Wednesday's horrific terror attack is a reminder that despite hudnas, tahidiyas, 'peace talks,' shelf agreements, lulls in violence, and grandiose expectations for quick fix solutions to the Israeli-Arab conflict, the enemies of Israel, of which there remain legions, do not rest from their dream of destroying the Jewish State. And contrary to the "conventional wisdom," which predicted that the building of the separation barrier, the targeted killings of terror leaders, and the maintenance of an IDF and intelligence presence in the West Bank would be ineffective and counterproductive, terrorism has been markedly down these past four years. But terror attacks in Israel have been down for the aforementioned reasons; not for lack of will and desire on the part of the purveyors of the attacks.
As Gerald Steinberg points out below, "Palestinians have been raised on the armed struggle, and many are capable of acting on their own, with whatever weapons are most readily available. The steady flow of incitement in the media plays a central role in this process, including Palestinian television programming preaching the virtues of martyrdom and the glory of fighting the Zionist enemy. As a result, the isolated action may appear to be spontaneous, but the foundation and preparations are never far away."
And even Bradley Burston, who is about as liberal-minded--in the best sense of the term--and critical of his own society as one gets, is beginning to wonder "What is it that Palestinians really want? I no longer believe that it's as simple as wanting statehood. This is what I don't yet want to admit: that for all these years, what a critical mass of Palestinians want most, perhaps even more than statehood, may be nothing more than seeing Jews dead and gone."
At what point does the West reassess its continued support and enabling of the Palestinians? It's lavishing of billions of dollars in aide? When do we demand real accountability and responsibility on the part of the Palestinians and their leaders? What if Wednesday's bulldozer terrorist had managed to go the last few hundred meters and mow down dozens, if not hundreds of civilians at Mehane Yehuda Market? What then?
david brumer
Terror's Predictable Spontaneity - Gerald M. Steinberg
The constant pattern for over sixty years has been that whenever violent attacks against Israelis were contained on one front, another front was immediately opened, often involving a different form of violence. When the suicide bombing campaign was halted by Operation Defensive Shield and the construction of a security barrier, the rocket barrages started from Gaza. Now the shaky cease-fire in Gaza is the signal for a new and different form of violence against Israeli civilians.
Palestinians have been raised on the armed struggle, and many are capable of acting on their own, with whatever weapons are most readily available. The steady flow of incitement in the media plays a central role in this process, including Palestinian television programming preaching the virtues of martyrdom and the glory of fighting the Zionist enemy. As a result, the isolated action may appear to be spontaneous, but the foundation and preparations are never far away.
Palestinians have also learned that the United Nations and the powerful groups claiming to promote human rights rarely respond to such attacks in contrast to the consistent and predictable condemnations of Israeli attacks. In the Second Lebanon War, and in recent months, the Gaza rocket attacks, the statements and campaigns by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and many other groups focused primarily on accusing Israel of "collective punishment" and "war crimes" in its reports (the fact that these legal terms are distorted beyond recognition in this context is generally ignored). Thus, Palestinian violence has the double impact of killing Israelis while also contributing to the demonization of Israel. (Jerusalem Post)
Palestinian Terrorism as a Natural Act - Bradley Burston
On a quiet morning in Jerusalem, a man behind the wheel of a bulldozer has taken it upon himself to kill Jews. Women and children and the elderly and the infirm. What's a decent person to think when Palestinian groups fall over one another trying to claim the bulldozer attack? And when one of the groups is the Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade? What is it that Palestinians really want? I no longer believe that it's as simple as wanting statehood. This is what I don't yet want to admit: that for all these years, what a critical mass of Palestinians want most, perhaps even more than statehood, may be nothing more than seeing Jews dead and gone. (Ha'aretz)
Why Were We Surprised? - Moshe Elad
In July 1989, a member of Islamic Jihad from Gaza boarded a bus from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. As the bus ascended the hills, the terrorist walked up to the driver and pulled the wheel to the right, sending the bus into the valley below and murdering 16 people. Wednesday's terror attack, where a terrorist driving a bulldozer plowed into pedestrians and vehicles in Jerusalem, should not have come as a surprise. It is well known that the motivation of terror groups has not declined. Col. (res.) Moshe Elad currently researches Palestinian society at the Shmuel Neeman Institute at the Technion. (Ynet News)
Friday, July 4, 2008
Turning Plowshares into Swords
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Jewish Battles in Seattle: Finkelstein/UW, the real 'Naqba,' & Initiative 97--'Divest from War & Occupation'
On Norman Finkelstein's UW appearance, the real naqba, and I-97, the Seattle initiative on divestiture from 'war and occupation.'
Boycott the boycotters
Letters
Raising questions
JTNews’ coverage of Norman Finkelstein’s May 8 University of Washington lecture (“A question of motives, not of legitimacy,” May 16) raises questions the Seattle Jewish community would do well to ponder. Why would a failed academic, a proud Hezbollah collaborator (“we are all Hezbollah today”), who is celebrated on neo-Nazi Web sites the world over, who was denied tenure last year at DePaul University for his decidedly unscholarly work, a polemicist who regularly resorts to malicious ad hominem attacks against Jewish personages such as Alan Dershowitz (“a moral pervert”) and Elie Wiesel (“the resident clown in the Holocaust circus”), and a rabid denouncer and demonizer of Israel (“I don’t see why Israel’s apologists would be offended by a comparison to the Gestapo…”) would be featured in a Jewish community newspaper, with barely a nod to his pariah-like status in the mainstream Jewish world. Your article regurgitates the main points of Finkelstein’s lecture without challengi ng the straw man argument he makes regarding Israel’s alleged breaches of international law (Finkelstein holds up the International Court of Justice as the supreme arbiter of world justice; never mind that the court’s very legitimacy is seriously in question). Finkelstein essentially gets a free pass, with no hint that he is persona non grata in respectable academic circles. Instead, Finkelstein is referred to as a “controversial professor” who challenges orthodox Western views regarding Israel “in the measured tones of an academic lecturer, which is precisely what he is.” No substantive context is provided nor is any question raised as to why Finkelstein was invited by the Graduate School and the Simpson Center of the UW during the week of celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of the establishment of modern Israel. We are informed that “Finkelstein”s appearance was coordinated in concert with commemorations of the ‘Nakba’ or ‘catastrophe,’ the term used by Arab and pro-Palestinian activists to describe Israel’s independence.” Coincidentally, just this week Finkelstein was barred from entering Israel, a ban the Jewish State rarely exercises. The Seattle Jewish community should be asking ourselves why he is welcomed and feted here, and why such a fringe voice beyond the pale of civil discourse is further legitimized in our Jewish newspaper.
David Brumer
Executive Committee StandWithUs Northwest
5/30/08
The obvious facts
I don’t have a problem with Prof. Finkelstein criticizing Israel’s policies regarding the occupied territories, the Security Wall, or the settlements lecture (“A question of motives, not of legitimacy,” May 16). These are legitimate topics of discussion and reasonable men can differ as to the wisdom or folly of these policies. But when he makes the accusation that Israel’s founding fathers engaged in anti-Arab “ethnic cleansing” during the 1948 War of Independence, he puts himself beyond the pale of reasonable men. This is as vile and nasty a lie as I have ever heard from the lumpen intellectuals that make up the let’s-hate-our-own-country wing of the Israeli Nihilist Left. How do I know it’s a lie? The obvious facts are these. Before the 1948 War of Independence, Jews and Arabs lived all over the territory of British Mandate Palestine and in many areas side-by-side. When the 1948 War of Independence was over and the dust had cleared, in the areas that the Jews controlled, h undreds of thousands of Arabs still lived — a good 1/3 of the total population. In the areas that the Arabs controlled, mainly East Jerusalem and the so-called West Bank, there wasn’t a single Jew left alive. In fact, the Arabs even destroyed the Jewish cemeteries so you can even say that there wasn’t a single Jew left alive in these areas or even dead! So who were the real ethnic cleansers in 1948, Prof. Finkelstein? Who? And what about the large and ancient Jewish communities of Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen? Where are they now, Prof. Finkelstein, where are they now? Gone with the wind. Ethnic cleansing, anyone? For 60 years, Israel has had to earn its survival every day. It is surrounded by large and well-equipped Arab armies just waiting for it to show weakness in order to attack. And when that attack comes, if due to years of vicious internal and external anti-Israel propaganda the morale of the I.D.F. is weak and that of the average Israeli citizen even weaker, the Arabs will gain the ultimate victory they have fruitlessly sought for 60 years and millions of Jews will again be put to the sword. And then you will see, Prof. Finkelstein, then you will see what ethnic cleansing really means.
Jeffrey Weiser
Redmond
Since it is now a core belief of academic “progressives” that Israel is the world’s most wicked country, and responsible for all the globe’s miseries except (perhaps) avian flu, it’s hardly surprising that the very day of that country’s 60th birthday should, in an act of depraved malevolence, have been marked at UW by the appearance, courtesy of the Simpson Center and the Graduate School, of two Israel-hating lecturers. We were treated to both Norman Finkelstein, the failed academic and beloved dream-Jew of all the world’s anti-Semites, and Yitzhak Laor, a second-tier poet who specializes in depicting Israel as the devil’s experiment station. Laor delivered the (once prestigious) John Danz Lecture. A few people at UW may remember that the Danz lectures were founded to deal with the subject of “the role of science in society and in understanding a rational universe.” Since the UW Graduate School long ago decided to disregard the intentions of the Danz family and bring an endless parade of distinctly non-scientific but very leftist lecturers — Edward Said, Angela Davis, Naomi Wolf — the appearance of Yitzhak Laor, who is less a scientist than any 12-year-old with a chemistry set, is no occasion for surprise. But Laor’s appearance raises another question. Since UW president Mark Emmert last year issued a ringing denunciation of the Nazi-style movement to boycott Israeli universities and scholars, how is it that the Graduate School (at the urging of the departments of Comparative Literature, English, and Near Eastern Languages) brings to campus, and at considerable expense, one of the promoters of that boycott? President Emmert showed a clear understanding that the boycott of Israel is anti-Semitic because it uses a double standard: if one thinks that Israeli policies toward Palestinian Arabs are objectionable, are they really worse than Russian actions in Chechnya, Chinese actions toward Tibetans, Turkish actions toward the Kurds? But where are the boycotts of Russia, China, and Turkey? What President Emmert now needs to do is to require the Graduate School (also the Simpson Center, etc.) to boycott the boycotters. Words of condemnation are not enough. If boycotters of Israel are not given a taste of their own medicine, [and] made to pay a price for anti-Semitic actions, the highly organized international assault on Israel, in which Laor and Finkelstein are devoted functionaries, will grow by the weakness it feeds on.
Edward Alexander
Professor Emeritus of English, UW
The real catastrophe
David Shayne
Special to JTNews
Norman Finkelstein’s claims on Israel misrepresent history
The last JTNews featured an article about Norman Finkelstein’s participation in local “Naqba” observances. While discussing his remarks at length, the article omitted pertinent facts about Finkelstein himself and the origin of “Naqba” day. Although described as an “academic lecturer,” Finkelstein is not tenured at any university, and was essentially forced out at De Paul University for numerous reasons, including inadequate academic diligence and the controversial conduct discussed below. Finkelstein’s views are typical of extremist and intrinsically anti-Israel factions that can be found on many American campuses. More disturbing is Finkelstein’s penchant for bizarre and outlandish conduct and writings. He has engaged in outrageous ad hominem attacks against individuals he personally disagrees with — for example, he has called the outspoken Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel a “clown,” “ridiculous,” and a “wimp.” He called Professor Alan Dershowitz a Nazi and apparently agr eed (or arranged?) to have his anti-Dershowitz comments published with a disgustingly offensive cartoon. He preserves these zany antics for posterity on his Web site, www.normanfinkelstein.com As for the Israel-Arab conflict, his views are likewise bizarre and detached from reality. For example, on Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” radio program, he characterized the 1988 intifada as “non-violent” civil protest (the families of dozens of murdered Israeli soldiers and civilians, or the thousands injured during that time may disagree), and claimed that Israel was the only country in the world that “legalized torture.” Many citizens of places like Myanmar and Uganda would be surprised to learn that “fact.” Others of his views, as expressed in the JTNews, are no less controversial and outlandish.
The article devotes considerable discussion to the International Court of Justice Opinion regarding Israel’s barrier wall. Setting aside the fact that the opinion was merely advisory, and that many ICJ judges came from countries hostile to Israel, the opinion is flawed at many levels. Roslyn Higgins, a renowned international legal scholar and one of the judges, wrote a separate opinion, wherein, although she concurred in the final result, she scathingly criticized the poor reasoning of the opinion and its obvious anti-Israel bias. (The opinion was authored by Shi Jiuyong, a former representative of communist China — the same country that conquered and occupied Tibet). In yet another misrepresentation, Finkelstein remarked on Goodman’s radio show that the ICJ opinion superceded UN Security Council Resolution 242. (The UN Security Council passed Res. 242 immediately after the Six Day War. It calls on Israel to withdraw from some of the territory it captured, while at the same time calling on the Arab States to recognize Israel within secure borders, (but it does not reference a Palestinian Arab state)). Any international legal scholar knows such a statement is nonsense; the ICJ does not trump or bind the UN Security Council, and certainly not in an advisory opinion! His accusation that Israel committed “ethnic cleansing” in 1948 is likewise biased and wrong. The term “ethnic cleansing” is a Serbian euphemism to describe their mini-genocide against Bosnian Muslims during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Israel’s war of independence bears no similarity. In 1947, Arabs launched a naked war of aggression without any legal or moral justification while the Jews defended themselves and fought for their very lives. To be sure, It was an ugly war fought between poorly trained civilians, with human rights abuses occurring on both sides. The conflict caused large numbers of Jewish and Arab refugees, not just in Palestine but in other countries as well. Finkelstein blames the Jews alone, and ignores the numerous Arab war crimes, which include starting the war to begin with. So much for academic objectivity. Which brings u s to “Naqba” day itself. The very concept, (“Naqba” is Arabic for “disaster” or “catastrophe,” and refers to Israel’s founding in 1948), is a classic example of Orwellian double-speak. The Arabs started an unjustified war. They lost. So of course it was a “Naqba” for them. But it was a “Naqba” also for the Jews who suffered. Entire villages were destroyed, and thousands of civilians and soldiers, some of whom had survived the recent Nazi Holocaust, were killed or wounded. Jews lost access to their holiest sites and most ancient habitations, which fell under Arab control. By way of example, World War II resulted in a “naqba” for the peoples of Russia and Germany (among other nations). But is there any doubt that only Hitler and his Nazis were morally responsible for the suffering of the German people? Wars cause suffering, and people who start them cannot later pretend to be innocent victims. Finkelstein’s strong anti-Israel bias and inaccurate and bizarre pronouncements undermi ne his credibility. Finkelstein distorts the historical record. The “Naqba” is a distortion of the historical record. Both should be exposed for what they truly are.
The Real Nakba - Shlomo Avineri
When the Palestinians mark what they call the "Nakba" (catastrophe) on May 15, they would do well to consider that their real failure did not occur in 1948: It had already happened earlier, and it continues to happen now. The real Nakba occurs before our eyes - and theirs - every day, at every hour, and Hamas' violent coup in Gaza is only the most recent example of it.
While Palestinians may see themselves, with much justification, as the victims of the Zionist movement's successful establishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, the reasons for their historical failure should be sought elsewhere: in the inability of the Palestinian national movement to create the political and social institutional framework that is the necessary foundation for nation-building. The history of national movements teaches us that national consciousness, strong as it may be, is not enough: Movements that could not create the ins titutional system vital for their success failed.
It would be a mistake to underestimate the power of the Palestinian national movement, as quite a few members of the Zionist camp did in the past; it is an error that many continue to make today. But it was Haim Arlosoroff - then a young man in his early 20s - who as early as 1921 recognized that what the Zionist movement faced was not a series of violent events, but a national movement. The Palestinian national movement, however, has been accompanied by a long string of failures, which have been rooted in its inability to form frameworks of consensus and solidarity; these failures weakened and fragmented it, and it seems that this is a problem the Palestinians have not been able to overcome to this day. The first and sharpest expression of this failure came in the years 1936-1939, during the Palestinian uprising against British rule. This rebellion failed not only because it was brutally suppressed by the British colonial authorities or because the Haganah (pre-state underground) forces were able to defend the Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine).
What happened is that the Palestinians were unable to establish institutions that would be acceptable to all parts of Arab society in the country, and when internal disputes arose over the nature of the struggle, the rebellion evolved into an intra-Palestinian civil war. More Palestinians died at the hands of rival armed Palestinian militias than were killed in clashes with the British army or with the Haganah. Within Palestinian s o ciety there is tendency to suppress the memory of this violent struggle, which took place between the militias associated with the Husseinis and those tied to the Nashashibis. But this suppression only deepens the failure and makes it more difficult to draw lessons from it. A similar failure came in 1948: Although most of Palestinian society was opposed to the plan for the partition of Palestine adopted by the United Nations on November 29, 1947, the Palestinians proved unable to create a unified military and political apparatus for confronting the Yishuv. The Arab Higher Committee was never more than a group of traditional dignitaries, and it did not oversee an effective system comparable to the Yishuv's "state-in-the-making." The violent Palestinian resistance to the partition plan consisted of attacks by armed militias in the Jerusalem area, in the Galilee and around Jaf fa , militias that operated without centralized coordination and guidance. The Palestinian defeat was to a large extent the result of an inability to establish a central military command. The leaders of the militias - Abdel Qader al-Husseini, Fawzi al-Qawuqji, Hassan Salameh - never answered to any central authority, and if the Yishuv referred to the militias as "gangs," the term had propagandist value, of course , but it also contained a great deal of truth.
Critical movements
Anyone familiar with the history of the Yishuv may comment, and accurately, that the Jews had their own splinter groups that refused to accept the authority of the majority, which called itself "the organized Yis huv ." This is true, of course - but at the critical moments it was David Ben-Gurion who made the fateful decisions, thus ensuring the unity of command and of political legitimacy. The Altalena affair [a violent 1948 confrontation between the newly formed Israel Defense Forces and the Irgun, one of the pre-state militias] was the watershed moment in this matter, and so the fledgling state guaranteed what German sociologist Max Weber has called the defining feature of state sovereignty: the existence of a monopoly based on the legitimate use of force. The same did not happen within the Arab community in Palestine in 1948. The consequences were swift in coming: not only a failed struggle with the Yishuv, but an inability to extract from the defeat even a remnant of national authority. Had the Arab community possessed a leadership with broad legitimacy, it presumably would have been able to create a Palestinian national entity in those parts of Palestine that remained under Arab control. But even when an "all-Palestine government" was established in Gaza, headed by the mufti, it was an Egyptian puppet government, which could never impose its authority on the West Bank, then under Jordanian control, and it soon disappeared.
Palestinian history might have been different if the Palestinians had had institutions and an organizational system capable of confronting the Egyptian occupation in Gaza and the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, and which might have tried to extricate a Palestinian state even out of the clutches of the 1948 defeat. When confronting this series of failures, the Palestinians tend to att ribute them to their own weakness and to the difficult conditions that prevailed after the military defeat to Israel. In some ways this is true, but it is irrelevant: National movements are not built under convenient conditions; they must always face enemies, foreign rulers, occupation. We need not go very far to compare the Palestinian failure with the success of the Algerian national movement, which confronted an occupying regime far stronger and crueler than the Zionist movement, and yet managed to create an organizational, diplomatic and military system that not only successfully confronted the French, but was able - not without problems - to create the foundation for an independent Algerian state.
The de facto shattering of the Palestinian Authority following the Hamas coup in Gaza is the extension of this failure. Even now the Palestinians are inclined to blame Israel, the Americans, the international community; but the real, essential responsibility ultimately lies with the Palestinians themselves. Elections were held, Hamas won, Fatah lost - and both groups have been unable to sustain a framework whose legitimacy is accepted by both sides. Fatah and Hamas, after all, are not just two parties operating within a democratic consensus: They are also armed militias, and their electoral strength is to a large extent rooted in their military power. All pan-Arabic attempts to unite them, such as the Mecca agreement brokered by Saudi Arabia last year, have failed in the face of this reality, which shows that ultimately power in Palestinian society grows (as Mao Tse-tung once said in a different context) out of the barrel of a gun. Hamas' violent military coup in Gaza against what was supposed to be the locus of Palestinian legitimacy is only a repetition, under different conditions, of the Palestinian gang wars of 1938-9. The fact that there is no model of an Arab democratic state to follow also does n ot help.
To be clear: These words are not written in order to question the legitimacy of the Palestinian movement or the Palestinians' right to a state. They are meant to point out a profound internal social failure, one the Palestinians avoid confronting and which many Israelis ignore, since so much of the Israeli discourse on the Palestinian issue is conducted from the narrow perspective of security concerns. Moreover, parts of the Israeli left, rightfully troubled by the ongoing occupation, avoid holding the Palestinians responsible in any way for their situation, out of reasons of political correctness. Such a patronizing approach is not helpful to the Palestinians.
What is now happening in Gaza is the real Palestinian Nakba: the tendency to blame outside factors only blurs matters. Clearly, Palestinian society is in distress, and much of it is owing to 40 years of occupation. But this is a too-easy excuse: In the years after 1945, it would have been easy for the Yishuv to blame British rule, the Arab opposition, and the trauma of the Holocaust, and to wallow in the mire of self-righteousness as a way of explaining why a Jewish state could not be established under such difficult circumstances.
But the framework of the Zionist movement, as established by Herzl, with its elected institutions, its multi-party pluralism anchored in a basic solidarity, and the formulation of national authority despite the instances of dissent and splintering - all these provided an organizational and institutional foundation that made it possible to marshal the human and econ omic resources necessary for coping with the harsh reality that followed the UN partition resolution. The fate of the Palestinians now lies in the balance, and it is in their own hands. Those who look at their history will have trouble imagining Fatah and Hamas settling their dispute by creating a joint, legitimate framework. Perhaps Egypt or Saudi Arabia can foster the signing of some piece of paper or another, like the Mecca agreement.
What matters, however, is not a piece of paper but an effective organizational and institutional framework and a commitment to shouldering the burden of a common legitimacy, which is necessary for constructing a nation. Such a framework must encompass the disarming of militias and entrusting one national authority with a monopoly on the use of force. Without this, there will also be no chance of an agreement with Israel, which is vital for the establishment of a Palestinian state. These things should be said clearly, as difficult as they may be: If the Palestinians do not find a way to extricate themselves from their harsh historical reality, they ultimately will not have a state. It will be bad for them, and bad for Israel.
Israel-advocacy groups take aim at divestment initiative
Leyna Krow • Assistant Editor, JTNews
Posted: May 30, 2008
Deborah Portnoff Rettman
Israel-advocacy organization StandWithUs Northwest is fighting the legality of a ballot initiative (I-97), which, if it passes, would bar the City of Seattle from investing employee pension funds in certain corporations that do business with Israel. I-97, spearheaded by a group called Seattle Divest from War and Occupation, links divestment from Israel with divestment from companies involved in the war in Iraq, such as Halliburton. It stipulates that city employee retirement funds ought not to be invested in corporations involved in Israeli settlements in the occupied territories — including the Golan Heights. The initiative also states that, in the event that Israel were to attack Iran without U.N. authorization, the city would be required to divest from Israeli government bonds. “I know a lot of groups out there are starting to think seriously about the ways they invest their money, and we’d like the city of Seattle to do the same. That’s basically what this is about,” said Judith Kolokoff, spokesperson for I-97. “There are plenty of places to invest, not just in companies that support wars.” Kolokoff was quick to point out that the initiative specifically targets American and Israeli companies that profit from Israel’s “occupied and besieged territories.” The initiative specifically includes the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. While the ownership of the Golan is disputed with Syria, the land itself is not occupied. The measure would not require the city to divest from Israeli businesses entirely. However, Rob Jacobs, the regional director for StandWithUs Northwest, feels that the initiative paints an inaccurate picture of the situation in Israel by lumping it together with Iraq. “They’re trying to vilify Israel and put it in the same camp with Iraq, and it doesn’t deserve to be there,” Jacobs said.
Jacobs worries that since I-97 pairs divestment from Israel with divestment from Iraq, voters may be signing the petition out of concern over the war, without taking into consideration the impact it would have on Israel. Several supporters of StandWithUs who approached signature gatherers for the measure were told the initiative only had to do with Iraq, Jacobs said. The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, the American Jewish Committee and the Washington Israel Business Council joined StandWithUs Northwest at a hearing at King County Superior Court on May 15 to challenge the initiative over what they considered flawed and imprecise language within the initiative. They asked the judge to revise the initiative summary to more clearly reflect its emphasis on companies that do business with Israel, as well as those involved in the Iraq war. More than 70 members of the local Jewish community, including students from both Northwest Yeshiva High School and the Seattle Hebrew Academy, attended the hearing to show their concern over I-97. Ultimately, Judge Steven Gonzalez, who presided over the hearing, agreed that the original title of the initiative was misleading, and wrote a revised version. However, he said he did not feel it was so misleading as to necessitate invalidating the signatures that had already been collected. At the time of the hearing, Seattle Divest from War and Occupation had collected around 10 percent of the required 18,000 signatures. Jacobs said his suit had not requested that the already-collected signatures be dropped. According to Ron Leibsohn, community services chair for the Jewish Federation, this month’s court appearance was only the first in several legal steps the organizations plan to take in an attempt to stop I-97 from making it to the ballot. If the initiative cannot be blocked through legal channels, StandWithUs Northwest and the Jewish Federation intend to take their fight to the street. They have already begun fundraising efforts to cover future legal costs and an opposition campaign. “There’s a lot of support for Israel in this community and we want to pull everyone together on this,” Leibsohn said. Kolokoff, who is Jewish, said she was not surprised by the reaction of StandWithUs Northwest and other Israel-advocacy groups to the initiative. “A lot of people feel to raise any question about Israel is tantamount to a crime,” she said. “We want to make it clear that this initiative is not about Israel, it’s about war and occupation and we’re targeting companies, not countries.” Kolokoff remains optimistic that Seattle Divest from War and Occupation will get the signatures they need for I-97 to appear on the ballot. If they succeed, I-97 will be the first initiative of its kind to do so in a major U.S. city. In 2005, a similar motion focusing exclusively on companies that do business with Israel failed to pass through the city council of Somerville, Mass. Officials from the city retirement office did not return calls by press time concerning th e economic impact and administrative ramifications the initiative would have on either employee pension funds or the companies from which those funds would be divested, were it to pass. Still, it’s the spirit behind the initiative, rather than its practical implications that is truly worrisome to local Israel advocates. Leibsohn said he feels it is important to stop the initiative from reaching the ballot not out of concern for the economic impact it could have on Israel, but because of the message Seattle’s divestment would send to the rest of the country. “We wouldn’t want this to pass in Seattle and then spread to other communities,” he said. “That’s why we think it’s important to stop it here.”
Seattle City Attorney Joins the Seattle Jewish Community to Oppose I-97
Friends,Great news! Yesterday afternoon, we received the City of Seattle's Answer to our Complaint in StandWithUs v. Divest from War Campaign. The City, a defendant in the case, sided with us against the supporters of I-97! Click here to download the City's Answer.For those who are just learning about Initiative 97, I-97 was filed and is supported by a coalition of pro-Palestinian and anti-war groups. It would have the City of Seattle divest from Israel if Israel ever attacked Iran to destroy Iran's nuclear weapon program and would have the City divest from companies that sell products to Israel for use in the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.The City of Seattle filed a cross-claim against the other defendants in the case, the supporters of I-97, arguing that I-97 would require that the City make investment decisions in place of the Seattle Employees Retirement Board. The Retirement Board, the City states, is the only body legally authorized to make such decisions.
The City continues, arguing that "investment of the city retirement system funds can only be made . . . through the board otherwise responsible for management of the pension system's funds and not through voter initiative." [Emphasis added].The voters do not have the power to force the intentionally independent investment managers to play politics with the current and retired Seattle employees' retirement fund.The City seeks "[d]eclaratory judgment that I-97 is beyond the scope of the local initiative power . . . because the power to invest city retirement funds and to establish investment policy is exclusively vested by state law in the city's . . . retirement system's board."The City's Answer closes with the following: "Cross-Claimant City of Seattle prays that the court . . . [d]eclare that I-97 in its entirety is invalid because it is beyond the scope of the local initiative power and is therefore null and void as a City of Seattle initiative." [Emphasis added].
While this is tremendous news and reason to be optimistic, the City's support for our position does not mean that the court will agree. We have not won yet. There are legal costs to cover and we still have to prepare to run a campaign against I-97 this November. We don't have the luxury of waiting to see what the court will do.
Again, it's important to note that our opposition to I-97 is part of a joint community effort that, in addition to the plaintiffs, StandWithUs and the Washington-Israel Business Council, also includes the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, and the American Jewish Committee. Other Jewish and non-Jewish organizations and individuals have already indicated that they would like to join the suit as additional plaintiffs.
As I said in my last email on this issue, our joint effort to fight I-97 is one of the best examples of positive collaboration that I have seen and I am proud of our Seattle Jewish community's response. You should be proud, too.
All of these organizations will need both your volunteer and financial support.
You can help by donating money to cover our portion of the costs of the current legal challenge and the political groundwork that we must prepare now if we are to fight a strong campaign against the initiative if it does end up on the ballot.
If you are able to help financially, please contact me, Rob Jacobs, at 206.204.6070 or by emailing me at RobJacobs@StandWithUs.com. You can also donate directly over the web at https://proxy.klinegalland.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001hfvLrqp_Wp3m22AZQAAsxUJ6uuES8oDYzzzE41nellxTiVqS-zBCQ9t1ff7e2L5ruX_-doY4ShY_9e1z-TQ8qG5VESzfE9meuBLu_0sY_aZcRtp5sDGM8f0ytzwYTOuX.
Also, let us know now if you'd be willing to staff phone banks, "door knob" and in other ways contribute time to help defeat the initiative if the sponsors win in court and then collect the necessary signatures. Again, if you are willing to volunteer, please let us know at Seattle@StandWithUs.com.
And while Initiative 97 is currently a focus of our attention, our community is facing an ongoing public relations attack on Israel on many fronts - in our high schools, on our college and university campuses, in the churches, in civic organizations and in the press. Initiative 97 is just one battle. Long after it goes away, we'll still need your efforts and financial support to fight for fair and balanced treatment of Israel in our community.
We're countering bias and misinformation by bringing speakers to our local schools and educating our students about Israel. We're teaching our educators and community leaders about the situation in the Middle East and about Israel as a country, not just a conflict. We're responding to bias in the media.
StandWithUs Northwest has been doing vital work here in our community to support Israel. We cannot do it alone. Please support our efforts.
Thank you!
Rob Jacobs
Regional DirectorStandWithUs Northwest
4616 NE 25th Avenue, #347
Seattle, WA 98105
206.204.0676 (office and fax)
Click Here to Read More..
Thursday, May 22, 2008
American Jews and Israel: Last week on NPR's KUOW
Last week, I joined Rabbi Anson Laytner of the AJC and Wendy Somerson of Jewish Voice for Peace on the Steve Scher show, Weekday. Michael Oren also contributed to the program via tape from his home in Jerusalem, speaking with authority on what it's like to be American born and Israeli by choice, having lived in Israel since 1979 (he also spends time in the States, teaching, lecturing and traveling the country last year as part of his book tour).
Towards the end of the broadcast, Ms. Somerson made the claim that Israel still maintains an active occupation over Gaza, controlling the air space, water, and border crossings. That Gaza is a 'power-cooker' where the Israelis control the fuel, are strangling the Gazans, and have taken away their electricity. For Ms. Somerson, then, it's no surprise that there are rockets regularly launched into Israel proper. The solution is simple: "Start negotiating."
Never mind that Hamas refuses to: renounce violence, recognize Israel's very right to exist, or respect existing agreements.
Apparently, Ms. Somerson is also unaware of the fact that the Hamas leadership is very adept at orchestrating humanitarian crises in order to manipulate world opinion against Israel. Aside from stealing the fuel supplies that are earmarked for Gazan hospitals, schools and what industry still exists (aside from bomb-making), Hamas and its co-conspirators continue to attack vital crossing points and energy supply lines along the Gaza-Israel border.
Just last month, suicide bombers drove 3 explosives-laden vehicles into the Kerem Shalom crossing. Thirteen Israeli soldiers were wounded in the attack. At least a couple of hundred trucks providing essential food and medical supplies pass through this crossing each week.
Two weeks prior to that, terrorists attacked the Nahal Oz fuel terminal, which delivers almost 800,000 gallons of fuel every week to Gazan hospitals and to the Gaza City power station. Two Israeli workers were killed in that "negotiation," civilians who are there to facilitate the delivery of the fuel to Gaza. On May 4th, the IDF had to stop food and fuel shipments because the delivery vehicles came under heavy mortar fire. And early this morning, a Palestinian suicide truck packed with 4.5 tons of explosives blew up just outside the Erez crossing. Islamic Jihad said it and Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade cooperated in the attack.
These are but a sampling of the facts on the ground. But all this escapes the notice of Ms. Somerson, perhaps because, as she sheepishly admitted at the beginning of the broadcast, she has actually never even stepped foot in Israel, the West Bank or Gaza. She'd like to go someday, though.
david brumer
seattle
The full podcast is available below.
http://www.kuow.org/defaultProgram.asp?ID=14925
Thursday on Weekday at 9:00 a.m.
5/15/2008 at 9:00 a.m.
Go to 10:00 a.m.
Photo by tina.gao
American Jews and Israel
RealAudio MP3: high low
Israel celebrates the 60th anniversary of its independence this month. President Bush is in Israel along with other world leaders. Many American Jews are celebrating, while some stand in solidarity with Palestinians. Today we speak with leaders in Western Washington's Jewish community across the political spectrum. What does Israel mean to American Jews? What does it mean to be pro–Israel? What should America's relationship with Israel be, and what role do American Jews have in shaping it? What role have American Jews had in shaping Israel itself?
Guests:Rabbi Anson Laytner is executive director of the American Jewish Committee's Seattle chapter. He is an adjunct theology and religious studies professor at Seattle University.
David Brumer is on the Executive Committee of StandWithUs Northwest, a group dedicated to "promoting greater understanding and support for Israel in the Pacific Northwest." He is a member of the Israel Bonds Speakers Bureau, and as such promotes investment in securities issued by the State of Israel. He writes the blog BRUMSPEAK and has a day job as a geriatric social worker and psychotherapist.
Dr. Wendy Somerson helped found the Seattle chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace. JVP "supports the aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians for security and self–determination" and calls for "an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem." The group is a member of the Al–Nakba coalition, which held an event May 10 to commemorate Palestinian resistance. Dr. Somerson has a PhD in English from the University of Washington and has written curricula on Jews' ethnic diversity for the Jewish Federation in Seattle.
Michael Oren is a Senior Fellow at the Shalem Center, a research center in Jerusalem. He's the author of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present. He grew up in New Jersey and moved to Israel in the 1970s. He served in the Israeli army during the first Lebanon war.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Incontrovertible 'Right to Exist': Israel at 3,060
Since the 'cat is out of the bag' though, and the prevaricators and defamers are making their case for raising this as a legitimate debate, here is my response. The original, longer version that was not published, is included in the "read more" link, as is the article as published in its entirety.
david brumer
seattle
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/361594_israel04.html
Israel's incontrovertible right to exist
BY DAVID BRUMER
GUEST COLUMNIST
The creation of Israel, the modern flowering of an ancient people, was one of the few redeeming acts in a century of atrocity and shame. Yet, as the Jewish state celebrates its 60th birthday, a chorus of defamers sees the modern incarnation of the Jewish people in their homeland as a historic injustice. For some in academia, the media and even the United Nations, Israel's very "Right to Exist" is considered a subject for legitimate debate. It's ironic, too, since few nations can claim the kind of historic legitimacy and connection to a place as can the Jewish people.
For more than 3,000 years, Jews have been spiritually as well as corporeally bonded to the land of Israel. In 1921, Winston Churchill proclaimed, "It is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national center and a national home. And where else could that be but in this land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated?" For French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the recreation of a sovereign Jewish state "is the most significant event of the 20th century." He described Israel's re-establishment as "the 20th century's miracle" and noted that "defending its existence is an international duty."
So why, 60 years later, or 3,060 years, if you will, is Israel living under such a barrage of existential threats? Why does Israel still have to prove itself worthy of being included in the family of nations? Why indeed is Israel singled out as the one nation on Earth whose very existence is questioned? Cynthia Ozick bristles at the "the scandal of calling into question a living nation's existence ... The Big Lie that demonizes Israel and contaminates the viler estuaries of what is nowadays dubbed 'the international community' ... ."
Yet among "progressive" intellectuals, especially in Europe, it is axiomatic that Israel is not merely "not doing enough to for peace in the Middle East," but is responsible for Islamist "outrage" against the West; that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict remains at the core of the Arab world's grievances, and, if only this conflict could be solved, peace would ensue. Leaving aside the illogical nature of this proposition (al-Qaida and other radical Islamists have as much a gripe against Christian nations whom they see as usurping their place in history), it is hard to find a country that has striven more for peaceful co-existence with its neighbors than Israel. No nation has taken more demonstrable risks for peace. Israel proved its intention to live in harmony with its neighbors when it enacted peace treaties with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. Israel has shown its willingness to make painful sacrifices in the name of peace, withdrawing from all of Gaza in 2005 while evacuating more than 8,000 Israeli citizens from their homes.
Israel has said yes to virtually every partition plan put forth in modern times while the Palestinians have said no, starting with the Peel Commission in 1937, which would have given the Palestinians nearly 80 percent of the land between the "River and the Sea." In 1947, the Palestinians again rejected statehood on 45 percent of the land, while Israel agreed to the remaining 55 percent divided into three cantons (60 percent of which is desert). Finally, in 2000 Israel offered the Palestinians more than 96 percent of contiguous West Bank land and all of Gaza in the hopes that the century-old conflict could end. The Palestinian response to that offer was the Second Intifada, more aptly understood by Israelis as a Terror War unleashed against the Jewish State.
Yet Israel continues to be viewed as the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Israel, which at 60 continues to be a vibrant, secular democracy. Israel, which is accused of human rights violations and even apartheid, remains an oddity in the Middle East where gays participate openly in military service; all women have the right to vote, with 17 of them serving in the 120-member Knesset (Parliament). Another 12 members are Arab-Israelis, with three parties representing the Arab segment of the population. And all Israeli citizens, Christians, Muslims and Jews, enjoy freedom of speech, the press and unfettered religious expression, as well as access to education, modern health care and the professions.
Of course, Israel is far from perfect, and legitimate criticisms launched against specific conditions and policies are expected and welcomed. It is the demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish state that is as baffling as it is malevolent. Israel, which has produced more Nobel laureates per capita than anywhere else in the world, a nation of highly educated and motivated people, producing cutting-edge technologies in medicine, science and business; and all this in the face of ongoing threats -- and actualities -- of war, and the unwillingness of too many of its neighbors to accept Israel's very right to exist as a Jewish nation. The world might better applaud the miracle of Israel's rebirth in its deliberately tiny ancestral land as a model of decency, tolerance and intellectual vibrancy, for these are the true criteria of legitimacy, and focus its urge to deligitimize on societies that celebrate (and wish to spread around the world) the values of suicide-bombing, uncompromising intolerance, and irrationality.
David Brumer is a media analyst, writer and consultant on Middle Eastern affairs. He is on the advisory board of StandWithUs Northwest and is a member of Israel Bonds Speakers Bureau. Visit his blog, BRUMSPEAK, at brumspeak.blogspot.com
© 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Original, full length version
This month Israel will celebrate its 6oth birthday in its modern incarnation as the nation of the Jewish people. For some, this represents a historic injustice. In fact, there are intellectuals, world leaders, and even United Nations special rapporteurs who consider Israel’s very ‘Right to Exist’ a subject for legitimate debate. It’s ironic too, since few nations can claim the kind of historic legitimacy and connection to a place as can the Jewish people.
For over three thousand years, Jews have been spiritually as well as physically bonded to the land of Israel. More than 3,200 years ago, Moses prophesied: “Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back.” And indeed from our most recent exile in 70 A.D. during Roman Times, we were scattered to the corners of the earth, only to be reunited in what Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France has said, “is the most significant event of the 20th century.” He described Israel’s re-establishment as “the twentieth century’s miracle” and noted that “defending its existence is an international duty…Israel introduces diversity and democracy to the Middle East. It is a miracle that out of the remnants of the scattered Jewish people, such a state has arisen.”
Israel is the only place on earth, iterates Britain’s Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, where Jews have been able to rule themselves and defend themselves. Israel is the only place where, during 4.000 years of history, Jews have formed a majority. Where Jews have been able to create a nation and a society according to their own laws and values. Only in Israel can Jews speak their ancient tongue, live by the Jewish calendar, walk where their ancestors walked and perpetuate the Jewish narrative.
On May 14th, 1948 Israel’s towering leader David Ben-Gurion read from the Declaration of Independence:
Eretz-Yisrael--The Land of Israel--was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.
After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people remained faithful to it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.
Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland… On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.
So why, 60 years later, or 3,060 years, if you will, is Israel living under such a barrage of existential threats, from the physical to the philosophical? Why does Israel still have to prove itself worthy to be included in the family of nations, and fight for the right to be? Why was Israeli historian Yaacov Lozowick compelled to publish a defense, entitled Right to Exist in 2003, a book that prompted Cynthia Ozick to write,
Lozowick meticulously unravels the Big Lie that demonizes Israel and Zionism and contaminates the viler estuaries of what is nowadays dubbed ‘the international community.’ The title alone—the scandal of calling into question a living nation’s existence—ought to shame the prevaricators and defamers, whether they be professors in universities, media distorters, ‘peace activists’ who justify terror, morally deformed intellectuals, self-deceiving unconfessed haters, or merely the herd of the easily led.
Why indeed is Israel singled out as the one nation on earth whose very existence is questioned? Just last month, the cover of The Atlantic Monthly featured a large Jewish star with the heading, “Is Israel Finished?” as the cover story. Curious choice of words, since the article itself was a thoughtful piece by journalist Jeffery Goldberg, actually entitled “Unforgiven.” It explored the divide in Israeli society since the Second Lebanon War in the summer of 2006, exemplified by the rift between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and renowned literary figure and moral spokesperson, David Grossman, who lost his son, 20 year old tank commander Uri Grossman, in the waning days of the Lebanon campaign. To be sure, the article examined the precariousness of Jewish life in such a sea of hostility that is the Muslim Middle East. But nowhere does Goldberg suggest that Israel is finished as a nation. While real threats like Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and demographic tides are considered, the question remains why Israel’s existence as a nation of the Jewish people continues to be called into question.
There seems to be an underlying belief that Israel is not doing enough to move the region towards peace. That the Palestinian-Israeli conflict remains at the core of the Arab world’s problems with the West, and that somehow, if only this conflict could be solved, all the other calamities would be diffused. Leaving aside the illogical nature of this proposition (Al Qaeda and other radical Islamists have as much a gripe against Christians whom they see as usurping their place in history), it is hard to find a nation that has striven more for peaceful co-existence with its neighbors than Israel. No nation has taken more demonstrable risks for the sake of peace. This yearning is enshrined in Israel’s Declaration of Independence and indeed goes back to biblical times, when our prophets intoned about turning “swords into plowshares” and visualizing a day when the lion and the lamb would lie down together. Israel proved its intention to live in peace with its neighbors when it signed and enacted peace treaties with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. Israel has shown its willingness to make painful sacrifices in the name of peace, relinquishing the buffer zone it had established against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in 2000, and then in the summer of 2005, withdrawing from all of Gaza and evacuating over 8,000 Israeli citizens from their homes.
Israel has said yes to virtually every partition plan put forth in modern times, starting with the Peel Commission in 1937, which would have given the Palestinians 80% of the land between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. In 1947, when the United Nations approved the creation of a Jewish homeland in Israel, the Palestinians again rejected statehood on 45% of the land, while Israel would have settled for the remaining 55% divided into three cantons, with over 60% of that land comprised of desert. The ensuing war launched by five Arab armies against the fledgling Jewish state resulted in Israel’s de facto borders until the Six-Day War of 1967. Finally, in the summer of 2000 at Camp David and later in the year under the Clinton Proposals at Taba, Israel offered to relinquish over 96% of contiguous West Bank land and all of Gaza in the hopes that the century old conflict could at last come to an end. The Palestinian response to that offer was the Second Intifada, more aptly understood by Israelis as a Terror War unleashed against the Jewish state by Arafat and his minions. Sadly, Palestinian intransigence has each time cost their people a shrinking map of a potential Palestine. History moved on with each successive Palestinian rejection.
And yet Israel continues to be viewed as the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Israel, who at 60 continues to be a vibrant, thriving, secular democracy. Israel, who is accused of human rights violations and even apartheid, remains an oddity in the Middle East where gays participate openly in military service; all women have the right to vote, with 17 of them serving in the 120-member Knesset, or Israeli Parliament. Currently 12 of those 120 members are Arab-Israelis, with 3 parties specifically representing the Arab segment of the population. Ishmael Khaldi, the Israeli Deputy Counsel General for the Western United States, is an Israeli-Arab and the second highest Israeli government representative in Western America. And all Israeli citizens, Christians, Muslims and Jews enjoy freedom of speech, the press and unfettered religious expression, as well as access to education, modern health care, and the professions.
Of course, Israel is far from perfect and legitimate criticisms launched against specific conditions and policies are both expected and welcomed. It is the demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish State that is as baffling as it is malevolent. Israel, who has produced more Nobel laureates per capita than anywhere else in the world, a nation of highly educated and motivated people, producing cutting-edge technologies in medicine, science and business; and all this in the face of ongoing threats—and actualities--of war and the unwillingness of too many of its neighbors to accept Israel’s very right to exist as a Jewish nation. The world might better applaud the miracle of Israel's rebirth in its deliberately tiny ancestral land as a model of decency, tolerance, and intellectual vibrancy, for these are the true criteria of legitimacy, and focus its urge to deligitimize on societies that celebrate (and wish to spread around the world) the values of suicide-bombing, uncompromising intolerance, and irrationality.
David Brumer
David is a media analyst, writer and consultant on Middle Eastern affairs. He is on the Advisory Board of StandWithUs (SWU) Northwest and is a member of Israel Bonds Speakers Bureau. In 2005 he was awarded “Congressional Recognition for Excellence in Public Diplomacy in Support of Israel ” on behalf of his work with The Israel Project (TIP). David is also a geriatric social worker and psychotherapist. Visit his blog, BRUMSPEAK, at http://brumspeak.blogspot.com/
Thursday, April 10, 2008
REFUSENIK: The Story of How Grassroots Activism Blossomed into an International Human Rights Campaign to Free Soviet Jewry
Last night I had the privilege to watch the North American premiere of Refusenik, directed by Laura Bialis at the Seattle Jewish Film Festival. It was apropos for Seattle and the Jewish Film Festival to be the first to present this landmark documentary, since Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson hailed from Washington State, and was so instrumental in the fight to free Soviet Jews. This incredibly moving documentary points to the power of ideas, demonstrating how history can be changed when idealism, perseverance and perhaps a bit of naivete converge, creating the groundswell for what developed into an international movement.
There are lessons for us today as the Jewish community engages in battles to safeguard the rights of Jews around the world, including ironically, those of our brothers and sisters in Israel. Thanks to Laura and all those involved in the creation of this wonderful film for helping show us the way forward.
Here's to the incredible courage and indomitable spirit of all the Refuseniks!
David Brumer
Seattle
REFUSENIK -- the amazing story of the activists who led the three decade international struggle to free Soviet Jews
Exclusive Engagement at Landmark's Varsity Theatre
Opening Night Friday, April 11, 2008
Director Laura Bialis will be in person for Q&A Friday, April 11, at the 7:10 & 9:50 shows
Landmark Varsity Theatre
4329 University Way, N.E.
Seattle, WA 98105
(206) 781-5755
click here for map
ShowtimesApril 11: 2:00, 4:30, 7:10, 9:50April 12-13: 2:00, 4:30, 7:10, 9:40
April 14-16:
7:10, 9:40
Advance ticket purchase at
Landmark Theatre box office
click here for trailer
http://www.refusenikmovie.com/
About the Film
REFUSENIK is the first retrospective documentary to chronicle the thirty-year movement to free Soviet Jews. It shows how a small grassroots effort bold enough to take on a Cold War superpower blossomed into an international human rights campaign that engaged the disempowered and world leaders alike. Told through the eyes of activists on both sides of the Iron Curtain - many of whom survived punishment in Soviet Gulag labor camps - the film is a tapestry of first-person accounts of heroism, sacrifice, and ultimately, liberation.The campaign to free Soviet Jewry is a major event in Jewish history. By 1992, one and a half million Jews had left the Soviet Union to live in freedom as a direct result of what was likely the most successful human rights campaign of all times.REFUSENIK illustrates how individuals can utilize the power inherent in a tolerant democracy and literally change the world. The tactics and methods developed by activists in this struggle became examples to the rest of the world, forever changing the human rights landscape.One of the proudest chapters in Jewish history, the story of the refuseniks demonstrates the need for Jewish solidarity, the importance of the State of Israel, and the responsibilities we face as individuals living in a democracy.Much of the material used in REFUSENIK is unique and exclusive to this film. Interviews with key leaders in the movement are some of the first ever to be recorded. Many of the photographs and covert film footage – some of it smuggled out of the Soviet Union – have never been seen before by a large audience, and help make REFUSENIK a unique portrait of this amazing story.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Unique Perspective on the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict from an Arab-Israeli
Khaled Abu Toameh came to Seattle earlier this week as part of a speaking tour sponsored by Stand With Us (SWU). Khaled, an Arab-Israeli journalist who lives in the eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Pisgat Ze’ev, explained that his father was born in Israel and his mother is from the West Bank, which, he said, makes him an Arab-Israeli Muslim Palestinian. What it also makes him is someone who offers a unique perspective to the Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli conflict.
According to Khaled, the Palestinian people are the victims of corrupt leadership in the West Bank and now fanatical radical Islam in Gaza. It didn’t have to be this way. Frustrated by over a decade of Arafat’s corrupt and unproductive rule, Palestinians yearned for real change (Khaled pointed out that that in the Oslo Years Arafat didn’t build one housing unit for refugees, one road, one University or College; one hospital or clinic—he only managed to build a casino in Jericho, and to add insult, right across from a refugee camp) and in early 2005 they voted for Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) because he promised a change from the old ways of doing business. He ran on a platform of ending corruption and cronyism. But once in office, he surrounded himself with the corrupt old guard from Arafat’s day, and again the Palestinian people felt lied to and cheated. So a year later, when Hamas challenged Fatah’s power, Palestinians said to themselves, let’s give these guys a chance. Hamas ran on a platform of ending corruption, change and reform. Sound familiar? Since they already had a reputation for not being corrupt, ordinary Palestinians decided to give them a chance and they won the elections by a sizable majority.
Khaled found it striking that the Bush Administration--and particularly Condoleezza Rice-was caught off guard. He said that any Palestinian child on the street could have told you Hamas would win the elections in January of 2006. The handwriting was on the wall; very large and in Arabic. In fact, the day before the elections, on January 24th, 2006 he wrote, Regime Change in Palestine? for the WSJ. And again the Palestinian people emerged as the big losers. While Hamas did prove themselves untarnished by corruption, they certainly have not furthered the goals of the Palestinian people, either by advancing the prospects of a Palestinian State or by improving their quality of life. In fact, they’ve further impoverished the Palestinians, aside from being an ongoing nightmare for Israel.
But Khaled doesn’t understand why the West continues to lavish money on the Palestinian Authority. Why throw good money after bad? Especially without banging their hand on the table and demanding something to show for the billions. Nothing is likely to change with the current PA leadership. Abbas is a weak and ineffective leader who cannot leave Ramallah without the permission of an Israeli army officer, let alone rally his own people. He has never visited a refugee camp or ordinary Palestinian village. He's traipsed around Europe and the Middle East, but has done nothing to advance his people’s cause. And the more the Palestinians see America and Israel supporting Abbas, the more he is seen as a puppet and collaborator in their eyes. The West Bank is effectively ruled by gangs, thugs, and rogue militias, Mafia style, says Khaled. If it weren’t for the IDF, Hamas would topple Fatah in a heartbeat, just like they did in Gaza, with barely a struggle.
The Palestinians received $6.5 billion in aid under Arafat's reign and have nothing to show for it. Now the West is talking about as much as another $8.6 billion in assistance. It boggles the mind. Any CEO in his right mind would do more than bang his hand on the table for a lot less. Where's the transparency, not to mention results to show the shareholders, we the taxpayers?
Those who've followed this blog also know I've hammered away at this from the point of view of the principle in psychology known as 'enabling.' We don't help the addict by bailing him out time and again. Only by demanding responsibility and accountability is there hope for real and lasting reform.
Khaled told his audiences that when asked about Arafat by his colleagues 15 years ago, in the euphoric early days of Oslo, he noted that having worked for him as a journalist long ago, he didn't trust the man. His advice: if you're going to deal with Arafat, don't give him money without demanding strict accountability and don't give him weapons. Just what we're doing yet again. He also spoke at Oregon University on April 2nd.
Arab-Israeli Journalist: Education on Peace Is the Key to Resolving Conflict -
Anastasia Strgar (University of Oregon Daily Emerald)
In light of the continuing stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians, Arab-Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh told a University of Oregon audience he believes that change must come from teaching the next generation of children not to hate their neighbors.
To achieve peace, Abu Toameh emphasized educating the next generations of Palestinians to be more accepting of their Israeli neighbors.
He said Israel has changed a lot in the last 15 years. "If you had told me 16 years ago that Israel would have brought the PLO to the West Bank and moved 10,000 Jewish refugees from the Gaza Strip, I would have asked you what kind of medication you were on," Abu Toameh joked.
One audience member asked how many generations will need to be educated before peace can ever be found; he replied, at least two, if not three.
Interesting side note: Recently in the news, Israel has been criticized for expanding 'settlements' and 'disputed areas' in the West Bank, including Pisgat Ze'ev, the neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem where Khaled lives with his family. Does that make him a settler?
For more on Khaled, listen to the podcast below from his appearance on the Dave Ross Show, KIRO 710 Seattle, on April 1st.
david brumer
10:00 am-11:00 am Download mp3
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=112&cmsid=90
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Barack Obama, the Elephant (in the Living Room) and the American Problem
Barack Obama gave a brilliant speech in Philadelphia last Tuesday in response to inflammatory video clips of Reverend Jeremiah Wright that flooded the airwaves over the prior weekend. His speech was remarkable for its insights on race relations which have plagued America throughout its history. Obama is uniquely qualified to expound on those troubled relations, being the product of a white American mother and a truly African-American father.
One of Obama's great strengths is that he is a post-civil rights candidate and black man, who has premised his candidacy on the promise of transcending race. He is not a victim of the injustices of segregation and Jim Crow laws; rather, he is a shining example of everything that is right and good about America, her promises and possibilities. Only in America could Obama use his formidable intelligence, skill and personality to rise to those heights where he is now perched.
It is that America which had a place for him as the first black president of The Harvard Law Review, arguably the most prestigious Law Review in the country. And it is that America, itself maturing and looking more like the mosaic of peoples and colors which it represents that is seriously considering Barack Obama as its first African-American president.
This is precisely why his close association with Reverend Wright and his refusal to sever those ties and leave Trinity Church is all the more troubling. Tuesday's speech was a landmark oratory on the painful legacy of race in America, from a man who understands racial sensitivities from both sides of the divide. He once again proved why he is uniquely equipped to lead America into the future in many important ways. Everything was on the money except for how he handled the issue that propelled him to make the speech in the first place: what to do about Reverend Wright.
It's true that the cherry-picked excerpts from Wright's now infamous sermons need to be seen and understood in a larger context. But his remarks from the pulpit five days following September 11th, even if initially uttered by Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq on Fox News, reflect a gross insensitivity to the newly dead victims, some of whom still lay under the smoldering rubble at Ground Zero. And some of Reverend Wright's remarks, no matter how generous an interpretation we accord them, are simply beyond the pale of civilized discourse in America. In Obama's own words during Tuesday's speech, he notes that
"the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country--a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."
And yet Obama still cannot find it in himself to do what would be the truly courageous thing and say that as painful and difficult as it is, I must sever my ties with this former spiritual mentor of mine. Perhaps it is because Obama finds himself in an insuperable dilemma of his own making. He has called Wright his inspiration and as recently as January 2007, he told the Chicago Tribune:
"What I most value about Pastor Wright is not his day to day political advice. He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics."
That is the same man whom Obama now tells us he strongly disagrees with and whom he has publicly censured. Yet until the recent firestorm, Obama has seen Wright as a central figure in his life, a spiritual mentor and guide. And what is a spiritual advisor if not someone who imparts the totality of his worldview? And if that worldview is as tainted with bigotry and hysteria as any sober reading of many of Wright's sermons suggest, how can it not contaminate Obama's political worldview?
Obama may have initially selected Trinity Church as his place of worship for many reasons, and no doubt it has helped shore up his support and credibility within the black community of Chicago (and beyond) where he has done important work as a community activist and leader. But he is now playing on a national stage and he must assure all Americans, white, black, Muslim, and Asian of where he stands. That podium has no room for the likes of Reverend Wright, and Obama should say so unequivocally.
Obama can't continue to have it both ways. Pronouncing what is good and great about America is incompatible with maintaining an alliance with a man and a church that gave its most prestigious award last year, the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness," Louis Farrakhan. Without dwelling on the obvious, for most Americans, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, especially in its anti-Semitic manifestation. One only need ponder how it would be received if a Jewish presidential candidate had as his twenty-year long rabbi and spiritual mentor a religious leader who gave the synagogue's 'Man of the Year Award' to Meir Kahane.
Obama must clearly articulate to the American public where he chooses to align himself, if it is not already too late. And he must do this with more than words. He must take decisive actions, starting by severing his ties with Wright and publicly leaving Trinity to put to rest the nagging doubts that many of us still harbor. Those actions, even if largely symbolic, would truly reflect a 'profile in courage.' While words and ideas have enormous power and can inspire us to greatness, it is ultimately our actions that determine who we are and how we should be judged. Obama must still more fully answer the questions of who he is and what he stands for. Only decisive actions can accomplish that task.
david brumer
seattle
Click Here to Read More..
Posts
