News,
Statements and Events from the JPF
10/11/00
JPF STATEMENT ON RECENT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN VIOLENCE
The JPF deplores the recent violence between Israeli
Jews and Palestinians. Neither side is blameless. Palestinian dissemination
of anti-Semitic canards and hatred is as deplorable as is their resort
to rocks and bullets, which have also killed a number of Israelis. Nor
have Arafat and the Palestinian Authority responded adequately to the
Barak government’s offer of an overall peace settlement within the
context of the imperfect, but viable Oslo agreement. Meanwhile, Israel,
with its powerful military force, is also to blame for its harsh tactics
that have left scores of Palestinians dead. Indeed, Israel is suffering
the consequences of decades of unjust occupation policies such as expropriation
of Palestinian property, destruction of Palestinian homes and the use
of torture.
Our hope is that the violence stops and a truce restored. Finally, we
urge the immediate renewal of peace negotiations, which we hope will lead
to a sharing of Jerusalem and an independent state for Palestinians in
return for a complete end to armed hostility among the children of Abraham.
There is no rational alternative.
Return to the Top of the
Page
Letter from Israel
By Yehezkel Landau
RAMLE. One good sign in recent days is that the violence WITHIN Israel is
abating, and efforts are being made to heal the wounds before they fester,
thereby salvaging the fragile framework of Jewish-Arab relations within
the state. In Ramle, a mixed city, we at Open House [www.openhouse.org.il]
are working with the mayor and other civic leaders to keep the situation
calm. Young Jewish rowdies marched through the streets a few days ago shouting
anti-Arab slogans, a synagogue was firebombed (with no damage) and then
an Arab school was seriously damaged by arson. Many coexistence activists
throughout Israel are depressed and disoriented, wondering how to proceed.
It’s clear that the folkloristic meetings over humus and Middle Eastern
music will have to give way to serious discussions about justice and equality
for Israeli Palestinians.
That may finally happen after the shock therapy of the recent violence.
I certainly hope so. Yet there is still no Arab minister in an Israeli
government and Barak has
treated the Arab Knesset members with close to contempt since his election,
assuming that they would support him so long as the peace process continued.
They are not in his pocket, however, and he needs their support more than
ever. But even more importantly, on the local level, especially where
Jews and Arabs have fought in the streets, a new awareness has to bring
about a radically different policy—expressed not only in "affirmative
action" programs and budgets, but also in measures honoring the community
and its culture.
Palestinian history and literature must be taught in Arab schools and
also in Jewish schools, and some effort made at the top to encourage a
few more integrated schools (there are only 3-4 in the whole country).
And would it be too much to dream that Arabic will finally be taught in
all Jewish schools, just as Hebrew is required for all Arabic pupils?
This effort to think seriously about fully integrating Arab citizens into
Israeli society is the one point of light, or hope, that I can see in
the darkness and despair of recent events.
But, of course, that may also be lost or eclipsed if the situation deteriorates
further between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The mutual demonization
is rampant (exacerbated by the media on both sides) and people are succumbing
to either despair or rage—that is, the liberal humanists are immobilized
by the scale of violence and what it signifies, while those who were already
angry (on either side) are energized to add their venom to an already
pathological situation.
My fear about the Oslo process was based mainly on a conviction that the
premise behind the process was fatally flawed. An incrementalist approach
of slow "confidence-building" measures was chosen, rather than
a bold attempt to articulate, at the outset, a moral foundation based
on a single standard of justice, i.e., two states for two peoples. Had
the Palestinians been assured in 1993 that an independent state was their
collective right and that this was also in Israel’s self-interest,
with the necessary security guarantees built in, they might have trusted
it more.
Instead, Israel—until recently, and certainly under Netanyahu, who
was brought to power with the help of Hamas suicide bombers—was at
best ambiguous about this end-result, and the daily humiliation suffered
by Palestinians at army checkpoints, plus other dehumanizing measures
too numerous to detail here, squeezed the life out of the so-called peace
process from our side. From theirs, the Palestinians kept up their incitement
throughout and failed to really reconcile themselves to Israel’s
existence, let alone legitimacy. Only the elites talked and very little
filtered down to the streets. It was just a matter of time before the
explosion came. And now the leaders are trying to figure out what to do.
The major political responsibility for the present crisis is Arafat’s
(as Thomas Friedman argued in the NY Times, Arafat has to choose between
perpetual victim and farsighted statesman) but it might have been avoided
if the moral/spiritual foundations for the negotiations had been stronger.
One example: If Barak had not been so insistent in denying ANY Israeli
responsibility for the refugee problem in 1948. Part of our problem is
that we Israelis elect former generals as our leaders, at the national
and municipal levels, and their mindset is conditioned by the professional
assignment of thwarting the worst-case scenario rather than imagining,
and bringing about, the best-case alternative. And so we are in a "pre-emptive
strike" mentality, which distorts the Golden Rule into: "Do
unto others before they get a chance to do it worse unto you."
And now the karma, on both sides, has caught up with us. We will either
see ourselves, as Israelis and Palestinians, for what we really are or
have become, or there is no chance whatsoever in changing the script and
reinforcing what is noble and virtuous in both peoples. With God’s
help, we can still experience that transformation, but it seems noting
short of miraculous at this fateful moment. The deeper challenges are
still ahead of us and require more visionary leadership than we are
blessed with….
Return to the Top of the
Page
The Bereaved
Families Forum -- A Special Dialog Group
by Yitzhak Frankenthal
The Bereaved Families’ Forum ("Bereaved Parents Circle)
was founded by Israeli businessman Yitzhak Frankenthal [frankent@
netvision.net.il; fax: 972-8-9285060] Whose son was killed by Palestinians
while serving in the Israeli army. Members are Palestinians and Israelis
who have lost loved ones in he conflict. They have held numerous dialogs
and taken joint action for peace and continue to do so, even in the midst
of the turmoil now gripping Israel and Palestine.
Recently, Bereaved Families’ Forum member Roni and Mira Hirshenson
lost a second son to the conflict, after losing one son in the Beit Lid
bombing of 1995. Their son El’ad committed suicide after his best
friend was killed while serving in the IDF at the infamous Netzarim junction
outpost which protects the Netzarim settlement in Gaza. Yitzhak Frankenthal.
Wrote about this sad event to settlers at Netzarim, asking them if land
is more precious than human life.
The Bereaved Families’ Forum and Yitzhak Frankenthal have developed
an analysis of the current situation, solutions, means of implementation,
a timetable for action and need for financial assistance. [http://www.mideastweb.org/Bereaved_Families_Forum.htm]
Those interested in additional information about contributing to the BFF
should contact P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Avenue,
Suite 607, New York, NY 10017.
Following is Y. Frankenthal’s letter to the residents of the Netzarim
settlement.
Return to the Top of the Page
10/11/00
Bereaved Families' Forum
Letter to Netzarim Settlers
B.H. Sukkot, Wednesday, 18th October 2000
To the Netzarim Residents,
Today at approximately 8 am I received a call from my beloved friend and
colleague Roni Hirshenson informing me that his son El'ad committed suicide.
El'ad left a letter in which he wrote that he cannot continue living after
the death of his best friend David who fell in Netzarim a day before Rosh
Hashanna. Roni and Miri, El'ad's parents, buried a son Amir, killed in the Beit-Lid
bombing, in January l995 and now they bury their second son El'ad.
I am writing this letter from the bottom of my heart, shaking with fury,
and my soul is trembling from the sound of the sand sacks being emptied
over the coffin. Look what has happened to our people and country owing
to the absence of peace. The absence of peace has killed Amir in an act
of terror, my own son Arik was killed by the Hamas in July 1994 and many
others have fallen due to the absence of peace. In the past month over
100 people were killed due to the absence of peace. El'ad's best friend
has also fallen in Netzarim due to the absence of peace. And now, El'ad
has taken his own life only because his best friend David fell in Netzarim.
Any sane individual knows that Netzarim will be evacuated when peace will
be reached between ourselves and the Palestinians, just as Yamit was evacuated,
just as the Sinai was evacuated. Why in God's mercy do you continue to
inhabit this cursed place that has demanded so many lives? Where is your
mercy on the children who are in peril? Where is your mercy for a mother
who buried two of her children? Is God's spirit within you? Is your God
the belief in a messianic settlement that has nothing to do with the security
of Israel? It is virtually paganism that children are being sacrificed
to false gods, and please do not tell me that all your compassion is directed
to me and therefore you have no compassion for the children of Israel.
I do not need your compassion, I need your understanding, the understanding
that your conduct led to countless tragedies to the People of Israel.
You really believe that you are protecting the security of Tel-Aviv, but
this is just a myth. The citizens of Tel-Aviv do not need your protection,
what they need is protection from you. Do you really think that security
will prevail in Israel without peace, that there can be peace without
very painful compromises? In any case, the state of affairs as it stands
today where settlements in the Gaza Strip is not acceptable. Do you find
any living your present standard of living level whilst your neighbors
exist at the level maintained in the forties? Had we been in the place
of the Palestinians would we have not done more and more acts of terror
in order to get our own state? Why should the Palestinians be any different?
Again, please don't tell me that I am a defeatist and that I am prepared
to surrender mother-earth and that I want peace at any cost and that I
do not understand, the course of history. Not at all, I have been "fighting"
for peace together with Roni for many years, not just recently, and we
have been doing so in order to prevent more and more unnecessary deaths.
For us, the Land of Israel is very important and beloved. A land where
our children can live not a land that consumes its children. Is land more
important than a human being? What makes you believe that this forsaken
damned hole - Netzarim - that has cost so many lives, is worth bringing
our children to the slaughter? Can you not understand that your path leads
to the slaughter of our children? Please, Brothers, do not regard us as
your enemies, you are our brothers and we understand very well the meaning
of peace. We understand that peace will only prevail if we make painful
compromises, but we also know that most of our settler brothers will eventually
be annexed to Israel and will become an inseparable part of the State
of Israel. Even if we have to compromise on Jerusalem in order to make
peace, even if in the Old City only the Wailing Wall and the Jewish Quarter
will remain under Israeli
sovereignty, and the rest will come under Palestinian sovereignty, the
price of peace is worth paying because the People of Israel have never
worshipped sovereignty but God. Please my Brothers, do not think that
we fail to understand the meaning of the term "To serve the Lord".
For a father that says Kadish for his son, that says Yitgadal Veitkadash
Shemaya Raba near his grave like Roni and I did, there is no doubt that
we serve the Lord as otherwise we would not have blessed the Lord for
the death of our children.
I rest the full responsibility for this terrible bloodshed, where our
children are killed in Netzarim solely at your door, residents of Netzarim.
I am sure that the Lord will know how to repay you properly.
Finally I want to quote Miri, El'ad's mother who cried at her son's grave
"Whoever heard of a mother that buries her son, and whoever saw and
heard of a mother that buries two sons?". "Instead of leading
my sons to the Chuppah I am burying them". "Whom shall I cry
for first, Amir or El'ad? I have brought children into the world to give
them life. I sent them to the army alive and they returned dead. Whoever
heard of a country that gives up its children to indulge the land? Don't
pour soil over El'ad, don't soil his hair, only a week ago I bought him
a new pair of shoes, and he had not yet worn them. I am a mother that
cares for her children, how can I leave El'ad here? How can I eat whilst
he is in his grave? I had five children, and I am left with three. Ever
since David died in Netzarim 20 days ago you wrote him a daily letter.
How can I be at home whilst Amir and El'ad are here on Mount Hertzel?
Whose grave shall I visit first? Amir's or El'ad's? I have lost the strength
to go on living. What for? Whoever dreamt that I will be visited twice?
"Thank you, Netzarim's settlers, a straight red line is drawn from
Netzarim to Mount Hertzel. I have brought up my children to contribute
to the country, and what did I get in return? Two coffins, two graves,
and they were only 19, didn't even reach the age of 20. I will not be
ironing any more shirts for them, won't make their beds, two empty rooms
at home."
Before we left the cemetery my beloved Roni turned to me and asked to
send you a letter. I hope I have succeeded, even partially, to convey
to you the painful feelings we foster on the loss of our sons. I beg you,
please, take your belongings and come back to Israel. Come back and help
build a democratic society that will address the terrible social hardships
we face. You have an enormous potential to become leaders of brotherhood
and friendship in the country, but today you act as Angels of Death to
our children. Today you are the messengers of the devil who says "better
land than man". Please, wake up, before God forbid we will bury more
children.
With heartache and terrible disappointment at you.
Yitzhak Frankenthal - Gimzo.
Return to the Top of the Page
They Won't Go
"Pacifism Amid the Ranks: Some Israeli Resist Service" was the
headline in Newsday (November, 2000). After mentioning Noam Kuzar, the
19-year-old conscript who refused to serve in the occupied territories
of Gaza and the West Bank and was given a 28-day prison sentence (see
Shalom, Autumn-Winter, 2000) correspondent Edward A. Gargan notes that,
"Israeli society and the army are grudgingly coming to recognize
that the refusal to bear arms does not constitute treason," and then
quotes Yaron Ezrahi, a Hebrew University political scientist as saying,
" After the Holocaust, with the establishment of Israel, the idea
of pacifism appeared as anti-Jewish and anti-patriotic. Who’s going
to defend our children, went the argument [against recognizing conscientious
objection in Israel]. It has taken some time for the State of Israel to
realize that pacifism can be a profound human conviction, that it is a
way of life for some individuals."
Return to the Top of the Page
Just Published!
Running Guns: The Global Black Market in Small Arms, edited by Lora Lumpe
(International Peace Research Institute (PRIO), Oslo, Norway (Palgrave/St.
Martin’s Press, $22.00).
"Whether in Africa, Sri Lanka, Colombia or the U.S., it is not heavy
weaponry or hi-tech devices that kill the most people, but cheap, easy
to get, small arms that have flooded so many countries in the 1980s and
90s." Much of this shadowy trade is illegal and the U.S., together
with Canada and Mexico, are now urging that a global pact be negotiated
to control this trade. In addition, the UN General Assembly wants to have
a major conference on this traffic next year. Running Guns explains in
intelligible detail how the illegal weapons business works and, most significantly,
how it can be controlled.
Return to the Top of the Page
We're Number One!
The U.S. retained its lead as the top exporter of weapons to all countries
in 1999, reports the Arms Sales Monitor (November 2000). Next is Russia,
followed by Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy. South Africa,
by the way, imports the most arms among "developing nations,"
followed by Egypt, Israel, China, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Singapore,
Taiwan and the United Arab Emirates. And then everyone wonders why wars
and revolutions start and continue year after year, decade after decade.
Everything Must Go!: Arms Trade Insider #39
By Luke Warren
January 19, 2001
In Final Hours as President, Clinton Promises Israel the Not-Yet-Built
F-22.
Despite reluctance from some on Capitol Hill to start full-scale production,
President Clinton today promised Israel that it would be the first country
to purchase the United States' most advanced fighter aircraft, the F-22
Raptor. Even had he not already lifted almost every U.S. arms export barrier,
the promise to sell the radar-evading, stealth aircraft to Israel would
solidify Clinton's legacy as the most arms export happy President in U.S.
history.
It is unprecedented for a U.S. president to promise the most technologically
advanced weapon in the world to a foreign country before it has been produced.
While Clinton's promise does not bind the new administration to sell the
jets to Israel, it puts the new President in a very difficult position.
If Congress decides to build the troubled F-22, it will be difficult for
future administrations to refuse to sell the jet to Israel.
Even worse, Mr. Clinton has now put the United States in an arms race
with itself. First, the the United Arab Emirates purchased F-16s superior
to our own. Now the F-22 could be sold to Israel. It is not unconceivable
that Saudi Arabia will next be in line for our most sophisticated aircraft.
Before the F-22 is even built, America's defense companies will have to
start designing an even more advance plane. No longer is the Soviet Union
driving the Pentagon's quest for better and better weapons, it is our
own arms exports.
In his final days in office, President Clinton has frantically maneuvered
to solidify his legacy on domestic issues. But his most peculiar legacy
may be the contradictory role he played as Middle East arms dealer and
peace broker. While the soon to be ex-President submerged himself into
the minutiae of Middle East peace politics, he also shuttled his Secretary
of Defense around the region to sell American weapons. Even the vice-President
got involved in the act in May 1998 when he presided over a rose garden
celebration of the UAE decision to purchase 80 F-16 fighter jets worth
over $7 billion.
Clinton did not, however, only hang out the "Arms for Sale! Everything
Must Go!" shingle for Middle Eastern customers. He also lifted a
ban on the sale of high-tech weaponry to Latin America, in place since
the Carter administration. As a result, the administration indicated just
weeks ago that it would approve the sale of nearly a dozen F-16 fighter
jets to Chile.
Some might characterize Clinton's foreign policy as a disorganized failure.
But when it came to the sale of lethal weaponry, this administration did
almost everything it could, short of selling fighter aircraft to Iran,
to keep America the world's number one arms dealer.
www.clw.org/cat/
Contact:
Council for a Livable World
Erik Floden - 202.546.0795 x.110, mobile - 202-425-0475
Luke Warren - 202.546.0795 x.127, home - 202-543-7270
Return to the Top of the Page
Another Critic
During the recent award ceremony at the annual International Book Fair,
writer Susan Sontag, receiving the Jerusalem Prize, voiced her criticism
of Israel's "disproportionate use of fire power" against Palestinians.
"I believe the doctrine of collective responsibility as a rationale
for collective punishment is never justified, militarily or ethically,"
she said, adding that until the cessation of construction, and later abandonment,
of Jewish settlements, peace will remain a distant and unachievable goal,
reported Ha'aretz on May 10, 2001.
A Call to the International Community of Conscience
This June, peace activists the world over will mark Israel's 34th year
of occupation by a series of public actions in Israel, Palestine and cities
throughout the world. Women in Black invite you to join in solidarity
with an event sponsored by the Coalition of Women for a Just Peace.
0n or about June 8, 2001, "Women in Black" vigils will be held
calling for an immediate end to the occupation. Vigils will be in San
Francisco, West Jerusalem, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Melbourne and
Toronto. Others are forming.
You are encouraged to conduct a vigil wherever you live. The principle
is simple, and can be done by one or more persons. Wear black, hold signs
that say "End the Israeli Occupation," and stand for one hour
in a public location. Our message: We are outraged at the escalating violence
and 34 years of occupation. This occupation is unacceptable. Period.
If you are planning a vigil in your city or town, please contact Bat Shalom
(batshalo@netvision.net.il)
immediately! Tell them the location, city and country; contact person's
name and email adderess and phone number.
P.S. Bat Shalom and Women in Black received the Jewish Peace Fellowship's
Jewish Peacekeeper Awards on May 6, 2001.
Return to the Top of the Page
A Different World Requires A Different Response
By Jonathan K. Crane
The little black tabs clacked, waiting patiently in their places. The
lever swung back to the other side, sealing my choices into some mysterious
memory bank. I swept the voting booth curtain aside, thanked the volunteers,
and walked outside. It was a beautiful day…until I looked up. It
was September 11th. Smoke everywhere. Flames gutted the towers. Sirens.
Terror. My mind grew numb.
Now, after many memorial services, solidarity rallies, holding mourners'
hands, intense conversations, late nights with the news, and walking the
acrid streets, I feel conflicted.
In some ways I can now imagine a bit of how Noah may have reacted as he
emerged from the ark.
First, he didn't choose the flood. He didn't call this deluge of destruction
upon himself or the world. Even though God revealed reasons for this flood,
Noah must have wondered if it was truly justified.
Second, upon surviving the devastation, his immediate impulse was to give
thanks to God.
Third, as Noah emerged into a new reality he sought to re-create a sense
of normalcy and comfort by returning to old habits.
Like Noah, I wondered why this catastrophe had occurred. I found little
solace in political, economic or theological explanations. I wondered,
too, why I survived.
Like Noah, I thanked God for somehow enabling me, my loved ones, friends
and colleagues to survive. Gratitude is a profound emotion. I was forced
to acknowledge life's fragility, and appreciate in new ways the preciousness
of life. I found that we are not alone.
Like Noah, I sense that the world we now step into is similar to, yet
fundamentally unlike the world that existed before the calamity. Yet I
worry that we'll slip back into old habits.
Imagine Noah's bittersweet elation in realizing that he, but not others,
had survived, and in addition, receiving God's blessing. Still, this was
contingent on certain restrictions.
Think, too, of Noah's sense of empowerment as God declared a covenant
with humanity and all creation. Like the blessing, this covenant also
imposed restraints, but this time on God. God has the capacity to destroy
humanity, even again, but voluntarily refrains from exacting such devastation.
Yet a piece of the old reality lurked right below the surface even within
this New World. Nestled in the belly of the human soul lies an inclination
to commit evil acts.
It was this that sparked God's decision to destroy most of humanity. "God said privately, I will not continue cursing the ground because
of humanity, for the impulse of the human mind is evil from its youth."
The human soul is indeed endowed with both the tendencies to destroy yet
also to do good, as witnessed by our constant wrestling to reconcile these
twin impulses.
Toward what kind of evil does the inclination toward evil tug and pull
us? Martin Buber differentiates between unintentional evil - actions we
"slide into" - such as a careless word, a knee-jerk reaction.
The other kind of evil is intentional, consciously chosen, even when it
is recognized as something to be rejected. This kind he calls radical
evil.
As we face our new reality, with radical evil never seen before in the
U.S., we must respond. But how? And what will we do with our inclination
toward evil? We do have options: fear is one alternative; anger is another.
If we are fueled only by our anger, an inclination to commit evil acts
can lead to mosques being doused in gasoline and immigrants detained without
access to attorneys.
Fear could lead to greater restrictions imposed on others, and ourselves
like the freedom of movement, or privacy of information - all in the name
of "security." In the immediate aftermath of September 11th
a poll showed that nearly a third of Americans favored rounding up Arab
Americans for confinement, echoing the treatment of Japanese Americans
in the Second World War.
One of the questions I fear going relatively unnoticed is the potential
grain of truth in other cultures' complaints against our country. Should
we not stop to wonder why there are so many people around the world who
so hate Western, American, "secular" culture - against which
they would be willing to kill and be killed? Is it possible that the suffering
they endure, real or imagined, could be linked to the policies and culture
we export? Even though they may have explanations for their hate, terrorist
activity is never justified but we can cope with our anger by confronting
our behavior abroad. Seeking justice is primary at this time and our need
is to bring the terrorists to justice. All the same, our challenge is
to respect the sanctity of human life. The pursuit of justice cannot justify
destruction of innocents euphemistically called "collateral damage."
We can quell our fears by reaching out to our neighbors who have been
targeted for blame - especially Muslim, Sikh and Arab Americans - and
make them sacred unto us by engaging in dialogue in pursuit of meaningful
relationships. We can take care of our future by maneuvering our investments
into projects that improve the welfare of the least well off both here
and abroad.
Yet the vital question remains: How can we respond to radical evil and
still be moral? In the first part of the 20th century, Mahatma Gandhi
developed what he thought would be an effective and efficient technique
to face evil. It was Satyagraha, active nonviolent noncooperation. Echoing
Jewish belief, Gandhi acknowledges that every human being is endowed with
good and evil impulses. Satyagraha, then, could be applied both internally,
as well as collectively, in the struggle for a more peaceful world.
Using nonviolent noncooperation, Gandhi mobilized millions and toppled
the world's greatest empire without firing a gun. He understood that any
person, organization or government was powerful only because others consented
to cede power to them - either by coercion or voluntarily. By training
people to nonviolently withdraw their support for the government, Gandhi
dismantled British power.
This tactic has subsequently proved successful in the Polish Solidarity
movement of the 1980s, in Argentina and Chile against repressive military
governments, in South Africa, the Philippines, in the USSR by Soviet Jews,
and many other places around the globe.
Imagine what could be done with the billions of dollars and hundreds of
thousands of highly trained professionals being pumped into the military
war machine right now - if those resources were invested instead in training
Afghanis to nonviolently noncooperate with the Taliban.
Imagine what could be done if those resources were devoted to educating
and encouraging Muslim women to engage in Lysistratic strikes - the withholding
of sexual relations - to convince their bellicose menfolk to abandon guns
as tools for social change.
Imagine what could be done if those massive resources were funneled into
mobilizing the Muslim world, which, for the most part, rejects fanatical
fundamentalism and terrorism.
Dismantling terrorist power requires few, if any guns. Rather, it requires
creative thinking, persuasive talking and meaningful human-to-human contact.
A nonviolent victory will certainly involve a willingness to suffer for
a cause, possibly even die for one. But, does anyone need to be ready
to kill?
Thinking a response dominated by military force can somehow cleanse modern
civilization of people who perpetrate radical evil is thinking it possible
to excise the evil inclination from our souls. Again and again our country
has supported militant despots by giving them military training, weapons
and large checks to wage war against people, their own and others. And
then we are astonished when some of them turn on their suppliers.
History proves that more often than not military action alone does not
solve the problem of radical evil; in fact, military action has unquestionably
exacerbated it - especially in the case of terrorism. Consider that the
Taliban is the unintentional, but direct legacy of the U.S.'s military
strategy to recruit radical Muslims around the world to fight the Soviets
in Afghanistan. Among those recruits was a young Osama bin Laden.
Perhaps a response dominated by sophisticated active nonviolent noncooperation
could be more successful - if given a reasonable chance and adequate resources.
At least we would not be creating more enemies trained and supplied in
the grotesque art of war.
No doubt it would be easier and possibly more comforting for some to give
in to our evil inclinations, to act emotionally seeking vengeance. To
me, the story of Noah is about restraining our evil inclinations - not
resorting to old, violent responses; about choosing differently, and not
being blinded by our fears.
According to Bereshit Rabbah, by seeing how awful force was, God turned
the divine bow of violence away from humanity, as seen in the convex arc
of the rainbow.
And just as God decided that violent force was not the best way to change
human nature or human history, perhaps our task, despite our misgivings,
is to lower the level of violence. Now, more than ever, we have a chance
to stretch the arc of compassion out to all humanity.
Jonathan K. Crane, a Wexner Graduate Fellow, is a fourth-year rabbinic
student at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York.
His previous studies focused on international peace studies (M.A., Notre
Dame) and Gandhian Philosophy (M.Phil., Gujarat Vidyapith).
Return to the Top of the Page
An Orthodox Jewish Pacifist
By Gerson L. Silver
My grandfather, Eliezer Silver, ztl, was a well-known Orthodox pacifist.
He was the leader of the majority of Orthodox Jews in the U.S. and Canada
until his death in 1968. I learned from him (for example) that he relied
on his Halakhic expertise to state publicly that it was wrong to have
a Chief Rabbi of the Israeli army because no Jewish army, due to the defensive
or offensive violence it may well be engaged in, can have a Chief Rabbi.
Nor did he believe in having a Chief Rabbi of Israel, since any Chief
Rabbi is inevitably beholden to politicians and makes a mockery of Judaism
by rendering religious judgments, based not on Halakha, but on which Israeli
political party named him Chief Rabbi.
Indeed, he worried that many of Israel's Orthodox Jews would in time come
to worship violence and the gun, instead of praying to G-d for help, guidance
and forgiveness. His worries came true when an Orthodox Jews murdered
PM Rabin and an 0rthodox Jewish doctor entered a Mosque and killed scores
of praying Moslems before being beaten to death. Today's civil war between
Israeli Jews and Palestinians Christians and Moslems are yet another example.
My grandfather was born in Lithuania in 1882, where he studied under many
prominent rabbis. Arriving in the U.S. in 1907, he served as a congregational
rabbi in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Ohio. The Encyclopedia Judaica
entry describes him as a "leading spokesman for Orthodoxy on the
American scene."
In 1923 he was elected head of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis and also established
the U.S. arm of Agudat Israel in 1939 and became its first president.
During WWII, he organized Va'ad Hazzalah and helped save Jews threatened
by the invading Nazis. Under my grandfather's leadership, reported the
Cincinnati Post (May 11, 1999), he helped saved thousands of European
Jews after he and the Vaa'd "turned to unorthodox-and in some cases
illegal channels. "Sympathetic foreign diplomats provided fake visas
for perilous immigration routes; counterfeiters were paid to produce phony
passports." Va'ad even dealt with Nazis representatives in Switzerland
in order to have concentration camp prisoners freed in exchange for money
and tractors, an act that liberated hundreds of enslaved from death camps.
"Rabbi Silver," noted the Post, "driven by the biblical
admonition against standing idly by a brother's blood, made no apologies
for violating the Trading With the Enemy Act."
"We are prepared to violate many laws…to save lives," he
declared….We are ready to smuggle Jewish children over the borders…to
smuggle money illegally into enemy territory in order to bribe as many
as necessary of the killers of the Jewish people, these dregs of humanity."
In 1943, he continued his efforts to save Europe' Jews from slaughter
by organizing a mass public rally of Orthodox Jews in Washington, one
of the earliest public lobbying sights in the capital city. In the end,
the rally led President Roosevelt to establish the War Refugee Board,
which eventually saved many more. After the war, the U.S. named him its
representative to aid wartime survivors. He also continued offering assistance
to many yeshivas that were transplanted to Israel.
The reason that Modern Orthodox Jewish circles have not brought his or
other leading Orthodox pacifists to JPF's attention is that my grandfather
was the leader (as were other Orthodox pacifists of his time and indeed
today as well) of the Agudas Harabonim, the "older" Orthodox
rabbinical group.
Modern Orthodox Jews in this country have, for most part, a need to fit
in with other Jews and Gentiles in physical appearance. They seem to act
as if they never heard of the Agudas Harabonim of the U.S. and Canada,
because the membership and leadership look like Hassidic rabbis (and whose
membership is comprised of Hassidic and non-Hassidic Orthodox rabbis).
Agudas Harabonim has condemned the religious political party system in
Israel and has maintained that pacifism is in fact central to being a
Jews, a fact which has been ignored and abandoned by the current Orthodox
leadership and members.
Some years ago, the University of Cincinnati Hillel House honored my grandfather
by naming an entrance walk into Hillel House after him. He was chosen
because of his dedication to pacifism as a Judaic mandate, for his rescue
work of wartime refugees, and for his public objection to the execution
of the Rosenbergs.
My grandfather should be honored as well by the JPF and other humane Jewish
organizations so as to encourage Orthodox Jewish pacifists in Israel and
the U. S. - and they do exist-and also to educate Jews and non-Jews that
all branches of Judaism have pacifist leaders and scholars.
For further information about Rabbi Eliezer Silver and his generation,
see The Silver Era by Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkopf (Yeshiva University Press/Feldheim
Publishers, 1981) and Encyclopedia Judaica, pp.1546-1545.
Gerson L. Silver's Conscientious Objector statement appeared in Call to
Conscience: Jews, Judaism & Conscientious Objection, by Rabbi Albert
S. Axelrad (Ktav/JPF, 1986), IX, pp.172-176. He also wrote 'Preparing
Your Personal C.O. File, in Wrestling With Your Conscience: A Guide for
Jewish Draft Registrants & COs, edited by Murray Polner & Stefan
Merken (JPF, 2000)
Gerson L. Silver is at Gsilver400@aol.com
Return to the Top of the Page
Facing Evil
By E. James Lieberman
The horrible attack of September 11 brings the appearance of war to our
homeland for the first time since Lincoln's years. But the comparison
with Pearl Harbor--an act of war--seems futile and dangerous. The assassination
of President John F. Kennedy and the Oaklahoma City bombing are more apt
comparisons: Devastating low-budget operations carried out by skilled
ideologues. They outwitted our Intelligence and breached our lax aviation
security. This was coordinated, wholesale assassination, but "war"
is only a metaphor, perhaps an illusion.
We cannot engage in war against the primary perpetrators: they are dead
by design. Their sponsors and supporters will be hard to find. Although
no match for us in numbers and resources, they depend on us to increase
their recruitment by our own overreaction. Right now we, the only superpower
on earth, have won an outpouring of sympathy from around the world. Let's
not squander that with a show of vengeance. While we cannot expect to
be loved by the whole world, it is folly to stoke the engines of assassins.
After a good start in his address at Washington Cathedral (September 14)
President Bush said it is our duty to "rid the world of evil."
Whose definition of evil? The Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson would
start by criticizing human rights and family planning organizations that
they say offend God. To his credit Mr. Bush distanced himself from that
particular religious fanaticism but the very notion that we have a mandate
to define and destroy evil smacks of the zealotry that breeds terrorism.
Some zealous Americans would gladly strike tomorrow, to prove our strength
and shroud our mistakes; they care little about harming innocents and
instigating retaliation. If we hope to sustain outrage at the harm done
to us, we must exercise restraint rather than add to the sum total of
evil. Is the President saying that good ends--eradicating "evil"--justifies
evil means? That is the policy of terror and assassination. Let us remember
that "means are ends-in- process"--the principle of M.K.Gandhi,
who set an example of leadership by refusing to use or yield to violence.
Last week's attack will not bring us down any more than did the acts of
Lee Harvey Oswald and Timothy McVeigh. But the fact that determined assassins
can deal such a blow to a mighty nation leaves us stunned. Because the
perpertrators this time were not Americans, we call it war. The challenge
is to respond constructively, creatively. Destruction can be quick and
dramatic, while being creative and constructive is often gradual and tedious.
The week has shown that Americans are a decent and widely admired people,
though our leadership in the world has caused some consternation even
among friends, and growing hatred among foes. We are strong in technology
but come up short in psychology. We are strong in domestic diversity but
weak in our understanding of difference: Our media don't help much here.
Too few of us know a language other than English, or grasp the elements
of religions, customs and forms of government other than our own. "Liberty
and justice for all" applies only within limits. We preach democracy
and human rights, but tolerate and even support regimes that violate those
ideals. We speak of justice but refuse to be judged in a World Court.
We are strong on fairness but do not pay our dues to the United Nations.
We speak of the "family of man" but ignore a lot of our poor
relatives. We are strong on treatment and weak on prevention--in airline
security as in health care. We look in the mirror and see goodness, but
we do not understand how we are seen in much of the world. We are strong
on Intelligence but weak on empathy--the desire and ability to feel what
another feels, and to appreciate why.
People should be careful about how they use the word "senseless."
Though its means were evil and its purposes warped, the attack upon us
made sense to some or it would not have happened. Destroying such people
is tempting, but only by learning how they think and feel do we have much
chance of eliminating that kind of evil. Just as the doctor has to get
close to disease to cure or prevent it, our leaders must acknowledge the
complexity of motives to be found among individuals and groups, the vast
majority of whom, like us, want to live in peace on this miraculous but
vulnerable planet Earth.
E. James Lieberman
(Clinical Prof., Dept. of Psychiatry, George Washington Univ. School of
Medicine)
www.ottorank.com
Return to the Top of the Page
Winds of Change are in the Air
by Gershon Baskin
January 9, 2002
Over the past few weeks there has been a sudden and dramatic surge in
peace activities in Israel and Palestine. All of a sudden we are receiving
more and more requests from Palestinians for new initiatives aimed at
re-engagement and renewing the dialogue. These initiatives are coming
from officials of the Palestinian Authority and private Palestinians who
all seem to be saying that we have to get beyond the violence and begin
to rebuild a peace process. More and more people are saying that we have
to talk again.
Two weeks ago there was the march of thousands in Jerusalem organized by
the Women's Coalition for Peace (http://www.coalitionofwomen4peace.org/).
That impressive event was followed by an Israeli-Palestinian signing of
a joint call for peace under the title "Time for Peace" organized
by Prof. Sari Nusseibeh, Yossi Beilin and Yossi Sarid. More than 2,000 Israelis
and Palestinian signed the declaration including some of the leaders of
Fatah in Jerusalem and the leaders of the Democratic Front (DFLP) and many
Israeli public figures as well.
Over the past few weeks several other Israeli-Palestinian meetings have
been taking place. The President of South Africa is hosting a meeting
today of high-level Israelis and Palestinians. There was a meeting in
Rome several weeks ago with others. We in IPCRI have been hearing from
our colleagues that they are also busy with new initiatives. We in IPCRI
have a full schedule of meetings, seminars and working groups consisting
of Israelis and Palestinians officials and non-officials booked through
June 2002.
I know that it is dangerous to be optimistic. The political horizons still
look terribly bleak and there is no real reason for hope. The assessments
regarding the possibilities for peace or even for real talks at the official
level have not changed they still remain next to zero. Arafat and Sharon
are not going to change and all of a sudden embrace each other and peace.
There is, however, a sense that people who supported peace in the past
and had fallen into paralyzing despair over the past 15 months are beginning
to come out of their comas and are searching for constructive avenues
to replace their frustration and anger. We all have a right to be angry.
Instead of being where we are, nurturing our wounds and mourning for so
many deaths after 15 months of terrible violence, we should have been
enjoying the fruits of peace. This fact cannot be overlooked. But from
my contacts with many Palestinians, leaders and regular citizens, I am
hearing more and more voices that are saying that violence has not achieved
anything, in fact the violence has brought about destruction and suffering
and it must end now.
The relative calm of the past two weeks, even taking into account today's
attack against Israeli soldiers in Gaza and the ship of arms, must not
be overlooked and under-estimated. I do not believe that Arafat has made
a new strategic decision to end all violence and to come to full peace
end of conflict with Israel. But the international pressure that has been
placed on Arafat has had a substantial effect. My sense is that the majority
of Palestinians are quite pleased that the violence has been significantly
reduced and would be even happier if it ended completely. This would enable
them to return to more normal lives with the Israeli siege on their homes
ending. But we must also remember that this will not end the occupation
and as long as the occupation is continuing the fight against the occupation
will continue and should continue.
There is talk in the Israeli government about declaring that the Palestinian
Authority is an enemy authority meaning that Israel will cut all contacts
with the PA. There is no doubt in my mind that this will directly and
immediately strengthen the hands of Hamas and Jihad and will signal those
forces that support the PA that they should re-engage in violence, not
dialogue. The surest way for Sharon to continue the violent conflict is
for him to take actions that further push Arafat and the Authority into
the corner. The almost humorous Israeli government declaration regarding
Arafat's irrelevance only caused Arafat to be the most relevant irrelevant
person in the world. Never has someone so irrelevant been talked about
so much by so many people in so many capitals of the world, including
in Jerusalem. An Israeli Government decision that would declare Arafat
and the Authority as an enemy would only serve to weaken international
pressure on Arafat and bring about an end to any efforts that he is currently
making to control and lessen the level of violence. This is perhaps what
Sharon really wants. He has Netanyahu breathing down his neck. Other Likud
leaders are pushing Sharon to declare elections now while the Likud appears
to be very strong in the polls and the Labour party has become nearly
irrelevant in public opinion. But Sharon is afraid of Netanyahu's challenge.
Sharon's greatest asset is the national unity government it keeps him
strong and popular and keeps the Labour party effectively out of the game.
Sharon knows that any move towards new negotiations with the Palestinians
will lead to a quick withdrawal of the Labour Party from the government
and that will then lead to new elections. Sharon's goal is political survival.
Until now, the Palestinians have been Sharon's greatest ally in keeping
in power. His main game is to make sure that he is not forced into negotiations
with the Palestinians because he knows that he has nothing to offer them.
Even Ben Eliezer couldn't stay a passive bulldog on Sharon's leash for
much longer if the real leadership of Labour really believed that negotiations
with the Palestinians could be productive.
There is no doubt that the PA's ship of arms captured by the Israelis
was a grave mistake by Arafat and the Authority and it's is a good thing
that Israel captured the ship. These arms, should they have gotten to
those who intended to use them would have caused great pain and Israel
would have increased its retaliations against the Palestinians with great
force. The cache of arms proves to many that Arafat has not adopted a
strategy of peace. The Palestinians cannot win a military victory against
Israel and it is strategically insane for them to even try. The Palestinians
lose any claim to a moral high ground when they embrace the armed struggle.
They must aim their struggle at the hearts and minds of Israelis, most
of who still want to live in peace with a State of Palestine as a good
neighbor. Palestinian citizens should also be angry with Arafat for wasting
their very limited financial resources; about $15 million for purchasing
weapons when at the same time their economy is in shambles and poverty
is in almost every home.
Once again, as I have stated in the past few weeks, the people of Israel
and the people of Palestine must raise their voices for peace. There is
much work to be done. There are those who can do it within their own communities
and there are those who can work cross-boundary - Israelis and Palestinians
together. We must force peace onto our leaders. We also need the support
of our friends from around the world who share our hopes for peace. We
must be realistic and focused. The challenge before us is extremely difficult.
The enemies of peace, on both sides, are many and formidable. We must
develop a strategy aimed at building points of power and constituencies
for peace. We must aim at building coalitions working together sharing
information and resources. We must aim at putting women in the forefront
of the struggle. We must not lose hope, even if the struggle will take
years. We must not allow the determinism of the enemies of peace to destroy
our future. The occupation must end. Settlements must be removed. Refugees
must be given choices that answer their real needs without bringing about
the destruction of Israel. We must all reject violence and work against
those who destroy us all through their violence. We will win and there
will be peace.
Gershon Baskin, Ph.D.
Co-Director
IPCRI - Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information
P.O. Box 9321, Jerusalem 91092
Telephone: 972-2-676-9460
Fax: 972-2-676-8011
Mobile: 052-381-715
Home Page: http://www.ipcri.org
IPCRI General Email: ipcri@ipcri.org
Gershon Baskin: gershon @ipcri.org
Zakaria al Qaq: law@ipcri.org
Environment and Water Program: environment@ipcri.org
Peace Education Project: peace_education@ipcri.org
Nedal Jayousi: nedal@ipcri.org
Anat Reisman-Levy: anat@ipcri.org
Robin Twite: robin@ipcri.org
Amjad Jaouni: amjad@ipcri.org
Ronnie Cohen-Ginat: ronnie@ipcri.org
JEMS: jems@ipcri.org
Cyrien Khano: cyrien@ipcri.org
Return to the Top of the Page
Interfaith Peace-Builders Delegation to
Palestine and Israel January 25 – February 8, 2002
The Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), the largest interfaith pacifist
organization in the United States, is organizing its next Interfaith Peace-Builders
Delegation to Palestine and Israel for January 25 – February 8, 2002
to analyze United States foreign policy in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict,
to express solidarity with organizations on both sides working for a nonviolent
end to the Israeli occupation, and upon return, to educate the U.S. public
and seek to influence U.S. foreign policy. The program is co-sponsored
by the Muslim Peace Fellowship and the Jewish Peace Fellowship.
For more information about the Interfaith Peace-Builders Program, visit
www.forusa.org
Highlights of the Winter Delegation:
1. Meet with Israeli and Palestinian peace and justice and human rights
activists and political leaders
2. Engage Israeli and Palestinian political leaders in small group discussions
about the U.S. role in the conflict
3. Experience the Jewish Holiday of Tu B’Shvat, which marks the beginning
of the “new year” for trees
4. Work with Rabbis for Human Rights in a program of re-planting trees
in the West Bank that have been uprooted by Israeli forces during the
intifada
5. Visit the “hot spots” of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
and see it with your own eyes
What Should You Expect?
1. Delegations of 12-15 people with experienced leadership and accompanying
representatives from sponsoring local organizations
2. Participation in a two-day orientation at the FOR national headquarters
in Nyack, NY
3. A physically and mentally challenging program in Israel and Palestine
Who Do We Want?
1. Delegates committed to educating the public on their experience upon
retuning from the program
2. People of all ethnic and religious backgrounds committed to nonviolence
and active listening
3. Jews and Muslims, and Arabic and Hebrew speakers are especially encouraged
4. Mature, physically healthy, emotionally stable, flexible and respectful
participants 19 years of age or older
How Much Does it Cost?
The cost of $2,250 includes: 14 days, airfare from New York; hotel and
home stay accommodations, breakfasts and dinners, local transportation,
and speaker/event fees. Participants are responsible for airfare to NY,
lunches, and a supplemental room fee if they desire a single room.
Deadline for returned application forms is January 15.
For more information and an Application Form, Contact:
FOR Interfaith Peace-Builders
C/o NVI
4545 42nd St. NW, Suite 209, Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 244-0951; Fax: (202) 244-6396
E-mail: middleeast@forusa.org;
Web: www.forusa.org
Return to the Top of the Page
Pacifism: Now More Than Ever
by Philip J. Bentley
In the face of such an obvious evil as terrorism how could anyone oppose
war? Given what hap-pened on September 11, how can the American anti-war
movement opposing the bombing of Afghanistan and advocating pacifism be
justified?
Pacifism is the most misunder-stood word in the entire political lexicon.
Often confused with the word ‘passive," "pacifism"
is too often taken to mean an amoral refusal to confront and oppose evil
in the world. But the words have very different roots. While "passive"
comes from the Greek word for "suffering", "pacifism"
comes from the Latin word for "peace." Pacifism does not mean
being passive in the face of evil. On the contrary, pacifism is all about
confronting and defeating evil. Ever since Shifra and Puah refused to
obey Pharaoh’s evil command to kill all male children of Israelite
women during childbirth, people of conscience have fought evil without
resorting to violence. Moreover they have often succeeded.
Too often, pacifism’s successes, such as Gandhi’s inde-pendence
movement and Martin Luther King Jr.’s civil rights movement, are
dismissed because the pacifists are said to have been working within civilized
democratic soci-eties instead of facing "true evil." At the
same time, paci-fism’s critics accuse it of terrible failures, including
the rise of Hitler—criticisms that are absurd given the actual history
of these events.
For example, pacifism is often blamed for Neville Chamberlain’s shameful
performance at Munich. It’s true that a potent pacifist movement
arose after World War l as a reaction to the ghastly carnage of that conflict.
However, while the rhetoric of that movement was sometimes cynically adopted
by national governments, it did not actually impose its will on any of
them. In the case of Chamberlain, despite his infamous assertion that
he had brought "peace in our time," peace was hardly his mission.
England had a long his-tory of attempting to influence events by creating
a "balance of power" through its diplomatic and military policies
and actions. Chamberlain, the Conservative prime minister, followed a
policy of appeasement because he saw fascism as a force to balance the
Communism of Stalin’s Soviet Union. Doubtless he also believed that
if England and France were supportive of Hitler they would not be attacked
by the Third Reich. This was a foolish policy, and it was not pacifism.
The failure of the United States to stand up against Hitler likewise had
nothing to do with pacifism. Our nation had refused to be part of the
League of Nations because we refused to take part in any international
effort we did not control and that was seen as a violation of our national
sovereignty. We also took no part in opposing anything Germany, Italy,
or Japan did during the 1930s—at least nothing of any significance
or effect. Those Americans who did try to do something, notably in the
Spanish Civil War, were later condemned as Communist sympathizers, if
not Soviet agents. In addition to an isolation of self-interest, America
was also influenced by a racism and bigotry that were pervasive not only
among the Archie Bunkers of the time, but among the political and cultural
elite of our society. None of this was due to pacifism.
The same kind of self-interested political folly is part of American foreign
policy down to the present day. Saddam Hussein is still in power because
George Bush Sr. wanted Iraq to remain as a bulwark against Iran. In fact,
it had been United States foreign policy to support Hussein’s regime
for several years before the invasion of Kuwait. The peace movement had
been calling for an end to this support because of Hussein’s record
of oppression and violence against his own people for years before our
president suddenly realized what a villain he is. Indeed, as late as a
few weeks before the invasion, Bush opposed a bill in Congress calling
for an arms embargo against Iraq. Likewise it was American policies that
gave power to any number of international evil- doers, including the Taliban,
in pursuit of American interests.
The attitude of these political "peace-makers" can be summed
up by a quote from Franklin Delano Roosevelt. When some complained about
the tyranny of Somoza, who we had put in power in Nicaragua, FDR responded,
"He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch."
This sentiment is typical of political thinking from Chamberlain on Hitler
to Bush Jr. on the Taliban before September 11. Whatever this is, it is
not pacifism.
Pacifists are often attacked by people who seem to think the only effective
response to evil is military power. In fact military power alone is not
effective against anything except, sometimes, another military force.
Let’s go back again to World War II for some examples. The French
ignored Hitler’s rise believing that they had the means to stop him
with the Maginot Line. When Germany reoccu-pied the Rhineland, France
did nothing, yet historians note that Hitler’s orders were for his
soldiers to retreat if the French made any opposition to the move. As
it turned out, of course, the Maginot Line turned out to be as relevant
to World War II as the Polish Calvary. It was nothing more than a fortified,
concrete trench with no relevance to the Wehrmacht of the Third Reich.
The parallels with today’s missile defense program are obvious: a
grossly expensive, technically unworkable, and entirely irrelevant defense
against an enemy that no longer exists. France went along with Chamberlain’s
policy because of a belief that she had an adequate defense against Germany.
This too was not pacifism.
Since World War II we have bombed over twenty countries and not once have
we ended a dictatorship by doing so. We threw everything we had, except
nuclear weapons, against the North Vietnamese for a decade and, in the
end, we had to retreat. We destroyed the economy and infrastructure of
Iraq, but Saddam Hussein is still in power. We devas-tated Belgrade, but
we will be playing whack-a-mole with Balkan ethnic groups far into the
foreseeable future. Israel and the Palestinians have both failed to get
rights or security through violence. Sari Nusseibeh, a notable Palestinian
leader, recently said that his people’s greatest mistake has been
the idea that Israel would succumb to violence.
The bombing and invasion of Afghanistan should be opposed because it will
not work and is very likely to make matters much worse. Every American
bullet and missile fired is a gift to Osama bin Laden. We can talk all
we want about respect for Islam and Muslims, but those words will not
be believed. Al Qaeda and its allies and supporters claim that America
has declared war on Islam. The Islamic press and clergy in much of the
world speak of the Taliban as the ideal of Islamic national life. For
people who do not watch CNN, let alone Fox, an attack on the Taliban is
an attack on Islam. Our war on terrorism is likely become the World War
III that will employ weapons of mass destruction unless we find another
way. Our own government has acknowledged this danger, at least indirectly.
Nonetheless they are pursuing a military strategy that ignores the danger.
What is the alternative? First, while it seems pointless at this juncture
to argue about what we should have beet doing since the attacks on September
11, we can all agree that those outrages were criminal acts and those
who carried them out are criminals. We must do all that can be done, within
the constraints set by a democratic society, to break the support for
Al Qaeda and its allies around the world. Our aim should be to render
them virtually powerless without making martyrs of them.
Second, we must begin to think about how we can influence foreign policy
in non-military ways. The United State has become the least generous of
economic powers in the area of foreign aid. Most of the money we do allot
is for the purchase of military hardware. We need to think back to the
success of the Marshall Plan, which aimed to help our former enemies rebuild
their economies (a lesson learnt from the aftermath of World War I, when
the Allies’ attempt to keep their enemies weak, led to the rise of
fascism and Nazism). Today, the United States should vigorously pursue
a program of economic justice throughout the Islamic world. In order to
destroy the credibility of those who paint us as evil, we must do good.
Our government, our press, and our society seem to pay attention only
to people with guns. The time has come too recognize that nonviolent methods
are powerful and effective. Pacifism works. This has been demonstrated
over and over such places as the Philippines, Czechoslovakia, Poland,
Chile, and even the Soviet Union. There are pacifist organizations and
movements everywhere including in Muslim countries. These should be supported
and strengthened.
Military force defeats evil in comic books and all movies. It usually
fails in real life. There is a better way: pacifism—now more than
ever.
This article was originally published in the January/February 2002
issue of Tikkun Magazine
Return to the Top of the Page
There Is A Limit
by Murray Polner
"We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this War
of the Settlements."
--- Excerpt from Open Letter of Israeli military reservists
**************
The refusal of courageous Israeli officers and soldiers to serve in the
West Bank and Gaza because they believe the government's conduct is immoral
is the sharpest break since hundreds objected to serving during the invasion
of Lebanon and then went on to organize Peace Now and Yesh Gvul ("There
is a Limit").
Despite a seemingly endless war that the stone-blind and clueless leadership
of both Israel and Palestine have inflicted on one another as well as on
their own people, no central political or religious figure on either side
has cried out, "Stop This Madness!" Arafat and the PA -- their
corruption, deception and ineptitude -- are surpassed only by crazed Hamas-types
who specialize in murdering civilians. But equally culpable are the Israeli
occupiers with their enormous firepower and unquestioning American backing.
Sharon and his hard-line, pro-settlement fanatics have relied on collective
punishment and the destruction of Palestinian homes. And now a Maariv poll
reports that 35 % of Israelis favor "transfer"(a euphemism for
ethnic cleansing") of Palestinian men, women and children from their
historic homes.
All the same, something ethically and morally good has been happening in
Israel which may help strengthen its reawakening peace movement. Cracks
may be beginning to show, most significantly in the petition signed by almost
250 (at this writing) reserve officers and soldiers who refuse to be sent
beyond the Green Line. Add to this number the continued growth of Yesh Gvul,
which includes more reservists and current soldiers who will not serve in
the occupied territories and the reappearance of Peace Now rallies. Not
to mention the still small but increasing number of young Israelis who believe
they are conscientious objectors who should be exempted from military service
as are so many yeshiva bochers.
Shuki Sadeh, a reservist and paratrooper who signed the declaration of refusal
to serve told an Israeli daily that he had witnessed the killing of a Palestinian
boy. "What angered me at the time," he explained, "was that
our soldiers said,'Well, that's another Arab who has disappeared.'"
And Ariel Shatil, an artillery sergeant who had recently served in the Gaza
Strip, added that, despite reports Israelis always fired in retaliation,
in truth, "We would start shooting and they would fire back."
In one of the leaflets asking soldiers to join with them, Yesh Gvul reservists
proclaimed, "SOLDIER: THE OCCUPATION BREEDS TERRORISM" [their
capitals] and warned that some "actions [are] defined in international
conventions …and in Israeli law as war crimes."
There's even more. Quietly, many other reservists have gone AWOL -the London
Telegraph estimated the number late last January at 2,500 -while "thousands
of others" have been manufacturing reasons why they shouldn't have
to report. Moreover, the IDF is "also having to deal with thousands
of petitions from parents who do not want their sons to do their national
service in the occupied territories." The fact is many if not most
reservists have no sympathy for settlers and tend to seem them as religious
fanatics. Major Ishai Menuchim, a reserve tank commander and a Yesh Gvul
member, told the Telegraph: "The reservists do not care about the territories…So
they are not willing to pay the price and risk their lives for something
they don't believe in…The army needs to understand that fewer and fewer
people are willing to do their dirty work in the territories."
Here in the United States, while many Jews have expressed their anguish
at the mutual slaughter, too many timid prominent Jews, organizations and
Jewish publications rarely if ever speak publicly about what the war has
done to ordinary Palestinians, the widespread hatred it has aroused, and
the moral and physical toll experienced by all the antagonists. Nor do many
dare raise the question of how much harm their silence may be doing to Judaism
and its honorable ethical and humane traditions.
Would they have the strength of character of Ami Ayalon, the ex-Shin Bet
chief and onetime admiral, who expressed " a lot of empathy for the
reserve officers?" Troops, he said on Israel's Channel One TV, should
not heed commands that are "blatantly illegal…[T]oo few soldiers
are refusing such orders. For example, [an order] to shoot an unarmed youth
is blatantly illegal order. I am very worried by the number of Palestinian
children shot in the past year."
But still, what if all Israel men women didn't answer draft calls? What
would happen to the country's security? It's a debater's trick question
inasmuch as most do serve and many end up in Israel proper rather than forcibly
occupying lands that belong to Palestinians, not settlers. Ruth Hiller,
an Israeli whose son, Yinnon, 19, is trying to be recognized as a Conscientious
Objector, explained, "It is time that we started looking at a very
different type of army-a professional army that can operate in a professional
way." Which, I believe, would allow young Israelis to conscientiously
refuse to serve in the military for moral as well as religious reasons.
This, of course, will have to await a political, not a doomed - to - fail
military solution. Taba and the Mitchell Commission report are two possible
starting points. There are others if and when the damaged and badly compromised
leadership of all sides ever move on.
Still, these dissenting Israeli officers, soldiers and their civilian supporters
make me proud to be Jewish.
Murray Polner, who served in the U.S. Army, chairs the Jewish Peace Fellowship.
The former editor of Present Tense magazine, he wrote "No Victory Parades:
the Return of the Vietnam Veteran," "Rabbi: The American Experience,"
and co-edited (with Naomi Goodman) "The Challenge of Shalom."
Return to the Top of the Page
Yesh Gvul: Seder, 3 Refuseniks, tear gas
Dear friend,
Defying unseasonable rain, hundreds of Israeli peace supporters, reinforced
by a strong delegation of internationals, clambered a hill overlooking Military
Prison 6 at Athlit, to hold a Freedom Seder in honour of the jailed refuseniks
(there were 18 when we started, up to 21 when the ceremony ended !) Above
all, we were there to celebrate the fact that there are now OVER A THOUSAND
REFUSENIKS ! Some 500 have already refused to take part in the campaign
of repression (about 65 jailed to date) and many hundreds more have signed
one of three parallel declarations of refusal, whereby they are committed
to refusing if and when posted to the occupied territories.
Prominent at the THOUSAND REFUSENIK SEDER were all sections of the "refusal
community" - in addition to Yesh Gvul, there were members of "Courage
to Refuse", the high school students and New Profile. We look forward
to further joint efforts on behalf of refuseniks of every hue.
The Seder, conducted by Rabbi Jeremy Milgrom, was held with all the trappings,
but with the necessary modifications, as the traditional four glasses were
raised to honour the refuseniks, children asked the "Ma Nishtana",
and other Haggada texts were re-worked to suit the occasion. Yitzchak Laor
- of the very first generation of seventies' refuseniks - read one of his
poems, and families and friends of the jailed refuseniks "broadcast"
messages of support over loudspeakers directed at the prison.
Yesh Gvul was strongly represented at today's women's peace coalition march
to the A-Ram checkpost. We were welcomed with a thick cloud of tear gas
from police/Border Guards, who responded to the attempt to bring food and
medicines to the beleagured people of Ramallah as though this represented
an existential threat to national security. (Details on the horrifying reign
of terror imposed by the army within the city can be found in e-mails from
there.)
BUT THE MAIN FOCUS OF OUR WORK REMAINS ON THE REFUSENIKS! To end the horrors,
we must remember: there is no occupation without an army of occupation,
and there is no army without soldiers ! Please help us in our educational
work, to convince soldiers they are responsible for actions constituting
WAR CRIMES. Above all, we must support the refusal movement.
We are trying to keep up with the wave of jailings of refuseniks, and we'll
issue information as it comes in. Here are some sketchy details about the
latest three, each sentenced to 28 days at Military Prison 4:
First Sgt. (res.) Guy Keshet (a signatory of the Courage to Refuse declaration)
ID 5089936;
First Sgt. (res.) Eran Ackerman (27 and married), ID 5111605
Sgt. (res.) O.T. asked to have his full name withheld.
Letters of support can be sent to them at:
Military Prison 4,
Military post 02507
IDF
Israel
Let us stress again that some of those jailed will be in need of help in
supporting their families while they're serving their sentences, and this
adds a further burder on our already over-strained resources. Therefore
we REPEAT OUR URGENT REQUEST FOR DONATIONS TO KEEP UP THE CAMPAIGN !
Checks can be sent to: Yesh Gvul, PO Box 6953, Jerusalem 91068, Israel
Bank transfers to: Yesh Gvul, Acct. no. 366614, Bank Hapoalim, King George
St. branch (690), Jerusalem, Israel.
Peretz Kidron - Ram Rahat
Return to the Top of the Page
Dilemmas of a Peacemaker
By Gershon Baskin, Ph.D.
Monday, April 08, 2002
Even before the latest Israeli invasion of the Palestinian territories following
the Passover suicide bombing in Netanyah two weeks ago, the work of peacemaking
between Israelis and Palestinians has been a Sisyphus type task. The
frustrations far outweigh the feelings of success and everyday is a new
struggle to find hope to feed the motivation to continue. Many articles
have been written over the past 19 months in newspapers around the world
about those of us who have continued to work for peace in Israel and Palestine.
Always these articles contain the question: Can they continue? (or How can
they continue?).
After a brief holiday abroad for Passover I came back to face the staff
of IPCRI, our colleagues and friends, many of them living under curfew,
in the midst of a brutal war, their families and themselves under risks
of imprisonment or even more violent fates. I too followed the news by the
hour from thousands of miles away, checking my email and the internet at
least four times a day, being glued to the 24 hours a day news programs
on American television. One morning I woke at 7:00 am to put a video movie
on the television for one of my children. The TV was set to CNN. In
the background I saw a picture from Israeli television - it was my supermarket,
100 meters from my home that had been bombed. It seemed that each morning
we were greeted by more and more bad and worsening news from home.
I spent additional hours each day phoning friends and colleagues in the
West Bank to find out how they were. Many friends and family members suggested
to my wife and to my children that maybe we should stay in America for a
while - a year or two or more. No one apparently had the courage to
offer me the same advice. I felt too far away and I was anxious to come
home.
But coming home isn't easy. What should we do now? How can we be effective
to change this awful reality. I spoke with some Palestinian leaders
and asked them for advice - how can we help, what difference can we make.
One senior Palestinian official told me that the most important thing to
do is to find the way to get the Palestinian medical services functioning
once again. People are dying because of lack of functioning hospitals,
doctors are under curfew, ambulances are shot at, supplies are finished,
blood is running out, no electricity, no water, etc. Thinking that perhaps
the Israeli Minister of Health, MK Nissim Dahan from Shas, might be willing
to raise his voice, I phoned another MK from Shas, a Deputy Minister who
had been involved in some of IPCRI's back-channel talks in the past.
In the past, MK Yitzhak Cohen had even come to IPCRI's office in Bethlehem
to meet Marwan Barghouthi and other senior Tanzim officials. I thought
that if I use the Jewish term "pikuah nefesh" - for the sake of
human lives, I might be able to convince him to speak with his fellow Shas
MK, Minister of Health Dahan. I called Yitzhak at home on this past
Friday morning. I was told by him that the only "pikuh nefesh"
that he was concerned with were of Jewish origin. He said to me "Do
you want an IDF soldier to be killed by a terrorist hiding in an ambulance?".
As ambulances have already been used for the purpose of transporting terrorists,
I had little to say to him. I suggested that they should at least
let the doctors get to the hospitals and allow medicine to enter the Palestinian
territories. My requests fell on deaf ears. He told me to speak to
the army. Knowing that it was a ridiculous notion, but for the sake of "pikuh
nefesh", I did call the IDF, but they too seemed less than interested
in helping.
In our staff meeting yesterday in IPCRI with those members of the staff
who could come to our office, located on the border between Jerusalem and
Bethlehem, we held a discussion for several hours trying to figure out what
we should/could be doing now. From our office, we can hear the shooting
in Bethlehem just one hundred meters away. The tanks are moving in
and out along the road adjacent to the entrance to our place. We have two
members of our staff under siege in Bethlehem, one in a refugee camp, visible
from our office, and another one further inside the city - her house had
been in the middle of the fighting the night before and seven bullets penetrating
their windows into their salon. We began the meeting by having each person
express what they felt and thought about their own personal situation and
experiences and their more general view of the situation. Most people spoke
about being attacked by friends and family for continuing to work with people
from the other side and continuing to believe in peace with them. Everyone
also spoke with an overwhelming sense of pessimism and despair, all of them
looking at me with the hope that I would provide the message of hope and
a bit of optimism. Not an easy task these days.
I said that perhaps the most important thing that we could/should do during
these days is to keep our own personal contacts and lines of communication
open and encourage all of our colleagues and friends to do the same.
Our message must be one of solidarity with those people on both sides who
still want peace. We know that there are still people on both sides who
believe in peace. We must try to provide humanitarian aid wherever and however
possible. Yesterday I helped a shipment of donated food supplies to
get to a refugee camp. These small elements of help can provide some
small relief from the suffering. We must also continue to help in the development
of public policy options particularly at this time when public thinking
has become so one dimensional. Our ability to communicate with people in
positions of leadership and power on both sides is perhaps unique and essential,
maybe even more than ever right now.
I believe that the possibility of a bi-lateral Israeli-Palestinian solution
is further away than ever and therefore we must turn to the international
community to help. We need imposed solutions that require the United States
to play a much more responsible leadership role. There are initial
signs that this is beginning to happen, but it must not be too little because
it is already too late. Civil society, locally, in Israel and in Palestine,
and internationally must become much more aggressive and determined in making
demands to end the conflict first by ending the siege of Palestine and getting
the Palestinian leadership to retake control of its territory and its people.
Terrorism must end, but Israel must understand that the root reasons for
the terrorism must be addressed and not only the symptoms. The occupation
must end and if the leaders and people of Israel are incapable of seeing
that just now because of the threats that they face, the international community,
at the political level and at the civil society level must drive that point
home in determined and in unambiguous language. The days of constructive
ambiguity are far behind us.
The people of Israel and the Government of Israel must understand that they
are waging a war that cannot be won. The occupation will end and an independent
State of Palestine will be established. The current destruction of
the basis for future understanding between Israelis and Palestinians can
and must be repaired by individual Israelis and Palestinians together. We
must overcome the hatred, the anger, the fear and the despair. That
is the true task of peacemakers today. At a time when our leaders
have stopped thinking about tomorrow, me must provide the tomorrow. We must
create the hope through our expression of human concern for each other's
welfare. We must demand that our relations be humanized when all around
us tells us to dehumanize the other.
When my Palestinian friends are under siege, when they have no water, no
food, are living under curfew and risk being killed, my expression of outrage
is a message of my humanity and my belief that this is not being done in
my name. When many Palestinians call me to express their outrage after
a suicide bombing in Israel, I too know that this was not done in their
name and their expression of outrage is a witness to their humanity.
I will not accept that there are no partners on the other side. I know that
there are many as I know that there are many in Israel.
We in IPCRI have decided that we are not canceling any of our work plans.
We may have to delay them for reasons beyond our control. We will
not accept "no" as an answer from people who yesterday were willing
to meet and talk and today have changed their mind. We will continue
to provide the venue and the means for people to meet and talk and plan
together a better future. We will continue to oppose the use of violence
and force as a means of conflict resolution - this resolves no conflicts
and can solve no problems.
We all live in great fear today. We all have no real idea what is in store
for us each and every day. We have to remain firmly committed to our principles
and to our visions. And if reality doesn't fit our vision right now, we
must not accept the new reality, we must reject it and we must change it.
When I first became politically involved in this conflict some 27 years
and I supported the two-State solution - the creation of an independent
State of Palestine alongside of Israel in the 1967 borders, I was called
a traitor and a self-hating Jew. There may still be those who continue
to say that, but I know that the majority of the people of Israel still
recognize that that is what will emerge, if only we are wise enough to accept
it. People might think that we are crazy and naïve. I believe
that I am neither. The positions that we represent and stand by are
the only sane and the most un-naive positions possible. When the entire
area has gone insane, remaining sane can sometimes seem like insanity, but
there is a clear and coherent difference. Recognizing that difference is
the first step in reclaiming our roles as peacemakers.
Gershon Baskin, Ph.D.
Co-Director, IPCRI
P.O. Box 9321, Jerusalem 91092
Tel: 972-2-676-9460 Fax: 972-2-676-8011
Mobile: 052-381-715
gershon@ipcri.org
http://www.ipcri.org
http://www.place4peace.com
http://www.our-shared-environment.net
Dear JPF members and friends and the merely-curious:
The JPF joined the FOR, Pax Christi, Tikkun, Muslim Peace Fellowship and
the Middle East Coalition for Justice with Peace in endorsing an April
11th vigil outside the Israeli Consulate in NYC.
However, we pacifists and peacemakers must be careful lest we seem to
be siding with one side in the savage and dreadful civil war now taking
place. We are opposed to state bombing and suicide bombing. We are opposed
to killing. Period.
Therefore, in my role as Chair, JPF, I, Murray Polner, urged that the
group conduct a vigil before the Palestinian Authority Mission in NYC.
Richard Deats, the ccoordinator of the vigil, agreed with me. In addition,
Richard wrote the following letter to Ambassador Nasser Al Kidwa, Palestinian
Authority, NYC:
"We have just come from a vigil at the Israeli Consulate calling
for an end to the military incursions and the widespread destruction taking
place in Palestinian communities.... We are totally against state terrorism.
We are also totally against the suicide bombers. The deliberate targetting
of innocent people, whether by an army or an individual, only further
inflames the situation and makes more difficult a final peaceful and just
settlement."
Richard Deats, FOR Coordinator of Communications
Return to the Top of the Page
JPF statement on Jerusalem Post editorial calling for assassination of Yasser Arafat
The Jerusalem Post, in an editorial published September 10, 2003, called for the assassination of Yasser Arafat.
The Jewish Peace Fellowship condemns this cry for murder.
Assassination, murder, "termination with extreme prejudice" - call it what one will - is immoral and unethical by any standard of civilized conduct.
Jewish tradition teaches that shalom - peace - is positive. Peace is not merely the absence of conflict. Shalom exists when people live in mutual concord.
The cycle of violence in Israel and Palestine cannot be broken by more violence. It can only be ended by nonviolence on both sides. Peace will only exist when both sides engage in tikkun olam - repair of the world - by undertaking to right the wrongs they have inflicted upon each other and their own people.
The Jerusalem Post, and its predecessor, The Palestine Post, once served as a window through which the English-speaking world was to view and gain understanding of the Zionist dream of a society conducted under the influence of the Jewish ethical tradition.
In calling for murder of an elected leader, no matter how repugnant he may be, The Jerusalem Post has departed from Judaism's ethical teachings and stained the Zionist dream.
Return to the Top of the Page
The Last True Zionist
by J. Zel Lurie
Abraham "Avrum" Berg belongs to the dying breed of true Zionists.
Zionism is not as dead as our esteemed Publisher Emeritus decreed it to be in a recent column.¬ÝBut Zionism is in grave trouble. True Zionists, like Avrum Berg, are a minority in Israel today.
Avrum's father headed the Mizrachi, the Orthodox Zionists before and after the birth of State in 1948. His mother was born in Hebron in 1921. She was the seventh generation of her family to be born in Hebron.
When the Arabs rioted in 1929, his mother, her father, aunts and uncles, were protected by their Arab landlord.
I first met Avrum Burg about twenty years ago when he came to this country on a fellowship for talented Israelis provided by the New Israel Fund. He returned to Isreel to head the Jewish Agency and later became the Speaker of the Knesset.
He is now a kippa-wearing Labor Member of the Knesset.
"I am the eighth generation" of my family in Hebron. He proclaimed in "A Letter to My Palestinian Friends" in last weeks Forward. "I have the right to return to the city in which my mother was born and from which we were expelled."
But then he added like a true Zionist who recognizes that there are two peoples residing in the Land of Israel/Palestine:
"I will never give up this right but I have no intention to exercise it because in addition to my property rights I have an obligation to create a life free of unending death and conflict."
Hebron today has about forty-five false Zionist Orthodox families. They have no connection to the Jews who lived in Hebron in 1929 although an obliging government renovated and expanded for them old ruins of Jewish homes. They make no attempt to live at peace with their numerous Arab neighbors. Before the intafada began three years ago, they were a constant source of conflict¬Ýboth with the Arabs and with the 2,000 soldiers who had the unenviable task of trying to restrain their expanding ambitions.
True Zionism is based on territorial compromise. "territorial compromise is not just a real estate deal" wrote true Zionist Burg. "It is a spiritual decision by peoples that have decided to accept one another despite years of hostility and deep wells of hatred and vengeance."
Burg continued: "I believe with perfect faith that the entire Land of Israel belongs to me...And I know that the dream of Greater Palestine passes from grandfather to grandchild in every Palestinina home. Therefore the first compromise is between me and my dream. I compromise with my dream of returning to Hebron in order to live free in the new Israel.¬ÝAnd my Palestinian brother must give up his dream of returning to Jaffa in order to live an honorable and dignified life in Nablus.
"Only those capable of compromising with their dreams can sit together to forge a compromise on behalf of their nations," this true Zionist contends.
In a previous article addressed to Israelis, published in Yediot Ahronot, Israel's largest newspaper, Burg accused the Sharon government of "the destruction of Zionism and its values."
At the same time, the Palestinians are not ready for compromise. "The suicide bomber is a weapon of monsters, not freedom fighters. And until you spit it and its facilitators from your midst you will have no partner on my side, not me, not anyone else."
Burg concludes:
"What is good for Israel is to give up the dream of the Greater Land of Israel, to dismantle the settlements, leave the territories and live in peace alongside a Palestinian state, to fight corruption and direct all its energies toward Israeli society."
And what is good for the Palestinians?¬Ý"The same thing," Burg avers. "To give up the fantasy of driving us away from here and returning to villages that mostly no longer exist. To fight the corruption that is destroying you from within and to direct all your talents and resources toward building an exemplary Arab society-- a Palestinian model that will revolutionize the Arab world, bring Moslem democracy to the region and transform your people into a living bridge between East and West."
Thus spoke the true Zionist.
The end
Jesse Lurie was a longtime editor of Hadassah magazine whose family founded the Palestine Post, which circulated throughout the Middle East.
Return to the Top of the Page
Abusing 'Anti-Semitism'
by Ran HaCohen
The eve of the Jewish New Year is an excellent occasion for what Jewish tradition calls Kheshbon Nefesh, or soul-searching on so-called "anti-semitism", which has now become the single most important element of Jewish identity. Jews may believe in God or not, eat pork or not, live in Israel or not, but they are all united by their unlimited belief in anti-semitism.
When a Palestinian kills innocent Israeli civilians, it's anti-semitism. When Palestinians attack soldiers of Israel's occupation army in their own village, it's anti-semitism. When the UN General Assembly votes 133 to 4 condemning Israel's decision to murder the elected Palestinian leader, it means that except for the US, Micronesia and Marshal Islands, all other countries on the globe are anti-semitic. Even when a pregnant Palestinian woman is stopped at an Israeli check-point and gives birth in open field, the only lesson to be learnt is that Ha'aretz journalist Gideon Levy ’Äì who reported two such cases in the past two weeks, one in which the baby died ’Äì is an anti-semite.
Anti-semitism is an all-encompassing explanation. Anything unpleasant to anti-Palestinian ears is just another instance of anti-semitism. Jewish consciousness focused on anti-semitism has taken the shape of anti-semitic conspiracy theories, like that of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion: whereas the anti-semitic classic relates every calamity to Jewish conspiracy, Jews relate to anti-semitic conspiracy every criticism of Israel. As we shall see, this is not the only similarity between anti-Palestinianism and anti-semitism.
It is high time to say it out loud: in the entire course of Jewish history, since the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC, there has never been an era blessed with less anti-semitism than ours. There has never been a better time for Jews to live in than our own.
Up to just two generations ago, anti-semitism was a legitimate political and cultural attitude in most of the world's leading powers. Anti-semitism was something you could express openly, even be proud of. Disliking Jews was as natural then as detesting cockroaches is today. Nowadays, anti-semitism is a taboo and a criminal offence in every developed country on earth. Even truly anti-semitic groups deny their anti-semitic character, knowing it is politically unacceptable. Unlike earlier centuries, where anti-semitism stood in direct proportion to the number of Jews in the pertinent country and thus constituted a real threat to them, the countries where anti-semitism is still thriving today ’Äì mostly poor Muslim countries ’Äì are virtually empty of Jews, so that the actual danger to Jews there is minimal; representatives of Muslim communities in the West have to give up their anti-semitism as a precondition for entering the political system.
Just a few generations ago ’Äì the Holocaust aside for now ’Äì Jews were treated as second-class citizens in all major Jewish concentrations. They were denied civic and religious rights almost universally. There were limits on access of Jews to universities and many professions, to public service and to any position of power; sometimes even marrying and making children was dependent on quotas and licences. Such institutionalised discrimination and oppression is not only totally extinct today: it is utterly unimaginable. With one revealing exception (Israel, where non-orthodox religious Jews are discriminated against), Jews enjoy full religious freedom wherever they are. They have full citizenship wherever they live, with full political, civic and human rights like every other citizen. This may sound trivial, but it was not so just a few generations ago and throughout the entire first and second millennia. Repressive regimes have either collapsed, or their Jewish population has left them.
Nowadays, an orthodox Jew can run for the most powerful office on earth, the president of the United States (I personally hope he doesn't win). A Jew can be the mayor of Amsterdam in "anti-semitic" Holland, a minister in "anti-semitic" Britain, a leading intellectual in "anti-semitic" France, a president of "anti-semitic" Switzerland, editor-in-chief of a major daily in "anti-semitic" Denmark, or an industrial tycoon in "anti-semitic" Russia. None of this was imaginable a century ago. Jews have free and unlimited access to every institution in every country they live in; Ironically, a converted Jew is even mentioned as a possible successor to the Holy See. At the same time, "anti-semitic" Germany (home to the world's fastest-growing Jewish community) gives Israel three military submarines for free, "anti-semitic" France has proliferated to Israel the nuclear technology for its weapons of mass destruction, and "anti-semitic" Europe has welcomed Israel as a single non-European country to everything from football and basketball leagues to the Eurovision Song Contest, and has granted Israeli universities a special status for scientific fund-raising.
The Holocaust has been the greatest catastrophe in Jewish history and among the greatest crimes in human history ’Äì but the very fact that these words sound so obvious is a great victory on anti-semitism. The term genocide, coined by a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust (R. Lemkin) and modelled on the genocide of the Jews, has found its way to international legislation and been affirmed as a crime by almost all the countries on earth, including eventually (with a shamefully long delay) the US. The Holocaust has (justly!) become the prototype of genocide, a synonym for Crime against Humanity. There were several other genocides in the 20th century ’Äì enough to mention the Armenian genocide by Turks (which preceded and inspired the Holocaust) or the Tutsi genocide by Hutu in Rwanda (which was even more "efficient" than the Holocaust). However, while other genocides are still struggling even to be acknowledged, the Holocaust is the only genocide which is considered unquestionable to the extent that its denial is in some countries a criminal offence. No other genocide even comes close to the 250 memorial museums and research institutes dedicated to the Holocaust around the world, and no other genocide survivors have been financially compensated like the persecuted Jews. In such a world, whoever cries "anti-semitism" twice a day has an extremely heavy burden of proof to shoulder.
The State of Israel has always been cynically exploiting allegations of anti-semitism, condemning purported and cooperating with actual anti-semites at will. Last week, to quote just a minor example, when the world was outraged by Italy's monarch Berlusconi's claim that his fascist predecessor Mussolini "had not killed anybody but just sent people to holidays in exile" ’Äì which comes fairly close to Holocaust denial ’Äì the only official Israeli reaction was that of an unnamed spokesman for the 2nd Minister in the Ministry of Finance, who mumbled that "If the words have been said (!), one can not agree with them, since History speaks for itself" (Ha'aretz 14.9, p.12 bottom). The reason for this ear-deafening outcry is simple: Berlusconi, like most right-wing extremists, has taken a decisive pro-Israel stand in Europe. So let him even deny the Holocaust if he likes, Israel will show understanding. After all, Israel was a closest ally of the most racist regime in the post-WWII era, South Africa's Apartheid: moral considerations have never played any role whatsoever in Israel's politics and diplomacy.
On a state level, some may excuse it as Realpolitik. The institutionalised pro-Israel lobby has compromised its integrity to such an extent, that I won't be surprised if, say, the Anti-Defamation League, which cries anti-semitic wolf on a daily basis, now hails the fascist apologist Berlusconi as a distinguished statesman; Actually, precisely this world-record of hypocricy has taken place this very week. Much more disturbing is the intensive resorting to "anti-semitism" claims by Jewish individuals and institutions who do try to maintain a look of integrity.Such claims take many creative forms: for example, some Jews have a morally repulsive pastime of looking for worst cases of oppression ’Äì Russian atrocities in Chechnya (whose veterans, by the way, join the Israeli army), Chinese in Tibet ’Äì which supposedly "prove" that the media focus on Israel is anti-semitically motivated. As if it were not outrageous enough to be on the shortlist of evil-doers, as if only the gold medal in this satanic competition, but not bronze or silver, is worthy of protest. And I wonder how many of those arm-chair pro-Israel Tibet specialists ever bothered to actually do something to free Tibet, except for exploiting its suffering to distract from Israel's atrocities.
The abuse of alleged anti-semitism is morally despicable. It took hundreds of years and millions of victims to turn anti-semitism ’Äì a specific case of racism which led historically to genocide ’Äì into a taboo. People abusing this taboo in order to support Israel's racist and genocidal policy towards the Palestinians do nothing less than desecrate the memory of those Jewish victims, whose death, from a humanistic perspective, is meaningful only inasmuch as it serves as an eternal warning to the human kind against all kinds of discrimination, racism, and genocide.
Moreover, portraying the victimisers as victims ’Äì a standard characteristic of anti-Palestinian propaganda ’Äì is precisely what anti-semitism has always done: in blood-libels which portrayed defenceless Jewish victims as victimisers of Christian children, or in the ultimate accusation of Christ killing, which abused the persecution of early Christians to legitimate the persecution of Jews once the balance of power changed. Thus, evoking Jewish victims of the past to defend Jewish victimizers¬Ý¬Ýof the present ’Äìremember that Israel has one of the mightiest armies on earth ’Äì is a moral fault on a par with, and embarrassingly similar to, anti-semitism itself.
Published by "The Other Israel, POB 2542, Holon 58125, Israel. Ran HaCohen teaches at Tel Aviv University.
Return to the Top of the Page
Dr. Jane Evans Obituary
It is with profound sorrow that we inform you of the death of our friend, colleague and mentor, Dr. Jane Evans. After 96 years of a full, rich life, Jane died peacefully at home last night. Jane celebrated the 70th anniversary of service to the Reform Movement in October and was active through this fall, when she assisted with the Union's labor contract negotiations. We are deeply indebted and most grateful to Jane, a true visionary, for her love and dedication on behalf of our Union and, most especially for her tireless efforts to shape the Union for Reform Judaism and its affiliates into the vibrant and vital organizations they are today.
Jane was a distinguished Jewish leader and a lifelong advocate for human rights and world peace. She served as president of the Jewish Braille Institute of America from 1979 to 1995 and as executive director of the National Federation of Temple Sisterhoods (now the Women of Reform Judaism) from 1933 to 1976. At the time of her death, she was a lifetime honorary officer of the World Union for Progressive Judaism.
A religious pacifist, she was one of three founders and a former president of the Jewish Peace Fellowship which in 1992 awarded her, along with Yehudi Menuhin and Abi Nathan, the Abraham Joshua Heschel Award for peace work in the Jewish tradition. She also was in the forefront of the movement to aid in the rehabilitation of displaced persons and other survivors of Nazi persecution. As the Chairman of the American Jewish Conference's Commission on Displaced Persons during WWII, she headed delegations to sessions of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration in the US and Canada.
Jane recently served as a member of the Executive Council of the World Conference on Religion and Peace USA and as a religious NGO (Non-Governmental Representative) at the UN. Her involvement in world affairs led New York Governor Mario Cuomo in 1984 to name her as "A Woman of Distinction in Religion."
In spite of her numerous national and international activities, Jane always made time for all of us -- to listen intently, to digest every side of a story and to provide wise and valuable counsel. She touched us deeply and we are fortunate to have known her. May her memory be a blessing.
Following the 30-day mourning period (sheloshim), a memorial service will be held at the Union to celebrate and remember the life of Jane Evans, our colleague, mentor and friend.
The funeral will be held at Temple Israel of New Rochelle.
Additional details regarding the day and time of the funeral, driving directions and bus shuttle service from "633" will be distributed as soon as the information is available.
Return to the Top of the Page
Presbyterians on Israel
Shalom Anne
I am writing to you as the contact person for the Presbyterian Peace
Fellowship as listed on the FOR web site.
Many of my rabbinic colleagues are distressed by the recent decisions
concerning Israel made by the General Assembly of your church by
overwhelming majorities. I share their concern and I would like to let you
know why.
First of all you probably know that I have been a public advocate for ending
the Occupation almost since it began and that I oppose the construction of
the security barrier on Palestinian land (I do not object to the original
idea of building it along the Green Line so long as it is built on Israeli
land.) I agree that the Israeli Occupation has proven to be unjust and
oppressive. I cannot imagine that any such occupation would be otherwise
however good the intentions. In fact I remember discussions among Israelis
and Jews in the years follwowning 1967 as to whether a well-intentioned
occupation could be justly administered.
I also applaud your disavowal of so-called Christian Zionism. I agree
strongly with your statement that the United States should seek to
re-establish its role as an "honest broker" between the paties to this
terrible conflict.
However your statement seems to equate Israel with Apartheid South Africa
and I find that to be wrong and offensive. While some parallels can be
drawn between some aspects of Apartheid, especially with the Bantustan
concept, there are some vitally important distinctions that need to be made.
Israel is not a racist state and Zionism is not a racist movement (unless
you want to call all nationalist movements, including the Palestinian one,
racist). Racism is condemned in Israeli society and political parties
deemed to be racist are barred from elections. Of course there are Israeli
individuals who are racist, but that is not a reason to tar a whole nation
and a whole people with that brush. In the case of South Africa racism was
the official philosophy of the Apartheid government and it was carried out
as policy against the majority of South Africa's people. Comparing Israel
to Apartheid South Africa is a grotesque and unfair distortion of reality.
Another objection I have to the statement in question is that, while it
acknowledges Palestinian attacks on Israelis, it depicts them as an
expression of frustration and anger. Without doubt frustration and anger
play a role in this proble, especially in popular support of groups that
carry out these attacks. At best they can be called a self-indulgent
expression of these negative emotions. I often hear from Palestinians and
their supporters that terrori is the only weapon they have. What needs to
be acknowledged is that these attacks are part of a terrorist campaign
seeking to force Israel's hand. These attacks follow a pattern with strong
historical precedents: commit outrages against the occupiers and force them
into repressive measures that will increase anger and therefore support for
the attacks. The classic film "The Battle of Algiers" illustrated this
pattern perfectly. While I do not consider your church's statement to be as
one-sided as some claim, it does not stand up to the evil's perpetrated by
some and now supported by many, possibly a majority of Palestinians under
occupation. Your statement calls for an end to the violence but does not
call for any specific measures regarding the Palestinians that parallel your
call for divestment of Israeli firms.
For a religious pacifist the bottom line is this. If you choose one side in
a conflict as in the wrong and take the part of the other side you do not
help end the conflict. Instead you become a party to that conflict; part of
the problem rather than part of the solution.
Your church has the potential to play a constructive role towards ending the
conflict. It has an historic relationship with the Palestinians through
missionary and other institutions. The Presbetyrian church can stand up to
the Palestinian leadership and call for abandoning their self-destructive
campaign of violence against Israelis and against Jews in general. They
regard you as supporters of their cause and are more likely to accept rebuke
and calls for change from you than from any Jewish or Israeli group.
I would also recommend that the Prebyterian church be more pro-active in
reaching out to Israelis and also to Jews in the United States on these
issues. The evil is the Occupation and a majority of Israelis want to see
it end. You call on the American government to be a neutral mediator, but
your church should consider taking on such a role in the process of
reconciliation. So long as they feel they are under attack Israelis will
react defensively to resolutions like yours, no matter how even-handed they
try to be.
Despite your acknowledgement of the suffering of the Jewish people and the
travails of the Jewish state, the lopsided vote on this resolution indicates
that only part of the message is getting through to your people. It is easy
to declare one side good and the other side evil. It is harder but more
praiseworthy to acknowledge the humanity of everyone involved and to seek a
resolution to conflict through reconciliation.
L'shalom,
Rabbi Philip J. Bentley
Honorary President
Jewish Peace Fellowship
Return to the Top of the Page
© 2002 Jewish Peace Fellowship
|