Mofaz unseats Tzipi Livni as head of Kadima

Mofaz

Livni

Tzipi Livni was defeated in a decisive primary vote by Shaul Mofaz (who won 62% of the vote) as leader of Israel's largest opposition party, the centrist Kadima party. As of this writing, Livni has not announced whether she will remain within Kadima and in public life.  Mofaz is a former IDF chief of staff and Likud defense minister who proposes a "provisional" Palestinian state, initially comprised of the Gaza Strip and 60-65% of the West Bank, with no settlements dismantled at first.

Yesterday's NY Times news article sums up in its conclusion as follows:

Rabbi Waskow Argues Against BDS

Two days ago, Rabbi Arthur Waskow, director of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, argued passionately against the strategy of boycotting all of Israel, rather than only boycotting West Bank settlements (as advocated by this organization and by Peter Beinart).  He debated Mustafa Barghouti, an independent Palestinian activist and political leader, on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" program.

Rabbi Waskow might also have argued that, in targeting all of Israel, the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement wrongly asserts that it's only Israel that is at fault for the ongoing conflict. Most Israelis--while consistently responding to polls as wanting an end to the occupation and a two-state solution--have been alienated from the peace camp by the terrible violence of the Second Intifada, which followed the Oslo peace process, and the years of rocket fire and other attacks from Gaza, despite Israel's total withdrawal from that territory in 2005. There is much more that can be said about the fault of all sides in these events, but there is plenty of blame to go around.

The latest high-profile effort to enforce a boycott of Israeli goods--at the Park Slope Food Co-op in Brooklyn, NY--was featured in Democracy Now's set-piece introduction to the debate between Waskow and Barghouti.  Yesterday evening, this boycott motion was soundly defeated at an overflow meeting of members, by a vote of 1,005 to 653. 

This is most of Waskow's argument, as drawn from two passages in the program's transcript:

Dialogue on my post about Richard Silverstein

David Hoffman is a non-Jewish progressive activist who participated with me and many others at the 2004 Oakland, California conference, "Facing A Challenge," on anti-Semitism on the left.  We've continued to dialogue since on an email listserv with other conference attendees.  Yesterday, I informed them of my piece about the Tikun Olam blogger, Richard Silverstein.  David has given me permission to repeat our exchange of views on this:

Hi Ralph,
I value the Meretz, Tikkun and other columns and blogs you share with me and others.   I don’t always agree with you.  I usually agree with significant parts of what you write, and am grateful for your humane, peace-seeking motives.  For what it’s worth, this is my reaction to your blog post about Silverstein:

'Tikun Olam' blogger derides 'lib Zionists'

One would think that a blog called, "Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place" 
(with the subhead: "Promoting Israeli democracy, exposing secrets of the national security state") might be friendly toward progressive Zionists like ourselves, but think again. Since this is the Internet, and its subject relates to Israel, you don't get civility either.  

Wikipedia reports that Richard Silverstein, this Seattle-based blogger, has published a number of news scoops, but:

Yossi Melman, a veteran security and intelligence reporter for Haaretz argues that Silverstein "spreads rumors without checking them" and "is an ideologue, not a journalist." He adds, "[Silverstein] is speculative. It is like at the casino: Sometimes he gets it right, and sometimes he doesn’t." Nonetheless, Melman writes that "Silverstein’s blog is important because he exposes the security services and the courts in all their nakedness. They use the instruments of the 20th century to protect secrets which aren’t really secrets in the age of 21st century technology."

As for Silverstein's view of Israel, this Wikipedia article continues:

... he believes Israel is a Jewish homeland, that he hopes to see equal rights provided for Jewish and Arab citizens in the country and though he is "agnostic" toward the two-state solution would ultimately prefer that outcome.

I remember Silverstein from the first J Street conference; he was a leading organizer of an unofficial session of bloggers there, which J Street graciously facilitated by providing them with a room and a free lunch. The only participant I recall being really positive about J Street on that bloggers' panel was the Palestinian-American Ray Hanania. 

A "Partners" colleague prompted me to visit Silverstein's site, when she noticed his harsh critique of Peter Beinart's recent NY Times op-ed --- "Beinart’s Buy Israel, ‘Zionist BDS’ Reverse Boycott." Beinart argues for much the same position as "Partners" does: to distinguish Israel's legitimacy

Are We Supporting Israel, or the Occupation?

As we get ready to take part in J Street's "Making History" conference this weekend in Washington DC, Partners for Progressive Israel President, Dina B. Charnin, and Chair, Theodore Bikel, today released the following statement on behalf of the organization:

When we, who love Israel, give our support to "pro-Israel" organizations, is our generosity inadvertently supporting the Occupation instead?   

Each year, millions of American Jews donate billions of dollars to hundreds of Jewish organizations that deal, in whole or in part, with Israel. These include lobbies, federations, synagogues, educational organizations, 'Friends of' groups and so-called 'national defense agencies'. But once our check is in the mail, our credit card payment processed, our membership recorded, how sure are we that these organizations will promote policies that are consistent with our values and beliefs?

The vast majority of American Jews share a vision of a democratic, Jewish-majority Israel, that will be secured through a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And we also believe in a pluralistic Israel, in which the equal rights of all groups will be upheld, and the equal standing of all streams of Judaism guaranteed.  

But are the organizations requesting our support equally committed to these ideals? Do they use our support to promote our vision? Or is our support liable to be exploited by those who would lead Israel in other directions?

The urgency of this question has risen sharply of late. For decades, American Jews have taken comfort in the understanding that Israel always strives for peace. But the uncomfortable truth that a growing number are recognizing is this: The government of Binyamin Netanyahu - its protestations notwithstanding - is not pursuing a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Killings in Toulouse & Gaza Compared Unfairly?

The separate murders of French soldiers and of three children and a rabbi at a Jewish school in France were apparently carried out by the same person, reportedly with the rationale of avenging the deaths of children in the Gaza Strip and in Afghanistan.     

The latest JTA news bulletin reports on the suspect's background and the funeral of the victims:

.... Mohammed Merah, a 24-year-old French national of Algerian descent ... claims ties to al-Qaida.... Rabbi Jonathan Sandler, 30, and his two young sons, as well as the 7-year-old daughter of the school's principal, were killed in the attack. Thousands attended the funeral of the victims on Wednesday morning at Jerusalem's Givat Shaul cemetery. ...

The linking of victims of Israeli attacks, which are meant to target Palestinian rocket teams and terrorist groups but often hit non-combatants, with the deliberate murder of innocents, remains a source of controversy and debate. This is from a news article in today's NY Times:

Iranian-Israeli Internet 'Lovefest'

The Jewish Daily Forward website, and other sources, are reporting upon this positive phenomenon of Israelis and Iranians reaching out to each other, to renounce war.  Unfortunately, these do not include the decision makers in their respective governments.  Still, this Forward story includes recent survey data showing 50% of Israelis "completely opposed to an attack on Iran, even if diplomatic efforts to stall the nuclear program failed" and 78% knowing "that even a successful attack would at best delay Iran’s acquisition of an A-Bomb by a few years."

Beinart boldly presses on for Israel's future

Peter Beinart

This post is nothing if not about surprises.  For one thing, I initially posted without realizing that Peter Beinart, currently a CUNY professor of journalism and a blogger for the Daily Beast, has written a powerful op-ed in today's NY Times, essentially joining Partners for Progressive Israel in advocating a boycott of goods from settlements in the West Bank, in order to fight for Israel's survival.  Even if this is not a step you prefer to take, please read his article to understand how his criticism of Israel is an expression of his love.

Prof. Beinart will headline this coming week's J Street conference in Washington, DC, with the launch of his new book, The Crisis of Zionism, in which he will continue his critique of the American Jewish establishment and Israel for not working to end oppressive policies and practices against the Palestinians and thereby pave the way for peace. It is surprising that Beinart suddenly emerged as a marquee critic of American Zionism in May, 2010, with a scathing article in The New York Review of Books, accusing American Jews of alienating their young people by forcing them to choose between their traditional liberal ideals and support for Israel.  (The warm mutual embrace of Beinart and J Street is not a surprise, however, as J Street is dedicated to working for changes that would reconnect liberal peace-seeking values with Zionism.) 

One would not have expected this from the editor of The New Republic magazine from 1999 to 2006, known as unwavering in its support for Israeli policies under his then-boss, Marty Peretz,

Someone sent me this piece below, and I hesitated to send it out. My internal dialogue went like this: This looks like a propaganda piece, but just because it is from Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., doesn't mean it is propaganda. If it is all true, so what's the problem? Still, it casts doubt on Islam as a tolerant religion. 

I AM SENDING IT OUT, BECAUSE I HAVE COMMITTED MYSELF TO INFORMING  PEOPLE.  I share responses below this article-- Lilly

• March 9, 2012, The Wall Street Journal

Israel and the Plight of Mideast Christians

Just as Jews were once expelled from Arab lands, Christians are now being forced from countries they have long inhabited. By MICHAEL OREN

Some nice things about M.J. Rosenberg (for a change)

M.J. Rosenberg captured on YouTube.

This links to J.J. Goldberg's Forward column on M.J. Rosenberg, "Israel Lover Is Branded As Hater."  J.J. reminds us that M.J. is fundamentally with us in the progressive pro-Israel camp.  Still, if I were editing his piece, I might have placed  J.J.'s caveats about M.J. earlier, but they're there:

... I haven’t always agreed with him. He’s moved from left to right and back a few times and said lots of things I wouldn’t say. But he’s always fought for the Jewish cause as he understood it. And nobody’s ever called him a moral coward.

To my surprise, I found a very nice online comment from Rosenberg on my Tikkun review article of "In Darkness," a searing Holocaust drama on a true-life Polish rescuer of a small group of Jews, who acted heroically despite his antisemitic prejudice:

Conflicting claims over Jerusalem

The following material is from Dr. Peter Feinman, the founder and president of the Institute of History, Archeology, and Education. It is painful to see how the Palestinians have come to deny the historic Jewish connection to Jerusalem, but this should not be taken as proof that the Palestinians do not also have a centuries-old link to this city.  A resolution of this conflict requires a sharing or re-division of the city.  

This is a reality that Golda Meir denied when a peace treaty with Jordan might otherwise have been possible in the early 1970s with King Hussein of Jordan, and that Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert acknowledged in their aborted negotiations with Yasir Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas respectively.  Unfortunately, the Israeli position on Jerusalem seems again to be in denial mode, under Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, with the national and municipal governments allowing (and in some ways encouraging) the forcible takeover of Palestinian homes and properties in East Jerusalem. With this said, here is this material from Dr. Feinman: 

[Palestinian denials of Jewish claims]:

The 'Magnes Zionist' on Purim & Bibi

Judah Magnes This is from a blog called "The Magnes Zionist" by Jeremiah Haber (not his real name). I am told he is an Orthodox person; by calling himself a Magnes Zionist, it tells me he is for moral behavior (perhaps a bi-national state) and a humanist.  I am intrigued with him, and am sending the piece below for all those reasons.-- Lilly

---

It has been my custom to reproduce this Purim post every year, with some modifications. This year I do it a day after Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a megillah/Scroll of Esther to President Obama. The scroll, read twice on the holiday of Purim, relates the victory of the Jews over Haman the Agagite, his sons, and a whole bunch of people inside and outside the Persian capital of Shushan who had it in for the Jews. Jeffrey Goldberg explains the point of Bibi’s gift:

The prime minister of Israel is many things, but subtle is not one of them. The message of Purim is: When the Jews see a murderous conspiracy forming against them, they will act to disrupt the plot. A further refinement of the message is: When the Jews see a plot forming against them in Persia, they will act to disrupt the plot, even if Barack Obama wishes that they would wait for permission.

Goldberg reads Bibi right, but Bibi reads the megillah wrong.

Gorenberg: Iran Pushes Palestinian Issue Aside

Gershom Gorenberg's new American Prospect article is now online at their website,  "When Bibi Met Barack or "Bibi Wants to Bomb Amalek." Its subhead is "Netanyahu's evaluation of Iran is based on mythology. Can Obama hold him back?" But Gorenberg also points out that the focus on Iran has kicked the Palestinian issue to the curb:  

Speaking to AIPAC, Netanyahu virtually waved his finger in Obama's face. "Diplomacy … hasn't worked," he said; neither have sanctions, nor will deterrence. ...

Netanyahu equated hesitation before attacking Iran to America's refusal to bomb Auschwitz in 1944. As additional support for his case, Netanyahu cited the biblical Book of Esther.... He described Haman, the villain of that ancient story, as "a Persian anti-Semite [who] tried to  annihilate the Jewish people." In Jewish legend, I should note, Haman is understood to be from the tribe of Amalek, which tried to destroy the Israelites when they left Egypt and endlessly keeps trying. The reasoning of Netanyahu's speech, if "reasoning" can be used in this context, is that Amalek, Haman, Hitler and the current leaders of Teheran are all the same.

Israel & US on same page re Iran?

It troubles me that most people on the left, who are justly worried about war with Iran, are placing the onus upon Israel, as if Iran's years of overt hostility and belligerent acts have nothing to do with this crisis.  I believe that an Israeli attack on Iran would be disastrous for Israel and bad for the US, but Israel needs to be reassured that its existence is not on the line. It’s up to Iran to step back from its rhetoric and policies, in order to alleviate the crisis atmosphere.

I'm not opposed to an ultimate deal that includes Israel allowing international inspections of its nuclear facilities, but Iran's hostility is the problem, not an Israeli nuclear arsenal that has threatened no one for decades.  Iran may be reaching the critical stage of uranium enrichment that Israel and the International Atomic Energy Agency both fear.

Hopefully, an intelligent combination of international diplomacy and sanctions can persuade Iran to cooperate fully with the IAEA to assure that its nuclear facilities are only used for peaceful purposes. During Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to Washington, the US and Israel struggled to get on the same page. The US needs to prevent Israel from launching a preemptive attack, but this can only be done if Israel knows that the US has its back when it comes to deterring Iran.  In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Pres. Obama is saying exactly that.

Controversy of Arab Judge & 'Hatikva'

Justice Joubran (Haaretz photo by Tomer Appelbaum)

Right-wing politicians were outraged, demanding Justice Salim Joubran's resignation, when at the celebration for retiring Supreme Court Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch, he (the only one of the 15 high court judges who is an Arab) was not singing Israel's national anthem, "Hatikva."  The NY Times and Haaretz both observe that "Hatikva" is exclusively Jewish.  Rather than insisting that non-Jewish Israelis sing what is really a Zionist anthem, Israel would be well-served by looking for a more inclusive alternative entirely, or coming up with a new set of lyrics that celebrate the country's beauty and significance in a way that is not ethnocentric.  Sadly, in the currently charged political atmosphere, any such move to symbolically enlarge Israel's tent will be resisted fiercely by the right as a step away from Zionism.  This is how the NY Times encapsulated the matter:

Frustrating picture of recent negotiations

Ravid

This is an account of the recent Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in Jordan by Haaretz diplomatic correspondent Barak Ravid. It indicate a limited but still more substantive discussion of the border and Jordan Valley issues than was my previous impression.  This is the headline and subhead of his Haaretz blog piece of Feb. 17:

Netanyahu's border proposal: Israel to annex settlement blocs, but not Jordan Valley
The proposal that came up during the Israeli-Palestinian talks in Amman effectively means a withdrawal from 90% of the West Bank, and is very similar to the one proposed by Tzipi Livni [during 2008].