A.LOEWENSTEIN ONLINE NEWSLETTER

Australian Zionists, here are your talking points to help Israel as a Jew, Zionist and human being:

More than 250 Australian students were trained in the art of Israel advocacy during a three-day conference held in Jerusalem this week.
The seminar, run by StandWithUs International (SWU) – a not-for-profit education organisation aiming to ensure Israel’s side of the story is told around the globe – in partnership with the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA), featured lectures from senior Israeli officials. These included spokesperson for the Prime Minister Mark Regev, Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein and chairman of the Jewish Agency Natan Sharansky.
Participants also visited the security barrier, heard from two IDF soldiers, and met Sudanese refugees who have sought asylum in Israel.
The aim of the conference, the first of its kind for students on one-year programs in Israel, was to prepare the participants for the challenges they may face when they return to Australia, turning them into ambassadors equipped to articulate the Jewish State’s case on campus.
To assist in that process, director of SWU Israel Michael Dickson said they also took part in workshops  covering the “three Ds” of anti-Israel rhetoric – demonisation, double standards and delegitimisation.
“They can confront the biggest accusations, the biggest allegations that are thrown at Israel on campus right now. They deconstruct them and have a ready response,” Dickson said.
“These guys can say that I’ve been there and know the issues, and therefore they’ll have more credibility.”
Executive director of the ZFA Robbie Franco, who was one of the instigators of the program, said: “We hope that this will serve as a model for other communities and that in the future, every one of the 8000 overseas participants on one-year programs will be afforded the opportunity  of becoming a young ­ambassador for Israel.
“We believe this to be one of the most exciting new projects that we are undertaking – one that can dramatically assist in improving Israel’s standing around the world.”
Reflecting on the experience, participant Ashley Osie from Sydney said: “The past three days have been really intense. We have heard from an incredibly diverse range of speakers, who have each presented us with a plethora of facts, opinions and information, and have taught us invaluable skills and techniques for advocating for and actively supporting Israel.”
Dean Leveton from Sydney concurred. “The seminar ensured I can confidently embrace university life, both as a Zionist and a Jew. To all university colleagues, challenge me. I dare you,” he said.

Make it transparent, make it accountable and make it efficient. The victims in Sri Lanka deserve nothing less:

The United Nations has set up a high-level panel to look into allegations of human rights abuses in the final months of the civil war in Sri Lanka.
Ban Ki-moon, the secretary-general, launched the investigation on Tuesday.
His spokesman said it was established ”to advise him on the issue of accountability with regards to any alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during the final stages of the conflict”.
Authorities in Sri Lanka have called the move “seriously flawed” and last week, Mahinda Rajapaksa, the president, denied his troops fired at a “single civilian” and dismissed calls for a war crimes probe.
Rajiva Wijesinha, the former secretary of the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights, and currently a member of the Sri Lankan parliament, told Al Jazeera that the panel’s launch is an “extremely regrettable action”.
‘Picking on the small’
“It stems from pressure on the secretary-general [Ban Ki-moon] from so-called human rights groups and some so-called independent officials like Philip Alston [the UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions], who thinks it is easier to pick on a small country like Sri Lanka,” he said.
“We have said very clearly that if we are given solid evidence of incidents, we will explore them, and the US state department pointed out particular issues which we will look into, but we have no time to focus on all these sorts of allegations by people with no sense of responsibility.”

Israeli Kadima politician Yulia Shamalov Berkovich speaking in the Knesset:

Israeli academia apparently suffers from ‘Palestinomania,’ a mild psychological illness whose symptoms include self-hatred, an affinity for Israel’s enemies, Jewish anti-Semitism and/or anti-Zionism. The spread of ‘Palestinomania’ demands the immediate and painful treatment for all of our sake, and the sooner the better.

Canadian author Yann Martel:

The tragedy of the Holocaust wasn’t exclusively Jewish. It was non-Jews who did it. It was an act of two groups, so it’s not just for Jews to be expert on the Holocaust. In any case, we’re in dialogue with history, and you no more own a historical event than people own their language. The English don’t own the English language; the Jews don’t own the Holocaust; the French don’t own Verdun. It’s good to have other perspectives. If you claim to own an event, you may suffer from group think.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is likely to be out of a job tomorrow after a leadership challenge by deputy Julia Gillard.
Apart from most political journalists getting all excited about the prospect of instability and a new game in Canberra, can somebody please ask Gillard what she really thinks about refugees, the environment and foreign policy (need any reminders of her obsession with Israel?)

Israel’s major opposition party leader Tzipi Livni has no issue with Israeli policies, she merely doesn’t want to be seen as weak by the Arabs. Seriously. What vision.
Meanwhile, back in reality, one of Israel’s senior writers, Yediot’s legal affairs editor, Judge (ret.) Boaz Okon, writes that there is “growing evidence of the lack of the spirit of freedom and the emergence of apartheid and fascism.”

Jews for a Just Peace-NC set up a “Palestinian house demolition” tableau in front of the Durham Performing Arts Center to protest an American Dance Festival performance by the Israel-based Inbal Pinto & Avshalom Pollak Dance Company on June 17, 2010. The protesters exposed the fact that Israel’s cultural exports have become a tool to divert attention from Israel’s human rights violations. The setup of a demolished home guarded by Israeli soldiers returns the spotlight to those violations. It represents the more than 24,000 Palestinian homes destroyed since 1967 and symbolizes Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the collective punishment of 1.5 million Gazans under siege due to Israel’s blockade.
Sponsorship and funding for this dance company and other Israeli cultural endeavors come in part from the Israeli government, which is engaged in the Brand Israel campaign to reshape the image of Israel through public relations. Ido Aharoni, head of Israel’s Foreign Ministry’s brand management team, wishes to reposition “Israel away from an image of a country in a state of war and conflict to a brand which represents positive values and ideals like ‘building the future,’ ‘vibrant diversity,’ and ‘entrepreneurial zeal’” (Winning the Battle of the Narrative, presented at the January 2010 Herzliya conference).
With such compromised political backing, art cannot be considered simply a positive expression of human creativity. Israeli artists performing abroad are cultural ambassadors legitimizing Israel as a whole, including its policies. These policies — exemplified by the violent intransigence of the Netanyahu/Lieberman government — are not in the long-term interests of Israelis, Palestinians, or Americans. Until the conflict is resolved justly, there can be no peace or security in the Middle East or elsewhere. Misleading public relations campaigns are not substitutes for constructive steps towards a just peace.
Jews for a Just Peace asks the US government to withdraw its yearly $ 3 billion support until Israel acts towards Palestinians in ways that respect their human rights as well as their internationally recognized right to self-determination. It also asks that the American Dance Festival refrain from inviting artists who provide de facto cover for policies that flout international law and human rights.

For any Sydneysiders:

6pm Wednesday 7th July
Gaelic Club, 1/64 Devonshire St, Surry Hills

Join Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, journalist Antony Loewenstein and Lee Rhiannon to discuss internet censorship issues.
Communications Minister has announced plans to introduce an internet filter which will restrict Australians’ access to the internet and establish a system for widespread government censorship of the internet.
Senator Ludlam has led the opposition to the filter within the Parliament and Antony Loewenstein has been a prominent campaigner as a journalist and blogger.
Come and hear them discuss the issues with Greens NSW Senate candidate Lee Rhiannon.

With Israel’s Vice Premier and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon praising the terrorist founders of Israel as heroes – of course, they’re referred to these days as freedom fighters and the Jewish “underground” – the tone-deaf nature of the Jewish state is being noticed in various quarters. And it’s finally starting to dawn on Western reporters how unquestioning most Israeli journalists truly are (any official accusations of “terrorism” will be simply passed onto the public without question, correctly argues Max Blumenthal). The only comprehensive peace deal with the Arab world, the Arab Peace Initiative, remains ignored and even dismissed:

Journalist Samir Ratas, a Palestinian who now lives in Egypt, brought a message to Israel at the conference: “The peace initiative is not an Arab plot to destroy Israel nor is it an ambush. Many years ago, the Arabs recognized your existence.” Ratas departed with two questions in mind: “How many more years will we have to wait until you understand that this initiative is a strategic choice?” And “How many years do you think that it will wait for you?”

This arrogance is why the BDS campaign is gaining such traction across the world. This piece, published only in Hebrew in Haaretz, has been translated and explains the only language that Israel may understand: isolation:

Ayala Shani & Ofer Neiman
“Israel won’t change unless the status quo has a downside” – these words were written by journalist Tony Karon, a Jew from South Africa. This sentence reflects the rationale behind the broad BDS campaign – which includes sanctions, institutional boycott, and divestment – which has begun trickling down into public consciousness in Israel. Instead of a defensive, self-righteous response along the general lines of “the whole world is against us”, it would be best to learn the facts about the campaign and peer into the collective mirror, which reflects grievous and systematic violations of human rights and international law.
The current movement originally started with a call to action issued in 2005, signed by more than 170 organizations from Palestinian society: citizens of Israel, refugees in exile, and Palestinians living under occupation in the West Bank and in Gaza. The call to action was published in Hebrew, too, and citizens of Israel are requested to express their support of it. It is for this purpose that the Israeli group “Boycott! Supporting the Palestinian BDS Call from within” was founded.
The BDS movement that has developed in response to the Palestinian call to action does not have any formal, focal leadership. Regular citizens around the world, including many Jews, initiate activities and take part in them. The goal of the movement is to demonstrate to Israel the international community’s disgust and rejection of its actions, so that Israel will act for the immediate termination of the occupation, for the end of discrimination against the Arab citizens of Israel, and for recognition of the refugees’ right of return, as phrased in United Nations Decision 194. Elements of the oppression which the movement wishes to put an end to match the legal definition of the crime of apartheid – systematic and institutionalized racial separation, as practiced in old South Africa.
The movement does not promote any specific political solution (one state or two, the return of any particular number of refugees), but rather, strives to change in a nonviolent way the balance of power that makes it possible for Israel’s governments to violently withhold the basic rights of millions of people, and to renounce their accountability with unfounded statements (“the Arabs are to blame for the refugee problem”, “the settlements are legal”, “there is no siege upon Gaza”.)
It will be stressed here that the boycott is not a personal boycott on Israelis but rather, a boycott of official Israeli institutions and of events taking place under their auspices. Thus, for example, there is no call to deny an Israeli researcher her right to lecture abroad. There is a call to avoid holding international conferences in universities in Israel which proudly proclaim their contacts with the military establishment.
Is Israel being singled out? As was true about white South Africa, the world is justly sensitive to situations where a population that has civil rights determines the fate of a population which has neither civil rights nor the right to vote. Fairness is not always a feature of international relations, but Israel enjoys many international privileges, such as membership in the OECD. The citizens of China, where grievous human rights abuses take place, have never been given the opportunity to express a lack of confidence in the government that forcibly suppressed the student demonstrations in 1989. In contrast, the citizens of Israel cast their votes again and again for parties (including Kadima and the Labor Party) and governments under whose administration settlements are built, people are tortured and arrested for years with no trial, unarmed citizens are shot, and land and water resources are plundered.
Many people around the world ask, therefore, whether there is good reason for a normalization with Israel. Port workers in Sweden and Norway, countries which have historically been very sympathetic to Israel, refuse to unload Israeli container ships. Artists wonder why they must perform here and enhance the sense of “business as usual” when the very fact of their performance will be portrayed as support of Israel’s policy.
A deep-reaching public discussion is needed at this time, not only about the question of whether the boycott is or is not justified but about Israel’s policy. Many Israelis acknowledge the heinous acts being done in our name, under our very noses. It is appropriate for an effective and nonviolent campaign against these actions should have their support.
The authors are active in the Israeli group: “Boycott! Supporting the Palestinian BDS Call from within.”
This article was originally published in Hebrew in Haaretz Online, June 22 2010.

My following article appears in today’s Crikey:

On Tuesday lunchtime the Australian Human Rights Centre and the UNSW International Law and Policy Group (with assistance from the Israeli embassy) hosted a seminar on “The Fight against Terror: Practical Dilemmas in applying the Laws of War.” The two speakers were Professor Abraham Bell of Israel’s Bar-Ilan University and Colonel Sharon Afek, Deputy Military Advocate General for the Israel Defence Forces.
In light of the recent Gaza flotilla disaster, the Goldstone report and ongoing global attempts to hold Israeli officials to account for alleged war crimes, the event was timely and occurred without an interruption or boycott call.
Five police stood guard outside the small lecture theatre, anticipating any possible trouble or public protest, an option I heard by pro-Palestinian activists was briefly discussed when the event was announced but eventually dismissed.
Bell, who has spoken extensively on the legality of Israel’s so-called security barrier that runs directly into Palestinian land in the West Bank, outlined his personal views that corresponded with the official, Israeli government position.
He condemned the limitations of international criminal law and wished that “armed terrorist groups be neutralised before they attacked Israel”. He lamented that international humanitarian law was not being enforced against non-state actors (despite the UN-backed Goldstone report directly condemning alleged breaches of humanitarian law by both Israel and Hamas, something Human Rights Watch says neither side has properly addressed).
During a recent talk in the US, Bell claimed that the Gaza Strip was no longer under Israeli occupation and had no obligation to provide humanitarian assistance to its people.
But Israel still maintains a control over the land, sea and air borders around Gaza and this week announced it would once again allow building materials like cement and steel and more food items into Gaza (including the now-infamous ketchup and mayonnaise items), objects that have been officially banned for years.
Bell said during his UNSW talk that after the flotilla incident, “Israel has essentially given up economic sanctions against Hamas in Gaza”, contradicting the official Israel position that the blockade was designed to provide security for Israel and stop Hamas rocket fire.
Bell used visual aides like photos of Muslim suicide bombers in Israel, fact sheets provided by UN Watch and the Anti-Defamation League and recounted the story of losing friends in terror attacks inside Israel. It wasn’t a dispassionate legal talk but a call to understand Israel’s isolation in the international community because of the abundance of Islamic nations in the UN.
The most revealing talk, however, was by Colonel Afek, a former legal adviser for the West Bank. A softly-spoken man, he played numerous IDF videos shot by pilotless drones over southern Lebanon and Gaza and asked the audience to understand the moral and legal dilemma over whether Israel should attack homes where militants were allegedly hiding or warehousing weapons. “We are forced to make split-second decisions”, he said.
Afek said that many commanders in the field resented having to receive legal advice before launching attacks on “terrorists”. He explained how the IDF made thousands of phone calls to residents in Gaza before launching attacks on their homes in late 2008/early 2009.
The IDF lawyer acknowledged that many in the world today see Israeli officers as war criminals and threaten to arrest and prosecute them in foreign courts. “The problem isn’t with international law”, he told a questioner who asked his opinion on the Israeli government wanting to amend humanitarian law to better support Israeli war aims. “The problem is with fighting terrorism.”
Both Bell and Afek articulated the frustration that the world didn’t understand Israeli actions. Afek said that he had shown one of the IDF videos to a US commander who couldn’t see any issues with dropping munitions on civilian areas that contain “terrorists”. It was a revealing statement. One of the reasons Washington and a number of other Western states have been equally against the Goldstone report was that its recommendations could be turned against Western actions in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.
I asked why neither man had explained the context for Palestinian “terrorism”, the fact that the occupation of the West Bank was illegal and the Palestinian legal right to resist it within legal means. Afek acknowledged that he had not discussed the wider issues in Palestine but “these are political questions, not legal ones”.
One questioner wondered why Israel had “hijacked language” by claiming Palestinians defending their land were terrorists while Israel always acted in “self-defence”, no matter the Palestinian death toll.
Bell responded that Palestinians “have no right to commit terrorism to defend their own land” (though he claimed the rights to the land were contested) and showed pictures of buses and cafes destroyed by Palestinian suicide bombers.
*Antony Loewenstein is an independent journalist and author of My Israel Question and The Blogging Revolution.