NOVANEWS
-
Siegman: Israel always wanted territory not peace, and US is its ‘captive’
-
Open letter to the German left on BDS, from Palestinian and Israeli Activists
-
An Israeli welcome
-
Samah Sabawi: a Palestinian woman’s response to Naomi Chazan on BDS
-
‘Forward’ suggests West Bank boycott is ‘noble’ (so long as you love Israel)
-
The flotilla that could
-
Gitlin too
-
Murdoch scandal demonstrates that scores of people can maintain a conspiracy of silence for years
Siegman: Israel always wanted territory not peace, and US is its ‘captive’
Jul 16, 2011
Philip Weiss
Zaid Jilani and Ali Gharib at Think Progress interview Henry Siegman, former head of the American Jewish Congress, on the Palestinian statehood resolution and the failure of the peace process:
Siegman: [T]the United States has taken the position that the only way to make any progress in this situation is a renewal of the peace process, getting [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu and [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas to talk to each other. If there is anything to be learned from years of disappointment and failure, it’s that the so-called peace process is simply a vehicle for Israel to pretend there is some potential for progress even as on the ground they are making it impossible because of their settlement project. There is a basic dishonesty here. The United States, instead of saying, “This is a fraud,” says instead Israel wants to see a two-state solution, and thus provides a cover for Israel to expand its settlements on the ground and make an outcome absolutely impossible.
So it’s in that sense that I’m saying the U.S. is the major obstacle. Because for years the assumption has been that the United States is uniquely in a position to bring about an agreement because of its leverage with Israel. But it turns out the U.S. is captive to Israel’s plans.
As a snapshot, where do you see things? Do you think the Palestinians can get a resolution recognizing their statehood through the U.N.?, The question is: Even if they do get it through, what have they got?
Nothing will change on the ground as a result of the vote at the U.N. The U.N. can’t force Israel to do anything, and the U.S. certainly won’t do so, so why are the Israelis so upset about this? Why are they running around the world asking people to vote against this? Because it’s a vote that affirms a border. That, too, is why Netanyahu went wild when President Obama called for a border based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps. He called Obama before his speech and tried to convince him not to say it. That’s unprecedented.
The reason Palestinians are going ahead with this even though they know nothing will change on the ground in the short term is that Israel will be put on notice that the international community endorses a border on the 67 lines with territory swaps.
…Only when the cost gets serious enough will Israel make a deal and set that border. Indeed, the international community has tried to impose a cost, but the United States has prevented it.But America’s ability to provide cover for such Israeli behavior will increasingly diminish. That’s one of the consequences of the Arab Spring. Some of the dictators who have been dancing to the American tune won’t be doing that any longer — which is something that Israelis have to think about as well.
…The reality is that Israeli governments — even before Bibi Netanyahu — have opted for territory over peace. From the very beginning in 1967, Israel’s goal has been to prevent a border being drawn between them and the West Bank. The goal has been to retain permanent control over the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli governments — and especially the current one — believe that peace is not nearly as important as territory….
I think the Palestinians have a shot at getting the Gen Assembly to affirm their right to statehood based on the ’67 borders subject to land swaps. They do have a shot at it even if they do not get as much support from Europeans as they are hoping to get. ..
Open letter to the German left on BDS, from Palestinian and Israeli Activists
Jul 16, 2011
Max Ajl
A little over a month ago, the Die Linke – the Left – delegates in the German Bundestag adopted a resolution stating that they would not take part in any Middle East peace initiatives calling for a “one-state solution” nor in “calls to boycott Israeli products.” Their statement also disavowed German participation in the Freedom flotilla, and concluded with the injunction that “We expect our personal staff and the staff of the parliamentary group to support these positions, as well.” The preambular statement justified Die Linke’s opposition to Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions with respect to the history of German antisemitism, thereby linking meaningful opposition to Israeli denial of Palestinian rights with the German Judeocide.
One should recognize the objective sensitivity of the political situation in Germany, where the accusation of antisemitism retains its charge, and where without anti-Zionist Jews it’s likely that there would be no organized opposition to Israeli crimes. But one should do so without making the slightest excuse for a resolution ordering the left to reject support for boycott activities. Such a resolution is inexcusable, the result of the warping and manipulation of historical memory and political judgment. In some measure this resolution is the fruit of the efforts of a sector of German faux-leftistscalling themselves “Anti-Deutsch” – they astoundingly claim that support for Israeli crimes is a “leftist” position.
Yet, putting the lie to Anti-Deutsch’s indefensible claims, much of the rest of the German left has seethed in response, and reacted furiously: as Victor Grossmancomments, “many were especially angry at the last restrictive sentence which was viewed as a gag rule – the first one in the young party.” BDS’s ingenuity in part lies in its plasticity: it can be accommodated easily to local obstacles, and can also educate and contribute to movement building, while putting both real and symbolic pressure on the Israeli matrix of control. Acquiescing to rejection of BDS is tantamount to accepting the status quo. It’s shameful and simply stains the global left. As Israel criminalizes BDS, the need for global civil society to tangibly oppose Israeli actions becomes ever-more-incumbent. As Michael Warschawsky adds, “It is appropriate that the Die Linke leadership withdraw its statement, which lacks both political wisdom and moral integrity.” Warschawsky was also one of the signatories to an open letter to Die Linke from Palestinian and Israeli activists. It is reproduced in full below.
Dear parliament members of Die Linke,
We, Jewish and Palestinian left-wing activists from Israel, strongly oppose the recent statement made by your party with regard to anti-Semitism. This statement deals with two very different domains as if they were one, between which it is vital to make a distinction in order to be able to fight anti-Semitism in Germany and worldwide. Moreover, the statement in question implies an outrageous accusation against civil society in Israel, Palestine, and the international solidarity movements from around the world, which support a just peace in our region.
We are aware that anti-Semitism, just like Islamophobia and other forms of racism, sexism, and homophobia, also exist within the European left. As members of the leading left party in Germany, it is vital that you take a firm stance on this issue and we support you in that respect in your unequivocal condemnation of racist anti-Jewish activities, ideologies, and discourses.
We do not necessarily share the same view on the issues and forms of struggle regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including those mentioned in your statement: a one-state versus two-state settlement; the campaign for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS); and the various international solidarity activities, including the flotillas breaking the siege of Gaza. Nevertheless, we are unanimous in our conviction that none of these stances or acts have anything to do with anti-Semitism in and of themselves. To imply, as your statement does, that simply discussing these topics is anti-Semitic is an affront against a global anti-racist movement of which we are proud members — a movement which is fighting the illegal and brutal policies of the State of Israel against the Palestinians within its internationally recognized borders, those in the occupied Palestinian territory, and those in the diaspora.
We believe that solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for independence and justice is not only a moral imperative, but also in the best interest of Israeli citizens and Jews worldwide. The Israeli establishment tries to present itself as the legitimate representative of the entire Jewish people, a proclamation that is all too often accepted without any criticism in Germany and throughout Europe. In recent years, the Israeli government is increasingly utilizing the false equivalence between anti-Semitism and criticism of its policies in an attempt to quash debate over the Palestinian issue.
We insist that Die Linke continues to express its clear opposition to anti-Semitism, its solidarity with the Palestinian cause, and its commitment to continuing an open discussion about the different forms of struggle, activism, and solidarity, as well as the possible resolutions to the conflict. Far from being conflicting, these objectives in fact complement each other into what we believe would be the most effective progressive position on the issues.
We will continue to express our opposition to all forms of racism and oppression and hope that you will reconsider your decision on this issue so that we may struggle alongside one another for a just peace in the Middle East.
In solidarity
Click here to see the signatories to this statement.
Max Ajl runs the site Jewbonics.
An Israeli welcome
Jul 16, 2011
R. Taylor
The episode of the ‘flytilla’ and the treatment meted out to those who managed to reach Ben Gurion airport brought to mind the experience of someone I first met 3 years ago.
H is from a western country and before her retirement she had a long career as a nurse. She is a firm Christian and her views on Israel/Palestine would probably have placed her very close to the Christian Zionist camp.
I met her through a mutual friend when she was visiting Bethlehem. She told me she was working, as a volunteer, in a home for elderly Holocaust survivors, somewhere in northern Israel. It was clear she had little sympathy for the Palestinian cause although it was also clear that she is a person of compassion for anyone in need.
A year later, to my surprise, I bumped into her again in Bethlehem.
She explained that her work in Israel had come to an end after more than two years and that she had decided to move to Bethlehem so she could work, again without pay, with people with learning difficulties. I decided not ask whether the move to the West Bank had altered her views.
Towards the end of 2010 I was invited to dinner with her and our mutual friend. When I arrived she appeared quite distressed. She told me why.
After three months in Bethlehem she had to return to her home country. She wanted to see friends and family and, of course, her 3 month Israeli visa had expired. After spending some months at home she booked a flight with El Al to Tel Aviv.
Before she was able to board the plane she was questioned by Israeli security. Naively she was honest about her intentions – she was travelling to Bethlehem where she would be continuing her work with needy Palestinians. This was not a good idea. The result was a body search and a barrage of questions. But was she was eventually allowed to board.
At Ben Gurion she again told her story, even showing commendations from her former place of work in Israel. The questioners were unhappy but allowed her to enter the country. The problem for her was that when she inspected her passport she saw that her visa was for one week only. She protested but was told she must apply in person to the Interior ministry for an extension.
After a day or so in Bethlehem she made her way to the ministry in Jerusalem. After a long wait she was eventually interviewed by an unsmiling young woman. H explained her situation and requested a three month visa. Again she brought out the letters from the care home in Israel. The young official was hostile and unmoved by her commitment to Holocaust survivors. Her response went something like this; “It does not matter to me that you worked in Israel. You are now working for the enemy. If it was up to me you would not be allowed to stay in my country for even one more day. Your application will not be successful.”
H was devastated. Her dilemma was thus; should she stay in Bethlehem and become an ‘illegal’ once her visa expired or should she just go home never to return?
I have not seen nor heard from her since that night and don’t know what she decided to do. But I do know that one more supporter of Israel has had her eyes opened.
Samah Sabawi: a Palestinian woman’s response to Naomi Chazan on BDS
Jul 16, 2011
Ofer Neiman and Samah Sabawi
[Introduction to Samah Sabawi’s piece by Ofer Neiman]
There are good things to be said about Professor Naomi Chazan, a scholar of contemporary Africa and a former member of the Israeli Knesset (on behalf of the center-left Meretz party). When an extreme right-wing and US funded Israeli student group like “Im Tirtzu” runs a venomous campaign against her, smearing her (in the Israeli public eye) as “Naomi Goldstone-Chazan”, it is safe to assume she has been getting some things right. Indeed, signing a petition in demand of an “immediate halt to the attack carried out in Gaza by Israeli forces”, just one day after Israel began its “Operation Cast Lead” war on Gaza’s inhabitants in December 2008, was not a consensus act in her rather mainstream political circles. Prof. Chazan is also the president of the New Israel Fund (NIF). This self-proclaimed “leading organization committed to equality and democracy for all Israelis” has supported, through funding and consultation, numerous Israeli NGOs whose goals are to promote the rights of various minorities and disenfranchised groups in Israel.
In view of all this, local peace activists held high expectations ahead of Prof. Chazan’s recent series of talks in Australia on behalf of NIF. Alas, her message to the Australian public and the local Jewish community was a bitter disappointment to many concerned Australians. In spite of NIF’s credentials, many grassroots activists for the Palestinian cause have come to regard the fund as a significant part of the problem, and not just a part of the solution. All this is illustrated by Samah Sabawi’s lucid critique, which follows. One of NIF’s main efforts in the past year has been an aggressive campaign against the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) initiative. Started in 2005 by Palestinian civil society, BDS has already proven effective at several levels. So why does NIF oppose the BDS initiative? Surely this has a lot to do with the views held by its liberal Zionist donors, who tend to be hostile towards attempts to pressure Israel from the outside.
NIF could have reached a compromise between the desires of its donors and the urgent need to effectively address the reality of Israel’s apartheid and occupation policies by opting for agnosticism on the issue of BDS. Instead of doing so, the fund has attempted to derail significant BDS initiatives. Moreover, it has campaigned against proposed measures that were extremely selective and restricted in scope. A primary example would be the fund’s appeal to the University of California at Berkeley, against divestment from two American companies, General Electric and United Technologies, companies that sell Israel military equipment which is used in occupied Palestinian territory to sustain Israel’s occupation and land grab policies (see the anti-divestment declaration co-signed by NIF). On top of its Berkeley anti-divestment campaign, NIF has announced recently that it would no longer allow its payment transfer mechanism to be used by US donors who wish to support the Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP), a vibrant women’s rights and anti-occupation NGO. The decision was made due to CWP’s support of the BDS campaign.
On Monday, the Knesset passed the ‘anti-boycott’ bill which renders boycott advocacy a tort. Peace Now, an Israeli group which is always willing to cater to the Israeli mainstream, has in defiance of the new law announced that it would promote a boycott of settlement products. So what is one to make of NIF’s staunch defense of the American arms industries? Nobel Prize laureate Mario Vargas Llosa (who is also a Conservative, Pro-American politician) once stated, during a visit to Israel, that “only the dissidents will save Israel”. Whether one is interested in saving Israel, saving Palestine, or just saving human lives and dignity, one has to ask which actions can bring about a change in Israel’s policies, and which Israelis are true dissidents. It seems clear that Israeli governments will not be swayed by Israeli NGOs that, by their very nature, can cover only a narrow segment of the activism spectrum. It is evident that Israeli decision makers can be swayed by boycott, divestment and sanctions initiatives. If the New Israel Fund lacks the moral backbone to support such initiatives, it should refrain from undermining the attempts of dedicated human rights activists in Israel, Palestine and the entire world.
A Palestinian woman’s response to Israel’s Naomi Chazan on BDS
by Samah Sabawi
Naomi Chazan, the President of the New Israel Fund (NIF) gave a talk in Marrickville, New South Wales, during her recent Australian tour offering a critique of the Palestinian Civil Society call for Boycotts Divestments and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel.
Although she presented herself as a veteran Israeli peace activist, Chazan’s mission here in Australia was ostensibly to promote NIF. This is important because everything she said about BDS must be understood within the context of her mission – to gather funds and support and to convince Jews in Australia of the need to continue to invest in Israel through NIF. This clear conflict of interest makes Chazan’s criticism of BDS far less credible.
Chazan named six reasons why she believed BDS was harmful.
BDS is not effective because Israel has a very strong economy: South Africa’s economy was also booming when the boycott movement against that regime began in the late 1950s. Decades later the movement succeeded in bringing down the South African apartheid regime.
Many Israeli leaders, including Ehud Barak, Ben-Eliezer, Shimon Peres and others, have already stated that BDS is a “strategic threat;” what they mean of course is that it is a serious threat to Israel’s system of occupation, legalized racial discrimination (conforming to the UN definition of apartheid) and denial of refugee rights. We only need to look at the millions of dollars the Israeli lobby groups in Western nations including Australia are spending in efforts to “sabotage” the movement to know that it is indeed effective. The fact that Chazan focused so much on BDS in her Marrickville talk confirms this.
There is other evidence of BDS’s effectiveness.
The Deutsche Bahn withdrawal from the Israeli rail project connecting Tel Aviv with Jerusalem has been a watershed for the movement. It was the first time that a German government-owned company withdrew from an Israeli project over concerns of violation of international law. The French company Veolia’s loss of billions of dollars worth of contracts because of its involvement in the illegal Jerusalem Light Rail project also points to the impressive success of BDS campaigning, especially in Europe.
The fast growing list of superstars and prominent music bands heeding the boycott of Israel makes Tel Aviv look very similar to the South African resort of Sun City under apartheid. That city was a key target for the cultural boycott then.
The University of Johannesburg’s severance of ties with Ben Gurion University over the latter’s complicity in violating Palestinian rights is the most concrete victory to date for the academic boycott campaign.
And, there has been sweeping trade union support for BDS in the UK, Brazil, Ireland, South Africa, Canada, France, Italy, Spain, Norway, Belgium, India, Turkey, and elsewhere.
BDS undermines the existence of the state of Israel:The demands are clear – full equality in Israel for the Palestinian citizens of the state, an end to occupation and a fulfilment of Israel’s obligation towards the refugees. If these demands threaten to bring an end to Israel’s “existence, we have to ask what does this really say about Israel?
A state that is truly democratic and built on the foundations of justice and equality would not be threatened by demands of equality and an end to occupation. Boycotts did not bring an end to South Africa’s existence, they did not destroy it, and they certainly did not “delegitimize” whites: they only destroyed South Africa’s system of injustice, inequality and racial discrimination.
BDS is actually “a code word for one state solution” which defies the right of Israelis and Jews to self-determination: BDS does not aim for either a one or two state solution, but for Palestinian rights. One of those rights is for Palestinians to be free in their own land without the yoke of Israeli occupation and system of racial discrimination. Whether that is in one state for both peoples or two sovereign, democratic states side by side has yet to be decided. The movement is consistently neutral on this, regardless of the diverse personal political views held by its various spokespeople.
BDS is counter-productive because it entrenches the victim mentality of those in Israel who believe the whole world is against them which inevitably strengthens the right wing in Israel while weakening the left: Right now, the fanatical right is taking over the entire Israeli society, but once boycotts begin hurting Israel’s carefully nurtured public image, dissenting voices will become much more vocal, as happened in South Africa. Then, the current consensus in support of apartheid and colonial rule will crack.
BDS is against academic freedom and singles out Israeli academics: Chazan is purposely misleading in this regard. As any relatively well-informed observer must know after seven years of the Palestinian academic boycott campaign and hundreds of articles written on it, the academic boycott is institutional in nature and has therefore never targeted individual Israeli academics. BDS has consistently been directed at academic institutions because of their persistent and grave complicity in planning, implementing and justifying Israel’s violations of international law.
Chazan’s claims that Israeli academics are progressive and opposed to the occupation have absolutely no foundation. In 2008, a petition drafted by four Jewish-Israeli academics calling on the Israeli army to allow access at checkpoints to Palestinian academics and students to reach their educational institutions was distributed to all 9,000 Israeli academics in the hope that most would sign this minimal expression of respect for academic freedom: only 407 out of 9,000 academic actually did so.
BDS singles Israel out: This criticism is so often tendered that one has to ask whether Chazan and others posing it want more action on other causes or silence on the Palestinian cause. In any case, people are rising up against tyrannical regimes and seeking change in just about every Arab state in “Israel’s neighbourhood.” Some of these governments are now being subject to international sanctions, so why not Israel which has for decades defied the UN and violated international law?
An equally important question to ask here is why not advocate for Palestinian rights? Indeed, why are Palestinians being singled out as the only people who cannot be championed? We can speak out for all other issues, so it is tendentious to suggest that speaking up for Palestinian rights singles Israel out unfairly.
The principled Israeli left camp which respects equal rights for all, the UN-sanctioned rights of Palestinian refugees, and an end to colonial oppression should – and indeed does — invest its time challenging its government’s apartheid policies and oppression of the Palestinians rather than criticising the Palestinian non-violent resistance model that encompasses BDS.
Chazan’s efforts to undermine BDS need to be seen in context. At the end of the day, Chazan will go home to Israel where she is a privileged Jewish citizen with all her rights intact. She is part of and an enabler of the establishment that denies Palestinians their basic rights and freedoms, and as such, she is not in a position to be dictating to the Palestinians their methods of struggle or acting as gatekeeper for the international solidarity movements, preaching to them what is allowed and what is not in standing with the Palestinians. As in every human struggle for freedom, justice and equality, that right is the prerogative of those who live behind the walls, hindered by checkpoints and held captive to siege and military oppression.
Samah Sabawi is the Public Advocate of the Australian advocacy group Australians for Palestine.
Originally published on Jewish Peace News with Ofer Neiman’s intro.
‘Forward’ suggests West Bank boycott is ‘noble’ (so long as you love Israel)
Jul 16, 2011
Philip Weiss
‘The Forward’ has a good editorial saying it’s OK to want to boycott West Bank products. Another dividend of the disgraceful law the Knesset passed making it illegal to advocate boycott– boycott marches forward.
The Forward makes the usual stipulation that you have to love Israel to urge boycott. But what if you don’t love Israel? I don’t. I mean, I get the Jewish part, I think, Jews made it, that’s cool. But Jews made The Goodbye Girl and the song Feelings and the Shabbatei Zvi cult of the 1600s, and I don’t love them. (Get over it). Forward, using clever typography of transparent self-censorship:
We can understand why reasonable people could advocate a boycott of products made in Israeli settlements in the West Bank because those settlements are deemed illegal under international law and because a boycott is a peaceful way of expressing a moral concern— well, if we say something like that, we could be sued and held liable in civil court. …Unpack this for a moment. We didn’t boycott, we just expressed sympathy in a way that could be seen as advocacy without taking the leap from speech to action. We didn’t target a product manufactured in Tel Aviv or Hadera or within the undisputed borders of Israel…
We simply said that promoting a boycott of goods from the occupied West Bank could be a legitimate form of political protest by those who love Israel and therefore wish to see her survive as a democratic Jewish state with borders that allow for a viable Palestinian state next door.…
a boycott can be a legitimate use of non-violent protest to achieve a worthy goal
It could also be seen as a noble attempt to effect change.
