I am not usually a fan of Uri Avneri, but he has risen in my opinion as a true 'mensch'. The whole 'peace movement' in Israel of which he is an active member, always seemed to me to be based on idealism without any practical solutions re getting the Arabs to accept the reality of Israel as a Jewish State and the Palestinians to forego conflict and terrorism. Their pressure seemed to be always on the Israeli government, never on the Palestinian Arabs.
In the following article however, after discussions with Desmond Tutu, Avneri explains the difference between the South Africans and Israelis and between the 2 countries and why apartheid is not really the case in Israel,-where the majority are after all the Jews, unlike the whites in Sth. Africa,- while the boycotts will only reinforce their Holocaust mentality re 'the whole world is against us, so what's new?' would be the reaction to boycotts.
(MM)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Uri Avnery
29.8.09
Tutu’s Prayer
HOW MUCH did the boycott of South Africa actually contribute to the fall of the racist regime? This week I talked with Desmond Tutu about this question, which has been on my mind for a long time.
No one is better qualified to answer this question than he. Tutu, the South African Anglican archbishop and Nobel prize laureate, was one of the leaders of the fight against apartheid and, later, the chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which investigated the crimes of the regime. This week he visited Israel with the “Elders”, an organization of elder statesmen from all over the world set up by Nelson Mandela.
The matter of the boycott came up again this week after an article by Dr. Neve Gordon appeared in the Los Angeles Times, calling for a world-wide boycott of Israel. He cited the example of South Africa to show how a world-wide boycott could compel Israel to put an end to the occupation, which he compared to the apartheid regime.
I have known and respected Neve Gordon for many years. Before becoming a lecturer at Ben Gurion University in Beersheba, he organized many demonstrations against the Separation Wall in the Jerusalem area, in which I, too, took part.
I am sorry that I cannot agree with him this time – neither about the similarity with South Africa nor about the efficacy of a boycott of Israel.
There are several opinions about the contribution of the boycott to the success of the anti-apartheid struggle. According to one view, it was decisive. Another view claims its impact was marginal. Some believe that it was the collapse of the Soviet Union that was the decisive factor. After that, the US and its allies no longer had any reason for support the regime in South Africa, which until then had been viewed as a pillar of the world-wide struggle against Communism.
“THE BOYCOTT was immensely important,” Tutu told me. “Much more than the armed struggle.”
It should be remembered that, unlike Mandela, Tutu was an advocate of non-violent struggle. During the 28 years Mandela languished in prison, he could have walked free at any moment, if he had only agreed to sign a statement condemning “terrorism”. He refused.
“The importance of the boycott was not only economic,” the archbishop explained, “but also moral. South Africans are, for example, crazy about sports. The boycott, which prevented their teams from competing abroad, hit them very hard. But the main thing was that it gave us the feeling that we are not alone, that the whole world is with us. That gave us the strength to continue.”
To show the importance of the boycott he told me the following story: In 1989, the moderate white leader, Frederic Willem de Klerk, was elected President of South Africa. Upon assuming office he declared his intention to set up a multiracial regime. “I called to congratulate him, and the first thing he said was: Will you now call off the boycott?”
IT SEEMS to me that Tutu’s answer emphasizes the huge difference between the South African reality at the time and ours today.
The South African struggle was between a large majority and a small minority. Among a general population of almost 50 million, the Whites amounted to less than 10%. That means that more than 90% of the country’s inhabitants supported the boycott, in spite of the argument that it hurt them, too.
In Israel, the situation is the very opposite. The Jews amount to more than 80% of Israel’s citizens, and constitute a majority of some 60% throughout the country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. 99.9% of the Jews oppose a boycott on Israel.
They will not feel the “the whole world is with us”, but rather that “the whole world is against us”.
In South Africa, the world-wide boycott helped in strengthening the majority and steeling it for the struggle. The impact of a boycott on Israel would be the exact opposite: it would push the large majority into the arms of the extreme right and create a fortress mentality against the “anti-Semitic world”. (The boycott would, of course, have a different impact on the Palestinians, but that is not the aim of those who advocate it.)
Peoples are not the same everywhere. It seems that the Blacks in South Africa are very different from the Israelis, and from the Palestinians, too. The collapse of the oppressive racist regime did not lead to a bloodbath, as could have been predicted, but on the contrary: to the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Instead of revenge, forgiveness. Those who appeared before the commission and admitted their misdeeds were pardoned. That was in tune with Christian belief, and that was also in tune with the Jewish Biblical promise: “Whoso confesseth and forsaketh [his sins] shall have mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13)
I told the bishop that I admire not only the leaders who chose this path but also the people who accepted it.
ONE OF the profound differences between the two conflicts concerns the Holocaust.
Centuries of pogroms have imprinted on the consciousness of the Jews the conviction that the whole world is out to get them. This belief was reinforced a hundredfold by the Holocaust. Every Jewish Israeli child learns in school that “the entire world was silent” when the six million were murdered. This belief is anchored in the deepest recesses of the Jewish soul. Even when it is dormant, it is easy to arouse it.
(That is the conviction which made it possible for Avigdor Lieberman, last week, to accuse the entire Swedish nation of cooperating with the Nazis, because of one idiotic article in a Swedish tabloid.)
It may well be that the Jewish conviction that “the whole world is against us” is irrational. But in the life of nations, as indeed in the life of individuals, it is irrational to ignore the irrational.
The Holocaust will have a decisive impact on any call for a boycott of Israel. The leaders of the racist regime in South Africa openly sympathized with the Nazis and were even interned for this in World War II. Apartheid was based on the same racist theories as inspired Adolf Hitler. It was easy to get the civilized world to boycott such a disgusting regime. The Israelis, on the other hand, are seen as the victims of Nazism. The call for a boycott will remind many people around the world of the Nazi slogan “Kauft nicht bei Juden!” - don’t buy from Jews.
That does not apply to every kind of boycott. Some 11 years ago, the Gush Shalom movement, in which I am active, called for a boycott of the product of the settlements. Its intention was to separate the settlers from the Israeli public, and to show that there are two kinds of Israelis. The boycott was designed to strengthen those Israelis who oppose the occupation, without becoming anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic. Since then, the European Union has been working hard to close the gates of the EU to the products of the settlers, and almost nobody has accused it of anti-Semitism.
ONE OF the main battlefields in our fight for peace is Israeli public opinion. Most Israelis believe nowadays that peace is desirable but impossible (because of the Arabs, of course.) We must convince them not that peace would be good for Israel, but that it is realistically achievable.
When the archbishop asked what we, the Israeli peace activists, are hoping for, I told him: We hope for Barack Obama to publish a comprehensive and detailed peace plan and to use the full persuasive power of the United States to convince the parties to accept it. We hope that the entire world will rally behind this endeavor. And we hope that this will help to set the Israeli peace movement back on its feet and convince our public that it is both possible and worthwhile to follow the path of peace with Palestine.
No one who entertains this hope can support the call for boycotting Israel. Those who call for a boycott act out of despair. And that is the root of the matter.
Neve Gordon and his partners in this effort have despaired of the Israelis. They have reached the conclusion that there is no chance of changing Israeli public opinion. According to them, no salvation will come from within. One must ignore the Israeli public and concentrate on mobilizing the world against the State of Israel. (Some of them believe anyhow that the State of Israel should be dismantled and replaced by a bi-national state.)
I do not share either view – neither the despair of the Israeli people, to which I belong, nor the hope that the world will stand up and compel Israel to change its ways against its will. For this to happen, the boycott must gather world-wide momentum, the US must join it, the Israeli economy must collapse and the morale of the Israeli public must break.
How long will this take? Twenty Years? Fifty years? Forever?
I AM afraid that this is an example of a faulty diagnosis leading to faulty treatment. To be precise: the mistaken assumption that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resembles the South African experience leads to a mistaken choice of strategy.
True, the Israeli occupation and the South African apartheid system have certain similar characteristics. In the West Bank, there are roads “for Israelis only”. But the Israeli policy is not based on race theories, but on a national conflict. A small but significant example: in South Africa, a white man and a black woman (or the other way round) could not marry, and sexual relations between them were a crime. In Israel there is no such prohibition. On the other hand, an Arab Israeli citizen who marries an Arab woman from the occupied territories (or the other way round) cannot bring his or her spouse to Israel. The reason: safeguarding the Jewish majority in Israel. Both cases are reprehensible, but basically different.
In South Africa there was total agreement between the two sides about the unity of the country. The struggle was about the regime. Both Whites and Blacks considered themselves South Africans and were determined to keep the country intact. The Whites did not want partition, and indeed could not want it, because their economy was based on the labor of the Blacks.
In this country, Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs have nothing in common – not a common national feeling, not a common religion, not a common culture and not a common language. The vast majority of the Israelis want a Jewish (or Hebrew) state. The vast majority of the Palestinians want a Palestinian (or Islamic) state. Israel is not dependent on Palestinian workers – on the contrary, it drives the Palestinians out of the working place. Because of this, there is now a world-wide consensus that the solution lies in the creation of the Palestinian state next to Israel.
In short: the two conflicts are fundamentally different. Therefore, the methods of struggle, too, must necessarily be different.
BACK TO the archbishop, an attractive person whom it is impossible not to like on sight. He told me that he prays frequently, and that his favorite prayer goes like this (I quote from memory):
“Dear God, when I am wrong, please make me willing to see my mistake. And when I am right – please make me tolerable to live with.”
**********
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
.ADDING INSULT TO INJURY? Freedom of speech vs. hate speech.
Israelis in public life and various self-appointed Jewish spokespeople in Israeli NGOs seem to relish the freedom of speech which their democracy allows them. But Israel is not a Western democracy in peaceful coexistence with its neighbours, nor are its Jewish citizens accorded the respect in the world that their status as citizens of a democratic country should receive. Why?
Firstly because they are Jews. Secondly because they are Jews in an Islamic neighbourhood. Thirdly because it is a Jewish State which has shown itself to be resilient and successful, in spite of all the odds stacked against it.
Yet there are those Jewish Israelis who still take it all for granted.They practice subversion in their public utterances, giving succour to the traditional antisemites (see below re Sweden) and the current enemies of the Jews. In other words, in the name of 'freedom of speech', or 'academic freedom'(see also Haaretz article re LA OpED),it is allowable to practice incitement: to hatred, to 'divestment', to anti-Israel'boycotts' of all kinds, all of which constitute virtual traitorous behaviour in the eyes of their countrymen and women who value the Jewish ideal of the State of Israel.Do they have to be accepted without question and without repercussion from employers, the state or other responsible authorities in the name of 'freedom of speech'?
Israeli institutions, such as Universities, are very dependent on overseas funding from generous donors who are sympathetic to Israel as a Jewish State. Those are people who are committed to the survival and prosperity of the Jewish State first and foremost and for the purpose of 'the ingathering of the exiles'in the Jewish State. They accept that Israel tries as best it can to be a democracy and to conduct itself according to Jewish values in a sea of nations with totally different standards and values. It will have its weaknesses, but it also has to defend itself from enemies outside its borders,from potential Arab collaborators/5-th columnists within its borders, but it should not need to also put up with its own Jewish and supposed intellectuals as teachers to the young who act in concert with outside enemies, on top of it.
The only reliable supporters of the Jewish State are the Jews in the diaspora. Once it ceases to be 'Jewish', that support can and will cease overnight,- I guarantee it!
Those Israeli citizens (and some diaspora Jews) who think that they can avoid their 'Jewishness' and become just simple 'Israelis' in a State which will demographically change its Jewish status, had better forget the survival of an "Israel'as a state. The notion of a 'bi-national state' of Moslems and Jews will end up in the same way as the previous East Timor, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, the Communist Soviet Union, etc.
'Apartheid' Israel? Who is kidding whom? The whole world is divided in apartheid blocs.Minority South African whites might have tried to rule the majority blacks with apartheid laws,- but now the majority rules. In Israel, the majority also rules,- they happen to be Jewish. Bad luck for those who don't like us Jews! We are a minority everywhere else,- one tiny bit of land we want to claim as our own where we can be a majority and even that sticks in everyone's throat,- including a few stupid Israelis and other Jews!Shame on them!
And pity the Arab Palestinians who are full of hatred instead of a 'love thy neighbour' type of culture. Treat the Jewish State as the 'welcome visitor' to your neighbourhood and share in the common prosperity which would ensue from friendly collaboration instead of inimical confrontation! Enough of the perpetual victimhood of the 'refugees'. We are all former refugees from one country or another,- the West is awash with refugees from the Moslem countries. They run away from there to seek better lives anywhere in the West. Only the Palestinians are kept in perpetual limbo by their own kith and kin. When will they say: 'enough!- let's make peace and start living a normal life?' May it be sooner rather than later for everyone's sake.
MM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOOD LIBEL REVISITED IN SWEDEN.
Honest Reporting released a report entitled: Outrage: IDF Accused of “Harvesting Palestinian Organs”. The accuser was Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet. Under the headline “They plunder the organ of our sons”, the report claimed that young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been taken away in the night by the IDF only to be returned later, with missing organs. The families’ claim that the bodies had been completely stitched up and that the Israelis claimed that the bodies had been autopsied.
The article was criticised internally by another major daily newspaper in Sweden, Sydsvenskan, with an opinion piece entitled ‘Antisemitbladet' which exposed the story for exactly what it was:
“We have heard the story before, in one form or the other. It follows the traditional pattern of conspiracy theory: a great number of loose threads that the theorist tempts the reader to tie into a neat knot… Whispers in the dark. Anonymous sources. Rumors. That is all it takes… Now all that remains is the defense, equally predictable: ‘Anti-Semitism’ No, no, just criticism of Israel”.
Sweden’s ambassador to Israel, Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier, issued a press release stating, “The article… is as shocking and appalling to us Swedes, as it is to Israeli citizens… Just as in Israel, freedom of the press prevails in Sweden… However, freedom of the press and freedom of expression are freedoms which carry a certain responsibility” (see more).
Regrettably, the Foreign Ministry in Sweden sought to distance itself from Borsiin Bonnier’s comments and refused to condemn the offending article.
Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated, “It’s a shame that the Swedish Foreign Ministry doesn’t intervene in cases of blood libels against Jews ... The article published this week is a natural outgrowth of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and blood libels in which Jews were accused of adding the blood of Christian children to the Passover matzahs” (see more).
Today’s Australian newspaper ties this whole sorry saga together in an article by Abraham Rabinovich entitled ‘Israel and Sweden in diplomatic crisis over organ claim’. It exposes the double standards of the Swedish newspaper, citing past examples including the issue of the Danish cartoons criticizing Islam a few years ago, where Aftonbladet did not re-publish the cartoons, declaring that on sensitive subjects they must act with restraint to avoid harming segments of the population.
Obviously the publication of unfounded libels about organ theft carried out by the Israeli army is not considered harmful to the Jewish people.
In the meantime, the journalist, Donald Bostrum, acknowledged that the families claiming the IDF had stolen organs never had their own autopsies carried out to confirm these suspicions. So basically, this whole controversy has emerged over an article that claims one thing, but has absolutely no evidence to back it up. This shows that the man knows very little about responsible investigative journalism and is more concerned with his own agenda.
And just to prove the point to those who are more discerning than your average reader of Aftonbladet, that paper has made a second attempt to cover the issue, not backtracking or apologising but rather trying to present “additional information”. The article entitled ‘Mother never stopped suffering, she never stopped wondering’ makes similar claims about an incident from 1992, where a Palestinian man was killed in a clash with Israeli soldiers. His body was allegedly returned several days later, at a cost of NIS 5,000, with a scar running from his neck down to the abdomen (see more).
It was not expected that the issue would go as far as it has between the two countries. In an Op-Ed for Ynet entitled ‘How childish are we?’, Adi Dvir suggests that if the report was initially ignored it would have “passed silently away, like the puff of hot air it so obviously impersonates”. Perhaps he is right, but it is important, no matter how ridiculous a claim may be, to address them. Otherwise, the world will simply continue to perpetuate centuries-old slander relating to the blood libel.
(E.C. SZCV)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1109275.html Last update - 01:29 23/08/2009
L.A. Jews mull boycott of Israel university over 'apartheid' op-ed
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
Members of the Los Angeles Jewish community have threatened to withhold
donations to an Israeli university in protest of an op-ed published by a
prominent Israeli academic in the Los Angeles Times on Friday, in which he
called to boycott Israel economically, culturally and politically.
Dr. Neve Gordon of Ben-Gurion University in Be'er Sheva, a veteran peace
activist, branded Israel as an apartheid state and said that a boycott was
"the only way to save it from itself."
Gordon, a political scientist, said that "apartheid state" is the most
accurate way to describe Israel today.(see article for more).
Firstly because they are Jews. Secondly because they are Jews in an Islamic neighbourhood. Thirdly because it is a Jewish State which has shown itself to be resilient and successful, in spite of all the odds stacked against it.
Yet there are those Jewish Israelis who still take it all for granted.They practice subversion in their public utterances, giving succour to the traditional antisemites (see below re Sweden) and the current enemies of the Jews. In other words, in the name of 'freedom of speech', or 'academic freedom'(see also Haaretz article re LA OpED),it is allowable to practice incitement: to hatred, to 'divestment', to anti-Israel'boycotts' of all kinds, all of which constitute virtual traitorous behaviour in the eyes of their countrymen and women who value the Jewish ideal of the State of Israel.Do they have to be accepted without question and without repercussion from employers, the state or other responsible authorities in the name of 'freedom of speech'?
Israeli institutions, such as Universities, are very dependent on overseas funding from generous donors who are sympathetic to Israel as a Jewish State. Those are people who are committed to the survival and prosperity of the Jewish State first and foremost and for the purpose of 'the ingathering of the exiles'in the Jewish State. They accept that Israel tries as best it can to be a democracy and to conduct itself according to Jewish values in a sea of nations with totally different standards and values. It will have its weaknesses, but it also has to defend itself from enemies outside its borders,from potential Arab collaborators/5-th columnists within its borders, but it should not need to also put up with its own Jewish and supposed intellectuals as teachers to the young who act in concert with outside enemies, on top of it.
The only reliable supporters of the Jewish State are the Jews in the diaspora. Once it ceases to be 'Jewish', that support can and will cease overnight,- I guarantee it!
Those Israeli citizens (and some diaspora Jews) who think that they can avoid their 'Jewishness' and become just simple 'Israelis' in a State which will demographically change its Jewish status, had better forget the survival of an "Israel'as a state. The notion of a 'bi-national state' of Moslems and Jews will end up in the same way as the previous East Timor, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, the Communist Soviet Union, etc.
'Apartheid' Israel? Who is kidding whom? The whole world is divided in apartheid blocs.Minority South African whites might have tried to rule the majority blacks with apartheid laws,- but now the majority rules. In Israel, the majority also rules,- they happen to be Jewish. Bad luck for those who don't like us Jews! We are a minority everywhere else,- one tiny bit of land we want to claim as our own where we can be a majority and even that sticks in everyone's throat,- including a few stupid Israelis and other Jews!Shame on them!
And pity the Arab Palestinians who are full of hatred instead of a 'love thy neighbour' type of culture. Treat the Jewish State as the 'welcome visitor' to your neighbourhood and share in the common prosperity which would ensue from friendly collaboration instead of inimical confrontation! Enough of the perpetual victimhood of the 'refugees'. We are all former refugees from one country or another,- the West is awash with refugees from the Moslem countries. They run away from there to seek better lives anywhere in the West. Only the Palestinians are kept in perpetual limbo by their own kith and kin. When will they say: 'enough!- let's make peace and start living a normal life?' May it be sooner rather than later for everyone's sake.
MM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOOD LIBEL REVISITED IN SWEDEN.
Honest Reporting released a report entitled: Outrage: IDF Accused of “Harvesting Palestinian Organs”. The accuser was Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet. Under the headline “They plunder the organ of our sons”, the report claimed that young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been taken away in the night by the IDF only to be returned later, with missing organs. The families’ claim that the bodies had been completely stitched up and that the Israelis claimed that the bodies had been autopsied.
The article was criticised internally by another major daily newspaper in Sweden, Sydsvenskan, with an opinion piece entitled ‘Antisemitbladet' which exposed the story for exactly what it was:
“We have heard the story before, in one form or the other. It follows the traditional pattern of conspiracy theory: a great number of loose threads that the theorist tempts the reader to tie into a neat knot… Whispers in the dark. Anonymous sources. Rumors. That is all it takes… Now all that remains is the defense, equally predictable: ‘Anti-Semitism’ No, no, just criticism of Israel”.
Sweden’s ambassador to Israel, Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier, issued a press release stating, “The article… is as shocking and appalling to us Swedes, as it is to Israeli citizens… Just as in Israel, freedom of the press prevails in Sweden… However, freedom of the press and freedom of expression are freedoms which carry a certain responsibility” (see more).
Regrettably, the Foreign Ministry in Sweden sought to distance itself from Borsiin Bonnier’s comments and refused to condemn the offending article.
Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated, “It’s a shame that the Swedish Foreign Ministry doesn’t intervene in cases of blood libels against Jews ... The article published this week is a natural outgrowth of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and blood libels in which Jews were accused of adding the blood of Christian children to the Passover matzahs” (see more).
Today’s Australian newspaper ties this whole sorry saga together in an article by Abraham Rabinovich entitled ‘Israel and Sweden in diplomatic crisis over organ claim’. It exposes the double standards of the Swedish newspaper, citing past examples including the issue of the Danish cartoons criticizing Islam a few years ago, where Aftonbladet did not re-publish the cartoons, declaring that on sensitive subjects they must act with restraint to avoid harming segments of the population.
Obviously the publication of unfounded libels about organ theft carried out by the Israeli army is not considered harmful to the Jewish people.
In the meantime, the journalist, Donald Bostrum, acknowledged that the families claiming the IDF had stolen organs never had their own autopsies carried out to confirm these suspicions. So basically, this whole controversy has emerged over an article that claims one thing, but has absolutely no evidence to back it up. This shows that the man knows very little about responsible investigative journalism and is more concerned with his own agenda.
And just to prove the point to those who are more discerning than your average reader of Aftonbladet, that paper has made a second attempt to cover the issue, not backtracking or apologising but rather trying to present “additional information”. The article entitled ‘Mother never stopped suffering, she never stopped wondering’ makes similar claims about an incident from 1992, where a Palestinian man was killed in a clash with Israeli soldiers. His body was allegedly returned several days later, at a cost of NIS 5,000, with a scar running from his neck down to the abdomen (see more).
It was not expected that the issue would go as far as it has between the two countries. In an Op-Ed for Ynet entitled ‘How childish are we?’, Adi Dvir suggests that if the report was initially ignored it would have “passed silently away, like the puff of hot air it so obviously impersonates”. Perhaps he is right, but it is important, no matter how ridiculous a claim may be, to address them. Otherwise, the world will simply continue to perpetuate centuries-old slander relating to the blood libel.
(E.C. SZCV)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1109275.html Last update - 01:29 23/08/2009
L.A. Jews mull boycott of Israel university over 'apartheid' op-ed
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
Members of the Los Angeles Jewish community have threatened to withhold
donations to an Israeli university in protest of an op-ed published by a
prominent Israeli academic in the Los Angeles Times on Friday, in which he
called to boycott Israel economically, culturally and politically.
Dr. Neve Gordon of Ben-Gurion University in Be'er Sheva, a veteran peace
activist, branded Israel as an apartheid state and said that a boycott was
"the only way to save it from itself."
Gordon, a political scientist, said that "apartheid state" is the most
accurate way to describe Israel today.(see article for more).
Monday, August 17, 2009
Jewish and democratic: is it possible for Israel?
(From Drt. Zohar Raviv's lecture and published paper for the Florence Melton Adult Mini-School, currently in Melbourne.)
Israel's Declaration of Independence reads:"The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books… We….hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish State in the Land of Israel, to be known as the State of Israel."
Raviv contends that the above is a result of the uniqueness of Judaism which cannot be confined to religious terminologies as are other systems of faith. Judaism is not solely a religious system but rather a religious skeleton fortified by a national backbone whose raison d'etre was and continues to be relationship between the People, the Torah and the Land of Israel,- the first two inextricably entwined with the latter. (The aborigines may be the only ones who feel this connection to their land,- but for the Jewish people it is in the Torah as a covenant with God,-i.e. the land not the people!) He calls it 'theography', not geography being the most important aspect of the Jewish state of Israel!
Can Israel sustain a democracy on the Western model while retaining its unique Jewish character? Raviv contends that it is impossible to superimpose foreign models of democracy, with their separation of religion and state,- over the Israeli conceptual backbone. Rather it should concentrate on articulating and realizing a model that accepts the Jewish skeleton of the state as fundamental to its vision. This debate should be viewed by the Jewish citizens as a healthy part of its trajectory. For non-Jewish citizens, the unique condition of the Jewish state renders them equal in rights, but unequal in standing,- as controversial as this may be.
Raviv explains that (in his opinion),it is not possible for non-Jewish citizens to have the same affinity (cf. patriotism) for the symbols of the Jewish State such as its name, its anthem, its symbols in the flag, with its rights to sustain a Jewish majority, etc.. These are the quintessentials of all Western democracies, where there can be total separation of Church and State, but unrealistic in the Jewish State of Israel. Were these Jewish symnbolisms removed from Israel, then forget it as the Jewish State.
If one needed to choose between democracy and Jewishness in Israel,- some Western Jews would argue for democracy,- while the majority would argue for Jewishnes and democracy, (as long as the notion of equality of rights before the laws of the state are guaranteed and properly applied for all). However, as questioners in the lecturer's audience pointed out, for many Jewish secular Israelis, being an Israeli is enough. The 'Jewish' aspect is passed over as secondary or irrelevant. Raviv put it as a fault of the education system which failed or fails to emphasise Judaism without religious dogma.
What then will the future hold for the "Jewish State" in this case? Raviv has no answer,- he just left it for future researchers to address. In the diaspora communities such as in Melbourne, he feels the people feel more Jewish and connected to the Jewish state of Israel than many secular Israelis. He stated on previous occasions that our diaspora communities should build bridges with Israelis to teach them how to be Jewish in a multicultural democracy, rather than the reverse!
(Dr. Zohar Raviv is an Israel;i, now a resident of Chicago, where he is an author, teacher and academic in Jewish Studies.)
Israel's Declaration of Independence reads:"The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books… We….hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish State in the Land of Israel, to be known as the State of Israel."
Raviv contends that the above is a result of the uniqueness of Judaism which cannot be confined to religious terminologies as are other systems of faith. Judaism is not solely a religious system but rather a religious skeleton fortified by a national backbone whose raison d'etre was and continues to be relationship between the People, the Torah and the Land of Israel,- the first two inextricably entwined with the latter. (The aborigines may be the only ones who feel this connection to their land,- but for the Jewish people it is in the Torah as a covenant with God,-i.e. the land not the people!) He calls it 'theography', not geography being the most important aspect of the Jewish state of Israel!
Can Israel sustain a democracy on the Western model while retaining its unique Jewish character? Raviv contends that it is impossible to superimpose foreign models of democracy, with their separation of religion and state,- over the Israeli conceptual backbone. Rather it should concentrate on articulating and realizing a model that accepts the Jewish skeleton of the state as fundamental to its vision. This debate should be viewed by the Jewish citizens as a healthy part of its trajectory. For non-Jewish citizens, the unique condition of the Jewish state renders them equal in rights, but unequal in standing,- as controversial as this may be.
Raviv explains that (in his opinion),it is not possible for non-Jewish citizens to have the same affinity (cf. patriotism) for the symbols of the Jewish State such as its name, its anthem, its symbols in the flag, with its rights to sustain a Jewish majority, etc.. These are the quintessentials of all Western democracies, where there can be total separation of Church and State, but unrealistic in the Jewish State of Israel. Were these Jewish symnbolisms removed from Israel, then forget it as the Jewish State.
If one needed to choose between democracy and Jewishness in Israel,- some Western Jews would argue for democracy,- while the majority would argue for Jewishnes and democracy, (as long as the notion of equality of rights before the laws of the state are guaranteed and properly applied for all). However, as questioners in the lecturer's audience pointed out, for many Jewish secular Israelis, being an Israeli is enough. The 'Jewish' aspect is passed over as secondary or irrelevant. Raviv put it as a fault of the education system which failed or fails to emphasise Judaism without religious dogma.
What then will the future hold for the "Jewish State" in this case? Raviv has no answer,- he just left it for future researchers to address. In the diaspora communities such as in Melbourne, he feels the people feel more Jewish and connected to the Jewish state of Israel than many secular Israelis. He stated on previous occasions that our diaspora communities should build bridges with Israelis to teach them how to be Jewish in a multicultural democracy, rather than the reverse!
(Dr. Zohar Raviv is an Israel;i, now a resident of Chicago, where he is an author, teacher and academic in Jewish Studies.)
Thursday, August 13, 2009
CROSS CULTURAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN MOSLEMS AND JEWS
Multicultural Australia has many faith communities which have multiculturalism inherent in them. Both our Jewish community and the Islamic community are such examples of multiculturalism within us.Ours are not monolithic communities although we may have roof-bodies representing each one. We also share such issues of concern for our next generations as e.g.racism, remaining 'in the fold', being educated in our faith systems and avoiding assimilation.
There are many groups which engage in dialogue very successfully.By sharing our common concerns locally with like-minded groups, we enrich Australia's multicultural environment for the benefit of all our future generations. The extremes in all faith-groups shun intermixing with all 'outsiders'. They avoid even TV and movies in their own homes so as not to' pollute' the minds of their young, so there is no opportunity for dialogue with them anyway .
On the other hand, as Australians, concern for our relatives in the Middle East, be it in Israel or in the Islamic world, is also a shared issue for intelligent people to discuss rationally and not necessarily to be avoided.Politics is obviously a divisive topic everywhere, but welfare issues should be able to be confronted and addressed civilly without one-sided criticisms and blame-throwing. If the parameters for the discussions are set at the beginning, the rest of the interactions could be very fruitful.
One such example of an international cross-cultural dialogue is described in the August 21 edition of the American Jewish paper, the "Forward", below . The focus was on something other than interfaith work. They talked business. Then they moved on to other topics in their workshops.(MM)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.forward.com/articles/111997/
Muslims and Jews: Fostering Respect, Bridging Cultural Differences Education
By Alison Cies
Published August 12, 2009, issue of August 21, 2009.
When a new venture at Columbia University brought together 30 Muslim and Jewish entrepreneurs from the United States, the United Kingdom and France for a cross-cultural dialogue, the focus was on something other than interfaith work. They talked business.
Then, somewhere amid the conversations about best business practices and social entrepreneurship, the difficult issues of religious and cultural identity emerged and were explored more freely. Organizers and participants in the Ariane de Rothschild Fellows Program hailed the two-week seminar in mid-July as a new model for successful Jewish-Muslim discussions.
“Successful and effective Jewish-Muslim dialogue often requires bonding over something else entirely,” said fellow Sam Adelsberg, 22, at the end of the program. “Once there, you can use different experiences as a platform to dive into the hard stuff — antisemitism, Islamophobia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
The workshop, which seeks those interested in fostering a culture of mutual respect among Jewish and Muslim communities, was the brainchild of Ariane de Rothschild and sponsored by the Edmond de Rothschild Foundation.
The program sought out social entrepreneurs — individuals committed to solving urgent social problems through creative and innovative market solutions — whose organizations were in the early stages of development. In stark contrast to most programs tackling cross-cultural dialogue, many of the fellows were not involved directly with Jewish-Muslim community relations.
Adelsberg, who co-founded LendforPeace while a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania, said he found the diverse backgrounds of the program’s participants to be one of the main highlights. The fellows “had a unique perspective to offer because they were not a self-selected bunch who normally participates in this type of dialogue,” he said.
As a joint effort of Columbia Business School and Cambridge University, the program’s interest in teaching both practical business skills and the theoretical background became evident on the first day. Participants were told that in addition to taking courses on governance, accounting and raising finances, they would be studying how Jews and Muslims have interacted throughout history — starting in the Middle Ages. Courses such as “Islamism and Its Origins in Pakistan,” “Interfaith Dialogue in Pre-modern Times,” and “Dialogue, Debate and Conflict Between Muslims and Jews in the Medieval Islamic World” rounded out the program.
Not all participants were initially thrilled about the prospect of learning the histories of these two communities. This changed, however, when the fellows took a step back and realized the relevance of history to their day-to-day lives.
“You would think that the theological [background] is irrelevant to a businessperson,” said Shawn Landres, 37, who co-founded Jumpstart, a catalyst and think tank dedicated to developing and strengthening emerging not-for-profit organizations. In addition to learning more about the business side, he noted, “the value of the program is that we’re revisiting how we construct religious identity.”
Ruth Friedman, dialogue coordinator for A Jewish Contribution to an Inclusive Europe, said she found the program’s combination of social entrepreneurship and cross-cultural dialogue to be “a fantastic mix.” Although Friedman, 45, of the United Kingdom, attended the program for its emphasis on social enterprise, she found the conversations with the American and French participants to be illuminating, both personally and professionally. “It was interesting to hear about what’s going on in the U.S., to hear about the several different projects that participants are involved with,” she said. “I’ll be going back to my organization with recommendations.”
It was the endeavor’s focus on multiculturalism that provided participants with information — and insight.
“The international students added such different perspectives to the program,” Adelsberg said. “There were instances where the French Muslims felt more in common with French Jews than with British Muslims.… It broke the uniformity of traditional Jewish-Muslim dialogue, where Jews are expected to toe one line and Muslims another.”
The light-bulb moment for Landres occurred at the start of the program, when he watched as Muslim participants freely expressed differences of opinion in front of him, an American Jew. “It’s astonishing to hear counterarguments, to have Muslims challenging each other on day one.”
“The most interesting discussion for me,” Adelsberg said, “was of the hijab [headscarf], and how in France you can’t wear it in public schools. It was interesting to see how some of the Muslim-French women didn’t find the law to be necessarily inhibiting; some even found the law to be liberating. But some of the British-Muslim women held an entirely different perspective, that the law was oppressive.”
Bruce Kogut, a professor of leadership and ethics in the business school who conducted the workshop, echoed their sentiments. He said the program’s benefit was its combination of various religions and nationalities. “The participants found so many differences across countries,” he said. “In France, dialogue between groups is not advancing quickly enough. So the French got to see from the U.S. and U.K. participants how they’re making progress.”
As Ariane de Rothschild explained at the program’s outset, participants were there to “address the challenging questions of identity, how society recognizes you, and how to reach out to others who are different.” Her aims were shaped, in part, by her belief that despite the abundance of references to globalization, people actually have become more polarized in their nationalities and religions.
“Dialogue is essential,” she told the participants. “It serves as the essential subtext to change.”
------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Alison Cies at cies@forward.com
There are many groups which engage in dialogue very successfully.By sharing our common concerns locally with like-minded groups, we enrich Australia's multicultural environment for the benefit of all our future generations. The extremes in all faith-groups shun intermixing with all 'outsiders'. They avoid even TV and movies in their own homes so as not to' pollute' the minds of their young, so there is no opportunity for dialogue with them anyway .
On the other hand, as Australians, concern for our relatives in the Middle East, be it in Israel or in the Islamic world, is also a shared issue for intelligent people to discuss rationally and not necessarily to be avoided.Politics is obviously a divisive topic everywhere, but welfare issues should be able to be confronted and addressed civilly without one-sided criticisms and blame-throwing. If the parameters for the discussions are set at the beginning, the rest of the interactions could be very fruitful.
One such example of an international cross-cultural dialogue is described in the August 21 edition of the American Jewish paper, the "Forward", below . The focus was on something other than interfaith work. They talked business. Then they moved on to other topics in their workshops.(MM)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.forward.com/articles/111997/
Muslims and Jews: Fostering Respect, Bridging Cultural Differences Education
By Alison Cies
Published August 12, 2009, issue of August 21, 2009.
When a new venture at Columbia University brought together 30 Muslim and Jewish entrepreneurs from the United States, the United Kingdom and France for a cross-cultural dialogue, the focus was on something other than interfaith work. They talked business.
Then, somewhere amid the conversations about best business practices and social entrepreneurship, the difficult issues of religious and cultural identity emerged and were explored more freely. Organizers and participants in the Ariane de Rothschild Fellows Program hailed the two-week seminar in mid-July as a new model for successful Jewish-Muslim discussions.
“Successful and effective Jewish-Muslim dialogue often requires bonding over something else entirely,” said fellow Sam Adelsberg, 22, at the end of the program. “Once there, you can use different experiences as a platform to dive into the hard stuff — antisemitism, Islamophobia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
The workshop, which seeks those interested in fostering a culture of mutual respect among Jewish and Muslim communities, was the brainchild of Ariane de Rothschild and sponsored by the Edmond de Rothschild Foundation.
The program sought out social entrepreneurs — individuals committed to solving urgent social problems through creative and innovative market solutions — whose organizations were in the early stages of development. In stark contrast to most programs tackling cross-cultural dialogue, many of the fellows were not involved directly with Jewish-Muslim community relations.
Adelsberg, who co-founded LendforPeace while a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania, said he found the diverse backgrounds of the program’s participants to be one of the main highlights. The fellows “had a unique perspective to offer because they were not a self-selected bunch who normally participates in this type of dialogue,” he said.
As a joint effort of Columbia Business School and Cambridge University, the program’s interest in teaching both practical business skills and the theoretical background became evident on the first day. Participants were told that in addition to taking courses on governance, accounting and raising finances, they would be studying how Jews and Muslims have interacted throughout history — starting in the Middle Ages. Courses such as “Islamism and Its Origins in Pakistan,” “Interfaith Dialogue in Pre-modern Times,” and “Dialogue, Debate and Conflict Between Muslims and Jews in the Medieval Islamic World” rounded out the program.
Not all participants were initially thrilled about the prospect of learning the histories of these two communities. This changed, however, when the fellows took a step back and realized the relevance of history to their day-to-day lives.
“You would think that the theological [background] is irrelevant to a businessperson,” said Shawn Landres, 37, who co-founded Jumpstart, a catalyst and think tank dedicated to developing and strengthening emerging not-for-profit organizations. In addition to learning more about the business side, he noted, “the value of the program is that we’re revisiting how we construct religious identity.”
Ruth Friedman, dialogue coordinator for A Jewish Contribution to an Inclusive Europe, said she found the program’s combination of social entrepreneurship and cross-cultural dialogue to be “a fantastic mix.” Although Friedman, 45, of the United Kingdom, attended the program for its emphasis on social enterprise, she found the conversations with the American and French participants to be illuminating, both personally and professionally. “It was interesting to hear about what’s going on in the U.S., to hear about the several different projects that participants are involved with,” she said. “I’ll be going back to my organization with recommendations.”
It was the endeavor’s focus on multiculturalism that provided participants with information — and insight.
“The international students added such different perspectives to the program,” Adelsberg said. “There were instances where the French Muslims felt more in common with French Jews than with British Muslims.… It broke the uniformity of traditional Jewish-Muslim dialogue, where Jews are expected to toe one line and Muslims another.”
The light-bulb moment for Landres occurred at the start of the program, when he watched as Muslim participants freely expressed differences of opinion in front of him, an American Jew. “It’s astonishing to hear counterarguments, to have Muslims challenging each other on day one.”
“The most interesting discussion for me,” Adelsberg said, “was of the hijab [headscarf], and how in France you can’t wear it in public schools. It was interesting to see how some of the Muslim-French women didn’t find the law to be necessarily inhibiting; some even found the law to be liberating. But some of the British-Muslim women held an entirely different perspective, that the law was oppressive.”
Bruce Kogut, a professor of leadership and ethics in the business school who conducted the workshop, echoed their sentiments. He said the program’s benefit was its combination of various religions and nationalities. “The participants found so many differences across countries,” he said. “In France, dialogue between groups is not advancing quickly enough. So the French got to see from the U.S. and U.K. participants how they’re making progress.”
As Ariane de Rothschild explained at the program’s outset, participants were there to “address the challenging questions of identity, how society recognizes you, and how to reach out to others who are different.” Her aims were shaped, in part, by her belief that despite the abundance of references to globalization, people actually have become more polarized in their nationalities and religions.
“Dialogue is essential,” she told the participants. “It serves as the essential subtext to change.”
------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Alison Cies at cies@forward.com
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
IS ISOLATING ENEMIES IMPEDING PEACE?
12 August 2009
IN REPLY TO FRASER
Yesterday’s Age featured an Op-Ed by former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser entitled ‘The isolation of Hamas is impeding peace’. This piece is yet another installment in a series of misguided Op-Eds from the man who is now an unabashed apologist for the Hamas regime following this offering - ‘Israel’s actions foster extremism’.
Sometimes, a piece of writing comes across my desk that is so erroneous and foolish that I am not even sure where or whether to start. There are too many gaffes in Fraser’s rant to cover them all but here are some:
Fraser asserts that “too many Israelis believe that Muslims generally will not accept the fact of Israel’s existence and that their objective is to establish a fundamental domination of the entire region, and thus the destruction of Israel”. The suggestion that this is some sort of abstract paranoia being exhibited on the Israelis behalf belies the existence of the Hamas charter.
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it”.
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavours.”
I do not know about Mr. Fraser in the comfortable confines of Australia but when a homicidal manic tells me that I will only exist until I am obliterated, I might tend to believe him.
Fraser then moves on to the nuclear issue. He declares that despite the fact that Israel has defence guarantees from the US, it has nevertheless pursued the establishment of its own substantial nuclear arsenal. According to Fraser Israel’s “actions promote proliferation and have clearly influenced Iran”. In other words, if Iran could just successful wipe those pesky Israelis off the map, the world would have nothing to worry about and we could all go back to singing “Kumbaya” and not worrying about a nuclear Iran.
But the pièce de résistance is what Fraser has to say about Hamas, the winners of a “legitimate democratic election in the West Bank and Gaza”. You see, the Israelis had the audacity to request that the organisation “forswear violence and recognise Israel’s rights before any talks could begin”. Apparently, according to Fraser, because Israel, the US and basically the whole Western world isolated Hamas, “violence – predictably – resumed and the whole region paid the price.” Unfortunately, Mr. Fraser, this is not like the never-ending debate about what came first, the chicken or the egg. Hamas has been violent since its inception and its forebear, the Muslim Brotherhood has been so since time immemorial. Attempts by Mr. Fraser and his buddies to paint Hamas as some sort of Boy Scout group when they are clearly nothing of the sort are becoming more than a little tiring.
No doubt many letters were written far more eloquently than this piece yesterday to refute Fraser’s outrageous claims, but the Age chose to print one letter, unsurprisingly in support of Fraser. (E.C., SZCV.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is in total agreement with my views. I am sorry that after having met Mr. Fraser while PM, so many years ago,- whom I thought at the time as being very understanding about our concerns visi-a-vis Israel's problems,- he should have changed so much in his understanding of the issues about all Islamic militancy, including Hamas, which Israel has been facing for over six decades. As enamoured as he is about Obama's intentions to engage with the enemies of the US,- Israel has been down that road many times , now it's Obama's turn to fulfil his aims.
To what results does Fraser point so far? MM-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theage.com.au/action/printArticle?id=673308
The isolation of Hamas is impeding peace
Malcolm Fraser
August 11, 2009 - 12:00AM
Australia must not be cowed into an uncritical acceptance of Israel’s actions.
BARACK Obama's election as US President was hailed around the world. He gave many people hope that the US would lead all of us to a new age of enlightenment.
Internationally, Obama has to deal with the fallout of Bush administration policies such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also, more vigorously than any other president, tackling problems between Israel and the Palestinians. While the security of Israel must be inviolate, he has also made it clear that expansion of settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem must stop.
Too many Israelis believe that Muslims generally will not accept the fact of Israel's existence and that their objective is to establish a fundamental Islamic domination of the entire region, and thus the destruction of Israel. Such arguments exhibit a fatal hopelessness.
Even though Israel has defence guarantees from the US, it has not relied on that commitment and has instead pursued its own substantial nuclear arsenal.
Having refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel's nuclear program is not subject to international inspection, supervision or criticism. But its actions promote proliferation and have clearly influenced Iran.
There is significant debate within Israel itself about policy regarding the Palestinians. However, attempts by others to debate issues relating to Israel and the Palestinians, and most recently Israel's attacks in Gaza, often lead to a charge of anti-Semitism.
Those who believe Israel's policies are misguided should not remain silent and governments should not be locked into uncritical support of Israel. Let me give one example.
After Hamas won a legitimate democratic election in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel and the US led the international community to isolate Hamas and diminish its ability to negotiate by requiring the organisation to forswear violence and recognise Israel's rights before any talks could begin.
Obama has suggested he might have a different approach. He believes that the US should talk to potential enemies to see if some area of agreement can be reached. This is similar to the attitude that president Eisenhower and subsequent presidents took in relation to the Soviet Union. Little by little agreements were reached.
The Baker-Hamilton report in the closing stages of the Bush administration recommended that all parties in the Middle East be involved in a search for a peaceful solution. James Baker himself defended the need to talk to all parties and gave instances from his own experience where that had led to success.
The International Crisis Group, until recently led by Gareth Evans, also believes that the isolation of Hamas should be ended, and that peace will not be advanced under current policies. There are many Americans on the board of the International Crisis Group.
More and more influential people support such views in relation to Hamas. After the election that led to their total isolation, it would have been possible to say: ''From our perspective certain of your views will have to change but you have won a legitimate election, we welcome your participation in the democratic process and therefore we will get into the room with you to see if there are areas of agreement between us.''
But Hamas was isolated, violence - predictably - resumed and the whole region paid the price.
Israel and America also made attempts to strengthen Fatah, to weaken or destroy Hamas. Such attempts have failed. Fatah's leadership was not up to that challenge and too many Palestinians thought that Fatah was self-serving and incompetent.
What happens now? Does Australia have a role? Do we wish to advance the Obama agenda?
Australian governments have paid lip service to even-handedness between Israel and the Palestinians. We have spoken against the expansion of settlements, but along with the rest of the world we have not been effective.
Obama is showing more resolution: can we help him? Should we help him? Cessation of settlement expansion is critical to progress. Can the Palestinians legitimately be expected to negotiate when more of the territory they believe to be theirs is taken month by month?
If there were agreement on the boundaries of a Palestinian state, Israel would have no problem about recognition. If the boundaries that existed before the outbreak of the Six-Day War in June 1967 were accepted, negotiations would clearly move forward. But that is not the case. Progress between Israel and Palestinians is critical to peace in the Middle East and important in combating terrorism worldwide.
Australia could urge, as others have done, that Hamas be brought in from the cold. But do we have the courage? In doing so, we would be a real partner of the US contributing to peace in the Middle East and removing an important source and inspiration for fundamentalist terrorists.
Fear of criticism from the Jewish lobby in Australia has so far prevented Australian governments taking effective action. If we want to be a real ally to the US, if we want justice and peace, we have an opportunity.
Malcolm Fraser was prime minister from 1975 to 1983.
This story was found at:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-isolation-of-hamas-is-impeding-peace-20090810-efj0.html
IN REPLY TO FRASER
Yesterday’s Age featured an Op-Ed by former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser entitled ‘The isolation of Hamas is impeding peace’. This piece is yet another installment in a series of misguided Op-Eds from the man who is now an unabashed apologist for the Hamas regime following this offering - ‘Israel’s actions foster extremism’.
Sometimes, a piece of writing comes across my desk that is so erroneous and foolish that I am not even sure where or whether to start. There are too many gaffes in Fraser’s rant to cover them all but here are some:
Fraser asserts that “too many Israelis believe that Muslims generally will not accept the fact of Israel’s existence and that their objective is to establish a fundamental domination of the entire region, and thus the destruction of Israel”. The suggestion that this is some sort of abstract paranoia being exhibited on the Israelis behalf belies the existence of the Hamas charter.
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it”.
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavours.”
I do not know about Mr. Fraser in the comfortable confines of Australia but when a homicidal manic tells me that I will only exist until I am obliterated, I might tend to believe him.
Fraser then moves on to the nuclear issue. He declares that despite the fact that Israel has defence guarantees from the US, it has nevertheless pursued the establishment of its own substantial nuclear arsenal. According to Fraser Israel’s “actions promote proliferation and have clearly influenced Iran”. In other words, if Iran could just successful wipe those pesky Israelis off the map, the world would have nothing to worry about and we could all go back to singing “Kumbaya” and not worrying about a nuclear Iran.
But the pièce de résistance is what Fraser has to say about Hamas, the winners of a “legitimate democratic election in the West Bank and Gaza”. You see, the Israelis had the audacity to request that the organisation “forswear violence and recognise Israel’s rights before any talks could begin”. Apparently, according to Fraser, because Israel, the US and basically the whole Western world isolated Hamas, “violence – predictably – resumed and the whole region paid the price.” Unfortunately, Mr. Fraser, this is not like the never-ending debate about what came first, the chicken or the egg. Hamas has been violent since its inception and its forebear, the Muslim Brotherhood has been so since time immemorial. Attempts by Mr. Fraser and his buddies to paint Hamas as some sort of Boy Scout group when they are clearly nothing of the sort are becoming more than a little tiring.
No doubt many letters were written far more eloquently than this piece yesterday to refute Fraser’s outrageous claims, but the Age chose to print one letter, unsurprisingly in support of Fraser. (E.C., SZCV.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is in total agreement with my views. I am sorry that after having met Mr. Fraser while PM, so many years ago,- whom I thought at the time as being very understanding about our concerns visi-a-vis Israel's problems,- he should have changed so much in his understanding of the issues about all Islamic militancy, including Hamas, which Israel has been facing for over six decades. As enamoured as he is about Obama's intentions to engage with the enemies of the US,- Israel has been down that road many times , now it's Obama's turn to fulfil his aims.
To what results does Fraser point so far? MM-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theage.com.au/action/printArticle?id=673308
The isolation of Hamas is impeding peace
Malcolm Fraser
August 11, 2009 - 12:00AM
Australia must not be cowed into an uncritical acceptance of Israel’s actions.
BARACK Obama's election as US President was hailed around the world. He gave many people hope that the US would lead all of us to a new age of enlightenment.
Internationally, Obama has to deal with the fallout of Bush administration policies such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also, more vigorously than any other president, tackling problems between Israel and the Palestinians. While the security of Israel must be inviolate, he has also made it clear that expansion of settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem must stop.
Too many Israelis believe that Muslims generally will not accept the fact of Israel's existence and that their objective is to establish a fundamental Islamic domination of the entire region, and thus the destruction of Israel. Such arguments exhibit a fatal hopelessness.
Even though Israel has defence guarantees from the US, it has not relied on that commitment and has instead pursued its own substantial nuclear arsenal.
Having refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel's nuclear program is not subject to international inspection, supervision or criticism. But its actions promote proliferation and have clearly influenced Iran.
There is significant debate within Israel itself about policy regarding the Palestinians. However, attempts by others to debate issues relating to Israel and the Palestinians, and most recently Israel's attacks in Gaza, often lead to a charge of anti-Semitism.
Those who believe Israel's policies are misguided should not remain silent and governments should not be locked into uncritical support of Israel. Let me give one example.
After Hamas won a legitimate democratic election in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel and the US led the international community to isolate Hamas and diminish its ability to negotiate by requiring the organisation to forswear violence and recognise Israel's rights before any talks could begin.
Obama has suggested he might have a different approach. He believes that the US should talk to potential enemies to see if some area of agreement can be reached. This is similar to the attitude that president Eisenhower and subsequent presidents took in relation to the Soviet Union. Little by little agreements were reached.
The Baker-Hamilton report in the closing stages of the Bush administration recommended that all parties in the Middle East be involved in a search for a peaceful solution. James Baker himself defended the need to talk to all parties and gave instances from his own experience where that had led to success.
The International Crisis Group, until recently led by Gareth Evans, also believes that the isolation of Hamas should be ended, and that peace will not be advanced under current policies. There are many Americans on the board of the International Crisis Group.
More and more influential people support such views in relation to Hamas. After the election that led to their total isolation, it would have been possible to say: ''From our perspective certain of your views will have to change but you have won a legitimate election, we welcome your participation in the democratic process and therefore we will get into the room with you to see if there are areas of agreement between us.''
But Hamas was isolated, violence - predictably - resumed and the whole region paid the price.
Israel and America also made attempts to strengthen Fatah, to weaken or destroy Hamas. Such attempts have failed. Fatah's leadership was not up to that challenge and too many Palestinians thought that Fatah was self-serving and incompetent.
What happens now? Does Australia have a role? Do we wish to advance the Obama agenda?
Australian governments have paid lip service to even-handedness between Israel and the Palestinians. We have spoken against the expansion of settlements, but along with the rest of the world we have not been effective.
Obama is showing more resolution: can we help him? Should we help him? Cessation of settlement expansion is critical to progress. Can the Palestinians legitimately be expected to negotiate when more of the territory they believe to be theirs is taken month by month?
If there were agreement on the boundaries of a Palestinian state, Israel would have no problem about recognition. If the boundaries that existed before the outbreak of the Six-Day War in June 1967 were accepted, negotiations would clearly move forward. But that is not the case. Progress between Israel and Palestinians is critical to peace in the Middle East and important in combating terrorism worldwide.
Australia could urge, as others have done, that Hamas be brought in from the cold. But do we have the courage? In doing so, we would be a real partner of the US contributing to peace in the Middle East and removing an important source and inspiration for fundamentalist terrorists.
Fear of criticism from the Jewish lobby in Australia has so far prevented Australian governments taking effective action. If we want to be a real ally to the US, if we want justice and peace, we have an opportunity.
Malcolm Fraser was prime minister from 1975 to 1983.
This story was found at:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-isolation-of-hamas-is-impeding-peace-20090810-efj0.html
Monday, August 03, 2009
HATE CRIMES #2. Terror in Mumbai. TV program
Monday evening, 3/8, Channel 7 (Melbourne) had a program at 7.30pm about the saving of lives from the plane which crash-landed in the Hudson River, New York. An unbelievable story of heroism and skill,- and survival,- some from freezing waters of the river where they jumped in or slipped.
Then at 8.30pm, 4corners, ABC,- "Terror in Mumbai". What a contrast in human nature,- good and evil - in different parts of the world in this 21st Century, all on one night, graphically depicted on our screens.
An unbelievable report of events unfolding during those fateful days in Mumbai. The terrorist handlers in Pakistan are heard directing the terrorists as they watch the drama unfolding on their TV screens at home. They keep ordering their murderers in Mumbai what to do step by step,- all recorded by the Indian Intelligence Services and through the video recorders in the hotels and by the international media. All to no avail.
You can hear the commands to kill the Jews in the Chabad House. "One Jew is like 50 others." they are told.
It's all in the name of Allah. "Imshallah" ,- God willing,- is heard throughout.
They saved a Turkish couple because " you are brothers" as they were saying their prayers for the dead from the Koran.
Unbelievable what these people are capable of. But then, - it's unblievable what the Nazis were capable of,- so no surpise for us Jews, I guess
MM
www.abc.net.au/4corners
This week on the ABC's 'Four Corners' program, TERROR IN MUMBAI, the remarkable story of the terrorist attack on India’s largest city, told through the eyes of the victims and the gunmen who committed the atrocity.
Produced and directed by award-winning filmmaker Dan Reed, TERROR IN MUMBAI, uses taped telephone conversations between the terrorists and their superiors in Pakistan, new footage never seen before and a startling interview with the one gunman who was captured to show a chilling testimony to terror.
*************************************
It was the 26th November 2008 when ten heavily armed gunmen took over a fishing boat in the Arabian Sea and headed for the city of Mumbai on the west coast of India. An hour later their killing spree began.
Their first target was the Leopold Cafe where they killed 11 people. From there they planted bombs inside taxis as the moved across the city. TERROR IN MUMBAI follows the young men every step of the way using telephone calls made between the raid’s masterminds in Pakistan and the gunmen in Mumbai. Those calls combine with the testimony of the captured terrorist Ajmal Kasab, to create an extra-ordinary chronology of the attacks.
The calls reveal how the young men are continually reminded they must kill as many people as possible, making sure that whatever happens they must not be taken alive.
Ajmal Kasab, speaking from his hospital bed tells how he and another man attacked the city’s train station slaughtering more than 50 people. The program then hears from the train station survivors who tell how the gunmen coldly cut down innocent people one after another. A young boy describes how six of his family are killed around him. The security forces admit they were overwhelmed and underprepared. Some hid rather than be killed. Others tried to use weapons that would not work and were slaughtered.
As the film progresses the relationship between the attackers and their controllers at the other end of the phone comes into clearer focus. At times the young men appear utterly ruthless, at other times they break away from their conditioning and register their wonder at the hotel they have taken over. They talk of computers and expensive furniture as if in a wonderland.
As the film progresses the terrorists are told to kill as many people as they can in the Taj Hotel, and then to start a fire. The purpose? To let the world know a symbol of India and the decadent west is being destroyed.
As the phone calls continue it becomes clear the young men are not always willing to kill on command. In one chilling episode one gunman is told to kill a hostage. He stalls for time. Then an hour later he is ordered to shoot. A gunshot is heard.
The calls do not just document the slaughter of innocent people. As Indian commandos close in on the gunmen inside a Jewish school the phone taps record the last moments of the siege and the gunfight between the opposing sides. One gunman says how he is hit, in the leg and the arm. “Do not be taken alive” he is told.
When Lashkar- e-Taiba decided to attack the city of Mumbai they wanted to carry out an attack that would horrify the world. This is the story of that attack from the inside.
TERROR IN MUMBAI went to air on Four Corners Monday 3rd Augist at 8.30 pm on ABC 1 and repeated on 4th August at 11.35 pm.
www.abc.net.au/4corners
Then at 8.30pm, 4corners, ABC,- "Terror in Mumbai". What a contrast in human nature,- good and evil - in different parts of the world in this 21st Century, all on one night, graphically depicted on our screens.
An unbelievable report of events unfolding during those fateful days in Mumbai. The terrorist handlers in Pakistan are heard directing the terrorists as they watch the drama unfolding on their TV screens at home. They keep ordering their murderers in Mumbai what to do step by step,- all recorded by the Indian Intelligence Services and through the video recorders in the hotels and by the international media. All to no avail.
You can hear the commands to kill the Jews in the Chabad House. "One Jew is like 50 others." they are told.
It's all in the name of Allah. "Imshallah" ,- God willing,- is heard throughout.
They saved a Turkish couple because " you are brothers" as they were saying their prayers for the dead from the Koran.
Unbelievable what these people are capable of. But then, - it's unblievable what the Nazis were capable of,- so no surpise for us Jews, I guess
MM
www.abc.net.au/4corners
This week on the ABC's 'Four Corners' program, TERROR IN MUMBAI, the remarkable story of the terrorist attack on India’s largest city, told through the eyes of the victims and the gunmen who committed the atrocity.
Produced and directed by award-winning filmmaker Dan Reed, TERROR IN MUMBAI, uses taped telephone conversations between the terrorists and their superiors in Pakistan, new footage never seen before and a startling interview with the one gunman who was captured to show a chilling testimony to terror.
*************************************
It was the 26th November 2008 when ten heavily armed gunmen took over a fishing boat in the Arabian Sea and headed for the city of Mumbai on the west coast of India. An hour later their killing spree began.
Their first target was the Leopold Cafe where they killed 11 people. From there they planted bombs inside taxis as the moved across the city. TERROR IN MUMBAI follows the young men every step of the way using telephone calls made between the raid’s masterminds in Pakistan and the gunmen in Mumbai. Those calls combine with the testimony of the captured terrorist Ajmal Kasab, to create an extra-ordinary chronology of the attacks.
The calls reveal how the young men are continually reminded they must kill as many people as possible, making sure that whatever happens they must not be taken alive.
Ajmal Kasab, speaking from his hospital bed tells how he and another man attacked the city’s train station slaughtering more than 50 people. The program then hears from the train station survivors who tell how the gunmen coldly cut down innocent people one after another. A young boy describes how six of his family are killed around him. The security forces admit they were overwhelmed and underprepared. Some hid rather than be killed. Others tried to use weapons that would not work and were slaughtered.
As the film progresses the relationship between the attackers and their controllers at the other end of the phone comes into clearer focus. At times the young men appear utterly ruthless, at other times they break away from their conditioning and register their wonder at the hotel they have taken over. They talk of computers and expensive furniture as if in a wonderland.
As the film progresses the terrorists are told to kill as many people as they can in the Taj Hotel, and then to start a fire. The purpose? To let the world know a symbol of India and the decadent west is being destroyed.
As the phone calls continue it becomes clear the young men are not always willing to kill on command. In one chilling episode one gunman is told to kill a hostage. He stalls for time. Then an hour later he is ordered to shoot. A gunshot is heard.
The calls do not just document the slaughter of innocent people. As Indian commandos close in on the gunmen inside a Jewish school the phone taps record the last moments of the siege and the gunfight between the opposing sides. One gunman says how he is hit, in the leg and the arm. “Do not be taken alive” he is told.
When Lashkar- e-Taiba decided to attack the city of Mumbai they wanted to carry out an attack that would horrify the world. This is the story of that attack from the inside.
TERROR IN MUMBAI went to air on Four Corners Monday 3rd Augist at 8.30 pm on ABC 1 and repeated on 4th August at 11.35 pm.
www.abc.net.au/4corners
Sunday, August 02, 2009
HATE CRIME.Young members of the Gay community in Israel targeted.
It seems that a black-clad, masked gunman shot indiscriminately at a group of young Gays in Tel Aviv where they were meeting at a private club. The gunman has not yet been apprehended and the motive or perpetrator has not been identified, but it seems to have been a homophobic hate-crime rather than a terrorist.
As though Israelis don't have enough to contend with, now it's Jewish religious extremism, not only Islamic incitement to hatred.
As Guest Columnist, Yehuda Avner wrote in the Jerusalem Post (www.jpost.com) we should all pray for Jerusalem, because it is in the grip of ultra-orthodox fanatics.They are not only fanatical but also anti-Zionists. Will the State be strong enough to resist them?
The Progressive Judaism community has responded strongly, as below.
MM
Israel Religious Action Center
of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism
August 2, 2009/ 12 Av 5769
On behalf of the Progressive Jewish family in Israel, we would like to express our utter shock over the recent shooting in Tel Aviv. We bow our heads in condolence for these two young victims whose lives were brutally ended on Saturday night. We join in the deep sadness of the family members and the Israeli GLBT community. The fact that this shocking murder cut short an innocent gathering of youth only deepens the pain and shock.
The possibility that this murder is a hate crime heightens our awareness of discrimination in light of the GLBT community overcoming hateful incitement and primitive opinions in Israeli society. Throughout the moments of great achievements in the struggle to prevent intolerance, the GLBT Community in Israel unfortunately knows countless moments of having to cope with the pains of exposing hate, incitement, and outright rejection. This difficult tragedy has intensified the urgent need for a mutual struggle against these nasty and menacing phenomena.
At this difficult time, the Progressive Jewish communities in Israel proudly stand with the members of the GLBT community in Israel. We are here to provide the community with public, educational, and spiritual support. We call upon our Rabbis and members of our community to take part in the memorials to pay homage to those who have been killed and support those who have been wounded. We will be present at the demonstrations that will follow these tragic murders. We hope that this participation will demonstrate our commitment to building a more tolerant society together, promoting respect of all people.
Our hearts go out to the young people killed and wounded on Saturday night and our lips carry a prayer for the days to come that will embody the verses of the prophet Isaiah: “They shall not hurt or destroy anywhere in My holy mountain.” (11:9)
Anat Hoffman
Executive Director, Israel Religious Action Center
Rabbi Gilad Kariv
Director, Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism
As though Israelis don't have enough to contend with, now it's Jewish religious extremism, not only Islamic incitement to hatred.
As Guest Columnist, Yehuda Avner wrote in the Jerusalem Post (www.jpost.com) we should all pray for Jerusalem, because it is in the grip of ultra-orthodox fanatics.They are not only fanatical but also anti-Zionists. Will the State be strong enough to resist them?
The Progressive Judaism community has responded strongly, as below.
MM
Israel Religious Action Center
of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism
August 2, 2009/ 12 Av 5769
On behalf of the Progressive Jewish family in Israel, we would like to express our utter shock over the recent shooting in Tel Aviv. We bow our heads in condolence for these two young victims whose lives were brutally ended on Saturday night. We join in the deep sadness of the family members and the Israeli GLBT community. The fact that this shocking murder cut short an innocent gathering of youth only deepens the pain and shock.
The possibility that this murder is a hate crime heightens our awareness of discrimination in light of the GLBT community overcoming hateful incitement and primitive opinions in Israeli society. Throughout the moments of great achievements in the struggle to prevent intolerance, the GLBT Community in Israel unfortunately knows countless moments of having to cope with the pains of exposing hate, incitement, and outright rejection. This difficult tragedy has intensified the urgent need for a mutual struggle against these nasty and menacing phenomena.
At this difficult time, the Progressive Jewish communities in Israel proudly stand with the members of the GLBT community in Israel. We are here to provide the community with public, educational, and spiritual support. We call upon our Rabbis and members of our community to take part in the memorials to pay homage to those who have been killed and support those who have been wounded. We will be present at the demonstrations that will follow these tragic murders. We hope that this participation will demonstrate our commitment to building a more tolerant society together, promoting respect of all people.
Our hearts go out to the young people killed and wounded on Saturday night and our lips carry a prayer for the days to come that will embody the verses of the prophet Isaiah: “They shall not hurt or destroy anywhere in My holy mountain.” (11:9)
Anat Hoffman
Executive Director, Israel Religious Action Center
Rabbi Gilad Kariv
Director, Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)