Israel's anti-immigration immigrants
- Details
- Written by Seth Freedman, guardian.co.uk Seth Freedman, guardian.co.uk
- Published: 11 August 2009 11 August 2009
- Hits: 4047 4047
Three out of four Israeli citizens of Russian extraction support the transfer of Arabs out of Israel – and sadly they are not alone
Well over a million of Israel's population come from the former Soviet Union (FSU), representing more than 15% of the total population – hence the political views of the Russian immigrant community are not easily brushed under the carpet. Their collective stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is credited with sweeping Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beiteinu party into the upper echelons of power at the last election, and on the strength of the latest poll from the Israel Democracy Institute, it's not hard to see why Lieberman has become the poster boy of the Russian right.
According to the survey, three out of four citizens of Russian extraction support the transfer of Arabs out of Israel, an overwhelming display of hostility towards the original inhabitants of the state in which the Russians arrived a mere 20 years ago. On the face of it, their antipathy towards their Arab neighbours could be chalked up to the same inter-minority tensions prevalent around the world, such as African-American resentment of Koreans and Mexicans in the US, or even intra-minority antagonism, such as the shunning of Jewish immigrants to Britain in the first half of the 20th century by those Jews already long-established in the UK. In both cases, one group's feelings of insecurity about their own status in society foments bitterness towards others in a similar situation, and given the discrimination Russian immigrants have suffered at the hands of the wider Israeli populace, it isn't hard to apply the same logic here.
However, when viewed in the context of the attitudes of non-Russian Israelis, it becomes clear that while the FSU immigrants' opinions are undoubtedly hardline, the rest of Israel doesn't lag far behind – revealing just how wide the gulf is between mainstream Israeli public opinion and any kind of equitable and just settlement with the Palestinians. Over half of the Israeli Jews polled support the transfer of Arabs out of Israel, while 48% oppose any kind of retreat from settlements (compared with 64% of Russian interviewees). Such figures throw a spanner in the works of peace negotiations, since such ingrained nationalism gives carte blanche to Israeli leaders to take unyielding positions on the conflict if anything short of total acquiescence is offered by the Palestinian side.
There are those on the Palestinian side who display equally intransigent and unpalatable views on a final resolution, demanding Israel be rid of its Jewish presence and handed back to the Palestinians, and they deserve to be castigated just as much as the pro-transfer majority in Israel. However, their direct impact on the political process is minimal, since by and large all major decisions taken by Israel are enacted on a unilateral basis, despite opposition from either the Palestinian authorities or foreign governments.
The longer such unreconstructed attitudes persist in Israeli society, the harder it becomes to remove the calcified layer of mistrust and hostility so prevalent in Israeli minds. In a country where over half of the dominant ethnic group wishes to expel those of a different racial profile, the goalposts have shifted so far as to render standard political groupings almost irrelevant. What would pass as rightwing thinking in western countries is deemed simply middle-of-the-road in Israel; anyone who would occupy the centre ground in more enlightened countries is portrayed as a radical leftist here, sidelined to the point of obscurity and their party's views paid not the slightest heed by the man on the street.
On one level, it appears insane that a group of straight-off-the-boat immigrants such as the FSU olim should call overwhelmingly for displacing a group of fellow citizens who've been here for generations – but when considered against the raison d'etre of the Jewish state, their position becomes far easier to understand. However, to understand is not to excuse, and the core malaise at the heart of Israeli society is the unswerving belief that Israel has to be forever populated by a Jewish majority, and that only those of the right extraction qualify to stand at the state's helm and chart its course.
It is wholly immoral to demand that any racial group willingly roll over, play dead, and allow themselves to be subjugated by another people – as we Jews know firsthand, and have railed against throughout our history. Yet that is exactly what Israel's leaders assert must happen here and they have massive support from the electorate thanks to their ability to whip up the masses into a decades-old nationalistic frenzy.
Thus, the phenomenon of the racist Russian sector is deplorable, but not wildly out of kilter with the popular attitudes among Israel's Jewish population. Headlines might have focused on the Russian response to the poll, but missing the wood for the trees just perpetuates the underlying erosion taking place throughout Israeli society.
Likewise, blaming the Palestinians for simply refusing to accept that they deserve to be transferred, trampled and traded out of their heritage is a shameful path to tread. Their extremists aren't blameless for exacerbating the hostilities between the two sides, but that doesn't reduce in the slightest the validity of their claims to their homeland.
The only solution is for sectarianism to be sidelined and for all people of the region to be dealt with on a level playing field; whether that means one state or two depends on the terms of the settlement, but whatever settlement is reached must treat every concerned party as equal. However, given the dominant thinking on the Israeli street, such pipe dreams are as unlikely to become reality as ever before – Russians or no Russians, Israeli society is dooming itself and its neighbours to a future of conflict while such rank prejudice prevails.
Hard Right Zionists Try to “Freeman” Peace Activist Mary Robinson
- Details
- Written by James M. Wall James M. Wall
- Published: 10 August 2009 10 August 2009
- Hits: 3812 3812
Whether Bibi used the term or not is not the issue. What is important is that someone in Israel’s ruling circles wanted the ”self-hating Jew” term out there. The term fits into the campaign to undercut Barack Obama’s credentials as a friend of Israel.
The strategy is obvious. Hard right Israeli Zionists, and their American neocon Zionist colleagues (HRZs, for short), spend considerable energy intimidating western civilization into believing any negative criticism of Israeli policies is, in the case of non Jews, a sign of latent or overt anti-semitism, or in the case of Jews, a sure sign that the guilty party is a “self hating Jew”.
With even the slightest hint that an anti-semite or self-hating Jew has been sighted, the culprit must be revealed and punished. The higher profile of the offending culprit, the more vicious the attacks.
The latest sighting involves two high-ranking White House officials, Emanuel and Axelrod, neither of whom are even remotely “self-hating Jews”. The ludicrous charge against two men I have known for more than three decades, was thrown at them because they are close to Obama. The Jewish online Forward has the sordid details on how the attacks unfolded. Getty Images
Five months ago, in Febuary, just weeks after Obama’s inauguration, the radar screen set up by the HRZs, detected a potential threat to Israel’s security when Charles Freeman was chosen to serve as Obama’s Director of the National Intelligence Council, the high-level interagency group that prepares evaluations for the president and other senior officials.
Before the Main Stream Media (MSM) bothered to notice, Freeman, an experienced foreign policy expert with an impeccable record was hit with a firestorm of deceptive, fraudulent and vicious attacks on his record of public service.
After Freeman withdrew his nomination he was strongly defended by Washington Post columnist David Broder, who wrote that Freeman’s withdrawal was “the country’s loss”.
I wrote a series of postings on Freeman’s ordeal at the time, two of which are available here and here. A longer version of those postings is available here.
Which brings us to Mary Robinson, the most recent target of the HRZ zeal that eliminated Freeman from the Obama team.
On July 30, President Obama named Mary Robinson as one of 16 recipients of America’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The awards are scheduled to be presented at a White House ceremony Wednesday night, August 12.
Mary Robinson, is one of the Elders, the group of world leaders initially formed by South Africa’s Nelson Mandela. A former president of Ireland and a former UN human rights official, Robinson now lives in New York City, where she is currently the President of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative.
Her full resume is available on the Elders page. The Realizing Rights web site sums up her current assignments:
Chair of the Council of Women World Leaders, Vice President of the Club of Madrid, honorary President of Oxfam International, Member of the Vaccine Fund Board of Directors and member of the Leadership Council the UN Global Coalition on Women and AIDS. She is a Professor of Practice at Columbia University and member of the Advisory Board of the Earth Institute, and Extraordinary Professor at the University of Pretoria.
Bear in mind that Robinson is being honored with the Presidential Medal. She is not being nominated to hold a position in the Obama Administration. It would be inconceivable for the White House to withdraw Robinson’s name from the list of Medal of Freedom winners. But this has not stopped the HRZ attacks.
The HRZs are not likely to pull a Freeman on Mary Robinson, but they are determined to smear her and her supporters. Time is short, but already they have secured some friendly U.S. media attention for their smear attacks. The Chicago Tribune, for example, marching, as usual, to the beat of AIPAC’s spin, runs a story which begins:
Jewish congressional members and lobbying groups are protesting President Obama’s decision to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to former Irish leader Mary Robinson, who they say has a long record of harshly criticizing Israel.
The award pronouncement prompted the first criticism of Obama by the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a group he courted during last year’s campaign. Jewish groups in the U.S. have been largely supportive of the president. But the Robinson award is the latest in a series of recent disagreements with Obama, and some Jewish leaders are growing skeptical of his commitment to Israel.
The attack machine used against Charles Freeman was not the same as the one now pursuing Mary Robinson. AIPAC pretended to stay out of the Freeman affair. But now the “all powerful” lobby group smears Robinson for her role as the UN Human Rights Commission chair and her “criticism” of Israel’s actions against Palestinians.
It is hard to escape the feeling that AIPAC hauled out some of its congressional minions just to darken Robinson’s big day. What AIPAC really did, however, was reveal the decline of fire power in its paranoia arsenal by attacking a woman with a distinguished record who fully deserves to be one of the honorees this Wednesday.
The White House announcement of the awards puts them into perspective:
The Medal of Freedom is awarded to individuals who make an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.
The awardees were chosen for their work as agents of change. Among their many accomplishments in fields ranging from sports and art to science and medicine to politics and public policy, these men and women have changed the world for the better. They have blazed trails and broken down barriers. They have discovered new theories, launched new initiatives, and opened minds to new possibilities.
Joining Robinson among the honorees, presuming the AIPAC “protests” fail, are 15 other luminaries:
Harvey Milk, the San Francisco supervisor who led an early movement for gay rights in public life and was assassinated; the late Republican congressman Jack Kemp, a onetime pro football standout; ailing Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts; the Rev. Joseph Lowery, American civil rights activist; Desmond Tutu, the South African archbishop and Nobel laureate; tennis star Billie Jean King; first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; actor Sidney Poitier,singer Chita Rivera; British cosmologist Stephen Hawking; Nancy Goodman Brinker, founder of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a breast cancer grass-roots organization; Dr. Pedro Jose Greer Jr., founder of an agency that provides medical care to more than 10,000 homeless patients a year in Miami; Joseph Medicine Crow, the last living Plains Indian war chief and author of major works in Native American history and culture; Dr. Janet Davison Rowley, an American human geneticist internationally renowned for her work on leukemia and lymphoma; and Muhammad Yunus, Nobel Peace Prize winner who has provided loans to help millions of people fight poverty by starting businesses.
A sample of the blog attacks against Mary Robinson is ugly to behold, but instructive as to the level of discourse to which the HRZ has descended. Here is Ed Lasky, writing for The American Thinker, evoking Nazi Germany in his tirade:
President Barack Obama’s decision to bestow the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Mary Robinson, who headed a United Nation Commission that condoned suicide bombing against Israelis and who also was in charge of the Durban Conference Against Racism that became an anti-Semitic hate-fest reminiscent of Nazi Germany (and that the United States and Israel boycotted, to Robinson’s consternation), has elicited some measure of controversy.
Michael Rubin weighs in on the American Enterprise Institute blog:
Robinson is a poor choice to receive the President (cq) Medal of Freedom. She may have dedicated her career to human rights, but she is also responsible for accelerating the politicization of that field and the growth of moral equivalency. She was a headline-seeker, rather than a sincere devotee of causes. Her stewardship of the Durban conference was atrocious and single-handedly blessed the resurgence of anti-Semitism. . .
Abraham Foxman, one of the HRZs best known generals, is quoted on Powerline, a conservative website which features U.S. and Israeli flags on its home page.
[Robinson] issued distorted and detrimental reports on the conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and blamed Israel for the outbreak of Palestinian violence – the Second Intifada. As the convener of the 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, she allowed the process to be hijacked to promote the delegitimizing of Israel and pronouncements of hateful anti-Jewish canards, such as “Zionism is racism.” She failed miserably in her leadership role, opting to join the anti-Israel forces rather than temper them. . .
There is more out there in the blogosphere, nasty and distorted cannon fodder to inspire the MSM, like the Chicago Tribune, to treat the Robinson award as “controversial”.
It is not controversial, except in the HRZ circle of influence that thrives on hate language, distortions, and character assassinations. Fortunately, that circle is growing smaller, which could explain why its methods are even more obnoxious and ugly.
The final word on Mary Robinson and the HRZs must come from Robinson. After reading criticisms of her career, she talked to The Irish Times:
Former President Mary Robinson has described as “unjust and unwarranted” criticism from American pro-Israel groups of President Barack Obama’s award to her of the medal of freedom, the highest civilian award in the US.
Mrs Robinson, who will receive the award with 16 others at a White House ceremony next week, told The Irish Times that she was “hurt and dismayed” by accusations that she had shown a consistent bias against Israel and failed to prevent anti-Semitic declarations at an anti-racism summit in Durban in 2001.
“I have made it absolutely clear and I’ve been totally consistent on this, that human rights is not on the side of either the Israelis or the Palestinians – it’s on the side of both,” she said.
“If you’re a human rights person, you have to be fair, you have to be unbiased when you’re addressing situations of human rights violations. That’s the pledge of my life and that’s what I live by.”
Rattling the Cage: Sheikh Jarrah really says it all
- Details
- Written by Larry Derfner Larry Derfner
- Published: 09 August 2009 09 August 2009
- Hits: 2605 2605
|
Leaked manual outlines talking points for pro-Israel activists in US
- Details
- Written by Josie Ensor Daily Star staff Josie Ensor Daily Star staff
- Published: 08 August 2009 08 August 2009
- Hits: 4971 4971
BEIRUT: How can you sell the American public on the idea that Israel has the right to expand Jewish settlements in the Occupied West Bank? Use positive language, steer away from talk of settlements and toward discussion of peace, and draw parallels between the threat of terrorist invasion from 9/11 and that of mass Palestinian immigration.
These are just three of the recommendations from a leaked hasbara handbook written by Republican political consultant Dr. Frank Luntz for the Washington-based The Israel Project (TIP), distributed to US activists, journalists and policymakers on how to present a pro-Israel message to the public.
The 116-page manual, entitled “2009 Global Language Dictionary,” was commissioned by non-profit TIP to shape the public debate on settlement activity in their favor, with chapters such as “The Language of Tackling a Nuclear Iran,” “Gaza: Israel’s right to self-defense” and “Talking to the American Left.”
The handbook, leaked to Newsweek earlier this week, is based on an internal study for TIP conducted by pollster Luntz and data drawn from focus groups. Luntz outlines the need for their manual in the foreword: “Since [our] first dictionary in 2003, Israel found itself the victim of attack from its northern and southern borders, and has suffered greatly in the court of public opinion.
“On the other hand, the daily suicide bombings have stopped and Hamas and Hizbullah have shown themselves to be the brutal terrorist organizations that Israel has warned about.”
The manual is strewn with bolded examples of “Words that work,” and ones that don’t in the settlement debate and are taken from speeches made by Israeli representatives in the last decade.
It is best not to use words such as “allow,” “permit” and “instruct” when referring to Palestinian settlement growth in the Occupied West Bank. Instead, talk of Palestine as an equal, trusted partner on the path to peace; use words that do not imply subordination and never speak in declarative statements. Remind people again and again that Israel wants peace and remember to concede at least one point to the other side in an interview to seem sympathetic. These are just a few suggestions the manual gives.
If in doubt, TIP offers the mantra: “it is not what you say that counts, it’s what people hear.”
The pro-Israel lobby claim Americans want a team to cheer for and it is their job to let the public know the good things about Israel, such as their “remarkable advances in alternative energy” and the work Israel has done in Arab neighborhoods to raise health care standards. When conducting interviews, the manual says activists should always be answering the silent question in Americans’ minds – “What’s in it for my country and for me to support Israel?”
It emphasizes the need to draw parallels between America and Israel if they are to win the support of those who are neutral. “Israel is an important US ally in the war against terrorism and the ongoing fight against this terror that came from the attack on 9/11 can be likened to the Palestinian threat – What would America do if their neighbors in Canada and Mexico were firing rockets into America?” it asks.
This idea of invasion should be labored to appeal to Americans’ fears: “Thanks to 9/11 and the continuing threat of terrorism, Americans are particularly afraid of the mass migration of anyone,” reads the report. “Comparing the challenges facing Americans in dealing with unrestricted immigration and Israel’s situation will be well received.”
Israel should be presented as an ally among “terrorists” and its “good record for human rights” stressed, “in contrast to those in the Middle East who indoctrinate their children to become hate-mongers and suicide bombers,” the manual proffers. “Israel is the one place in the Middle East where a young girl can grow up to be anything she wants – from a doctor to a mommy, to a businessperson and even a prime minister!”
According to a national survey conducted by Luntz for the manual, almost 40 percent of those asked who their most important ally was in the Middle East gave the answer “Israel,” with 29 percent saying the best reason for the US to stand with Israel was because “Israel is a partner with the US in our fight against terrorism.” And 16 percent answered that they should stand with them because “God gave the land to the Jews who have lived there for thousands of years.”
In response to the question of whether the US should support Israel, 48 percent answered “yes” in the months before the 2006 war on Lebanon, but this figure rose by 23 percent in the weeks after. The rate decreased slightly to 58 percent earlier this year in the wake of the war on Gaza.
Perhaps the most difficult audience to win over, a different linguistic strategy proposed by TIP must be used for liberals: the American left. “Israel may represent the only democratic country in a region dominated by brutal, extremist nations that are entrenched in non-Western doctrine, but the elites on the American Left see Israeli militarism as extreme and unjustified,” the manual reads. A different tack must be taken to get them on side.
In the chapter ‘Talking to the American Left,” TIP explain how many on the left see an Israel v. Palestinian crisis where Israel is Goliath and Palestine David, and in order to win them over they must understand that this is an Arab-Israeli crisis and the force undermining the peace is Iran and their proxies Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Their advice is not to call Hamas just Hamas, but call them what they are: Iran-backed Hamas. “Indeed, if they know that Iran is behind Hamas and Hizbullah, they are much more supportive of Israel.” The manual suggests that it is critical to make sure liberals understand it is a fight between Israel and Iran and its proxies, not just a territorial dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.
The left, the organization says, are also not interested in hearing the “melting-pot argument”– that is making the case that Israel takes in the distressed people of the world. “Today, immigration is a dirty word. This is simply not a strong argument with most Americans right now.”
In a chapter most relevant today with the US in talks with Israel over West Bank expansion, “Lessons to Learn from President Obama’s language,” President Barack Obama’s speeches on settlement activity are described by TIP as templates for how to effectively present a pro-Israel argument. They say Obama’s complete reshaping of American public discussions on the Middle East is based on the same language they have been recommending for use for years.
The administration’s language marks a sharp departure from the previous administration, TIP says, in particular Obama’s words bear close inspection on the issue of the peace process between Israel and Palestinians.
The lessons to be learned from the president’s language are to humanize the issue of settlement activity; stress the conflict is over ideology rather than territory, acknowledge past errors but focus on the future and lastly to make a call for progress.
Shafiq al-Hout: PLO founder member and staunch defender of Palestinian rights
- Details
- Written by Tim Llewellyn. guardian.co.uk Tim Llewellyn. guardian.co.uk
- Published: 07 August 2009 07 August 2009
- Hits: 4048 4048
PLO founder member and staunch defender of Palestinian rights
Al-Hout was a larger-than-life figure who represented the PLO in Lebanon. Photgraph: Al Quds Al Arabi
Shafiq al-Hout, who has died aged 77 in Beirut, was a founding member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), its representative in Lebanon and a larger-than-life figure who championed the Palestinians' right of return to their homeland and a unified, democratic state there for Muslims, Jews and Christians. He was also a strong advocate of armed resistance.
Al-Hout has died a disappointed and frustrated man, his life's work, for the foreseeable future, buried in a divided and moribund PLO and a Palestinian national movement in the worst straits in its 50-year history.
He once wrote: "If I were asked after all these years, after that evil day I was wrenched from Palestine, if I remained convinced of my right to return, I would never hesitate to say 'yes'. It is not just that I will return to Palestine, but Palestine will return to me and to what it once was." He died still believing that, but the past 15 or so years gave him strong reason to doubt that his dream would be realised soon.
Al-Hout was born and raised in Jaffa, his secondary education at the Amiriyya high school ending abruptly in April 1948, when Jewish irregulars seized the city from under the noses of the British army, forcing most of the Arab population to flee. His own family sailed to Lebanon, from where they originated (though al-Hout never regarded himself as anything but Palestinian).
After a rumbustious five years studying politics at the American University of Beirut, the region's prime academy for Arab nationalists, and taking part in student politics and demonstrations, Al-Hout taught at schools in Beirut and Kuwait, another centre of Palestinian ferment, where he fell in with Yasser Arafat and other adherents of the cause. In the early 1960s he became a journalist on – and later editor of – the radical weekly Al-Hawadith (Events), and also wrote a satirical column for the equally radical daily Al-Moharrer (the Editor), whose days were ended in early 1976 by a bomb planted in its printing shop by Syrian agents.
Al-Hout left journalism for full-time Palestinian politics in 1963, and helped found first the leftist Palestine Liberation Front and then the PLO in May 1964. He was soon appointed full-time PLO representative in Lebanon, a post in which he survived 10 Israeli assassination attempts, the Lebanese civil war, the Israeli invasion in 1982 and the Sabra-Shatila massacre (the subject of the definitive oral and victim-sourced history by his wife, Bayan Nuwayhed). Al-Hout remained in Beirut after the PLO was forced to leave Lebanon in 1982. From 1974, he had also been the PLO's representative at the annual UN general assembly meetings.
He was twice a member of the PLO executive, before Arafat took over from Ahmed Shukairy, from 1966 to 1968, and – appointed by Arafat, who wanted his antagonistic but admired friend inside the tent – from 1991 to 1993. Al-Hout left the executive over what he, like many, regarded as the disaster of the Arafat-orchestrated PLO recognition of Israel under the Oslo accords, and the movement's effective return to the occupied territories under the control and aegis of Israel.
In that great division in the Palestinian movement between the "outside" – the diaspora of the refugee camps and the millions of exiles worldwide – and the "inside"– the Palestinian authority and its constituents – Al-Hout was a devout outsider. He believed that all of Palestine belonged to all Palestinians, in one state. In later years, he remained a member of the Palestine National Council, the parliament-in-exile, but stayed out of politics, writing his memoirs, spreading the word in his articulate and forceful way, in that familiar and formidable deep smoker's growl, usually alongside a rapidly diminishing bottle of Black Label whisky. He viewed recent Palestinian developments with dejection and pessimism, though never despair.
In all those years, from the early 1960s onwards, he was one of those rare senior Palestinian interlocutors who could, and would, make a decent stab at unravelling for baffled outsiders the machinations of Palestinian politics, and he wrote several books on Arab nationalism.
After Al-Hout's death had been announced, a contributor to the Angry Arab website recalled: "He had that voice that betrays long years of smoking and drinking … he was blunt and truthful when lying was a job description in Arafat's apparatus." He was not far off the mark.
Al-Hout is survived by Bayan Nuwayhed, his son, Hader, and his daughters, Hanin and Syrine.
• Shafiq al-Hout, politician and writer, born 13 January 1932; died 2 August 2009