Morey Altman

They Who Dig Pits

2011-11-17T21:29:00.035+02:00

[The following article was written for The Jerusalem Report a few months ago but not published.]

On February 22, 2010, archaeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar, working under the aegis of Hebrew University, announced the discovery of a massive stone wall that she attributes to King Solomon. The wall, approximately 70 meters (220 feet) long and six meters (20 feet) high, is located on the eastern side of an area called the Ophel, a Biblical term meaning “tower” which came to be associated with an area of Jerusalem between the southern wall of the Temple Mount and the City of David (Ir David).

According to the official press release from Hebrew University, Mazar asserts that the 10th c. BCE structure she has uncovered is part of "an inner gatehouse for access into the royal quarter of the city,a royal structure adjacent to the gatehouse, and a corner tower that overlooks a substantial section of the adjacent Kidron valley."

The implication of the claim is that a strong central government having the resources to build such a substantial fortification, as described in Hebrew Scriptures, existed in Jerusalem during the era of King Solomon. Mazar cites, as an example, the Books of Kings (I Kings 3:1) which says Solomon "finished building his house, and the house of Hashem, and the wall of Jerusalem all around." But her interpretations of the wall’s function and age immediately renewed longstanding disputes with some leading members of the archaeological world who claim she is subverting science in the service of an ideological agenda that seeks to substantiate the Biblical narrative for nationalist purposes. "Dr. Eilat Mazar is at it again– running to the press before properly submitting her finds to serious archaeological scrutiny,” writes Neal Asher Silberman, an historian and archaeologist with the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Since the announcement, Silberman and others of Mazar's peers have been critical in their reviews.

Israel Finkelstein, a Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University is no stranger to controversy himself. His book, "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts," co-authored with Silberman, which all but reduces Hebrew Scriptures to ancient ideological propaganda, set off a firestorm of its own when it was released in 2002.

"The biblical story of David and Solomon was put into writing not before the late 8th century BCE; much of it was written in the late 7th century," Finkelstein tells The Report. "The texts are layered, and depict the realities and ideology of the time of the authors. As such, even if they have an ancient memory here and there, they cannot be read as a guide to 10th century BCE Jerusalem."

Eilat Mazar readily concedes the use of Scripture as a guide but acknowledges the limitations of the Bible as an historical document. "The fact is all historical documents are biased because they are written by people."

But she’s also critical of those who too readily dismiss the use of the Bible as a reference tool. "You don’t want to go the other extreme and ignore a document that’s potentially helpful. Information at hand, whether we’re talking about the Bible or historical documents, may direct us a certain way, but the minute you start excavating, you are obliged by very high scientific standards," she maintains. "We can use the Bible as a starting point, just as archaeologists working in the Near East have always done," she tells The Report. "People investigated what they knew, and they knew the Bible."

Nevertheless, Finkelstein’s concerns go beyond the validity of Scripture. "It is not clear whether the wall was an outer wall or an inner wall within the city," he tells The Report. "And in any event, no 10th century BCE city-wall has ever been found in Jerusalem."

The dating of the structure is a particularly contentious issue. In 2006, Mazar wrote that "based on the finds sealed below the floors of Buildings C and D, the construction of the fortification complex in the Ophel should be dated to the 10th century BCE. This date corresponds to the biblical passage announcing that King Solomon built a defensive wall around Jerusalem. There is no reason to assume that someone other than Solomon constructed or reconstructed the Ophel fortification line at some time during the 10th-9th centuries BCE." (Mazar, Eilat, "The Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem." Pp. 775-786 in "I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times, 2006)

In response to her claims, an article in Tel Aviv journal by Archaeologists Finkelstein, Lily Singer-Avitz, Ze'ev Herzog, and David Ussishkin, was particularly brutal. "Beyond archaeology, one wonders about the interpretation of the finds," they wrote. "The biblical text dominates this field operation, not archaeology. Had it not been for Mazar’s literal reading of the biblical text, she never would have dated the remains to the 10th century BCE with such confidence. This is an excellent example of the weakness of the traditional, highly literal, biblical archaeology — a discipline that dominated research until the 1960s, that was weakened and almost disappeared from the scene in the later years of the 20th century, and that reemerged with all its attributes in the City of David in 2005."

Some have even accused Mazar and other archaeologists of allowing themselves to be funded by religiously or ideologically conservative groups. For her part, Mazar doesn’t deny this possibility but claims to have little involvement in the solicitation of private donations which goes through Hebrew University. While recent work has been conducted with private funding, provided by Jewish-American philanthropists Daniel Mintz and Meredith Berkman, the Ophel dig is actually a project of Hebrew University, in cooperation with the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, although volunteers at the dig did include students at Herbert W. Armstrong College, an Evangelical Christian school in the US.

Within the world of Biblical Archaeology, these are old debates. As the label suggests, Biblical archaeologists attempt to shed light on people and events of the Near East which are depicted in Biblical texts. Differences in opinion as to the accuracy of these texts have generated opposing schools of thought. ‘Minimalists’ apply strict scientific methodology, not allowing themselves to be influenced by the religious record. They find little evidence of the Kingdoms of David and Solomon and believe 10^th C BCE Jerusalem was nothing but a small, hilltop village. ‘Maximalists,’ on the other hand, tend to approach their work from a religious perspective, adopting an acceptance of Biblical "truth." They regard David and Solomon as historical figures and their empires as fact. Most Biblical archaeologists put themselves in the middle of the dispute.

Jerusalem has been a significant attraction for Biblical archaeologists since the mid-19th century. Following a brief interlude of Egyptian rule (1831-1839) under Muhammed Ali, the Ottomans reasserted control over Palestine and the area underwent a welcome period of reform at the insistence of Western nations. By 1860, a number of European consulates had been established, and the country was being visited by missionaries, Biblical scholars and adventurers.

Motivated by Palestine’s religious and historical importance, the British established the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) in 1865, whose members included British Royal Engineers Major-General Sir Charles Wilson and General Sir Charles Warren. They engaged in survey work of Jerusalem as well as digs despite protestations from local Muslim clerics and the Pasha of Jerusalem, Nazif Pasha. It was Charles Warren who first discovered a large wall in Ophel, and an ancient gate along the Western Wall Tunnel which is still referred to as "Warren's Gate." [Interestingly, Warren went on to further fame as the head of the London Metropolitan Police, from 1886 to 1888, during the Jack the Ripper murders.]

A number of other archaeologists expanded upon their work over the next few decades, but it wasn’t until Kathleen Kenyon in the early 1960’s that more modern methodology was introduced. After the reunification of the city in 1967, Israeli archaeologists assumed authority over Jerusalem excavations. A number of digs were initiated in and around the Old City, including Benjamin Mazar’s work at the southwest corner of the Temple Mount. Benjamin Mazar (1906-1995) was a Professor of Biblical History and Archaeology of Palestine at Hebrew University from 1951 to 1977, and served as president of the university between 1953 and 1961. He was also Eilat Mazar’s grandfather.

Looking the part in Israeli canvas hiking boots, Eilat Mazar speaks with obvious affection when she describes her grandfather. As a young girl, Eilat accompanied Benjamin Mazar, whom she remembers as "charismatic and hard-working," to digs and began to take an interest in ancient history. After the Six-Day War, Israeli archaeologists had access to the walls of the Temple Mount for the first time, and Eilat, still a teenager, began to participate in her grandfather’s excavations in the Ophel area. After army service, she was eager to attend university and follow in her grandfather’s footsteps.

In 1986 and 1987, she joined him on an excavation, continuing work which he had begun in 1970. It was at this time that many of the basic discoveries first came to light. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (1993) describes what they found: "The quality of the construction is impressive, featuring thick walls founded on bedrock, sometimes preserved to a height of some 4m. The first stages of these buildings date to the ninth century BCE, at the earliest... The various building units combined to form a dense complex whose outer walls created a continuous line of fortifications along the eastern side of the Ophel, overlooking the Kidron Valley. The gate may be associated with the large tower."

The most recent announcement, then, seems to be a reiteration of previous declarations, with a few new pieces of supporting evidence revealed; in particular several LMLK pottery handles which have never been published before. LMLK (In Hebrew - Lamed-Mem-Lamed-Kaf - L'melech , meaning ‘to the King’) refers to royal seal impressions typically found on pottery fragments in and around Jerusalem.

However, Neal Asher Silberman suggests even these new finds don't mean much. "This is not careful, systematic archaeology, yielding a more sophisticated understanding of Iron Age Jerusalem," he writes on his blog. "It is secular shrine building and idolatrous historical idol worship– consciously or unwittingly serving contemporary religious and political agendas and helping to sabotage any hope of future compromise in Jerusalem."

It is precisely because of the weighty relationship between history, identity formation and politics that these ostensibly esoteric debates seem to take on a life of their own beyond scientific circles.

Regardless of intent, Mazar’s findings have been employed to substantiate a Jewish narrative that asserts a 3,000 year connection to Jerusalem. Jewish newspapers and magazines have emphasized nationalistic aspects of the story. Jonathan Tobin, Executive Editor of Commentary Magazine, for example, wrote that, "these new discoveries, along with those of a previous dig in a different area of the city of David, contradict contrary Palestinian claims that the Jews have no claim to the area. They also debunk the assertions of some Israeli archaeologists who have sought to portray the kingdom of David and Solomon as an insignificant tribal group and not the regional empire that the Bible speaks about."

Interestingly, the story immediately initiated a flurry of activity in the Christian Zionist world. Evangelical blogs and websites quickly seized on the Solomon story as "evidence that Bible prophecy will be fulfilled."

It's worth noting that the February 2010 announcement came just days after the Israeli government's own declaration of a "Heritage Plan" to invest millions of shekels in upgrading historical and archaeological sites. Not surprisingly, condemnation of the project was swift. Hamas big gun, Ismail Haniyeh, for example, denounced the Heritage plan as a scheme, "to erase our identity, alter our Islamic monuments and steal our history."

Palestinian writers and their supporters have been equally critical of allegedly religiously-motivated archaeology in Jerusalem and throughout the country. "Israel has used archaeology as an effective weapon not only to appropriate the land, but also to create a historical justification for the appropriation," writes Palestinian archaeologist Ghada Ziadeh, in an essay entitled "An Archaeology of Palestine: Mourning a Dream." (Selective Remembrances: Archaeology in the Construction, Commemoration, and Consecration of National Pasts, chapter 11, 2008).

Palestinian-American anthropologist Nadia Abu El-Haj was particularly accusatory in her controversial 2001 book, "Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society," in which she disparaged the "colonial-national historical imagination...of the so-called ‘new Hebrew’ nation." (Abu El-Haj, Facts on the Ground, pp. 2, 4.)

That's not say there's no meeting ground between the narratives. Palestinian archaeologists, because of their condemnation of Israel's annexation of east Jerusalem, will not request excavation licenses from Israel and will therefore not excavate in Jerusalem, neither alone nor in collaboration with their Israeli peers. But, at least one Israeli archaeologist, who declined to be identified, told the Report, "I have many contacts with Palestinian archaeologists. We talk about things, and there are beginnings of educational work in Palestinian communities in Jerusalem."

But Aren Maeir, a professor of Archaeology at Bar Ilan University, suggests it's still too early for true collaboration. "I know there have been a few attempts for Israeli/Palestinian cooperation in archaeology, but most have not gotten far," he tells the Report. "In fact, nowadays, based on my experience and that of several colleagues, Palestinian researchers are not interested in research collaborations with Israelis, since these are defined as ‘collaborating with the enemy’ in Palestinian eyes."

Maeir also acknowledges, "Politics get involved in just about every dig in Jerusalem, although there are those that get it more, particularly in the City of David, whether because they are in more politically contentious zones, or, because some of the excavators come out with rather bombastic statements."

Beyond the ideological criticism, Eilat Mazar actually spends much of her time dealing with Israeli bureaucracy. "Every day, I deal with paperwork. There are so many levels of government, the Antiquities Authority, various permissions which must be obtained. Everyone has something to say. I know that the politics and bureaucracy have driven some excellent scholars out of Jerusalem." But despite the challenges and ongoing battles, Eilat Mazar continues to be fascinated by the work, her youthful enthusiasm belying the fact that she's now a grandmother herself. "Archaeology is really about people, how they lived, their needs and abilities, and their visions."

As for her critics, she mischievously suggests there's still more to come. "Archaeology never stops surprising. And I have I secret...actually a few."

My thanks to Dr. Eilat Mazar, Prof. Aren Maeir, Prof. Israel Finkelstein and Neal Asher Silberman

The Flame in the Ashes

2011-03-17T10:51:00.006+02:00

I presented this dvar Torah at Congregation Shaarey Tefilah in Vancouver few years ago:

This week we read Parsha Tzav from Leviticus. This parsha is in many ways a continuation of Vayyikra, which we read last week; and these parshot plus the next two form a kind of "Everything you Always wanted to know about sacrifices but were afraid to ask." And I mean everything! I must admit, like many of you, I find this section of the Torah the most difficult. It's relatively easy to find relevance in the lives of the Patriarchs, but here, it feels a little like looking for the meaning of life in the instruction manual for your DVD player.

I should mention here that it's particularly apt that I should be speaking on this subject at this time. My grandfather, z'l, whom I'm named after was born on Purim, and was called Mordechai. I've always enjoyed this tradition of naming our children after our ancestors. It's a wonderful way of keeping the past alive, and revering our traditions. The opening of this week's Parsha, alludes to this idea.

TZAV detailes the laws of the Karbanot, he sacrificial offerings brought both in the Mishkan, the portable Tabernacle, and later in the Beit HaMikdash, the Holy Temple in Yerushalayim. Incidentally, the word TZAV comes from the same root as MITZVAH, which means commandment.

Tzav opens with God's instructions to Aaron and his sons on the commandments of the burnt offerings. As a result of these offerings, ash collects on the altar. The priests are given very explicit and detailed instructions on the removal of the ash, including a change of clothing. We're all very lucky we don't have to go to this much trouble every time we take out the garbage.

What is most significant to me here is the reason for this care in removal of the old ashes: the fire must be kept burning continually. In fact, if you look carefully you'll see that this commandment is given twice (Vayyikra VI, Lines 5 and 6.) The message is clear: in order for the fire to burn well, the old ashes must be removed. And they must be done by a Priest with care and reverence. What is interesting is that not all of the ash is removed. The Priest collects only a shovelful. It is the ritual that is important. In doing so, each day begins with the completion of the sacrifices of the preceding day.

In many ways, we are like the altar, as both a community and individuals. As the Jewish nation, we have been shouldered with a responsibility to make sacrifices, in the both the colloquial sense, that is, to give something up, and in the Jewish sense, to draw nearer to God. Both definitions apply to the term sacrifice. Although we are no longer able to offer up the sacrifices as prescribed by the Torah, we find ourselves continually making sacrifices in order to live as Jews in the modern world.

It could also be said that throughout history, it has been the Jews that have been offered up as a sacrifice, not voluntarily, like the burnt offerings, and not for OUR sins, but for the sins of the other nations. It still shocks me to think that less than 20 years before I was born, Jews were being reduced to ash, not metaphorically, not allegorically, but all too literally. Without care and most certainly, without reverence. This year, we mark the 66th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp, and recently, the new Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust museum opened. In the next few years, we will be faced with a new challenge. How do we, as a people, continue to mark the Holocaust, without letting it weigh us down. We are all covered with the ashes of history. We all carry with us ashes of anger, guilt, denial, horror and vengeance. As long as OUR altars are covered with ash, we cannot burn brightly. This week, we remembered a near Holocaust of the Jewish people of Persia. We could continue to be be angry and bitter at these enemies. Instead, we have found a way, though music and prayer, to remove these dark ashes from ourselves, and have succeeded in making Purim a bright light in the Jewish calendar.

My Grandfather, Mordechai, managed to live up to his name. He was a steamship agent in Ottawa for many years. As the situation for European Jews worsened before the war, he (and others) lobbied Steamship lines and members of Parliament until a system was established so Canadians could buy tickets for European relatives to escape Europe. Before this change, money had to wired to Europe, and as you can imagine, it did not always make it.

Each year, when I mark Yom Ha'Shoah, I think not only of family lost, but also a bright light that overcame a challenge and made a difference.

Each of us is a fire on an altar. Our own lives can become heavy with soot and remains of pain and hurt. From the loss of a job, to the death of a parent or child. Through acts of tradition - like being named after my Grandfather - we find ways of removing remnants of sadness and loss, to keep a family healthy and vibrant. It's important to remember that we are not expected to live in the past; tradition should never be a burden. We can manage our pasts with care and reverence, like the ashes of the altar, but we live in the here and now and must be ready to fulfil our lives to the fullest.

TZAV reminds us of the importance of taking some time each day to reflect on our lives and Jewish history so that we remember to remove these ashes that can smother us and prevent us from burning as brightly as possible.

Shabbat Shalom.

Minority Report

2011-01-10T11:49:00.007+02:00

Is it just me, or is this ongoing EU disparagement of Israel's sovereign rights looking increasingly like the film Minority Report? Let me be blunt: there is no Palestinian state. It does not yet exist. It may never exist. We don't arrest people for murders they haven't committed. Yet, the EU continues to charge Israel with an occupation of Palestinian land. By this logic, we must also charge Spain with occupation of Basque land and declare Pamplona the capital of a Basque state.

As I've written before, no part of Jerusalem was ever designated to belong to an Arab state. The 1947 Partition Plan clearly recommends that Jerusalem's residents make this decision for themselves. If east Jerusalem is ceded through negotiations to a future Palestinian state, it will for the PA to decide the location of a capital; just as it's Israel's decision where to place her capital city, a fact that the international community also spitefully disregards. At the very least, Israelis might take this sort of nonsense more seriously if the EU also started to move European embassies to west Jerusalem. Until that happens, Israel should ignore the ignorant rantings of EU officials who only make themselves, and international law, look irrelevant.

Update 12/01/2011: I don't have time to go through the EU statement and detail its historical and legalistic errors, but fortunately, Yisrael Medad has done a good job on his blog here.

The Looking Glass War

2010-06-16T16:39:00.023+03:00

As Israel begins its own investigation into events surrounding the Free Gaza flotilla interception that resulted in nine deaths, it faces objections from states and organizations that have been demanding an international inquiry.

These objections are based on two fallacies: one is that Israel is incapable of honest self-examination; the other is the belief that Israel will avoid asking the questions the international community wants asked, specifically concerning the legality of the blockade and Israel's means of defending it. Undoubtedly, they also fear that Israel will investigate matters the international community wants avoided, such as Turkey's complicit involvement in the provocative flotilla, and the relationship between so-called humanitarian organizations and groups such as Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH) that have been identified as being linked to known terror groups.

Let's look at these objections. As for self-examination Israel has, in fact, repeatedly initiated investigations that have been both thorough and harsh. The investigation that followed the 1973 Yom Kippur War, for example, (Agranat Commission) was so critical the Prime Minister, Golda Meir, and Defence Minister, Moshe Dayan, stepped down.

Just two weeks after news of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre (the story was broken by an Israeli journalist in Lebanon, who incidentally, also covered the flotilla story), Israel announced an internal investigation. While the investigation concluded no "direct responsibility" (which was fair considering the killings were perpetrated by the Christian Phalangists and were committed with no Israelis present), it was still extremely critical of those who bore "indirect responsibility."

"It is our view that responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps, and having failed to take this danger into account when he decided to have the Phalangists enter the camps. In addition, responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps. These blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defense Minister was charged."

The Commission recommended that the Defense Minister resign and that the Director of Military Intelligence and other senior officers be removed from duty.

In 2008 the Olmert government saw its demise, in large part due to the blasting it got from the Winograd committee that investigated the Second Israel-Lebanon war. So critical was the report that even Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah praised it, saying: "It is worthy of respect that an investigative commission appointed by [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert condemns him...When the enemy entity acts honestly and sincerely, you cannot but respect it." Significantly, he added: "Even though they're our enemies, it is worthy of respect that the political forces and the Israeli public act quickly to save their state, entity, army and their existence in the crisis."

That's not to say the government has always initiated independent investigations when it should have; I've argued before that Ben-Gurion opened the door to continuing massacre allegations by not holding open investigations with international participation after the War of Independence.

The second criticism of an Israeli-held inquiry, that Israel will fail to investigate the blockade itself, is wrong-headed. The legality of the blockade is a matter for an international court, not the kangaroo court known as the UN Human Right Council. International law isn't that cut and dry, but in its broadest sense it can be defined as the body of rules that nations recognize as binding upon one another in their mutual relations. I would expect the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea may want to initiate an investigation of its own but that may be dependent on a complaint being filed. Of course, this is unlikely since the most bombastic complaints against Israel come from states whose own behaviour is suspect, especially Turkey, which wouldn't welcome an investigation into its illegal blockade of Armenia.

The real issue isn't whether or not Israel had a right to defend itself with a blockade (of course it does, otherwise the US and NATO would have sent ships directly to Gaza right from the start and that would have been the end of it); it's not even if Israel had the legal right to board the vessels and direct them to a port for inspection. Even the most critical law experts have agreed this is a grey area, and a legal case would be prolonged and complex.

The International community's secondary concern, that an Israeli inquiry must investigate what they deem is Israel's use of disproportionate force, is based on a lack of understanding of the term, and the right of states to defend their sovereignty. Or willful ignorance. As the entity designated responsible for maritime border control under the Gaza-Jericho Agreement (1994), Israel has every right to inspect ships entering its waters, or in the case of the flotilla, ships that advertise an intent to violate a blockade. Embargo searches can be conducted outside 12-mile territorial waters as long as the vessel isn't in someone else's waters.

As for the use of force, it is appropriate that individual soldiers not be investigated by international commissions; their actions were either the result of orders from commanding officers, who then bear responsibility, or were individual actions of soldiers violating Israel's own Ethical Code of Behavior. These ethical instructions are a part of every soldier's training both during war and peacetime. Soldiers are instructed: "to use his arms and his power to subdue the enemy in the necessary degree, and will restrain himself in order to prevent unnecessary harm to human life, limb, honor and property."

Soldiers are also commanded to respect human life: "The soldier will protect human life to the utmost, out of awareness of its highest importance, and will only place himself or another at risk to the degree required to carry out the mission."

I believe the IDF has a special responsibility to prevent all abuses, report on them immediately, investigate the validity of accusations and most importantly, follow up with arrests and punishments if warranted. To Israel's credit, this often happens, as this week's disclosure that a soldier is about to be charged for murder for the deaths of two women during the Gaza mission proves. Regardless of any international investigation, Israel has, in fact, established three independent investigations into the flotilla incident, not for the sake of the UN, but because Israelis by the thousands have demanded it: the Terkel Committee that was announced this week, an investigation by State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss (who has promised to focus on the legality of the government's decision-making process), and an IDF inquiry headed by Major General (ret.) Giora Eiland.

Israel is actually one of the few countries in the world whose army even has an Ethical Code of Behavior. That's not going to prevent the unnecessary deaths of civilians, but who should be examining the actions of the IDF, and demanding strict adherence to its moral code, more than anyone, are the Israeli people themselves.

And that's exactly what is happening.

Secrets and Lies II

2010-05-30T11:24:00.025+03:00

(read Secrets and Lies I)

What of the recently declassified documents themselves? Are they the long sought-after 'smoking gun' that some would believe? The Guardian's Chris McGreal ("Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons") is convinced, but even author Polakow-Suransky doesn't seem to think so. In fact, a more careful reading of these documents (and admitting that only a few of the thousands of documents Polakow-Suransky obtained have been published) suggests a less confident interpretation.

Are P.W. Botha and Shimon Peres discussing Israeli nuclear missiles? Polakow-Suransky suggests that the code 'chalet' refers to the Jericho missile, a short-range (500km) ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear payload. He interprets the heavily corrected documents to read: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of unit of Chalet provide [sic] the correct payload could be provided, Minister Peres said that the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice."

But the original documents clearly shows that the word 'provide' had been replaced (probably by Botha and Peres after reviewing a secretary's original version) with the phrase 'subject to.' The South Africans can use a Jericho missile, if they can obtain the desired payload. Peres, in a sentence also crossed out, informs Botha that the payload is available in three sizes; he does not say Israel can provide the payload in one of three sizes. He never identifies any payload as nuclear.

Imagine for a moment how the original sentences might have sounded before being reduced into concise notes:

Botha: Mr. Minister, we might be interested in obtaining a few - we've agreed to use the term Chalet, yes? - We can use Chalet, if we can also acquire from somewhere the correct payload for our needs.

Peres: Yes, of course. It's my understanding that the payload you're speaking of is available in three sizes.

Botha: I appreciate that information. I will obviously need to seek more advice on the subject.

A follow-up memo by South African military chief of staff Lieutenant General R.F. Armstrong, titled "The Jericho Missile System" (not 'The Jericho Nuclear Missile System') corroborates this version of events.

"In considering the merits of a weapon system such as that offered, certain assumptions have been made...that the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in the RSA or acquired elsewhere." [emphasis added]

The inclusion of this caveat seems unnecessary if Israel was providing a nuclear-armed missile. In any event, Armstrong confirms South Africa's own nuclear program.

There's an inherent risk in speculating on past events: they're often verifiable.

Did Israel supply South Africa with nuclear missiles? No.

Would South Africa have used nuclear weapons against an internal or external enemy? Nope. The country possessed six atom bombs, never used them, and destroyed them voluntarily.

Did Israel give nuclear knowledge to a rogue state? Maybe, although it's unlikely South Africa used Israeli assistance in developing its nuclear devices, according to David Albright, who has written extensively on nuclear proliferation and South Africa. In any event, both countries were developing nuclear technology simultaneously. Israel surely knew this when it engaged in arms discussions. Not in dispute is the fact that both Israel and South Africa received nuclear know-how, technology and materials from the US, France, the Uk and West Germany.

Would Israel use nuclear weapons against a neighbouring state? Well, if Israel possesses nuclear weapons, it failed to use them when 1800 Syrian tanks were pouring over the border into the Golan and tens of thousands of Egyptian soldiers were crossing into the Sinai; nor did Israel use these weapons in response to Iraqi rockets in 1991 or Hezbollah rockets in 2006. It seems evident that Israel's nuclear threat is a deterrent only to the use of WMD's and not conventional weapons. As such, Israel's policy of ambiguity has likely prevented the use of chemical weapons, which several of Israel's neighbours (including Syria, Egypt, Iran ) are known to possess; nuclear ambiguity, then, has added to regional stability, not the other way around, preventing minor disputes from escalating into a regional war.

What is particularly conspicuous is the shamelessly convictive attitude of some journalists: in this case, it is Israel's dealings with the apartheid state (not in question) to imply that the two were 'birds of a feather' with a shared ideology (out of the question).

But nothing was further from the truth; most Israelis were (and are) disturbed, even outraged, by the relationship but recognized the need for investment capital while Israel's debt was skyrocketing after the Arab-instigated 1973 Yom Kippur War. A year later, Israelis were paying the highest per capita taxes in the world. Israeli officials were also concerned with maintaining healthy relations with a state in which 130,000 Jew lived. When Israel had previously funded black liberation movements, the Pretoria government retaliated by blocking contributions to Israel from South Africa's wealthy Jewish population. (Time, 26 April 1976)

Even within South Africa, the relationship was seen as paradoxical. The daily Johannesburg Star described it as "an enigmatic embrace." Said one South African expert: "Politics make strange bedfellows and fear and loneliness even stranger ones." (Time, 26 April 1976)

The reality is that despite voluntary bans, most Western states continued to sell arms and do business with South Africa throughout the 70's. Only Israel, apparently, should be reprimanded for this moral oversight. (And it's worth noting that these same countries also trade with Muslim states that have yet to grant women the right to vote; what's the difference?)

Then there are allegations that Israel is an irresponsible proliferator of nuclear weapons, a charge critics of Israel use as a defence, albeit petty, for Iran's nuclear program. But was Israel flogging nuclear weapons or was South Africa probing about the availability of such weapons? There's a world of difference. Israel never sold nuclear weapons to anyone, and if it exchanged knowledge, so have many others. Again, only Israel should be censured for an act that has yet to be proven.

If these aren't double-standards, what are?

SOURCES
Armament and Disarmament: South Africa's Nuclear Experience, Hannes Steyn, Jan Van Loggerenberg, Richardt Van Der Walt
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1988
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1989
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July 1994
Ebony Magazine, August 1976
Israel and Africa: the Problematic Friendship, Joel Peters
The Israeli Connection, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, 1988
Israel's Defense Line, I. L. Kenen, 1981
New Scientist, 12 Dec 1974
Nuclear Disarmament in International Law‎, Haralambos Athanasopulos, 2000
Nuclear non-proliferation and global order By Harald Müller, David Fischer, Wolfgang Kötter, 1994
Nuclear weapons and arms control in the Middle East, Shai Feldman, 1997
Out of (South) Africa: Pretoria's nuclear weapons experience By Roy E. Horton, USAF Institute for National Security Studies, August 1999
Relations between South Africa and France with Special Reference to Military matters, 1960-1990, Victor Moukambi, 2008
South Africa: Time Running Out, The report of the Study Commission on U.S. Policy Toward Southern Africa, 1981
The Samson Option, Seymour Hersh, 1991
Time Magazine, "ISRAEL: Into Africa via The Back Door," 26 April 1976
The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, 2010 (Excerpt can be read online here.)
Yearbook of the United Nations, 1985 By United Nations, Department of Public Information, United Nations Staff

Secrets and Lies I

2010-05-27T16:12:00.056+03:00

This week's disclosure of a nuclear tie between Israel and South Africa, as Sacha Polakow-Suransky’s The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa, would have it, is nothing new. That hasn't stopped some from called the revelation "ground-breaking" and proclaiming with no uncertainty that Israel's nuclear program has, at long last, been revealed.

Rumours and allegations that Israel assisted South Africa's nuclear program have been floating around since the late 1970's. It was widely believed that a mysterious flash in August 1979 was a joint Israel-South Africa nuclear test. Further flashes were reported near South Africa on September 22, 1979 and December 16, 1980. Yitzchak Rabin, Prime Minister at the time, responded to the allegations then by saying, "There is not a grain of truth in the reports about nuclear cooperation with South Africa."

What is new is several declassified South African documents that Polakow-Suransky provides as proof that nukes were offered. The documents show that Shimon Peres (1923 - ), then Israel's Defense Minister met with P.W. Botha in 1975 to discuss a possible sale of Jericho missiles. Polakow-Suransky claims that the South Africans also believed that Israel would fit the missiles with nuclear warheads.

While not denying that the two men met to discuss conventional weapons, Shimon Peres, now Israel's President, has vehemently denied that nuclear weapons were offered. Former South African President F.W. De Klerk has called the allegations "simply ludicrous." De Klerk has flatly denied the story, saying, "I have no reason to question the information that was consistently conveyed to me by the relevant authorities that South Africa developed nuclear weapons on its own."

But what of the allegations? To really understand the complex rapport between Israel and apartheid South Africa, we need to go back and consider the context of mid-century realpolitik and international relations.

Long before allegations of cooperation began to circulate, South Africa was already pursuing its own nuclear agenda. By 1961 (two years before Israel's Dimona facility was activated) construction of SAFARI (SA Fundamental Atomic Research Installation), a nuclear research facility, had begun in Pelindaba with assistance from the US, France and West Germany. The Americans were also supplying enriched uranium to run the reactor.

Despite protests from some American quarters that Pretoria could utilize the enriched uranium for military purposes, the IAEA permitted a second reactor in Pelindaba, called SAFARI II. South Africa was also able to contract for the construction of two large nuclear power reactors with France (these two facilities didn't become operational until 1984 and 1985).

In 1970 South Africa announced that it had successfully achieved enriched (but not weapons-grade) uranium production on its own, and expressed an interest in "peaceful nuclear explosives" (PNE). According to Al J. Venter, author of How South Africa Built Six Atom Bombs (2008), Prime Minister John Vorster, in 1974, "approved the development of a limited nuclear explosive capability and the construction of an underground test site" at Vastrap, north of Upington. In 1975 work began on the two test shafts in the Kalahari Desert. The first nuclear device was completed in 1977.

In July 1977 both the USSR and the US (which according to some sources had been informed beforehand of the test) accused South Africa of preparing to detonate a device in the Kalahari desert. In a letter to President Carter, South Africa President Vorster pledged that "South Africa does not have nor does it intend to develop a nuclear explosive device... there will...not be nuclear testing of any kind in South Africa." The Kalahari test never happened.

But two years later, on 22 September 1979, a mysterious flash, similar to those seen during French and Chinese nuclear tests, was spotted over the south Atlantic Ocean near South Africa by a US VELA reconnaissance satellite. A commission established by President Carter concluded that the flash "was probably not from a nuclear explosion. Although we cannot rule out that this signal was of nuclear origin." But security agencies, in particular the CIA, were convinced that a joint Israel-South Africa nuclear test took place. Former President F.W. De Klerk has confirmed that South Africa had produced six bombs during this period but says they were voluntarily destroyed in the early 1990's.

According to the historical record, then, regardless of a meeting between South African and Israeli representatives, in 1975, when P.W. Botha and Shimon Peres met, South Africa was well on her way to testing an operational nuclear device.

This was also a period in which South Africa was feeling increasingly threatened by her African neighbours. In 1970 the International Court of Justice declared that South Africa's Mandate over Namibia, which it had held since the end of the First World War, was illegal. South Africa was particularly concerned with the influx of tens of thousands of Cuban troops and Soviet advisers into Angola who were intervening on behalf of Angola's Communist Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola - Party of Labour. South Africa, meanwhile, moved troops into Angola (Operation Savannah) to assist the pro-Western National Front for the Liberation of Angola. NFLA was receiving financial support from South Africa, the US and Israel, which also provided training and arms during the 1970's.

Around the same time, The Organization of African Unity (OAU) began to push the international community for sanctions against South Africa, specifically an arms embargo. A voluntary embargo, observed by the US and the United Kingdom, had been in place since the early 1960's. France had seized the opportunity to become South Africa's most important arms supplier; undoubtedly, Charles De Gaulle was also interested in obtaining South African uranium for France's own nuclear program.

In 1970 UN Security Council Resolution 232, a non-binding resolution, called "upon all States to strengthen the arms embargo." The US, France and the UK, all of whom had close economic ties to SA, abstained.

In the face of growing Soviet influence throughout Africa, the US was keen to push South Africa into anti-Communist interventionism. Despite the voluntary arms embargo, in 1975 the US would have likely given a sale of arms to Pretoria its blessing.

However, rising internal strife in South Africa a year later forced major powers to reconsider military and other economic agreements. From June to December 1976, a number of major protests, known as the Soweto riots, erupted in several major centers resulting in hundreds of deaths and thousands of arrests. France publicly announced that no new military contracts would be signed with the apartheid state. Several previous contracts were cancelled. West Germany, which had been supplying South Africa with experts and technical know-how also ended nuclear cooperation in 1976 (although production continued). In 1976 the OAU condemned France for its sale of nuclear technology to South Africa.

It was in this atmosphere of increasing conflict both within and outside South Africa, and in light of a tightening international arms embargo, that South Africa and Israel were undeniably pushed toward a closer military relationship. South Africa needed weapons and Israel, just two years after the Yom Kippur War, was desperate for money. A reluctant alliance was struck.

Such a relationship, however, should in no way suggest that Israel condoned Pretoria's racist internal policies, despite suggestions by some critics of Israel that these arrangements represented more than just a marriage of convenience between two ostracized states, that there were ideological similarities between Israel and South Africa. Premier David Ben-Gurion had previously condemned South Africa as a "deplorable regime of racial discrimination." Under Ben-Gurion Israel worked to establish relations with black African states, offering technical and economic assistance. After the 1973 October War, however, most of Israel's African friends broke off relations at the behest of the USSR and the Arab states (29 of the 33 black African countries that once had diplomatic ties with Israel broke them off at the time of the 1973 Middle East war) which consistently equated South Africa's racist policies with Zionism. Nevertheless, "Israel joined in UN resolutions condemning apartheid and voted for sanctions against South Africa." (South Africa: Time Running Out, pg 307)

To his credit, author Polakow-Suransky correctly concedes (in an interview at Middle East Analysis) a wide range of ideological thought by Israel politicians.

"[T]he founding fathers and mothers of the nation who were not just queasy but outright opposed and viciously critical of apartheid. These people spoke out against it, they allied with black African states," says Polakow-Suransky. But others, including Shimon Peres, "were willing to make moral compromises that the previous generation wasn't willing to make. It was strict realpolitik."

A third group, the Revisionists, were even more cynical. He adds, "In certain circles there was an ideological affinity. The correspondence between leading Israelis and their South African counterparts during this period bears this out. [Ariel] Sharon and [General Raphael] Eitan (1929-2004) were writing letters to their counterparts and saying we face a common threat and common enemy." [Note: Polakow-Suransky is not quite right about the political backgrounds of these two warriors; in 1948, both were members of Haganah, not the revisionist Irgun. Sharon was a Labor-Zionist. Eitan formed the Tzomet (Movement for Renewed Zionism) party and served as Agriculture and Environment Minister and also as a Deputy Prime Minister (1998-1999)]

In truth, while celebrated in the military establishment, in 1975, neither Sharon nor Raphael were in any position to influence government policy. After the near-disaster of the October War, a new government was established with Yitchak Rabin, a former Ambassador to the US and Chief of Staff, as the new Prime Minister and Shimon Peres, a former protégé of Ben-Gurion who had held a variety of cabinet positions, the Minister of Defense. Eitan was occupied with reorganizing the army in the North; Sharon had been elected to the Knesset in January 1974, but resigned in December of that year and returned to his farm in the Negev.

Tomorrow: The documents!

Big Story in a Small City

2010-05-12T08:55:00.011+03:00

It's Yom Yerushalyim (Jerusalem Day) in Israel. I've written on Jerusalem a number of times on this blog:

On the Destruction of the Hurva Synagogue and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City in 1948 here.

On Jerusalem's special status and international law here.

On the recapture of Jerusalem in 1967, which includes links to a radio report by CBS reporter, Michael Elkins on the battle for Jerusalem, and audio of Israel Defense Forces entering the Old City of Jerusalem and reclaiming the Western Wall on June 7, 1967 here .

Jerusalem, one of the oldest cities in the world, has its share of issues. There's also no doubt that Israel inherited a lot of baggage from the British and the Turks.

Before 1918, anyone born in Palestine was a citizen of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, the Arabs complained that many Jewish newcomers did not apply for Turkish citizenship but attempted to retain their European passports. This was a fair complaint as it meant Jews could avoid military conscription and other obligations. The British, when they took over the region, did not grant British citizenship to those born in Palestine between 1918 and 1948 even though they were an occupying power. Instead they provided resident status to Arabs, but Palestinian citizenship to Jews, according to the British Mandate given by The Council of the League of Nations:

"ARTICLE 7. The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."

In 1948, Palestinian Arabs found themselves scattered between various administrations. All those that remained in Israel were automatically given Israeli citizenship, if they so desired.

Palestinians in the West Bank and east Jerusalem (and the Old City) were given Jordanian citizenship when Jordan illegally annexed this territory on April 4,1950. (I'm actually not sure the status of those under Egyptian rule in Gaza between 1948 and 1967.)

In 1967, as a result of Jordan shelling Jerusalem during the first day of the Six Day War, Israel conquered these territories, and allowed an open border for the first time in decades between the formally divided city (against the wishes of mayor Teddy Kollek, incidentally. It was actually Moshe Dayan that insisted on this.)

Arabs in east Jerusalem were offered full citizenship when Jerusalem was reunified, but most refused at the insistence of the Arab League opting instead for Permanent Residence Status, an accommodation worked out with the Arab residents themselves. Every resident of Jerusalem can apply for citizenship at any time; Arabs who have been residents for years would be granted this almost automatically.

One might ask why Jerusalem's disassociated Arab and Jewish neighbourhoods even continue to exist. In fact, this was a policy inherited and maintained by Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek.

"In 1971, four years after the reuniting of the city of Jerusalem in the Six-Day war, reporter Arnold Forster interviewed Teddy Kollek, then Mayor, for Dateline Israel . Kollek regarded the issues of the development of the newly formed city, which at the time received world attention and was highly controversial." - IsraCast.com

You can listen to the Exclusive Teddy Kollek Audio Interview on IsraCast.

Haiti

2010-04-27T11:37:00.008+03:00

For the past few months, I've been writing and editing a new English-language magazine called Essential Ra'anana. Here's a piece from the Purim 2010 issue.

To Haiti With No Hesitation

Moved by the devastation and desperation after the earthquake, a Ra’anana doctor takes action.

By Morey Altman

It was his teenage son Daniel who first asked, “So are you going?”

Watching reports on the devastating 7.0 magnitude earthquake in Haiti with his family, Dr. Harvey Belik was moved by what he saw. He had seen the aftermath of the Tsunami in Indonesia when he was there as a volunteer in 2005, and he thought of the long-term rehabilitation that would be necessary in Haiti. While IsraAid and other international groups were concentrating on emergency care, there would be thousands of patients requiring everything from childcare to psychological counselling for PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) while shattered Haiti slowly rebuilt.

A well-known family physician in Ra’anana, Dr. Belik served as Medical Director of Maccabi Health Service until two years ago, but now concentrates on his private practice. He and his wife Loretta made aliyah from Australia in 1988.

Belik contacted several groups in Israel and received a positive response from Natan: the Israeli Coalition for International Humanitarian Aid (Natan I-Relief), which was named in memory of legendary Israeli activist Abie Nathan (1927-2008). Within days of the earthquake Natan I-Relief organized a program “to deliver life-saving materials and to launch a monthly humanitarian aid delegation comprising of Israeli volunteers providing medicine, trauma care, child care and social and community rehabilitation.” The first delegation left just three days after the earthquake. The second delegation was scheduled to leave on January 22. That gave Belik only two days to prepare. And he knew the trip would be no picnic. A long flight to the Dominican Republic, an uncertain bus ride from Santa Domingo to Port-au Prince and no idea what conditions they’d be operating in. In retrospect, jokes Belik, “it was pretty gutsy of me.”

The Natan I-Relief delegation was led by social worker Dr. Moshe Farchi, head of trauma at Tel Hai Academic College and consisted of one medical doctor (Belik), Nurse Tamara Dolgin and a psychologist and social worker. They were met in Santo Domingo by Alexander de la Rosa, the Dominican Republic’s Ambassador to Israel, a friendly, Hebrew speaker who happened to be home at the time.

Back row (from left to right) Sister Marie, Dr. Harvey Belik, Magay (interpreter), Dr. Moshe Farchi, Dr. Eitan Shachar, Nurse Tamara Dolgin

The bus ride took 18 hours – the bus broke down twice – before it approached the battered Haitian capital. “It was like a war zone,” says Belik. “As we got nearer, we began to see rubble. One building was up, another down. The smell of death still lingered.”

A charity group hooked them up with a beleaguered Catholic retreat center in the heavily damaged neighbourhood of Sainte Marie. When they arrived at the center they found a 70-year-old German nurse, Sister Marie, working alone in desperate conditions. She would continue to run the show, with the Natan I-Relief team tending to the gathering patients. She introduced them to visitors of the camp as her ‘miracles from Israel, sent by Abraham and Moses.’

They focused on family medicine, treating infections, broken bones and malnutrition while coping with sporadic electricity, water shortages, hungry mosquitoes and the heat. Despite the conditions, the team, which debriefed every night to share experiences and plan ahead, set out to build a model community and address wide-ranging health concerns, especially the prevention of contagious diseases. There was a general awareness that while their stay may be short, it would be possible to promote well-being activities that would continue to serve that Haitians long after the Israelis left.

They also worked to open a school for the neighbourhood children, whose own school had collapsed killing two students. Belik, a strong proponent of Jewish education, and founder and board member of Ra’anana’s Tali and Meitarim Schools, recognized the importance of restoring some normalcy in the lives of the traumatized children. Working with local teachers, the Israeli team helped set up makeshift classrooms, using donated IDF tents, around the center and even in the adjacent cemetery for 400 local kids. They also advised the teachers, many of whom had also suffered in the quake, on strategies to help the children better cope with what they had experienced.

“It was personally very fulfilling,” says Belik. “I had tremendous support from home and really felt like my family was with me the whole time. It was also nice to be able to show a human side of Israel. We were there to help, but I’m happy the positive PR was a by-product.” Dr. Belik, who is also a Major and medical officer in the IDF, says it was “an amazing feeling to see the Israeli group in action.”

He was particularly inspired by the strength and dignity of the Haitians. “They were incredibly resilient,” says Belik. “There were thousands of refugees with next-to-nothing, but they would come to us well-groomed, singing prayers. But culturally, we were very different. Some might ask, ‘Why care about Haiti? We have nothing in common other than being people.’ But that is everything.”

Throughout 2010, the Natan coalition will send eleven more delegations to assist with the multidisciplinary rehabilitation needed in Haiti. Individuals and organizations that are willing to mobilize and help are asked to directly contact Natan's representatives: Nathan.irelief@gmail.com

Cheques can be sent to Brit Olam's offices: P.O.Box 53316, Tel Aviv, 61533

Direct donations can be made to Brit Olam's bank account: Israel Discount Bank Ltd (11), Branch No. 105, Tel Aviv University. Account No. 27470.

Return to Life

2010-03-16T10:52:00.008+02:00

Last night, the Hurva Synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City was rededicated after four years of rebuilding. The synagogue, which was built in 1864, had been destroyed by the Jordanian army in 1948. While the story has had international media coverage, most outlets have been conspicuously vague on the destruction of this important shul. AP wrote that Hurva was destroyed "during Israel's 1948 war of independence", while Reuters simply acknowledged that it was destroyed "during a war in 1948." Neither outlets mentioned the Jordanians or the destruction of the Jewish Quarter.

The battle for the Old City, and subsequent destruction of the Jewish Quarter and its synagogues is an important element in the Hurva story.

Hurva Synagogue, C. 1939

The residents of the Jewish Quarter, almost all of whom were religious Jews who had lived in the city for generations, had ample opportunity to flee while the Old City was still under British jurisdiction. The majority chose to stay until the bitter end. The day before the surrender had been Lag Ba'Omer. The beleaguered Jews prayed for reinforcements. They were almost out of food and water; there was no electricity; the Haganah garrison had expended almost all of its ammunition; 300 soldiers had been killed, most of the others were injured but refused to leave their positions. The Jewish Quarter had endured two weeks of shelling and gunfire.

On Friday, May 28, 1948 the Arab Legion succeeded at controlling the main Jewish street of the Quarter and immediately destroyed the Hurva Synagogue (in anticipation of the arrival of King Abdullah).

The International Red Cross had - to their credit - been trying to convince the Legion, at the request of the Haganah, to permit women and children to leave. The Legion repeatedly refused, demanding that there be a complete surrender of all Jews. All attempts to stop the Legion had failed, and with fighting now raging along a 20-mile front between Latrun and Ramallah, reinforcements were unavailable.

By Friday morning "only Batei Machse, the Sephardi synagogues and Shaar Hashamyim Yeshiva remained in Jewish hands." More civilians were killed, including several women, a shopkeeper and a man helping the soldiers but the garrison refused to give up; and the Jordanians refused to permit civilians, now holed up in the synagogues, to leave unless there was a complete surrender.

With no other possible recourse, Rabbi Reuven Hazan and Rabbi Israel Mintzberg put themselves into the line of fire to negotiate a surrender. They were shot at by a few of the Haganah boys - Haganah leader Moshe Rusnak was afraid their action would lead to a massacre of the residents - and forced back; but, everyone knew the situation was hopeless. After brief discussions, they were back on the streets 30 minutes later with their white flags (only to be shot at by Jordanians). They might have been killed on the spot. The Jordanians were only meters away from the Jewish positions. Instead, their intervention managed to convince both the Haganah and Arab Legion to temporarily stand down while civilians were evacuated, and the captured soldiers and men were returned to Israel in exchange for Jordanian prisoners several months later.

"At 11:00am on Friday, Rabbis Reuven Hazan, 70, and Israel Mintzberg, 83, walked from one of the Jewish positions toward the Arab lines. They carried a white flag made out of a bit of once-festive tablecloth tacked to a stick. Although he was shot and wounded by a sniper, Rabbi Hazan called out in Arabic, 'Good morning. We have come to talk to you, and we want to see your commander.'"

Mitzberg was held hostage while Rabbi Hazan retrieved the Haganah representative to negotiate the surrender. After 13 days of shelling (which killed or injured hundreds of civilians) and hand-to-hand fighting, "the exhausted Jewish garrison in the Old City of Jerusalem accepted the Arab Legion's surrender terms."

On Friday afternoon "290 able-bodied men from 15 to 50 were taken prisoner and 1,200 women, children and aged were passed to the Jewish lines outside the walls with the cooperation of the U.N. representative and the Red Cross....the evacuation of civilians through Zion gate began on Friday evening and lasted until 2 o'clock on Saturday morning." Fifty-one of the captives were injured; three physicians and four nurses volunteered to stay with them.

There are some reports that Jews were, in fact, invited to stay in the Old City if they promised allegiance to King Abdullah. I haven't been able to find out if anyone accepted the offer.

An excellent first-hand account of the surrender can be read in 'Forever My Jerusalem' by Puah Shteiner. Further accounts are now online in archived editions of The Palestine Post.

Photos of the destruction of the Old City and the surrender of the Jewish residents can be seen here.

Emet m'Tsiyon also features an excellent photo essay called "The Hurvah Synagogue before Being Blown up by the Arab Legion of Transjordan, Courtesy of His Britannic Majesty's Generals and Officers" available here.

Hot Docs

2010-02-11T21:29:00.004+02:00

Way back in 2003 (when cell phones were used mainly for phone calls and a 10 lb. laptop was considered "conveniently light"), I was serving as Executive Director of the Vancouver Jewish Film Festival. I was asked to write an article for Vancouver's Jewish newspaper in response to a controversy over a documentary film on the festival circuit called, "Palestine is Still the Issue." The subject is still relevant, and I've never posted the article so here it is, as it appeared in the April 11, 2003 edition of The Jewish Bulletin:

Is every documentary propaganda?

A filmmaker can use myriad techniques, including omission of facts, to support or refute practically anything.
MOREY ALTMAN SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH BULLETIN

Film analysis is a tricky business. As Greg Felton, in a letter to the editor ("An exercise in propaganda," Bulletin, March 14), suggests, even a review of a slanted film might itself be slanted. Such is the case with the provocative British documentary film Palestine is Still the Issue, Pat Johnson's problematic review and equally problematic rebuttal by Felton.

That the film Palestine is Still the Issue is propaganda should come as no surprise to anyone, even Felton. After all, propaganda is simply the dissemination of a particular view or outlook with the aim of altering other people's beliefs. A quick review of filmmaker's John Pilger's 25-year career in journalism provides ample evidence of his political leanings. His film simply reflects those opinions. Incidentally, his boss, the chairman of Carlton Television, Michael Green, has suggested even bigger problems with the film: "We do present programs that give differing points of view. It [Palestine is Still the Issue] was factually incorrect, historically incorrect. Unfortunately, you can't always agree with him [Pilger]." ("Carlton chairman criticizes its own documentary on Israel," Paul Peachey, the Independent, Sept. 20, 2002) But it should be noted that this opinion has been seriously challenged.

But, so what? It's not like this is the first propaganda film ever made. In fact, it could be argued that every documentary is propaganda of sorts. There is a certain misconception that a documentary film is, in fact, a document, with an obligation to be balanced. Although documentaries are expected to adhere to certain conventions – real people, real events – this is not always the case. Robert Flaherty, director of the landmark documentary Nanook of the North (1922), believed, "Sometimes you have to lie. One often has to distort a thing to catch its true spirit." ("Robert Flaherty: Nanook of the North," by Derek Malcolm, the Guardian, April 13, 2000)

A skilful filmmaker can use myriad techniques, from selective omission of facts to a careful choice of quotes, to support or refute practically anything. Simply by diverting our attention towards or away from a subject, a filmmaker can alter our emotions and impressions. The camera sees only what it's supposed to see. Or not see.

But there's a big difference between works that are simply unbalanced as opposed to deliberately dishonest, despite Flaherty's admission. A good documentary must have a voice; otherwise it's merely a news story. No one could debate the ferocity of German pride celebrated in German filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will. Using brilliant camera work, lighting and staging techniques, she created one of the most powerful political films ever made, but make no mistake; fine camera work doesn't make Triumph of the Will any less a propaganda film. In fact, it is what makes the film even more seductive and appealing.

The same could be said of any of the recent works of Oliver Stone. In films such as JFK and Nixon, Stone masterfully manipulates and even recreates actual events to support his particular visions of these political figures. Was JFK historically accurate? Of course not. But, it was damned entertaining.

All of these films are visually stunning and, without a doubt, unbalanced. But are they untruthful? In the case of Triumph of the Will, Riefenstahl herself has revealed that "the preparations for the party convention were made in concert with the preparations for the camera work." In other words, the city of Nuremberg became a huge set for the film. All of the activities and movements were staged for the camera. It is this combination of purpose and technique, and not just the one-sidedness of the film, that makes it true propaganda, as we know the term.

It is also impossible to analyze propaganda without appreciating the context in which the film is created and exhibited. Palestine is Still the Issue was produced by a man with a record of imbalance (or strong opinion, depending on how you look at it). Since its original and highly controversial broadcast, the film has only been exhibited by political organizations whose mission is the distribution of information supportive of a very specific political belief, that is, the end of Israeli occupation of the disputed territories. These are relevant facts in any review. It might be true that the film is "propaganda" but the imbalance must be proven. This is especially true with a film that is defamatory and deceptive. Ultimately, the responsibility is on the journalist to choose words carefully, and back them up with facts and not just opinion.

Two recent films from Israel illustrate the subtleties that distinguish between films that are simply unbalanced as opposed to bona fide propaganda. Purity (Tehora) by Anat Tzuria examines some of the difficulties Orthodox women face in adhering to the Jewish purity laws. All of the women featured in the film are real. The film offers little in the way of rebuttal from religious authorities or even women who embrace the purity laws with pride. There is no question that the film is unbalanced, but is it dishonest? Well, in a sense. The director neglects to mention in the film that she interviewed more than 100 women who observe tehora until she found three willing to speak against it. Nor does she mention that she herself was raised in a secular Jewish home and only follows the purity laws to please her Orthodox husband. In a world of diverse opinion, it's possible to find three people to support or refute almost anything. Watch any episode of the Jerry Springer show if you don't believe me.

Jenin, Jenin is another matter altogether. The film looks at recent operations in the town of Jenin by the Israel Defence Forces and the allegations that a massacre took place there. The subject of a ban by the Israeli Film Censorship Board, the film is now being seen outside of Israel at various festivals and special screenings by pro-Palestinian organizations. The board banned the movie "because it presents the events in a distorted way under the guise of a 'documentary.' " In an interview in the Jerusalem Post, Muhammad Bakri, the director of the controversial film has said he hopes to "open eyes and minds and make people think about what's going on." Perhaps, but this hasn't stopped five reserve soldiers who served in Jenin from filing suit for libel against Bakri and the two Israeli theatres that screened the film. There is also some indication that the film has now been highly self-censored by the director (or distributor) before being released internationally, possibly to avoid having to defend the more obvious distortions of truth.

As the director of a Jewish film festival, I can tell you that these are the sorts of concerns that come up when we select films for the festival. To minimize bias, every submission is seen by at least four people. We then compare notes and make decisions based on the festival's mission and mandate. But even this process creates challenges. If we screen a film that explores a particular political position, are we irresponsible if we do not provide a forum for discussion following the film, or is it preferable to let viewers arrive at their own conclusions? What about films that are hurtful to only one segment of the audience? Can a film be useful for some but misleading for others? Whose responsibility is it to ensure the accuracy of the information in the films we screen? What role does a film festival play in the community? To entertain? To educate? To inform?

Although it's impossible to verify every detail of every film we screen, we do make a concerted effort to "background check" our films; it's not too difficult to find information on the more contentious ones. Since exhibitors can be held liable for their presentations, we don't screen films like Jenin, Jenin or Palestine is Still the Issue. On the other hand, we have shown controversial films like How I Learned to Overcome my Fear and Love Arik Sharon and Time of Favor (Ha-hesder), a film touchy enough to be dropped from the schedules of a number of other Jewish film festivals. For the record, we've also rejected films that are blatantly deceptive in favor of Israel. The goal is to avoid propaganda for either side and find films whose artistry and integrity speaks for itself.

But, as I've said, all of this is tricky business. The hope is that by educating ourselves, and challenging our biases, we can tell the difference between a documentary with a slant and a film that needs lies to support its argument, which makes it no documentary at all.

Morey Altman is director of the Vancouver Jewish Film Festival.

Auntie's Money Bag

2010-01-27T15:08:00.007+02:00

Canada has just taken a bold, unilateral step by announcing it will no longer fund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). This move will undoubtedly draw the ire of Palestinian supporters who consider such financial aid essential and sacrosanct. Nevertheless, UNRWA has drawn criticism for decades, and at the very least, the organization has needed a shake-up for a long time.

Canada, it should be remembered, was present at UNRWA’s birth in December 1949; indeed, the agency’s first director was a Canadian*. That Canada should be the first major donor to pull out of UNRWA funding is significant at many levels, and the move will undoubtedly affect G8 support of the organization.

The real challenge, however, may be the present Conservative government's ability to survive long enough to see any change. Many expect the Conservatives, whose draconian domestic policies have ruffled feathers across Canada's left-leaning populace, to lose the next Federal election. Support for the Conservatives, which presently rules with a minority government, has been falling. A recent poll shows them essentially tied with the Liberals who, if in power, would almost certainly reverse the UNRWA decision.

* "Canada subsequently voted for the establishment of the Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) in the General Assembly resolution of 8 December 1949 whose first director was General Howard Kennedy of Canada. ..." (Zachariah Kay, The Diplomacy of Prudence: Canada and Israel, 1948-1958 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1996): 24-28.)

The National Post has an editorial on the decision here.

In this still from a Reuters video, terrorists are seen
loading weapons into a UN ambulance.

Here are a few articles for background information on UNRWA's controversial history.

How UNRWA became a barrier to peace
Jerusalem Post
By Jonathan Spyer, 27 May 2008

Gaza Bedfellows UNRWA And Hamas
Forbes Magazine
by Claudia Rosett, 08 January 2009
How they keep each other in business.

Ex-UNRWA official blasts agency for politicizing Palestinian refugee issue
Ha'aretz
by Natasha Mozgovaya, 08 February 2009

James G. Lindsay's report, mentioned in the above article, can be read here. (Note: a pdf file will open)

The UN’s Palestinian Refugee Problem
Azure Magazine,
Arlene Kushner, 2005 (Note: a pdf file will open)

UNRWA`s Gina Benevento responds to the Kushner article here. (Note: a pdf file will open)

When Disaster Strikes

2010-01-26T13:23:00.014+02:00

Israel has been getting some much-deserved attention for its relief efforts in Haiti, as well as the usual small-minded aspersions. While most of the reports on Israel's rapid deployment to Haiti, following the devastating 7.0 magnitude earthquake that leveled Port-au-Prince and killed thousands, have been positive there have been some that have rushed just as quickly to say that Israel's efforts were nothing but a PR stunt. A few crackpots have even suggested that the earthquake was a man-made attack by the US and Israel. That sort of nonsense obviously doesn't deserve a response.

Israel's forté, earned through the blood of her injured and killed soldiers and civilians, is battlefield trauma aid and logistics. That an Israeli IsraAid team is able to arrive at a moment's notice with doctors and equipment is something which we can take pride in, however, not at the expense of others who have also been doing what they can. Look, we have doctors; we have state-of-the-art medical equipment (we invented much of it) but that should in no way diminish the contributions of other countries.

Both the detractors and the devotees need to keep things in perspective. While Israel's advanced set-up was impressive, there were other field hospitals; Cuba had several but they were handling basic first-aid (and amputations). Norway also had a small set-up with around 20 staff. Argentina was able to provide immediate aid because they had a an medical station in Haiti before the earthquake. There were also a number of doctors already in Haiti whose three Doctors Without Borders aid stations were destroyed by the earthquake. I believe they joined up with the Israeli unit but I'm working on confirming that. Canada, for its part, dispatched two warships - the HMCS Athabaska and HMCS Halifax - loaded with humanitarian aid, as well as several military transport planes.

I was in close touch with the Jamaicans, who were flying aid into Haiti and preparing to receive refugees (and I'm going to write more on Jamaica's efforts over the few days). It's worth remembering that a number of Caribbean nations provide on-going support to the beleaguered nation. They were there before the cameras showed up, and they'll be there, I expect, long after. That they can't provide the kind of high-tech care that Israel can provide is irrelevant; they do what they do and it deserves to be acknowledged.

But the Israeli hospital was receiving (indeed, it was seeking) the most difficult cases, and because they had electronic equipment probably better than many hospitals in the area, they got a lot of press. Frankly, much of the coverage has been, in my opinion, more the result of American hurt pride than any desire to promote Israel; they just don't like when others show them up. (and most of the over-generous reports are coming from the US, not Israel. Who in the international community watches Israeli TV? Even most Israelis don't!)

Criticism of the US (and other western states) has not been fair; they've been prepping the USNS Comfort, a massive hospital ship capable of handling hundreds of patients, which has just arrived in the region. The US could take the time to adequately prepare the ship (which includes a crew of 900, and helicopters for ferrying victims) because they knew the Israeli team would be there within hours (and the recon team was there before doctors arrived).

And now that US (and Red Cross) relief is arriving en masse (and it should be noted, A French hospital ship, the Siroco, has also arrived), the Israelis, and other teams, will go home. In the words of one Israeli officer, "We provided timely medical care to about 1,000 people, we conducted 300 operations and delivered 16 babies. In the past few days the Americans arrived and then you can put things in proportion and become more modest in the face of their airlift and the scope of their aid. You need to understand that those who will continue to treat the main suffering there are the Americans." It's exactly this sort of cooperation between the US and Israel that highlights the importance of the relationship, a fact often lost on those who dwell on financial support or Arab intransigence.

A bigger issue is the future of Haiti as a society, as a people. The earthquake was really just rubbing salt in the wound of a place already knocked down time and again. Haiti, ultimately, isn't Israel's responsibility but everyone's, and how the world continues to support this place, after the cameras and temporary aid stations have packed up and left, will be the real test. Long after emergency teams have returned home, it will be countries like the US and Canada which will be providing long-term assistance to Haiti; indeed, Canada is hosting an international conference in Montreal today aimed at coordinating rebuilding efforts and to "physically get the Haitian government back on its feet." Haiti is already the largest recipient of Canadian long-term development assistance in the Americas and the second largest in the world.

What's really been missing is a coordinating agency that assigns nations in emergency situations according to their special capabilities. This was recognized after the Tsunami in Indonesia in 2004, when poor coordination between international aid agencies resulted in surpluses of some supplies and equipment and acute shortages of others. That this sort of coordination is still not happening is yet another failure of the UN, which would rather spend its money (which is really G8 money) on canapés and Landcruisers.

One can be proud of the Israeli team, and cognizant of the tremendous efforts of others; the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, I was told there were representatives of 30 countries (now numbering in the thousands) working in Haiti as of a few days ago. Many flew there on their own dime and are working with little support. That also deserves some praise. If not more.

As for those who choose to diminish Israel's humanitarian work for partisan reasons (or the breathtakingly petty: "they're acting TOO proud!"), it really just points to a pathological need to sully the Jewish state, and an inability to proffer any sort of mature line of reasoning. Not the first time, either.

A Caribbean Mystery

2010-01-20T17:13:00.006+02:00

Slightly jet-lagged, but otherwise unscathed, I'm back in Israel, back on the computer, back at work. I was covering a conference in Kingston, Jamaica ("The Jewish Diaspora of the Caribbean") for the Jerusalem Report but took the opportunity to investigate other interesting and relevant stories. Of course, the biggest story of the week occurred nearby while I was there: the devastating earthquake in Haiti. We felt the earthquake in Kingston, but it was no worse than a minor Vancouver rumble, and most people didn't even realize that's what it was until reports started to come in a few hours later.

Several colleagues and I immediately assessed ways of getting there, and that story will follow in a few weeks, when I'm able to freely describe the bureaucratic rigmarole that tripped us up. Over the next few days, I'll be writing fairly extensively on Jamaican relief efforts, and on an interesting Shabbat. What do you get when you put together a Baghdadi Jew from the US, an Israeli/Canadian Ashkenazi, a Sephardic Panamanian and a Jewish Reggae artist from New York. Not the beginning of a joke; I'm describing last week's Kabbalat Shabbat service!

In the meantime, I invite you to consider a question: why would a 320-year old Jewish gravestone feature a skull and crossbones?

Our Man in the Caribbean Day 3

2010-01-14T17:14:00.004+02:00

Good morning, afternoon or evening.

Unfortunately, we've been moved to a different meeting hall where internet access in unavailable so no live blogging today. In stead, I'll do a short wrap-up next week, and of course, there will be a much more in depth review of the conference and feature on the Jewish diaspora of the Caribbean in a future issue of the Jerusalem Report.

For those who were following for my updates on the Haiti disaster, it is, of course, an ongoing concern here in Jamaica. There's a tangible concern and outpouring of grief and love for their fellow islanders; Jamaican businesses (including ScotiaBank which has a presence in Jamaica) are actively fundraising and collecting emergency aid for survivors. As well, this morning Jamaica's PM and staff are on route to Port-au-Prince to do a first-hand assessment. The expectation here is that Jamaica, and other islands, are about to receive refugees numbering in the thousands. At the very least, we're expecting that the UN, and other agencies, will have to set up tent cities in Haiti and neighbouring Dominican Republic. Confounding this effort will be destruction the UN itself has suffered. Dozens of UN peacekeepers have been reported dead, including the UN's mission chief, Hedi Annabi, and his chief deputy, Luis Carlos da Costa.

I'll try to post more on this later. Back to the conference.

Our Man in the Caribbean Day 2

2010-01-13T16:10:00.006+02:00

Jewish Diaspora of the Caribbean

There's only one synagogue left in Jamaica, Sharei Shalom Synagogue, the United Congregation Synagogue. After a devastating earthquake in 1882 destroyed the Sephardic and Ashkenazi synagogues, these groups came together and founded a new congregation. A synagogue was built but destroyed in a fire in 1907. A new building was completed in 1912, and it's still in use today, although the community has diminished and changed over the years. I'll be writing much more on this beautiful place, one of a handful of synagogues with a sand floor, in the near future.

Our Man in the Caribbean

2010-01-12T18:18:00.011+02:00

Welcome to everyone from Kingston, Jamaica. I'm doing something new, liveblogging from the Jewish Diaspora of the Caribbean conference at the beautiful and impressive Pegasus Hotel.

If you have any questions for the participants, add a comment here, and I'll do my best to get an answer. I think tomorrow, I'm going to add some sort of live blogging software to the page, perhaps Coveritlive. What do you think?

Day 1, January 12, 2010

11:00am
The conference started this morning and runs the next two days. It's an amazing coming together of academics, genealogists and local Jews interested in sharing their stories.

Ainsley Henriques opened the conference with a shehecheyanu blessing and a welocme to everyone.

Jane Gerber, conference co-chair and Professor of Jewish history and former director of the Center for Jewish Studies at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York spoke on the importance of this sort of event. Most importantly, the importance of having the conference in the Caribbean rather than, for example, New York. it's vital to not only talk about the synagogue of Jamaica but also to walk on its sandy floor; there is the hope that the conversations that are generated by the event will be open-ended, flow from the room to the coffee break and beyond....also papers will come from these deliberations. There are many subjects to discuss: we hope to engage in discussions on forms of identity..multi-dimensional, multiple jewish identities; building of nations of the peoples in the area. what roles did the Jewish community play in the development of the region?

Swithin Wilmot is the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Education and Senior Lecturer at the University of the West Indies: Dr. Wilmot welcomed the guests and asserted that "there's no doubt that the Jewish community is at the heart of the history of Caribbean history and culture." We will explore so many aspects of this history over the next 3 days.

11:30 am

Speaking now is Gerard Nahon from the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, in Paris. He's discussing Amsterdam and the Jewish nation in the Caribbean during the 17th century.

Holly Snyder from Brown University is now speaking on the subject: What Jewish Merchants contributed to Jamaican culture, 1670-1831.

Ms. Snyder is North American History librarian at Brown University's John Hay Library where her responsibilities include Modern Judaic Studies. She's currently working on a book-length manuscript entitles "Geographical Destinies: jews, Conversos and Crypto-Jews in the Age of Mercantilism, 1500-1800.

12:30pm LUNCH BREAK

2:00pm Rachel Frankel is talking about new technologies DIARNA, and the importance of cemetery research.

Diarna is an initiative of Digital Heritage Mapping, a 501c3 non-profit organization using technology to map and preserve cultural heritage sites around the world. “Diarna” means “our homes” in Judeo-Arabic, a version of Arabic mixed with Hebrew spoken by Jews across the Middle East in numerous local dialects. Read an overview article about Diarna in AJS Perspectives, the magazine of the Association for Jewish Studies. (from the Diarna website)

The International Survey of Jewish Monuments (ISJM) has an interesting page on the Jewish Cemetery of Hunt’s Bay and Orange Street Cemeteries in Jamaica.

There's a fascinating new book on the subject called: The Knell of Parting Day, by Marilyn Delevante.

Are you a descendant of Caribbean Jews? Let me know. Have a question for an expert IN JAMAICA? Send me a message or comment here.

2:30pm

Naomi Feuchtwanger-Sarig speaks on the mourning customs of Portugeuse Jews, their rituals, including the use of the colour black. The iconography of Jewish grief suggests the use of black as a sign of mourning is very old; but its origin as a ritualistic colour is vague. Texts in the mishnah record the use of back during the 30 days of bereavement (sheloshim); this custom was maintained in Spain for generations, and continues in Sephardi Jewish communities to this day. Some really interesting questions coming out of this talk: what is the origin of the iconography of the skull and crossbones in the Caribbean, and about the image of a tree being felled common on tombstones in Jamaica. I'll address these questions later, perhaps in the Jerusalem Report article.

That's it for today. This has been fun, and tomorrow I'll be set up a little differently. If you know anyone else who may be interested, please pass along the web address. I'm hoping I'll get a few questions tomorrow which I'll bring to the attention of the relevant guest speaker. Tomorrow's speakers include: Mordechai Arbell, Ronnie Perelis, Hilit Surowitz, Judah Cohen and Ed Kritzler, whose book Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean, I reviewed for the Jerusalem Report last year. I'll try to add pdfs of the review later.

Forbidden Highway

2009-12-31T16:27:00.011+02:00

This week, Israel's Supreme Court ruled that Palestinians in the West Bank must be able to use Highway 443, which connects the city of Modi'in (and several other smaller communities) to Jerusalem. Although Modi'in is in Israel proper, the highway, which runs along an ancient route (while constructing the highway, builders found a tomb containing ossuaries inscribed with the name Hashmonaim) described in a multitude of a old texts, cuts through a corner of the West Bank.

Admittedly, local Arabs could make use of the 443 for quick access to a number of Arab villages adjacent to the highway. Unfortunately for them, the IDF deemed it necessary to disallow vehicles without Israeli plates from using the road after a series of shootings that killed six people during the second Intifada. To prevent access, the army placed concrete barriers where the highway meets village access roads. Since the closure, Palestinians have been required to leave their vehicles behind these barriers and walk up to the highway so they can catch rides, or walk to nearby villages (or use alternate roads.)

As the Supreme Court has decided, this situation has not been fair, and I'm admittedly conflicted on the subject. There's no question that denying anyone the use of this road has been as infringement of human rights; but as human rights go, nothing can be more important than the protection of human lives. I recognize the obvious inconvenience of my Arab neighbours; but, I must reconcile their inconvenience with the safety of my friends, and more importantly my wife who travels this road several times a week.

It's a complex issue, and the Supreme Court, recognizing the security needs of travellers, has postponed implementation of the decision for five months, so that the IDF can find another solution.

Yaacov Lazowick has written a useful backgrounder, which provides historical context and describes some of the political aspects of the problem.

Related Stories:

Jerusalem Post Editorial: The Meaning of 443,
January 1, 2010

Israel's Open Road, National Post Editorial
Monday, January 04, 2010

A Dangerous Profession

2009-12-31T10:26:00.004+02:00

I've been known to criticize journalists because too many are lazy, or lacking the skills or backgrounds to adequately fulfill their assignments. Nevertheless, for most reporters, those who aren't making millions on CNN, it can be a thankless, low-paying job. And as I've mentioned before, I'm particularly sensitive to the dangers experienced by field journalists.

Last week, Alberto Velazquez, who worked for the Mexican newspaper Expresiones de Tulum, was gunned down as he left a party, making him the 12th reporter killed in Mexico this year. Dozens more have been beaten, harassed or abducted.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an American-based non-profit organization established in 1981, reports at least 69 journalists have been killed in 2009.

That number does not include Calgary Herald reporter Michelle Lang, who was killed Wednesday along with four Canadian soldiers when an IED detonated next to their armoured vehicle.

"Lang, on her first assignment in Afghanistan for Canwest News Service, had arrived in the country little more than two weeks ago. She won a National Newspaper Award last year for coverage of health and medical issues for the Calgary Herald." Colin Perkel, THE CANADIAN PRESS.

My condolences to their families, friends and colleagues.

Holiday Showdown

2009-12-24T17:10:00.015+02:00

This is the time of year (hint: December 25) when stories abound of Israel's unfair persecution of Christians. Unsurprisingly, Reuters, for example, attempts to put the damper on the holiday spirit by once again castigating the separation wall (which has dramatically reduced incidents of terror) as the author of Christian misery in Bethlehem. In the end, the best writer Erika Solomon can come up with is a quote denouncing the wall as a "huge visual impediment" and the old line that it represents a "land grab and a tool to consolidate Israeli control of Jerusalem." Like most uninformed writers, she fails to mention that the United Nations did exactly the same thing when it recommended the internationalization of the Jerusalem district (see my previous post), which included Bethlehem! Writers also fail to mention the effectiveness of similar separation walls, such as one in Belfast which has reduced tensions and violence between Catholics and Protestants.

Nevertheless, it's worth saying a few words about the status of Christians in Israel, Gaza and Judea and Samaria. It goes without saying, concern for Christian welfare in the region goes way back; I don't need to say too much on the origins and events of the Crusades. During the later centuries of Muslim rule, Christian communities enjoyed some good years and suffered some bad. Christians were subject to the same oppressive Dhimmi laws as Jews which required them to pay special taxes and obey rules meant to humiliate them into conversion. In many places Jews actually fared better; Christians were seen by many Muslims as idol-worshipers.

As the Zionist enterprise picked up steam during the mid-20th century, Arab Christians (most of whom are actually descendants of Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians) were undoubtedly expected to take up the Palestinian cause. But, it's also likely many, especially those who had been living and working amongst Jews in Jerusalem and Haifa, were frightened of the prospect of an Islamic Palestinian state under the authority of Grand thug Al-Husseini. Most of the Christians appear to have sat out the war of independence; that's not to say they relished Jewish rule, but the alternative seemed so much worse. In Israel proper, Christians generally stayed put while their Muslim neighbours fled north and east. In the West bank, demographics changed overnight. Villages which had been predominantly Christian, such as Bethlehem (80% Christian before 1948) and Ramallah (90% Christian before 1948) became Muslim. Many Christians, who were generally well educated and enjoyed more economic prosperity during the British Mandate years, took any opportunity to leave.

As the 1948 war raged, Christian communities outside the region expressed concern for their brethren. British MP Thomas Skeffington-Lodge (Bedford riding, July 5, 1945 - February 23, 1950) made their case in the House of Commons:

The Christians of today in the older cities of the Middle East present a varied picture. They live dangerously. They live almost as the Christians of the pre-Christian Roman Empire lived. They follow cults and rituals of considerable perplexity. Some of them are Catholic, some Orthodox, and many of them most certainly heretical. Massacres live in their memory, and they are very much on the look-out at the present time for protectors. I think that it is quite natural that they should be critical of the Muslims among whom they live. There are the Syrian Jacobites, the Syrian Catholics, the Greek and Armenian Orthodox, the Latin and Armenian Catholics, the Maronites, whose figurehead is his Beatitude Arida, a man nearly 90 years of age, and many others.....

...The position of many Christian communities in the Middle East is especially precarious in these days. The traditional tolerance of the Arabs towards minorities in their midst has been very much strained, and has not lessened since the recent developments in Palestine, or since the announcement of the withdrawal of British troops from that country and Egypt and Iraq. Even though these people are perforce siding at the present time with the Arabs among whom they are living, this country, and I hope my right hon. Friend recognises it, should use its utmost influences to check all hostile tendencies towards them and remind the Arab States that we should view the actual persecution of all minorities in their midst with the gravest disfavour."

There's good evidence local Christians still suffer humiliation and harassment. A Feb. 2008 National Post Editorial described Palestinian Christians as living in "constant fear." ‘Abd Al-Nasser Al-Najjar, columnist for the Palestinian daily, Al-Ayyam reported last year that

"Christians are being persecuted...in most Arab countries, regardless of their numbers there. The problem is that it is not only Arab officials who are remaining silent [in the face of these crimes] - [they do so] because their primitive mentality is centered on the cult of the ruler - but, alarmingly, so are Arab intellectuals, the elites, non-government organizations, and leaders of the private sector. All these groups look on at these unprecedented [acts of] folly without apprehending the danger with which these crimes are fraught."

"Furthermore, there has been an attempt to marginalize Christian culture in Palestine, even though it is rich and deeply rooted [there]. This began with [accusations] of unbelief [against Christians] - a move that ultimately harmed Palestinian society as a whole...

"Despite all the injustices [against the Christians], no one has seen or heard of any constructive action to curb it and to [defend] the Christians' rights - whether by the elites, by any of the three branches (executive, legislative, and judiciary), by non-government organizations, or even by the political factions themselves. [Such action should have been forthcoming] not out of kindness and compassion, but [due to] regarding Palestinian Christians as indigenous to this land, and [therefore] no different from us, with the same rights and obligations [as Muslims]. "

Last December, the Jerusalem Post's Jonathan Spyer reported

"a systematic campaign of persecution...in the Gaza Strip, and to a lesser extent in the West Bank. The general silence surrounding this campaign aids its perpetrators. The victims are Palestinian Christians, in particular the small Christian community of Gaza."

"The trend became noticeable with a series of attacks on the Palestinian Bible Society's 'Teacher's Bookshop' in Gaza City last year. The shop was the subject of a bomb attack in April 2007. Its owner, Rami Khader Ayyad, was abducted in broad daylight, and found dead on October 7, 2007.

Over the following year, a series of bomb attacks on Christian institutions in Gaza took place. Particular attention was paid to places of education. The Rahabat al-Wardia school run by nuns in the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood of Gaza City, and the American International School in Beit Lahiya were both bombed, most recently in May 2008. The Zahwa Rosary Sisters School and the El-Manara school, both in Gaza City, were also attacked this summer. The YMCA Library was bombed, as was the Commonwealth War Cemetery."

A few weeks ago, a delegation of activists led by Reverend Majed El Shafie, President of One Free World International (OFWI), visited Israel for a conference on human rights and persecuted minorities. According to El Shafie (who was born Muslim but converted), "every three minutes a Christian is being tortured in the Muslim world, and in 2009 more than 165,000 Christians will have been killed because of their faith, most of them in Muslim countries."

Sadly, there will be those who will choose to ignore centuries of Muslim harassment of Christians preferring instead to censure an Israeli wall or a few checkpoints. But, the history of the region speaks for itself; blaming these inconveniences for the eventual demise of this ancient community is like obsessing over a patient's hangnail while he slowly dies of cancer.

Related Stories:

Not all tidings are of great joy
by Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe, December 23, 2009

Beaten, but unbowed By Lela Gilbert, Jerusalem Post

Egypt's Coptic Christians battle for ID cards,
by Christian Fraser, BBC News Cairo

Attack on Egyptian Coptics kills six, CNN
January 6, 2010

Jerusalem, Jerusalem

2009-12-08T16:29:00.085+02:00

It's been a few years since the international community has attempted to unilaterally impose its will on Judaism's holiest place, the city of Jerusalem. I'm not speaking of the Crusades, although I will. The last time was 62 years ago when the United Nations presented a plan to internationalize the city and the surrounding area. The Partition Plan - which included an internationalization scheme for Jerusalem (Corpus Separatum) and its environs - was criticized by all sides, and summarily rendered null and void by the ensuing attack against the nascent state of Israel by surrounding Arab states that had rejected the plan wholesale.

It is important to remember that the Partition Plan, a product of an appointed 11-member committee (UNSCOP) and the UN General Assembly, was a compilation of recommendations only, and did not represent binding international law. In the words of the UN’s first UNEF Commander, Lieutenant-General E.L.M. Burns, the United Nations has "almost no powers to oblige any nation to make peace. More explicitly, it lacks the power to impose terms of peace or a general settlement. The Security Council can recommend only; the limitations are set out in Chapter VI of the Charter." Unable to defend its plan, it was doomed to fail. In a secret report, American Consul General in Jerusalem, Robert Macatee, warned US President Truman that, "if the UN expects to be able to partition Palestine without forces to help maintain order and to enforce partition, its thinking is most unrealistic and its efforts will be in vain."

Nevertheless, the Zionists welcomed the endorsement of establishing separate states for Palestine's Jews and Arabs. To that end, Palestine’s Jews did just that, proclaiming statehood upon Britain’s departure from Palestine and enforcing, to the best of their ability, the borders recommended by the plan. They did so, despite the problematic nature of the borders; they were, after all, meant to be borders between Jewish Palestine and Arab Palestine, a state rendered stillborn by Jordan`s occupation of the West Bank and east Jerusalem. In a report to the UN Security Council, the Palestine Commission aptly described the problem: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." (Report to UN, Feb 16, 1948)

By the end of the war, there was no Palestinian state, and Jordan held territories designated to the district of Jerusalem. The UN's brilliant rapporteur, Dr. Ralphe Bunche, was able to negotiate an Armistice, approved by the UN Security Council, between Israel and Jordan which ended the fighting. As such, it could be argued that the Armistice Lines between Israel and Jordan carry more weight than the internationalization plan. More importantly, the Armistice was never meant to be permanent – just the opposite – and it demanded final status be determined through negotiations of the warring parties; in fact, just such negotiations resulted in the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty, signed on October 26, 1994. The treaty "guaranteed Jordan the restoration of its occupied land (approximately 380 square kilometers) and ...defined Jordan’s western borders clearly."

The EU has now declared its desire to see Jerusalem divided, ignoring historical realities and international law. In a statement on the Middle East (2985th FOREIGN AFFAIRS Council meeting, Brussels, 8 December 2009), the EU has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of two states based on "pre-1967 borders."

Of course, Jerusalem has been divided before; but the years between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan occupied east Jerusalem and the Old City, were disastrous. Sniper attacks were common, Jewish Holy sites and synagogues were destroyed and Jews were denied access to the Western Wall, all violations of the Armistice Agreement and international law. No sensible person would voluntarily agree to repeat the debacle.

There are a number of salient factors which demand the EU's consideration:

1. There has never been a time in history when the Jewish people's unassailable link to Jerusalem has been questioned. Until the appearance of the Palestinians, that is. Critics of Israel, for myriad partisan reasons, now brush off Israel's claim to Jerusalem as nothing but a religious connection (which is also challenged or dismissed as anachronistic), no stronger or weaker than that of the Christians and Muslims who also maintain Holy places in the city. These critics wilfully ignore a 2,500 year historical attachment to Jerusalem, documented by both Jewish and non-Jewish residents, as well as countless visitors to the region. The Arabs, for example, who invaded Jerusalem in the 7th century, adopted the name Beit al-Maqdes [or, al-Quds ("the sanctuary")] for the city, from the Hebrew term for the Temple Mount, בֵּית הַמִקְדָּש Beit HaMikdash, ("House of the Sanctuary").

Centuries before the Arab conquest of the city, Christian documents attest to the mistreatment of the Jews, their desire to return, and Roman attempts to re-colonize the city with outsiders. Jerome, a Church father most famous for translating the Jewish Bible into Latin, wrote that, "It is forbidden for the treacherous citizens [Jews] to enter Jerusalem...they may enter only to lament there and they have to pay for the right to weep over the ruins of their state." (Jerome, 392 CE)

In a letter written nearly 1,000 years after the Roman expulsion, Rabbi Chisdai ibn Shaprut (c. 915 - c. 990 CE) of Andalusia described himself as, "Chisdai, the son of Yitzchak, the son of Ezra, from the descendants of the exiled of Jerusalem who now live in Spain...we have been waiting many years, while we have been transferred from one captivity to another, and from exile to another...we live in the Diaspora and there is no power in our hands."

Things got much worse before they got better. Christian Crusaders massacred thousands of Jewish and Muslim Jerusalemites during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to the region. Beginning in the late 1300's, Jews from Spain and other Mediterranean lands settled in Jerusalem and other parts of the land.

In 1517, The Ottoman's defeated the ruling Mamelukes and Palestine became part of the Turkish Empire. The Sultan invited Jews fleeing the Spanish Catholic Inquisition to settle in the Turkish Empire, including several cities in Palestine. Although the Ottoman Turks were generally fair-minded toward Palestine's Jews, by the 17th century, as the Turks' dominance was in decline, local bands of Bedouin, Druze and Maronite Christians rebelled against their authority and fought amongst themselves. To assuage local tyrants, the Turks granted them some autonomy in exchange for their services as tax collectors. These local authorities cared little for the rights or wellbeing of the Jews. At the same time, Latin and Orthodox Christians were competing between themselves - and vying for Turkish recognition - for control of Christian Holy sites. The Jews, as in other places, were often caught in the middle of these feuds, and suffered as a result.

In 1658, English Christian minister Henry Jessie described the dire situation of Jerusalem's Jewish inhabitants:

"The state of the Jews at Jerusalem of late was such that they could not live and subsist there, without some yearly supply and contribution from their Brethren abroad, because the place doth yield them little or no trading, whereby to maintain themselves; but their love for the place prompts them to remain there, albeit in great poverty and want. And their brethren abroad among the nations have been willing to uphold them there at Jerusalem, that the place should not be left destitute of some considerable number of their Nation, to keep as it were possession or at least some footing in it, and to show their hopes, till a full restitution come."

[Quoted in "The Jews in Palestine in the eighteenth century: under the patronage of the Istanbul Committee of Officials for Palestine," Jacob Barnai, 1992, pg. 14]

Documents such as these testify to the enduring desire, but inability of returning in large numbers to the Holy Land. But, despite desperate living conditions, Jews did return to Jerusalem, in increasing numbers proportional to improved freedom of movement and prosperity after European emancipation, and advances in rail and sea transportation from Europe to the Near East. By the mid-1800's Jews again represented the majority of the population of the city despite all of the hardships they had to endure, a fact repeatedly confirmed in documents of the era.

2. Jerusalem has always been revered as a unique entity, distinct from the surrounding region, its special place in history always acknowledged. Even the Ottoman Turks, who otherwise deforested and despoiled Palestine, invested in improving Jerusalem. It's worth noting that the Turks also altered the size and shape of Jerusalem. In the year 1548, [the Turks] "caused the city to be enclosed within a new wall, changing the line of the old one. Thus the city has been contracted on the south, where is Mount Zion, and enlarged towards the north."

After taking the city from the Ottoman Turks in 1918, the British began almost immediate work on restoring Jerusalem to her former glory. Technically, British military occupation last only two years, from 1918 to 1920 after which time responsibility for the city reverted to Civil Administration, beginning on July 1, 1920.

Although Israel is often accused of altering Jerusalem's character, it was actually the British who saw to it that strict measures were "enforced for the preservation of the traditional building style of Jerusalem, offensive and unsuitable materials [were] prohibited or removed, and an effective control of new buildings and town planning sections [was] instituted." The British, through the Pro-Jerusalem Society, recommended a modernization plan and expanding the borders of the city, permitting new Jewish neighborhoods to be built. In recognition of the growing population of the city they examined proposals for what was termed, "the Jewish Garden Cities", plus "English, Greek, and Muslim building projects in...the south-western area of the city." While there's no argument that a number of Arab villages surrounded the city, most new Arab neighbourhoods were a direct result of Arab population growth due to Jewish and British investment in the city.

The British also proposed a massive program of conservation and restoration in the Old City, which was literally crumbling away due to negligence. In the end, the British, from both lack of will and insufficient funding, were prevented from fully implementing their plans for the city, but they successfully augured in a new era for Jerusalem and began a process of expansion and growth which continues today. More importantly, they recognized and promoted Jerusalem’s unique status designating, for the first time in over 700 years, Jerusalem the capital of the country.

The UN acknowledged this special status by recommending internationalization for the Jerusalem district. Although rejected, it’s clear from the plan that no part of the city was intended to be allocated to an Arab state, let alone be its capitol. And although the plan was never realized, it’s significant that the internationalization scheme was also never meant to be a permanent solution; the plan calls for a referendum after 10 years in which the citizens of the city - which has had a Jewish majority for at least 150 years - should decide their own fate. (Note: The UN’s plan to extend Jerusalem’s borders around Bethlehem was an obvious contrivance to give the district a Muslim majority, which it did by just 5,000 people).

In 1967, the city was reunited by Israeli forces forced to respond to Jordanian shelling of Jewish neighbourhoods in West Jerusalem. When the fighting stopped, Israel was in possession of the Old City, east Jerusalem and the West Bank. But again the UN confirmed that Jerusalem's status was unique. In the two significant resolutions approved after the war, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, neither mentions Jerusalem. Arthur Goldberg, the US Ambassador who helped draft 242, made it clear at the time that the resolution "in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate....Jerusalem was a discrete matter, not linked to the West Bank." Nevertheless, the UN amended this position with UN Security Council Resolution 252 (adopted on May 21, 1968) which called on Israel to desist from all legislative and administrative measures, including land and property expropriation, which might change the legal status of Jerusalem. It's a tendentious, politically motivated resolution at best, which actually condones the 1948 division of Jerusalem by war - a contravention of the partition plan - and implies that Israel was the aggressor in 1967, even though it was Jordan which had attacked Jerusalem, despite pleas from Israel - transmitted through the UN - to stay out of the war.

3. The only time Jerusalem was ever divided was during the illegal Jordanian occupation (1948-1967) during which time Jews were forcibly expelled from the eastern and southern neighbourhoods, synagogues destroyed and Jewish cemeteries desecrated. The ancient Mount of Olives cemetery was particularly hard hit. "Workmen came during the day and pulled apart the stones and the tombstones and at night the army lorries came, loaded up the tombstones and drove off. The rest of the stones were taken by the merchants," recalled Khalil Ibn Sadar Khalil, son of Sadar Khalil, who had served on behalf of the Jordanian Government as caretaker of the cemetery.

When the Mount of Olives cemetery was recaptured by Israel in 1967, inspectors discovered open graves, human bones scattered around the area. Parts of the cemetery had been converted into parking lots, a filling station, a road, and even a latrine. In 1964, the Jordanians had even built a hotel, the Seven Arches Hotel (formerly the Intercontinental Hotel) on top of the cemetery, a blatant violation of Article VII of the 1949 Israel-Jordan General Armistice Agreement (GAA).

Newsreel footage from 1967 covers the cease fire, UN debates, and the reunification of Jerusalem.

4. Arab neighbourhoods incorporated into Jerusalem after 1967 included areas which had been Jewish or mixed neighbourhoods before the Jordanian annexation on April 4, 1950. In 1948, the Arab Legion captured approximately 2,000 sq. miles of Judea and Samaria west of the Jordan River, and the Old City of Jerusalem, whose 1,300 Jewish residents were expelled or taken to Jordan as prisoners. Jews living in east Jerusalem were forced to flee after sustained attacks by Arab gangs and troops from Egypt, Iraq and Jordan.

[Ben Atlas, on his blog, has curated a terrific collection
of Life Magazine photos of Palestine 1948.]

Sheik Jarrah is a case in point. Historically, this area included two Jewish sections known as Nahalat Shimon (founded in 1891) and Shimon HaTzadiq. The area is also home to the American Colony compound, St. George's Anglican Cathedral, and an ancient mosque named for one of Saladin’s troops. Significant to Jews is the 'Tomb of the Kings', which contains sarcophagi of various Jewish figures; in 1874 the site was purchased by a Jewish banking family, the Péreires, from an Arab real estate owner and given to the government of France on the condition that it maintain the site in respect of "the faithful of Israel.” [From ראובן קשאני (Reuben Kashani) ירושלים: אתרים היסטוריים במקורות ובמסורת הדורות pp 74-75 (1968)]

In 1948, Jewish residents of the neighbourhood endured repeated attacks by a Syrian-trained Arab Gang, known as Shabbab. Dozens of Jewish residents were killed or injured by snipers. Then, on April 13, 1948, 78 doctors and medical staff were killed and 20 wounded when a convoy of ambulances on route to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus was ambushed (within 200 yards of a British army post which observed the attack but did not interfere) while passing through Sheik Jarrah. The onslaught, ostensibly in retaliation for Irgun's attack on Deir Yassein, was likely carried out by Shabbab and Arab Irregulars who contemptuously ignored a request (in a January 1948 Memorandum) by the Palestine Arab Medical Association to refrain from attacking hospitals, ambulances, and medical personnel. A small British unit, under the command of Major Jack Churchill, did offer to try to ferry out the beleaguered medical staff, but would not engage the Arabs. Nevertheless, one of his men was killed while trying to render assistance. The Jews refused the offer, believing the Haganah - which was being prevented from entering the area - would come to their rescue.

In response, on April 25, 1948, the Haganah’s Harel Brigade attacked Sheik Jarrah. They had succeeded in securing the neighbourhood until they came under heavy fire from British forces using tanks and artillery. The Haganah men were battered until they agreed to withdraw, although only on the condition that the neighbourhood remained neutral territory. The British agreed, but subsequently turned Sheik Jarrah over to Iraqi troops who had entered Palestine illegally (between November 1947 and May 1948 the British permitted 10,000 foreign invaders to enter Palestine). [Ben Dunkelman, amongst others, describes the attack in detail in his autobiography, "Duel Allegiance"]

Jordan’s well-trained army successfully conquered the Old City and a number of neighbourhoods in the eastern and southern parts of the city including Sheik Jarrah. During the unrecognized occupation, former Jewish homes were seized (under Jordan’s Enemy Property law) and in 1958 turned over to Arab families as part of an UNWRA relief project. According to the UNWRA agreement, new homes would be built on "formerly Jewish property leased by the Custodian of Enemy Property to the Ministry of Development, for the purpose of this project" [Agreement Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for An Urban Housing Project at Sheikh Jarrah.]

In recent court battles over these properties, original Ottoman ownership papers have been dismissed by lawyers for Arab tenants as "forgeries." The dispute rages on. Unsurprisingly, as politicians debate, Um Kamel al-Kurd, an amiable Palestinian woman removed from her home of many years, recognizes Jerusalem's challenge: "We don't need donations of tents or clothing from the international community...all we need is our rights. No one can simply overthrow the rights of others.... We need all the three groups here - Jews, Christians and Muslims - to live in peace and equality together."

Whether it's the result of decades of paternalistic conservation of the Palestinians (i.e. racism) or an inability to accept Jewish nationalism (i.e. also racism), which, ironically, was heavily promoted by Christian Zionists in the 19th century, the European Union seems determined to deny Jerusalem’s citizens the inherent right to settle their own differences and decide their own futures.

And while a European aversion to further conflict is admirable, they would do well to remember that their sense of compromise and esprit de corps was not so easily achieved, manifesting only after centuries of relentless, bloody conflicts, most especially the horrors of the Second World War. But, Europe’s traumatization is not Jerusalem's; it cannot be imposed or transferred.

It is also ironic that the EU, which itself represents a union of European economics and politics, is pursuing the opposite strategy for the Middle East. The last thing Jerusalem needs is further division; social and cultural differences are challenge enough. The EU would be better advised to promote détente and cohesion in the fractured city, with Europe as a model. There are many options for Jerusalem, from declaring itself an autonomous district to multiple citizenships. Division is not a solution; it is a cop-out, and an arrogant one at that.

UPDATE: I've changed a photo which I had thought was of divided Jerusalem (Thanks Yaacov Lozowick for the eagle-eyes.) A groovy colour photo of Dr. Ralph Bunche has been inserted in its place. Also, added an important quote about Resolution 242 and info on Resolution 252.

Related Stories and links:

Mideast Press see EU statement as Palestinian gain Dec. 9, 2009

Europe Seeks to Divide Jerusalem by Dore Gold Dec. 10, 2009

New EU foreign policy chief plans ME visit, backs J'lem as shared capital Dec. 15, 2009

New EU foreign policy chief lambastes 'Israeli occupation' Dec. 17, 2009

Critical Currents: The European Connection By Naomi Chazan, December 27, 2009

Going Nuclear: Conclusion

2009-11-23T13:43:00.008+02:00

Despite all that we know, what is surprising is the Washington Times sudden revelation of facts which were publicized years ago. The Nixon document was declassified in 1997. And ten years ago, Avner Cohen, in his book Israel and the Bomb wrote:

"A new set of American-Israeli understandings on the nuclear issue came into being in 1970 through meetings between President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meir. The United States no longer pressed Israel to sign the NPT; it also ended the visits at Dimona. In return, Israel is committed to maintaining a low profile nuclear posture: no testing, no declaration, no acknowledgment. With these "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" understandings nuclear opacity was born. Those understanding persist today."

If the US is now willing to force Israel's hand, one must wonder why. Assuming Israel does possess assembled nuclear devices, there's really next to no possibility that she would voluntarily destroy her best deterrent against Arab weapons of mass destruction. Only a complete US arms embargo might compel a policy change, but this is unlikely. Denied American weapons, Israel would quickly turn to others for military hardware. Germany is already selling Israel Dolphin class submarines and would probably be eager to add fighter jets to the account. In fact, Israel had been developing a new model of the Swedish-made Gripen fighter jet, in conjunction with Saab, for India until forced out of the competition by the US. In 2008, Israel was forced not to submit a bid in a 500 million dollar deal to develop a new tank for Turkey, ostensibly by the Americans. An end to decades of cooperation between the US and Israel would open the door to direct competition, a scenario the US defense industry would surely not welcome in the middle of an economic downturn.

Perhaps this US administration simply believes the relationship has outlived its usefulness, Israel no longer providing a front-line defense against Soviet expansionism. Or more likely, we can add this story to a long list of would-be scandals involving Israel, precipitated by the State Department, in defiance of the White House and the American people who have been resolute in their support of the Jewish state. The State Department - and its friends in the CIA and Justice Department - has always argued against overt support for Israel, which it has felt threatens America's relationship with Arab oil providers. Some of the battles between various State Department heads and Presidents are legendary. President Truman, for example, once complained that, "those State Department fellows were always trying to put it over on me about Palestine, telling me that I really didn't understand what was going on there, that I ought to leave it to experts."

For years, various State Department officials and sympathizers have maintained a war of words against the Jewish State. ‘Realists’ Mersheimer and Walt’s Lobby screed was just one round in this old conflict. In 2005, the Justice Department indicted two staff members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on trumped up allegations (based on a rarely used 1917 Espionage law) that they had passed along a confidential memo to an Israeli Embassy official. This year it was announced that the charges against the two AIPAC members would be dropped. Last year, the best the State Department could come up with was a 23-year old allegation against an 84 year-old veteran who, out of some misplaced sense of loyalty to Israel, passed on useless information (apparently details about F-15's, which Israel was already flying) to some low-level consulate staff member.

Cue Rose Gottemoeller, the latest conveyer of news meant to discomfit friends of Israel and malign the Jewish state.

So, is any of this really evidence of a secret accord, and more importantly, a change in the US-Israel relationship? As for the accord, the evidence suggests no official accord as such, but rather an understanding to drop the issue. There's a difference. And the State Department threats may yet turn out to be paper tigers. Earlier this month, The Washington Times reported that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been assured by the US President that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” understanding will be maintained.

And that understanding, which says so much about this unique bilateral relationship, reveals important distinctions between the functions and behaviour of the State Department and Congress. Unelected officials of the State Department serve the nation; elected members of Congress and the President serve the nation’s constituents. Both roles are crucial. But, it’s a dangerous thing when anyone believes the state must prevail at all costs; there are times when the nation’s citizens may choose a course of action that is not prudent, but is in keeping with the values of the state. American support for Israel is a case-in-point, as was made abundantly clear when it was revealed that the President was sent a letter signed by 76 (of 100) Senators reminding Obama to "take into account the risks [Israel] will face in any peace agreement," and “to insist on the absolute Palestinian commitment to ending terrorist violence and to building the institutions necessary for a viable Palestinian state living side-by-side, in peace with the Jewish state of Israel."

After his first year in office, many are asking if Barak Obama truly understands the complex nature of Middle East politics. Early statements and demands of Israel have suggested naivety more than belligerency. And, despite some setbacks, last week’s appointment of Tamara Cofman Wittes as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs is a definite step in the right direction. Dr. Wittes is Director of the Middle East Democracy and Development (MEDD) Project at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, a regional policy center at The Brookings Institution. She has also taught at Georgetown University and is a recipient of the Rabin-Peres Peace Award, established by President Bill Clinton.

There’s no question that public support for Israel is solid. A recent poll conducted by Neil Newhouse of Public Opinion Strategies and Stan Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (GQRR) suggests that, despite the Gaza war, support for Israel is actually rising, with 63 percent of respondents, up from 49 percent just a few months ago, declaring themselves Israel supporters. With that in mind, the President now has the awesome responsibility to balance that support with the nation’s other needs. This has always been the challenge. But, the great Presidents have been the ones who could meet the practical needs while preserving America’s ethical core.

In all honesty, we can ask, has this enviable support for Israel always been pragmatic? Probably not. Soviet Premier Aleksei Kosygin put the question to Lyndon Johnson when he met the President in 1967. "I don't understand you Americans backing Israel," said Kosygin. "There are 80 million Arabs and only 3 million Israelis. It does not make sense. Why do it?"

Replied Johnson: "Because it is right."

UPDATE: The Jerusalem Report's Leslie Susser has a terrific piece in the May 26, 2010 issue, called Israel's policy of nuclear 'ambiguity' comes under fire. Read it here.

Going Nuclear: Part II

2009-11-16T11:57:00.015+02:00

The next day, Secretary of State Rusk tabled a meeting specifically to discuss America’s nuclear concerns. Representing Israel were Foreign Minister Abba Eban, Ambassador Avraham Harma and Ephraim Evron. Rusk insisted that Israel’s continued obstinacy could have a, “disastrous effect on U.S.-Israeli relations” Abba Eban understood the US position but maintained that political issues at home made public declarations and visits to Dimona difficult. It was, of course, public declarations that the US was seeking. “Private assurances were of limited value,” averred Rusk.

Private assurances would have to do. Despite an agreement to sell Israel Skyhawk bombers, Prime Minister Eshkol refused any formal written agreement which, in his words, “might indicate to future historians that he had bargained away Israel's future nuclear policy and opened the Dimona facility to US inspection for the sake of ‘a mere 48 airplanes.’"

Even so, an understanding was arrived at that worked for both sides. The Americans would maintain Israel’s military advantage believing that “if Israel [was] unable to obtain its valid conventional arms requirements, those in Israel who advocate acquisition of nuclear weapons [would] find a much more fertile environment for their views.”

As part of the understanding, a team of U.S. nuclear experts visited Israeli atomic energy sites between March 31 and April 4, 1966; a few months later a memorandum from the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to Secretary of Defense McNamara reported “the unanimous conclusion of the three-man team that there is no evidence that Israel is producing or intends to produce nuclear weapons material.”

Over the next year, the Soviets publicly pushed for a nuclear free Middle East and the Americans, at least in principle, agreed to the proposal. But, each time the issue was raised with Israel, the answer was always the same: Israel wasn’t pursuing nuclear weapons. And each time, the Americans seemed to accept the rejoinder. Until February 1967, that is, when American Embassy in Tel Aviv reported to the Secretary of State that “two Israeli contacts [had suggested] Israel could be much closer to nuclear weapons capability than...supposed. The State Department requested an urgent assessment. Israel agreed to another Dimona inspection and once again the “AEC team found no evidence that Israel [was] using Dimona to produce material for use in nuclear weapons.” Of course, they couldn’t rule out the existence of another nuclear facility, or Israel’s potential for building a weapon on short-notice.

On a personal note, I had the opportunity to speak with a retired Dimona engineer in June of this year. I was intrigued when he said he was at Dimona during these inspections. "Was anything deliberately hidden from the inspectors?" I asked. "No," he responded. "Was there perhaps another nuclear facility whose existence was kept from the Americans?" I suggested. "Not that I knew of," he replied.

In May 1967, the State Department reported once more to President Johnson that there was, “no evidence that Israel [was] actually making a bomb,” but they remained convinced that..."Israel intends to keep itself in a position to do so at reasonably short notice should the need arise."

As the Six-Day War began, France reneged on arms deals with Israel and declared a weapons boycott, refusing to supply parts for Israel's French-made Mirage jets. Following the war, Israel was anxious to replace the Mirage, especially in light of the USSR's rapid re-arming of Egypt and Syria. Israel was pushed by need directly into the US sphere of influence.

In January 1968, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol met with President Johnson to urgently request military aid, especially the Phantoms. Johnson, who was a longstanding supporter of Zionism, assured Eshkol that the US would stand by Israel. But, as the negotiations for the jets proceeded over the next few months, opposition – namely linkage between the aircraft sale and the nuclear issue – emerged.

But, it was likely the State Department that was doing the pushing and Israel pushed back. Attempts by Paul Warnke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, to verify Israel's Dimona promises obligated Israel to request that the White House intervene. Secretary of Defense Clarke Clifford told Warnke to end the talks and not press the matter of verification.

In lieu of a formal agreement, Israel provided the US with a promissory letter, signed by Israel's Ambassador to the US Yitzhak Rabin, that Israel would not introduce nuclear weapons into the conflict. Israel reaffirmed "its long-standing policy as laid down in...1965 that it will not be the first power in the Middle East to introduce nuclear weapons and [agreed] not to use any aircraft supplied by the US and a nuclear weapons carrier. Israel and the US, however, continued to have a very different understanding as to the meaning of the concept of "introduction" of weapons. Israel's position was that as long as no weapons had been tested and publicly announced no "introduction" had been made. The issue was still outstanding as Johnson’s term ended in 1969.

At the start of his administration, Nixon assembled a 'special group' - Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard, Under Secretary of State Elliott Richardson, CIA Director Richard Helms, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Earle Wheeler, and Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Henry Kissinger - to “consider the status of the Israeli nuclear program and [US] responses to it."

"Public knowledge is almost as dangerous as possession itself," wrote Kissinger in the memorandum dated July 9, 1969 from the 'special group' to Nixon. "This is what might spark a Soviet nuclear guarantee for the Arabs, tighten the Soviet hold on the Arabs and increase the danger of our involvement"

Nevertheless, the document confirms that the US still wanted Israel to sign onto the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel was also expected to publicly commit not to acquire nuclear weapons, according to Kissinger. It's clear from this document - despite what the Washington Time's Eli Lake asserted - that the US did not yet believe that Israel possessed nuclear weapons. “We should try to keep Israel from going any further with its nuclear weapons program --it may be so close to completion that Israel would be willing." The State Department and Defense agree, however, that for their "own internal purposes [they] could tolerate Israeli activity short of assembly of a completed nuclear device." Disturbingly, Lake, in his article, actually falsified the text to suggest that Israel already possessed nukes at this point. 'Israel would likely have 24 to 30 French surface-to-surfaces missiles, 10 of which would have nuclear warheads,' he wrote, but the actual document read: "ten of which are programmed for nuclear warheads." A big difference.

Still, the Americans had a problem. If they withheld the Phantoms, they would have to publicly disclose - or allow Israel to disclose - why and reveal Israel's nuclear program, which they were very reluctant to do. Nixon was presented with several alternatives including to "not raise the issue." Did Nixon choose this option? A follow-up Memo, dated October 7, 1969, suggests the answer. Nixon had met with Golda Meir and in "private discussions...emphasized that [the] primary concern was the Israelis make no visible (my emphasis) introduction of nuclear weapons or undertake a nuclear test program."

Kissinger asked Ambassador Rabin for a formal response and received assurances that Israel would not become a nuclear power, and would consider the NPT. A few months later, Israel informed the US that they would not sign onto the NPT. But, these assurances seemed to be enough to provide the Americans with a "rationale for standing down," as Kissinger put it. In any event, from this point on, the pressure was off, as least as can be ascertained from declassified documents. The two sides seemed to have agreed on a policy of 'Nuclear ambiguity.'

Yet, the State Department continued to investigate Israel's nuclear ambitions even though some officials had "reservations about whether or not Israel [had] produced and assembled a complete nuclear weapon." Joseph J. Sisko, an assistant secretary of state and JCS Chairman Earle Wheeler continued to fight to prevent Israel from going nuclear. The US “ought to push the NPT urgently" they demanded. And Robert Munn, well into 1970, pressed for another visit to Dimona.

At the same time, the Soviets were shipping tons of weapons, MIG-21 jets and thousands of military advisors into Egypt. Unwilling to allow the USSR to tip the balance of power away from Israel, the US finally agreed on September 1, 1970 to sell Israel the Phantoms.

Within weeks, the favour would be repaid. On September 21, Nixon received an urgent plea from Jordan's King Hussein: Jordan had been invaded by Syria and required "immediate physical intervention, both air and land...to safeguard [the] sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Jordan."

Nixon instructed Kissinger to contact Yitzhak Rabin. "Don't ask anybody else. Tell him 'Go.' Israel prepared aircraft and moved troops toward the border with Jordan. The next day, the Syrians backed down and called their tanks and troops home.

Henry Kissinger relayed Nixon's appreciation to the Israelis. "The President will never forget Israel's role in preventing the deterioration in Jordan," Rabin wrote in his memoirs. Israel had now proven itself willing and capable of defending American interests in the region. The leverage had now permanently shifted in Israel's favour. Throughout his term, Nixon would remain a steadfast friend, providing emergency airlifts of weapons and supplies during the October War in 1973 (informing staff on October 9 that "the Israelis must not be allowed to lose!") and consistently stonewalling further attempts by the State Department to investigate Israel's nuclear program.

How subsequent administrations dealt with the issue will become clear as more documents become declassified in the future.

To be continued...Going Nuclear: Conclusion.

Going Nuclear: Part I

2009-11-10T12:38:00.023+02:00

Well, I finished a piece on Israel's nuclear program and, having not sold it and wanting to move on, I'm posting it instead. It's long so I'm breaking it down into 3 parts.

Is the United States changing its policy toward a nuclear Israel?

Hot on the heels of a statement by Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller urging Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, President Obama announced plans for an international nuclear summit to be held March 2010. Although the summit is expected to focus on nuclear terrorism, Arab states have been demanding that Israel’s alleged nuclear program be put on the agenda.

Last May, The Washington Times asserted that the US and Israel have maintained a secret accord for 40 years to keep from the public Israel's nuclear weapons capabilities. The Times' Eli Lake presents a declassified memo between Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon as evidence and writes that 'by the end of 1970, Israel would likely have 24 to 30 French surface-to-surfaces missiles, 10 of which would have nuclear warheads.'

Is the United States now changing its policy toward a nuclear Israel? Has America protected Israel’s nuclear ambitions for 40 years? An historical perspective is in order.

It was clearly in America's interests to avoid a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which would diminish stability in an already volatile neighbourhood and surely engage the USSR in some way. Since the Johnson Administration (1963 to 1969), the US has kept a close watch on Israel's nuclear aspirations and has repeatedly asserted the importance of keeping nukes out of the region. Throughout March 1965, State Department and Israel officials were engaged in heavy negotiations over President Johnson’s regional water plans. Johnson hoped to settle water disputes between Israel and her neighbours and proposed "an aggressive and imaginative program to advance progress in large-scale desalting of sea water." The plan involved "a combination of large-scale nuclear power plants and large-scale desalting plants could produce power and water."

The nuclear weapons issue came up on many occasions, each time Israel insisting it was not pursuing nuclear weaponry. The State Department, a recurrent thorn in Israel’s side, stressed the US position to Israeli authorities. "We've already made and remade every point...in far stronger terms, especially on nuclear weapons. I'm surprised Israelis still speak to me," wrote Robert W. Komer, the President's Deputy Special Assistant for National Security Affairs. In fact, Israel never denied the possibility of such a pursuit, reserving the right to do so depending on Egypt’s actions; Israel was convinced at the time that Egypt also had a nuclear agenda.

Nevertheless, the Americans remained certain that Israel was already pursuing nuclear weapons technology. "All indications are toward Israeli acquisition of a nuclear capability," wrote Rodger Davies, Director of the Office of Near Eastern Affairs, "There is little realization in Israel of the intensity of U.S. opposition to nuclear proliferation. U.S. hesitation and delays in pressing for the recent inspection of the Dimona reactor plus the failure to insist upon a two-day visit have led the Israelis to believe we are not serious."

The Americans at this point stepped up the pressure. The State Department informed the Embassy in Israel to let it be known that an "offer to supply arms in the future [would be] carefully hedged and made contingent upon Israeli acceptance of undertakings on Jordan waters and on nuclear development..." The Americans had visited Dimona, the site of a planned nuclear power station, in 1961 and were satisfied at the time that Israel wasn't developing weapons. However, within a few years, things weren't so clear. By the mid-60s, the Americans assumed that Israel now possessed the scientific talent to build nuclear weapons but had yet to do so. A CIA assessment from 1965 alleged that "the Israelis could probably develop nuclear weapons by 1968-1969 and/or nuclear warheads by about 1971 [but did] not believe, however, that the Israelis have taken such a decision."

Officially, the State Department spoke of Israel’s "peaceful nuclear program," but they continued to harp on the weapons issue. Secretary of State Dean Rusk began to press President Johnson to pressure Israel "to accept IAEA safeguards on all of its nuclear facilities." Israel had signed the partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963, and was a member of IAEA, but had not accepted IAEA safeguards on the Dimona facility. On May 21, 1965 Johnson asked Eshkol "to place the Dimona reactor and all other nuclear facilities under IAEA controls...and for any U.S. materials or equipment transferred to Israel in connection with the U.S.-Israel desalting program." Eshkol, much to Johnson’s displeasure, asked that the issue be deferred until after the next Israeli election. As the year came to a close, the State Department still had to concede that there was "no evidence that Israel or any other Near Eastern state [was] in position to develop nuclear weapons in near future or that they have decided [to] develop or otherwise acquire them." (Telegram from the Department of State to the Embassy in Jordan/1/ Washington, November 4, 1965, 10:35 a.m.)

Through the 1950's and early 60's, Israel had maintained close ties to Britain and France, both of whom were eager to preserve some influence in Middle East affairs. This trilateral relationship reached its apex with the attack against Egypt in 1956. But, by the mid-60s these relationships had cooled, especially with France which was dealing with Algeria. Nevertheless, the French government, which had supplied Israel with nuclear technology (as had the British, which, in 1958, supplied heavy water for plutonium production without informing the Americans), and was negotiating to sell Israel surface-to-surface missiles, remained convinced that "there was no evidence of any attempt by Israel to produce materials for nuclear weapons."

With the war of words between Israel and the Arabs heating up, Israel approached the US for more advanced weaponry. Israel had previously signed a deal with West Germany for 150 M48A2 tanks to replace aging French AMX-13 and British Centurions (upgraded and renamed the Sho’t) but due to opposition from Arab states, the Germans reneged on the deal after only 40 tanks had been delivered. Johnson approved an agreement to supply Israel with the remaining tanks, and an additional 100 M48s.

What Israel really wanted, however, was fighter jets. The US now had the upper hand. It was Robert Komer who made the obvious suggestion: "Can we use planes as a lever to keep Israel from going nuclear?"

to be continued: Going Nuclear Pt. II

Historia Shel Hakolnoah Israeli

2009-10-29T12:24:00.003+02:00

When I began this blog in 2005, my intent was to write much more on Israeli films. I ran a Jewish film festival for eight years, and have worked in the film industry for *cough* 20 years so it seemed like a good idea. But, for some reason, I've spent more time writing on political and historical subjects and have only touched on the entertainment industry.

Fortunately, someone has started the blog I meant to write. Amy Kronish, who was a guest of the Vancouver Jewish Film Festival some years ago, has written and lectured on Israeli film for years. The blog features film reviews and links to film resources.

Check it out here.

Massacre Mania 2

2009-10-05T17:48:00.010+02:00

Perusing Palestinian websites for information on the 'Naqba' (1947-48), one finds anecdotal claims of so many massacres, it's astonishing that 6,000, let alone 600,000, refugees survived to flee the country.

I was recently asked to look into one such massacre claim, on behalf of someone whose family came from Palestine. He was told that his Uncle survived a massacre of Saliha which killed almost everyone else.

Saliha was a small Arab Muslim village in the Upper Galilee Mountains next to the Lebanese border, near present-day Moshav Avivim. The village was known for its Taggart fort, built in 1938 by the British as a garisson fort. The Taggart forts were part of a larger plan to build a "northern fence" to separate Palestine from Lebanon at the height of the Arab rebellion (1936-1939).

After months of conflict, the War of Independence began in earnest when statehood was declared: May 14, 1948. Israelis forces had fought back the Arab Liberation Army in the north, July 8-18, 1948, during Operation Dekel. The final battle for the Galilee began in late October 1948. Thousands of Arab fighters led by Fawzi Kaukji returned from Lebanon and occupied positions inside Arab villages two kilometeres beyond the truce lines established by the UN. After a warning by the UN Security Council, Kaukzi claimed on October 24 that his troops were withdrawing, but they returned a few days later and continued to occupy several strategic positions, including a hill a few yards from the Metullah-Tiberias crossroads. Despite repeated attempts by the UN to prevent a conflagration, both sides remained poised for battle: Jewish forces refused to accept a cease-fire until Kaukzi returned to the previous ceasefire position; Kaukzi refused to budge until the Jewish fighters accepted the ceasefire.

With Arab forces firmly entrenched in defensive positions in western Galilee, Canadian-born Ben Dunkelman, commander of the 7th Brigade, presented plans for conquering the Galilee to Moshe Carmel (1911-2003), Israel's northern front commander. Despite some reservations Dunkelman was given a "green light" to dislodge the Arab Liberation Army and drive it back into Lebanon. On the evening of October 27, 7th Brigade engineers began clearing the Safed-Meron road as the rest of the brigade moved from its base in western Galilee to the hills around Safed. Operation Hiram began at dawn, October 28.

According to many sources, most of the residents of the Galilee had actually begun to flee in May 1948, after the capture of the Arab part of the city of Safed by Palmach forces. By August the UN reported at least 50,000 Galilean Arab refugees had crossed the border and fled to the nearby Metawali villages in southern Lebanon. Nevertheless, it's clear thousands of civilians remained.

Benny Morris, who cites Saliha in several books, doesn`t provide an exact an date for the massacre but Palestinian sources say it took place on October 30. The actual events surrounding the destruction of Saliha are not at all clear. Some sources claim the residents were forced into a mosque and shot; others say they were shot in the village square; others quote Benny Morris' who wrote that "94 ... were blown up with a house."

Unfortunately, even Morris can't quite get his story straight. In one book (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, Cambridge Middle East Library, pg. 230) he claims this information came from a briefing given by Israel Galili, head of the Haganah National Command; in a later book he says the briefing was made by Moshe Erem, to the Political Committee of Mapam ("Revisiting the Palestinian Exodus of 1948," Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim (eds.), The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 59)

The UN record suggests civilian casualites were much lighter than anecdotal evidence would have some believe. Given that there were several hundred observers watching both Israeli and Arab forces - there were approximately 300 UN Observers in the Middle East at this time. Around 245 were in Israel according to US Ambassador to Israel James G. Macdonald - one would expect that mass killings would be difficult to conceal; in fact, only one was reported to the security council during this period. On November 3, 1948, A. R. Azzam, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, filed a complaint that "Zionist forces, in a raid on the Arab locality known as Dawayma, ruthlessly massacred Arab women, children and old people, thus perpetuating barbarities rivaling in horror those committed by the Nazis."

Despite official assurances to the contrary (and the fact that Dawayam was north of Hebron, nowhere near the Galilee), rumours of a massacre in Dawayma were taken seriously and both the UN and the Israeli army investigated. Two UN observers visited Dawayma on November 7 and found no evidence of a massacre but it's likely the village had already been cleaned up before their arrival. Veterans of the accused 89th Battallion have claimed that some soldiers sought revenge for the massacre of 200 Jews in Kfar Etzion several months earlier. Dawayma, they claimed, was "filled with the loot of Etzion Bloc." UN Chief negotiator Ralph Bunche's reports reveal only "that United Nations Observers had reported extensive looting of villages in Galilee by Israeli forces, who carried away goats, sheep and mules."

The Dawayma incident is interesting in several respects. Although the alleged massacre occured in another part of the country, it confirms that the nascent Israeli government was aware of attacks against civilians. Significantly, it's obvious that it was difficult in such a tiny country to prevent rumours of atrocities from quickly spreading - regardless of whether or not the allegations were true. The attack on Deir Yassein, after all, was front-page news in the country. Other incidents may not have made the news but they were known to the government and UN observers. Moshe Carmel, for his part, even issued a reprimand to his troops as word of unacceptable behaviour came to light.

"Our brilliant victory...in the Galilee was marred as some soldiers allowed themselves a shameful outburst by looting and condemnable crimes against the Arab population after its surrender...ill-treatment of the inhabitants, murder and robbery, are not a military activity or acts of courage. They are a disgrace to our army...These acts must cease immediately and with all severity." (IDFA 437/49/84 25 November 1948)

Of course, many of the reports were made after the fact, and long after any evidence of wrong-doing was erased. Morris, whose books are most often cited concerning Galilee massacres, conceded that "knowledge of the details of these massacres is limited mainly to Arab oral and written testimony and some United Nations and Israeli civilian documentation."

After the war, the stories spread and took on lives of their own. Respected journalist Martha Gellhorn interviewed Palestinian refugees in Israel. In one village, she spoke with the schoolteacher...

"...an attractive lean young man, with prematurely gray hair, working in his garden in the cool of the evening...After hours of listening to him, I had grasped the lacking clue, and felt hopeless."

"Great Britain helped the Jews," he said. "The English gave weapons to the Arab countries, and they gave weapons to us. In this village we were all armed; we all fired at the Jews, every one of us. But our bullets were no good; the English gave bad bullets to the Arabs. Four out of five of the bullets were no good. When we saw this, we ran away to Lebanon for two weeks and then we came back."

"Were any of you killed in these battles?"

"No, no one."

"The Christian schoolteacher sent me on to a friend of his, a Muslim schoolteacher, in a village called Masra on the plain near Acre...Before 1948, the population of Masra was 350; now it is 200. They owned little land, they had worked on neighboring kibbutzim and in Acre factories. They always had good relations with the Jews. "No one here shot at Jews; and no Jews shot at us." (Note the order of the sentence.) But now Masra had grown and swollen; 900 refugees lived here.

"Refugees?"

"Yes, people from those villages."

He gestured out the door, across the fields.

"What? From villages nearby?"

"Yes, yes. Those villages. They are maybe seven kilometers away."

"And you consider them refugees?"

"Of course. There was no fighting near here, but the people are frightened, so they fled to the Druse villages, where they know they will be safe, because the Druses were always friendly with the Jews, and after, they came here. The Israeli government will not let them go back to their villages. The government offered them other land, but they will not take it."

Gellhorn also spoke with Palestinians who had fled northward to Lebanon.

"Their headman, or village leader - the Muktar talked. Seventeen people of his village were massacred, which was why they fled, but an old blind woman of 104 was left behind and the Jews poured kerosene over her and burned her alive. How did they know, if they had all fled? Well, then the Jews went away and some villagers crept back and found her, and besides, the United Nations Truce Commission also found her...My guide looked embarrassed."

Which brings us back to Saliha. Despite compelling anecdotal evidence, there's little else to substantiate many of the massacre allegations in the area, Saliha included. Mass graves have never been found - or reported - and government reports, those that have been seen, are sketchy, contradictory, evasive or all of the above. None of which means civilians weren't killed in Saliha and other Galilean villages. But, sixty years later, having missed the opportunity to conduct comprehensive investigations with the cooperation of UN observers, Israel has unwittingly left the door open for the plethora of claims which now overwhelm and drive the 'ethnic cleansing' debate.

And sixty years later, one cannot help but see similar trends in recent events: while Israel's cynicism toward the UN Human Right's Council and its tainted investigation in Gaza is understandable, perhaps a better strategy would have been for the Israeli government to call an immediate internal investigation of violations of the IDF Moral Code with international representation on the investigating committee. Could the UN dismiss an Israeli report which included input from someone like Mary Robinson? or Jimmy Carter? We'll have to add this one to the long list of missed opportunities by both sides.

As for Saliha, we'll never really know. But, one thing is certain: perception of events can carry more weight than reality even reaching mythological levels. And it's very hard to refute a myth.

Vanity Fair

2009-10-05T12:15:00.003+02:00

This week's edition of Haveil Havalim, hosted by Esser Agaroth, is up.

Founded by Soccer Dad, Haveil Havalim is a carnival of Jewish blogs -- a weekly collection of Jewish & Israeli blog highlights, tidbits and points of interest collected from blogs all around the world. It's hosted by different bloggers each week and coordinated by Jack. The term 'Haveil Havalim,' which means "Vanity of Vanities," is from Qoheleth, (Ecclesiastes) which was written by King Solomon. King Solomon built the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and later on got all bogged down in materialism and other 'excesses' and realized that it was nothing but 'hevel,' or in English, 'vanity.'

For a great collection of articles, news, thoughts and jokes from the Jewish blogosphere, go here.

Oh yeah. I'm on the list :)

Atonement

2009-09-29T14:38:00.003+02:00

As some of you may know, I actually contribute to two blogs: this one, which I started as a showcase for published and non-published articles, and the one I co-write with my wife. I tend to keep the more political stuff here, and use the other one for our shared experiences since making aliyah in 2008. I don't often cross-blog, but I've decided to with a poetical essay I wrote for Yom Kippur. It was, to be honest, my first bit of creative writing (other than ongoing screenplay work) in awhile, and I was pleased with the results. I hope you are to. (click on the image for the full-page version)

גמר חתימה טובה.

Massacre Mania Part 1

2009-09-16T19:13:00.008+03:00

When dealing with Palestinian discourse, four words tend to overwhelm every discussion: 'settlements,' 'occupation,' 'apartheid' and, of course, 'massacre.'

There have been practically no encounters between Israel and Arabs in which an accusation of a massacre of some sort wasn't made. The most recent incident, last December's Gaza operation, is being played out now, as both sides offer discrepant civilian death counts and cite contradictory 'expert' sources. A UN war crimes investigation, led by ~~Kapo~~, former South African judge Richard Goldstone, has just concluded, based on evidence that is already being challenged, that "Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity."

The report demands that Israel conduct an investigation of its own within the next three months. Amongst other information the report appears to have ignored, is the fact that the IDF has already examined more than 100 allegations regarding the conduct of its forces during Operation Cast Lead, which have resulted in a further 23 criminal investigations.

The fact that no other investigation is underway against any other state, despite recent conflicts in which thousands of civilians have been killed, is yet another example of the double standard Israelis find so infuriating. For example, for years the government of Sri Lanka fought Tamil rebels in the north of the country. The Tamils are claiming independence for this area where they constitute a majority of the population. Over the course of this period it is estimated some 70,000-80,000 civilians have been killed (as compared to the 500-700 Gaza civilians killed in the recent fighting). Has the UN Human Rights Council equally condemned Sri Lanka and singled it out as it has Israel? In fact, they dismissed it as "an internal matter."

How about Russia where the recent invasion of Georgia claimed, according to some sources, around 20,000 lives? As for Chechnya, there are no solid figures for the number of civilians killed since the second war began in late 1999, but estimates range anywhere between 25,000 and 200,000. When Russian soldiers have admitted brutality, condemnation from the UN has been conspicuously absent. "I remember a Chechen female sniper," a Russian soldier told L.A. Times reporter Maura Reynolds. "We just tore her apart with two armored personnel carriers, having tied her ankles with steel cables. There was a lot of blood, but the boys needed it."

It would appear that it is only the Jewish 'moral compass' that some critics see as out of whack. But our ‘moral compass’ is just fine, thank you. Anyone who knows anything about Judaism will understand the abhorrence at taking lives - any lives - Israeli soldiers feel. While I'm not dismissing the possibility that terrible incidents have occured - we're still dealing with flawed humans in a citizen's army, after all, who make mistakes, get angry, are stupid - anyone familiar with the situation knows that much of the criticism of the recent mission in Gaza came from Israelis. Self-criticism and introspection is alive and well here.

Beyond Gaza, it's worth remembering that other alleged 'massacres,' such as the Jenin libel, have already been debunked, even by experts generally sympathetic to the Palestinian cause (Most NGOs and international human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch, tend to deal in half-truths, which are more difficult to counter, rather than outright lies).

All of which reminds me of a saying about truth and war. But Benjamin Disraeli really put it best when he wrote: "It is easier to be critical than correct."

Jaffa

2009-09-07T13:05:00.006+03:00

As a former festival director (Vancouver Jewish Film Festival, 1997-2004), I truly appreciate the complex challenge in programming films and events at film festivals. As such, I want to commend Toronto International Film Festival for this year's decision to acknowledge Tel Aviv as an important artistic centre. The result of that brave decision, sadly, has been a thuggish smear and boycott campaign against the festival.

Tel Aviv is a brilliant, loud, brash, and diverse beast of a city. It's also arguably one of the most artistic, open-minded places I've ever visited. Despite - or perhaps because of the city's history - diverse artistic expression is celebrated, even when specific artists or pieces are derided. That's the nature of art.

Like many great cities, Tel Aviv's past haunts it. Jaffa, its ancient neighbour, shares a history with Tel Aviv that is sad and unfortunate. But, it's a complex history. Those who see only one chapter in Jaffa's life ignore, perhaps willfully, the experiences of the city's Jewish population, once a majority in this place. Jaffa (the name comes from the Hebrew word yaffe which mean beautiful) is mentioned serveral times in the Bible and in many historical documents. The population was Jewish, and then mixed Jewish/Christian until the Arab invasion in the 7th century. The Crusades and Turkish occupation both affected demographics.

Nevertheless, Jaffa remained an important Jewish centre for centuries. In 1909, upon purchasing beachfront properties near Jaffa, the city of Tel Aviv was established. Many of Jaffa's Jewish residents chose to resettle in the new city; and Jews still represented a large percentage of Jaffa's population, despite riots in the 1920's which drove out many Jews. Following the successful UN partition vote of November 29, 1947, Jaffa and Tel Aviv came into more immediate conflict. Arab snipers and mortar squads in Jaffa began targeting Jewish neighbourhoods in Tel Aviv. Dozens were killed and several hundred injured in these attacks. Thousands of Jewish residents were forced to flee the area. And Haganah reprisals were taking lives in Jaffa. The situation was quickly deteriorating. “As long as mortar bombs are fired from Jaffa at Tel-Aviv, life in that city is...precarious," wrote Palestine's British High Commissioner General Sir Alan Cunningham. ('An Analysis of the Palestine Situation, April 1948', Cunningham Papers, IV/5/33)

By April 1948, the country was engaged in civil war, with many Jewish and Arab communities caught up in the conflict. It was feared that the strategically important port of Jaffa might fall to Egyptian troops who would use the city as a base from which to destroy Tel Aviv. This was an untenable risk, and the decision was made to surround and control Jaffa. Irgun fighters, followed by the Haganah, succeeded in taking the city, despite British intervention. On May 12, a deputation of Arab notables from Jaffa arrived at Haganah headquarters in Tel Aviv and, after negotiations, signed a surrender agreement.

Both Haganah and Irgun made it clear that civilians were not to be harmed. Irgun leader (and future PM) Menachem Begin spoke to his fighters before the attacks: “Strike at the foe! Aim well! Spare ammunition! In this battle, show no mercy to the enemy, as he knows none towards our people [but] Spare women and children. Spare the life of anyone who raises his hands in surrender. He is your captive. Do not harm him...”

Nevertheless, civilians panicked and fled once Jewish forces had captured the Arab suburb of Manshiyeh. “Ninety percent of the population of Jaffa have just run away," Sir Henry Gurney, Chief Secretary to the Palestine Mandate Government and no friend of Zionism or Jews, recorded in his diary on May 5, 1948, "... The mayor has gone, without even saying goodbye, and the remnants of the [Arab irregular] Liberation Army are looting and robbing. This is what the Palestine Arabs get from the assistance provided by the Arab states.”

It is fair to say the Jewish takeover of the city precipitated the exodus, an attack which was necessitated by relentless Arab attacks against Tel Aviv. But, according to even Arab sources,"the Arab Exodus ...was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by the Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy."

(Jordanian daily newspaper, Al Urdun, April 9, 1953.)

And it is equally true that Arab forces were attacking and destroying Jewish settlements in both Judea and Samaria (in particular Kfar Etzion) and land designated to be part of a Jewish state. Such is war.

In June 1948, the new Israeli cabinet met to discuss the refugee issue. All agreed that Arabs who fled the fighting to other parts of Israel should return to their homes. As Moshe Sharrett put it: "These (Arabs) should be returned to their places, with full ownership of their lands etc., and with full [citizenship] rights. We should not, as a matter of principle, discriminate against an Arab who had stayed inside [Israel] and thereby accepted its rule. He should enjoy full rights, including his property [rights]—unless there are decisive emergency considerations, security-wise. This should be the instruction to governors, commanders, etc.(Shimoni, "Tamtsit," pg. 3)

Indeed, The Palestine Post reported that several days after the battle for Jaffa, the Haganah invited representatives of Magen David Adom to visit Arab women, children and seniors who had fled to Tel Aviv. Those who wanted to return to Jaffa and other Arab areas were turned over to the Red Cross which escorted them back.

But the others, those who fled to Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan would not be permitted back. Ben-Gurion was clearly angry when he proclaimed, "Jaffa will become a Jewish city. War is war; it is not us who wanted war. Tel-Aviv did not wage war on Jaffa, Jaffa waged war on Tel-Aviv. And this should not happen again. We will not be "foolish hasidim." Bringing back the Arabs to Jaffa is not just but rather is foolish. Those who had gone to war against us — let them carry the responsibility after having lost." (Ben-Gurion, Be-hilahem Israel, pp. 130-131.)

And so, here we are. While the political ramifications of that decision are still being felt today, the issue at hand is artistic boycotts. I don't think I can put this any better than Bruce Kirkland, film critic for the Toronto Sun, who writes,

"Art should encourage debate -- including on the complex Israeli-Palestinian question that so vexes the protesters -- and not repress it through bully tactics and censorship."

I highly recommend his whole response which can be read here.

UPDATE: The National Post's Charles Lewis jumps into the fray:

"Charles Lewis: Boycotting the Israel boycotters"

Sweden for the Swedes

2009-08-19T13:10:00.006+03:00

The appearance in a Swedish newspaper this week of a blatantly antisemitic article (posing as anti-Israel news) should come as no surprise. Sweden has been a source of both anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim sentiment for some time.

The article in question claims the IDF has kidnapped and stolen organs from Palestinians. While we can take some comfort in an immediate rebuttal from a competing Swedish newspaper, the invocation of the ancient blood libel is disturbing to say the least. But, as a I said, not surprising.
An article in Haaretz (reprinted here) from 2004 revealed that many Swedes now publicly hide their Jewish identities for fear of verbal and physical abuse. One "does not dream of walking down the street while wearing a skullcap, Star of David or T-shirt with Hebrew on it." In 2002, 131 antisemitic incidents were recorded against a community of only 18,000 Jews. Many suspect the bulk of abuse comes from members of Sweden's 400,000 strong Muslim community. Nevertheless, leftist academic and literary attacks against the Jewish state continue often mingled with traditional antisemtic terminology and imagery.

A 2006 Swedish study, 'Anti-Semitic attitudes and perceptions', a joint project between the National Council for Crime Prevention and the Forum for Living History, revealed that 26% of Swedes believe that there is a 'Jewish influence' over the world's economy, and 15% say that influence to be 'too great'. The study also showed that 14% believed that Jews exploit the Holocaust for political or economic purposes.

Sweden is also the home of an antisemitic writer named Jöran Jermas who for several years has been posing as an Israeli-Russian writer named 'Israel Shamir.' As 'Shamir' Jermas pretends to disclose deep, dark secrets of Judaism and Israel. His work is so virulent that even some Palestinian representtives - Ali Abunimah, a media critic on the Electronic Intifada website, and Hussein Ibish, press spokesman of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) - have distanced themselves from his support, identifying him as a Jew-hater.

The source of much antisemitic (posing as anti-Zionist) discourse are Sweden's influential Left Party and members of the leading Social Democrats who have, in the past, called for the expulsion of Israel's ambassador to Sweden.

Last week, NGO Monitor revealed that both the Swedish government and Sweden-based Non-Governmental agencies have been funding anti-Israel activities within Israel. NGO Monitor "examined over 20 major NGOs funded through the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), Diakonia, the multi-national NGO Development Center (NDC), and the Swedish Mission Council (SMR)." According to Gerald M. Steinberg, NGO Monitor head and professor of political science at Bar Ilan University, "many of these NGOs routinely accuse Israel of "genocide," "ethnic cleansing," and "apartheid," and some compare Israeli military and political officials to Nazis. This propaganda warfare is waged through the façade of "research" reports which routinely quote Palestinian "testimonies," taken and repeated without question."

This intrusion into the political affairs of another state seems to me to be at the very least, inappropriate. But, of course, it's business as usual for Israel. I've said in the past that I'm reluctant to accuse anyone of Jew-hatred. Except when it is.

An Irving Layton poem comes to mind:

POST-CREMATORIA

Gray-haired, soft-spoken, and her blue eye bright,
No, she's not your graceless anti-semite;
For while decrying them does she not use
That nice word Israelites instead of Jews?

UPDATE, Aug. 25, 2009: Much to the chagrin of the Swedish government, this story doesn't look like it's disappearing anytime soon. Here are a few articles and blog posts well worth reading.

Yaacov Lozowick, no stranger to the subject as the former director of the Yad Vashem archives, writes on Swedish antisemitism here.

This Op-ed, 'Abusing Freedom of Speech', by Michelle Mazel, wife of former Israeli Ambassador to Sweden, Tzvi Mazel, is a must-read.

No surprises here. The family of one of the Palestinian 'victims' says "We didn't say organs taken...The mother denied that she had told any foreign journalist that her son's organs had been stolen." Khaled Abu Toameh of Jerusalem Post spoke with the family and reports here.

You Can't Do That on Television

2009-07-23T19:10:00.003+03:00

When I was growing up, Les Lye was an Ottawa institution. He was well-known in Ottawa for his announcing work with CFRA radio and on TV on the popular children's show, Uncle Willy and Floyd, with fellow broadcaster Bill Luxton. Outside of Ottawa, he was best known for his characters on You Can't Do That on Television. The show began in Canada in 1979 and was picked up by Nickelodeon in the US where it ran for years. I spent several years as a production coordinator with Carlton Productions, which produced YCDTOTV, and remember Les as a nice guy and a dedicated performer. Les died on Tuesday in Ottawa. He was 84. May his memory be a blessing.

Nuclear Secrets

2009-07-08T15:07:00.003+03:00

Is the United States changing its policy toward a nuclear Israel?

I've written an article on this subject. Here are the first few paragraphs:

Hot on the heels of an statement by Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller urging Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Washington Times asserts that the US and Israel have maintained a secret accord for 40 years to keep from the public Israel's nuclear weapons capabilities. The Times' Eli Lake presents a declassified memo between Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon as evidence and writes that 'by the end of 1970, Israel would likely have 24 to 30 French surface-to-surfaces missiles, 10 of which would have nuclear warheads.'

An historical perspective is in order.

It was clearly in America's interests to avoid a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which would diminish stability an already volatile neighbourhood and surely engage the USSR in some way.

Since the Johnson Administration (1963 to 1969), the US has kept a close watch on Israel's nuclear aspirations and has repeatedly asserted the importance of keeping nukes out of the region. Throughout March 1965, State Department and Israel officials were engaged in heavy negotiations over President Johnson’s regional water plans. Johnson hoped to settle water disputes between Israel and her neighbours by proposing "an aggressive and imaginative program to advance progress in large-scale desalting of sea water.” The plan involved “a combination of large-scale nuclear power plants and large-scale desalting plants could produce power and water.” The nuclear weapons issue came up on many occasions, each time Israel insisting it was not pursuing nuclear weaponry.

The State Department, a recurrent thorn in Israel’s side, stressed the US position to Israeli authorities. "We've already made and remade every point...in far stronger terms, especially on nuclear weapons. I'm surprised Israelis still speak to me," wrote Robert W. Komer, the President's Deputy Special Assistant for National Security Affairs.

In fact, Israel never denied the possibility of such a pursuit, reserving the right to do so depending on Egypt’s actions. Israel was convinced at the time that Egypt also had a nuclear agenda.

Nevertheless, the Americans remained certain that Israel was already pursuing nuclear weapons technology. "All indications are toward Israeli acquisition of a nuclear capability," wrote Rodger Davies, Director of the Office of Near Eastern Affairs. “There is little realization in Israel of the intensity of U.S. opposition to nuclear proliferation. U.S. hesitation and delays in pressing for the recent inspection of the Dimona reactor plus the failure to insist upon a two-day visit have led the Israelis to believe we are not serious."

The Americans at this point stepped up the pressure. The State Department informed the Embassy in Israel that an "offer to supply arms in the future [would be] carefully hedged and made contingent upon Israeli acceptance of undertakings on Jordan waters and on nuclear development..."

Want more? The full article is ready for your magazine or website now. Contact me.

A Cry from Iran

2009-06-14T12:37:00.005+03:00

There's an assumption some people have that non-Western peoples aren't truly interested in democracy. This is a widespread belief of the Arab and Muslim states. But, in truth, most of the residents of these places would welcome democratic reforms, but there are two challenges: dictators allied with western powers, and religious opposition. But, even this opposition must be considered in context. Islam is not antithetical to democracy: in many ways it is very democratic, holding political leaders subject to the same religious laws as commoners, but there are 'trappings' of democracy that are problematic. An open democracy, for example, means more western influence on fashion and food, and more diverse books and magazines for sale.

We think of democracy as putting a ballot in the box every few years. People in the Middle East look at democracy and they see a bigger picture. Yes, it’s putting a ballot in a box. But it’s also giving rights to women, rights for children to marry whom they want, when they want. The freedom to be secular. The right to have free speech. They look at democracy and they see a civilization that has lost many of its family values, consumed by drugs and alcohol, full of sexual promiscuity. They don’t want that. I don't blame them.

Iran is interesting. Iranians have good reasons to distrust the West. So do I. But, that's a separate issue from seeking democracy; the problem is that in much of the world, especially the Middle East, any form of democratization is seen as Americanization. Western countries who advocate democracy then are perceived as 'colonizers' whose goal is to blanket American hegemony over the region. And because some aspects of democracy are problematic (ie: sexual freedom), there is a tendency to reject the whole, rather than seek, for example, a uniquely Islamic form of democracy. There is also a tendency across the region to blame others (Arabs, in particular, believe conspiracy theories well above normal levels) rather than self-criticize and self-correct.

Iran's Persian populace is different. Iran has a young population that is well-educated, essentially western in attitude, and which has privately expressed disapproval of the country's Islamist President and clerical rulers. The problem has been that this group has seemed more interested in skiing and doing drugs than overthrowing a radical government. Let's be fair: this is a problem that is prevalent in the Middle East and endemic, I think, to Islam. By definition, Islam means submission. It's contrary to Islam to defy religious and familial authority figures. This is still, in many ways, a tribal culture. As long as young Iranians have been unwilling to rise against their parents and Imams, nothing has changed.

Today's reaction to allegations of voter fraud might be the beginning of a democratic revolution in Iran, or not. Revolutions, like forest fires, often start small and smolder for awhile before the big conflagration. But, these revolutionaries face the ultimate foe: Iran's leaders were themselves the revolutionaries of a previous generation. They can anticipate the strategies and actions of the protesters and prevent the spread of anti-government riots. They've already cut cell-phone service and blocked access to social media sites like Twitter. There are reports that police have arrested opposition leaders. Foreign media have reported that they're being prevented from covering the protests.

Furthermore, it will take more than a few riots to bring down this government; it will require the involvement of the military and police, and a willingness to fight and die for reform. And even a change in Presidents will only bring about small change. Regardless of who really won this election, the real power still lies with 'the Mullah behind the curtain', Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Iranians will not know democracy until his absolute authority is expunged.

Has the revolution begun? We can only hope. The fall of Iran's fascist, Islamic government would have positive repercussions across the region. At the very least, it could prevent a conflict between Iran and Israel.

Lebanon Dream

2009-06-09T13:09:00.003+03:00

After the war in Lebanon in 2006, I suggested that it's "impossible to know the long-term benefits of this conflict. There are many that believe the conflict will only fuel more terrorism; I don't believe this is true."

The first positive result of this attitudinal change was the lack of response from Hezbollah to Israel's operation in Gaza. Although there were many who claimed Hezbollah had only grown stronger after the war in 2006, this claim was mostly based on Hezbollah's own propaganda machine. Nothing is quantifiable. Hezbollah CLAIMS it's stronger. Is it? There are reports that it has more rockets. Does it? This has yet to be seen. Is the group more popular? Yes, according to polls, which are notoriously unreliable in the Middle East, and of course, Hezbollah itself.

What IS quantifiable is that there hasn't been a single rocket, or kidnapping attempt by Hezbollah since the end of the war. In fact, when rockets were fired from Lebanon in June 2007 and January 2009, Hezbollah quickly denied responsibility! Say what you will about Israel's failure to destroy Hezbollah, they were still smacked hard enough they have yet to use whatever rockets they have, even as their so-called Palestinian brothers were being bombed in Gaza. They haven't even sought revenge over last February's killing of their number two guy, Imad Mughniyeh, in Syria.

I also proposed that there would positive political repercussions.

I wrote: “Lebanon's sectarian population has always been split, with Christians and Druze generally supporting Israel's efforts to remove militant forces (thousands of Christians actually fled to Israel in 2000 fearing a rise in militant Islam in the south, and possible retribution against Christians who supported Israel after 1982). Shiite Moslems have generally supported or condoned both the PLO and Hezbollah because they see these groups as armies in a larger conflict: Pan-Arabism (until 1982) and Global Jihad (after 1982). I don't believe this current conflict will increase support, and its likely that many Lebanese, of all stripes, will blame Hezbollah for their recklessness (even if they hold Israel responsible for the deaths.) The Arab street traditionally display public support for its leaders and their military exploits, even when privately they may be critical. It's quite possible that Hezbollah will now lose some of the political support they've enjoyed, and their seats in parliament. We'll know with the next election.”

Well, that election has now been held and lo and behold, the Lebanese responded exactly as I expected, voting along sectarian lines while denying Hezbollah the victory it predicted.

Official results issued by the Interior Ministry on Monday confirmed that the March 14 Forces achieved victory in the elections, with 71 seats against 57 seats for the opposition forces. Lebanese President Michel Sleiman expressed his satisfaction over "the transparent elections, and the high spirit of democracy.

The Lebanese parliament will now have to deal with Hezbollah demands to continue the veto vote it earned through violence. It also must continue to deal with Hezbollah's state-within-a-state in southern Lebanon. Nevertheless, election results indicate at least some anger with Hezbollah's partisan politics and continued advocacy of violence against Israel.

Lebanon has suffered through a civil war, a consequence of religious and political fragmentation, but today enjoys some semblance of democracy and normality. Hezbollah's ongoing attempts to derail this balance may yet bear fruit, and the Lebanese would be well-advised to consider the long term benefits of conciliation and compromise. And they should strongly consider extending that attitude toward her southern neighbour, Israel, a move that would further push Hezbollah and its sponsors, Syria and Iran, into the margins, and contribute to the economic and political health of the region.

Race-O-Rama

2009-06-01T01:00:00.000+03:00

It seems like as soon as there's any conflict involving Israel, I begin to hear the word 'anti-Semitism' a lot more often. Either it's an accusation against anti-Zionists, or an accusation by anti-Zionists convinced that they'll be accused of anti-Semitism for any criticism of Israel.

I think these accusations need to be considered more carefully. I'm well aware of the debate within Jewish circles and in the press. But the argument is never - well, let's be fair and say rarely - that Israel is being criticized, but how it's being criticized, and the absence of fair criticism of the other side, or even of other countries. For example, I'm very careful with my criticism of other nations because I'm very aware of Canada's abuse of Natives; our treatment of our indigenous people is shameful. And Canada's not alone, sadly. So, the complaint from some people is when Israel gets singled out, and is criticized in a vacuum - it's not the criticism itself. Perhaps this is a subtle difference, but it's also crucial. When Israel is cited by the UN Human Rights Committee endlessly without a mention of China, Syria, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, etc, that's anti-Semitism. When newspapers put Israel on the front page, but ignore hundreds of thousands of deaths in Darfur, that's anti-Semitism. When Churches and Universities advocate boycotts of Israel while ignoring the persecution of Tamils, or basic human rights abuses in dictatorships from Libya through Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, that's anti-Semitism. Unless someone has another explanation.

It's pretty obvious to me when anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. I don't often make the accusation, because your average anti-Semite simply can't recognize it in himself. I've met a lot of Christians like that; they claim to love Jews, but will turn around and call us 'incomplete, 'Pharisaical,' and 'stiff-necked.' Criticism of Israel is even worse, as I've pointed out, and often suggests an unfair double-standard is at play (ie. if you're going to call yourselves the Chosen People, you must do better than every other people on the planet); or there's this sense that the Jewish emergence from powerlessness that occurred after the Second World War has really thrown a wrench in some people's plans. WE weren't supposed to restore Israel ourselves; we weren't supposed to even survive the Holocaust intact let alone more powerful than before. There are a lot of folks out there, and I'm including quite a few Jews, that are very uncomfortable with Jewish power - and I don't mean just political power - I'm talking about Jews running around with guns, God Forbid, defending ourselves, asserting our right to self-determination, reclaiming what was taken from us by force, well, it's enough to make secular, bagel-loving American Jews blush with embarrassment (and fear of being accused of being Communists, or spy or Fifth Columnists or whatever else could undermine their hard-earned assimilation.)

Speaking of racism, anti-Zionists also love to accuse Israel of abusing its Arab citizens. Show me a country that doesn't have race (or for that matter, gender) issues. When Israel was liberating Gaza (and yes, I used that word deliberately because it was Israel in 1967 that for the first time since 1948, permitted refugees to travel to the West Bank and beyond and work in Israel), the US was engaged in race riots across the country that left hundreds dead and injured. When Israel was permitting Arab women to vote for the first time anywhere in the Middle East, Swiss women still couldn't vote or participate in parliament (they got the vote in 1971). Some would say hatred and anger are pervasive in this part of the world, but we don't judge a society on its faults alone (after all, who is faultless?); we judge it on its actions to correct these faults, through prevention and corrective laws.

And it's worth noting, anti-Jewish and Christian racism isn't just condoned in most Islamic countries: it's actively promoted and funded. That's the difference. While Muslims wail about cartoons featuring Mohamed, images like this regularly appear in state-funded Arab newspapers: Source: Al-Watan (Qatar), April 2, 2007

Then again, maybe the problem isn't anti-Semitism at all? Perhaps it's not Israel being held to a higher standard, but the Muslim world being held to one much lower? Either way, it's hard not to feel that the great experiment, the United Nations, which aims to to, "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small," has failed.

The Double Standard

2009-05-31T14:05:00.004+03:00

Speaking of double-standards and hypocrisy, which I do from time to time, it's impossible to ignore this blatant example. Anyone been following Sri Lanka's campaign against the Tamil Tigers? Human rights organizations have reported thousands of civilians killed, some during a barrage that struck a hospital. Even the UN has acknowledged, "nearly 6,500 ethnic Tamil civilians were killed in the last three months of fighting." Other sources suggest the death toll may be much higher. "An investigation by The Times into Sri Lanka’s civilian casualties, however — which was conducted in a week-long visit to Sri Lanka — has found evidence of a civilian death toll of 20,000, almost three times that cited previously."

We should expect some sort of investigation soon, right? Don't hold your breath. The UN human rights council has actually praised the Sri Lankan government's "victory over the Tamil Tigers and refused calls to investigate allegations of war crimes by both sides in the final chapter of a bloody 25-year conflict." It then passed a resolution describing the conflict as a "domestic matter that doesn't warrant outside interference."

Indeed.

Trekkies

2009-05-18T17:12:00.008+03:00

Before I say a few words about the new Star Trek film, and you know I must, I need to describe going to the screening, our first 'movie date' in Israel. Israel is a modern country, and that applies to its movie cinemas. The experience was all very familiar, but just different enough to be memorable.

I knew I was going to have to deal with Hebrew subtitles; I didn't expect that everyone in the theatre would be English speaking. I expected to be able to get kosher food; I was surprised to discover that the popcorn was also pareve (as was another patron who deliberately had pizza for dinner assuming the popcorn would be 'dairy.')

I resigned myself to the inevitable commercials before the film; I never anticipated a 5 minute intermission in the middle of the film. Do Israelis have unusually small bladders? I hoped we might run into people we knew; instead, we got a lift with total strangers, and talked about the film all the way home.

Anyway, I was talking about Star trek. I've been watching Star Trek for, um, ever. I actually remember watching the original series with my Dad and recording the Animated series on cassette tapes (pre-VCRs, folks). I also have a scrapbook I started when they first started talking about a new film in the mid-70`s. Those of you who came into the series with TNG can`t imagine how exciting a time it was, going to conventions when they were still run by the fans and not those money-making scum who took them over, meeting other Trekkers, waiting and hoping for a movie or another series, or even just a chance to meet someone associated with the show. It`s easy now to be jaded, after Voyager and Enterprise, but the scene was so different during the 70`s. What a time it was. I`m so grateful to have been a part of it.

So, as one of Trek's 'old fossil' fans, I was admittedly nervous when the news of a reboot was made official. But, I was actually pretty excited, too. It's worth remembering that in many ways, Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), albeit with the original cast, also felt to many of us like a reboot. There some of the same concerns leading up to the release of the film about the new look of the Enterprise and the Klingons, and the new production team, especially director Robert Wise who knew nothing about Trek. Even Wrath of Khan reinvented much of what we now consider canon. And most of all, this is Science Fiction. What does canon mean in a genre which has already established that events and characters can be altered?

A few months ago, I found myself actually looking through my Star Trek comics and memorabilia from the late 60's/ early 70's. I started to get excited about this one, and enjoyed seeing people hyped up the way I was before the first Trek film came out. I thought: I'm sure there are going to be things about this film I hate but I don't care. As Kirk said: "Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant!"

Well, I've now seen the new one and, frankly, I'm undecided. It looked great. The actors were all very good. I especially liked Karl Urban, although my wife felt he was copying DeForest Kelly rather than just playing the part like the others. The weak one for me was Zoë Saldana as Uhura. She was fine, but lacked the grace and elegance of Nichelle Nichols. I liked the comedy but felt like Scotty was a bit too much comic relief, which is I'm sure why they went with Simon Pegg rather than Paul McGillion, who would have made a great Scotty.

In all honesty, though, my big issue with the reboot has nothing to do with dialogue, plot or even casting, none of which was consistently brilliant in any incarnation of Trek. JJ Abrams, whose work I greatly respect, has said on record that he preferred Star Wars to Star trek, and that he wanted to reboot Trek in that mold for a younger, ostensibly more A.D.D. audience. But, in fact, both film genres originally ran simultaneously, with TMP actually following the first Star Wars film (because, in large part, of the success of that film, Paramount was willing to go ahead with TMP.)

For years, we had both SW and Trek, one franchise fast, fun and FX heavy, the other more thoughtful and character oriented. In a sense, they complimented each other. I have enjoyed both series for different reasons.

In other words, I don't need my Star Trek to feel like Star Wars. It was possible to reboot the series, adding more FX, introducing a new, hip cast, and even adrenalizing the stories without sacrificing the philosophical nature of Star Trek. I'm not convinced they accomplished this even though I enjoyed the film. But, I am willing to cut them a fair bit of slack because this was a first film with a new cast and crew. My hope is that a sequel will put more emphasis on the hopeful future of the Star Trek universe. I really do wish them luck. I'd still like to believe that the world needs Star Trek.

Washington Merry-Go-Round

2009-05-04T11:52:00.005+03:00

I want to hate Michael Oren.

He's not only a terrific historian, eloquent and clear, but he's also far too dashing for his own good. Oren, who was born in the US but has called Israel home for decades, is also a fervent Zionist, an army reservist who has served as a government spokesperson during times of war, and a father of a serving soldier. And now, as if I couldn't hate him any more, he's Israel's new Ambassador to the US.

If Benjamin Netanyahu is remembered for anything it may be this brilliant appointment of a most deserving and appropriate candidate. I've never met Michael Oren, unfortunately, but I would welcome the chance to tell him in person what I'm writing here. Mr. Oren, serve us well. Be honest. Be passionate. Be yourself. Make a difference. And good luck.

If you're not familiar with Michael Oren, you deserve it to yourself to read some of his political and historical articles (and get out there and buy his books, too. Oren is the author of Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East and of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: The United States in the Middle East, 1776 to 2006.) He never fails to educate and entertain.

From The TNR Archives: Michael B. Oren

The New Republic has made available a long list of articles, all worth checking out. "Unfriendly Fire: Why Did Israeli Troops Attack The USS Liberty?" from July 23, 2001 is essential reading.

Also, check out, at the Azure Magazine website:

Jews and the Challenge of Sovereignty
Michael B. Oren | Is "Jewish state" a contradiction in terms?

Levi Eshkol, Forgotten Hero
Michael B. Oren | Israel’s third prime minister offers a different model of Jewish leadership.

The Second War of Independence
Michael B. Oren | Fifty years later, the lessons of the Suez War are only now becoming clear.

Did Israel Want the Six Day War?
Michael B. Oren | Newly released documents reveal the government's true motives during the tense weeks leading up to June 5, 1967.

Save the Citizens’ Army
Michael B. Oren, Benjamin Balint

Zohan and the Quest for Jewish Utopia
Michael B. Oren | Adam Sandler's hit comedy reflects a deep divide between Israeli and American Jews.

Orde Wingate: Friend Under Fire
Michael B. Oren | The new historians take aim at the father of the IDF.

The 'USS Liberty': Case Closed
Michael B. Oren | June 8, 1967: Why did the IDF open fire on an American spy ship?

UPDATE: Two more articles, both from Commentary Magazine.

Seven Existential Threats
Michael B. Oren, May 2009

Does the U.S. Finally Understand Israel?
Michael B. Oren, July/August 2002

Law and Disorder

2009-02-03T16:09:00.002+02:00

International law is not cut and dry, but there are a number of precedents that have been established in past conflicts. International law defends, as a minimum, the right of a state to act to protect against threats to its political independence or territorial integrity [Brunson MacChesney, "Some Comments on the `Quarantine' of Cuba," The American Journal of International Law, 57 (No. 3, 1963), 595.] and to act when the imminence of attack was of such a high degree that a nonviolent resolution of a dispute was precluded.[McDougal, "The Soviet-Cuban Quarantine and Self-Defense," p. 598]

International law also insists that the recognized purpose of self-defense is to deter aggression and to protect the interests of the state. [James Francis Gravelle, "The Falkland (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain." Military Law Review, 107 (1985), 56. ]

Its goal is preventive in nature and not retributive. [D. W. Bowett, Self-Defense In International Law (New York: Fredrick A. Praeger, 1958), p. 20]

We can argue until the cows come home if Israel's military and political strategy will achieve this goal; only time will tell. But, Israel is in her right to respond to attacks against her citizens and territory.

The problem is that the nature of warfare is evolving as we speak. International and human rights laws concerning warfare that were written post-Second World War, in the aftermath of the devastation of Europe and America's bombing of Japan fail to address the sort of conflicts Israel now faces; there was little consideration, or even knowledge of the kind of warfare that exists today between state and non-state entities. It is a maddening fact that so-called political groups like Hamas cannot be tried for blatant violations of human rights laws; even the Palestinian Authority could not be held responsible, as they do not as of yet represent a state (and there are many that believe it was Arafat's intent to prevent statehood in order to distance the group from accountability).

To those who suggest Israel does not regard international law, I would say just the opposite is true. In fact, the IDF even has a legal department that considers and advises on all aspects of law and warfare. It would be more correct to say that all modern, western states are aware that international laws concerning both war and human rights are generally ambiguous and can be pushed and stretched as the need demands. In Gaza, however, Israel went above and beyond what any other state would do to protect civilians. This is an interesting interview with a British former military officer on the subject, and a British soldier with the Intelligence Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan comments here.

The IDF is actually one of the few western armies that has a moral code. Here's a relevant article on the subject. I would agree with this quote:

"The Israeli Defence Forces’ ethical standards are different from, and in some ways higher than, the British army’s, says Paul Robinson, but in the end the question is not whether IDF actions are moral, but whether they are wise." This is, of course, a whole other issue.

That said, I think it's generally true that no party in this conflict is seeking 'peace' as such. Israel demands security and recognition; the Palestinians demand justice and compensation; and the Arab world demands a restoration of honour and lost lands. Peace will be the outcome of these demands being met.

Therefore, all parties are equally responsible for achieving peace. The problem with placing the onus on any one party is that it is, in the end, counterproductive. Any unilateral moves made by, for example, Israel, such as the return of Gaza to Palestinian rule, actually sets back peace in that it reduces Israel's sense of security. And as we saw, as soon as rockets and mortars began flying over the border, Israeli lives and well being were also threatened.

There is also a problem with the notion of moral equivalency in these kinds of conflicts. There are acts which must be condemned; blindly criticizing the use of force when it is clearly a response to acts of terror, and then suggesting that both sides are equally responsible is simplistic. And this conflict is anything but simple.

I cannot describe the problem any better than this:

"Sometimes the desire to form a balanced judgement of the conflict, and not to attribute responsibility for the conflict largely to one side, a generally positive aspiration, may prove a pitfall and distort the picture...Symmetries in objectives, modes of action, and interrelationships of two sides in the conflict must be examined carefully. It is sometimes the very desire to adopt the stance of a neutral judge that leads the observer to close his eyes to inconvenient patterns of behaviour on the part of one side or the other in the conflict or at least to regard them benignly. Adopting a neutral stand is liable to intoxicate the observer with a euphoria of self-righteousness; he will derive great satisfaction from his rectitude and from his capacity to transcend issues and view them from lofty heights. His awareness of affinity with one side of the conflict may inculcate in him a tendency towards ostentatious neutrality, leading him to tip the scales and do violence to the facts." (Y. Harkabi: Nuclear War and Nuclear Peace, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, 1966, p. 270).

Making the Cut

2009-01-22T18:20:00.005+02:00

It's always around this time, when Israel is a little more in the news than usual, that I notice more discussions of the dangers and cruelty of male circumcision. A blog I follow went so far as to accuse parents of this "evil, ancient practice" of putting their own wants ahead of their child's rights.

No, I would say they do just the opposite. They place his spiritual needs ahead of their personal fears and reservations.

This is called parenting, which involves far more than ensuring a child has food and shelter. Any good babysitter can meet basic human needs; good parents create a human being. My parents confirmed my status in a 3,500-year-old community, and then gave me a basis in Jewish knowledge and family life. How could I make that decision for myself as a child? Thank G-d I didn't have to go through circumcision as an adult. By all accounts, it's a painful and much more risky operation.

Responsible parents make hard decisions. Why would a parent of any religion assume that their child would likely abandon the faith and not need to be a member? It makes no sense. It would be like a parent saying, "Well, let's not bother setting up a College Trust Fund since we don't know that he's going to go to college. We'll let him decide if he wants to start one himself when he's an adult." Now before you say, but a snipped foreskin isn't the same as a college education, both are investments toward a more fulfilled life. Good parents anticipate and create the foundation for a complete life - physical and spiritual - for their children. To do less would be an abdication of responsibility.

I'm not being sarcastic here; would the world really be a better place if everyone only looked out for themselves? This was the innovation of Judaism thousands of years ago: A covenantal relationship to a higher power, a land, and each other; a community separate and distinct, because we're not all the same, and a set of laws that were unprecedented at the time. It's easy now to dismiss this fact, because these laws have shaped the Western world, but thousands of years ago, the Jewish world was a haven of human rights in a region where child sacrifices were the norm. And every member of this society understood the responsibility to ensure the group's survival; every Jew was gladly willing to make personal sacrifices to ensure the survival of the group because the future of mankind was at stake. This was their perspective. For many, it still is.

Declaring publicly through the brit milah one's allegiance to this covenant is something we take great pride in. The covenental experience is really something difficult to describe, but I can tell you, I've never been to a brit milah where people, men and women, aren't crying. There's a lot of baggage attached to this ritual; we understand this. Through the ages, Jews have certainly died because they could be identified. It's not something that's taken lightly; just the opposite. But I know this: from the first week of my life, I belonged to this community, and it belonged to me. As long as I live, I will never be alone.

War and Peace

2009-01-07T17:59:00.003+02:00

Governments - indeed most people - will defer to the simpler, easier solutions whenever possible. There's a good reason why the US hesitated before entering both world wars: they're messy, expensive and cost many, many lives. So, I don't entirely blame those who say, shouldn't Israel have continued to pursue peace before looking at military solutions? But, there's also a point where we say, the pursuit of peace is a stalling tactic to avoid an inevitable conflict, not a sincere goal in itself. Every administration wants to put off expensive, difficult conflicts until the next government.

Look, the truth of the matter is neither Israel nor the Arabs (including the Palestinians) are seeking peace, as such. 'Peace' was attainable many years ago. Jewish Zionists could have recognized the White Paper of 1939, allowed immigration to slow to a trickle, and accepted permanent minority status in Palestine - with whatever reduced privileges that might have entailed, and assuming the Jews already in Palestine weren't expelled. Likewise, the Arabs could have long ago accepted a Partition Plan (which would have given them a much larger state than any negotiations today might produce). And there were certainly other opportunities for peace squandered by both sides.

Today, the reality is that Israel demands first-and-foremost a) security and b) recognition. The Arab world wants a) the restoration of Arab honour (through Israeli acknowledgment of culpability) and b) reasonable compensation for those displaced by the wars of 1948 and 1967. 'Peace' will be the result of these demands being met.

It's also worth noting that many polls over the years, since before 1948, have maintained that most Palestinians are actually more interested in economic and social stability than independence or autonomy. They want normalcy, which is not an unreasonable demand. Yet, there has been a minority element within the Arab world for years which has persisted in making impossible demands to the detriment of their own people. When the international community accedes to the will of Palestinian extremists, they are essentially spitting in the face of moderate Palestinians who want their voices to be heard, too. But, as I said, this is the easy way out: listen to the guys with the guns, because the alternative is to try to understand and maneuver through the complexities of the Arab and Islamic worlds. Frankly, I blame Edward Said, but that's another story.

Eyeless in Gaza

2009-01-04T17:06:00.003+02:00

I received an interesting, but disconcerting email the other day. An old friend accused me of - wait for it - changing. He harangued me for my present political position on Gaza and Israel's need to attack Hamas, and suggested the guy he used to know would never have supported the use of force. Apparently, I was much more of a Leftist in my youth. True enough. I like to think of myself now as a pragmatist, that is, I believe governments and people should conduct themselves according to reasoned need and not based on rules in some out-of-date ideological handbook. He changed, too. The guy I knew back then would have done more research before making such uninformed comments. In fact, I still remember him chewing me out for speaking out of my backside on Northern Ireland. But he has been living in the UK for many years, so I suppose he can be forgiven.

However, I felt his comments deserved a response. Gaza, after all, is a very complex situation.

If anything, I wrote, Israel has been far too patient with the Gazan Arabs. Border cities in Israel have been under constant rocket bombardment for 8 years; well over 6,500 rockets have fallen on Sderot alone since Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005. In fact, my wife was there the other week. She had to take shelter TWICE during a 3 HOUR visit. Residents get only 15-seconds' warning before a rocket strike (residents of nearby kibbutzim get 6 seconds warning). One kassam struck close enough that the building she was in trembled.

Residents of Sderot and nearby kibbutzim go through this every day. Despite incessant terror attacks, only a few dozen people have been killed (and many Arabs have been killed in Gaza by rockets falling short - two young girls were killed last week - or blowing up while being built), but this is only because we all have 'safe rooms' lined with metal and concrete. As well, cities like Sderot have bomb shelters everywhere. Most homes and business have shelters, so the argument that not that many Israelis have died (and therefore some will claim the response is disproportionate) is unfair and disingenuous. We have bomb shelters BECAUSE people are trying to kill us with rockets. And while a miraculous few have been killed, hundreds have been injured, many disfigured and paralyzed; a recent study found that 1 in 3 kids are suffering from PTSD.

It's important to talk about "proportionality." This has little to do with how many people have been killed or injured (this would make reprisals nothing but acts of revenge), but are based on assessments of threat. Hamas has been primarily using Kassam rockets, which aren't meant to cause widespread death and destruction, but rather are weapons of TERROR, deliberately filled with metal ball-bearings and shrapnel, with the specific goal of maiming and injuring civilians. How many children need to have legs and hands blown off before a government must act? They're now firing Grad rockets - 3 meters high! - capable of blowing the top off an apartment building, and with much more range than Kassams. IDF Home Command informed us a few days ago to take precautions as we are now in rocket range.

But believe it or not, I'm also very concerned for civilians in Gaza. They've been seriously short-changed by an evil regime that sees their deaths and suffering as nothing more than fuel in a PR campaign. Nevertheless, Israel has been doing its best to minimize civilian suffering, permitting humanitarian aid to enter Gaza on a daily basis; Israel is providing medical assistance for Gazan civilians (and paying for it since the Palestinian Authority is unwilling to pay for their medical care in Israel because they say Hamas is responsible). Israel is even informing, with phone calls and leaflets, neighbourhoods before IAF attacks. As such, the vast majority of those killed, according to the Palestinians themselves, have been members of Hamas.

Sadly, civilians are still going to be killed and injured as long as Hamas hides its forces and weapons in schools and mosques, and in crowded residential neighbourhoods (all War Crimes, incidentally).

That's the problem with fighting asymmetrical warfare with an enemy that lauds death and loathes weakness. It's almost a no-win scenario, but that doesn't mean Israel shouldn't try. The alternative would be for the government to ignore its responsibility to its own citizens, and permit constant attacks against its sovereignty. This is, obviously, unacceptable.

I'm especially disappointed in the international community that has all but ignored years of rocket attacks on Israelis, but is suddenly concerned about civilians in Gaza. Why, I ask, aren't the Gazans responsible for the government they elected? They knew full well what Hamas represented (the destruction of Israel and death of Jews everywhere - it's actually in their Charter), and voted for them anyway. Why are so many people willing to treat the Gazan Arabs like children? Isn't collective responsibility a basic principle of the democratic process? I'm responsible for the actions of my government; why aren't they? Frankly, coddling the Palestinians and absolving them of responsibility for acts of terror is condescending, if not racist.

It is well past time for Hamas to live up its obligations as a democratically elected government (this is actually arguable as the President of the PA has denounced them as usurpers, and has even blamed them for the current conflict). A democracy, despite what most in the Arab world seem to believe, means far more than simply 'a vote.' As the elected rulers of Gaza, Hamas has responsibilities under international law: first and foremost, is an obligation to respect international treaties and agreements signed by previous governments, such as the Oslo Agreement in which the PA recognized the State of Israel. Hamas has failed to fulfil this obligation. Hamas also has an obligation to secure its borders. Again, Hamas has failed to do so, permitting militants to kidnap an Israeli soldier, and allowing the firing of rockets into Israel.

Hamas had an opportunity to renounce the use of violence and agree to negotiate in good faith with Israel for normalized relations; they failed to do so and are now being brought to task. They're really a gang of well-armed thugs that have managed to elevate themselves (in part, due to Israeli and international mismanagement of terror groups and thanks to the sponsorship of the neighbourhood psycho, Iran) to real power. Think Al Capone, with heavy weapons and clan connections at every level. They're also prepared to sacrifice thousands of civilians for the cause. They truly don't care, as long as they emerge victorious in the end. And anyone who believes that "the end justifies the means" is very dangerous indeed.

The difference between me today and 20 years ago is simple. I'm now much better informed. I hope my friend will still be visiting next month. I'd like to continue this discussion over a beer, like the good old days when the world seemed much simpler.

A Comic Zoom

2008-11-18T15:24:00.005+02:00

My latest published article, and my first in Israel, is now available in this week's issue of the Jerusalem Report.

Here's a short extract of the article from Issue 16, November 24, 2008 of The Jerusalem Report.

You won't find caped crusaders or masked superheroes in any of these comic books. Instead, Miriam Libicki's "jobnik!" chronicles her day-to-day life in the Israeli army in frank, often blunt terms. Jobnik is Israeli slang for soldiers in non-combat roles. More of an illustrated diary than a comic, "jobnik!" takes us behind the heroic façade, to where soldiers wash dishes, file reports and fool around.

"I wonder if, as the no-longer-new girl here, I should warn them about Asher," ponders Libicki's comic persona, recalling a foolish fling with a base scoundrel as she escorts new recruits to the women's barracks. "But I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't just make me look bad."

Originally published as individual comics, the first six issues have recently been reworked into a single graphic novel, "jobnik! An American girl's adventures in the Israeli army," distributed by Diamond Comic Distributors, the largest distributor of comic books in North America, available at comic stores in December. Securing a distribution deal for an independently produced comic on this unlikely subject was no easy feat. "The truth is they rejected it at first," admits Libicki. "So I sent them reviews from Publisher's Weekly and, after some discussions, they finally agreed to distribute it."

You can also read an longer excerpt here. But, I think you need to go out and buy a copy.

The article is a review of Jobnik!, an autobiographical comic book by Vancouver-based Miriam Libicki. I met with her at Comics N Vegetables (the coolest comic store in the Middle East) in Tel Aviv in September. Here we are in the middle of the interview. What do you think of my professional interview shorts?

Heroes

2008-09-28T15:09:00.003+03:00

Actor, and seriously cool blue-eyed mensch, Paul Newman, has died at the respectable age of 83. I could write for days on his brilliant, decades-long acting career, but instead want to acknowledge Newman the humanitarian, whose Newman's Own label of salad dressings and sauces earned around $250 million for charity. Wow!

For your viewing pleasure, here's the trailer for Exodus, one of Newman's best known roles.

I reviewed Exodus for a distributor of Jewish films.

Exodus
US, 1960, 208 minutes

Based on Leon Uris' sweeping novel, Otto Preminger’s star-studded epic tends to simplify and is arguably too long but as one of the few Hollywood films to tackle the creation of the State of Israel, Exodus is absolutely essential. Told from an admittedly pro-Zionist bias, the film relates the events that preceded the UN vote to approve partition of Palestine in 1948 through the exploits of Ari Ben Canaan, (Paul Newman) a member of the Israeli resistance group, Hagannah. Exodus is first and foremost a Hollywood adventure romance, but no other feature film captures the mainstream Jewish regard for the heroes of Israel’s birth. For more detail of the events of the film, check out the recently released documentary, In Search of Peace: Part One 1948 – 1967.

Wordplay

2008-09-22T16:44:00.009+03:00

I have a problem. I'm a sucker for internet distractions. I've already shown you what I'd look like as a cartoon. Now (at last) I can reduce my bio to a Wordle, a representational 'word cloud' courtesy of IBM Engineer Jonathon Feinberg. Without further ado, Morey Altman reduced to 50 floating words:

Machssomim*

2008-09-11T21:16:00.002+03:00

We live near the Green Line and, because of the placement of Highway 443, pass through a checkpoint every time we go to Jerusalem. Checkpoints aren't all the same. This one controls entry onto a highway restricted to vehicles with Israeli licence plates. There are many who believe that these roads are, in fact, racist. Nothing could be further from the truth, as any of the Arab bus drivers who regularly take us to Jerusalem could tell you. But, these security measures are a necessity. Critics conveniently forget similar restrictions in other countries.

Case in point: the US response to the attack on September 11, 2001.

There were not only roadblocks set up around DC, all air traffic was rerouted away from the US, and even crossing the border by vehicle was temporarily stopped. It was only after many hours that traffic started to move again. I happened to be flying to the US two days later; the trip, which would normally take 4 hours, took 24 hours because of increased security. If the US was being attacked at the rate Israel has sustained shootings and bombings over the years, I would expect entry into America to be damn near impossible.

While real, these restrictions within and out of the territories are the direct result of terrorism. When Israel acquired the West Bank and Gaza, traffic to and from was relatively easy. I crossed the border in 1978 in minutes and there were no checkpoints anywhere. We visited Bethlehem, Jericho and Hebron and were welcomed (they wanted our tourist money, of course.)

And y'know, for all the bitching about the security fence (or whatever you want to call it), 10 years ago both Israelis AND Palestinians wanted more separation. A poll conducted in 1998 found 81 percent of the Israeli respondents and 63 percent of the Palestinians interviewed support(ed) a closed border. More importantly, both Israelis and Palestinians -- 77 percent and 65 percent, respectively -- said relations between the two peoples should be intensified in order to build support for peace. Ironically, one of the loudest opponents of a separation fence was Ariel Sharon, who was set against establishing any line that could be construed as a border.

Although living in Modi'in feels a little like being in the suburbs, we don't ever forget that we're also on the front lines.

*Checkpoint

crossposted to altmanaliyah.blogspot.com

The Summer Exodus

2008-09-07T17:27:00.002+03:00

As we approach the end of our annual reading of Deuteronomy, I can't help but be thankful for the relative ease of our exodus to the Promised Land compared to our ancestors: Seriously, Manna from heaven! 40 years in the desert! The Golden Calf!

But did it really happen like that?

I don't mean to sound facetious here. The Exodus, and unfortunate wanderings that followed, are easy to dismiss as brilliant 'storytelling' and nothing more. And within the recorded story, there are certainly elements that demand interpretation. The Torah was meant to be read and re-read by each generation; more importantly, it was meant to be relevant and inspirational. Sometimes, it's not the literal words that accomplish these things but the dynamic between the text and our experiences and ability to comprehend. One of the things I love is the Jewish custom of re-reading Torah portions every year.

It never ceases to amaze me how time and again, a passage I've read dozens of times can suddenly leap out at me with profound meaning and clarity. Did the words change? Did the story change? Not at all. I changed. I grew through study and gained new experiences as I've aged.

Torah interpretation also allows each generation to apply contemporary values and beliefs to the understanding of the texts. A good example of this is the phrase, "An eye for an eye." (Exodus 21) The rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud, recording oral tradition going back at least centuries, could not believe that the phrase was ever meant to be understood literally; the notion was abhorrent then and now. It was
clear that the text referred to monetary compensation because that understanding was consistent with their values.

Perhaps the understanding was different 3,500 years ago. Perhaps it will change in the future. Neither of which is as important as how the words are understood and applied to our lives today. Each generation is obligated to address the fundamental concerns and values of its time and to struggle with the parameters of necessary and permissible change. Deuteronomy itself insists upon this: we must rely on the judges/priests/leaders of our time "even if they say that right is left and left is right" (Sifre on Parashat Shoftim). And as we read in Parashat Nitzavim, "[Torah] is not in the heavens."

Did the Exodus really happen? Perhaps not exactly as described, but then the historicity of the Bible isn't as important as its relevance and meaning. The Bible isn't a history book, nor should it ever be reduced to such a mundane purpose. It's much deeper than that.

(crossposted to altmanaliyah.blogspot.com)

Thou Shalt Remember

2008-05-01T20:45:00.003+03:00

In April of 1942, Israel Altman, Freida (Frucht) Altman, Rosa Altman, Yonah and Breina (Altman) Rosenblatt, Yidel Rosenblatt, the parents and siblings of Hersch Weidman, Shaya Gelber, Yosel Gelber and their families were murdered in and around Rohatyn and Berezhany, Galicia. The wife and children of Jack Moraff were murdered in Belarus.

Zichronam l'Vracha. May Their Memories be a Blessing.

The 27th of Nissan is Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day), observed as a day of commemoration for the approximately six million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust. In Israel, it is a national memorial day.

At 10:00am, air-raid sirens are sounded throughout the country for two minutes. People stand at attention on the streets; cars stop on the roads; for two minutes Israel is practically motionless.

This video is courtesy Jewlicious.

Wrestling with God

2008-04-24T20:24:00.003+03:00

I don't even like wrestling but I want this. It's just so davka, y'know?

You can order one for yourself here.

Passover

2008-04-17T23:30:00.003+03:00

What's my favourite thing about Passover, you ask?

Watching the Seda Club with Shabot 6000! Enjoy.

Dementia

2008-04-17T07:32:00.002+03:00

What is President Carter thinking?

Hamas has failed since their first day in office to act as a responsible government both toward the citizens of Gaza and the international community. The first duty of an elected government is to honour and maintain (or renegotiate) agreements and treaties previously signed. Hamas refused to do so. Their response to a Presidential demand to lay down arms, cease rocket fire on Israel and work with the PA security apparatus was to 'take over' Gaza by ruthless force. Do you trust a 'democratically elected' government that throws political opponents off roofs, shoots enemies in the head in front of their children or coerces by shoving hoses down people throats and running water until their bodies explode? Hamas has long since lost the right to rule as a 'democratically elected' body.

Moreover, there's nothing to negotiate. The following is an excerpt from an interview with Hamas co-founder of Hamas, Mahmoud Al-Zahar:

"We do not and will not recognize a state called Israel. Israel has no right to any inch of Palestinian land. This is an important issue. Our position stems from our religious convictions. This is a holy land. It is not the property of the Palestinians or the Arabs. This land is the property of all Muslims in all parts of the world."

What does he see worth discussing?

Speaking with Hamas is not only an insult to Israel and world Jewry, which Hamas has threatened repeatedly, it is also a terrible disservice to the Palestinians, empowering the most intransigent elements in Palestinian society and implying that their President is impotent and wasting his time in direct negotiations with Israel.

Every time a terrorist organization is treated as anything other than a gang of thugs, which they are, they believe more strongly than ever that violence has earned them respect and international recognition. And they're right! As namby-pambies like Carter kiss their asses, Hamas simply continues its campaign of violence emboldened by the prestige it's achieved, thus only perpetuating the conflict.

And apparently even the PA agrees with me. Not sure if that's a good thing or not?

"Palestinian Authority officials urged visiting former US President Jimmy Carter on Tuesday not to meet with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Damascus later this week. The officials expressed fear that Carter's planned talks with Mashaal would legitimize Hamas's violent takeover of the Gaza Strip and undermine the authority of PA President Mahmoud Abbas."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

And now the news that he wanted to meet with Islamic Jihad, but they turned him down (believing he's an agent of the US/Israel.) At least with Hamas, he had the excuse of saying they were an elected political body. What's his reasoning now? Wow, did I actually say REASONING?

Islamic Jihad: We Refused Carter’s Request for a Meeting

Eric Trager - 04.16.2008 - 3:52 PM Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) has announced that its leadership has refused former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s request for a meeting. According to PIJ’s QudsNews website, Egyptian authorities contacted PIJ Secretary-General Dr. Ramadan Shallah on Carter’s behalf earlier this week, inviting Shallah to meet with Carter in Cairo. Shallah is listed on the FBI’s list of Most Wanted Terrorists, and the reward for information leading to his apprehension is $5 million. In turning down the request, Shallah declared that Carter is “carrying an American-Israeli agenda,” while PIJ spokesman Daoud Shahab blasted Carter’s criticism of Palestinian rocket attacks during the former president’s visit to Sderot. E-mails and phone calls to the Carter Center press office seeking confirmation of Carter’s outreach to PIJ have not been returned.

Made in America

2008-01-11T01:45:00.000+02:00

There's been a lot of discussion lately about the US and to what extent it may be considered a Christian nation. Much of this debate has focused on America's constitution, which is notably lacking in references to God and the Christian church. But, as we more closely examine the issue, it's worth asking: which America are we talking about? The original settlements of the refuge seeking Puritans? The revolutionary America of the deist founding fathers? Traumatized America following the Civil War? The American melting pot of the 21st century?

The original settlers were unquestionably seeking religious freedom in the wake of insufferable repression under the English Church. But, there was much more to the Puritan mission than a desire for freedom: the Puritans saw themselves on a divine mission and they modeled themselves after the Hebrews of the Old Testament. "Come let us declare the word of the Lord in Zion," declared Puritan leader, William Bradford. America was to them the new Zion, and they set out to establish a new holy land under God's guidance. They cited Scripture as authority for many criminal statutes throughout the colonies and endeavoured (and generally failed) to convert the natives to Christianity. Christian writers of the period celebrated at length this "choice above all other lands." Cotton Mather, in his Magnalia Christi Americana extolled, "Christ's Great Deeds in America."

The New Land continued to attract both the persecuted and the rebellious. Within a few decades, the territories held Baptists of many varieties, Presbyterians, Quakers, and Puritans of all stripes, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, a handful of Jewish congregations, and undoubtedly those who described themselves as unaffiliated, many of whom were alienated if not hostile toward organized religion. Religious freedom in such an atmosphere became more than just a catchphrase; it was an absolute necessity in the face of such unique diversity and difference of opinion.

Increasingly many saw themselves as outside the Church. This was, in part, due to diversity of belief, but also the great distances between communities, and of course America's relative isolation from European religious leadership. The result was a religious revival known as the Great Awakening which swept over the American colonies from Maine to Georgia between 1730 and 1745. Theologian (and later President of Princeton) Jonathan Edwards, in 1742 wrote: "Tis not unlikely that this work of God’s Spirit, that is so extraordinary and wonderful, is the dawning, or, at least, a Prelude of that glorious Work of God, so often foretold in Scripture, which in the Progress and Issue of it, shall renew the World of Mankind ... And there are many Things that make it probable that this work will begin in America."

As he and others preached a return to the Church, a new manner of Christianity, neither Biblical nor European, emerged - an American Christianity. Americans bonded in a common understanding of Christian faith and being, and a fresh respect for lesser established denominations. The sentiment of John Wesley sums it up: "Dost thou love and fear God? It is enough! I give thee the right hand of fellowship." (The Complete idiot's Guide to Christianity, pg. 183)

It’s also worth remembering the role of religion in the American Revolution. While the conflict split some denominations, notably the Church of England (more than half of the Anglican priests in America, unable to reconcile their oaths of allegiance to the King with American independence, left their pulpits during the Revolutionary War), other theologians advocated that civil and religious freedom was ordained and therefore rebellion sanctioned by God.

It was incumbent upon the Founding Statesmen to recognize and acknowledge the vast range of religious opinion at the time. Still, this diversity was all seen within a Christian framework. "All the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same...Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent." (de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America, Vol. 1, Ch. 17.)True, they were all profoundly inspired by the lofty goals of Enlightenment. While several spoke against the more superstitious and incredulous aspects of Christian belief, there remained for most an essential faith. "I am a real Christian," wrote Thomas Jefferson, "that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman; John Adams called himself "a church going animal." James Madison was a Hebrew major at Princeton. Most American statesmen seemed to share the convictions of their constituents that religion was, in the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, "indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions."

It may well be that some were simply paying lip service to a religious constituency. Even so, they never failed to recognize the Christian nature of the land. If they held personal religious misgivings they felt no compunction against encouraging religious practice in others. Despite the absence of God in the Constitution, Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible , recommended that all members of the armed forces “attend divine services”, and facilitated the promotion of Christianity to the natives. As well, National days of thanksgiving were established on which the American people could “express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor" and on which they may” join the penitent confession of their manifold sins . . . that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance."

Over the years, Christian religiosity has continued to intrude itself into the American system despite the separation of Church and State. Following the American Civil War, for example, the words "In God We Trust" were added to US coins. And in 1870 Congress proclaimed Christmas a federal holiday.

I believe America is a Christian nation, even if most Americans today do not believe that Christianity should play a central role in governance, or that the United States itself should ever be regarded as a visible 'Kingdom of Christ on earth.' Surprisingly, I don’t have a problem with this. America has, through its Puritan antecedents and resolute founders, developed its own take on the divine mission, one that has sought to shake off the constraints of dogma and superstition in favour of Judeo-Christian practice, based on the rule of charity and respect of one's fellow. America is by no means perfect; the country has certainly experienced its share of anti-Semitism, although very rarely has it resulted in violence. Still, Americans continue to soul-search on these and other problems. Overall I think the Puritans would be pretty impressed with the freedoms their descendants and others now enjoy.

B'Yerushalaim

2007-06-07T09:22:00.000+03:00

During the 1948 war, Jordan captured approximately 2,000 sq. miles of Judea and Samaria west of the Jordan river, and the "Old City" of Jerusalem; 1,300 Jewish residents were expelled or taken to Jordan as prisoners. Jews living in West Bank and Gaza Strip were forced to flee the invading Arab armies. Kfar Etzion and other villages in the Jerusalem-Bethlehem corridor fell to Arab forces in May 1948 and those captured were massacred. For 19 years, Jews were denied access to the Wailing Wall.

The Israelis had been ordered to use small arms wherever possible to avoid damaging Holy places in the Old City. They were up against Jordan's Arab Legion, which had been formed and trained by the British under Glubb Pasha. The fighting was fierce, often hand-to-hand, and house to house. Jordanian mortars and shells continued to be fired into Jewish Jerusalem; snipers positioned in minarets, and behind churches rained bullets down on the Israelis as they made their way through the narrow, cobbled streets.

Slowly but surely, they pushed the Jordanians back until at last the Old City was back in Jewish hands. The destruction had been terrible; during the Jordanian occupation, the Arabs destroyed 58 Jerusalem Synagogues and systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Soon, the repairs would begin; in a few weeks, Israel would remove the barbed wire and minesfields erected by the Jordanians that had divided the city since 1948; both Arabs and Jews would finally have free access to the city. Soon enough the city would be whole again. But, for a moment, time stood still.

Listen to CBS reporter, Michael Elkins report on the battle for Jerusalem here.

Listen to Israel Defense Forces entering the Old City of Jerusalem and reclaiming the Western Wall on June 7, 1967 (in Hebrew) here.

A transcript is available here. (bottom of the page)

The historic radio broadcast of the liberation of the Temple Mount and the Western Wall
was researched, transcribed and translated by Yitschak Horneman / Quality Translations, Jerusalem

Strike Zion!

2007-06-06T05:09:00.000+03:00

Flying in fast and low to evade Egyptian radar, the Israeli Mirage III and Super-Mystère fighters struck at dawn. All but 12 Israeli jets, kept back to defend the home front, were utilized in the operation. Almost simultaneously, 11 Egyptian airfileds were attacked, destroying over 200 planes. Several hours later, after refueling, Israel struck again destroying another 100 planes. Enjoying near complete air superiority, Israel's tank battalions and infantry began to move across the Sinai and into the Golan Heights.

Upon the outbreak of hostilities on June 5, 1967, Israel had issued strict orders to her soldiers that there was to be no firing against the Jordanians. The Israeli government had secretly pleaded with King Hussein of Jordan, to keep out of the war; but, the plea was rebuffed by the Jordanian monarch. Fearful of losing his throne and perhaps even his life, he aligned himself with the Arab coalition and put his forces under Egyptian command. Even the Jordanian attack, Israel's PM, Levi Eshkol sent a message, through an intermediary: “If you don’t intervene, you will suffer no consequences.” When two hours passed without a reply, Israeli forces struck back at Jordanian positions.

After many hours of intense fighting against Jordan's well-trained Arab Legion, Israeli troops succeeded in taking control of the roads into Jerusalem. As the long day closed, they moved into the city. The Battle for Jerusalem had now begun.

Hot Enough for June

2007-06-05T05:22:00.000+03:00

The war was, in many ways, inevitable. Neither Israel nor her Arab neighbours were satisfied with the outcome of the 1948 conflict. Israel had been left with borders that were difficult to defend, her citizens vulnerable to attacks from all sides. The Arabs had never supported the Partition Plan, and having failed to abort Israel at the outset, began planning for the day when they could eradicate the Jewish state.

Relations between Israel and Syria had been dismal for years. The two countries has sparred over control of water from the Jordan River, and Israel held the Ba’ath regime responsible for terrorist attacks perpetrated by militants operating from Syria.

Syria, anticipating an Israeli response to the border violations, signed a defence agreement with Egypt. According to the agreement, signed on 4 November 1966, an armed attack against either of the two signatories would be considered an armed attack against both. And, once war erupted, the Syrian and Egyptian armies were to operate jointly under the command of the Egyptian chief of staff.

In 1967, Egypt began to turn up the heat. On May 16, Egypt ordered UNEF troops to evacuate the Sinai region (U Thant agreed, without consulting either the UN General Assembly or Security Council, and much to Nasser's delight, also pulled troops out of Gaza). Thousands of Egyptian troops, 80,000 men and 600 tanks in less than three days, poured into the area and began to entrench themselves. Israel turned to both the US and the United Nations for assistance. Both suggested 'patience'; the Security Council was all but deadlocked by the Soviets and France. Fearing they were becoming politically isolated, Israel’s response was to begin to call up reserves--18,000 men on May 17, and an additional 17,000 the following day.

But it was Nasser's decision to close the Straits of Tiran that was the defining moment. Most countries, including the US, considered the closure to be a casus belli, an action tantamount to an Act of War. Israel required the Strait to reach Eilat, at the time it's most important port. And the Arabs also increased the vitriol of their rhetoric: Syria's Foreign Minister Ibrahim Makhous declared that “the withdrawal of the UN forces means ‘make way, our forces are on their way to battle.’” According to then-Defense Minister Hafez el-Assad, the Syrian army had “its finger on the trigger and demand[ed] that the battle be expedited.” 1.

Again, Israel pleaded with the US to intercede, but America was unwilling to challenge the Soviets, which were sponsoring the Arab states (and according to recent historical documents, had been lying to the Arabs telling them that Israel was preparing for war). 2.

Nevertheless, Nasser knew full well that closing the Straits would force Israel into war. After only a few weeks, Israel was running low on oil and food. Then France refused to honour previously signed agreements for planes and parts. Egypt continued the provocation: We are now’, Nasser declared, ‘on the verge of a confrontation with Israel’....‘If’, he added ominously, ‘the Jews threaten us war? I say to them “Welcome”, we are ready for war!'

With everyone still suggesting patience, time was running out. Both Egypt and Syria continued to amass troops and build defences. Israeli hospitals began to collect blood. Emergency morgues were prepared. Israel's military leaders now advised a preemptive strike: “Whoever waits for the Egyptians to start the war has got to know that we’ll lose the land of Israel!” Moshe Dayan declared, “It’s lunacy to wait!” The final straw was an intelligence report that Egypt was moving its army from a defensive to an offensive position, apparently with the intention of occupying Eilat.

After weeks of exhaustive efforts to forestall war, the Cabinet voted in favour of a preemptive strike. The attack would begin early the next morning, Monday, June 5.

1. Theodore Draper, Israel and World Politics: Roots of the Third Arab-Israeli War, p. 60.

2. http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2003/issue3/ginor.pdf

In the Days of War

2007-06-04T02:17:00.000+03:00

In a few days, the world will mark the 40th anniversary of the 'Six-Day War.' To say that the Middle East is still dealing with the consequences of this conflict would be an understatement of Biblical proportions. Over the next few days I'm going to be (finally) updating my blog with thoughts and links on the war and its lasting effects.

It goes without saying, a number of groups around Vancouver will be marking the occasion in various ways. On Friday, June 1, Jews for a Just Peace screened BC filmmaker Jack Silberman's documentary, Raised to be a Hero.

Silberman's film may reflect a genuine opinion within Israel that the continued military presence in the disputed territories has been detrimental to both Jews and Arabs, but to suggest that the 'Refuseniks' represent a growing revolution, as some have done, is misleading at best. It may be true that 1,600 reservists have refused duty in Judea and Samaria (also known as the "West Bank" since Jordan's illegal annexation of the territory in the late '40's) and Gaza, but this number is a mere fraction of Israel's army. Almost all Israeli men do three years of mandatory military service. A mere 1,600 out of a standing army of around 445,000 - less than 1/3 of 1 percent - isn't much of a revolution. Contrast this with Russia, where an estimated 15 percent of those called up for military service illegally dodge the draft. If there's an ideological revolution worth mentioning, it's the realization that last year's disengagement from Gaza was a strategic and political mistake. In fact, far more 'refuseniks' refused to remove Jews from Gaza than have ever refused service in the territories. In an attempt (which failed) to forestall the evacuation of Gaza's Jewish residents, 10,000 soldiers signed a petition that declared "Jews don't deport Jews." The West Bank is even more complicated. There had been a perpetual Jewish presence there since Biblical times until the Jordanian occupation in 1948. Jordan expelled Jews from the West Bank and prohibited them from visiting religious sites. Since 1967, Jews have been able to return to the area. The settlements, regardless of their legal status, are problematic; but it has been Palestinian violence, since Yassir Arafat rejected peace negotiations and initiated the second intifada, that has demanded checkpoints, targeted killings and nighttime arrests. Indeed, as rockets continue to fly out of Gaza, one must wonder if disengagement from the West Bank, ostensibly the political demand of the 'refuseniks,' would really further the peace process. But, as I said, it's a complex issue. With any luck, the film will initiate dialogue but without due respect to the facts, constructive debate will be drowned by the rhetoric that tends to prevail.

Comic Book Confidential

2006-10-26T18:55:00.000+02:00

I've been busy on a few things including an article for Vancouver Jewish Independent. A recent visit to the Superheroes exhibit at the Jewish Museum in New York inspired me to do a profile of local comic-book artist Miriam Libicki.

You won't find caped crusaders or masked superheroes in any of Miriam Libicki's comic books.

Her self-produced comic, Jobnik!, chronicles her day-to-day life in the Israeli army in frank, often blunt terms. Jobnik is Israeli slang for someone in the army with a desk job. More of a graphic diary than a comic, Jobnik! imparts a rarely seen perspective of an army generally viewed as vigilant and relentless. Jobnik! takes us behind the scenes, where soldiers wash dishes, file reports and fool around.

You can read the whole article here.

A New Year

2006-09-28T02:33:00.000+03:00

There is a modern midrash that goes:

Step down, step down. Watch a heel crush, crush.
Uh oh, this means no fear - cavalier.
Renegade and steer clear!
A tournament, a tournament, a tournament of lies.
Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives
and I decline.

It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

That was of course, Rabbi Michael Stipe from Congregation R.E.M.

I was reminded of this song while considering the Unetane Tokef, the moving piyyut or liturgical poem that we read each Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. The Unetane Tokef was supposedly written by Rabbi Amnon of Mainz in the tenth or eleventh century, but is actually many centuries older; portions of the Unetane Tokef appear in a very ancient Genizah fragment from the late eighth century, 200-300 years before Rabbi Amnon was supposed to have composed the poem! And many scholars now believe the document was written in Palestine during the Byzantine occupation, and not in Europe at all.

But, regardless of when and where it was composed, the Unetane Tokef is one of the most powerful texts in Judaism. It is also a difficult work. It is here that we are reminded of the fact that on Rosh Hashana, judgement is inscribed, and on Yom Kippur, it is sealed: "who shall live and who shall die." The prayer even mentions the ways in which death will come: water, fire, sword, beast, and earthquake, and plague. These images are no idle threats; the Torah is filled with similar horrors.

Speaking of the end of the world, Jewish history is replete with endings that should have been final. We've done more final tours than the Rolling Stones. From our exile from paradise to our exile from Eretz Yisroel; from the destruction of the Temple to the destruction of European Jewry, it is no understatement to say if we were not here, if the Jewish people had ceased to exist centuries ago, there is not an archaeologist or historian alive who would be the least bit surprised.

But here we are.

So why the emphasis on mortality? "Who shall live and who shall die? Who shall be at peace and who shall be tormented, who shall be poor and who shall be rich, who shall be humbled and who shall be exalted?" Do we really need so many reminders that our lives are fragile and short?

And what do we make of a line like: "repentance, prayer and tzedakah avert the severe decree" when we know this isn't true. Every day a righteous, beautiful life ends - and there's no shortage of those who have perished at the hands of evil tormentors, despite the prayers and a life of charity. What gives?

There is a saying from the Pirke Avot that illuminates this passage, "All is foreseen, yet free will is given." We may not be able to control the numbers of our days, but we can control how we live. We can choose to be gracious and generous, kind and hopeful, even in the face of great danger and imminent destruction. And I'd like to think we as a people have done exactly that. We have always persevered in spirit. The truth is, we all die.

But as Mr. Spock so aptly put it in Star Trek VI, The Undiscovered Country: "I've been dead before." It always comes as a surprise when I tell non-Jews that the Jewish people believe in reincarnation and the return to earth of the Neshama. But it's not a subject we dwell on. It is THIS life that is important.

Today, we mark the birthday of mankind. We are reminded throughout the Jewish year of the passage of time. Each week is celebrated on Shabbat; each month is celebrated on Rosh Chodesh; but Rosh Hashanah is a little different. It is not the year we celebrate, but our own lives. We do not reflect on the events of the year, but the events of our days. And we consider how we might have improved them. In fact, through this process of evaluation, repentance and renewal, we are given a special gift. The ability to reinvent ourselves!

I'm reminded of a Dear Abby column from many years ago. A woman wrote, "I am 44 years old and have always wanted to be a doctor. Until now, my life circumstances didn't permit it, but if I try to get to medical school, I won't be a doctor for at least six years and by then I will be 50. What should I do?"

And Abby replied, "In six years you will be 50 anyway. You might as well be a 50-year-old doctor and fulfill your dream."

I was listening to that R.E.M. song many years ago in the car with my father. He wasn't that hot on pop music, but he liked the chorus of the song. Every moment, he said, is the end of the world as we know it. Every year, our lives change in ways we could never imagine. And it's all good, he said.

Today IS the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Have I Got News for You

2006-08-21T22:45:00.000+03:00

I'm not much of a journalist. Not in the Matthew Halton sense, anyway. I'm far more comfortable pontificating from my ergonomic chair than documenting truth from a seedy hotel room on the other side of the world. But I hold my colleagues in the highest regard. Despite some recent allegations from the blogging world of photo-tampering, and even an admission from Reuters that a few photos had been photoshopped by a Lebanese photographer named Adnan Hajj, the industry as a whole cannot be condemned. Reuters uses hundreds of photographers and processes thousands of images every week. To their credit, they immediately admitted the problem, and are looking into ways to prevent this from happening again. The admission of error was an acknowledgement that the system isn't perfect, but improvable. I'm not sure if we could ask for more. Frankly, I'm more concerned about agencies like AP that won't even admit the possibility that some photographers take advantage of their craft to promote a personal agenda, let alone acknowledge media bias at the editorial level.

A number of websites continue to examine and discuss media manipulation by Hezbollah (and others) during the recent war in Lebanon. EU Referendum was one of the first to suggest that photos and video taken in Qana after an Israeli attack had been stage-managed. I watched some of the video available:

Having worked in the television industry for 20 years, I have no doubt that a so-called rescue worker is 'directing' the scene. His hand signals to the camera operator are unmistakable. That's not to insinuate that there were no victims of the attack. But this violation of truth, and others, have left me understandably cynical. I should say, more cynical. When I first graduated, I spent a week as camera assistant with a major Canadian broadcaster. I was disturbed to see the camera operator manipulate objects in view during interviews, or ignore certain images that may recast the story the wished to present. I'd like to think this isn't the norm, but I know it happens.

Still, I'm confident most journalists endeavour to maintain integrity and objectivity, even if a few are corrupt. It's also worth noting that every year, dozens of journalists pay the ultimate price to keep us informed. In 2005, 65 reporters and photo-journalists were slain for the crime of seeking truth. Twenty-five journalists have already been killed this year. Although some have died in combat zones, the vast majority were murdered by agents of a repressive government. This is, of course, one of the most insidious peculiarities of news gathering: it's simply impossible to report from exactly those places where the news is most compelling. In terms of Israel, there are probably more reporters per square foot than anywhere in the world. It's a beautiful, safe country that enjoys and respects freedom of the press. Sadly, the same can't be said of its neighbours. This was especially evident last month, with even mainstream journalists admitting they were compromised by Hezbollah restrictions and threats. But, then 'Truth' has always been subjective. "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." (Marcus Aurelius, 121-180 CE)

Cease Fire!

2006-08-16T23:46:00.000+03:00

I haven't commented up until now on Israel's war against Hezbollah, but not for want of an opinion. Now that there is a Ceasefire^TM, here are a few thoughts.

Every conflict has both military and political objectives. The military goal - disarming Hezbollah - was practically impossible and, despite accusations that the war effort has failed, most Israelis must have understood this. The best case scenario was to destroy as many rockets and launchers as possible before a cease-fire was imposed by the United Nations. Although it appears little has been achieved despite loss of life numbering in the many hundreds, I think, at this time, it's impossible to know the long-term benefits of this conflict. There are many that believe the conflict will only fuel more terrorism; I don't believe this is true.

Lebanon's sectarian population has always been split, with Christians and Druze generally supporting Israel's efforts to remove militant forces (thousands of Christians actually fled to Israel in 2000 fearing a rise in militant Islam in the south, and possible retribution against Christians who supported Israel after 1982). Shiite Moslems have generally supported or condoned both the PLO and Hezbollah because they see these groups as armies in a larger conflict: Pan-Arabism (until 1982) and Global Jihad (after 1982). I don't believe this current conflict will increase support, and its likely that many Lebanese, of all stripes, will blame Hezbollah for their recklessness (even if they hold Israel responsible for the deaths.) The Arab street traditionally display public support for its leaders and their military exploits, even when privately they may be critical. It's quite possible that Hezbollah will now lose some of the political support they've enjoyed, and their seats in parliament. We'll know with the next election.

Although chemical and/or nuclear weapons weren't used this time, an enemy poised with thousands of rockets along an un-supervised border is unacceptable. Moreover, Hezbollah serves as a de facto army of Iran, which has spent many years and millions (billions?) of dollars arming the group as part of a coalition of forces to be used against Israel. With many of those rockets now used or destroyed, and Israeli (and soon International) forces now establishing a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon, a front in a future war has been removed. In that context, this effort may prevent a massive three-pronged strike by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. Israel's enemies must now consider that any attack on Israel risks involving the international community.

Additionally, some of the political goals, which were far more realistic, have been achieved - at least in writing. UN Security Council Resolution 1701, passed unanimously last week, clearly states that the war and resulting deaths are blamed on Hezbollah attacking Israel, as well as declaring that the unconditional release of Israel's soldiers is mandatory. Israel is also not obligated to remove any troops until an international force is in place, nor do they have to release any Lebanese prisoners; the Resolution simply says that the issue of the three Lebanese prisoners is to be "settled." No demands on Israel at all. The resolution also acknowledges the Shebaa Farms dispute but again makes no demands on Israel. And it's in Israel's best interests that the UN now focuses on Iran: the real instigator of so much of this violence. Over the next few months, expect both the US and Israel to continue their war of words against Iran. Israel will need to have the sympathy of both the General Assembly and the Security Council; defying a UN brokered cease-fire now could have unacceptable negative long-term consequences.

It's also worth noting the unprecedented initial condemnation of Hezbollah from a few Arab countries. Even now, Egypt is warning terrorist groups in Gaza and Lebanon to consider the cost-benefit ratio of entering into a conflict with Israel. If these groups cannot depend on the financial support of Arab states, moderate forces may finally be able to speak up. And some Lebanese politicians are publicly rebuking Syria's Bashar Assad who has been suggesting that anti-Syrian elements in Lebanon are "collaborating with Israel." These events, in themselves, indicate significant changes in the status quo.

Any parent or fan of Supernanny will tell you that altering a child's bedtime routine takes a little time. You can't expect much to happen on the first night. Maybe a little crying on the second night. Hopefully, on the third night - success! Israel cannot expect to overnight change the behaviour of those in the Arab world who support terrorism. But this conflict sent a message that the status quo has changed. Hezbollah believed Israel would accept a prisoner exchange because they had done so in the past. That expectation no longer holds true.

Of course, the likelihood is that the conflict is not going to end anytime soon. Hezbollah will find an excuse to launch rockets again, and Israel will exercise its right to responds to attacks. Hezbollah will also certainly refuse to hand over the kidnapped soldiers to the Red Cross or anyone else. Moreover, the international force itself may become the target of Hezbollah attacks (remember the Marine barracks bombing?) potentially igniting an even larger conflict. In the minds of many, it made more sense to let the IDF finish the job it started, but it was the politicians - who recognize that not all battles take place on the battlefield - and not the generals who made the final decision. In the grand scheme of things, that's how we all want it. For better or worse.

Clueless

2006-05-31T05:05:00.000+03:00

In a move sadly reminiscent of Orwellian doublethink - blacklists are free speech - the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE), the largest university and college lecturers' union in Britain, has now passed a motion boycotting their Israeli counterparts who refuse to condemn Israel's 'occupation' of so-called Palestinian lands. Apparently, free and open thought is not the imperative of academia after all. Maybe it's just me but isn't punishing academics for the policies of their government a little like blaming the hippies for the Vietnam War?

Speaking of groupthink, this current rash of dysfunctional group behaviour from the British Left is in no way a new phenomenon. Some have suggested that very old anti-Semitism is to blame.¹ I’m reluctant to over-simplify the discussion. There are other factors worth considering.

Anti-globalists amongst the British Left are certainly playing a part in this round of anti-Israel activity. They claim to decry all forms of imperialism, but in practice have spent an inordinate effort targeting the Jewish state. Israel's economic success, especially compared to the backward economies of her neighbours, is seen to be a result of her collusion with the globalist forces (i.e. The US of A). As Mark Strauss, a senior editor for Foreign Policy writes (it's a pay link, sorry), "Islamists and secular nationalists alike portray globalization as the latest in a series of US-Zionist plots to subjugate the Arab world."

Ironically, it is the British who were the Imperialists not so long ago. In pre-state Palestine, the Leftists readily identified the Jew as a legitimate enemy based on perceived collusion with the British during the Mandate years.²

Is there legitimate concern that British antipathy towards Jews is real? In January 2002, British left-wing magazine The New Statesman published a cover story on the "Zionist lobby" in Britain. The cover displayed a golden Star of David stabbing a Union Jack behind the banner: "A Kosher Conspiracy?" To be fair, the magazine's editor apologized (after many complaints) but it's hard to dismiss such a blatant expression of distrust.

At the very least, this current spate of anti-Zionism is acerbated by a blithe ignorance of 2,000 years of Jewish nationalism (not to mention erstwhile British support for Zionism). What is more mystifying is the apparent lack of knowledge of contemporary Middle East history. Considering the role of the British themselves, their sense of historicity seems illusory at best.

Some are suggesting that a boycott of British academics is now warranted. I can’t go along with that. But I do know I’ve lost a lot of respect for these allegedly learned men and women. If their judgement can be so impaired by bias, and their research so willingly absent, can their academic output really be trusted?

But all of this is beside the point. Members of NATFHE may well have real and sincere complaints to make against the Israeli government on behalf of Palestinian Arabs. However, NATFHE is not a political body. It is an educational union. And the issue at hand is academic freedom.

Despite petitions and emails to forestall the boycott vote on the grounds it would impinge academic freedom, NATFHE approved the resolution recommending that its 67,000 members personally boycott all Israeli professors, lecturers, universities and colleges, unless they publicly forswear Israel's "apartheid policies" in the territories. Paul Mackney, NATFHE's secretary-general, will likely feature in a future course on irony.

Mackney, an unabashed supporter of Palestinian rights,³ has said: "Palestinian civil society, including the universities, needs support and solidarity as never before, and I will not be bullied into silence."

Good for you, Paul. God forbid your opinion should be stifled.

As described in an essay by Ben Cohen: The Persistence of Anti-Semitism on the British Left.

“[Resolved: that] the revolt of the oppressed peoples in the colonies against imperialism has always been accompanied by destructive attacks against the national minorities when they aided the imperialist regime, and that the revolt of the Arab masses in Palestine against the imperialists had been and would in the future be accompanied by a war of annihilation against the Jewish minority, as long as it cooperated with the British imperialists. - Palestine Communist Party resolution, 7th Congress, 1932
(Zachary Lockman, “The Left in Israel: Zionism vs. Socialism,” MERIP Reports, July 1976, p8)

Seen here addressing a Palestine Solidarity Campaign conference (Shabbat, March 1, 2003)

Update

It should be noted that on June 1, 2006 NATFHE will join the Association of University Teachers (AUT) to form the University and College Union (UCU).

Today, AUT issued the following statement:

"AUT does not endorse this policy and is strongly advising its members not to implement it." The full statement can be read here.

In May 2005 the AUT council overwhelmingly rejected an earlier decision to boycott two Israeli universities and reasserted its belief that freedom of expression, open debate and unhampered dialogue are prerequisites of academic freedom. They also established a commission to investigate the effectiveness of boycotts. The report of that commission was passed this month by AUT. It recommends that boycotts are applied only in exceptional circumstances, are fully justified by the facts, and can be shown to be an effective way of furthering academic freedom and human rights.

It's impossible that Paul Mackney and NAFTHE were unaware of AUT's position regarding boycotts of Israel. Ergo, NAFTHE's resolution (and subsequent vote) was a calculated publicity stunt (albeit with some symbolic value). Perhaps their efforts to improve the lives of the Palestinians would be more effective if they worked to make real change rather than play at politics like students pretending to be diplomats at a model UN.

Deliver Us From Evil

2006-05-20T01:03:00.000+03:00

Great article by Bradley Burston over at Ha'aretz: "Why 'Jews for Jesus' is evil"

My comments as posted to the article:

Without getting into an argument over who is 'right' and who is 'wrong,' I must completely agree with Bradley Burston on this one. No one is suggesting that groups like 'Jews for Jesus' have no right to their beliefs; of course they do, even if we think they're misguided. The issue is intrusive practices like targeting Jewish homes for door-to-door canvassing or scattering Christian propaganda pamphlets near Jewish schools. If the cause is so righteous, are these abhorrent practices necessary? Shouldn't the cause sell itself? Jesus may have been truthful, but his followers have used every nefarious trick in the book to substantiate their faith.

Which brings us back to the real problem: it is the existence of Jews that is an affront to (revelationist) Christians. As long as we exist, there will be doubt in their minds as to the truth of their beliefs. In the end (and it's truly the end we're speaking of), they care only for our souls to save their own.

Blood Was Flowing Like a River

2006-05-10T04:27:00.000+03:00

What do we really mean when we say "never again"?

Since the expression came into vogue after the Holocaust, the world has experienced countless genocides, from northern Congo to Cambodia’s killing fields to the Rwandan massacres. We can't seem to stop the killing. Worse, we don't seem to care. Indifference, the real culprit as Elie Wiesel has pointed out, is pervasive and systemic. But what is at the root of it?

Sadly, I fear that it is not so much aloofness as racism that drives this apathy. We are afflcited with the worst kind of prejudice: that which forgives the actions of a group because "they can't help it;" that which condescends to allow immoral behaviour because presumably not everyone can be expected to live up to the white man's morality.

Across Africa, thousands have suffered - murdered, raped, deliberately starved - with barely a blip in the world press. As the conflict continues to claim victims in the Sudan, we change the channel and turn the page. I hate to ask an uncomfortable question, but what is the source of your indifference?

Moreover, I think that for too long, we've made the mistake of allowing "never again" to hover over us like a hypothetical ideal for future age. If "never again" is to have any meaning, it must be reinvented as a call to arms. We must make "never again" mean "not now." And it must apply universally.

See my sidebar for links to information pages, petitions, emails and educational handouts on Darfur and what you can do right now.

Good Resolutions

2006-04-28T23:28:00.000+03:00

I've had this running through my head all morning since reading this headline: U.S.: Resolution under way to address Iran.

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Friday that the United States will seek a resolution in the Security Council urging Iran to halt its nuclear ambitions.

Here is what I expect will be the reaction:

UN RESOLUTIONS
(with apologies to Joan Jett and the Blackhearts)

I don’t give a damn ’bout your resolutions
You’re living in the past it’s a new revolution
Iran can do what it wants to do and that’s
What It's gonna do
An’ I don’t give a damn ’ bout your resolutions

Oh no not me

An’ I don’t give a damn ’bout your resolutions
Never said I wanted to improve our constitution
An’ I’m only doin’ good
with Uranium
An’ I don’t have to please no one
An’ I don’t give a damn
’bout UN resolutions

Oh no, not me
Oh no, not me

I don’t give a damn
’bout those resolutions
I’ve never been afraid of UN prosecution
An’ I don’t really care
If ya think I’m strange
I ain’t gonna change
An’ I’m never gonna care
’bout UN resolutions

Oh no, not me
Oh no, not me

Missiles boys!

An’ I don’t give a damn
’bout your resolutions
Iran's in trouble
with your institutions
An’ the world can say
What it wants to say
It's no better anyway
So why should I care
’bout a bad resolution anyway
Oh no, not me
Oh no, not me

I don’t give a damn ’bout those big resolutions
You’re living in the past
We're a new revolution
An’ I only feel good
Cause I've got no Brain
An’ that’s how I’m gonna stay
An’ I don’t give a damn
’bout UN resolutions

Oh no, not me
Oh no, not
Not me, not me

Imaginary Heroes

2006-03-02T23:13:00.000+02:00

This week the entertainment world lost two significant personalities. I'd be lying if I called either of them 'great' or 'legendary.' But they meant a lot to me. Don Knotts died on February 27 at the age of 81. He will always be remembered as the perpetually anxious Deputy Barney Fife on The Andy Griffith Show, a role that won him five Emmy^® Awards. However, I was a much bigger fan of the films Knotts made in the mid-60's.

The Incredible Mr. Limpet (1964) featured Knotts as a Henry Limpet, a milquetoast human who turns into a fish and helps the US Navy during the Second World War. While not a brilliant film, it did cleverly combine animation and live action. My favourite Don Knott's film remains The Ghost and Mr. Chicken (1966). He plays Luthor Beggs, a jittery typesetter at the local paper who dreams of being an ace reporter. He's offered the chance to write a story about a haunted house and ends up solving a 20-year old murder case. The film was competently directed by Alan Rafkin and features an above-average score by Vic Mizzy, best known for creating the theme music for TV's The Addams Family. I just loved The Ghost and Mr. Chicken. It was funny and silly, with a few scenes that truly scared the bejeezus out of me. And I’ve had that organ solo – if you’ve seen the film you know what I’m talking about - stuck in my head for 30 years. Knotts had a way of epitomizing a kind of goofy excitability that kids like me could relate to. It's also refreshing to remember a time when family films didn't need fart jokes to be entertaining.

Darren McGavin died last Saturday a few months short of his 84th birthday. I first discovered McGavin in a short-lived, but hugely influential mystery series called Kolchak: The Night Stalker. McGavin played Carl Kolchak, an irascible reporter with a penchant for stumbling onto monsters, ghosts and vampires. In a career that lasted 50 years, McGavin played a lot of characters, but Carl Kolchak was my favourite. Despite the improbability of events that plagued him, and the unwillingness of the police and his associates to ever give him a break, Kolchak never gave up. He was hard to love at times, but impossible not to root for.

I’d like to think there’s a little bit of the spirit of Luthor Beggs and Carl Kolchak in me.

Hollywoodism: Jews, Movies and the American Dream

2006-02-16T22:52:00.000+02:00

One of my goals for this blog was to create a resource for people interested in the Jewish film genre (along with regular editorials on current events.) Eventually, the site will include more film reviews, movie trailers and video clips. I’m also using the site to workshop some ideas I’m working on related to ‘Jewish film.’

Jewish film. It's a complex topic. It's universally understood that Hollywood began as a Jewish venture - perhaps the word "adventure" would be more appropriate - even if very few films portrayed Jewish culture and characters. But the influence was there. Westerns are my favourite Jewish films: "Rabbi, there's a posse of Cossacks headed towards the shtetle, er, town!" Ok, you get the idea. It's also been suggested that the "American dream" itself owes a lot to the Hollywood Jews and their idealized vision of their new homeland, an idea prevalent in Neal Gabler's An Empire of their Own.

I spent a lot of time thinking about this subject as the director of the Vancouver Jewish Film Festival. Our concern was what constituted a "Jewish film" in order to warrant inclusion in our schedule. The definition seemed to mutate as necessary. Still, I'm intrigued at the idea that there are Jewish concepts and ideas in mainstream films. Considering the number of Jews that continue to work in the film industry, it's inevitable that some sense of "Jewishness" has permeated into film consciousness. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of resources on this subject. Most websites and books that deal with "Religion in Film" really mean Christianity. Personally, I’ve already seen far too many Christ-figures and could stand a few more Moses- or Ruth-figures.

I’ve started a book on this subject. Jews in film (and television) has been done (Omer Bartov's The "Jew" in Cinema) so rather, this will be an exposition on the perception of film issues from a Jewish perspective, for example, Jewish attitudes towards magic and the supernatural as it relates to fantasy films like the “Harry Potter” series. There will also be a discussion of Halacha (Jewish law) as it relates to film.

Mostly, the book will focus on watching films in a Jewish context. Are there Jewish sensibilities that contribute to how we deconstruct film narrative? Do we recognize Jewish concepts that may have subconsciously found their way into the film’s themes? If you have any thoughts on this subject, let me know. This is a work-in-progress, and I invite your suggestions and comments.

Cartoon Circus

2006-02-10T02:24:00.000+02:00

Well, I'm back from a short visit to Toronto, and it looks like while I was gone, the world decided to go mad. Er, madder. As protests continue to rage across Europe and the Middle East, I'm finding myself oddly unsympathetic toward either side in this strange global conflict over cartoons! The fact is, some of the Danish cartoons are truly hurtful and intentionally provocative; I would probably support the Muslim position (the criticism, not the property destruction) if it wasn't for centuries of systemic dicrimination and violence against Jews and Christians in the Arab world. Even as Moslems are protesting against Denmark, anti-semitic cartoons continue to appear in Arab newspapers.

And in Iran, one newpaper suggested a contest to find cartoons about the Holocaust, as if to suggest some correlation between Judaism and cartoons produced in Denmark. The whole thing would be funny if it wasn't so bizarre.

I also can't help feeling a little smug as Europeans face the sort of incendiary extremism that has for decades plagued Israeli efforts to resolve the Palestine dispute. Sadly, the rest of the world is slowly discovering that the problem may have always been that some groups are simple inflexible and unwilling to dialogue to resolve differences. Once again, Islamic extremists are being allowed to hijack a legitimate charge for their own political purposes. The timing of all of this strikes me as rather suspect. Didn't the cartoons first appear in print over four months ago? Could it really be pure coincidence that riots have broken out within days of an announcement that Iran's nuclear program will be referred to the UN Security Council (not to mention increased pressure on Syria over their involvement in the assassination of Rafik Hariri, Lebanon's former Prime Minister).

Incidentally, last year Denmark began a two-year stint on the Security Council and has recently been elected as chair of the UN Counter Terrorist Committee (CTC). The coincidences pile up.

Appropriately, I just finished a book I think would be worth everyone reading, "A View from the Eye of the Storm" by Professor Haim Harari. Harari, a theoretical physicist, is the chair of the Davidson Institute of Science Education. He was the president of Israel's Weizmann Institute of Science from 1988 to 2001. In his career he has made major contributions to three different fields: particle physics research, science education, and science administration and policy. Harari's book is a refreshing personal assessment of conflict between the West and the Arab world, with specific reference to recent violence in Israel, written from the perspective of someone's whose family has lived in the "eye of the storm" for seven generations. As such, the book lacks the exposition of a political science or history text, but makes its case with reasonable and logical argumentation.

Of course, lack of credentials in political science hasn't stopped linguist Noam Chomsky from opining on similar issues. Harari's insight and first-hand perspective gives him, in my opinion, far more credibility.

In a Persian Garden

2006-02-01T04:08:00.000+02:00

After months of behind-the-scenes talks, all five permanent United Nations Security Council Members have finally agreed that Iran's contentious nuclear endeavours deserves their consideration (although the EU agreed not to consider action against Iran, such as sanctions, until after the UN nuclear watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), submits a conclusive report on March 6, 2006.) This is the correct course of action. Besides putting on show of belligerence not seen since the Iran hostage crisis, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly threatening another member state with annihilation, Iran is actually guilty of myriad violations of international law.

The issue on most people's minds these days is the legitimacy of force if Iran refuses to comply with the demand that its nuclear program be dismantled. In fact, the use of military force is enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Nevertheless, the use of force is only authorised if it falls under one of two categories: self-defence (Article 41 of the United Nations Charter), or Security Council authorization (Article 42 of the Charter, which was used to authorize the military response by the United States and its allies against Iraq to drive that country out of Kuwait in "Operation Desert Storm" of 1990-91).

According to the Charter, to deem self-defence lawful requires that an attack has already been launched against a victim state. If a state believes it must resort to a pre-emptive strike, it must give solid proof that the action is necessary and that the act of defence is proportional, according to principles outlined in the Charter. The threat must be proven to be clear and imminent, and only after peaceful alternatives have failed.

But much has changed since the UN Charter was written. Today, the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) strongly suggests that a preventative war may be the only reasonable course of action, with many legal experts now arguing that international laws must be updated to reflect the difficulty in proving capability and intent, and the ability of modern weapons to cause complete annihilation of an enemy. Of course, simple possession of WMD’s does not in itself imply intent to wage war.

However, Iran is already in violation of Article 2.4 of the UN Charter prohibiting threats of war:

"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..."

In 1974, the General Assembly concluded that in situations where a state is implicated in terrorism, the very involvement is as if the State perpetrated the attack. In theory, a nation could invoke the right of self-defence against the neighbour state that provides tactical support for the terrorists. Article 3(g) of the UN's Definition of Agression, 14 Dec. 1974, prohibits "the sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State..."

Iran actively supports anti-Israel terror through the funding of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. And recall that in January 2002, Iran attempted to smuggle 50 tons of ammunition to Palestinians aboard the ship Karine A. In so doing, Iran also violated the 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (the Financing Convention). Iran's nuclear program is clearly an extension of this animosity; proof continues to pour in that Iran is building nuclear weapons and not power plants as claimed.

If Israel chooses to strike first, she also has the support of precedent established by the United Nations itself. In 1967, the UN Security Council declined to condemn Israel's pre-emptive strike at the outset of the Six Day War, partly because Egypt’s troop build-up was clearly visible and their intent openly stated in public rhetoric.

In its defence, Iran's chemical weapons and ballistic missiles, and possibly its nuclear weapons program, may be meant to dissuade internal challengers and gain influence in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions. The development of these various weapon systems can also be seen as a reaction to Iran's own experience as a victim of attacks during the Iran-Iraq War. Iran also believes it is threatened by US influence in the Middle East and the Arab myth of Israeli expansionism

Nevertheless, based on its actions and words, Iran has repeatedly violated international law and the UN Charter, and must be dealt with appropriately. Israel is correct in its expectation that the UN must act to protect Member States from imminent attack. If the UN fails to do so, or is unwilling to do so, the rule of international law makes clear that in "a case of necessity, of self-defence, a State is authorized to enter and destroy or remove weapons and bases that may be used against it." [Oppenheim L., International Law, vol. 1 par. 130, pg. 266, 6th edition, London, 1944]

History vs Hollywood

2006-01-25T02:12:00.000+02:00

Hollywood's attitude toward historical accuracy has always been, shall we say, fairly contemptuous. Historical figures and events have served as readily accessible fodder since the first train was robbed on film in 1903. And the robbery has continued unabated. Of course filmmakers aren't historians or political scientists; as an art form, motion pictures can elucidate themes or ideas beyond the banality of the real event but filmmakers have no responsibility to be realistic or accurate. Or do they?

"History," T.S. Elliot once observed, "is but a contrived corridor."

This brings me to Munich, the new drama from Steven Spielberg and award-winning scriptwriter Tony Kushner ("Angels in America"). The much-criticized film depicts the implementation of a plan to revenge the killings of Israeli Olympic athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, at the hands of Arab terrorists. The film is controversial to say the least, not only because the source material - a book by George Jonas, "Vengeance" - has long been discredited by Israelis in the know, but significantly because the depiction of Israeli agents as bumbling and morally conflicted has left many viewers upset and perturbed.

The film raises a few issues: were the filmmakers ands writers obligated to be factual and true to the events? Was there an ulterior motive to the film, or in other words, was the intent solely to discredit Israel, making Munich a propaganda film of left-wing politics? Do Jewish filmmakers (and other artists) have responsibilities beyond their muse? Is it fair to criticize a Jewish filmmaker for his views as an American if his Jewishness plays an insignificant part in his artistic makeup?

I'm reminded of an interview with author and screenwriter William Goldman. Goldman spent years on research before writing Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, but in the end, invented most of the film.

"Most of the movie was made up. I used certain facts. They did rob a couple of trains; they did take too much dynamite and blow the car to pieces...they did go to South America, they did die in a shoot-out in Bolivia. Other than that, it's all bits and pieces all made up."

But a scriptwriter isn't a journalist. The best a scriptwriter can hope for is to capture an essence of a person; if a character is the sum of experiences, the writer's challenge is to depict only these experiences that matter.

For a real lesson in historical minimalism, go no further than your Bible. No other text achieves so much depth and complexity with such brevity and sparseness. Leaving aside for the moment the debate over Bible authorship, the Bible manages to convey significant aspects of characters with such precision, one is left breathless. Unlike modern fiction, the Bible generally fails to suggest why people behave the way they do; we are meant to interpret action and motive.

Film writers can't enjoy that privilege. Most people won't see a film more than once, Rocky Horror Picture Show fans aside, and simply aren't willing to pore over each word and phrase of dialogue. It's also obvious that many so-called historical films use an event as an allegory for a more topical theme. Which brings me back to Munich. This is really Spielberg's second film on the aftermath of 9/11. War of the Worlds blatantly captured the horror and shock of the attack on New York City right down to the literal reduction of victims to ashes. In the end - I'm not spoiling much here since I assume you know the general story - the human race survives, but only through a miracle. The film ends before the survivors (and viewers) can mourn the countless deaths. How would we deal with such carnage?

Munich suggests that one course of action is revenge. But how we as a society deal with the moral repercussions of blood thirst is another issue, one that seems to be on the minds of Spielberg and Kushner. It's no coincidence that the film ends in New York City. Some have criticized this scene for suggesting that an Israeli agent may be suffering from a sort of moral distress; frankly, I think Munich is really about the moral distress of left-wing Americans following the retributive war against Afghanistan, and the subsequent campaign in Iraq. Of course, it also plays on the discomfort felt by left-leaning American Jews unable to process Israel's complex entanglement with the Palestinians. Tony Kushner has made no secret of how he feels about the Jewish state:

"Israel was established at a terrible human cost, which is still going on. You can't feel the only way to go forward is to pretend that in 1947 and 1948 there were no Palestinians in those villages, or there were only a few thousand of them." (Jerusalem Report, pp 34, May 3, 2004) sorry, it's a pay link

As such, it's impossible to imagine Munich as an unbiased historical document. For his part, Spielberg is always on firmer ground in a literal milieu: sometimes a shark attack is just a shark attack! Beyond that, when faced with difficult moral issues, his simplistic, commercial sensibility becomes a handicap. Munich fails on most levels. It is only as allegory that it achieves any kind of vague success, but really, haven't we seen and heard all of this before? Evil begets evil. Revenge is bad. War is hell. When all is said and done, Steven Spielberg remains, undeniably, Steven Spielberg, the great manipulator, the Saturday afternoon matinee wunderkind director of Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jurassic Park.

I present workshops on this very subject - "History vs. Hollywood" - with an emphasis on Jewish issues and the presentation of Israel on film. We look at films that purport to be Bible-based (i.e., The Ten Commandments) and historical epics like Exodus. For more information on any of my workshops and classes, please contact me.

Valley of the Dolls

2006-01-19T01:11:00.000+02:00

If you're like me you've spent countless hours wondering what you would like as an animated cartoon. Thankfully a new website makes this possible.

It also helps to have hours to waste on the many possible variations of facial characteristics, clothing and backgrounds. Well, since my time is precious (and my wife is wondering why this short blog entry is taking so long to finish), here's a quickly thrown together image. It looks exactly like me! Er, if I was still 20 years old and about 10 kilos lighter. And lived in Japan. You get the idea.

A Trail of Books

2006-01-13T23:16:00.000+02:00

Like many writers, I'm also an avid reader. These days, it's mostly non-fiction on a wide range of subjects. I really like immersing myself in topics, reading several books on the same subject to glean varied interpretations of events and people. I also like to hear and see what I'm reading about. A number of excellent internet resources now make it possible to hear music, news and entertainment from recorded history. CBC Archives features actual news stories and documentaries on many events of the last 80 years. It's one thing to read about a person but an entirely different experience to hear their voice, how they enunciate, emphasize and inflect their word choices.

This week I'm reading From Eden to Exile: The Five-Thousand Year History of the People of the Bible* by David M. Rohl. I'm listening to a CD called Music of the Ancient Sumerians, Egyptians & Greeks by De Organographia.

There was a moment the other evening when the music and words seemed to meet and fall in love. I was reading the chapter on Joshua and the Hebrews challenging the city of Jericho. As I hit the description of the walls coming down, ancient trumpets sounded in my headphones. No kidding! I couldn't have the scored the scene better if I was Miklos Rosza. Next on the reading list: False Alarm: The Truth About the Epidemic of Fear by Dr. Marc Siegel.

*The title of the book varies depending on the version, and whether hardcover or paperbook. Makes for a confusing bibliography.

When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth

2006-01-06T01:20:00.000+02:00

I was recently able to combine my film background and writing work when I was asked to create web content for a Canadian film company called Laffstock, best known as the distributor of Corner Gas, CBC's breakout hit comedy. You can read my film reviews here. This will be an ongoing project as I plan on adding additional reviews over the next few months. I will also be reviewing films on this blog. If you'd like to know what I think of a specific film or have a question about the film industry, email me.

At the moment I'm finishing up some web content for a law firm, and continuing my own creative writing. As a matter of course, I tend to use the computer for business writing but a notepad and pen for my scripts and stories. I'm not sure why, but I suspect it has something to do with the artistic process. But I feel a bit like a dinosaur as I scratch each letter into the paper, words forming like little doodles; I know the process would be quicker on the computer but I appreciate being able to track my changes, words and paragraphs crossed out and re-inserted; drawings of characters and places litter each page.

At one time, every written work - from an intricate parchment manuscript to a list of items in a stockroom - was penned lovingly by hand, each stroke a reflection of the author. We study old texts today not only for the words but also the style and penmanship of the writer. For the time being, I'll be using the laptop to compose blog entries because it's faster and more efficient. Perhaps one day writing by hand will "go extinct" like the dinosaurs, but not today. Some things must still be done by hand.

The Introduction

2005-12-21T02:44:00.000+02:00

I've been working for over 15 years in the film and television industry. I majored in Film Studies at Carleton University and returned to school a few years later for a diploma from Algonquin College's Radio and Television Broadcasting program. I started in Ottawa on corporate videos, commercials, television series and films including Le Dortoir, which won an International EMMY Award. As Production Manager and Segment Producer for Knowledge Network and at SOMA Productions, I contributed to series such as A History of Science in Canada, Frontiers of Discovery, Journeys, Women's Wellness and Nature Walk. As Executive Director of the Vancouver Jewish Film Festival from 1997 until 2004, I'm particularly proud that I took the Festival from an audience of 1700 to over 6000, and through an emphasis on quality premiers and unique programming made VJFF a benchmark for other festivals.

For the past few years, my time has been divided between two equally challenging and rewarding livelihoods: writing and consulting in the film industry. I've been working as a freelance writer, off and on, for many years. Although I was contributing scripts for many of the series I worked on, I've been able to branch out into other areas including researching and writing manuals, handbooks, articles, proposals and other sorts of business and educational material. I actually enjoy this quite a bit as each job offers opportunities to learn.

Since leaving my position with the Vancouver Jewish Film Festival I'm frequently asked to conduct workshops, for adults and teens, on various aspects of 'Jewish film.' I cover a range of topics, from 'The Holocaust on Film' to 'Jewish Super-heroes.' Teaching teens, which I've been doing through the TAG program, is a great challenge. Kids today seem so much more worldly than we were at their age. I hope through my workshops to provide context to the flood of images and sounds they're bombarded with every day. All of my workshops and training sessions can be customized to fit the needs of any organization or group.

So that's me. I'll be updating the blog with information on my activities, film reviews, articles on clients, and the occassional rant. If you have any thoughts on anything you read here, please post a comment. Thanks.