Robert Wright: Against Pro-Israel (NYT blogs)

Robert Wright has a rather controversial piece on the New York Times Opinionator blog where he critiques what he sees as excessive and unquestioning support for Israel:


Are you anti-Israel? If you fear that, deep down, you might be, I have important news. The recent tension between Israel and the United States led various commentators to identify hallmarks of anti-Israelism, and these may be of diagnostic value.

As you’ll see, my own view is that they aren’t of much value, but I’ll leave it for you to judge.

Symptom no. 1: Believing that Israel shouldn’t build more settlements in East Jerusalem. President Obama holds this belief, and that seems to be the reason that Gary Bauer, who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, deems Obama’s administration “the most anti-Israel administration in U.S. history.” Bauer notes that the East Jerusalem settlements are “entirely within the city of Jerusalem” and that Jerusalem is “the capital of Israel.”

That’s artful wording, but it doesn’t change the fact that East Jerusalem, far from being part of “the capital of Israel,” isn’t even part of Israel. East Jerusalem lies beyond Israel’s internationally recognized, pre-1967 borders. And the common assertion that Israel “annexed” East Jerusalem has roughly the same legal significance as my announcing that I’ve annexed my neighbor’s backyard. In 1980 the United Nations explicitly rejected Israel’s claim to possess East Jerusalem. And the United States, which normally vetoes U.N. resolutions that Israel finds threatening, chose not to do so in this case.

In short, accepting Gary Bauer’s idea of what it means to be anti-Israel seems to involve being anti-truth. So I don’t accept it. (And if you’re tempted to accept the common claim that Israel is building only in “traditionally Jewish” parts of East Jerusalem, a good antidote is this piece by Lara Friedman and Daniel Seidemann, published on Foreign Policy Magazine’s excellent new Middle East Channel.)

Symptom no. 2: Thinking that some of Israel’s policies, and America’s perceived support of them, might endanger American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (by, for example, giving Jihadist recruiters rhetorical ammunition). This concern was reportedly expressed last week by Vice President Joe Biden to Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. And General David Petraeus is said to worry about the threat posed to American troops — and to America’s whole strategic situation — by the perception of American favoritism toward Israel.

Identifying threats to American troops is part of a general’s job, and it seems to me Petraeus could honestly conclude — without help from dark “anti-Israel” impulses — that some of those threats are heightened by the Israel-Palestine conflict and America’s relationship to it. But Max Boot, writing on Commentary’s Web site, seems to disagree; if Petraeus indeed holds such opinions, that’s a sign of “anti-Israel sentiment,” in Boot’s view.

Now, for a lionized American general to even hint that America’s stance toward Israel might threaten American troops is a serious public relations problem for Boot’s ideology. That, presumably, is why Boot tries to show that this “anti-Israel” view, though attributed to Petraeus, is not in fact Petraeus’s view. Specifically, Boot aims to discredit journalists who attributed this quotation to Petraeus: “The [Israel-Palestine] conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel … . Meanwhile, Al Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.”

Boot assures us that this passage, far from being a good guide to Petraeus’s thinking, was just “pulled from the 56-page Central Command ‘Posture Statement’ filed by his staff with the Senate Armed Services Committee.” Well, I don’t know who did the filing, but the document itself is titled “Statement of General David H. Petraeus … Before the Senate Armed Services Committee.” So I’m guessing it’s a fair guide to his views — in which case, by Boot’s lights, Petraeus is anti-Israel, right? And in which case I’ll reject Boot’s criterion for anti-Israelism.

Boot has an ally in Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League. Foxman said the perspective attributed to Biden and Petraeus “smacks of blaming Jews for everything.”

Foxman’s claim may seem hyperbolic, but look at it this way: If he can convince us that blaming any Israeli policy for anything is akin to blaming Jews in general for everything, then anyone who criticizes an Israeli policy will be deemed anti-Semitic — and fear of that label will keep everyone from criticizing Israel. And by virtue of never criticizing Israel, we’ll all be “pro-Israel.” And that’s a good thing, right?

Actually, it seems to me that if we were all “pro-Israel” in this sense, that would be bad for Israel.

If Israel’s increasingly powerful right wing has its way, without constraint from American criticism and pressure, then Israel will keep building settlements. And the more settlements get built — especially in East Jerusalem — the harder it will be to find a two-state deal that leaves Palestinians with much of their dignity intact. And the less dignity intact, the less stable any two-state deal will be.

As more and more people are realizing, the only long-run alternatives to a two-state solution are: a) a one-state solution in which an Arab majority spells the end of Israel’s Jewish identity; b) Israel’s remaining a Jewish state by denying the vote to Palestinians who live in the occupied territories, a condition that would be increasingly reminiscent of apartheid; c) the apocalypse. Or, as Hillary Clinton put it in addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference on Monday: “A two-state solution is the only viable path for Israel to remain both a democracy and a Jewish state.”

So, by my lights, being “pro-Israel” in the sense embraced by Bauer, Boot and Foxman — backing Israel’s current policies, including its settlement policies — is actually anti-Israel. It’s also anti-America (in the sense of ‘bad for American security’), because Biden and Petraeus are right: America’s perceived support of — or at least acquiescence in — Israel’s more inflammatory policies endangers American troops abroad. In the long run, it will also endanger American civilians at home, funneling more terrorism in their direction.

The flip side of this coin is that policies that would be truly good for Israel (e.g., no more settlements) would be good for America. In that sense, there’s good news for Bauer and Boot and Foxman: one of their common refrains — that Israel’s and America’s interests are essentially aligned — is true, if for reasons they don’t appreciate.

Sadly, the Bauer-Boot-Foxman definition of “pro-Israel” — supporting Israel’s increasingly hard-line and self-destructive policies — is the official definition. All major American newspapers, so far as I can see, use the term this way. AIPAC is described as “pro-Israel,” but the left-of-AIPAC J Street isn’t, even though its members, like AIPAC’s, favor policies they consider good for Israel.

No doubt this twisted use of “pro-Israel,” and the implied definition of “anti-Israel,” keeps many critics of Israeli policies from speaking out — Jewish critics for fear of seeming disloyal, and non-Jewish critics for fear of seeming anti-Semitic.

So, if I’m right, and more speaking out — more criticism of Israel’s current policies — would actually be good for Israel, then the newspapers and other media outlets that sustain the prevailing usage of “pro-Israel” are, in fact, anti-Israel. I won’t mention any names.

Postscript: It has been reported that, notwithstanding accounts in Israel’s media, Biden did not, in fact, complain to Netanyahu in private about the threat of Israel’s policies to American troops. Perhaps predictably, the journalist who first reported this is the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who has been described by one New York Times columnist as Netanyahu’s “faithful stenographer.” I don’t doubt that Goldberg found an administration source who downplayed Biden’s remarks to Netanyahu; obviously, once tensions started to subside, and the goal of both America and Israel was to smooth relations, it wasn’t going to be hard to find an administration official who would do that, regardless of the truth about what Biden said. So I attach little significance to the administration’s revisionist account of what transpired between Biden and Netanyahu — especially given the heat the administration no doubt took over the original account of what transpired.

Update: A response from Gary Bauer, whose views I critique in this column, and my subsequent reply, can be read here.

Bauer says that Ramat Shlomo — the part of East Jerusalem where Israel’s controversial 1,600 housing units are scheduled for construction — is “not a settlement” and “not in a Palestinian neighborhood” and “not a neighborhood that the Palestinians have ever had any intention of taking control of” until Obama turned it into an issue. A useful supplement to Bauer’s perspective is this paragraph from the piece by Lara Friedman and Daniel Seidemann that I cite (and link to) above: “In 1993, when the peace process was taking off, the settlement of Ramat Shlomo — which last week caused such a headache for Vice President Biden — didn’t exist. The site was an empty hill in East Jerusalem (not “no man’s land,” as some have asserted), home only to dirt, trees and grazing goats. It was empty because Israel expropriated the land in 1973 from the Palestinian village of Shuafat and made it off-limits to development. Only later, with the onset of the peace process era, was the land zoned for construction and a brand-new settlement called Rehkes Shuafat (later renamed Ramat Shlomo) built.”

And here is a relevant paragraph from a Jan 26, 1994 Washington Post article (not available online) by David Hoffman titled “Israel Constructing a Jewish Cordon Around Jerusalem”: “The Jerusalem municipal boundary was enlarged after the ‘67 war to include Arab East Jerusalem… . For a quarter-century, Palestinian building has been sharply restricted, while Jewish building has expanded. Recently, the Jewish population in the annexed portion of the city surpassed the Arab population for the first time, boosted by construction of new Jewish neighborhoods there.”

Brian McLaren: Israeli Peacemakers Challenge US to End Military Aid to Israel

Brian McLaren, writing on Sojourners, speaks of a conversation he had with Israeli peacemakers.

We have spoken with many Palestinians in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem so far in our pilgrimage, both Christian and Muslim. Their voices are seldom heard in our corporate media, so it has made sense to meet, listen to, and understand them. But of course we’ve met with Israeli folks too. Recently we had some particularly important conversations with Israeli Jewish voices. They agreed that there will be no change in Israeli policy until the U.S. decides to stop giving Israel a blank check.

One older Israeli gentleman explained it like this: Some Israelis, of course, fully support the occupation and don’t consider the human rights of Palestinians, and many others simply choose not to think about it. But quite a few feel a deep discomfort about what’s going on. They feel ashamed that their nation continues stealing Palestinian land through the settlements — colonies that are built in strategic places in Palestinian territory, and then connected to other colonies, gradually squeezing Palestinians out. They don’t like the separation fence; it reminds them of segregation in the U.S. and apartheid in South Africa. They want security — and they deserve security — but they are not happy about what they are becoming and their Palestinian neighbors are suffering in the name of homeland security.

However, as long as huge amounts of money flow in through U.S. military aid, they know the occupation will continue and expand, because politicians can get elected and reelected by appealing to fear much more easily than by appealing to the hope of reconciliation. So here was the sentence that really stuck with me, and all of us who heard it:

Americans must provide the alibi to allow the Israelis to make the concessions they know they need to make.

I think most Americans, if they could see for themselves what the Palestinians were experiencing, would feel like the Israelis described by this Israeli gentleman whose home we visited yesterday. We like neither what we’re doing to others nor what we’re becoming ourselves in the name of homeland security. We wish there were some alibi — some motivation or reason to change directions and find another way, a better way. May God help us, and them, find it.
Jesus’ words came to mind often yesterday as we walked down the Mount of Olives: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! If only you knew what makes for peace…” We could also say, “O Washington! Washington! O Tehran! O London! O Paris! O …”

Unlikely ally for residents of West Bank

This is an old article that I dug up, but Ethan Bronner of the NY Times reports on an unlikely ally of the Palestinians in the West Bank.


SAFA, West Bank — Ezra Nawi was in his element. Behind the wheel of his well-worn jeep one recent Saturday morning, working two cellphones in Arabic as he bounded through the terraced hills and hardscrabble villages near Hebron, he was greeted warmly by Palestinians near and far.

Watching him call for an ambulance for a resident and check on the progress of a Palestinian school being built without an Israeli permit, you might have thought him a clan chief. Then noticing the two Israeli Army jeeps trailing him, you might have pegged him as an Israeli occupation official handling Palestinian matters.

But Mr. Nawi is neither. It is perhaps best to think of him as the Robin Hood of the South Hebron hills, an Israeli Jew helping poor locals who love him, and thwarting settlers and soldiers who view him with contempt. Those army jeeps were not watching over him. They were stalking him.

Since the Israeli left lost so much popular appeal after the violent Palestinian uprising of 2000 and the Hamas electoral victory three years ago, its activists tend to be a rarefied bunch — professors of Latin or Sanskrit, and translators of medieval poetry. Mr. Nawi, however, is a plumber. And unlike the intellectuals of European origin with whom he spends most Saturdays, he is from an Iraqi Jewish family.

“My mother gave birth to me in Jerusalem when she was 14,” said Mr. Nawi, who is 57 and one of five siblings. “So my grandmother raised me. And she spoke to me in Arabic.”

His family has trouble understanding his priorities. His mother says she thinks he is wasting his time. And many Israelis, when told of his work, wonder why he is not helping his own. Mr. Nawi has an answer.

“I don’t consider my work political,” he said between phone calls as he drove. “I don’t have a solution to this dispute. I just know that what is going on here is wrong. This is not about ideology. It is about decency.”

For his activist colleagues, Mr. Nawi’s instinctual connection to the Palestinians is valuable.

“Ezra knows Palestinians better than any of us,” said Amiel Vardi, a professor who works closely with him. “This is not only because of the language, but because he gains their confidence the minute he starts talking with them. He has all sorts of intuitions as to what should be done, what are the internal relations — things we hardly ever notice.”

The difficulties of Palestinian life in the West Bank have been well documented: Israeli military checkpoints, a rising separation barrier and Israeli settlers. But in this area, the problems are more acute. The Palestinians, many of them Bedouin, are exceptionally poor, and the land they bought decades ago is under threat by a group of unusually aggressive local settlers. The settlers have been filmed beating up Palestinians. Settlers have been killed by Palestinians. But Mr. Nawi said that the law inevitably sided with the Israelis, and that occupation meant there could be no equity.

“The settlers keep the Palestinian farmers from their land by harassing them, and then after several years they say the land has not been farmed so by law it is no longer theirs,” Mr. Nawi said. “We are only here to stop that from happening.”

That is not the view of the settlers.

“He is a troublemaker,” asserted Yehoshua Mor-Yosef, a spokesman for Israeli settler communities in the area. “It’s true that from time to time there is a problem of some settlers coming out of their settlements to cause problems. But people like Nawi don’t want a solution. Their whole aim is to cause trouble.”

True or not, Mr. Nawi is now in trouble. Having spent several short stints in jail for his activism over the years, he now faces the prospect of a long one. He is due to be sentenced Wednesday for assaulting an Israeli policeman two years ago during a confrontation over an attempt to demolish Palestinians’ shacks on disputed land on the West Bank. The policeman said Mr. Nawi struck him during that encounter. Mr. Nawi denied it, but in March a judge convicted him.

What is left of the Israeli left is rallying around him, arguing that Mr. Nawi is a known pacifist who would not have raised his hand against anyone.

“Since I’ve known the man for decades and seen him in action in many extreme situations, I’m certain that the charge is untrue,” David Shulman, a Hebrew University professor and peace activist, wrote in the newspaper Haaretz. Of Mr. Nawi, he added, “He is a man committed, in every fiber of his being, to nonviolent protest against the inequities of the occupation.”

Mr. Nawi attributes his activism to two things: as a teenager, his family lived next door to the leader of Israel’s Communist Party, Reuven Kaminer, who influenced him. And he is gay.

“Being gay has made me understand what it is like to be a despised minority,” Mr. Nawi said.

Several years ago, he had a relationship with a Palestinian from the West Bank and ended up being convicted on charges of allowing his companion to live illegally in Israel. His companion was jailed for months.

Mr. Nawi said harassment against him had come in many forms. Settlers shout vicious antigay epithets. His plumbing business has been audited, and he was handed a huge tax bill that he said he did not deserve. He is certain that his phone calls are monitored. And those army jeeps are never far behind.

He is not optimistic about his coming sentencing, although he is planning an appeal. And he says the Israeli news media have lost interest in the work he and his fellow activists do. But he does not stop.

“I’m here to change reality,” he said. “The only Israelis these people know are settlers and soldiers. Through me they know a different Israeli. And I’ll keep coming until I know that the farmers here can work their fields.”

U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (a Democrat from Minnesota) commends a report by Richard Goldstone on Israeli actions in Lebanon. The article is dated 11/3/09.

Who is afraid of Richard Goldstone? No one should be. Not even the U.S. Congress — yet it is poised on Tuesday to condemn the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Goldstone report on violations of international law related to the Gaza war of late 2008.

Why the fear? Judge Goldstone is no Israel basher. He is famous for apprehending Nazi criminals in Argentina, for serving as chief prosecutor for the U.N. International Criminal Tribunals and for chairing the Independent International Commission on Kosovo. He is motivated by his struggle against apartheid in South Africa. A self-described Zionist, he serves as a trustee of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and has said that “bringing war criminals to justice stems from the lessons of the Holocaust.”

At the outset, note that four sections of the Goldstone report deal with abuses by Hamas, including the launching of rockets into civilian towns in Israel. The report explicitly states that these rocket attacks are war crimes.

Yet despite Goldstone’s stellar reputation, the veracity of the report — and his motives — has been challenged. The detailed Goldstone report concludes that “the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population.”

I agree with my congressional colleagues — and with Goldstone — that the initial U.N. resolution of Jan. 12, 2009, calling for an investigation of abuses committed during the Gaza crisis was one-sided, focusing exclusively on Israel. That resolution was used by some countries to criticize Israel without acknowledging the abuses by Hamas. Goldstone initially refused to lead the investigation because of the original flawed mandate.

But Goldstone pushed back. He succeeded in expanding the scope of the mission to include an examination of the actions of both Hamas and Israel.

Israel, however, refused to cooperate with the investigation because of the original “one-sided mandate.” What if Israel had participated from the beginning? It could have pointed out that the U.N. Human Rights Council has a history of unfairly singling out Israel for criticism. It could have described Hamas’s abuses, and it could have elaborated on the context of the Israeli invasion of Gaza, which includes a long history of attacks on civilians. Israel could have observed the difficulties of combat in urban areas. But instead, Israel condemned the effort and then attacked the final product.

I visited Sderot in southern Israel and saw the havoc and trauma created by Hamas rocket fire. Israelis there live with fear. I have condemned these attacks as war crimes and will continue to do so.

I also visited Gaza and witnessed the devastation wreaked by the recent war. I toured an American school and medical clinics devastated by Operation Cast Lead. A blockade keeps out items such as paper for textbooks and nutritious food. Gazans live in poverty, and most cannot drink their own water. These are cruel violations against the people of Gaza, 56 percent of whom are children.

The Goldstone report does not assign blame. It lays out the facts, as best as Goldstone could ascertain them, and offers recommendations for the future. Congress should use this report as a resource to understand a critical part of the world and to grasp fully the devastating human costs of the status quo.

Instead, Congress is poised to oppose the Goldstone report without holding a single hearing on a document that few members of Congress, if any, have read.

This is a mistake. The stance of this Congress will erode U.S. credibility in the post-Obama world, and it will tarnish our commitment to the principle that all nations must be held to the same standards. Rather than undermine the report or Goldstone, we are at risk of undermining Congress’s and President Barack Obama’s reputation as honest brokers.

Israel can still pursue its own investigation, and critics of the Goldstone report should recognize that Israel is strong enough to withstand inquiry. Self-reflection is one of the hallmarks of a strong democracy. In fact, Israel has investigated itself in the past in connection with the Sabra and Shatila incidents. When nations like the United States, Israel, South Africa and others have pursued the truth through investigations — however uncomfortable — their people and politics have emerged stronger.

We stand for the values of democracy, truth and justice. There is no reason for Congress, Israel or any other party to fear an honest judge. Richard Goldstone is such a judge, and his report should be studied, not dismissed.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

No hard evidence, but possible signs of fraud in recent Iran election

I went so far as to pray that Mir Hossein Mousavi, a moderate and a former prime minister, would beat Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in Iran's recent election. Ahmedinejad officially won with over 60% of the vote to Mousavi's 34%.

The Washington Post reports that there are some signs of fraud but none are clear:

There are many signs of manipulation or outright fraud in Iran's disputed election results, according to pollsters and election experts, but the case for a rigged outcome is far from ironclad, making it difficult for the United States and other Western powers to denounce the results as unacceptable. Indeed, there is also evidence that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent president deeply disliked in the West for his promotion of Iran's nuclear program and his anti-Israeli rhetoric, simply won a commanding victory.

Some analysts have suggested that the attention given the protests and anger in Tehran -- where Western media outlets are concentrated -- gives a misleading picture of the Iranian electorate. The official results show that the leading challenger, former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, was competitive in Tehran, losing by 52 percent to 46 percent, while trailing badly outside the capital. "You could get more of an impression of a horse race in Tehran," said Flynt Leverett of the New America Foundation, who said Ahmadinejad is a "really good campaigner" who blunted Mousavi's momentum in their final debate.

...

Mehdi Khalaji, an expert on the Iranian political system at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that votes at each polling station are supposed to be counted and recorded on a form with the approval of representatives of the candidates, the Interior Ministry and the Guardian Council, a 12-member body selected by Khamenei, the head of the judiciary and Iran's parliament, which validates the election. But the numbers on these forms remain secret. They are sent to the Interior Ministry, which tallies the various forms from polling stations and reports on the totals for each province.

Khalaji said the system provides many opportunities for vote manipulation, but in this election many representatives of opposition candidates were not permitted to vet the initial counting. He said it was also highly suspicious that 20 million paper ballots -- or more than half of those cast -- were announced as counted within three hours of the polls closing. Adding to the vote-counting challenge was an increase in voter turnout: More than 11 million more ballots were cast this year than four years ago.

Various analysts have used statistical analysis to poke holes in the final tallies. Renard Sexton, writing on FiveThirtyEight.com, noted that higher turnouts in Iranian elections have historically resulted in lower winning percentages. The turnout in this election was 80 to 85 percent, suggesting the vote would be much closer. "We would have expected Ahmadinejad's result from Friday, informed by the polling, historical trends and a bit of bet-hedging, to be between 40 percent and 55 percent," he concluded.

It is definitely possible that Ahmedinejad won fair and square, as this piece from the New America Foundation argues.

Like much of the Western media, most American “Iran experts” overstated Mir Hossein Mousavi’s “surge” over the campaign’s final weeks. More importantly, they were oblivious – as in 2005 – to Ahmadinejad’s effectiveness as a populist politician and campaigner. American “Iran experts” missed how Ahmadinejad was perceived by most Iranians as having won the nationally televised debates with his three opponents – especially his debate with Mousavi.

...

Similarly, Ahmadinejad’s criticism that Mousavi’s reformist supporters, including former President Khatami, had been willing to suspend Iran’s uranium enrichment program and had won nothing from the West for doing so tapped into popular support for the program – and had the added advantage of being true.

More fundamentally, American “Iran experts” consistently underestimated Ahmadinejad’s base of support. Polling in Iran is notoriously difficult; most polls there are less than fully professional, and hence produce results of questionable validity. But the one poll conducted before Friday’s election by a Western organization that was transparent about its methodology – a telephone poll carried out by the Washington-based Terror-Free Tomorrow (TFT) during May 11-20 – found Ahmadinejad running 20 points ahead of Mousavi. This poll was conducted before the televised debates in which, as noted above, Ahmadinejad was perceived to have done well while Mousavi did poorly.

American “Iran experts” assumed that “disastrous” economic conditions in Iran would undermine Ahmadinejad’s reelection prospects. But the IMF projects that Iran’s economy will actually grow modestly this year (when the economies of most Gulf Arab states are in recession). A significant number of Iranians – including the religiously pious, lower income groups, civil servants, and pensioners – appear to believe that Ahmadinejad’s policies have benefited them.
And, while many Iranians complain about inflation, the TFT poll found that most Iranian voters do not hold Ahmadinejad responsible. The “Iran experts” further argue that the high turnout on June 12 – 82 percent of the electorate – had to favor Mousavi. But this line of analysis reflects nothing more than assumptions.

Ahmedinejad is an extremist and is hard to engage. However, unless clear and convincing evidence of fraud is uncovered, the US should respect the election results and continue engagement with Iran.

Give Ben a break

I understand that some Israeli leaders have criticized the Pope for allegedly not being specific enough in his denunciation of the Holocaust. They've also brought up his past in the German Army during WWII.

Bringing up the latter is ridiculous. Benny was drafted. He was a teen. Yes, the courageous thing to do would be to speak up and denounce the war before being drafted. If he had, he wouldn't be the Pope - he would be dead, like Franz Jägerstatter and Dietrich Bonhöffer. Few of us have that courage. Perhaps those folks should ask themselves, why aren't they denouncing the occupation of Palestine?

Give Ben a break on the Nazi issue.

First Gaza Refusenik imprisoned

Dear Supporters,
The first Gaza refusenik was sent to prison for a term of 14 days. Courage to refuse members are in contact with his family and are helping in any way we can. To date there are about ten refuseniks, but the IDF is making special efforts to silence this story and prevent it from reaching other soldiers. We assume this is the reason why most refuseniks have not yet been trialed (some are waiting for over a week now).

Our demonstration last Thursday went very well, hundreds showed up and protested against the war. A video of the demonstration can be viewed here (Hebrew, English subtitles) This, along with other efforts of the Israeli Peace Camp, contributed to the public discourse by introducing new voices- this time critical, about the war. We plan on continuing our demonstrations and plan to hold a public debate on the subject of refusal next Sunday.

I wish to thank all those of you who proposed to donate to Courage to Refuse. Your help is much needed. An online donation System is now in place, allowing donations via credit card. The donation is processed by The Refuser Solidarity Network, an American NGO that agreed to receive donations on our behalf.

To donate, please go to: this link and select Courage to Refuse Projects in the RSN project field (This detail is very important).
American citizens- your donation is IRS-recognized 501(c)3.

With some hope and a lot of hard work- the cease fire may not be that far. Thank you all for your support.
Arik Diamant
Courage to Refuse

Refuseniks ask for money

Folks,

I received the following email from Arik Diamant, an Israeli Defence Forces reservist writing for the Refuseniks, a group of Israeli soldiers who refuse to engage in military operations in the Occupied Territories. So far, 628 soldiers have pledged not to serve in the Territories; they will face legal action from the military for doing so.

They had to cease operations some time ago for lack of funds and public interest, but they intend to start advertising and demonstrating against the current invasion of Gaza. Please consider donating if you are able.

Dear supporters,

It's been almost four years since we sent our last newsletter. The "Disengagement" plan seemed to crush the Israeli peace camp and silence any discussion on the morality of the occupation and the siege on Gaza. Refusal became irrelevant to the Israeli public discourse. Sadly, we had to close our offices for lack of funds and public interest.

Some of us continued our activity from within other groups such as Physicians for Human Rights, Yesh Gvul and Combatants for Peace. Others receded to caring for their families and developing their carriers. Lately, however, we've been summoned again to play a role in our country's politics. The brutal, unprecedented violence in Gaza is shocking. The false hope that this kind of violence will bring security to Israelis is all the more dangerous. We cannot stand aside while hundreds of civilians are being butchered by the IDF.

A few years older, hopefully a little wiser, the core members of Courage to Refuse have decided to resume activity and play once more a part in fighting for peace and democracy. This morning we published an ad in Haaretz calling soldiers to refuse to bomb Gaza. At least three soldiers have already refused to participate in the Gaza campaign and are on their way to prison. The rest of us will be demonstrating in front of the Ministry of Defense in protest of the IDF's murderous activity in Gaza this upcoming Thursday.

We turn to our supporters, in Israel and abroad, to help us in financing our activities(ads and demonstrations). We are making great efforts to re-establish an online donation service that will be 501c3 certified. Until then we urge all those capable of helping to send an email to courage2refuse@gmail.com with your name, phone number and the sum you are willing to donate. We will contact you and guide you in placing your donation.

Please help us bring change. Thank you,
Arik Diamant
Courage to Refuse
mobile: +972-522-754-528

Editor: Diamant also has an article for Ynetnews that may be of interest.

Bishop Suheil Dawani of Jerusalem makes statement on fighting

From Episcopal Cafe, Bishop Suheil Dawani has made a statement on the fighting in Gaza. Pray for peace in the Middle East.


JERUSALEM, January 7th, 2009 – At a time when great tragedy is occurring in the Holy Land in Gaza, I want to share some insight into what we are experiencing on a moment to moment basis. Our Diocese has one of 11 hospitals serving a population of 1.5 million residents in the Gaza Strip. The Al Ahli Arab (Anglican) Hospital has been in operation for over 100 years and has a very dedicated medical staff of doctors, nurses, technicians and general services personnel.

During the best of times they are stretched to their maximum meeting the medical needs of this populous community. Now, during the current military conflict with its heavy toll on human life and material, the hospital faces even greater responsibilities and challenges. The result is growing strain on the hospital’s resources. Every day since the beginning of military operations, the hospital has received 20-40 injured or wounded patients. A large proportion of them require hospitalization and surgery. These patients are in addition to those with non-conflict-related illnesses. About one-fourth of the patients are children.

In addition, the conflict has brought new type of medical and surgical conditions. For example, patients with burns and acute, crippling psychological trauma, are being seen more frequently. Because it is not possible for aid workers to enter Gaza at this time, the hospital’s staff is working around the clock, struggling with the effects of exhaustion and against limited resources in a conflicted area of ongoing military operations.

Many medical items are needed, especially bandages and supplies for burns and trauma. The hospital’s windows have all been blown out or shattered from rocket and missile concussion and cold permeates the entire premises. Plastic sheeting to cover the windows could alleviate some of the cold but is unavailable now. Food supplies are scant throughout the Gaza strip and maintaining patients’ nutritional needs at the hospital has been difficult, especially for the most vulnerable. Some medicines and supplies for the hospital have been generously donated by US AID, but it has not yet been possible to deliver the items.

Efforts to help alleviate some of the shortages are underway and we hope that the shipments will arrive quickly. Through the ICRC limited amounts of diesel fuel are being delivered to keep the electrical generators functional for life saving and other essential equipment. We are working with a number of related governmental and international voluntary agencies to speed up the delivery and steady supply of needed medicines and food. We are also working to ensure to the fullest extent possible the physical safety of the Hospital staff and campus.

On a “normal” day, approximately 600 life line trucks a day bring supplies to the Gaza Strip. Many are under the auspices of UNRWA and international relief agencies because about two-thirds of Gaza’s residents are Refugees and living in UNRWA Camps. During this time of conflict, that number of trucks is not seen in a week or more. Because of the reduced deliveries, medical items, nutritional food, and other basic supplies are now scarce items, if available at all, for our brothers and sisters in Gaza.

I ask you to join with me in prayer and by offering whatever financial support you can for our Hospital and heroic Staff of the Al Ahli Hospital - and other such humanitarian endeavors. Thankfully the Hospital plant remains intact at this time. While several among our Staff have suffered loss and injuries within their own families, they are representing all of us as a witness of God’s love to all people - “come unto to me all you who are heavy laden and I will refresh you”. As we continue to pray for communal Palestinian and Israeli PEACE, we especially remember these dedicated individuals who cannot leave, but most importantly do not want to leave, but continue to do all they can to help.

Our Lord’s imperative in St. John’s Gospel during this Epiphany season gives each of us the new hope for a new dawn of light, life and communal conciliation - "I have come that you may have Life and have it abundantly”.

(Refer to the Diocese of Jerusalem's Web site for previous statements on Gaza from The Bishop. Information about donating money can be provided on request).

US appeas NJ Muslim cleric case

The Associated Press reports that the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement department is appealing the case of Mohammed Qatanani to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

In a case that could erode hard-won trust between Muslims and law enforcement, the government is appealing the case of a Muslim leader who won his fight to remain in the United States.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants the Board of Immigration Appeals to review the decision to stop the deportation of Mohammad Qatanani (KAH'-tah-NAH'-nee), a leader accused by some federal officials of having terrorist ties but praised by others as being an important ally.

Qatanani, 44, won his fight to gain permanent U.S. residency in September, when a federal immigration judge determined the government's case against the Palestinian was too weak to prove he had any ties to extremist groups.

I hope that the US Muslim community will remember to distinguish Immigration and Customs Enforcement from regular law enforcement. ICE is a bunch of rabid dogs.

Ehud Olmert: Israel should pull out of the West Bank

From the NY Times: outgoing and disgraced Israeli PM Ehud Olmert summons the courage to say Israel's security depends on pulling out of most or all of the West Bank; he also said land should be exchanged one for one with the Palestinians if Israel leaves settlements in the West Bank. Additionally, he was willing to come to a limited compromise on the Arab section of Jerusalem. I'm pasting the whole article.


Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published on Monday that Israel must withdraw from nearly all of the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem to attain peace with the Palestinians and that any occupied land it held onto would have to be exchanged for the same quantity of Israeli territory.

He also dismissed as “megalomania” any thought that Israel would or should attack Iran on its own to stop it from developing nuclear weapons, saying the international community and not Israel alone was charged with handling the issue.

In an unusually frank and soul-searching interview granted after he resigned to fight corruption charges — he remains interim prime minister until a new government is sworn in — Mr. Olmert discarded longstanding Israeli defense doctrine and called for radical new thinking, in words that are sure to stir controversy as his expected successor, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, tries to build a coalition.

“What I am saying to you now has not been said by any Israeli leader before me,” Mr. Olmert told the newspaper Yediot Aharonot in the interview on the occasion of the Jewish new year, observed from Monday evening till Wednesday evening. “The time has come to say these things.”

He said that traditional Israeli defense strategists had learned nothing from past experiences and that they seemed stuck in the considerations of the 1948 war of independence.

“With them, it is all about tanks and land and controlling territories and controlled territories and this hilltop and that hilltop,” he said. “All these things are worthless.”

He added, “Who thinks seriously that if we sit on another hilltop, on another hundred meters, that this is what will make the difference for the State of Israel’s basic security?”

Over the last year, Mr. Olmert has publicly castigated himself for his earlier right-wing views and he did so again in this interview. On Jerusalem, for example, he said: “I am the first who wanted to enforce Israeli sovereignty on the entire city. I admit it. I am not trying to justify retroactively what I did for 35 years. For a large portion of these years, I was unwilling to look at reality in all its depth.”

He said that maintaining sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem, Israel’s official policy, would involve bringing 270,000 Palestinians inside Israel’s security barrier. It would mean a continuing risk of terrorist attacks against civilians like those carried out this year by Jerusalem Palestinian residents with front-end loaders.

“A decision has to be made,” he said. “This decision is difficult, terrible, a decision that contradicts our natural instincts, our innermost desires, our collective memories, the prayers of the Jewish people for 2,000 years.”

The government’s public stand on Jerusalem until now has been to assert that the status of the city was not under discussion. But Mr. Olmert made clear that the eastern, predominantly Arab, sector had to be yielded “with special solutions” for the holy sites.

On peace with the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert said in the interview: “We face the need to decide but are not willing to tell ourselves, yes, this is what we have to do. We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning of which is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all the territories, if not all the territories. We will leave a percentage of these territories in our hands, but will have to give the Palestinians a similar percentage, because without that there will be no peace.”

Elsewhere in the interview, when discussing a land swap with the Palestinians, he said the exchange would have to be “more or less one to one.”

Mr. Olmert also addressed the question of Syria, saying that Israel had to be prepared to give up the Golan Heights but that in turn Damascus knew it had to change the nature of its relationship with Iran and its support for Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia.

On Iran, Mr. Olmert said Israel would act within the international system, adding: “Part of our megalomania and our loss of proportions is the things that are said here about Iran. We are a country that has lost a sense of proportion about itself.”

Reaction from the Israeli right was swift. Avigdor Lieberman, who leads the Yisrael Beiteinu party, said on the radio that Mr. Olmert was “endangering the existence of the State of Israel irresponsibly.”

He added that those who thought Israel’s problem was a lack of defined borders — as Mr. Olmert stated in the interview — “are ignoramuses who don’t understand anything, and they invite war.”

As they reacted to Mr. Olmert’s remarks, Palestinian negotiators said it was satisfying to hear Mr. Olmert’s words but they said the words did not match what he had offered them so far. Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior Palestinian official, told Palestinian Radio that it would have been better if Mr. Olmert had taken this position while in office rather than while leaving it and that Mr. Olmert had not yet presented a detailed plan for a border between Israel and a Palestinian state.

In theory, Mr. Olmert will continue peace negotiations while awaiting the new government. But analysts generally say that having been forced to resign his post, he will not be able to close a deal.

Israel's welcome for Ethiopian Jews wears thin

An Associated Press article covers the immigration of Ethiopian Jews to Israel. Many Ethiopian Jews fail to integrate into an industrial society. Israelis are particularly concerned over the authenticity of Ethiopian Jews who assimilated to Christianity, allegedly to escape persecution (to be fair, folks were indeed being persecuted for being Jewish). It's also interesting to see Jewish American groups being the primary advocates for their acceptance into Israel, as the Israeli government is far more reluctant.


GONDAR, Ethiopia (AP) — Sitting in a leaky, flyblown hut, a few dozen Ethiopian villagers are anxiously waiting to be transported to another world.

They have just been given word that their years of waiting are over, and that soon they will make a 2,000-mile journey by land and air with what is probably the last wave of Ethiopian immigrants to Israel.

In doing so, they join generations of Jews who have immigrated to the Promised Land. But they are flying into the teeth of a dilemma that touches the heart of Israel's founding philosophy.

For people like 48-year-old Abe Damamo, his wife and eight children, wrenching change awaits.

Like most Ethiopians with Jewish roots, they have come from the Gondar region of northern Ethiopia. Their remote village uses donkeys for transportation and has no bathrooms. Damamo has no formal education and speaks no language but his own.

He is moving to an industrialized democracy where he will have to learn Hebrew, master a cell phone, commute to work and find his place in a nation of immigrants from dozens of countries ranging from Argentina to Yemen, Australia to the United States.

But to him, being Jewish is all that matters.

"I am so happy to go and live my religion," he says through a translator.

Not everyone at the Israeli end is happy, however.

In the initial stages of an immigration that began three decades ago, all the Ethiopians immigrating to Israel were recognized outright as Jews. But those now seeking to make the trip are the so-called Falash Mura, whose ancestors converted to Christianity, the main Ethiopian faith, at the end of the 19th century to escape discrimination.

Initially Israel balked at accepting their claim of Jewishness, but relented after American Jews led a campaign for the Falash Mura.

Some 40,000 moved to Israel, a country of 7 million, joining the 80,000 already there. But their presence has touched off a fierce debate in Israel over where to draw the line.

Ethiopians with any hope, however faint, of eligibility for Israeli citizenship have descended on camps in the city of Gondar, scrambling to prove their Jewishness. Men in prayer shawls sway back and forth in makeshift synagogues and children in skullcaps sit on mud floors learning the Hebrew alphabet and Jewish holidays.

But centuries of intermarriage and a lack of documentation have made it extremely difficult to prove who is a Jew, and the group awaiting their flight to Israel last month were supposed to be among the last, because the Israeli government has decided that the influx must stop.

Those lucky enough to meet the criteria for immigration will have to undergo conversion to Orthodox Judaism after arriving in Israel.

Sixty-six-year-old Tegabie Jember Zegeye's application was rejected long ago, his links to Judaism deemed too remote. But he has been living with his wife and five children in a Gondar camp for 10 years. He wears a skullcap and attends daily prayers and religion classes.

"When I left my village, I didn't think I would be here for 10 days," he says, adding that he has close relatives in Israel who he feels are a part of him. "How can you split a man into two halves?"

He says he feels Jewish at heart. But when asked about his previous lifestyle, he replies: "I lived like a Christian, like all the Jews."

Besides cutting to the heart of the age-old debate over who is a Jew, the dispute between the Israeli government and the American Jewish activists who finance the Gondar camps raises uncomfortable questions about a central tenet of Israel's founding philosophy.

Israel's Law of Return guarantees citizenship for any Jew in need, and these days the country is especially concerned about boosting its Jewish population to compete with the Arabs. But the Ethiopians have proved the hardest immigrant group to absorb, and the Falash Mura, some critics feel, is pushing the limits.

Like every other immigrant group, Ethiopian-Israelis have made their mark on the human mosaic of Jewish nationhood giving it top-notch soldiers, funky musicians, world-class athletes and two members of parliament. They also have a powerful backer, the ultra-Orthodox Shas party in the ruling coalition, which capitalizes on the Ethiopian vote.

But as a whole they are poor, plagued by crime, violence and substance abuse, feeling shut out of a world very different from rural Africa.

The steep learning curve is evident even before they depart for Israel.

Those approved for immigration are taught what a fridge looks like, how to cook on a stovetop, how to flush a toilet. Nurses teach the women to use female hygiene products. The families are introduced to TVs, and are shown videos of life in their new world. They are warned to mind the "magic stairs" — the escalators — at the Addis Ababa airport.

Before leaving, they undergo extensive medical checkups at an Israeli Embassy compound in Addis Ababa, and their African surnames are replaced with Hebrew ones.

Ori Konforti, the Ethiopia representative of the Jewish Agency, the quasi-governmental agency in charge of incoming Jews, calls the transformation a move from "a land where they live like they did in the Bible, to the actual land of the Bible."

But despite all the preparations, most Ethiopian immigrants over age 35 go straight onto welfare after reaching Israel, according to the Jewish Agency.

That's no reason for shutting out the Falash Mura, says Mazor Bahyna, an Ethiopian in the 120-member Knesset, or parliament.

"I think Israel has an obligation to prove that it is not a racist state," he says. "If everyone was blond-haired and had blue eyes, they would bring them."

The Israeli government, lacking a universally accepted definition of Jewishness, has long welcomed immigrants whose links to Judaism were questionable, many of them among the hundreds of thousands of people who came from the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

Ethiopian Jews, once popularly known as the Falasha, began arriving in Israel in the 1970s after a revered rabbi ruled that they were descended from the lost biblical tribe of Dan. Traveling by plane, at times clandestinely, or on foot in desert treks in which many died, their exodus held Israel in thrall.

In 1991, Israel flew out nearly 15,000 Jews as rebels charged into Addis Ababa to overthrow its communist regime.

But then the problems began.

As word of the 1991 operation spread, the Falash Mura also sought to leave. Suddenly Israel was confronted with the possibility of multitudes banging on its doors claiming to be Jewish and daring it to turn them away.

At first the Israeli government turned them down, but a coalition of American Jewish organizations took up their cause. They set up camps in Gondar, providing free schools, shelter and heath clinics — and most important, a ticket out of Ethiopia.

"There is a very strong feeling that a danger to a Jewish community should never be ignored again," said Barbara Ribakove Gordon, director general of the North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry, the main group advocating Falash Mura immigration. "As far as I'm concerned, they are Jews. ... They are as much Jews as any other Jew from Ethiopia or New York."

For the Ethiopians at the center of the controversy, Zionist ideology is secondary to what they see as their most pressing need: reunification with family already in Israel.

Sitotaw Tamir, a 30-year-old father of two, has a gold Star of David dangling from his neck while his wife, like many Ethiopian Christians, has a cross tattooed on her forehead.

Interviewed two days before his departure for Israel, Tamir said he has three sisters and a brother left in Gondar, and "will not feel right" if they don't join him in Israel.

That's precisely what Israel fears.

"There is no end to reunification," said the Jewish Agency's Konforti.

Israel has struggled for years to figure out which Ethiopians should be allowed in. Each time it has attempted to end the immigration by emptying the Gondar camps and airlifting their inhabitants to Israel, thousands more have flooded into the camps, scrambling to prove their Jewishness.

The argument now seems to have come down to numbers: Israel says the last of the Falasha Mura who qualify for immigration arrived in Israel earlier this month, while the American groups say some 8,700 have been left behind.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has upheld the Israeli list, effectively marking an end to the historic chapter.

Tough love for Israel?

Nicholas Kristof, in a very frank editorial in the NY Times, says the things that few have dared to do in the US.

On his visit to the Middle East, Barack Obama gave ritual affirmations of his support for Israeli policy, but what Israel needs from America isn’t more love, but tougher love.

Particularly at a time when Israel seems to be contemplating military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, the United States would be a better friend if it said: “That’s crazy” — while also insisting on a 100 percent freeze on settlements in the West Bank and greater Jerusalem.

Granted, not everybody sees things this way, and discussions of the Middle East usually involve each side offering up its strongest arguments to wrestle with the straw men of the other side. So let me try something different.

After I wrote a column last month from Hebron in the West Bank, my blog, nytimes.com/ontheground, was flooded with counterarguments — and plenty of challenges to address them. In the interest of a civil dialogue on the Middle East, here are excerpts from some of the readers’ defenses of Israel’s conduct in the West Bank and my responses:

Jews lived in Hebron for 1,800 years continuously ... until their community was murdered in 1929 by their Arab neighbors. The Jews in Hebron today — those “settlers” — have reclaimed Jewish property. So I don’t see what makes them illegitimate or illegal. (Irving)

True, Jews have deep ties to Hebron, just as Christians do to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, but none of these bonds confer any right to live in these places or even visit them. If Israel were to bar American Christians from Jerusalem, that would not be grounds for the United States to send in paratroopers and establish settlements. And if Israel insists on controlling the West Bank, then it needs to give citizenship to Palestinians there so that they can vote just like the settlers.

One side is a beautiful, literate, medically and scientifically and artistically an advanced society. The other side wants to throw bombs. Why shouldn’t there be a fence? (Mileway)

So, build a fence. But construct it on the 1967 borders, not Palestinian land — and especially not where it divides Palestinian farmers from their land.

While I do condemn this type of violence, it pales in contrast to Palestinian suicide bombers, rockets and other acts of terror against Jews. (Jay)

B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, reports that a total of 123 Israeli minors have been killed by Palestinians since the second intifada began in 2000, compared with 951 Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces.

To withdraw from the West Bank without a partner on the Palestinian side will find Israel in the same fix it has once it withdrew from Gaza: a rain of daily rockets. Yes, the security barrier causes hardship, but terrorist attacks have almost disappeared. That means my kids can ride the bus, go to unguarded restaurants and not worry about being blown up on their way to school. Find another way to keep my kids safe, and I’ll happily tear down the barrier. (Laura)

This is the argument that I have the most trouble countering. Laura has a point: The barrier and checkpoints have reduced terrorism. But as presently implemented, they — and the settlements — also reduce the prospect of a long-term peace agreement that is the best hope for Laura’s children.

If Israel were to stop the settlements, ease the checkpoints, allow people in and out more freely, and negotiate more enthusiastically with Syria over the Golan Heights and with the Arab countries on the basis of the Saudi peace proposal, then peace might still elude the region. But Israel would at least be doing everything possible to secure its long-term future, rather than bolstering Hamas.

If there is no two-state solution, there will be a one-state solution — and given demographic trends, that will mean either the end of Israeli democracy or the end of the Jewish state. Zionists should be absolutely clamoring for a Palestinian state.

Laura is right about the need for a sensible Palestinian partner, and the failures of Palestinian leadership have been legion. At the moment, though, Israel has its most reasonable partner ever — Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas — and it is undermining him with its checkpoints and new settlement construction.

Peace-making invariably involves exasperating and intransigent antagonists and unequal steps, just as it did in the decades in which Britain struggled to end terrorism emanating from Northern Ireland. But London never ordered air strikes on Sinn Fein or walled in Catholic neighborhoods. Over time, Britain’s extraordinary restraint slowly changed attitudes so as to make the eventual peace possible.

I hope Mr. Obama, as a candidate or as a president, will be a true enough friend of Israel to say all this, warmly but firmly.

Israel reneges on settlement pledge - as it always does

From The Guardian.

An Israeli ministerial committee has approved construction of new homes in a West Bank settlement despite a pledge to the US to stop building on the site, Israeli media reported today.

The committee has given the green light for 20 new homes at Maskiot. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, is expected to authorise construction soon, said Israel Radio. The plans were dropped by Israel in 2006 after pressure from the US.

It is bound to anger the Palestinians and irritate the US, which has called on Israel to halt construction in the settlements as part of the American "road map" for peace in the Middle East.

The 2003 peace plan also called on Palestinians to clamp down on militants who attack Israel.

The Bush administration previously criticised Israeli plans to settle 30 families at Maskiot, a former Israel defence force base, as a breach of Israeli obligations.

Israel has defended the latest move on the grounds that the settlement is not new. The government says it was legally established in 1982, housed an army unit and a school, and has had civilians living there for several years.

Approval has also been granted for construction in areas of East Jerusalem surrounded by large Arab populations but Israel said they are not settlements.

In his visit to Israel this week, Gordon Brown called on the government to freeze building of settlements in the occupied West Bank and withdraw from them.

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, warned last month that Jewish settlement building was having a "negative effect" on efforts to reach a peace deal. She was referring to Israeli plans to build 1,300 new homes in Ramat Shlomo, an area of the West Bank that Israel considers part of Jerusalem.

The Palestinians have called the settlement plans a systematic policy to destroy the peace process, but Israel has described the new homes as the natural growth of existing communities.

About 260,000 settlers live among 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank. The international court of justice has ruled that Israeli settlements on land captured in the 1967 war are illegal.

Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, yesterday told reporters during a visit to Israel that he would begin working straight away for peace in the Middle East if elected in November.

Yom Ha'atzmaut and al-Nakba (by Jim Wallis)

I recently joined many prominent Christian leaders in signing a joint declaration on Israel's 60th anniversary. The signers are too many to list here but they include church leaders, theologians, and the heads of international missions agencies who have an intimate knowledge of the region's history, theological significance, and present reality. (To name just a sampling: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe, international director/CEO, World Evangelical Alliance; Lynn Green, international chairman of YWAM; Rev. Garth Hewitt, canon of St. George's Cathedral, Jerusalem; James W. Skillen, president of the Center for Public Justice; Dr. Joel C. Hunter, senior pastor of Northland church; Rev. Kathy Galloway, leader of the Iona Community; Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire; Richard J. Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary; Rev. Glenn R. Palmberg, president of the Evangelical Covenant Church; Arli Klassen, executive director, Mennonite Central Committee; Brother Andrew, author of God's Smuggler; Charles Clayton, national director of World Vision in Jerusalem on behalf of World Vision International; Dr. Vernon Grounds, chancellor of Denver Seminary; Old Testament theologian Walter Brueggemann; and author and Sojourners board chair Brian McLaren.)

The statement begins by recognizing the achievement and necessity of the state of Israel:

We recognise that today, millions of Israelis and Jews around the world will joyfully mark the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel (Yom Ha'atzmaut). For many, this landmark powerfully symbolises the Jewish people's ability to defy the power of hatred so destructively embodied in the Nazi Holocaust.

But as is so often the case in human history - including U.S. history - one people's escape from persecution and tyranny resulted in the suffering of others. So the statement also says:

We also recognise that this same day, millions of Palestinians living inside Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the worldwide diaspora will mourn 60 years since over 700,000 of them were uprooted from their homes and forbidden from returning, while more than 400 villages were destroyed (al-Nakba).

The statement confesses that "To hold both of these responses together in balanced tension is not easy," and that many segments of the church - and I would add, especially U.S. evangelicals:

while extending empathy and support to the Israeli narrative of independence and struggle, many of us in the church worldwide have denied the same solidarity to the Palestinians, deaf to their cries of pain and distress.

Many Christians in the U.S. and around the world - including myself - have traveled to Israel and Palestine to learn about the geographical origins of our faith, and to meet the people whose lives are still shaped by the struggle over that Holy Land. We've heard stories of lives destroyed by terrorist violence, and lives destroyed by the violence of occupation. While it is tempting to either emphasize the suffering of one people over the other, or to impose an oversimplified narrative of false symmetry and intractable conflict, our biblical imperative remains, as the statement cites, to "seek peace and pursue it" (Psalm 34:14).

Finally and most powerfully, the declaration urges

all those working for peace and justice in Israel/Palestine to consider that any lasting solution must be built on the foundation of justice, which is rooted in the very character of God. After all, it is justice that "will produce lasting peace and security" (Isaiah 32:17). Let us commit ourselves in prophetic word and practical deed to a courageous settlement whose details will honour both peoples' shared love for the land, and protect the individual and collective rights of Jews and Palestinians in the Holy Land.

So can we authentically celebrate Yom Ha'atzmaut while we mourn al-Nakba? Can we "Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep" (Romans 12:15)? Biblical justice demands it.

Anglican Communion: it's all over but the shouting

And there's going to be a lot of shouting. Peter Akinola is behind GAFCON, the Global Anglican Future Conference, which is to be held parallel to Lambeth Conference. Lambeth is a time for bishops to consult, and it is one of the four instruments of the Communion. Pete wants to hold it in Jerusalem. The Bishop of Jerusalem, Suheil Dawani, strongly opposes this. The Episcopal News Service has an article. Here is the first half:

[Episcopal News Service] Two organizers of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), planned for June 14-22 in the Holy Land, have held separate meetings with Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem Suheil Dawani who has been critical of the event and urged its planners to reconsider.

Bishop Peter Jensen of Sydney, Australia, and Nigeria Archbishop Peter Akinola met January 12 and 15 respectively with Dawani in Jerusalem after he said he was "deeply troubled" that the GAFCON meeting, of which he had no prior knowledge, "will import inter-Anglican conflict" into his diocese.

The minutes of the meetings, which were emailed to Episcopal News Service, noted that the Most Rev. Mouneer Hanna Anis, Primate of the Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East, is also concerned about the event and that his advice to the organizers -- that this was neither the right time nor place for such a meeting -- had been ignored.

GAFCON is due to be held one month prior to the Lambeth Conference when more than 800 of the Anglican Communion's bishops will descend on the University of Kent in Canterbury, England, for more than two weeks of spiritual reflection, learning, sharing and discerning.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, was asked January 21 at a Lambeth Palace media briefing what he thought of the GAFCON event. "I think it's important to remember that before the last Lambeth, and indeed on other occasions, there have been major international gatherings -- regionally or in other ways constructed -- preparing for Lambeth, and I am very happy to see such regional events going forward," he said. "But I do have real concerns that in this case there are unresolved issues for the local church, for the Church in Jerusalem, which has pinpointed some anxieties about having such a conference at this time in the Holy Land. I really hope they can be addressed."

Describing itself as "a pilgrimage back to the roots of the Church's faith," the GAFCON event is exclusive to "Anglicans from both the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic wings of the church," a December 24 news release announcing the conference says. This release was the first Dawani had heard about the conference. He told Akinola at the January 15 meeting that the conference "would raise many issues, politically, ecumenically, and in the area of interfaith dialogue," according to the minutes of the meeting.

Akinola said he "could not see how this conference could become a 'political problem'" and stressed that "liberty was important for Africa and that he could not allow anyone to tell his community what to do and to say."

Also present at the January 15 meeting were Canon Chris Sugden, executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream and one of GAFCON's organizers, the Very Rev. Michael Sellors, coordinator to the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem, and the Rev. Canon Hosam Naoum, acting dean of St. George's Cathedral, Jerusalem.

Naoum, who referred to his studies in Africa and acknowledged that he has a good idea of what Africans have gone through in the past, stressed that "the indigenous Christians of the Holy Land also did not want to see themselves being told what to do and what to say. They do not want to be forced to deal with issues that are not on their agenda yet and that could create serious disputes on the level of the local churches in general and the Diocese of Jerusalem in particular, as well as ecumenically, theologically, and socially."

Responding to the question of unity within the Anglican Communion, Akinola said that in 2003 there had already been "a huge eruption leading to the divide within the Anglican Communion," referring to the election and consecration of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican Communion. Akinola added that meeting in the Holy Land "would help them to find the road map."

Sugden posed the question "in what way is the conference imposing on the diocese?"

Single-issue Christians will end up disgracing their faith. Peter and his brethren are going to throw gasoline on the fire, and they do not know what they are doing. Please pray that they see the error of their ways. In the Anglican tradition, bishops control their own diocese ... and other bishops always ask permission before coming.

Suheil said that Peter and co would be welcome as pilgrims, but please go elsewhere to hold the conference. Perhaps if they are willing to humble themselves as pilgrims, they will learn.

Catholic cleric comes out against Jewish state

As reported by JTA, a Jewish news service:

The Roman Catholic Church's top cleric in the Holy Land said Israel should not be designated a Jewish state.

Latin Patriarch Michel Sabbah came out this week against the Olmert government's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state before peace talks can proceed.

"God made this land for all three of us so a suitable state is one who can adapt itself to the vocation of this land," said Sabbah, an Arab who was born in the northern Israeli town of Nazareth and who regularly officiates at religious events in the Palestinian Authority town of Bethlehem.

"If it's Jewish, it's not Muslim or Christian," he told reporters.

Sabbah had no word on whether a future Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip should not be allowed to favor Muslims given those territories' sanctity to Jews and Christians.

Israel guarantees freedom of worship to all faiths.



My position is this. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is illegal, and Israel must remove all settlements, remove the wall, and withdraw to the 1967 boundaries, aka the Green Line. Israel should also renounce an exclusive claim to Jerusalem.

However, Muslims and Christians would do well to remember that, like Indigenous peoples, many Jews derive their identity from their land. For many Jews, there is no option other than for Israel to be a Jewish state. Jewishness is more than just a religion, and more than just an ethnicity. It is an identity.

Now, of course, that identity can be misused for political gain, and there are those in Israel who are doing so. As I said earlier, a people who have been persecuted will often revisit the oppressive ways they have learned on others. However, Christians and Muslims would do well to gain some understanding of what it means to be Jewish, and what the Jewish people have suffered through the centuries. It won't produce any easy solution to the Middle East crisis, but it will produce understanding.

Pray for the Middle East.

Pat Robertson: Don't divide Jerusalem

Pat Robertson, the notorious quack theologian, has something to say about Jerusalem.


Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Monday that the United States will risk God's wrath if it forces Israel to surrender part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

"He that touches Jerusalem touches the apple of God's eye," Robertson said on "The 700 Club," the daily religious news-and-talk television program he hosts from his Christian Broadcasting Network.

"And if we decide we're going to wrest East Jerusalem away from the Jews and give it over to the Palestinians, we're risking the wrath of God on this nation, and I think it's very dangerous," Robertson said.

Robertson made the remarks after watching a CBN news segment about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's meeting Monday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Rice said the creation of a Palestinian state is a top U.S. interest. Also Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hinted that he is ready to share control of Jerusalem, saying for the first time that Israel could do without controlling some of the holy city's outlying Arab neighborhoods.

Robertson triggered outrage last year by suggesting that former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's punishment for ordering Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. Robertson later apologized.

In August 2005, Robertson was criticized for suggesting that U.S. agents should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Prayers for Abbas and Olmert

From the Int'l Herald Tribune

JERICHO, West Bank: Ehud Olmert on Monday became the first Israeli prime minister to visit a Palestinian town since the outbreak of fighting seven years ago, meeting under heavy guard with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas here to talk about the creation of a Palestinian state.

Olmert took a security risk in coming to the desert town but also gave a symbolic boost to Abbas, who stands to gain stature by playing host to Olmert on his turf.

Accompanied by two helicopters, Olmert arrived by motorcade at a five-star hotel just a few hundred yards from a permanent Israeli Army checkpoint on the outskirts of Jericho.

The meeting was held in one of the West Bank's most peaceful areas. But it still posed a challenge to Olmert's security detail, since the West Bank cities are controlled by Abbas's weak police forces, which in June failed to prevent Hamas militants from seizing the Gaza Strip by force.

The meeting also tested renewed Israeli-Palestinian security coordination in the West Bank following the fall of Gaza to Hamas. The Israeli Army sealed checkpoints around Jericho, while Palestinian police blocked roads around the hotel.


The Abbas-Olmert meeting was one in a series of sessions meant to prepare for an international conference on the Middle East in the United States in November. The two sides, however, appeared to have conflicting expectations.

The Palestinians hoped the two leaders would sketch the outlines of a final peace deal to be presented to the U.S. conference, a Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said Monday.

The four core issues of a future peace deal are the final borders of a Palestinian state, a division of Jerusalem, a removal of Israeli settlements and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

"What they need to do is to establish the parameters for solving all these issues," Erekat said. "Once the parameters are established, then it can be deferred to experts" for drafting.

But David Baker, an official in Olmert's office, said the core issues would not be discussed now. The leaders would discuss humanitarian aid to the Palestinians and Israeli security concerns, as well as the institutions of a future Palestinian state, Baker said.

Both sides said the meeting would also deal with easing daily life in the West Bank, including the removal of some of the checkpoints erected after the outbreak of the second Palestinian uprising in September 2000.

Abbas and Olmert previously agreed to try to restore the situation to what it was before the uprising, including returning full Palestinian control over West Bank towns and cities.

However, the Israeli military has been slow to dismantle roadblocks or ease control over Palestinian towns, citing concerns that Abbas's forces are too weak to prevent attacks on Israelis.

Illustrating the issue, Olmert's motorcade passed through one of the army's checkpoints, at the entrance to Jericho. The checkpoint was erected after the outbreak of the uprising and has controlled Palestinian traffic in and out of the town ever since, often causing long delays for motorists.

The last meeting between Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Palestinian soil was in 2000, when then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel held talks with Abbas's predecessor, the late Yasser Arafat, in the West Bank town of Ramallah.

The meeting is part of a recent flurry of peace efforts sparked by Hamas's takeover of Gaza in June, after a five-day rout of Abbas's Fatah movement.

The Hamas victory led Abbas to form a moderate government in the West Bank, which has received broad international backing, while Hamas has remained largely isolated in Gaza.

Abbas welcomes freed Palestinian prisoners

From ABC Australia. Pray for all other Palestinian prisoners held by the Israelis, regardless of whether they have "blood on their hands" or not. And pray for Israeli hostages held by the Palestinians, such as CPL Gilad Shalit.


The Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has welcomed more than 250 Palestinans to the West Bank after they were released from prisons in Israel.

Israel has released the prisoners to help strengthen ties with Mr Abbas.

The most well known of the prisoners released, Abdel Rahim Malluh from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine movement, was the first to arrive and was ushered straight in to the President's offices.

He was originally jailed for being a member of a militant group.

He does not have what Israel calls "blood on his hands".

There are thousands more in Israeli prisons, many being held without charge.

Most of those released this morning also belong to the President's Fatah Party, drawing severe criticism from other parties, especially Hamas.