With events gaining momentum from day to day in the Middle East and Africa, it is hard to keep up with the news. There is of course no guarantee that all will end for the best. But we hope—the best being, of course, freedom of want, freedom from fear, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and, in general, democracy. It is a very impressive time, but sad that so many have to die for what they believe in.
Below are comments on the U.S. veto and other items. Item 1 is “Today in Palestine.” All the items are important, but I will be happy if you read the summaries of items 1 through 4 and 6.
Item 2 does not vindicate Ian McEwan for coming to Israel to accept the prize, but it softens the criticism. I did not hear his speech tonight, but I presume that it will appear in the news. If he did criticize Israel, as he said he would, and the fact that he did take part in the Sheikh Jarrah weekly protest and other of his comments below at least serve some positive purpose. Of course he could have said all his criticisms from abroad without having come here to accept the prize.
Item 3 is Gush Shalom’s take on the U.S. veto in the Security Council last night.
Item 4 informs us that the Palestinians are planning their own Day of Rage to protest the US veto.
Item 5 is commentary on a bill to punish artists who do not serve in the military. Actually, the argument is that by not serving in the army, they are not supporting or serving for their country. In truth, anyone who goes to the army serves his/her country colonize. There is nothing or almost nothing of defense in the Israeli soldier’s acts.
[Ian McEwan at a press conference in Tel Aviv. Photograph: Uriel Sinai/Getty Images ]
The novelist Ian McEwan will criticise Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land in his speech accepting the Jerusalem Prize for literature on Sunday evening, saying that the open and democratic nature of novels is antithetical to the government’s settlement policies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
He will refer to “a strand of nihilism which is closing off the future here”, he told the Guardian shortly after his arrival in Israel for the ceremony. His attendance has drawn bitter criticism from supporters of the Palestinian cause.
The author took part in the weekly protest in Sheikh Jarrah, an area of East Jerusalem which has seen Jewish settlers evict Palestinian residents to take over their homes and establish hardline footholds in the Arab part of the city.
In the company of the celebrated Israeli author David Grossman, McEwan spoke to activists who told him they appreciated his presence. “The welcome I had from various strands of the Israeli peace movement completely vindicated my decision to come,” he said. “They feel the tide is running against them. I feel it’s very important to support that important hope and conscience. It was very stirring.”
McEwan attempted to get close to the homes from which long-term Palestinian residents have been expelled by settlers but was prevented by Israeli security forces. “But I got a good sense of how Palestinian families are waiting to be evicted,” he said, adding they faced a “relentless tide”.
He said he intended to “make my own thoughts clear” when accepting the prize from Jerusalem’s mayor, Nir Barkat, an enthusiastic advocate of expanding the Jewish presence in the east of the city.
East Jerusalem was occupied and later annexed by Israel in 1967 in a move illegal under international law and not recognised by most of the international community. Settlement building and expansion there has been a key issue blocking peace negotiations.
The Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state.
McEwan said he planned to make further visits to East Jerusalem and the West Bank during his stay.
Earlier, at a press conference in Tel Aviv, the author described Israel as a “country with true democracy of opinion” and defended his decision to receive the award, saying it was “much more useful to come and engage and keep speaking” than to freeze out or boycott Israel over its occupation of the Palestinian territories.
“I am very conscious of being in a country with a true democracy of opinion,” he said. “I am perfectly aware that you cannot isolate [literature] but I take it as a bad sign when politics permeates every corner of life. I don’t feel I endorse every corner of Israel’s domestic or foreign policy … but I feel it’s right to engage with it.”
He said it was a great honour to be awarded the prize, to be presented at the opening of Jerusalem’s International Book Fair, pointing to past recipients as “writers and philosophers of such distinction”.
“Like most people, I want Israel to flourish. I’m very concerned that things have reached such a stalemate politically. It seems to me to be a rather depressing time politically to come here – but that makes it all the more urgent to keep talking.”
McEwan faced calls in the UK to reject the prize in protest at Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian territories. In a letter to the Guardian last month, British Writers in Support of Palestine said the writer’s acceptance of an award in recognition of individual freedom in society was “a cruel joke and a propaganda tool for the Israeli state”.
The author responded at the time by saying that despite his opposition to illegal settlements, he was in favour of “dialogue, engagement, and looking for ways in which literature … can reach across political divides”. On Friday, he said it was a “fatal error to confuse people with their governments”.
He had spent the past few weeks “camped out in front of my television set” watching the pro-democracy protests in Egypt and other countries in the region.
He felt exhilarated by what he saw, and was struck by the swift collapse of the “social contract – how people feel bold enough to withdraw their consent. Crowds aren’t usually wise, but [the Egyptian protesters’] restraint under pressure was heroic.”
But he warned that “the story was still unfolding”. Referring to the bloody response of the Bahrain regime to protests, he said: “Egypt has raised the game for the tyrant – they know they’ve got to get in quick and hold everyone down.”
He added: “For every moment of exhilaration on the street, there is a Robespierre in waiting.”
He hoped the Israeli government would “welcome the spread of democracy rather than be too distrusting. Netanyahu said Israel must hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Hoping for the best is not enough, maybe [Israel] should be agitating for the best.”
Israel, he suggested, should harness its creativity in other spheres to the peace process. “Politics is too bunker. Israel needs to summon up the creative energy of its scientists, musicians, writers and artists and extend it into politics.”
He paid tribute to contemporary Israeli novelists such as Grossman, Amos Oz and AB Yehoshua, who “had made a huge impact around the world”.
McEwan declined to discuss his next novel, saying only it was “slightly more historical, meaning it’s set in 1972” than his latest book, Solar, about climate change.
He hoped the award of the Jerusalem prize was not a valedictory on his career, “especially as I’m half way through my next novel. I feel like Mrs Thatcher: I will go on and on.”
Prize controversies
The literary prize suggests a rarefied world, but it can also be a contentious one. Launched in 1996 to counter a perceived overlooking of women authors by existing literary awards, it was the Orange prize’s very raison d’être that attracted ire.
Amid widespread chuntering about it being discriminatory, Germaine Greer, pictured, complained that someone would soon found a prize for writers with red hair, while Auberon Waugh nicknamed it the Lemon prize. Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins wasn’t happy either. “The Orange prize is a blot on Britain’s literary landscape,” he wrote after its launch. In 2005 he expanded: “I’m amazed, frankly, that it’s lasted so long. It validates all those men in the Garrick who refuse to admit women.”
The Booker prizeThe pre-eminent book award, the Booker prize, has also had brushes with notoriety. In 1972 John Berger used his acceptance speech to trot out the usual platitudes,however, Berger insteadhe launch a stinging attack on the prize itself, drawing attention to the fact the sponsors, Booker McGonnall, had acquired much of their wealth from 130 years of trading in the Caribbean. “The modern poverty of the Caribbean is the direct result of this and similar exploitation,” he said. Berger donated half his £5,000 prize money to the Black Panthers – “the black movement with the socialist and revolutionary perspective that I find myself most in agreement with in this country”. Adam Gabbatt
• The headline on this article was updated at 9.44am on Saturday 19 February to reflect the latest developments.
Israel is becoming a liability to the United States, bringing US into the same international isolation into which Israel itself was cast.
The so-called “Israel Lobby”, which prevents Israeli misconduct from ever being corrected, is a grave danger to Israel’s future.
The vote in the U.N. shows the entire world unanimous in regarding settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as manifestly illegal and a major obstacle to any chance of peace. It is clear to the entire world that there is no point to negotiations while the State of Israel is daily creating accomplished facts in the territory which is the subject of negotiations.
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, too, are well aware of this. They gave unconvincing excuses for their act of imposing a veto on a highly justified and needed resolution, which all other countries supported. These excuses cannot hide the one and only reason for this illogical vote: the intervention of the government of Israel in American politics, using the power of the so-called “Israel Lobby” in the U.S. Congress.
The veto they were forced to cast should not mislead the Netanyahu government. It is clear for everybody to see that Israel is becoming more and more a liability to the US – bringing the United States into the same international isolation as that into which Israel itself was brought by the actions of its government.
President Obama was well aware that the imposition of the veto will impart additional momentum to settlement construction, that it shattered any remaining chance for resuming negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and that it causes great damage to the United States’ status in an Arab World going through revolutionary upheaval. In Obama’s weighing of interests party-politics prevailed once again over what he himself has declared to be the strategic interest of the United States, as well as over the chances of bringing an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by a united effort of the Family of Nations.
It should be stated clearly and unequivocally: the body known as “AIPAC” is not an “Israel lobby”, but an anti-Israel lobby, a body which accumulated enormous power which it uses for preventing Israeli ruthless politics from being ever corrected. By thus stifling Israel in a self-destructive mode it helps to destroy the future of Israel, to deny Israel any chance of achieving peace with its neighbors, to push our country deeper and deeper into the abyss of occupation, settlement and racism. It is the duty of all who consider themselves true friends of Israel, Jews and non-Jews alike, to confront AIPAC and break its power of silencing criticism. This is the only hope for Israel’s future.
Contact: Adam Keller, Gush Shalom Spokesperson, 054-2340749
======================
4. Haaretz,
February 19, 2011
Palestinians plan ‘Day of Rage’ to protest U.S. veto on UN settlement resolution
Top Fatah official next Friday will be a day of Palestinian protest against the U.S. for vetoing a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlement building.
Palestinians are planning their own “Day of Rage” to protest the American veto on a United Nations resolution condemning Israeli settlements, Ma’an News Agency reported a top Fatah official as saying on Saturday.
“They are liars who pretend to support democracy and peace. Far from it,” Fatah official and former Palestinian intelligence chief Tawfik Tirawi, referring to the U.S., told the news agency.
The U.S. on Friday voted against a draft resolution against Israeli settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Their vote prevented the resolution from being adopted, as the U.S. is one of five permanent members on UN Security Council. The 14 other members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution.
Tirawi said the Palestinians have set Friday for the day when they will officially protest the U.S. veto, which he said amounted to “blackmail.”
Israel, on the other hand, praised the U.S. vote, saying they “deeply appreciate” the veto.
Hamas also weighted in on the vote, saying that it showed the U.S. bias in favor of Israeli occupation.
Peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians were halted in September after a temporary Israeli settlement freeze expired. Palestinians refuse to return to the negotiating table unless settlement building halts completely, including in East Jerusalem.
=========================
5. Saturday, February 19 2011
Independent commentary from Israel & the Palestinian territoriesCategories
February 19 2011|Yossi Gurvitz
Knesset goes after artists who didn’t serve in the IDF
What’s wrong with the “shirker” bill? Well, just about everything
The Ministerial Legislation Committee is scheduled to debate tomorrow (Sunday) a bill by MK Moshe Matalon (Yisrael Beitenu), which prohibits government support of “shirker” (Mishtamtim, in Hebrew) artists. In explaining why the bill is essential (Hebrew document), Matalon says: “The spreading of the phenomenon of shirking of the duty of serving in the IDF is critically supported by celebrities, particularly of the arts and sports fields, who undoubtedly serve as a role model for the youth, and who are unwilling to let a contribution to the State harm their own career advancement. This sends a severe message to the youth, according to which the worship of the celebrities and the love they receive do not necessarily derive from a contribution to the existence of the State and society and sharing the [common – YZG] burden”.
One does wonder what Matalon thinks of the example set by his fellow USSR Beitenu MKs, the famous patriots Faina Kirshebaum and Anastasia Michaeli: Look, kids, you can make it to the Knesset, and as an a bloviating ultra-nationalist, without serving even a single minute in the IDF! Perhaps MK Matalon should clean his own house first?
Snarkiness and the usual hypocrisy of Yisrael Beitenu aside, Matalon’s bill contains several reasons for concern. For starters, there is no such thing as “shirkers”. The IDF is responsible for discharging anyone who doesn’t serve; none can do so without the IDF’s approval. There are people who avoid the service, even though they are lawfully bound to this indentured servitude, and they are generally called defectors. For its own reasons, the IDF has repeatedly tried to confuse the terms “shirker” and “defector”, trying to make Israelis think defectors are shirkers. Now, if the IDF suspects that someone has cheated it, and avoided indentured servitude – to which yours truly has finally bid goodbye this week – through cheating, then it has to gather the evidence (it is a criminal offense), and drag that person to court. Somehow, this very rarely happens. There is no “shirking phenomenon”: there are only whine by the IDF.
The IDF plays fast and loose with the data. It repeatedly hints that most of the people discharged for mental reasons are faking it, and that most of them are secular people. But when it was forced to expose the data, it turned out (Hebrew) 45% of the people getting it are ultra-Orthodox – who are free of military duty anyway. Why are the haredim, who already have a discharge, asking for a mental discharge? Because with a mental discharge, they are no longer bound to their yeshivas and can legally go to work. Why does the IDF play this game? Hopefully, we’ll find out some day.
You know your bill is over-patriotic when it troubles Limor Livnat (Credit: Activestills)
Onwards. Matalon’s bill demands that people who did not serve in the National Service should also be punished. However, no Israeli citizen is obligated to serve in the National Service; due to ultra-Orthodox pressure, the National Service Law of 1953 was never accompanied by the necessary ordinances, and the law itself says that as long as there are no ordinances, the law is not valid. That is, people can volunteer if they so wish, but they are not obliged to do so. Furthermore, the National Service, in its present form, is a hobby of the girls of the religious-nationalist sector.
Perhaps the most alarming issue regarding the bill’s National Service clause is the fact this is a clear discrimination of the Arab citizens. When Arab youth ask to serve in the National Service, the government goes out of its way to say “no” (Hebrew). It perfectly fits the mentality of USSR Beitenu for the government to boycott the people it refused to allow service in the National Service, because they failed to serve in it.
Perhaps the strangest bit in the bill, and the most Soviet, is the authority granted to the Minister of Culture and Sports to allow an artist to perform even though he did not serve in the IDF. That is, Matalon and the rest of the MKs who signed the bill want to turn the Minister into a current and Israeli version of Andrei Zhdanov: at his whim, the artist may either work or starve.
Even Limor Livnat, the current minister – not a blushing violet she: her artistic career began in disturbing theater shows which were not patriotic enough for her taste, and she later upgraded her act into physical assault of a protester; some would say her main contribution to Israeli culture was giving inspiration to the young punk band, “Punch Limor Livnat in the face” = even she does not want to become the second coming of Zhdanov, and she announced (Hebrew) she would oppose the bill.
Such bills rarely become laws. The problem with them is the atmosphere of false resentment they create: Look at those bastards in the Knesset/the SCJ, they’re defending the shirkers. They’re all non-patriots, they’re all traitors. That’s how you pull the ground from under sane politics, a politics of citizenship and human rights, and replace it with a politics of blood and land, of unthinking grudge. It seems that, for members of Yisrael Beitenu, that is precisely the point.