Mostrando postagens com marcador Arabic. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Arabic. Mostrar todas as postagens

domingo, 30 de outubro de 2016

The Israeli Trumpess

29/10/16, Gush Shalom גוש שלום http://zope.gush-shalom.org (Israel)


WHAT WILL Donald Trump do if he loses the elections in a week and a half from now, as most polls indicate?

He has already declared that he will recognize the results -- but only if he wins.
That sounds like a joke. But it is far from being a joke.

Trump has already announced that the election is rigged. The dead are voting (and all the dead vote for Hillary Clinton). The polling station committees are corrupt. The polling machines forge the results.

No, that is not a joke. Not at all.

THIS IS not a joke, because Trump represents tens of millions of Americans, who belong to the lower strata of the white population, which the white elite used to call "white trash". In more polite

quinta-feira, 17 de maio de 2012

LATEST LUNACIES FROM THE ONLY DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST


May 15th, 2012, Tikun Olam תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam
(USA)

Today’s news brings two new lunacies from our friends in the Only Democracy in the Middle East™ . In the first instance, the Israeli tax authorities impounded a shipment of copies of the Arabic language edition of Yehuda HaLevy’s seminal work of medieval Jewish philosophy, The Kuzari. They did so because the books had been printed in Lebanon, one of the few places in the Middle East that prints Arabic books. The Israeli authorities claimed that allowing the books into Israel would constitute “trading with the enemy.”

The book, originally written in Judeo-Arabic, a medieval version of Arabic written using Hebrew characters (similar in concept to Yiddish), was translated as a seven-year, uncompensated labor of love by an Israeli-Palestinian PhD student at Ben Gurion University. He explained to Akiva Eldar that Israel often looks the other way when Arabic books are imported from nations in the region with whom Israel has strained relations, including Lebanon. In this case, they decided to make an example of poor Yehuda HaLevy. Why? Who knows. It may be precisely because it was a labor of love by an Israeli Palestinian and the police wish to make an example of him. It may be because they don’t like books in general. History is full of regimes which liked to make examples of books.

Or maybe it was this particular book. After all, it tells the famous tale of the Khazar king who was persuaded by a Jewish scholar to convert to Judaism. There are those among anti-Zionists who like to argue that contemporary Jews don’t trace a direct lineage back to ancient Israel, but rather to the Khazars. This is part of the ongoing battle between Zionists who feel the need to prove such a connection in order to justify the Jewish claim on Israel; and between those who feel that severing that historical connection of the Jews to the land of Israel will weaken their historical claims.

It’s entirely possible that some Shin Bet agent has studied a little too much medieval philosophy (not enough to understand the true power of the work, but too much to ignore it), and decided that the Kuzari is part of the Palestinian project of delegitimization of Israel. As a result, Israel appears to be engaging in a cultural boycott not only of Arabic language books, but of one of the great Jewish medieval poets and philosophers.

Another terrible irony of this entire mess is that the original book and author represented the pinnacle of medieval Jewish learning and intellectual achievement. This achievement happened in good part because of the environment in which Ha-Levi lived, which allowed Jews and Arabs to co-exist peacefully, even fruitfully. Could this be yet another unconscious reason Israel feels the need to suppress an Arabic-language edition? It needs to stamp out the historical example of a Jewish book written within an Arab society and in a language that combined both Arabic and Hebrew. That much peaceful co-existence and cultural interchange could be scary to Israeli officials who prefer their state to be Arab-rein.

If this weren’t so insane it would actually be mordantly funny.

(Photo: Keeping out the immigrant hordes/AP)

The Jerusalem Post reports that the Ministry of the Environment has taken the pro-active step of commissioning scientists to examine the effect that climate change will have on Israel and the Middle East. So far so good. Until you recognize that the minister is Gilad Erdan, the very same Likud henchman who tried to skewer Meir Dagan in New York by calling him a political hack for questioning Bibi’s threats of war against Iran. Knowing that Erdan is such a lap dog will explain the mockery that his ministry has made of the science of climate change.

In this country, red-neck anti-science Republicans have similarly made a political football out of climate change. But at least they’ve made a pretense of arguing scientific principles. The Israeli report dispenses with science altogether and views climate change through the prism of the national security and the Israeli-Arab conflict:

In order to combat increased waves of illegal migration that will likely accompany climate change, Israel must secure its borders through impassable barriers, including “sea fences” along the Mediterranean and Red Sea, experts have concluded.

“The lack of water, warming and sea level rise, even if it will occur on a different schedule, will bring migration movements from all impoverished regions to every place where it is possible to escape this,” wrote a team of academics, led by Prof. Arnon Soffer and Dr. Anton Berkovsky of the University of Haifa’s Geography Department…

Among its suggestions for how to handle the geo-strategic implications of climate change, the team…called for a complete enclosure of Israel from all directions, including establishing sea fences along the Mediterranean and Red seas. In addition, the experts said that additional law enforcement will be required to deal with the ramifications of securing the Egyptian and Jordanian borders, as economic crisis might ensue for Negev Beduins who trade across these turfs. While securing Israel from all sides, however, the authorities must ensure for the safe passage of animals and plants.

…Soffer explained that the most troublesome spot in terms of migration to Israel is the Nile basin area, where a mixture of drastic climate changes and demographic explosions are pushing people to move northward. Meanwhile, they recognize that “Europe is completely under siege by the navvies,” so they cannot move in that direction.

…“I am one that fights for building fences all around Israeli borders,” he said. “We are an island – we don’t belong to this region, and we have to defend Israel from waves of migration from Egypt from Jordan and maybe from Syria. If we want to keep Israel a Jewish State, we will have to defend ourselves from what I call ‘climate refugees,’ exactly as Europe is doing now.”

After reading a passage like this you begin to wonder whether Soffer is a Stephen Colbert pseudo-scientist parody:

While the fences around Israel are necessary, according to Soffer, so too are corridors to allow the free passage of animals. Such passages, he said could be guarded by groups of soldiers for days at a time to allow the animals, such as snakes, to cross both ways.

So Israel will seal itself off from human aliens, but bestow mercy on the animals (non-human ones, that is).

Think of the psychological profile of a supposed learned scholar who thinks in such deeply paranoid ways of those surround Israel. Think of the delusional thinking that allows him to believe that the solution to an epidemic is to turn Israel into a battleship that can fight off those who threaten it. This, in effect is a transference of Israeli security policy into the realm of climate science. Just as security policy is bankrupt so is this approach to a coming major catastrophe.

Note that Soffer doesn’t propose that Israel contribute scientifically so solving the problems of climate change. He doesn’t suggest decreasing Israel’s carbon footprint or devising ways of lessening the world’s carbon emissions, all of which would help avert the crisis. Instead, he merely suggests who to weather the human storm it will cause. Soffer gives his nation, his discipline and science in general a bad name. How can such racism infect someone who’s earned a position at a major Israeli university?

quinta-feira, 12 de abril de 2012

Moral Courage from the General’s Son

April 11, 2012, Shalom Rav http://rabbibrant.com (USA)
A Blog by Rabbi Brant Rosen



Please, please take 30 minutes of your time to watch this presentation by Israeli peace activist, Miko Peled, author of the recently published book, "The General’s Son."

Among other things, Peled’s ideas and convictions carry a profound sense of moral authority because he comes with impeccable Zionist credentials. His grandfather, Avraham Katznelson, was a prominent Zionist leader and signer of the Israeli Declaration of Independence. His father Matti Peled was a major Israeli military leader who fought in the 1948 War of Independence and was an Aluf (“Major-General”) during the 1967 Six-Day War. He later became a scholar of Arabic literature, a leftist politician, and a prominent Israeli advocate of peace talks with the PLO.

Miko is following in his father’s footsteps in more ways than one. In reading his book, it is so clear to me that he is an Israeli through and through and very much a product of his family’s remarkable history. At the same time, he has carried his father’s work of moral witness firmly into the 21st century.

In the video above, he addresses what he considers the fundamental myths of Israeli society: the “Land Without a People for a People Without a Land” myth of 1948, the “War of Survival” myth of 1967, and the myth of “Israeli democracy.” He also speaks eloquently about the moral outrage of the war in Gaza and the issue of Palestinian terror. (Tragically, Peled’s family has first-hand experience with the latter subject: his niece Smadar was killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber in Jerusalem in 1997).

Please watch the clip and send the link on. Moral heroes such as Miko Peled deserve the widest possible audience.

PS: I’m thrilled to be able to say that the publisher of “The General’s Son,” Just World Books, will be soon publishing my book – a curated anthology of “Shalom Rav” posts and comments from 2008-2010. Much more on this soon – stay tuned!

segunda-feira, 7 de novembro de 2011

Race to a million "mixed" couples

7 November 2011, Alternative Information Center (AIC) המרכז לאינפורמציה אלטרנטיבית


http://www.alternativenews.org (Israel)

Uri Yacobi Keller for the Alternative Information Center (AIC)

Jewish Israelis who advocate for separation between Jews and Arabs feel threatened by mixed couples, like the one on the Israeli reality show "Race for the Million." How might romantic connections and chance encounters between Jews and Palestinians happen in Israel, which is increasingly becoming openly racist?

Participants in the Israeli reality TV show, "Race to a Million."

Walla! Culture recently ran a story pointing out that one of the couples competing in the popular Israeli reality TV show, “Race for the Million,” is “mixed”. Meaning: a male, Muslim Palestinian citizen of Israel and a Jewish Israeli woman who dare to openly flaunt their romantic relationship on prime time television.

But before this couple came to Walla!’s attention, they were under fire from an organization called LEHAVA (“flame” in Hebrew, it’s an acronym for “Preventing [Jewish] Assimilation [with non-Jews] in the Holy Land”), which has published a pamphlet calling for a boycott of the show.

In a short interview with Walla! Culture Benzi Goopstein, the chairman of LEHAVA, remarked, “[Jewish] assimilation is the continuation of the Holocaust.” He also claimed that mixed couples result in violence against women.

However, Mr Goopstein did concede that “allegedly” the mixed couple “looks nice” on TV.

Suffice it to say that Mr Goopstein’s comparing romantic relationships between Jews and Arabs to the systematic genocide of millions of people is, at the very least, a slight exaggeration. And never mind that banning “mixed” romantic relationships between Jews and Germans was a fundamental of the Nazi regime’s discriminatory, anti-Semitic policies.

What I would like to expand on here is this: the very day I heard about the whole thing I went, as I often do, to a certain bar in downtown West Jerusalem. This bar is owned by Jews and Palestinians and its customers are Jews and Palestinians. And it is not uncommon to hear English, Spanish, German, French and other languages there. On the evening that I went, I noted two Palestinian girls chatting in Arabic over beers, some Arab guys, a few Germans, and many Jewish Israelis in various stages of drunkeness.

The place opened about a year ago during the football world cup. Without anyone forcing them, Jews, Palestinians, and “others,” sat down together to watch men chasing balls across a field. The bar has been running ever since.

But it’s just a bar. The fact that Jews and Palestinians drink beer there together, have some sort of fun, flirt with each other and, perhaps, do even more than that, is not artificial or encouraged by anyone. Nor is it very interesting or important to anyone. It happens because they’re young people doing what young people do.

That, more than any demonstration, is threatening to the likes of Mr Goopstein.

This bar is still far from representing the vast majority of the Jerusalem or Israeli nightlife. The Israeli public is, most definitely not on “our” side--it remains a base for the mainstream Israeli politicians who seek to continue occupation. But that same public also watches television where, in reality shows, there happen to be Jews and Palestinians who share their lives in peace. And that same public includes young people who go to bars to have fun where they might end up meeting Palestinian youth who are there for the same reason.

The road from randomly drinking beer together to a meaningful, substantial reduction in racism in Israeli society is still extremely long. And as long as these social meetings between Jews and Palestinians remain as nothing more than “fun” (or reality television) and are not accompanied by loud political contemplation, they hold little importance or political interest.

But if it annoys the likes of Mr Goopstein, it could be some sort of start.

Translated by the Alternative Information Center (AIC)

terça-feira, 30 de agosto de 2011

Israeli intellectuals back Palestinian state; Women to march in Qalandia

29 August 2011, Communist Party of Israel המפלגה הקומוניסטית הישראלית http://maki.org.il

A newly established cooperation between Israeli playwright Joshua Sobol and Arab-Palestinian poet in Israel Taha Muhammad Ali has led to a petition calling on intellectuals on both sides to support the foundation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

According to Sobol, the petition – distributed by email in recent days – has been signed by more than100 artists and academics, Jews and Arabs. It says that "the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 border, which will live in peace with Israel, is a crucial interest both for Israel and the Palestinians.

(June 4, 2011 demonstration in Tel-Aviv for a Palestinian state. Photo: Al Ittihad)

"All Arab countries and most of the world's countries support this solution for the conflict. According to the Arab Summit Conference in Beirut in 2002, all Arab countries and 60 Muslim countries would recognize the State of Israel and establish diplomatic relations with it if Israel were to recognize the '67 borders as the borders of just, comprehensive and sustainable peace with the future Palestinian state.

"These borders will gain the recognition of the UN and the countries of the world, as well as international guarantees." Sobol and Muhammad Ali warn in the petition that the ongoing political stalemate will create fertile land for extreme forces, who they say seek to drag the region's people into bloodshed and disastrous wars, which "create destruction, perpetuate backwardness and prevent any option of normalization of life and furthering social justice."

Talking about social justice, the two say that the recent popular protests movements in Arab countries and Israel express the aspirations for normalization of life that will exist in the region in times of peace, which will guarantee the fulfillment of the existential interests of the citizens of Israel and the Palestinian state and allow economic prosperity and social justice for all of the region's nations.

"For all these reasons, we the undersigned welcome the establishment of a Palestinian state within the '67 borders, including east Jerusalem, and call on its leadership and on the Israeli leadership to resume – immediately upon the foundation of the Palestinian state – the negotiations for ending the conflict based on UN resolutions and the international legitimization of a sustainable peace settlement between the two countries."

A women's march to be held in Qalandia checkpoint
Thousands of peace and left-wing women, from Israel and Palestine are expected to march through Qalandia checkpoint in east Jerusalem, Saturday, September 17 at 11 am. Among them Hadash, Communist Party of Israel and Tandi (Women's Democratic Movement in Israel) members, in support of an independent Palestinian state ahead of a declaration of statehood at the UN.

The demonstration will call for recognition of the Palestinian right to an independent state, with Jerusalem as its capital. The demonstration will be held in the two sides of the Qalandia checkpoint, with the participation of the General Union of Palestinian Women activists. March organizers were expecting thousands of Israeli and Palestinian women to participate.

On June 4, some 25,000 people marched through the streets of Tel Aviv in a demonstration calling for the creation of a Palestinian state. Setting out from the city’s central Rabin Square, protesters affiliated with the Hadash, Meretz, Peace Now, the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement and the Geneva Initiative slowly made their way along an unusually long route to the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, where a rally was held. Speakers included MKs from the Hadash, Meretz, Labor and Kadima parties.

Accompanied by a small but loud amateur marching band composed of youths from the Communist Party, activists carrying Israeli, Palestinian and red flags marched past Dizengoff center, making their presence known with amplified chants of: “Israel and Palestine, two states for two peoples”; “Yes we ‘ken’” (the Hebrew word for “yes”); and “Bibi and Barak, peace isn’t a game,” referring to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu by his nickname.

(in Hebrew and Arabic): http://2states.org.il/independent

sexta-feira, 19 de agosto de 2011

ANTI-ARAB SENTIMENT IN ISRAEL

18 August 2011, The Electronic Intifada http://electronicintifada.net (USA)

Video survey: Racism rampant among Israeli youth

Eli Ungar-Sargon

Over the past three years, my wife Pennie and I have been working on a documentary film about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During our second production trip to the region, one of the many remarkable people we encountered was Uri Davis. He is one of a handful of Israelis who has built a life for himself among the Palestinians of the West Bank. This made him a very interesting subject for our film, which examines the practical and moral failings of the two-state solution.

During our interview with Davis, one of the questions we asked was whether he had encountered any anti-Semitism in the West Bank. The question was motivated by a desire on our part to address a narrative — prevalent among American and Israeli Jews — which claims that anti-Semitism is an obvious feature of Palestinian culture.

As these two groups are an important part of our target audience, we felt that it was our responsibility to address this perception. Who better to ask about the veracity of this narrative than a Jew living among Palestinians? Davis answered by saying that although Palestinian anti-Semitism does exist, it is a marginal phenomenon, while anti-Arab sentiment among Israelis is a mainstream phenomenon. Shortly after the interview, it occurred to us that we could either substantiate or disprove Davis’s provocative statement with our cameras.

We began our survey in February 2011 and completed it in early March. On the Israeli side, we interviewed a total of 250 Jewish Israelis in Haifa, Tel Aviv, Herzliya, Jerusalem and Beersheba. For this part of the survey I conducted the interviews myself from behind the camera in Hebrew. On the Palestinian side, we interviewed a total of 250 Palestinians in Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and Hebron. (Despite multiple attempts, we were unable to procure permission to enter the Gaza Strip.) Here, we collaborated with local journalist Mohammad Jaradat who, using my questions, conducted the interviews in Arabic.

The questions we asked pertained to a number of sensitive political topics and the idea was to get people to talk long enough to detect if there was any racism at play in their answers. In sociological terms, we were engaged in qualitative analysis, but unlike typical qualitative interviews, we spent minutes, not hours with our subjects. Our survey is not exhaustive and our method was very simple. We went to public places and asked people to talk to us on camera. In designing the questions, I set out to distinguish actual racism from conflict-based animosity. That is, to allow for the possibility that Israelis might exhibit animosity towards Palestinians without being racist and to allow the same on the Palestinian side in reverse.

The very first question we asked of Jewish Israelis was the extremely broad “What do you think about Arabs?” It is only reasonable to expect that people who harbor anti-Arab sentiment would mask their feelings when answering such a direct question on camera. Most people responded to this question with some variation of “They are people,” although we were surprised that a sizable minority used the opportunity to launch into anti-Arab diatribes.

One of the most disturbing trends that we noticed was the strong correlation between age and anti-Arab sentiment. The majority of Israeli teenagers that we spoke to expressed unabashed and open racism towards Arabs. Statements like “I hate them,” or “they should all be killed” were common in this age group.

When looking over the data, we divided the respondents into three groups: those who were neutral about Arabs; those who were positive about them; and those who expressed negative attitudes. Amongst the responses, 60 percent were neutral, 25 percent negative and 15 percent positive.

Rights misunderstood
Interestingly, some of the same people who answered the first question by saying that Arabs are people, went on to say that they wouldn’t be willing to live next door to them. Internal inconsistencies of this nature cropped up in many of the interviews and it is for this reason that we reserved our overall judgment on the prevalence of anti-Arab sentiment until all of the answers were tabulated. Our results show that 71 percent were willing to live next door to Arab neighbors, while 24 percent were unwilling. Five percent failed to answer this question with either a “yes” or a “no.”

It should be noted that the Israel Democracy Institute received dramatically different numbers in response to the above question. In its 2010 survey, it found that 46 percent of Jewish Israelis were unwilling to live next door to an Arab. The implication of this discrepancy is that our survey sample was much less anti-Arab than the population at large.

When it came to equal rights, a clear majority of our respondents answered that they felt it was important for Arab citizens of the state of Israel to enjoy equal rights. Upon review of the data, one of the significant trends that emerged in these answers was the recurrent use of the phrase “rights and responsibilities.” Many people openly resented the fact that most Arab citizens of the state don’t perform military service and argued that Arabs should only have equal rights if they are held to the same responsibilities as Jews. This response demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the very concept of rights, but it was prevalent enough that we felt it justified its own category. We called this category “conditional.” Of these responses, 64 percent were in favor of equal rights, 16 percent were opposed and 20 percent were in favor of conditional rights.

Once again, we saw a clear discrepancy from the Israel Democracy Institute numbers, which showed that 46 percent of Israelis were opposed to full and equal rights for Arab citizens of the state.

Democracy for Jews only?
Israel defines itself as a “Jewish democracy” but we were interested in discovering which part of that definition is more important to Jewish Israelis. We went about doing this by asking: “What’s more important: that Israel be a Jewish state or a democratic state?” What we discovered was that a clear majority of the people we spoke to felt that the Jewish character of the state was at least equally if not more important than the democratic character. There was, however, an impressive minority who were clear about the fact that it was more important to them that Israel be a democratic state. This last category represents, by a slim margin, the single largest group of our respondents: 37 percent felt that a democratic character was more important, 36 percent felt that a Jewish character was more important and 27 percent felt that both were equally important.

On the subject of the settlers, we asked a more leading question: “What do you think about the settlers? Are they an impediment to peace?” We broke the responses down into three groups: those who were neutral about the settlers; those who were positive about them; and those who expressed negativity. In this instance, answering “yes” was taken as evidence of negative feelings towards the settlers, answering “no” without qualification was taken as a neutral stance and answering “no” followed by something like “they are the heroes of the Jewish people” — a phrase that we heard a number of times — was taken as evidence of positive feelings. What we discovered was that more than 70 percent of the people we spoke to were either neutral or positive towards the settlers. Of the responses, 45 percent were neutral, 28 percent were positive and 27 percent were negative about the settlers.

Many of the people we spoke to exhibited a deep suspicion and mistrust of the Palestinian people. When asked whether it was possible to make peace with the Palestinians, less than half of our respondents answered “yes.” This is a sobering statistic for anyone invested in the peace process. It would seem that most of the people we spoke to have given up on the prospect of peace. Even among the Israelis who believed that peace is possible, a recurrent theme was “not in this generation.” Another important trend in this part of the survey was blaming the Palestinian leadership for the lack of progress in the peace process. Many of the people who answered “yes” stated that peace was possible with the Palestinian people but not with their leaders. Of the responses, 48 percent believed that peace with the Palestinians is possible, while 40 percent felt that peace is not possible. Thirteen percent failed to answer this question with either a “yes” or a “no.”

Little knowledge of one-state solution
Given the subject of our film, we were very interested in exploring people’s preferences for potential solutions to the conflict. What we noticed almost immediately was that it was very important to clarify to our respondents exactly what we meant by one state or two states. For the purposes of our survey, we defined the one-state solution as a secular democracy with equal rights on all of historic Palestine, while we defined the two-state solution as two states more or less along the lines of the 1967 boundaries, with East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state. It was important that we were able to explain exactly what we meant, because many Israelis answered one way but meant something entirely different.

For example, when asked whether they preferred the one-state solution or the two-state solution, many respondents answered that they preferred the two-state solution. But when we followed up and asked what territorial concessions they would be willing to make, these same people said that they wouldn’t agree to any concessions.
Furthermore, almost no one that we spoke to was familiar with the concept of the one-state solution. Many people even took this to mean one state for Jews only, until we clarified our meaning. When we reviewed the data from this section of the survey, we decided to break down the responses into seven different categories: one state; one state (i.e. a state for Jews only); two states; two states (i.e. without territorial concessions); either one or two states; neither one nor two states; and other. What is really fascinating about our results is that over two thirds of the people we spoke to were actively opposed to the classic two-state solution on the 1967 borders. Furthermore, there were almost as many true one-state solution supporters as there were classic two-state supporters. Amongst those we surveyed, 27 percent were true two-state supporters, 23 percent were true one state supporters, 22 percent supported neither, 16 percent were in favor of two states without territorial concessions, 6 percent were okay with either one or two states, 4 percent were in favor of one state for Jews only, and 2 percent didn’t fit into any of these categories.

Racism highest in Jerusalem
In trying to answer the question of whether anti-Arab sentiment is a mainstream phenomenon among Israelis, we looked at all of the answers and divided the data into three categories: not anti-Arab; mildly anti-Arab; and strongly anti-Arab. Once again, we allowed for the possibility that a person might exhibit animosity towards Palestinians without being anti-Arab and we did not put people into one of the anti-Arab columns simply because he or she expressed right-wing political views. So, for example, if the only evidence in an interview of anti-Arab sentiment was that the respondent said that equal rights for Arabs are conditional upon equal responsibilities, we did not put them in an anti-Arab column. However, if a respondent stated that they wouldn’t live next door to an Arab, this was sufficient to push him or her into the mildly anti-Arab column. To qualify for the strongly anti-Arab category, a respondent needed to exhibit anti-Arab sentiment in two or more answers.

Our results showed that 46 percent of our respondents were either mildly or strongly anti-Arab. When we broke these numbers down according to city, there were obvious regional differences. Jerusalem was by far the most anti-Arab of the five cities we visited, with 58 percent exhibiting some level of anti-Arab sentiment, while Haifa was the least with 32 percent. Interestingly, after Jerusalem, Tel Aviv was the city with the most anti-Arab sentiment (49 percent).

The data we gathered substantiates the idea that anti-Arab sentiment is a mainstream phenomenon in Israel. Almost half of all the Jewish Israelis we spoke to exhibited some level of anti-Arab sentiment. The single most disturbing trend that emerged was the correlation between youth and strong anti-Arab sentiment. We also learned that support for the classic two-state solution along the 1967 lines was very low among the people we spoke to. This data point was reinforced by the strong support that we saw for the settlers. Given our leading question, the fact that less than a third of respondents were willing to characterize the settlers as an impediment to peace, is further evidence that the two-state solution, as it is currently being proposed by the international community, is decidedly unpopular in Israel.

Despite the lack of knowledge about the one-state solution idea, some respondents appeared willing to consider it. Once this solution was explained to them, 22 percent preferred it and around 6 percent did not object to it. Finally, when we asked Jewish Israelis to choose between the Jewish character of the state and the democratic character, 36 percent opted for the latter. All of these results must be taken with a grain of salt.

We can report anecdotally that many of the people who refused to be interviewed told us that they wouldn’t participate, because they felt that we were part of the “leftist media.” For these reasons, we feel that it is likely, if anything, that our data underestimates the actual amount of anti-Arab sentiment in Israel.

Eli Ungar-Sargon is a documentary filmmaker based in Los Angeles. He and his wife Pennie are currently looking for translators to facilitate the data analysis on the Palestinian side of this survey. Anyone interested should email withoutaland A T gmail D O T com. To learn more about the film and see a visual representation of the data discussed in this article, please visit www.withoutaland.com

sexta-feira, 5 de agosto de 2011

THREE PERSPECTIVES ON THE AMAZING GROWTH OF TENT CITIES OF PROTEST ACROSS ISRAELI SOCIETY

6 August 2011, Tikkun תיקון http://www.tikkun.org (USA)

Uri Avnery אורי אבנרי

“How Goodly Are Thy Tents”

FIRST OF all, a warning.

Tent cities are springing up all over Israel. A social protest movement is gathering momentum. At some point in the near future, it may endanger the right-wing government.

At that point, there will be a temptation – perhaps an irresistible temptation – to “warm up the borders”. To start a nice little war. Call on the youth of Israel, the same young people now manning (and womanning) the tents, to go and defend the fatherland.

Nothing easier than that. A small provocation, a platoon crossing the border “to prevent the launching of a rocket”, a fire fight, a salvo of rockets – and lo and behold, a war. End of protest.

In September, just a few weeks from now, the Palestinians intend to apply to the UN for the recognition of the State of Palestine. Our politicians and generals are chanting in unison that this will cause a crisis – Palestinians in the occupied territories may rise in protest against the occupation, violent demonstrations may ensue, the army will be compelled to shoot – and lo and behold, a war. End of protest.

THREE WEEKS ago I was interviewed one morning by a Dutch journalist. At the end, she asked: “You are describing an awful situation. The extreme right-wing controls the Knesset and is enacting abominable anti-democratic laws. The people are indifferent and apathetic. There is no opposition to speak of. And yet you exude a spirit of optimism. How come?”

I answered that I have faith in the people of Israel. Contrary to appearances, we are a sane people. Some time, somewhere, a new movement will arise and change the situation. It may happen in a week, in a month, in a year. But it will come.

On that very same day, just a few hours later, a young woman called Daphne Liff, with an improbable man’s hat perched on her flowing hair, said to herself: “Enough!”

She had been evicted by her landlady because she couldn’t afford the rent. She set up a tent in Rothschild Boulevard, a long, tree-lined thoroughfare in the center of Tel Aviv. The news spread through facebook, and within an hour, dozens of tents had sprung up. Within a week, there were some 400 tents, spread out in a double line more than a mile long.

Similar tent-cities sprang up in Jerusalem, Haifa and a dozen smaller towns. The next Saturday, tens of thousands joined protest marches in Tel Aviv and elsewhere. Last Saturday, they numbered more than 150,000.

This”] has now become the center of Israeli life. The Rothschild tent city has assumed a life of its own –a cross between Tahrir Square and Woodstock, with a touch of Hyde Park corner thrown in for good measure. The mood is indescribably upbeat, masses of people come to visit and return home full of enthusiasm and hope. Everybody can feel that something momentous is happening.

Seeing the tents, I was reminded of the words of Balaam, who was sent by the king of Moab to curse the children of Israel in the desert (Numbers 24) and instead exclaimed: “How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, Oh Israel!”

IT ALL started in a remote little town in Tunisia, when an unlicensed market vendor was arrested by a policewoman. It seems that in the ensuing altercation, the woman struck the man in the face, a terrible humiliation for a Tunisian man. He set himself on fire. What followed is history: the revolution in Tunisia, regime change in Egypt, uprisings all over the Middle East.

The Israeli government saw all this with growing concern – but they didn’t imagine that there might be an effect in Israel itself. Israeli society, with its ingrained contempt for Arabs, could hardly be expected to follow suit.

But follow suit it did. People in the street spoke with growing admiration of the Arab revolt. It showed that people acting together could dare to confront leaders far more fearsome than our bumbling Binyamin Netanyahu.

Some of the most popular posters on the tents were “Rothschild corner Tahrir” and, in a Hebrew rhyme, “Tahrir – Not only in Cahir” – Cahir being the Hebrew version of al-Cahira, the Arabic name for Cairo. And also: “Mubarak, Assad, Netanyahu”.

In Tahrir Square, the central slogan was “The People Want to Overthrow the Regime”. In conscious emulation, the central slogan of the tent cities is “The People Want Social Justice”.

WHO ARE these people? What exactly do they want?

It started with a demand for “Affordable Housing”. Rents in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and elsewhere are extremely high, after years of Government neglect. But the protest soon engulfed other subjects: the high price of foodstuffs and gasoline, the low wages . The ridiculously low salaries of physicians and teachers, the deterioration of the education and health services. There is a general feeling that 18 tycoons control everything, including the politicians. (Politicians who dared to show up in the tent cities were chased away.) They could have quoted an American saying: “Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”

A selection of the slogans gives an impression:

We want a welfare state!

Fighting for the home!
Justice, not charity!

If the government is against the people, the people are against the government!

Bibi, this is not the US Congress, you will not buy us with empty words!

If you don’t join our war, we shall not fight your wars!

Give us our state back!

Three partners with three salaries cannot pay for three rooms!

The answer to privatization: revolution!

We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, we are slaves to Bibi in Israel!

I have no other homeland!

Bibi, go home, we'll pay for the gas!

Overthrow swinish capitalism!

Be practical, demand the impossible!

WHAT IS missing in this array of slogans? Of course: the occupation, the settlements, the huge expenditure on the military.

This is by design. The organizers, anonymous young men and women – mainly women – are very determined not to be branded as “leftists”. They know that bringing up the occupation would provide Netanyahu with an easy weapon, split the tent-dwellers and derail the protests.

We in the peace movement know and respect this. All of us are exercising strenuous self-restraint, so that Netanyahu will not succeed in marginalizing the movement and depicting it as a plot to overthrow the right-wing government.

As I wrote in an article in Haaretz: No need to push the protesters. In due course, they will reach the conclusion that the money for the major reforms they demand can only come from stopping the settlements and cutting the huge military budget by hundreds of billions – and that is possible only in peace. (To help them along, we published a large ad, saying: “It’s quite simple – money for the settlements OR money for housing, health services and education”).

Voltaire said that “the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give it to the other”. This government takes the money of decent citizens to give it to the settlers.

WHO ARE they, these enthusiastic demonstrators, who seemingly have come from nowhere?

They are the young generation of the middle class, who go out to work, take home average salaries and “cannot finish the month”, as the Israeli expression goes. Mothers who cannot go to work because they have nowhere to leave their babies.
University students who cannot get a room in the dormitories or afford accomodation in the city. And especially young people who want to marry but cannot afford to buy an apartment, even with the help of their parents. (One tent bore the sign: “Even this tent was bought by our parents”)

All this in a flourishing economy, which has been spared the pains of the world-wide economic crisis and boasts an enviable unemployment rate of just 5%.

If pressed, most of the protesters would declare themselves to be “social-democrats”. They are the very opposite of the Tea Party in the US: they want a welfare state, they blame privatization for many of their ills, they want the government to interfere and to act. Whether they want to admit it or not, the very essence of their demands and attitudes is classically leftist (the term created in the French Revolution because the adherents of these ideals sat on the left side of the speaker in the National Assembly). They are the essence of what Left means - (though in Israel, the terms “Left” and “Right” have until now been largely identified with questions of war and peace).

WHERE WILL it go from here?

No one can say. When asked about the impact of the French Revolution, Zhou Enlai famously said: “It’s too early to say.” Here we are witnessing an event still in progress, perhaps even still beginning.

It has already produced a huge change. For weeks now, the public and the media have stopped talking about the borders, the Iranian bomb and the security situation. Instead, the talk is now almost completely about the social situation, the minimum wage, the injustice of indirect taxes, the housing construction crisis.

Under pressure, the amorphous leadership of the protest has drawn up a list of concrete demands. Among others: government building of houses for rent, raising taxes on the rich and the corporations, free education from the age of three months [sic], a raise in the salary of physicians, police and fire-fighters, school classes of no more than 21 pupils, breaking the monopolies controlled by a few tycoons, and so on.

So where from here? There are many possibilities, both good and bad.

Netanyahu can try to buy off the protest with some minor concessions – some billions here, some billions there. This will confront the protesters with the choice of the Indian boy in the movie about becoming a millionaire: take the money and quit, or risk all on answering yet another question.

Or: the movement may continue to gather momentum and force major changes, such as shifting the burden from indirect to direct taxation.

Some rabid optimists (like myself) may even dream of the emergence of a new authentic political party to fill the gaping void on the left side of the political spectrum.

I STARTED with a warning, and I must end with another one: this movement has raised immense hopes. If it fails, it may leave behind an atmosphere of despondency and despair – a mood that will drive those who can to seek a better life somewhere else.

domingo, 22 de maio de 2011

JEWS ARE DISHONORED BY A BLIND DEFENSE OF ISRAEL

20 May 2011, Haaretz (Israel)

'Two Jews, three opinions,' is the old adage. On 'everything but Israel,' is the present reality.

By Alan Levine*

Now that the City University of New York board of trustees has reversed course and approved an honorary degree for Tony Kushner, it is time for the Jewish establishment to reflect upon its failure to speak out. Jewish history tells us that silence is complicity. While individual Jews and progressive Jewish organizations, such as Jews Say No!, Jewish Voice for Peace, Jews Against Islamophobia, Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, the Shalom Center, and J Street joined those protesting CUNY's earlier decision to withdraw its initial offer of an honorary degree to Kushner, not one of the mainstream Jewish organizations seemed to think the trustees did anything wrong in punishing someone for his dissenting views on Israel. Neither the American Jewish Committee nor Congress, not the Anti-Defamation League, not the Jewish Community Relations Council, not Hillel.

It is not the first time. Prior to the Kushner fiasco, two front-page controversies erupted in recent years over actions by New York public officials against persons believed to be critical of Israel. In each case, the major Jewish organizations were either actively complicit or, by their silence, tacitly complicit, reflecting a mindset that dissent on Israel is bad for Israel and bad for the Jews. The position is wrong as a matter of strategy. More important, it is wrong morally, and represents a profound betrayal of the Jewish ethical commitment to open inquiry and to justice.

The first controversy involved Debbie Almontaser, an esteemed educator who was selected by the city's department of education in 2007 to head the new Khalil Gibran International Academy, the nation's first Arabic dual-language school. Because she was an Arab and a Muslim, she was subjected to a relentless, bigoted smear campaign. Nevertheless, her supporters remained firm, until a front-page New York Post article appeared describing the sale of "Intifada NYC" T-shirts. Although it was clear that Almontaser had no connection to the T-shirts, she was pursued by a Post reporter, who asked her for the root of the word "intifada." She said that its Arabic root is a word meaning "shaking off."

The next day, August 6, 2007, the Post published an article headlined "City Principal Is 'Revolting,'" which reported that Almontaser had "defended" the "pro-violence shirt." The JCRC and the ADL, which had previously admired Almontaser's work, weighed in against her. Teachers union president Randi Weingarten questioned Almontaser's fitness to be a school principal because she had not condemned the intifada, an unprecedented suggestion that a New York City educator be required to take a pro-Israel loyalty oath. By the end of the week, the mayor and the schools chancellor had demanded her resignation.

A respected educator lost her job only because she was thought to be insufficiently supportive of Israel. No mainstream Jewish organization said a word in protest. To the contrary.

A footnote to that story: CUNY trustee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, who led the opposition to the Kushner award, was an overwrought opponent of KGIA as well. When a KGIA supporter, a rabbi, angrily differed with him at a public rally, Wiesenfeld suggested that the rabbi "get yourself a suicide bomb and go blow yourself up." So much for the man who thought Tony Kushner's views on Israel were not rational.

Then earlier this year there was the case of Kristofer Petersen-Overton, a Brooklyn College adjunct professor hired by the political science department to teach a course on the Middle East. Although the department had approved Petersen-Overton's credentials and the proposed course, NY State Assemblyman Dov Hikind wrote the college that Petersen-Overton was "an overt supporter of terrorism." The college promptly canceled the course. After letters of protest poured in from around the world, it was reinstated. Although the college's capitulation to Hikind represented a serious assault on academic freedom in the name of pro-Israel orthodoxy, not a single mainstream Jewish organization spoke out.

And now Tony Kushner's honorary degree. The CUNY trustees, after a firestorm of criticism, have admitted error. But how did it happen in the first place? Wiesenfeld is only one vote. What accounts for the initial acquiescence of Benno Schmidt, CUNY's board chair, who, as a former president of Yale and a First Amendment scholar, knows the stifling impact on academic freedom when universities capitulate to demands of political orthodoxy? There is a clue in his statement calling for the reinstatement of Kushner's honorary degree. While acknowledging that a candidate's political views are irrelevant to the awarding of honorary degrees, Schmidt gratuitously added, "If it were appropriate for us to take politics into account in deciding whether to approve an honorary degree, I might agree with Trustee Wiesenfeld, whose political views on the matters in controversy are not far distant from my own." Having said that Wiesenfeld's extremist political views are irrelevant, he proceeded to establish his own pro-Israel orthodoxy. That the board chair of a distinguished university is compelled to establish that he is "sufficiently pro-Israel" says that something is terribly wrong with the current climate of discourse about Israel and its policies.

Two Jews, three opinions, is the old adage. On "everything but Israel," is the present reality. Despite its belief to the contrary, neither the Jewish community nor Israel is well-served by that reality. Mainstream Jewry is dishonored by having the likes of Wiesenfeld and Hikind be its public voice on such matters, and by insisting that unquestioning and irrational loyalty to Israel substitute for rational debate and a commitment to what is just.

*Alan Levine, a New York civil rights lawyer, represented Debbie Almontaser in her suit against the NYC Department of Education.