Call upon President Obama to stand by his promises: Uphold International Law

Details

Written by Center For Constitutional Rights Center For Constitutional Rights

Published: 29 September 2009 29 September 2009

Hits: 3014 3014

"Sleeping with the enemy:" Israel's vile anti-miscegenation squads

Details

Written by Seth Freedman Seth Freedman

Published: 29 September 2009 29 September 2009

Hits: 3008 3008

Israel's vile anti-miscegenation squads

When the police lend support to vigilante groups hounding Jewish-Arab couples, what hope is there for coexistence?

Whilst the proliferation of ultra-orthodox "vigilante police" is a stain on Israeli society, their Taliban-esque actions can at least be contextualised as the inevitable consequence of religious fundamentalism gone wild. Such communities are dominated by leaders who refuse to accommodate any form of modernisation or freedom of thought into their archaic systems of governance, and the emergence of "modesty squads" is simply a manifestation of such primitive and patriarchal thinking.

Regardless of the reasons behind their appearance, the groups should not be tolerated by Israel's leaders, as they contravene the most basic human rights of the state's citizens. Israeli lawmakers have a duty to clamp down hard on the mobs' extrajudicial activities, in order to prevent a localised problem spreading from isolated religious strongholds into the rest of the country's towns and cities.

Yet the ultra-orthodox enforcers have good reason to challenge any efforts to rein in their sheriff's posses, given that the example set by several Israeli municipalities implies that what is sauce for the religious goose is sauce for the secular gander. While the local authorities in Petah Tikva, Kiryat Gat and elsewhere aren't sanctioning all-out violence against girls deemed behaving inappropriately, their modus operandi is no different in intent – and the targets of their self-righteous rage no more deserving of punishment – than the girls in Meah Shearim opting out of the ultra-restrictive dress code.

According to reports in the Israeli press:

    A special team in the youth department of the Petah Tikva municipality will locate [Jewish] girls in the habit of meeting with men from minorities and will assist them … 'The problem of minority men is well-known,' said the chief of the youth department, Moshe Spektor. 'Our attempts to deal with this problem are real and sincere. The municipality is making an effort to examine the matter in co-operation with the police'.

Of course, the minority in question is the Arab community – rather than any of the Jewish minorities in Israel such as those hailing from Ethiopia, Russia or South America – since it is the spectre of intermarriage between Jews and gentiles which is the cause of such abject fear among diehard Israeli nationalists, both religious and secular alike. As reported in Ha'aretz, Kiryat Gat's state-sanctioned anti-miscegenation programme's sole aim is preventing Jewish girls from becoming romantically involved with Israeli Bedouin:

    The programme enjoys the support of the municipality and the police, and is headed by Kiryat Gat's welfare representative, who goes to schools to warn girls of the "exploitative Arabs". The programme uses a video entitled "Sleeping with the Enemy," which features a local police officer and a woman from the Anti-Assimilation Department, a wing of the religious organisation Yad L'ahim, which works to prevent Jewish girls from dating Muslim men.

Many Jews in Israel and the diaspora frown upon the idea of their children marrying out of the flock, some even going as far as cutting their children out of their wills and mourning them as though they had died should they take a non-Jewish partner for a spouse. While this is by no means restricted to the Jewish faith, the idea of such proscriptions being incorporated at state level – whether against Jews, Muslims or any other category of "undesirables" – is racism reminiscent of the dark days of segregationist America and pre-enlightened European states.

This week, the Times carried an illustrative and disturbing feature on the Israeli phenomenon, demonstrating the unabashed bigotry of those behind the purity patrols:

    [David's] group, which works with police, goes by several names, including Fire for Judaism, is composed of up to 45 men and funded by private donations. Members say they are fighting a 'growing epidemic' of Arab-Jewish dating and spend as many hours as they can on patrol.

    Similar groups have formed across the country ... In Pisgat Ze'ev, the growing number of Arab-Jewish couples is seen as the result of more Jewish settlements in Arab east Jerusalem.

    'The problem is always with Jewish girls dating Arab men. The Arab guy comes and buys them things, treats them well. They fall for it. They can't see what they are doing,' says David.

The article goes on to describe a car chase, which ensues after David spots a "problem couple" driving in a car full of Arab men. He follows them through winding mountain roads, before taking down the car's number plate and reporting the incident to police.

That the police would even deign to co-operate with such poisonous and prejudiced characters and their fantasies of racial purity is indicative of the malaise gripping certain sectors of Israeli society, both at street and state level.

Whatever the more blinkered supporters of Israel's sectarianism say, day after day more evidence piles up attesting to the shocking reality behind Israel's mask of being a tolerant, equitable and democratic "country of all its citizens". The likes of the modesty patrols and the anti-miscegenation squads belong in the furthest recesses of history, yet apparently the Israeli authorities are not only happy to tolerate their presence, but to actively support their work as well.

Were the shoe to be on the other foot, with Jews singled out for such base racial discrimination, the same people supporting such behaviour now against Arabs would rightly be up in arms and demanding justice in the name of the persecuted. But, of course, this is Israel, and therefore somehow "different" and "unique" – the standard retorts of those unable to defend Israeli crimes with any semblance of rational debate. And while they continue banging their drums to drown out any criticism of the Israeli state, at ground level the divisive and destructive behaviour continues, and another nail is driven into the coffin of coexistence in the Holy Land.

The Drama and the Farce: Obama was beaten

Details

Written by Uri Avnery Uri Avnery

Published: 28 September 2009 28 September 2009

Hits: 3055 3055

The Drama and the Farce

Uri Avnery

26/09/09

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1253719686/


NO POINT denying it: in the first round of the match between Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, Obama was beaten.

Obama had demanded a freeze of all settlement activity, including East Jerusalem, as a condition for convening a tripartite summit meeting, in the wake of which accelerated peace negotiations were to start, leading to peace between two states – Israel and Palestine.

In the words of the ancient proverb, a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Netanyahu has tripped Obama on his first step. The President of the United States has stumbled.

THE THREEFOLD summit did indeed take place. But instead of a shining achievement for the new American administration, we witnessed a humbling demonstration of weakness. After Obama was compelled to give up his demand for a settlement freeze, the meeting no longer had any content.

True, Mahmoud Abbas did come, after all. He was dragged there against his will. The poor man was unable to refuse the invitation from Obama, his only support. But he will pay a heavy price for this flight: the Palestinians, and the entire Arab world, have seen his weakness. And Obama, who had started his term with a ringing speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, now looks like a broken reed.

The Israeli peace movement has been dealt another painful blow. It had pinned its hopes on the steadfastness of the American president. Obama’s victory and the settlement freeze were to show the Israeli public that the refusal policy of Netanyahu was leading to disaster.

But Netanyahu has won, and in a big way. Not only did he survive, not only has he shown that he is no “sucker” (a word he uses all the time), he has proven to his people – and to the public at large – that there is nothing to fear: Obama is nothing but a paper tiger. The settlements can go on expanding without hindrance. Any negotiations that start, if they start at all, can go on until the coming of the Messiah. Nothing will come out of them.

For Netanyahu, the threat of peace has passed. At least for the time being.

IT IS difficult to understand how Obama allowed himself to get into this embarrassing situation.

Machiavelli taught that one should not challenge a lion unless one is able to kill him. And Netanyahu is not even a lion, just a fox.

Why did Obama insist on the settlement freeze – in itself a very reasonable demand – if he was unable to stand his ground? Or, in other words, if he was unable to impose it on Netanyahu?

Before entering into such a campaign, a statesman must weigh up the array of forces: What power is at my disposal? What forces are confronting me? How determined is the other side? What means am I ready to employ? How far am I prepared to go in using my power?

Obama has a host of able advisors, headed by Rahm Emanuel, whose Israeli origins (and name) were supposed to give him special insights. George Mitchell, a hard-nosed and experienced diplomat, was supposed to provide sober assessments. How did they all fail?

Logic would say that Obama, before entering the fray, should have decided which instruments of pressure to employ. The arsenal is inexhaustible – from a threat by the US not to shield the Israeli government with its veto in the Security Council, to delaying the next shipment of arms. In 1992 James Baker, George Bush Sr’s Secretary of State, threatened to withhold American guarantees for Israel’s loans abroad. That was enough to drag even Yitzhak Shamir to the Madrid conference.

It seems that Obama was either unable or unwilling to exert such pressures, even secretly, even behind the scenes. This week he allowed the American navy to conduct major joint war-games with the Israeli Air Force.

Some people hoped that Obama would use the Goldstone report to exert pressure on Netanyahu. Just one hint that the US might not use its veto in the Security Council would have sown panic in Jerusalem. Instead, Washington published a statement on the report, dutifully toeing the Israeli propaganda line.

True, it is hard for the US to condemn war crimes that are so similar to those committed by its own soldiers. If Israeli commanders are put on trial in The Hague, American generals may be next in line. Until now, only the losers in wars were indicted. What will the world come to if those who remain in office are also accused?

THE INESCAPABLE conclusion is that Obama’s defeat is the outcome of a faulty assessment of the situation. His advisors, who are considered seasoned politicians, were wrong about the forces involved.

That has happened already in the crucial health insurance debate. The opposition is far stronger than anticipated by Obama’s people. In order to get out of this mess somehow, Obama needs the support of every senator and congressman he can lay his hands on. That automatically strengthens the position of the pro-Israel lobby, which already has immense influence in Congress.

The last thing that Obama needs at this moment is a declaration of war by AIPAC and Co. Netanyahu, an expert on domestic American politics, scented Obama’s weakness and exploited it.

Obama could do nothing but gnash his teeth and fold up.

That debacle is especially painful at this precise point in time. The impression is rapidly gaining ground that he is indeed an inspiring speaker with an uplifting message, but a weak politician, unable to turn his vision into reality. If this view of him firms up, it may cast a shadow over his whole term.

BUT IS Netanyahu’s policy wise from the Israeli point of view?

This may well turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.

Obama will not disappear. He has three and a half years in office before him, and thereafter perhaps four more. That’s a lot of time to plan revenge for someone hurt and humiliated at a delicate moment, at the beginning of his term of office.

One cannot know, of course, what is happening in the depths of Obama’s heart and in the back of his mind. He is an introvert who keeps his cards close to his chest. His many years as a young black man in the United States have probably taught him to keep his feelings to himself.

He may draw the conclusion, in the footsteps of all his predecessors since Dwight Eisenhower (except Father Bush during Baker’s short stint as hatchet man): Don’t Mess With Israel. With the help of its partners and servants in the US, it can cause grievous harm to any President.

But he may also draw the opposite conclusion: Wait for the right opportunity, when your standing in the domestic arena is solid, and pay Netanyahu back with interest. If that happens, Netanyahu’s air of victory may turn out to be premature.

IF I were asked for advice (not to worry, it won’t happen), I would tell him:

The forging of Israeli-Palestinian peace would mean a historic turnabout, a reversal of a 120 year old trend. That is not an easy operation, not to be undertaken lightly. It is not a matter for diplomats and secretaries. It demands a determined leader with a stout heart and a steady hand. If one is not ready for it, one should not even start.

An American President who wants to undertake such a role must formulate a clear and detailed peace plan, with a strict timetable, and be prepared to invest all his resources and all his political capital in its realization. Among other things, he must be ready to confront, face to face, the powerful pro-Israel lobby.

This will not succeed unless public opinion in Israel, Palestine, the Arab world, the United States and the whole world is thoroughly prepared well in advance. It will not succeed without an effective Israeli peace movement, without strong support from US public opinion, especially Jewish-American opinion, without a strong Palestinian leadership and without Arab unity.

At the appropriate moment, the President of the United States must come to Jerusalem and address the Israeli public from the Knesset rostrum, like Anwar Sadat and President Jimmy Carter before him, as well as the Palestinian parliament, like President Bill Clinton.

I don’t know if Obama is the man. Some in the peace camp have already given up on him, which effectively means that they have despaired of peace as such. I am not ready for this. One battle rarely decides a war, and one mistake does not foretell the future. A lost battle can steel the loser, a mistake can teach a valuable lesson.

IN ONE of his essays, Karl Marx said that when history repeats itself: The first time it is as tragedy, the second time it is as farce.

The 2000 threefold summit meeting at Camp David was high drama. Many hopes were pinned on it, success seemed to be within reach, but in the end it collapsed, with the participants blaming each other.

The 2009 Waldorf-Astoria summit was the farce.

Obama’s Intriguing J-Word

Details

Written by Nadia Hijab Nadia Hijab

Published: 28 September 2009 28 September 2009

Hits: 2880 2880

The whirlwind of summiteering on climate change, non-proliferation, the economy, and Iran swept the Arab-Israeli conflict off the news -- but not before Barack Obama had spoken of a “just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East.” That startling turn of phrase -- used just before his trilateral with Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu – is a throwback to a much earlier era of American peacemaking.

A focus on justice would be a welcome break with the sterile Oslo attempts to strike a deal on land percentages and refugee numbers.

The question is: Who defines what constitutes justice today? In his speech at the United Nations the next day, Obama sounded more like Bush junior, who is not often associated with the rule of law. Obama spoke of “a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967.” Instead of achieving justice, this outcome would actually undermine it.

Take the terms “viable” and “contiguous.” For some years, these uninspiring words have been appended to “Palestinian state.” Imagine a Palestinian declaring “I have a dream: contiguity!” or “I have struggled for 100 years to achieve viability.” The Israelis, who’ve achieved sovereignty, yearn for security and recognition. The Palestinians strive for self-determination, freedom, justice, and equality.

Terms like contiguous and viable hint at an unpleasant truth: that the 42-year occupation may have made free and sovereign statehood impossible. Palestinians could well end up with a state that is viable (economic activity), contiguous (tunnels under illegal settlements and Jewish-only roads), and “independent” (a seat at the U.N.) while Israel maintains ultimate control over policy and resources.

Obama further undermines equality by speaking of Israel as a “Jewish State” as Netanyahu wants. A Jewish state would continue to privilege Jews over non-Jews and would exclude Palestinian refugees and exiles. And here we come to the crux of the matter. The rights of Palestinian refugees have been at the heart of the conflict since 1948. In fact, this is what justice means to a Palestinian. Can the Arab-Israeli conflict be solved without implementing the right of return? It might have been, in the early, heady Oslo days given Yasser Arafat’s stature and the desire by some of the younger generation to build a sovereign state in the occupied territories. But Israel missed that opportunity and Arafat died in 2004, imprisoned in his presidential compound by Ariel Sharon.

Since Oslo, the right of return movement has grown considerably stronger. Karma Nabulsi, Lecturer in International Relations Oxford University and an expert on Palestinian refugee communities, says the right of return is now a point of unity among Palestinians living under occupation, in exile or in Israel, whether they are refugees or non-refugees and it is upheld by all political parties and civil society.

Nabulsi recalls that the Oslo years raised the hopes of Israelis across the political spectrum “that the refugees would disappear off the map when they disappeared off the negotiating table.” They were shocked to find, for example at Camp David in 2000, that what had been shelved as a final status issue still needed to be substantively addressed.

Nabulsi insists it is crucial to engage the refugees and exiles -- who constitute the majority of Palestinians -- in the discussion about implementing their rights. It is also important to educate both sides about what this would mean for them. Israelis would need to see how this work in practice and that it would entail neither the destruction of Israel nor its Jewish ties. Palestinian refugees need information on how Israel looks and functions to make informed choices on whether to return or to opt for another country.

Palestinians have begun to openly challenge their leadership on the issue. For example, in a recent piece the respected Palestinian author and journalist Fouzi El-Asmar politely but firmly reminded Abbas that he does not speak for all Palestinians. El-Asmar says Abbas was right to step in after Arafat’s death. Yet, while he was elected president of the Palestinian Authority in his own right, he is just the interim chair of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the only body authorized to negotiate with Israel. Until the Palestinian National Council is reconstituted to elect a PLO chairman, El-Asmar underscores, no one has the authority to compromise on Palestinian rights.

Justice can never be absolute: The clock cannot be turned back to 1948. But a just way must be found to implement the right of return, Nabulsi echoes the view of most Palestinians when she says, “Until the refugees are put at the centre of a real, substantive peace process, there will be no peace.”

Nadia Hijab is an independent analyst and a senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies.