive outcome for those who believe in peace and justice.
es, I accept that a liberal conscience will worry about the compelling moral arguments against extrajudicial killings.
But we’re talking about a man who has turned Palestinian children into human bombs to murder and terrorise Israeli civilians, not to mention the terror Hamas has waged against Palestinians who are deeply worried about Hamas’ fundamentalism being imposed by authoritarian diktat.
Al-Mahbouh and his Damascus military faction are said to be responsible for undermining the negotiations between Israel and Hamas to release the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
The question of the use of Australian passports in the operation in Dubai raises many issues for the Australian Government.
Traditionally, Australia has been a loyal friend of Israel, no matter which party is in government. This is something that should make us all proud.
Some have argued that if Israel has illegally used Australian passports, this is not the action of a friend. Maybe.
But in my view, friends stand by each other in the good times and the bad, and a friend is someone who lends a hand when the going gets tough.
That’s why I’m proud that our nation has played a small, and accidental role, in the removal of the terrorist al-Mabhouh from our planet.
Many may say that’s to be expected of a pro-Israeli. But it should be clear that al-Mabhouh’s death is quietly welcomed by the vast majority of the moderate Arab world.
Al-Mabhouh will be mourned only in the capitals of the despotic Middle East regimes such as Iran and Syria.
Many anti-Israel activists around the world, and in Australia, have seized on the passport issue to develop a new front to push their anti-Israeli propaganda. That, too, is to be expected.
But Australians shouldn’t fall for the giant lie they are pushing. Israelis are actually allied with a clear majority of the Arab world fighting a war against the forces of anti-democratic Islamo-fascism.
The world defeated Nazism. Now the world must support those countries fighting Islamo-fascism.
It is a war that is being fought on the streets of Tehran, where democratic forces battle that Islamic dictatorship; it’s being fought on the streets of Gaza, after Hamas launched their coup there; it’s being fought in Lebanon against Hezbollah and in the mountains of Afghanistan against the remains of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
The fighters had a small victory in a Dubai hotel.
It’s like Iraq’s Oil for Food program all over again. This New York Times article is fascinating yet one wonders if any examples can be given of the corporate world not colluding with dictatorships in the name of making profits:
The federal government has awarded more than $107 billion in contract payments, grants and other benefits over the past decade to foreign and multinational American companies while they were doing business in Iran, despite Washington’s efforts to discourage investment there, records show.
That includes nearly $15 billion paid to companies that defied American sanctions law by making large investments that helped Iran develop its vast oil and gas reserves.
For years, the United States has been pressing other nations to join its efforts to squeeze the Iranian economy, in hopes of reining in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Now, with the nuclear standoff hardening and Iran rebuffing American diplomatic outreach, the Obama administration is trying to win a tough new round of United Nations sanctions.
But a New York Times analysis of federal records, company reports and other documents shows that both the Obama and Bush administrations have sent mixed messages to the corporate world when it comes to doing business in Iran, rewarding companies whose commercial interests conflict with American security goals.
How excited are the US Congress and the Obama administration to impose sanctions on Iran?
The selling of a war against Iran seems to be going swimmingly well in the US:
A majority of American voters think military force will be necessary to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons program, and many think it will be “a disaster” if Iran gains nuclear capabilities.
A Fox News poll released Tuesday finds that 60 percent of voters think force will be required to stop Iran, while 25 percent think diplomacy and sanctions alone will work.
A report in the Israeli press says that Israel is looking to push United States to apply the ‘Cuban model’ to Iran.
A video has emerged that reveals yet more of the brutality in the Islamic Republic:
A leaked video of police brutality on the Tehran University campus has rocked Iranian cyberspace. The video, shot by police officials, was mysteriously leaked to the BBC last week. Filmed in June just two days after the disputed election, there is footage of an attack of Basij militia and riot police burning beds, beating students, and arresting over 100 people. For months, details of this attack had been shrouded in mystery and so the leaked video has shocked viewers.
Ever since legendary student protests in 1999 were brutally repressed, it has been illegal for outside security forces to enter Iranian university campuses without specific authorization from the university director. No permission was granted on the night of June 15, but the police video begins with plainclothes officers firing tear gas and weapons at students. One officer in the video mentions that the attack had been personally ordered by Tehran’s chief-of-police.
For months, Iranian officials denied any attack had happened on campus. Later, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei claimed “unknown unruly elements” had led the attack. But now the video proof is out for all Iranians to see, with responsibility for the assault apparently going up to the regime’s top leaders. The footage is fuzzy at times but can be seen in the video below:
Jerusalem Post writer Caroline Glick loves to love Israel to death. Her latest column is a classic of extremism; bomb Iran, smear Europe and America as allies and expand settlements. Is she aware that the Jewish state wouldn’t survive without at least a few friends?
Take Israel’s positions on Iran and the Palestinians, for instance. Regarding the Iranians, Israel’s national interest is to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Today, the only way to secure this interest is to use force to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations.
Given Iran’s leaders’ absolute commitment to developing nuclear weapons, no sanctions – regardless of how “crippling” they are supposed to be – will convince them to curtail their efforts to build and deploy their nuclear arsenal.
Beyond that, and far less important, the Russians and the Chinese will refuse to implement “crippling sanctions,” against Iran.
Avner Cohen wonders in Haaretz why Israel has allowed itself to be supposedly petrified of Iran’s alleged nuclear program (discounting the possibility that it pays to keep a populace petrified of an enemy):
What if Israel had treated Iran’s nuclear project as an exhibitionist, even childish, attempt by a nation mired in a deep identity crisis to exploit the prestige and mystique of nuclear power to create a national ethos of technological progress at home, as well as a diplomatic miracle cure that would enable it to challenge the West and move to the center of the international stage?
…
What would have happened if we had refused to become hysterical and apocalyptic, and had instead remained calm at the existential level, just as the Iranians are calm with regard to us? After all, the Iranians are convinced that we have nuclear weapons – and a lot of them. Yet despite this, while they see us as a military threat to their nuclear program, they do not see us as an existential threat to the Iranian nation. Adopting such a strategic view would not oblige Israel to attack Iran, because Tehran could not pose an existential threat to Israel.
Ultimately, we need to internalize the insight that even Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad voiced this week, when he said that all the talk about an Iranian bomb is irrational and meaningless. This is not simply because any Iranian attempt to destroy Israel via a nuclear bomb would kill countless Palestinians, but because it would surely lead to the destruction of Iran itself by Israel and the United States. Therefore, the idiotic claim that Iran could bring about Israel’s destruction does not hold water. While it is true that Ahmadinejad would love Israel to implode of its own accord, a self-confident and strong nation should not take such statements too seriously. And it certainly should not view them as an existential threat.
How sincere is the Islamic Republic towards Palestine? And what are some of the real reasons Tehran allegedly backs a resolution of the Middle East conflict?
During a campaign speech at the University of Uroomiyeh in northwestern Iran a few months before the June presidential election there, Mir Hossein Moussavi, the main reformist presidential candidate and now opposition leader, was interrupted by angry groups of basiji, the regime’s paramilitary enforcers, carrying pictures of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Palestinian flags. “I see the root of some [of our] problems in this hall,” Moussavi said when he saw the flags. “For instance some people are carrying a Palestinian flag. Though we like Palestine, we are in Iran and the province of Azerbaijan…. I stepped into the campaign exactly to confront this [kind of] radicalism.” Mousavi’s loss in what was widely believed to have been a rigged election brought hundreds of thousands of demonstrators to the streets, many of whom could be heard chanting, “No Gaza, no Lebanon, I sacrifice my life for Iran.”
Might Iran’s relationship with Israel change if the democratic opposition comes to power? Though the so-called Green Movement, the pro-democracy protesters who took to the streets after the disputed election, represents a significant development in Iran’s politics, the answer is far from clear. What is unmistakable, however, is that a large swath of Iran’s population no longer accepts at face value the statements of the Islamic Republic’s leaders, who have said the Jewish State must be “wiped off the map.”
A very important exchange took place between a top-level official from a Gulf state and the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a recent meeting in Tehran, reported Abdul Rahman al Rashed, a columnist with the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al Awsat.
“How come you believe that we are intending to build a nuclear bomb? We are not that stupid,” the writer quoted the Iranian president as saying, citing a reliable source. “Were we to strike Israel with a nuclear weapon, more Palestinians than Israelis would likely get killed.”
J Street continues to walk a very fine line between pleasing the hard Right on the Goldstone report and Iran sanctions while also demanding more open debate in America about the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Here’s Jeremy Ben-Ami’s latest statement:
I’ve just landed in the US following an exhilarating week leading a delegation of five members of Congress to Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. [1]
The trip, sponsored by the J Street Education Fund, exposed key friends of Israel in Congress to complexity on the ground, to divergent opinions and to first-hand controversy.
The Delegation visited Jerusalem, Ramallah and Amman, meeting with politicians in and out of government. We dined and debated with civil society leaders in Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. We heard the first-hand powerful narratives of Israeli settlers, families in Sderot, human rights activists, Gilad Shalit’s father, and descendants of Palestinian refugees.
With one notable exception – as you may know, we were placed under a so-called “boycott” by Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. On the heels of telling the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations that J Street should stop calling itself something it’s not (i.e., “pro-Israel”), Ayalon leaked to Israeli media word of a boycott of the group, supposedly preventing us from meeting with Israeli officials. [2]
Needless to say, the members of Congress were none-too-pleased, holding a press conference to express their shock and issuing a statement demanding clarification from the Government. [3]
For many – from Israeli political insiders and media to American Jewish leaders and politicians – this incident was just the latest in a series of indications that the Foreign Ministry in this Government is less an open front door to Israel than a checkpoint for ideological purity.
This week’s spat between the Ministry and our Delegation deepens concerns about the increasing inability of some in Israel and in the US to distinguish between criticism of or disagreement with Israeli policy and outright hostility to the state itself. [4]
The more supporters of Israel put themselves in a defensive crouch, lashing out at the slightest hint of criticism, the less meaningful their entreaties will be when the threats are real and the enemies truly lethal.
Thankfully, within twenty-four hours, the Government in this case backtracked, apologizing to the Delegation. (See Jerusalem Post and Haaretz coverage of yesterday’s apologies). [5, 6]
There is much beyond this controversy to share from the visit. We were struck by the disparity between the fierce urgency felt by many whose lives focus on solving the conflict and the lack of urgency felt by many others whose lives are more removed from day-to-day contact with the conflict.
We heard dramatically varying views on the state of American diplomacy – with some unsatisfied with the tactics, pace and results of the Mitchell effort to date, and others expressing great confidence in Senator Mitchell and highly appreciative of his patience, experience and skills.
We heard from those who believe that only if the threat from Iran is dealt with, can Israel with confidence turn to dealing with the Palestinian conflict – and from those for whom action on resolving Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians is a step toward dealing with the Iranian threat.
The diversity of opinions is remarkable; the depth of passion unmistakable.
But I take away from the whole experience a troubling sense that beyond any particular issue of the moment – beyond Iran, Goldstone, Jerusalem, settlements, or Danny Ayalon - there is a fundamental conflict rising up to face the Jewish people as a whole.
There is in our community – and by that I include the whole of world Jewry as one people from Israel to the US and around the globe – a struggle developing between two camps with radically different visions of Jewish expression in the 21st century.
On one side of this struggle are those committed to our vision of time-honored Jewish and democratic values – grounded in respect for “the other,” a tolerance for dissent, and a willingness to sacrifice territory for peace.
On the other side are those who seem willing to muffle dissent, view all conflict as zero-sum, and place retaining captured land and territory at the center of its value system.
For a while now, it has been popular to say that for Israel there is a choice ahead between the land, being Jewish, and being democratic. Many leading Israelis have come to see that it’s possible only to have two of the three.
I think the choice for world Jewry is similarly profound and stark. As a people – do we line up with those who seek to hang on to all of “Greater Israel” and watch our Jewish and democratic values erode in Israel and in our community, or do we stand up urgently for territorial compromise and for behavior in Israel and in our community that reflects our cherished and long-held values?
More than ever, it’s clear to me that we’re not fighting simply over Israeli or American foreign policy. We’re in a larger and more significant battle over who we are as a people in this new century and how our people are defined collectively for ourselves and for others by the behavior of the country that serves as our national expression.
We’ll be in touch,
- Jeremy
Jeremy Ben-Ami
Executive Director
J Street
February 19, 2010[1] The five members of Congress who traveled with the Congressional Delegation are Reps. Lois Capps (CA-23), William Delahunt (MA-10), Bob Filner (CA-51), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15), and Donald Payne (NJ-10).
[2] “Deputy FM Ayalon addresses Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, February 17, 2010.
[3] “Rep. Delahunt Statement on J Street Education Fund Congressional Delegation,” February 17, 2010.
[4] “The Ministry for Isolating Israel,” by Haaretz Editorial Board. Haaretz, February 19, 2010.
[5] “Diaspora Affairs: J Street 1: Ayalon 0,” by Haviv Rettig Gur. The Jerusalem Post, February 19, 2010.
[6] “J Street: Criticism of Israel does not make us the enemy,” by Barak Ravid. Haaretz, February 19, 2010.
Press Release: J Street Education Fund Congressional Mission Leaves for the Middle East, February 12, 2010.
The role of Ahmed Chalabi in the Iraq invasion is infamous. Friend of the neo-cons, feeder of false WMD stories, backer of war and close to Iran.
Seven years on, nothing has changed.
