Settlements and the American Tax Code

The New York Times has an interesting and troubling article about American tax-exempt charities used to strengthen settlement building in the West Bank. These right-wingers successfully circumvent both Israeli and American law: Israel-based charities are not allowed to finance activity in settlements that are illegal under Israeli law; donations to foreign charities aren't tax-exempt in the United States; and US-based charities aren't allowed to serve as front groups for foreign charities. Yet, even though these organizations seem to be violating all these things, they are free to operate and not pay a dime to the United States Treasury.

If the United States Congress really cares about Israel, it should change the tax code so that groups would not be allowed to promote illegal settlement building, or at the very least will have to pay taxes, thereby reducing their available money. These outposts are an obstacle to peace, and are not only unjust to Palestinians, but their existence is also against Israel's interests.

Unfortunately, I don't see Congress acting, especially not before the mid-term elections.

Gilad Shalit and Bowe Bergdahl

Sometimes, visiting blogs I don't agree with can bring up interesting information. On a visit to Mondoweiss, I learned that Congress has passed a resolution calling for the release of Gilad Shalit. The writer of the post, Jeffrey Blankfort, asks when was the last time Congress passed a resolution referring to an American soldier. He has a point.

Congress is trying to show support for Israel by calling for Gilad Shalit's release, and I have no problem with the resolution. But Congress should have also called for the release of captive American and allied servicemen in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One commenter on Mondoweiss had this to say:

How about someone important publicly asking Mike Oren, with an eye toward embarassing that robo-likudist, if the Israeli Knessett has any plans to introduce a resolution calling upon the Talibanists in Afghanistan to release PFC Bowe Bergdahl?

That's actually not a bad idea at all. The Knesset should thank Congress by reciprocating and calling for the release of all captured US soldiers. Sure, the Taliban won't listen to Israel, but neither is Hamas listening to Congress. These would be American and Israeli unhelpful (but unharmful) non-binding resolutions in support of each other's captive soldiers.

In a way, I think the US's approach towards its M.I.A's is much healthier than Israel's. Here people call 23-year old Gilad Shalit "the child of us all" and press the government to agree to all of Hamas's demands, including the release of the worst, most dangerous terrorists who are certain to return to plotting attacks against civilians. "What if it were your son being held captive?" supporters of the deal ask Prime Minister Netanyahu (one could just as well ask "What if it were your son killed by a terrorist released in the deal?") Civilians are willing to risk dying at the hands of a released murderer in exchange for Shalit, forgetting that it is the job of soldiers to protect civilians, not the other way around.

Americans don't know who Bowe Bergdahl is. He is being held captive by the Taliban. Nobody is thinking of swapping hundreds and thousands of Taliban terrorists for him. If the Taliban wants to gain something from his capture, its demands need to be modest, or they will not be met by the Obama administration. In the Shalit case, though, Hamas knows it can increase its demands because it just might get its way thanks to public pressure. Netanyahu's steadfastness on this issue is one of the very few policies of his that I support.

Positive Signs in the West Bank

It is well-known that there is an economic boom in the West Bank. Unfortunately, our government isn't going to seize this opportunity - having a peaceful, stable and moderate Palestinian society with something lose if violence breaks out again - to come any closer to peace.

Thomas Friedman writes about the Palestinian economy in today's op-ed in the New York Times. I think the most significant paragraph is this one:

The most important thing President Obama can do when he meets Israel’s prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, on July 6 is to nudge him to begin gradually ceding control of major West Bank Palestinian cities to the Palestinian Authority so that Fayyad can show his people, as he puts it, that what he is building is an independent state “not an exercise in adapting to the permanence of occupation” — and so that Israel can test if the new Palestinian security forces really can keep the peace without Israel making nighttime raids. Nothing would strengthen Fayyadism more than that.

Would Netanyahu do such a thing as an interim step? I don't think so, but one hopes Obama might convince him.

Let's Return to Pre-1967 Zionism

Here's an interesting opinion piece from today's Haaretz:

Before and after 1967 (source in Hebrew and in English):

The wrongs committed after 1967 threaten the justice of Zionism in its entirety, while pre-'67 wrongs were wrongs of particular moves in the realization of Zionism.

By Chaim Gans

The members of a bizarre coalition of pro-settlement right-wingers (for example, the late Yosef Ben-Shlomo, and Israel Harel, long may he live) and the anti-Zionist left (recently, Yehouda Shenhav) are united in one claim. They hold that the Zionist left's support for the pre-1967 borders, and its sharp opposition to the settlements since, are hypocritical and inconsistent. The inconsistency, they say, is that Zionism has been settling at the Arab's expense since it began - not only since 1967.

In addition, they claim that even if the post-'67 settlements are the basis of unjust acts, Zionism committed many more injustices in 1948 and the following decade. At that time it not only settled on private land belonging to Palestinians, it also uprooted masses of people from their homes and refused to allow them to return.

But the position of the Zionist left is far from inconsistent. There is a huge gap between the post-'67 settlements and the injustices perpetrated by Zionism until then; the wrongs committed after 1967 threaten the justice of Zionism in its entirety, while pre-'67 wrongs were wrongs of particular moves in the realization of Zionism.

The source of this distinction is of course the well-known distinction between the jus ad bellum and jus in bello. There is no contradiction between the claim that Britain's bombing of Dresden during World War II was a criminal act and the claim that this criminality represented a step taken in a just war - even a sublimely just war, the war against Nazism.

We must acknowledge the great injustices committed by Zionism up to 1967. We have to take responsibility for them (via reparations ) - mainly for the expulsion of refugees. We must also acknowledge the high price the Palestinians paid for the realization of Zionism, even when Zionism did not commit injustices against them. But none of these admissions undermines the justice of Zionism in the least. For in 1948, Zionism realized the right of Jews to self-determination - after a history of persecution that created a necessity to implement the right to a historic homeland. The justice of this Zionism is sublime, even though crimes were committed during its realization.

The post-'67 settlements (in contrast to just an Israeli military presence in the territories ) cannot be justified on the basis of the needs of a persecuted nation. The settlements are the bases for the continuing injustices committed by a powerful state. These wrongs are being carried out many decades after the persecution of the Jews ended. They are in effect acts of persecution committed by Jews against Arabs with the backing of the Jewish state. So the Zionism in whose name they are carried out cannot be considered just.

Zionism cannot be just if it is a proprietary movement representing the so-called "generations of the Jewish people" to acquire the deed to the entire Land of Israel and Jerusalem - the way the right wing justifies the settlements and its opposition to the construction freeze in the territories and Jerusalem. Zionism can be just only if it is an existential movement of Jews interested as individuals in maintaining their culture and living in their homeland without being persecuted. This justification supports the Zionism that existed before 1967. But not after. The settlements are therefore criminal not only in isolation. They deny Zionism of its justice as a whole.

They deny not only the justice of its present and future, they also deny the justice of its past. The acts that were committed by Zionism up to 1967 - including its criminal acts - do not have these implications. Therefore, we must return to 1967. Not because of demographics. For the sake of justice.

Extremist Kenneth O'Keefe

BBC's HARDtalk just introduced me to one of the world's most bizzare characters. Tattooed, crazy-eyed ex-US Marine (and ex-US citizen) Kenneth O'Keefe was interviewed about the events onboard the Mavi Marmara, which he witnessed first hand as one of the pro-Palestinian passengers. [Update: video available after the jump]. The guy is mad as hell at Israel and the world at large.

O'Keefe is a one-stater who dismisses Qasam and Grad rockets as "glorified firecrackers". He said he's willing to die for his cause. He's so extreme he renounced his American citizenship. In the interview, he said he did so because the United States violated human rights, so I assumed this came after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to O'Keefe's website, this is not the case. He renounced his citizenship six months before 9/11, and accepted "Hawaiian [Kingdom] citizenship" (which, of course, does not exist), as part of his battle for Hawaiian independence, an idea which I doubt most Hawaiians support. He also believes the United States is engaged in genocide against native Hawaiians.

On a different front, O'Keefe organized "Human Shield Action to Iraq", which was meant to prevent the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many criticized it as protecting Saddam Hussein's regime rather than Iraqi civilians.

The more interviews this aggressive nut gives, the better for Israel. He's not likeable at all, in contrast with some of the softer-spoken pro-Palestinian activists such as Huwaida Arraf. I don't think he convinced a lot of people who aren't die-hard anti-Israel/anti-Western activists as it is.

A self-proclaimed anti-Imperialism activist who is an ex-Marine: doesn't that sound like a James Bond villain?

Reminder: Ken O'Keefe's interview on BBC's HARDtalk after the jump (video via the blog Jews sans frontieres, which takes the exact opposite view from me on this). Judge for yourselves.

Stop the Lebanese Flotilla

A new flotilla is about to set sail for Gaza from Lebanon. Another one might come soon from Iran. These are terrorist-harboring nations, the very people we Israelis don't want Hamas to be able to be in contact with for fear of arms smuggling. Iranian and Lebanese ships must not be allowed to reach Gaza.

These flotillas are very different from last month's Turkish flotilla. Then, there were hundreds of naive peace activists onboard and a few dozen violent provocation activists. Here, the ships will be manned solely by provocateurs and chances are higher that there will be Hamas-bound weapons as part of the cargo. Had we dealt with the previous flotilla in a smarter way, avoided casualties and an international outcry, the Lebanese and Iranians maybe wouldn't have even thought of sending their own "aid".

Some fear that intercepting enemy ships (and this time, that is exactly what they are) might start a war with Lebanon and Iran. I doubt that will be the case. Neither of them have any interest in a war. That is especially true about Iran, who knows that declaring war on Israel and firing missiles on it would give a green light to Israel, and possibly the United States, to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. After all, if fear of being bombed by Iran is what keeps us from taking action, we'll have no reason not to do it anymore.

Saudi Arabian Searches for Jewish Genome "Hoax"

I'm sometimes very happy to have my Lijit Widget (see it on the left). It shows me how people reached my blog and from where on the globe, and sometimes I have interesting visitors. One of my latest readers hails from Riyad, Saudi Arabia and reached this site by searching for "hoax the genome-wide structure of the Jewish people". I shouldn't reach conclusions based on one internet user, but I must say I'm not surprised that the recent studies showing a genetic link between different Jewish communities around the world would automatically be seen as hoaxes by certain people in the Arab world.

Take This, Shlomo Sand!

Two new studies published in Nature and in the American Journal of Human Genetics prove that Jews worldwide are related to each other and are of Middle Eastern origins. Except for Jews from Ethiopia, Georgia, and certain communities in India, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews are much more similar to each other and to Middle Eastern populations than to local non-Jewish populations.

Read about it in the New York Times, or read the abstracts and articles themselves:

"The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people" in Nature:

Contemporary Jews comprise an aggregate of ethno-religious communities whose worldwide members identify with each other through various shared religious, historical and cultural traditions. Historical evidence suggests common origins in the Middle East, followed by migrations leading to the establishment of communities of Jews in Europe, Africa and Asia, in what is termed the Jewish Diaspora. This complex demographic history imposes special challenges in attempting to address the genetic structure of the Jewish people. Although many genetic studies have shed light on Jewish origins and on diseases prevalent among Jewish communities, including studies focusing on uniparentally and biparentally inherited markers, genome-wide patterns of variation across the vast geographic span of Jewish Diaspora communities and their respective neighbours have yet to be addressed. Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations. In contrast, Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in Ethiopia and western India, respectively, despite a clear paternal link between the Bene Israel and the Levant. These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant.

"Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry" in the American Journal of Human Genetics:

For more than a century, Jews and non-Jews alike have tried to define the relatedness of contemporary Jewish people. Previous genetic studies of blood group and serum markers suggested that Jewish groups had Middle Eastern origin with greater genetic similarity between paired Jewish populations. However, these and successor studies of monoallelic Y chromosomal and mitochondrial genetic markers did not resolve the issues of within and between-group Jewish genetic identity. Here, genome-wide analysis of seven Jewish groups (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek, and Ashkenazi) and comparison with non-Jewish groups demonstrated distinctive Jewish population clusters, each with shared Middle Eastern ancestry, proximity to contemporary Middle Eastern populations, and variable degrees of European and North African admixture. Two major groups were identified by principal component, phylogenetic, and identity by descent (IBD) analysis: Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews. The IBD segment sharing and the proximity of European Jews to each other and to southern European populations suggested similar origins for European Jewry and refuted large-scale genetic contributions of Central and Eastern European and Slavic populations to the formation of Ashkenazi Jewry. Rapid decay of IBD in Ashkenazi Jewish genomes was consistent with a severe bottleneck followed by large expansion, such as occurred with the so-called demographic miracle of population expansion from 50,000 people at the beginning of the 15th century to 5,000,000 people at the beginning of the 19th century. Thus, this study demonstrates that European/Syrian and Middle Eastern Jews represent a series of geographical isolates or clusters woven together by shared IBD genetic threads.

I wonder what Shlomo Sand thinks about this. His main argument in "The Invention of the Jewish People" is that modern Jews aren't related to the ancient Jews of the Kingdoms of Israel & Judea, but rather are made up of unrelated groups of peoples who converted to Judaism over the centuries, and that most Ashkenazi Jews descend from the Turkic Khazars. Sand's theory, often used by anti-Zionists to delegitimize the state of Israel, has just been proven false once again.

"Happy" Anniversary

Today is my blog's 7th birthday. More importantly, it is the 43rd anniversary of the Six Day War (or of Day 2 of 6, to be exact). The war itself was justified, as was taking control over the territories we conquered. It was the colonization and the idea that we'll never leave that were the problem.

At the time, we didn't have any negotiating partners in the Arab world. The Arab League's summit in Khartoum in August 1967 declared "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel", and vowed to continue fighting for the destruction of the Jewish State. If the Israeli leaders of the time had been smart, they would have created a Palestinian autonomy right then and treated the people of the West Bank and Gaza much better than the Jordanians and Egyptians had treated them. They'd rebuild their lives and their economy until the Palestinians would be stable enough to have their own state.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened and we're still in control of the West Bank, and a band of terrorists is in control of Gaza. Despite everybody knowing what the solution should be, nobody seems to be honestly working toward that solution.

Will last week's flotilla fiasco push the Israeli and Palestinian governments in the right direction? I doubt it. Things will probably get much worse now. Israel is on a collision course with Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is said to be considering "breaking the siege" in person, with Turkish navy ships protecting him. Nothing good can come of this.

This was quite a pessimistic post, but let's end it on a lighter note:

Raed Salah, Violent Turks and Violent Knesset Members

In a television interview today, Sheikh Raed Salakh, the radical Islamic cleric, claimed that Israeli soldiers shot one of the people onboard the Marmara because they thought it was him. Interestingly, he called his doppleganger a soldier, a "jundi" in Arabic. Would he call a peace activist, or even an unarmed pro-Gaza activist, a "soldier"? A few of the other passengers on the ship talked about becoming Shaheeds, martyrs. One even expressed regret for surviving.

Foolishly, all the Turkish citizens arrested on the flotilla were sent back to Turkey. We should have deported only those not involved in violence. Those who attacked our soldiers will now be able to join the Irish ship named after Rachel Corrie, which is currently docked in Turkey, and unless some kind of agreement between Israel, Ireland, the Free Gaza Movement and the crew of the Rachel Corrie is reached, they'll be able to attempt a repeat of the events of the Marmara.

I have to say that this whole flotilla thing is one case where I'm mad as hell at almost everyone involved, from the Israeli government to the anti-Israel "provocation activists". Yesterday, a few of our Knesset Members joined the list of people who piss me off. Yossi Sarid's reaction to the near-brawl and all the cursing was just perfect (the English version, unfortunately, dropped Sarid's lament in the end against the nationalism taking over the Knesset, by both Jews and Arabs).

Alleviate the Gaza Blockade, Don't Lift It

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was too defiant in his public statement yesterday, but he certainly was right about one thing - letting ships sail to Gaza freely would create an Iranian port on the Mediterranean Sea. Do all those demanding that Israel lift the blackade not realize that such a move would amount to giving Hamas a free pass to arm itself with thousands of missiles a day, or do they just not care?

Much of our policy is foolish. While we already do transport a lot of stuff into Gaza,  the list of items we don't allow into the territory seems quite random. Supplies without any military purposes should be allowed in, as should people who are not suspected terrorists. This isn't a free flow of people and goods, but it is a freer flow.

And by the way, Israel took the cargo from the "freedom flotilla" and loaded it on trucks. They're now stuck at the border with Gaza, because Hamas is the one who won't let it in. What the hell is up with that?

Israel Must Investigate Itself

Israel should not submit to an international investigation of the Gaza flotilla fiasco. It should conduct its own investigation. It should be a National Investigative Committee (ועדת חקירה ממלכתית), the highest, most independent sort of investigation, in which the government is the one who decides to establish it, but it is the chief justice of the Supreme Court who appoints its members. It can even have international observers, but the Israelis will be the ones conducting the investigation.

Investigations of lower stature are not enough. An investigation by the military won't have international credibility, and most importantly, wouldn't have the authority to look into the government ministers' decision-making process. A government-appointed committee wouldn't cut it either, unless it has exactly the same authority as a National Investigative Committee and its members can be trusted to be independent (this might be what happens in the end, if the law doesn't allow for a National Investigative Committee to have international observers).

It now seems that some cabinet members support a high-ranking investigation. Even Avigdor Lieberman is on board, so I'm pretty confident it won't be too long before the government decides to act.

Nobody Takes Responsibility

Today's Ha'aretz is the second annual Author's Edition, in which fiction writers and poets take over the newspaper for one day and report the (real) news. Etgar Keret's piece about trying to find someone to interview who would take responsibility for the flotilla fiasco is quite telling. In a normal country, at least one top ranking official would resign over such a fatal failure, but not in Israel.

With officials mum, journalists are told: Just watch the faces (source: English/Hebrew)
By Etgar Keret

At 7 A.M. yesterday, the newspaper called to tell me I would be its diplomatic correspondent for the day. They apologized for the early hour, but "after all, it's going to be a long day, not to say critical. We have nine killed, dozens wounded, denunciations from the whole world .... And today is the day when someone will have to take responsibility for this snafu."

They promised to set up an interview for me by 9 A.M. By 11 A.M., they still hadn't called back, so I called to see what was happening.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is still overseas, they explained; we're trying to get you an interview with another member of the forum of seven ministers that approved the raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla.

Another hour passed; still no word. I called again.

"Not for attribution, those guys from the septet are blaming the whole thing on the military," my editor said. "But none of them is willing to be interviewed by you" - except maybe Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon. But maybe, he suggested, Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor would agree to talk if you called him yourself.

So I called Meridor. He said he would love to talk to me, but his daughter was getting married that day. He didn't even plan to attend the meeting of the inner cabinet.

I told my editor. It's okay, he said, we have another idea: If the army is to blame, maybe it's better that you speak to a senior officer. "Give us 10 minutes and we'll get back to you."

An hour later I still hadn't heard back, so I called again.

"It's complicated," the editor said. "On the scene, they're saying that the military is furious at [Defense Minister Ehud] Barak, that he's the one who forced them to board the ship without Kalashnikovs. But we checked, and none of them has the courage to talk to the media, they're all afraid."

But don't worry, he added, we've had a brilliant idea: We'll arrange an interview with Ami Ayalon. As a former commander of both the navy and the naval commandos, he can comment knowledgeably on the military aspect, and as a former Labor Party minister and Knesset member, he knows all about party chairman Ehud Barak's tricks. And he's a leftist, so he won't be afraid to take on the government.

An hour later, when I hadn't heard back from the paper, I called again. Unfortunately, they said, Ayalon is abroad. So maybe it will have to be Ya'alon after all.

"But we're not wild about it," the editor added. "For an incident of this magnitude, it would be better for you to talk with someone a little more ... well, it's not important. But you know what? We have a new angle. We'll arrange an interview for you with one of the naval commandos who was there. One of them could give you the most authentic angle, from the field. If he can't tell you who's guilty, who can?"

Again, I waited an hour. Nothing. I called again. They said the interview with the commando wasn't going to happen. But Netanyahu is going to give a press conference, they said. It isn't definite yet, but really, he has no choice. "Give us just a few minutes to find out when exactly it's happening."

This time, they actually got back to me - and quickly.

"Netanyahu won't hold a press conference," my editor said. "The issues he could be asked about are critical to the country's future, and it's not appropriate for him to answer them off the cuff like that, still jet-lagged."

But don't worry, he added, we've thought of something else: We spoke to the defense minister's aide, and he said Barak would be willing to take you with him in his helicopter from Jerusalem to the naval commando base at Atlit. But you'll have to vanish as soon as you arrive, because the base is top secret.

"And during the flight he'll agree to answer questions?" I asked.

"Well, the thing is," the editor responded, "he'd love to answer, but it's impossible because there's noise in the helicopter .... But his aide says you can write down your impressions. You know, of the view, his facial expressions. We understand this isn't a lot, but it's still information. You can observe and interpret for our readers whether he looks more determined or more guilty."

"Enough!" I roared. "I've had it with all this nonsense. I don't want to look at Barak. I want to ask someone questions and get answers. And if only Bogey [Ya'alon] is prepared to talk, I want to talk with Bogey. The man is in the septet forum and he replaced Netanyahu as acting premier when he was abroad. He's ready to talk? Then I want to listen."

"Well, that's the thing," my editor said, sounding embarrassed. "It seems that even Bogey isn't willing to be interviewed today. It's strange. It's very unlike him."

"So what do you suggest I do?" I asked.

"Good question," he responded. "So we thought, why not leverage this? Stop running after them; we'll leave a few blank columns on the side and the readers can guess for themselves who's to blame for this screw-up."

More on the Flotilla Fiasco

As more information comes in, it is clear that there were some armed activists on the main ship that was raided by Israeli commandos today. There are reports that not only were the soldiers attacked with clubs, sticks and knives, they were also fired at. A few soldiers are in the hospital with gunshot wounds, and others with broken bones. One soldier was tossed off a deck and somehow survived.

Some people on the "Free Gaza" flotilla were true, albeit naive, peace activists. Some, on the other hand, were "provocation activists" and terrorists. I do believe that most of the peace activists didn't know that the provocation activists were armed, and I feel sorry for the real peaceniks who were killed or injured. I don't feel sorry for anyone who shot at the soldiers. If they were truly peaceful, they should have used passive resistance, as they had announed they would do.

There were reports that all armed activists were Arabs. It wouldn't surprise me if they were all Hamas militants who joined the flotilla for a chance to shoot Israeli soldiers, rather than to raise awareness or bring aid to Gaza.

Earlier today, I talked to an Arab Israeli friend and was surprised by how shocked he was by today's incident. Jewish Israelis are dismayed and worried about the implications of the high death toll, but his feelings seemed to go beyond that. He saw this as the end of any glimmer of hope for peace, which seems to me like quite an overreaction. Yes, the death toll is horrible, but it is just one incident, and most of the dead (and perhaps none - we don't know yet) aren't even Palestinians. I think that part of his reaction stemmed from reports that are now known to be false, that Sheikh Ra'ed Salah, the head of the Northern faction of the Islamic Movement was either critically injured or dead. Turns out Salah, one of the most radical leaders of the Arab citizens of Israel (he has called for an Intifadah within Israel to protect Al-Aqsa), is alive and well and ready for more anti-Israel provocations. I hope the fact he's still around will make Arabs in Israel feel a little less anxious.

The Flotilla Fiasco

What exactly happened when Israeli commandos took over the Pro-Gaza activists' boats is still murky. It is now clear that there are some deaths, though the number is quite uncertain, as reports range from 2 to 16. Israeli reports say the soldiers were attacked with clubs and knives and some activists tried to take over the soldiers' guns. That definitely contributed to the death toll.

Nobody is blameless in this fiasco. Israel's policy on the matter was ill advised from the beginning. The navy should have just allowed the boats to reach Gaza after an inspection of the cargo for weapons, though right now I'm not sure whether or not the provocation-seeking activists would have peacefully let the navy on board for such inspections.

The activists, on their part, wanted to make Israel look bad more than they wanted to bring aid to Gazans or to "break the siege". They claimed they come in peace and that they would not violently resist, but resist they did. Pictures coming via Turkish television show activists attacking soldiers with clubs. They didn't actually think they could win, repell the Israelis and then reach their destination. At least some of the activists, if not most of them, wanted there to be a riot to make Israel look as bad as possible.

If anything good will come of this terrible situation it will be that nobody but crazy people with suicidal tendencies will want to come on these publicity stunt boat rides, bringing aid that, for the most part, comes in via the Israel-Gaza border anyway.

The Role of the Anti-Defamation League

Following Peter Beinart's article in the New York Review of Books about the American Jewish establishment's blind support for Israeli governments (which I previously blogged about here), the NYRB has published an exchange between Beinart and Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League. I have to say that most of it isn't very interesting, because Foxman repeats the same thing we've heard time and time again, and Beinart repeats what he wrote in his article, what he said in his Bloggingheads debate with Eli Lake and his answers in today's Haaretz Q&A feature (which, for some reason, I could only find in Hebrew).

However, I did find the last two paragraphs of Beinart's response to Foxman noteworthy:

The ADL was founded “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” What I have always admired about that statement is its suggestion that to truly defend Jewish dignity, one must also defend the dignity of other vulnerable groups. At home, the ADL still honors that mission, working valiantly, for instance, against racial profiling in Arizona. But how can an organization that is so vigilant in opposing bigotry in the US be so complacent about a government shaped by men like Lieberman, Effi Eitam, and Ovadia Yosef? How can it not take its rightful place in the struggle on behalf of Palestinians evicted from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah?

When it comes to Israel, the ADL too often ignores the interconnectedness of Jewish and non-Jewish dignity. After all, the same sort of settler fanatics who burn Palestinian olive groves also assassinated an Israeli prime minister. The same ultra-Orthodox hooligans who burn Christian holy books also attack Jewish women trying to pray at the Western Wall. And the same Israeli government that demonizes Israeli Arabs also demonizes Israeli human rights groups. To be for ourselves, we must also be for others. I hope the ADL will live that ethic again.

Of all the organizations in the so-called "Israel Lobby", the ADL is probably the most problematic, in my opinion. As Beinart points out, its official purpose is "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” However, it also acts as a pro-Israel organization. Now, both roles are not only legitimate, but important. Fighting anti-Semitism is a worthy cause that can never end as long as anti-Jewish racism exists. Advocating for Israel, the state and its people rather than the government, is also important. The problem is that those two missions should not be undertaken by the same organization, because that would suggest that being anti-Israel or anti-Zionist, or even sometimes just an opponent of the current Israeli government, is equal to being anti-Semitic, and that isn't the case.

You might say that I'm unfairly singling out the ADL, since other Jewish organizations also blend fighting anti-Semitism with being pro-Israel. I'd say there's a big difference. The ADL's main purpose is defending Jews from discrimination and anti-Semitism. Other organizations, on the other hand, focus more on the internal workings of the Jewish community, rather than anti-Semitism. That makes them less problematic than the Anti-Defamation League, but of course it doesn't make Beinart's criticism of them any less relevant.

American Zionism and Israeli Democracy

There's an interesting Bloggingheads debate between Peter Beinart and Eli Lake, in which they debate a few aspects of Israel-U.S. relations. I found two parts of it particularly compelling. First, they discuss the growing gulf between American Jews, especially young ones, and Israel. Beinart recently wrote an excellent article on the subject in the New York Review of Books, where he explains that young liberal Jewish Americans don't see Israel as a liberal country and so don't identify with it, while most of the young people in the States who still feel a strong connection with the Jewish State are illiberal Orthodox Jews. He says that part of the problem is that the major Jewish organizations support anything Israel does, and so young Jews don't see that they can be both liberal and Zionist at the same time. I think his analysis of the situation is spot on.

The other part I found interesting was the question of whether Israel is becoming more and more illiberal and undemocratic. Here, again, I think Beinart is right that there are alarming signs, but I also believe Israeli democracy is still strong.

Eli Lake keeps saying to Beinart that he (Beinart) just isn't capable of reading Israeli politics. First of all, it is kind of rude to dismiss these arguments by basically saying "you're an idiot". Secondly, I'm an Israeli, meaning I'm probably better at understanding Israeli politics than Lake himself, and I agree with most of what Beinart says. Lake seems like such a douchebag (I love that word).

On a related note, French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy agrees with me about our democracy. He thinks our main problem is "small politicians".

Let Pro-Gaza Activists Through

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has announced that the hundreds of activists on the eight pro-Gaza ships headed towards the Strip will not be allowed to reach their destination. Instead, they will be rerouted to Ashdod, where the activists will be arrested and deported, while the aid itself will be inspected and then sent to Gaza through the UN.

Why do this? The fact that the materials will reach their destination will be drowned out by the pictures of hundreds of international activists being arrested. The activists will have gotten exactly what they wish - to make Israel look bad, which seems to be equally or more important to them than helping the Palestinians (otherwise, they'd take Noam Shalit up on his offer to support them and mediate with the government on their behalf in exchange for them delivering a letter and a package to his son Gilad, as reported by Ha'aretz).

I'd say the Israeli Navy should inspect the ships' cargo out at sea, and as long as there's no weaponry on board, allow the ships and activists to reach Gaza. That way, Israel avoids a PR disaster. Also, not detaining and deporting hundreds of people would save our treasury a fortune.

Umberto Eco Opposes the Boycott of Israel

Italian author Umberto Eco came out against the boycott of Israel in L'espresso. A full Hebrew translation is available here. I couldn't find a full English translation, but parts of it were published in the English edition of Ha'aretz:

"A brochure circulated in Turin by the Italian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel claims that most Israeli universities, academics and intellectuals have supported and are supporting their governments ... and that Israeli universities are used for the most important weapons development research programs, centered on nanotechnology and on technological and psychological means for subjugating and controlling the civilian population," Eco wrote in L'espresso magazine last weekend. "I don't remotely agree with the policy of the Israeli government ... but I find the claim that most Israeli academics are actively supportive of their governments to be deceitful."

"I would understand," Eco continued, "if the physics department at the University of Rome or at Oxford decided not to cooperate with their colleagues in the same departments at universities in Tehran or Pyongyang if it turned out that the latter were involved in developing a nuclear bomb. But I would still find it difficult to understand why these universities should also sever ties with the departments of Korean art history or classical Persian literature."

The Idiocy of the Chomsky Affair

Prof. Noam Chomsky should have been let into the West Bank. Yes, he's a harsh critic of Israel and yes, he has met with terrorists such as Hizbullah head Hassan Nassrallah, but he isn't a terrorist himself. During his visit to Birzeit University, there's no chance he'd do anything to aid Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any other violent group.

My main objection to Chomsky's denial of entry is on the grounds of freedom of speech, but those who don't care about silly things like rights should think about this: Not allowing someone into the Palestinian territories only because of the criticism of Israel he'd voice while there is ridiculous, since many of the locals say much worse things about Israel than he does. Not allowing a person into Israel proper (which wasn't the case with Chomsky, who was planning on visiting the West Bank only) is equally as dumb, since we have so many left wing professors saying terrible things about Israel at Israeli universities every day. Another reason that this is dumb is that a person denied entry like this usually gets more attention than a person who goes in.

Sometimes, denying someone entry is alright. Norman Finkelstein, who is much more extreme than Chomsky and seems committed to the destruction of Israel, was barred from entering Israel a few months ago and I think that in that case it was the correct decision. He's quite the rabble-rouser who could have actually incited Palestinians to act violently against Israel (and he's not against violence). Noam Chomsky ain't no rabble-rouser, and probably neither is the Spanish clown, Ivan Prado, who was denied entry at Ben-Gurion Airport last week.