Zionism’s Lost Shine

[seemslikeadream]

Israel’s War Against ‘BDS’ Movement
March 24, 2014

The boycott aimed at Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands emerged as a peaceful way to challenge Israel’s abuse of Palestinians, replacing violent acts that killed civilians. But Israel’s lobby has now made the so-called BDS movement a target of its political muscle, as Marjorie Cohn explains.

By Marjorie Cohn

Thanks to Scarlett Johansson, the American Studies Association (ASA), and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement has entered our national discourse.

Representatives of Palestinian civil society launched BDS in 2005, calling upon “international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South African in the apartheid era . . . [including] embargoes and sanctions against Israel.”

The call for BDS specified that “these non-violent punitive measures” should last until Israel fully complies with international law by (1) ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the barrier Wall; (2) recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and (3) respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their land as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

Johansson is a spokesperson for SodaStream, a seltzer-making company whose major factory is located in an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank. SodaStream generates the highest volume of settlement exports to Europe. Until recently, Johansson was also an ambassador for Oxfam, which, like many other international organizations, opposes all trade from the Israeli settlements in the West Bank because companies are operating there illegally.

Shortly before Johansson’s commercial for SodaStream aired during the Super Bowl last month, Oxfam forced Johansson to choose between SodaStream and Oxfam. She chose SodaStream, stepping down from her post with Oxfam.

Additionally, the ASA recently endorsed a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, which emerged “from the context of U.S. military and other support for Israel; Israel’s violation of international law and UN resolutions; the documented impact of the Israeli occupation on Palestinian scholars and students; the extent to which Israeli institutions of higher education are a party to state policies that violate human rights; and finally, the support of such a resolution by a majority of ASA members.”

In its statement of support for the ASA boycott, faculty members at the American University in Cairo cited Israeli policies that “have rendered the Gaza Strip the world’s largest open-air penitentiary.” The ASA is the third major U.S. academic organization – together with the Asian American and Native American and Indigenous Studies Association – to endorse the academic boycott of Israel during the past year.

And, earlier this month, when he delivered the keynote address to the annual meeting of the powerful Israel lobby in the United States, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Netanyahu spent almost as much time attacking BDS as he did explaining why he thinks Iran is a strategic threat to Israel. Clearly disturbed by the proliferation of BDS worldwide, Netanyahu claimed, “Those who wear the BDS label should be treated exactly as we treat any anti-Semite or bigot.”

Is BDS Anti-Semitic?

But, in the words of Rafeef Ziadah, a spokesperson for the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee, “The BDS movement is opposed, as a matter of principle, to all forms of discrimination, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.”

In January, Palestinian human rights activist Omar Barghouti wrote in the New York Times, “Arguing that boycotting Israel is intrinsically anti-Semitic is not only false, but it also presumes that Israel and ‘the Jews’ are one and the same. This is as absurd and bigoted as claiming that a boycott of a self-defined Islamic state like Saudi Arabia, say, because of its horrific human rights record, would of necessity be Islamophobic.”

Barghouti also noted, “BDS doesn’t pose an existential threat to Israel; it poses a serious challenge to Israel’s system of oppression of the Palestinian people, which is the root cause of its growing worldwide isolation.”

Nobel Peace Prize winner South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu concurs. “My voice will always be raised in support of Christian-Jewish ties and against the anti-Semitism that all sensible people fear and detest,” Tutu wrote in the Tampa Bay Times. “But this cannot be an excuse for doing nothing and for standing aside as successive Israeli governments colonize the West Bank and advance racist laws,” he added, noting “Israel’s theft of Palestinian land” and “Jewish-only colonies built on Palestinian land in violation of international law.”

Tutu cited the 2010 Human Rights Watch report, which “describes the two-tier system of laws, rules, and services that Israel operates for the two populations in areas in the West Bank under its exclusive control, which provide preferential services, development, and benefits for Jewish settlers while imposing harsh conditions on Palestinians.”

Tutu writes, “This, in my book, is apartheid. It is untenable.” He called on “people and organizations of conscience to divest from . . . Caterpillar, Motorola Solutions and Hewlett Packard,” which profit “from the occupation and subjugation of Palestinians.”

Moreover, if BDS were anti-Semitic, why do so many Jews support it? In her recent piece in Tikkun Daily, Jewish Voice for Peace board member Donna Nevel mentioned that “respected members of the liberal Jewish community” and “a few liberal Zionist groups,” formerly opposed to BDS, are now calling for boycotts of products made in the settlements.

She points out that groups like Jews Say No and Jewish Voice for Peace – “a diverse and democratic community of activists inspired by Jewish tradition to work together for peace, social justice, and human rights” – are “resonating with increasing numbers of Jews who support BDS as a natural outgrowth of their commitments.”

Some Jews in Israel have also engaged in non-violent resistance to Israeli government policies. Sixty youth recently signed an open letter to Netanyahu announcing their refusal to serve in the Israeli military due to the dehumanization of Palestinians living under occupation.

In the occupied Palestinian territories, they wrote, “human rights are violated, and acts defined under international law as war-crimes are perpetuated on a daily basis.” The signatories cite “assassinations (extrajudicial killings), the construction of settlements on occupied lands, administrative detentions, torture, collective punishment and the unequal allocation of resources such as electricity and water.”

The Spreading BDS Movement

The BDS movement is spreading throughout the world. European pension funds are divesting from banks and companies that operate in settlements, and European markets are labeling Israeli goods made in the West Bank.

In January, PGGM, the Netherlands’ second largest pension fund, decided to divest from five of Israel’s largest banks because they financed companies involved in the construction of settlements. PGGM is the second Dutch company to recently break ties with Israeli companies. Also in January, two of Europe’s largest financial institutions, Nordea and Danske Bank, agreed to boycott Israeli banks with branches in the West Bank.

Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, a multibillion operation, has blacklisted Africa Israel Investments and Danya Cebus due to their ties to settlements in the West Bank. Argentine authorities have suspended a proposed $170 million water treatment plant’s deal with Israel’s state water company Mekorot, in response to local trade unions and human rights organizations that connected Mekorot’s role in Israel’s illegal theft of Palestinian water resources. Many Western artists and bands refuse to perform in Israel.

In his final report to the United Nations, Richard Falk, Special UN Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, called on the international community to comprehensively investigate the business activities of companies and financial institutions registered in their own respective countries, which profit from the settlements in Israel and other unlawful Israeli activities.

Falk advocated that they “take appropriate action to end such practices and ensure appropriate reparation for affected Palestinians.” Significantly, Falk wrote, “Member States should consider imposing a ban on imports of settlement produce.”

Israel’s Maariv newspaper reported that the international boycott of Israeli settlement products has already led to financial losses of $30 million. Indeed, last August, Secretary of State John Kerry warned that Israel could face a boycott campaign “on steroids” if it continues to build settlements in the occupied West Bank.

In a recent interview, President Barack Obama asked, “Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank? Is that the character of Israel as a state for a long period of time? Do you perpetuate, over the course of a decade or two decades, more and more restrictive policies in terms of Palestinian movement? Do you place restrictions on Arab-Israelis that run counter to Israel’s traditions?” These are bold words. But it is unlikely Obama will follow them with bold action.

Israel remains the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, over $3 billion a year. And Elbit Systems Ltd., Israel’s largest arms manufacturer, has just been awarded a $145 million contract by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border and Protection to deploy border surveillance technology in southern Arizona. Elbit is the Israeli military’s largest supplier of drones, which were involved in the killing of 29 children during Israel’s attack on Gaza in 2008-2009, and the ongoing bombing of Gaza.

In light of Israel’s documented human rights violations, U.S. assistance and the Elbit contract are unacceptable. “Those who turn a blind eye to injustice actually perpetuate injustice,” Tutu said. “It doesn’t matter where we worship or live.”

Anti-BDS Legislation

Nevertheless, there has been a vigorous campaign to pass anti-BDS legislation, both in Israel and in the United States. In 2011, the Israeli Knesset passed an anti-boycott law which would sanction anyone who declares a commercial embargo on Israel, and label any boycott a civil offense subjecting its initiators to litigation.

Several Israeli and U.S. human rights groups asked that the law be annulled and a special panel of the Israeli High Court of Law held a hearing on the bill in February. The New York Times opposed the bill, noting, “this is a fundamental issue of free speech.”

Anti-boycott legislation introduced earlier this year in both New York and Maryland which would punish institutions that endorse the boycott were withdrawn after several educators and legislators criticized the bills as an attack on academic freedom. But a revised version of the New York bill has been introduced that would punish colleges that use public funds for activities that support boycotts of Israel.

In early March, the Protect Academic Freedom Act was introduced in the House of Representatives, which would deny government funding to any U.S institution that endorses the academic boycott of Israel.

And bills have been introduced in several state legislatures to penalize universities if their faculty members participate in professional organizations that express a political viewpoint by endorsing a boycott. More than 150 scholars and others signed a statement recognizing boycotts as “internationally affirmed and constitutionally protected forms of political expression.”

Columbia Law School Professor Katherine Frank wrote, “A law targeting the boycott today cannot be differentiated from the laws that punished boycotts in the U.S. civil rights movement or those that compelled academics to sign loyalty oaths as a condition of employment.”

In another campaign against the BDS movement, some universities, including Northeastern, have banned Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) from campuses and threatened disciplinary measures against some SJP members. This appears to be “part of a coordinated effort by the Israeli government and the Israel lobby to blacklist all student groups that challenge the official Israeli narrative,” according to Chris Hedges.

Resistance to the banning of student groups that criticize Israeli policies should cite the well-established Supreme Court precedents protecting academic freedom of speech, including Healy v. James (“[t]he college classroom with its surrounding environs is peculiarly the marketplace of ideas”), Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of N.Y. (“the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools [of higher learning]”), and Snyder v. Phelps (“speech on matters of public concern . . . is at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection”).

But unless and until Israel ends its brutal occupation of Palestinian lands, grants full equality to all its people – including Palestinians – and recognizes the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their land, the non-violent BDS movement will continue to grow and cripple the Israeli economy. A system based on inequality and oppression cannot survive.

[Sounder]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/01 ... el-israel/


FIFA has threatened to expel Israel over its treatment of Palestinian football players and officials in the occupied West Bank and the besieged Gaza Strip.

The Inside World Football website said in a report on Monday that FIFA gave Israel until summer to improve playing conditions and travel for the Palestinian players and officials.

FIFA also warned that Israel would face a complete expulsion from the international federation if it fails to address the issue.

FIFA has launched a mediation task force over the matter.

Palestinian football official Jibril Rajoub has met with FIFA President Sepp Blatter in an effort to resolve the long-term difficulties Palestinian footballers face due to Israel’s policies.

FIFA wants Palestinian and Israeli football officials to sign a formal agreement over the issue at or around the June congress of FIFA. However, Palestinian officials say that the agreement could not be signed while Israelis continue to impose travel permit restrictions on everyone from footballers to consultants.

They also say that such restrictions often keep the Palestinian national team from competing with its complete squad. The bans also restrict hosting games in the occupied West Bank.

Israelis say FIFA has mixed politics and sport.

In January, Israeli forces shot and injured two Palestinian football players in the West Bank. Jawhar Nasser Jawhar, 19, and Adam Abd al-Raouf Halabiya, 17, were shot while walking home from a training session in the Faisal al-Husseini Stadium in the town of al-Ram.

The two were told that they might not be able to play again.

[seemslikeadream]

Attacks on BDS sharpen as it gains traction in the Jewish community
Donna Nevel on March 31, 2014 48


The other day we ran a piece on liberal Zionists’ role in opposing BDS, boycott, divestment and sanctions. Donna Nevel addressed similar themes in a piece at Tikkun titled “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) and the American Jewish Community.” She gave us permission to republish here. –Ed.

Many American Jewish organizations claim to be staunch supporters of civil and human rights as well as academic freedom. But when it comes to Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, they make an exception. In their relentless opposition to BDS, they leave even core principles behind.

The Palestinian-led call for BDS, which began in 2005 in response to ongoing Israeli government violations of basic principles of international law and human rights of the Palestinian people, is a call of conscience. It has strengthened markedly over the last few years among artists, students, unions, church groups, dockworkers, and others. Media coverage of endorsers of the boycott has gone mainstream and viral. Recent examples include Stephen Hawking’s refusal to go to Jerusalem for the Presidential Conference, the successful campaign surrounding Scarlett Johansson’s support for Soda Stream and its settlement operation, and the American Studies Association (ASA) resolution that endorsed boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

Alongside BDS’s increasing strength have come increasingly virulent attacks on, and campaigns against it. These attacks tend to employ similar language and tactics – as if the groups are all cribbing from the same talking points – including tarring BDS supporters as “anti-Semitic” and “delegitimizers.”

These attacks simply don’t address or grapple with the core aspirations or realities of BDS. As described by Hanan Ashrawi, executive committee member of the PLO, in a recent letter in the New York Times, BDS “does not target Jews, individually or collectively, and rejects all forms of bigotry and discrimination, including anti-Semitism.” She goes on to explain that “B.D.S. is, in fact, a legal, moral and inclusive movement struggling against the discriminatory policies of a country that defines itself in religiously exclusive terms, and that seeks to deny Palestinians the most basic rights simply because we are not Jewish.”

The use of name-calling like “anti-Semites” and “delegtimizers” is problematic for a number of reasons, not only because its claims are untrue, but also because it takes the focus off the real issue at hand – whether and how Israel is, in fact, violating international law and basic human rights principles – and, instead, recklessly impugns the characters of those advocating for Israel to be held accountable.

Criticisms, even extremely harsh ones, of the Israeli state or calls to make a state democratic and adhere to equal rights for all its citizens are not anti-Semitic. Rather, anti-Semitism is about hatred of, and discrimination against the Jewish people, which is not anywhere to be found in the call for BDS, and these kinds of accusations also serve to trivialize the long and ugly history of anti-Semitism.

Most recently, the anti-BDS effort has moved to the legislative front. A bill, introduced in the New York State Assembly last month, would have trampled academic freedom and the right to support BDS in its quest to punish the ASA and deter any who might dare to emulate its endorsement of the academic boycott. Those supporting the bill were opposed by a broad coalition of education, civil rights, legal, academic, and Palestine solidarity organizations, as well as Jewish social justice groups. The bill was withdrawn, but a revised version has been introduced that is designed, like the original, to punish colleges that use public funds for activities related to groups that support boycotts of Israel, including mere attendance at their meetings.

The Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) worked closely with the sponsors of the New York bill.

Like the JCRC, rather than engaging in substantive debate about the issues raised in relation to BDS, the Israeli government and many Jewish communal organizations choose, instead, to try to discredit and derail the efforts of those supporting BDS.

For example, as recently reported by Ha’aretz, the Israeli Knesset is debating how to continue to counter BDS efforts across the globe, that is, “whether to launch an aggressive public campaign or operate through quieter, diplomatic channels.” It is also considering what the role of AIPAC might be in introducing anti-boycott legislation and how to best bolster military surveillance–which has significant funding behind it–against supporters of BDS.

American Jewish communal organizations have also expended massive resources and energy in their campaigns to demonize endorsers of BDS. The Israel Action Network (IAN)–which describes itself as “a strategic initiative of TheJewish Federations of North America, in partnership with the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), created to counter assaults made on Israel’s legitimacy”–has funded the anti-BDS effort to the tune of at least six million dollars over a three-year period.

The IAN website characterizes supporters of BDS as “delegitimizers”and says that, in order to gain support from “vulnerable targets,” which include “college campuses, churches, labor unions, and human rights organizations,” delegitimizers utilize Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) tactics, “the same tools used to isolate and vilify apartheid South Africa, Iran, or Nazi Germany. BDS activists, IAN continues, “present distortions, fabrications and misrepresentations of international law in an attempt to paint Israel with the same brush.”

In another example of name-calling without any substance, the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL’s) July 2013 report attacked Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), featuring ad hominem accusations (JVP “intentionally exploits Jewish culture”), rather than discussing JVP’s actual positions. (A JVP report on the ADL points out that the ADL not only targets JVP but is well-known for its long history of spying on Arabs and supporters of the Palestinian movement.)

On the charge of anti-Semitism, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, in its call to fight the BDS movement, urges it supporters to “learn the facts behind this hypocritical and anti-Semitic campaign,” and the ADL’s Abe Foxman echoed those same sentiments: “The BDS movement at its very core is anti-Semitic.” And most recently, in his speech to AIPAC, Prime Minister Netanyahu, after shamelessly drawing upon classic anti-Semitic imagery of Jews to speak of supporters of BDS, says: “So you see, attempts to boycott, divest and sanction Israel, the most threatened democracy on earth, are simply the latest chapter in the long and dark history of anti- Semitism.”

The demonization of BDS is not only the domain of the Israeli government and the mainstream Jewish community. The self-declared liberal J-Street, in its seemingly relentless quest to stay under the Jewish “tent,” has also jumped on the anti-BDS bandwagon, sometimes in partnership with the IAN, which (precisely because J Street is positioned as a peace group) proudly documents its relationship with J Street in fighting BDS. Discussing how J Street is gaining acceptance in the mainstream Jewish community, JCPA’s CEO Rabbi Steve Gutow points to “its role in pushing back against the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement…”

Further, the refusal of both liberal land mainstream Jewish groups to discuss substantive issues around Israel’s actions or BDS also reveals itself in language that admonishes BDS as being “beyond the pale.” Recently, for example, as reported by the director of JVP in an op-ed in the Forward, the director of the JCRC of Greater Boston, who has a history of involvement in liberal organizations, explained that “any organization that supports BDS…doesn’t belong at the communal table.” In fact, he was referring specifically to Jewish Voice for Peace. He even argued that opening the public conversation to BDS is roughly akin to welcoming the Ku Klux Klan.

This attempted silencing of those simply discussing BDS plays out even in seemingly minor local skirmishes. For example, last year, the liberal rabbi of a large New York City synagogue cancelled the synagogue’s facilities-usage contract with a group of Jews who, he feared, might, on his premises, discuss BDS. That, he said, would be “beyond the pale.”

These attacks against BDS appear to be an almost desperate reaction to the increasing successes of BDS, not only in the world at large, but also within the broader Jewish community itself. Respected members of the liberal Jewish community as well as a few liberal Zionist groups that were vehemently anti-BDS are now calling for boycotts against products made in the settlements and are engaging with the issue publicly. Further, the mission and vision of groups like Jews Say No and Jewish Voice for Peace – “a diverse and democratic community of activists inspired by Jewish tradition to work together for peace, social justice, and human rights” – are resonating with increasing numbers of Jews who support BDS as a natural outgrowth of their commitments. And that movement is growing in partnership with the broader Palestinian-led movement for justice.

How should the rest of the Jewish community respond? Ad hominem attacks on BDS just will not do. It is time for BDS opponents to take a deep breath. Consider this: BDS is a principled response to Israel’s actions and behavior as an occupier. It is a profound call by Palestinians – and supporters world-wide–for justice. It is not BDS that should be opposed, but, rather, the very policies and practices that have made BDS necessary.

[seemslikeadream]

Appeals court upholds dismissal of anti-BDS lawsuit against Olympia Food Co-op
Phan Nguyen on April 8, 2014 13

Olympia Food Co-op members showing their support for the Co-op in the face of the anti-BDS lawsuit, August 2013. (Justin Mauger)

Yesterday the Washington State Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the anti-BDS lawsuit against the Olympia Food Co-op. The suit had been filed by five Co-op members in 2011 to force the Co-op to rescind its boycott of Israeli goods. Aside from determining additional attorney fees, the appellate court decision may conclude the legal track of anti-BDS efforts against the 15,000-member food cooperative.

The Olympia Food Co-op, based in Olympia, Washington, was the first US grocery store to publicly honor the Palestinian boycott call in 2010. A year later, the resultant legal attack became the first anti-BDS lawsuit. In Feb. 2012, the lawsuit was dismissed as a violation of Washington State’s anti-SLAPP legislation, which prohibited lawsuits strategically designed to inhibit free speech—a ruling now affirmed in the court of appeals.

Although the five plaintiffs still have the right to appeal to the state supreme court, it is unlikely to produce a different result, as the supreme court had already refused to hear the case prior to the court of appeals decision.

For the duration of the court case—in which the plaintiffs claimed that the lawsuit was not a defense of Israel but a procedural challenge—several pro-Israel interests became involved, ranging from the multimillion-dollar Israel advocacy group StandWithUs, to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and most recently the Lawfare Project.

BDS: Bill Gates slammed over links to Israel prison torture
in Features, Press Releases April 3, 2014

Palestinian human rights organisations have criticised Bill Gates after it emerged that his charitable foundation is heavily invested in G4S, a private security company that helps Israel run prisons at which Palestinian political prisoners are held without trial and subjected to torture.
In an open letter to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation published today, Palestinian human rights groups argued that the foundation was undermining international law and its stated commitment to human rights with its $170m investment in the company that makes it one of the company’s biggest shareholders.
British security company G4S has a contract with the Israeli Prison Service to run and install security and management systems at six prisons Palestinian political prisoners, including children, are routinely subjected to torture, according to human rights organisations.
“It is completely unacceptable for a charitable foundation to be investing in a company that participates in gross human rights violations against Palestinian political prisoners. The Gates Foundation talks about every life having equal value, but what about the political prisoners, are their lives not of equal value?” said Sahar Francis, director of Palestinian prisoner and advocacy organisation Addameer.
More than 500 children are ‘are arrested, detained and prosecuted in the Israeli military detention system each year’, according to Defence for Children International – Palestine. Three out of every four of child detainees face physical violence during detention and interrogation, much of which takes place in facilities G4S helps to operate.
Palestinian student and father-of-two Arafat Jaradat died in custody last year after being tortured in Megiddo Prison, a facility that G4S helps to operate.
“Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, why does his charity have to fund itself by profiting from the torture of children and the use of detention without trial?” Francis added.
Israel illegally transfers prisoners from the occupied Palestinian territories to inside Israel despite this being prohibited by Article 76 of the Geneva Convention. Campaigners argue that G4S is complicit in this violation of international law.
A petition that has been backed by 20 Palestinian organisations and more than 100 organisations from across the world has also been launched today.
G4S has already lost contracts worth millions of dollars as trade unions and universities and other public bodies in Europe and South Africa cancel their contracts over concerns about the firm’s role in Israel’s prison system.

Hollywood actor Scarlett Johansson was embroiled in controversy and was eventually forced into resigning her role as an Oxfam ambassador earlier this year after she endorsed SodaStream, an Israeli company that manufactures drinks machines in an illegal Israeli settlement. Celebrities including Pink Flyod’s Roger Waters, Massive Attack’s Robert del Naja and Maxi Jazz from Faithless have backed a cultural boycott of Israel.
In April 2012, more than 2,000 Palestinian political prisoners went on hunger strike to protest conditions in Israel’s jails and the use of administrative detention, a form of detention without trial. There are currently three prisoners who remain on hunger strike, two of whom have gone without food for almost 80 days.
Palestinian human rights groups say that Israel uses mass incarceration to dissuade Palestinians from protesting against Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies. Israeli military orders make a whole range of activities illegal, including joining a political party or organising a demonstration.
There are more than 5,000 Palestinian political prisoners currently held in Israeli jails, including 183 children and 175 held under administrative detention, a form of detention without trial that Israel uses to hold Palestinians on secret information indefinitely.
Click here to sign the petition.

[seemslikeadream]

Providing a look inside the negotiation room, Kerry reinforced the Palestinian version of events
Kerry’s remarks made clear what Jerusalem should have understood by now - there is no symmetry in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s statements before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should not have surprised anyone. They simply expressed the frustration that many senior American officials have been voicing in private conversations over the past week about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The storm was unleashed because Kerry said out loud what he was thinking.

Kerry was not speaking Tuesday to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee only as secretary of state, but as a state's witness. He provided a look inside the negotiating rooms at the sequence of events that led to the serious crisis in the peace talks. Kerry’s remarks contradicted the spin coming out over the past few days from the prime minister’s bureau and inflated by the various cabinet ministers.

The secretary of state adopted the Palestinian version of events and reinforced it. He presented Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ signature on applications to join 15 international conventions as a response to Israeli violation of commitments and not as a step initiated to sabotage the talks. According to Kerry, the Palestinian move was negative and damaging, but Israel’s moves were even worse.

Kerry noted two Israeli breaches – failure to meet the obligation for the fourth phase of the prisoner release, and issuing a tender to build 700 apartments in East Jerusalem at the most critical point in the negotiations. His tone and body language when he spoke about the Israeli construction in the settlements showed how frustrated he was with Israel’s conduct.

The State Department in Washington tried to correct and explain Kerry’s statements. They sent messages to reporters, emphasizing his praise for Netanyahu at that same Senate hearing and stressed the fact that he had been balanced and had also criticized the Palestinians. But all of that was hindsight. If Kerry really wanted to pin responsibility on both sides equally, he could have said so much more clearly.

The fact that Kerry places most of the responsibility for the deadlock on Israel will be heard loud and clear in the world’s capitals. There will probably be quite a few Arab foreign ministers at the emergency meeting of the Arab League in Cairo on Wednesday, convened at the request of the Palestinians, who in their addresses will simply quote their American colleague.

The focus Kerry places on the settlements as one of the reasons for the meltdown of the talks will be clearly understood in the European Union’s institutions in Brussels and in the various foreign ministries on the Continent. That is precisely what Jerusalem is afraid of. The Europeans have warned Israel a number of times over the past few months that if the talks broke down over construction in the settlements there would be consequences in the form of additional European sanctions. The marking of products from the settlements in European supermarkets is a step waiting on the shelf for implementation.

Palestinian conduct over the eight months of the talks and especially the last two weeks was frustrating and irritating. Abbas is just about as serious with regard to changing the status quo and taking courageous steps to attain a historic peace agreement as Netanyahu is.

However, Kerry’s remarks made clear what Jerusalem should have understood by now – there is no symmetry in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel is perceived by the United States and the rest of the world, and rightly so, as the stronger party, as the occupying power and the entity with the greatest ability to change reality on the ground, for good and for bad. And so the big loser in any failure will always be Israel.

[seemslikeadream]

iNakba: New interactive app documents destroyed Palestinian villages
'People have started uploading photos of destroyed villages,' says Zochrot's Raneen Jeries, who adds that maps are a political tool.
By Steven Klein | May 5, 2014 | 3:20 PM

A new mobile app to help locate Palestinian villages destroyed since 1948 is launching Monday night to coincide with Israel's Independence Day, NGO Zochrot has announced.

Residents of over 400 Arab villages were uprooted by the war, referred to by Palestinians as the Nakba, or catastrophe. The villages were either destroyed or repopulated with Jewish residents after the war.

"iNakba is a trilingual mobile app (Arabic, Hebrew and English) based on Google Maps," the NGO, which is dedicated to spreading awareness about he Nakba, stated. "The application provides coordinates and maps of Palestinian localities that were completely demolished and obliterated after their capture, partially demolished, or remained standing although their residents were expelled."

Raneen Jeries of Zochrot told Haaretz Monday that her organization, which has held Independence Day activities for several years, has been working on the idea for about two years, developing it with the help of a company from Nazareth.

"Many people say they are attending tonight," she said. "It's not surprising because the idea of the app and iNakba is more interesting."

Jeries said that hundreds of people have begun downloading the interactive app, which allows users to add pictures and share comments, since it became available on the Apple store Monday morning.

"People have started uploading photos of destroyed villages," she said. "They took their smart phones and went on a tour to look for ruins and to visit the places. We got much positive feedback." She added that two people have already notified her of villages not found on the app.

She noted that there are several meanings of the letter 'i' in iNakba, not just for being associated with Apple. "It's also 'I' as in information or 'I' as in I or me," she said.

Monday evening's event will also include meetings with several academics, including Oren Yiftachel of Ben Gurion University and Yusuf Jabarin of Haifa University. Salman Abu Sitta, a Be'er Sheva-born researcher specializing in documenting the geography of the Nakba, will give a lecture via Skype.

Referring to Abu Sitta's "Atlas of Palestine," Jeries added, "We took the coordinates from these maps and translated them to high tech issues. So we think that maps are a political tool."

[seemslikeadream]

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2014 01:15 PM CDT
Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters and Nick Mason: Why Rolling Stones shouldn’t play in Israel
Band's founding members come together to argue in favor of the BDS movement -- and urge the Stones to reconsider



Pink Floyd's Roger Waters and Nick Mason: Why Rolling Stones shouldn't play in Israel

With the recent news that the Rolling Stones will be playing their first-ever concert in Israel, and at what is a critical time in the global struggle for Palestinian freedom and equal rights, we, the two surviving founders of Pink Floyd, have united in support of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS), a growing, nonviolent global human rights movement initiated by Palestinian civil society in 2005 to end Israel’s occupation, racial discrimination and denial of basic Palestinian rights.

The BDS movement is modeled on the successful nonviolent movements that helped end Jim Crow in the American South and apartheid in South Africa. Indeed, key figures who led the South African freedom struggle, like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Mandela’s close associate, Ahmed Kathrada, have come out in support of BDS for Palestinian rights. BDS offers us all a way to nonviolently pressure the Israeli government to fully realize that its injustices against the Palestinian people are legally and morally unacceptable and unsustainable.

The movement does not advocate a particular political framework — one state or two — and neither do we. Rather, we call for a resolution that upholds freedom, justice and equal rights for all, irrespective of identity, and does not cause additional suffering for either people.

So, to the bands that intend to play Israel in 2014, we urge you to reconsider. Playing Israel now is the moral equivalent of playing Sun City at the height of South African apartheid; regardless of your intentions, crossing the picket line provides propaganda that the Israeli government will use in its attempts to whitewash the policies of its unjust and racist regime.

We are nearing the tipping point in global awareness that the denial of Palestinian rights has had a devastating impact on generations of people, and that they need our support now more than ever. Consequently, we encourage you, fellow artists, to ask yourselves what you would do if forced to live under military rule and discriminatory laws for decades. If the answer is that you would resist until justice prevailed, we ask that you champion BDS as a nonviolent, collective means of securing a better future for all. If you wouldn’t play Sun City, back in the day, as you, the Rolling Stones did not, then don’t play Tel Aviv until such time as freedom reigns for all and equal rights is the law of the land.

“Together We Stand”

‘Secret’ London conference seeks to link BDS to… terrorism
Philip Weiss on April 14, 2014 30


The Jewish Chronicle in England has a report on a “secret” conference last week in London that wasn’t all that secret, aimed at the greatest threat to Israel these days, the movement to delegitimize the idea of an ethnocracy. Israel’s intelligence minister Yuval Steinitz was there, joining “dozens of leading politicians, campaigners and grass-roots activists… for a secret conference on tackling delegitimisation of Israel.”

I’m not sure how you have a “gala” dinner at a “secret” conference, but Ron Lauder, the American billionaire/philanthropist who heads the World Jewish Congress, spoke and described the “lawfare” methods for taking on this existential challenge:

Ronald Lauder told the 140 guests that countering the boycott movement might be the most important work they ever do.

He said: “…We will send the message that a campaign against Israel is a double-edged sword. We are not powerless — far from it. We have the resources. We have the intelligence. Most important, we have unbounded determination.”

Mr Lauder promised greater use of legal means to challenge boycotts.

“We will draft and lobby for legislation that will withhold government funding from academic institutions that boycott Israel,” he said.

“We will draft and lobby for federal anti-discrimination statutes in the United States against banks, businesses and governments that target only Israel. We will follow the money to find out just who is funding these attacks on Israel and if there is any connection to terrorism.”

Nancy Kricorian of Code Pink said that this is a refrain on the anti-BDS front: that somehow Palestinian solidarity folks are getting a lot of money to protest occupation.

My favorite moment was at a big Ahava demo outside a Ricky’s in Brooklyn, a reporter for Israel Channel Ten waved her hand at the assembled and asked me, “Who pays for all this?” I laughed and said, “For what? The poster board and felt-tipped markers? Everyone here is a volunteer, except for two part-time employees for local organizations.”

They really think there is money being funneled to us via, I don’t know, Saudi Arabia or Iran or something.
For a relatively small, underfunded, mostly volunteer movement, we seem to be having a big impact. Working with the Stop SodaStream media/social media team, I am struck by how smart and strategic our partners are. Ron Lauder may have the millions to throw at this problem, and the lawfare thing is going to be rough because it will suck up our resources, but we have the brains and courage.

Speaking of lawfare–if you know people who want to give money to support the BDS movement–we should be throwing checks at Palestine Solidarity Legal Support. It’s run by Dima Khalidi, and my friend Radhika Sainath is one of the staff attorneys.

Asa Winstanley at Middle East Monitor offers this analysis of the London conference, pointing out the weakness of its position:

Although that last reported quote from Lauder was probably meant to sound intimidating (especially with the article’s multiple references to Israeli “intelligence”) it actually reads more like preaching to the choir: the die-hard anti-Palestinian faithful are still trying to convince themselves.

Israeli lawfare represents at its heart, a movement that has so thoroughly lost the debate it has to increasingly resort to bullying tactics…

In those circles, there is a perception that Israel’s case is so self-evidently correct that the only problem is explaining it in the correct way – an image problem. Hence the failed “Brand Israel” strategy of a few years ago.

If Israel has an image problem, it’s only because it ultimately has a morality problem. As long as it tortures Palestinian fathers to death, and leaves millions of people whose lives it controls without some of the most fundamental human rights, Israel will continue to have an “image problem”.

As long as millions of Palestinian refugees are refused their inherent right to return to their homes in current-day Israel, for the crime of simply not being Jewish, the Palestinian struggle will continue. “Lawfare” is just a finger in the dam.

[seemslikeadream]

Artists of the Palestinian revolution
The artists engaged in the 1970s Palestinian revolution have until now remained silent about their experience. A new exhibition conveys the sense of belonging they felt

Karma Nabulsi
The Guardian, Friday 16 May 2014 12.00 EDT

Poster by Rafeik Sharaf, 1974

Advancing the Revolution with Weapons and Thought, in Pursuit of Liberation and Socialism, 1974, by Rafeik Sharaf. Courtesy of the Palestine Poster Project Archives (PPPA)
The series of Palestinian revolutionary films and art now showing at venues in London, under the slogan "The World is with Us", highlights the important fact that the Palestinian vision of "us" included Arab and international participants. Iraqi, Jordanian, German, Syrian, Egyptian, Lebanese, Italian and French artists – many of whom are coming to discuss the works they made – are sharing, for the first time, their experiences of contributing to the Palestinian revolution.

In the simplest terms, the story of the Palestinian revolution is a story of the cadres who created it, served it, and gave it both life and force. A people expelled en masse from their homeland, they managed to take matters into their own hands and transform their situation in a most ingenious manner. Initiated by a handful of young refugees, they began to "make their own history", launching a popular struggle in the late 1960s to regain their homeland and their rights.

Developing factories, institutions, hospitals, schooling and a plethora of ideologies inside an armed struggle throughout the 1970s, Palestinians also created an ebullient revolutionary culture of music, film, poetry, radio, photography, painting and plastic arts, and became the touchstone for revolutionary movements across the world. Those of us who were once part of it can barely believe it ourselves. Yet faced with such a radical predicament, a revolutionary answer grounded in hope, and, above all, on love, was simple common sense: love of our people, our lost homeland, of the principles of justice, liberation and return. This was the substance that drove the Palestinian revolution against such odds, and formed the core of each member's education. In this way Palestinians learned to become cadres, the very definition of a revolutionary: equal, free – and, above all, belonging.

We Will be Victorious by Ismail Shammout, 1970.
We Will be Victorious, 1970, by Ismail Shammout. Courtesy of the Palestine Poster Project Archives (PPPA)
In tracing film and poster art of the Palestinian revolution between 1968 and 1980 with care and attention to the artists who created them, as well as the political and social worlds they were immersed in, we can once again see and hear that atmosphere, and touch that spirit. Ordinary cadres and the people they struggled for – especially its children – are placed centre stage. Mona Saudi, the distinguished sculptor, founder of the PLO's plastic arts section, created a classic on Palestinian children's drawings that went on to inspire a film by Kais al-Zubaidi.

Even within the 20th-century, the Palestinian revolution was unparalleled. How to portray such a remarkable phenomena or capture its character today? Indeed, many old cadres feel their experience of the revolution cannot be accurately recalled, much less conveyed. But those who lived the revolutionary years are the key. And because it was a collectively owned experience, they have mostly remained silent, their shared moral world one in which the virtues of serving the whole required a fastidious ethics of self-effacement.

This makes the mission undertaken by the Palestine Film Foundation to locate, repair and prepare these rare films by working closely with their original film-makers all the more remarkable. There are precious testimonial films such as Tal Al Za'ater, about the refugee camp in Lebanon and the massacres there in 1976 (one of the two camp doctors, the legendary Dr Yousef Iraki will be present). A collaboration by the PLO film unit's Mustafa Abu Ali, the Lebanese director Jean Chamoun, and the Italian film-maker Pino Adriano, with an astonishing score by the renowned composer Mustafa al Kurd, it has been resynchronised to the original Arabic audio track.

A still from Tal Al Za'ater (1977)

A still from Tal Al Za'ater (1977). Courtesy of the Palestine Film Foundation
To give this series some context, there is still no detailed knowledge of the thousands of events, practices, structures and policies of the Palestinian revolution, and certainly no current language or framework in which to situate it. By no means a Marxist revolution (although Marxists were a part of it), it was definitely progressive, and certainly popular. To the revolutionary movements of Africa, Latin America and Asia it was known intimately: Palestine was with the world, just as the world was with Palestine.

This was not merely an anti-colonial or national liberation movement. Comprising the disenfranchised and the dispossessed, and driven by a determination to return home, and to count on themselves alone, meant that the Palestinian cause was not national, nor leftist, but, instead, of the whole people. The culture of return and the armed struggle at the heart of the revolution brought common cause to a people whose country had been destroyed by the Nakba.

These notions of return can be seen in the drawings, posters, and films made by the PLO's film unit and its Unified Information Bureau. They can be heard in the remarks made by ordinary cadres in the films – not just leaders such as Abu Jihad or Majed Abu Sharar, or poets such as Mahmoud Darwish and Samih al-Qasim, but by the young fighters who were the bearers of the revolution. The twin themes of hope and return are found time and again in the voices of Palestinian children, as they describe their lives through their dreams of joining the revolution, and in their drawings of what they wish to change forever.

[seemslikeadream]

Report: Germany cancels military subsidy deal with Israel following breakdown of peace negotiations
Annie Robbins on May 16, 2014

photo: Marc Israel Sellem/jerusalem post feb 2014
Press conference: Merkel and Netanyau Feb 25, 2014 (photo: Marc Israel Sellem/Jerusalem Post )

Is Germany fed up with Israel? Berlin has nixed a deal to give Israel a 30% discount on a $1 billion purchase of German gunboats, allegedly to be used for the protection of Israeli offshore gas fields in the Mediterranean Sea. Reportedly Israeli national security adviser Joseph Cohen claimed Chancellor Angela Merkel made an “explicit” promise to subsidize the purchase of the gun boats during a joint meeting between German and Israeli cabinets last February, but his counterpart, Merkel’s national security adviser Christoph Heusgen, denied that ever happened.

According to Haaretz, Heusgen told Cohen that there was “no chance” Germany’s parliament would approve the deal “given the breakdown of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, which has been blamed at least partly on Israeli settlement construction.“

For anyone following the trajectory of German-Israeli relations, this is long overdue. Back in ’09 at a press conference in Germany during Netanyahu’s first official visit after being elected prime minister, Merkel emphatically called for a full halt on settlement expansion (“Time is of the essence.”). This was after Cohen’s predecessor, Uzi Arad, had “demanded” Merkel not even mention settlements during the press conference lest Netanyahu threaten to cancel the visit!

Later that same year Germany had tried influencing the U.S not to oppose the Goldstone Report at the UN, as a ploy to pressure Israel into complying with a settlement freeze, as revealed by a leaked cable from the U.S. embassy in Berlin. At the time of the leak, in 2010, The Jerusalem Post reported “The WikiLeaks disclosure is said by some in Germany to reveal profound cracks in the “special relationship” between Israel and Germany.”

Fast forward a few years and media reports out of Germany have echoed sentiments those profound cracks were widening, indicating diplomatic relations between the two countries were deteriorating. Reports such as DW‘s A turning point in German-Israeli relations note German public opinion of Israel is on a nosedive (only 14 percent of Germans have a positive view of Israel) and characterize the relationship as “the worst crisis in diplomatic ties since Merkel took office almost 10 years ago.” Published on the eve of Merkel’s 2014 disastrous press conference in Israel with Netanyahu (see photo above) and less than 2 weeks after EU President Martin Schulz speech at Knesset caused an uproar that reverberated in Germany and throughout Europe (but was ignored altogether by the US press!), the delay in any meaningful resolution between Israel and Palestine looms large.

Let’s review what went down last February while Merkel and her cabinet were visiting Israel. Via The Local Germany’s News in English, Merkel: Israeli settlement a ‘grave concern’:

“We are looking at the settlements issue with grave concern,” Merkel said at a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “We hope it will not stand in the way of a two-state solution and that we can overcome it.”…

Merkel ….. reiterated that Germany adhered to the EU position on settlements, which under guidelines published in July prohibits financial dealings with settlement-based entities.

Hmm. Does that square with Merkel making an explicit promise to subsidize an Israel purchase worth hundreds of millions of dollars with no quid pro quo?

And what does it mean, that Germany adhered to the EU position on settlements under guidelines published last July? We reported at the time, the new European Union directive had a territorial clause banning all EU funding of projects in territories occupied by Israel since the ’67 war (pdf).

Are gunboats supporting settlement expansion? Merkel has stated Germany “does not support boycotting” Israel ‘proper’, but what about supporting Israeli attacks on fishermen in the Gaza sea?

15th May 2014 | Palestinian Center for Human Rights | Gaza, Occupied Palestine

Israeli Naval forces continued to carry out attacks on Palestinian fishermen in the Gaza Strip during the reporting period[1] (1-30 April 2014), including 11 shooting incidents; 3 chasing incident that led to the arrest of 2 fishermen, and confiscation of 2 fishing boats and fishing equipment (22 pieces of fishing net) belonging to Palestinian fishermen in the Gaza Strip.

Although on 21 May 2013 Israeli authorities limited the fishing distance in Gaza Sea to 6 nautical miles, they neither complied with that distance nor allowed Palestinian fishermen in the Gaza Strip to sail and fish freely, and continued their attacks against them. PCHR documented all attacks carried out within the distance of 6 nautical miles, which proves that Israeli forces’ policies aim to tighten restrictions on the Gaza Strip’s fishermen and their sources of livelihood.

Violations of the International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law

Israel’s attacks against Palestinian fishermen, who do not pose any threat to Israeli soldiers, in the Gaza Strip constitute a flagrant violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, relevant to the protection of the civilian population and respect for its rights, including every person’s right to work, and the right to life, liberty and security of person, as codified in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), despite the fact that Israel is a State Party to the Covenant. Furthermore, these attacks occurred in a time where the fishers did not pose any threat to the Israeli naval troops, as they were doing their job to secure a living. Israeli violations in the reporting period were as follows:

First: Shooting Incidents

During the reporting period, PCHR documented 11 cases in which Israeli forces fired at Palestinian fishermen in the sea off the Gaza Strip shore. Those attacks took place off Beit Lahia shore in the northern Gaza Strip, and Khan Younis shore, in the southern Gaza Strip. As a result, fishermen were forced to flee and leave the sea in all attacks. It is noted that all these incidents happened within the 6 nautical miles allowed for fishermen to sail and fish in, according to the cease fire agreement concluded between Israel and Palestinian armed groups under Egyptian and international auspices

What if the gunboats are primarily used to attack those fisherman? Maybe Germans are just fed up with that.

[seemslikeadream]

Anthony Bourdain - Parts Unknown - Gaza and the West Bank

Watching Anthony Bourdain in Palestine
I am a hardcore foodie, which means I love to eat. I was also born with Cerebral Palsy, which means I shake all the time—so cooking is not my thing, as I am banned from being around knives and fire. Those who cannot cook, watch, and I am obsessed with cooking shows. Forget Paula Dean; when it comes to on-air celebrity chefs no one makes my stomach go pitter-patter more than Chef Anthony Bourdain. He is absolutely fearless. He eats and smokes things I'd never have considered touching before I saw him do it first on No Reservations. No Reservations is no more, and the beautiful Bourdain has relocated to CNN. Parts Unknown, his new show now in its second season, is hands-down the best, most informative show on cable news. There is simply no competition, unlike on Bravo's Top Chef Masters where Chef Anthony happens to be my favorite judge.



By now you realize I am a fan of Anthony Bourdain, but this past Sunday night I fell even more in love with the man with the salt-and-pepper hair and the year-round tan. Bourdain has traveled to many places even a U.S. drone wouldn’t dare infiltrate. He has showcased cuisine that almost put him in an early grave, but he has never done anything more controversial than what he did during the kickoff episode of the second season of his Emmy award-winning show. Bourdain said the word “Palestine” and he wasn’t even sorry. The episode was titled “Parts Unknown: Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza.” The fact that neither Palestine nor Israel is mentioned in the title is quite telling. Instead of force-feeding the audience, Bourdain served up something so delicious viewers on either side of the fence couldn't resist digging in.

The show kicks off with Tony, who has one Jewish parent and absolutely no faith, visiting the Wailing Wall. He is welcomed with open arms and I believe bar mitzvahed. This fascinated me. Here is Bourdain, with zero connection to Israel, welcome to live in Jerusalem if he chooses while Palestinians living 5 minutes away in Bethlehem are banned from even visiting. While touring the old city, Bourdain's guide Yotam Ottolenghi addresses one of the most controversial questions in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Is falafel Israeli and can fried chickpeas have a nationality? Foreshadowing Bourdain’s descent to the Palestinian dark side, Yotam suggests that falafel is more Palestinian than Israeli because the Palestinians have been frying it since before modern-day Israel was even born. Bourdain, who donned a kippah at the top of the episode, passes on placing a crown of thorns on his head lest he muss up his heavenly hair.

Anthony Bourdain is known for showcasing things rarely seen on a channel like CNN, like super-hot, mother-of-two racecar driver Betty Saadeh. Betty of "Speed Sisters" fame is Shakira meets Mario Andretti. With Bourdain in the passenger’s seat, she sped through the Ramallah bubble, sporting a fantastic hot pink Bebe tank top, bursting negative Arab female stereotypes, and showing everyone that there is more to Palestine than slingshots. Betty also reminded viewers that Palestinians are trapped like rats in a cage with little open space to race or even breathe.

Video screenshot
Next stop on Anthony's culinary crusade is a place near and dear to my heart, Al Rowwad Theatre in Aida Refugee Camp, Bethlehem. When Bourdain asked Abdelfattah AbuSrour, the theater's director, why Palestinians glorify figures associated with violence, Abed informed him that Arab Idol Mohammad Assaf is far more famous than any martyr—including Yasser Arafat—and that art is a powerful form of nonviolent resistance Palestinians embrace.

I have been traveling to the Holy Land since the day I was born and I have seen pretty much everything between the river and the sea I am allowed to see. Bourdain showed me parts of Palestine I have been denied access to by Israel. I have always wanted to visit Gaza because it houses a state-of-the-art disability center, the A.M. Qattan Foundations Centre for the Child, located in Gaza City. Try as I may, I have not been able to get permission to cross the Erez checkpoint that separates the Palestinians in Gaza from those in the West Bank. The only other way in is through Rafah, but as a person living with a disability I am unable to handle traveling through the Egyptian/Palestinian border, which is treacherous and more often closed than not. My boy Anthony brought Gaza to me.

While in Gaza, Bourdain’s host was yet again a woman, Laila El-Haddad, aka the fabulous @gazamom in the Twitterverse. She and Tony chow down on homemade maklouba, a rice, veggie, and meat dish whose name translates to “upside down” because it is all cooked in one pot and flipped upside down to serve. The man who is serving the maklouba flips it on his head. It is must-see TV. While enjoying the maklouba, Anthony gets to experience the typical chaos of a Palestinian home where the kids outnumber the adults. Laila also makes a super important point when she explains to Anthony that their host, maklouba man, is not yelling and that is just the way we talk. This scene made me smile and reminded me of the millions of times I had to explain to friends that my dad was not shouting angrily at me but rather loving on me.

Video screenshot
After the maklouba, Laila treats Tony to fried watermelon stew. I pride myself on being a connoisseur of Palestinian cuisine, but I have never seen or heard of this fabulous watermelon concoction. I am more determined than ever to get into Gaza just so I can sit on the beach and devour this Bedouin feast with my hands. It is the only way to truly enjoy food, which is why according to Anthony's host, "God gave us hands instead of spoons."

Bourdain showed me something else I have never seen: the inside of an Israeli settlement. I may be American but I am not Jewish and my Palestinian self is not welcome in the religiously segregated illegal settlements that dot the West Bank and Jerusalem. They are exactly what I had pictured, typical cookie-cutter gated communities, but with far more weapons and barbed wire. Anyone who takes religious texts literally scares the bejesus out of me and settlers who think they have some divine right to Palestinian farmland also terrify me. During the Settlement segment of Parts Unknown, I heard the most delusional statement of the episode. The chief executive of Illit settlements claimed his presence made his Palestinian neighbors’ lives better. Listening to this man go on about how Palestinians are happy and the settlers gave them prosperity reinforces my belief that settlers are completely disconnected from reality and their own bigotry. Bourdain called BS on his guide, proving yet again that Anthony is one of the best chefs in the news business.

Along the way, Bourdain also dines with an Israeli woman and Palestinian man who are married with children. Yes, these couples do exist. They serve up a vegetarian feast. It is easy to go vegan in Palestine, which is where I quit eating food with a face. The vegetables and spices are one of a kind and you don't even miss the meat. The show closes with Anthony visiting an Israeli restaurateur, Natan, who lost his daughter to the violence of the conflict. He is an advocate of dialogue and no fan of the settlements. Natan, who served as an enforcer of the occupation as a soldier in Gaza, speaks of both sides’ senseless loss of life. This is something Parts Unknown managed to showcase beautifully in this episode. Without creating a false sense of equivalency between the oppressed and the oppressor, Tony reminded his audience that both sides love their children and that all violence must cease. Bourdain chooses to end the Jerusalem, West Bank, Gaza episode with a profile that screams for co-existence and tearing down that big, ugly wall that is clearly not a fence.

Anthony Bourdain began this edition of Parts Unknown by saying, “By the end of this hour, I’ll be seen by many as a terrorist sympathizer, a Zionist tool, a self-hating Jew, an apologist for American imperialism, an Orientalist, socialist, a fascist, CIA agent, and worse.” It’s like he and I are twins separated at birth, because I get the same reaction every time I pen a piece for Open Zion. Except instead of being called a self-hating Jew I am called a Gumby-mouthed skank. Anthony knew what he was getting into. He went there anyway and delivered groundbreaking reporting, so rarely seen on the news these days, with no reservations and no apologies.

Anthony Bourdain: The World Has Robbed Palestinians 'Of Their Basic Humanity'
Greg Mitchell on May 22, 2014 - 8:42 AM ET

I like Anthony Bourdain but only watch his weekly TV series, past and present, when I see he's visiting one of my areas of interest. So, yes, I did catch that excellent episode of his "Parts Unknown" on Israel and Palestine last September. And now he's won a top "Courage and Conscience" award from MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council) for it.

Here's a fine review with two clips from the show, as he travels from the Wailing Wall to Gaza to an Israeli settlement. Bourdain, by the way, was born half-Jewish.

Anthony Bourdain on Palestinians: “The World has visited many terrible things on” them, robbed of their Humanity
By contributors | May. 22, 2014 |

Anthony Bourdain: it is something we do all the time: “Show regular people doing everyday things–cooking and enjoying meals… It is a measure, I guess, of how twisted and shallow our depiction of the people is that these images come as a shock to so many. The world has visited many terrible things on the Palestinian people, none more shameful than robbing them of their basic humanity.”
Anthony Bourdain’s acceptance speech at the MPAC Media Awards

Occupartheid is Isolating and Degrading Israel
By Guest Contributor | May. 19, 2014 |

​(Open Letter from Daniel Bar-Tal, Tel Aviv)
“Love your neighbor as yourself”
This is the core requirement for overcoming blindness caused by hate and fear needed for peacemaking.
Dear Friends,
I write this letter with great concern for the future of my society and the State of Israel with the belief that the views presented here reflect the opinions of at least several hundred-thousand Jews living in Israel, who oppose the positions and the policies of the Israeli government and believe that these positions and policies are leading the country to disaster. This letter expresses my deep worry and conviction that Israel needs to be saved from the road chosen by the majority. Just because views are possessed by a majority does not mean that these views—-and the actions that result from them—-are right, moral or just. Thus all those who share the beliefs expressed in this letter are asked not to be bystanders to the upcoming and inevitable tragedy. No nation deserves this fate, even if its people are suffering from shortsightedness.
Recent events demonstrate how difficult it is to bring peace to this conflict-ridden region, but it is important to keep in mind that failure of the peace process may have disastrous consequences on both sides involved. The method of blaming for this failure reflects the same divisions that we have witnessed throughout the last decade: the Israeli government puts all the blame on the Palestinians without taking even a grain of responsibility, and the Palestinian Authority presents the exact opposite picture. Yet voices are appearing from participants in the negotiations who describe a much more complex story and Martyn Indyk revealed the destructive effect of the increased Jewish settlement activity during the negotiations as the major reason for the their collapse. But one thing is already clear: the failure and its surrounding developments should be considered a major historical event and another turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Both sides have lost their last ounces of trust in one another as a partner towards a possible peace agreement. Consequently the absent of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict coupled with the continuation of the lasting occupation is existentially detrimental to Israeli Jews and to Palestinians. Israeli Jews, who already practice occupartheid (defined as discrimination between populations on the basis of ethnic origin as a result of a lasting occupation that denies political and economic rights from the occupied population) will not be able to maintain this system forever and will eventually face a dilemma in which they will have to choose between two very different options: to be a democracy with a clear Jewish majority or to be a pariah, isolated state enacting formally a type of apartheid.
Moreover, the lasting occupation, with its clear ethnic discrimination, has serious, injurious effects on the Israeli state and society that will be difficult to mend. If it will not terminate the cancerous occupation with the continuing process of “Judaizing” of the West Bank, Israel will be condemned to degeneration and isolation, with the possibility of renewed violence. And if the present situation persists, Palestinians are destined for an extended period of suffering and misery due to the continuation of the Israeli occupation as well as societal and economic disintegration. Both sides pay and will continue to pay very severe costs for the inability to genuinely embark on the road to peace-making. By choosing to continue the conflict, both sides are abandoning the golden way to benefitting both societies, which have never experienced the profits of peace.
In this emergent situation it is imperative that none of us—-Jews, Palestinians, and other citizens of the world—-stand by passively!! Everyone must act to move the peace process back onto its tracks. This is not only a moral command: Stopping the present abysmal situation is deeply in the interest of both societies and the international community.
It is hard to identify the bottom of the barrel, as the fall of the Israeli society continues in spite of past feelings that we had already reached the bottom. Most likely, the bottom is never-ending as history shows and there is no limit to the deterioration that a nation may experience. I realize that not a few will say that I repeat the same feelings and thoughts over and over, yet Israel is still blossoming. I am absolutely convinced this reality cannot go on forever despite its present success. Remember, in the story of the boy who cried “wolf”- the wolf eventually came.
Caring about my country and loving it, I would like in this letter to focus more on the costs for the Israeli Jewish society, because this country is where my children, grandchildren and friends live with their families. I love them and am afraid that the future generations may pay a heavy price for the blindness of the Israel’s present leadership.
Although it is possible to ask different questions –depending on the political orientation—this time I would like to focus mainly on the occupation and ask how is it possible that this prolonged occupation has lasted for 47 years?
​There is no doubt that the glorified victory of the 1967 war was the turning point in the societal consciousness of the Jewish people, a great majority of whom viewed the occupation as liberation and redemption for the nation. This view is still deeply entrenched in the dominant ethos, if we take into consideration that the Israeli Jewish population goes through continuous and constant process of indoctrination through socialization in schools, in the army, and even in media, indicating that the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is the exclusive homeland of the Jews (see for example the platforms of all the major Jewish parties in Israel from 1967 till now or the Israeli maps that are missing the green line of the pre-1967 borders).
As a result, for the majority of Jewish Israelis, reaching a peace agreement is viewed as giving up part of the homeland. Thus, in spite of the fact that the majority of the Jews claim to accept (in a very general and unspecified way) the notion of two states for two peoples as a kind of slogan (as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did), they do not accept a division on the basis of 1967 lines and other conditions necessary in order to bring peace. The Jewish Israeli society, as the polls show, is becoming more nationalistic, anti-democratic, xenophobic and racist. In addition, a considerable part of the society (a recent poll show that over 50% of the Jews in Israel define themselves as being on the right with non-compromising views and among young people of age 18-34 the percentage is approaching 60%), including very strong forces in the government, reject any solution of dividing the land, either because of religious dogma, nationalistic ideology and/or security concerns. Furthermore, after years of brainwashing with the generalized representation that Palestinian Arabs are violent and untrustworthy, Israeli leaders successfully imparted to many Jews the idea that Palestinians, and especially their leaders, are not partners for peace and that their only aspiration is to destroy Israeli state.
In addition to the psychological difficulty to divide the land, the most important factor that paralyzes the Jewish population in Israel and the world is fear. Indeed there are many indications of dangers that appear from different corners of the region, but they are tremendously augmented and misused by Israel’s top leadership, which regards threats as a fundamental part of its ideology. This approach leads to complete distrust not only of the Arabs and Palestinians, but also of the entire world that is judged on one basis: whether it supports the Israeli cause or not. Thus if one does not accept Israeli logic and practice, it is viewed as being against the State and the Jewish people. This fear is intentionally perpetuated in connection to the genocide of Jews during the World War II and the Holocaust, which is employed as a parallel to today’s situation and as a lesson that the world is hostile and anti-Semitic, and no nation can be trusted.
We need to recognize that Israeli Jewish society is witnessing a demographic and political growth of fundamentalist and/or nationalistic spoilers who adhere to the vision of a Greater Israel. Many of them also possess world views that negate democratic code. They have tremendous political power and considerable resources to expand Jewish settlements, which are subsidized to a great degree by official institutions and the government and are beyond democratic, normative control. These actions of the spoilers, who also are the strongest part of the government, not only hurt the peace process, but also seriously damage the democratic nature of the State of Israel.
​Another reason for the continuation of the occupation is backing from the Jewish Diaspora establishment, the one that is connected to Israeli government and unequivocally supports the policies of the government, sends considerable resources to the rightist-nationalistic forces in Israel and presses the governments and media of the world to avoid criticism of Israel’s immoral policies (for example the largest circulated freely daily newspaper in Israel Israel Hayom that supports unequivocally the policies of the Prime Minister Netanyahu is owned and financed by Sheldon Adelson, an American business magnate and supporter of the Prime Minister). The fear of foreign governments and press being labeled as anti-Semitic leads them to paralysis, allowing Israel to persist in its immoral policies and acts against international law. Lastly, but not least, the situation is perpetuated by the unconditional support of the superpower, the USA, with a Congress being more hawkish than the Israeli parliament. The USA vetoed 42 UN Security Council resolutions from 1972 to 2011–some in contradiction to its official policy viewing Jewish settlements as violation of international law. I am not insinuating that other voices, bravely fighting for peace and a better Israeli society, are absent from the stage: Forces like JStreet or JCall are lights that energize our struggle for a better Israel.
Israel is a vibrant state with remarkable technological-scientific developments in many areas, a successful economy and flourishing cultural achievements that can compete with any country in the world. It has amazing archeological excavations, interesting and entertaining cities, beautiful beaches and landscapes and great cafes. Engulfed by ethos of conflict that is propagated by the formal institutions and channels of communication, people can live well without making any attempt to know what is happening ten kilometers east. Jews as well as foreigners are shown the accomplishments and success of Israel and directed to the traumatic imprinting events of the Holocaust and/or to the violent acts of Palestinians that are supposed to explain the present policies and acts of the Israeli government. It is true – it is possible to live well in Israel, being disconnected from the occupational reality with its severe consequences. I observe this phenomenon with horror because it demonstrates to me how human beings can allow the performance of the most serious inhuman acts by simply standing by. It has happened in the past and is happening today, even among Jews who themselves were victims of indifference and repression. But for some of us, it is very difficult to accept the moral deterioration because the present situation of Israel negates our fundamental principles of democracy and morality.
Israel is the only occupying state in the world in which the occupied population does not have political and economic rights. The occupation has lasted 47 years—twice as long as the State of Israel prior existence, recognized by the international community within the confines of the green lines. The lasting occupation cannot operate separately from the occupying society, which cannot seal itself off from the occupation and its effects. This connection becomes especially pronounced when the occupier not only penetrates the spaces of the occupied territories, but also settles in these areas, which are perceived as a continuation of the homeland territory, as in the Israeli case. It is necessary to know that already in this occupied territory, including East Jerusalem, there are about 550,000 Jewish settlers (in East Jerusalem about 200,000 and the rest in 126 settlements and in 100 outposts –about 30% built on privately owned Palestinian land), making it, at present, almost impossible to divide the territory (even since the beginning of the peace negotiations in July 2013, Israel has promoted plans or issued tenders for 13,851 Jewish homes, and in 2013 Israel increased its expansion of Jewish settlements by 123%).
These processes also affect the Israeli occupying society because once the occupation begins, a multifaceted and continuous interaction between occupier and occupied society necessarily occurs, usually starting with resistance to the occupation. Under such conditions, boundaries become blurred and interactive processes permeate the two territories, initiating long-term changes in every aspect of the occupying society’s life: New goals, interests, needs, trends, and developments appear to expand the Jewish settlement in the West Bank and to exploit its resources.
But, first of all there is a need to control the Palestinians with Israeli institutions and organizations to assure that they will not resist occupation, and to inhibit their national aspirations (thus the Israeli army, general security forces and police have to exercise power and supervision that leads often and unavoidably to violations of human rights); New dogmas arise to justify the continuing occupation, taking Jewish religious perspectives, nationalistic orientations and/or security as a world view; New interest groups emerge that have the goal of keeping the West Bank under Jewish occupation and even annexing it (the Jewish settlers); A new societal structure emerges in which Jewish settlers get unprecedented subsidies, influence and a free hand to implement their ideology (already through decades residents of the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River are formally categorized into at least three categories: citizens of Israel, Palestinian residents of Jerusalem and Palestinian residents of the West Bank, with different civil rights).
New norms, language, and moral standards develop to support the occupation (for example, differential treatment of the Jewish and Palestinian populations living in the same areas); Economic investments are made in the Jewish settlements (until now the rough estimation is at least about 30 billion dollars, not counting the military needs that result from this settlement and the occupation in general); The desire arises to seize and exploit resources (see the recent ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court that allowed this exploitation, and at the same time Israel does not allow Palestinian economic development and uses the cheap Palestinian labor force); A new political culture evolves to maintain the occupation and weaken democracy (a culture that blinds people with use of language from “1984″– a culture that supports the ideology and policies of the government and suppresses those who oppose them by legislating laws and carrying out other practices- a culture in which the government is limiting democracy step by step and now tries to define Israel legally as a Jewish state with severe implications for the non-Jewish minority constituting 20% of all citizens).
New security needs and new military strategies are developed (Israeli security forces are designated not only to maintain occupation and prevent and fight Palestinian resistance to occupation, but also to guard Jewish settlements-these same security forces who are adept at unravelling almost every intention to harm Jews, do not succeed in preventing and even untangling the ongoing violence perpetrated against Palestinians by Jews); New educational pattern emerges propagating a one-sided narrative and limiting critical views; new legal norms and system evolves (for example special legal system for trying the occupied population and norms of unlawfulness by Jews in the occupied territories); new trade markets appear (Israeli export to the West Bank and control of the Palestinian economy); and groups emerge that object to the occupation and carry out a political struggle against it, reflecting the evolving sociopolitical polarization.
The final point has special implications for the democratic nature of the Israeli state because the Israeli government as well as some political parties and NGOs, in their attempts to preserve the official policies and the official Israeli narrative, use all the means at their disposal to prevent exposure to information that may negate the propagated views. To achieve this goal, they use punishments, sanctions, legislation and delegitimization of sources (individuals, groups, NGOs) and their messages. Although the Israeli mass media enjoys formal freedom and there are critical debates about the direction Israel is taking, the government tries to control the media, which in times of military tension mobilizes itself to support official policies (Israel is rated number 96 for its press freedom among 181 states).
Moreover Israel carries out institutionalized discrimination against the Arab/Palestinian citizens of Israel, who are viewed as a fifth column (this discrimination is not only institutionalized but also has become legal because a number of laws were legislated specifically to discriminate against this population). Jews in the world should pay an attention to the double standard that Israel is practicing between the demands to treat Jewish minorities and Jewish holy places in the states of the world and its treatment of minorities and their holy places in the state of Israel. In addition to the noted practices of discrimination of minorities in Israel, inhuman treatment of African refugees who arrived to Israel escaping from violence, persecution and unbearable economic conditions of life, cases of hate crime performed by Jews have become prevalent, without determined massive condemnation by the government and their successful prevention or arrest of the performers.
It is hard to look in the mirror because occupation is, by its nature, brutal, discriminative, and oppressive. If we look only at some of the information from 2013, Jewish settlements were constructed in just a bit over 1% of the West Bank’s territory, but they control about 43% of the West Bank in their municipal boundaries and the majority of its water and natural resources; an estimated 700,000 Palestinians were imprisoned in Israel between 1967 and 2007; between 1990 and 2006 over 150,000 Palestinians were tried in the Israeli military courts; 1,000–1,500 Palestinians are interrogated by the Shin Bet (security service) annually and 85% of them are subjected to methods that fall under the definition of torture; in the past 12 years alone, at least 7,500 children between the ages of 12 and 17 are estimated to have been detained, interrogated, and imprisoned; over 24,100 Palestinian houses were demolished between 1967 and April 7, 2009, leaving 70,000 Palestinians homeless—and I did not even talk yet about civilian Palestinians and Israeli Jews being killed and injured.
In addition while most of the countries of the world cherish democracy as the preferable political system and Israel self-proclaims itself as one of the strongest democracy, the reality is different. Israel is steadily moving away from the boundaries of democracy. This way finds expression in the spate of bills that seek to limit criticism of the government and the State, to restrict freedom of speech, to legalize illegal polices, to expand Jewish nature of the state over the democratic counterpart and to harm the Arab minority. Racist, nationalistic and antidemocratic rhetoric and acts have become part of the normative life of the society.
In this context, the self-presentation of the state as having the most moral army and lively democracy is for a blind audience. The increasingly dominant nationalistic, expansionist, anti-democratic ideology, goals and policies are crossing the red lines of democratic norms and moral codes. The ongoing occupation and the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories violate the basic human and collective rights of the Palestinians, and lead to the deterioration of the democratic and moral fabric of the Israeli state and society. Taken together, these are serious deviations from the principles of equality, freedom, human rights, and justice that should guide societies.
Many people may ask me why I am not also addressing the way Palestinians manage the conflict and themselves, the way Syrians deal with their conflict, or Egyptians manage their disagreements or focus on other the evil acts in the world. It is not that I do not care about them, but as an Israeli Jew who loves my country I see a moral obligation to ring the bell in order to avert the dangers that I perceive today in the path the Israeli government is leading the Jewish people and the way the majority of Israeli Jewish society supports it. Liu Xiaobo from China, Wangari Muta Maathai from Kenya, or Shirin Ebadi from Iran (all received the Nobel Peace Prize) are never asked by Jews why they criticize their countries, but, on contrary, they are actually applauded for taking the risk. Yet there are Jews in Israel and in many other countries that self-impose silence on such critical views of the Jewish society and the Israeli state. This is probably an example of hypocritical human nature to prevent criticism of your own group, while applauding the criticism of the out-group by its members. I deeply believe that it is an ultimate obligation and responsibility of human beings first of all to observe, to report and to struggle against the wrongdoing of their own state and society. If this rule would have been realized, the world would look a better place to live in.
What is needed is an end to the occupation. Different proposals have been put forth to end it, beginning with unilateral withdrawal, negotiations in line with Clinton’s parameters, or the framework of the Arab Peace Initiative that was launched at the Arab League Summit in Beirut in 2002, based upon the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, alongside the State of Israel. Instead, our government forges ahead with expansionist policies that, if not quickly halted, will render a two-state solution impossible.
The future looks bleak, as the occupation cannot continue. Though it is possible that the world has accepted Israeli violations of human rights and international law and will not initiate any serious protests in the coming years, this situation cannot continue endlessly. Eventually the barrel of dynamite will explode, because of accumulated deprivation, discrimination, and oppression. Then the people in this area—Jews and Palestinians alike— will pay the price for the inaction of their leaders, societies, organizations, and individuals. The next generation will go through turmoil that will have serious consequences for the peoples living in this area.
Israel has to adopt democratic, moral and humanistic values that are underpinning a better world. They must to accompany particularistic values of Jewish identity and together should serve as a compass to the society. Let’s not forget that Jewish heritage also provides foundations for moral and humanistic principles.
This letter is one more wake up call to the Jews of the world—and especially of the U.S.—to understand that their unequivocal support for immoral policies is detrimental to the well-being of the Israeli state. They need to stop the occupartheid because, for many of them, it contradicts their basic values. Also, I feel that it is important that voices that express moral values will be heard continuously and loudly. There is a substantial minority of Jews in Israel who voice similar beliefs through different means—media commentaries, films, theatrical plays, paintings, books, NGO activities and even political platforms and speeches. Courage is needed to express these views, but they are a must because these voices provide a determinative compass to the rest of the society and sign of hope to the world. It is possible to avert the danger in spite of the grave situation. I believe this depends on us. Human beings led to the present stalemate and other people can change the march of folly.
A rabbi in Israel told me that hope was the crucial element that allowed Jews to survive the dark periods of history. Thus, in the same line, hope is what is left for us—to believe that the present, unbearable situation is only temporary and, soon, a new horizon will appear and, with it, a new tomorrow. But the goals of hope cannot be realized without action. Thus, this letter is a call for everyone to open their eyes and find at least one way to express the need for an end to the present situation. It is written in the best of the Jewish tradition of Tikkun Olam [Repairing the World] that expresses responsibility to struggle for a better world.
Daniel Bar-Tal
Branco Weiss Professor of Research in Child Development and Education
School of Education
Tel Aviv University

[seemslikeadream]

"Are You Now or Have You Ever Been a Signatory to a Boycott of Israel?" The BDS Movement and the Return of McCarthyism
Thursday, 19 June 2014 00:00
By Chip Gibbons, Truthout | News Analysis

BDS Movement and Rabbi's For Palestine. (Photo: Mike Gifford / Flickr)
State and private attempts to silence and isolate public supporters of the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions movement are eerily reminiscent of McCarthyist tactics to silence, destroy and intimidate political opponents.
Full disclosure: The author of this piece was an active member of Keep Free Speech in the Free State, a coalition of groups opposed to the Maryland anti-BDS bill, who testified against the bill during Maryland General Assembly hearings. The views expressed are his individual views.
Contemporary mainstream portrayals of McCarthyism tend to depict that phenomenon as being an overzealous reaction to perceived threats of espionage and the infiltration of the American government by the Cold War enemy. While such reactions are often portrayed as excessive, paranoid or part of a witch hunt, even critics still concede that this paranoia was rooted in legitimate national security concerns - even if their targets and tactics were illegitimate. Such an understanding of the McCarthyist era - which includes not just the demagoguery of the era's namesake, but also compulsory testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee, Smith Act prosecutions, the blacklists, Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations, and exclusion of certain individuals from trade unions - misses its fundamental purpose.(1) At heart, McCarthyism - much like the First Red Scare following World War I - was an attempt to repress dissent. It was not just would-be foreign spies that aroused the attention of McCarthyism. The labor and civil rights movements, those who questioned the United States' continuously bellicose foreign policy and the general erosion of civil liberties, as well as journalists and publications, were deliberate targets of the era's enforcers of political orthodoxy.
Today's assault on defenders of Palestinian human rights, especially those involved with the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, holds many direct parallels with the original McCarthyist repression. Opponents of Palestinian human rights often seek to label their opponents as some sort of alien agent or enemy, calling them terrorist or terrorist sympathizers. However, the petty name calling of increasingly desperate defenders of Israeli apartheid is not the most troubling of these parallels.
Recent attacks on the BDS movement reveal a troubling goal of the movement's opponents - such groups and individuals wish not to merely shut down public discussion of Israeli human rights abuses and civil society based opposition; they wish to punish any individual or organization even remotely associated with BDS by permanently barring their participation in public life and civil society. There are numerous examples to expose this true intent.
One example is Judith Butler's cancelled lecture on Kafka at the Jewish Museum in New York City. Butler, a continental philosopher, is most famous for her works on gender theory. She is also an outspoken supporter of BDS. Butler is no stranger to attempts to have her lectures censored due to her views on BDS. There was an organized effort to have an event featuring her and Omar Barghouti cancelled at Brooklyn College. However, there was one crucial difference. The event at Brooklyn College was explicitly on BDS, whereas Butler's speech at the Jewish Museum had nothing to do with BDS. While it is still a pernicious form of McCarthyist censorship to try to block BDS events, it is a different level of repression to attempt to block supporters of BDS to speak on any topic, ever.
A similar set of bans has been set in place by the Washington, DC-based Jewish Community Center (JCC). A recent Washington Post article details how the center has set in place a process of "vetting" the political views of speakers and artists after the JCC rescinded an invitation to the feminist punk band The Shondes, because the band's singer, Louisa Solomon, supported BDS. Even though Solomon promised not to mention BDS from the stage and most of the band's work is apolitical, she was still deemed to be a persona non grata. The process of "vetting" artists has taken on a familiar line of questioning. When Theater J, which is run by the JCC, was considering hosting a production of Tony Kushner's "The Intelligent Homosexual's Guide to Capitalism and Socialism with a Key to the Scriptures," the theater's artistic director was required to ask Kushner, "On behalf of the Jewish people, are you now or have you ever been a signatory to a boycott of Israel?" Given that Kushner's play revolves around an aging Communist Party member, it would appear that today's McCarthy's not only have no sense of decency, but no sense of irony, as well.
It is not just private organizations enforcing this new McCarthyism; many state legislatures have tried to enter the game, as well. After the American Studies Association, the Asian American Studies Association and the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association all endorsed an academic boycott of Israel, several state legislatures, including New York and Maryland, considered bills to punish these associations. The New York bill would have originally denied funding for an entire year for any school that used state funding for a membership in or travel to the conference of any organization that supports the academic boycott of Israel (it was later amended to only deduct the cost of the membership or the travel in question from the school's budget). The travel funding ban is particularly telling as none of the money would go to the organization with the "wrong" views - just to pay for a professor's train or plane ticket.
The Maryland bill was even more stringently anti-free speech and went even further in scope. Under the Maryland bill, a school that received state funding could not use any money, including tuition, institutional or grant money, to pay for a membership in or travel to the conference of an organization that directly or indirectly boycotts a country that has signed a "declaration of cooperation" with the state of Maryland. While it could be argued that the New York bill was about keeping state funding from going to the offending organization, Maryland legislators made it clear their attempt was to make it as difficult as possible for any faculty member to freely associate with a professional organization that has taken a political position deemed incorrect by the state.
The bill's original sponsor and Maryland's own Joseph McCarthy, State Delegate Benjamin Kramer, frequently used inflammatory accusations to try to tarnish the reputation of the American Studies Association (ASA). Not only did he incorrectly state that the ASA has solely chosen to boycott the world's one Jewish state - implying anti-Semitic intent behind the boycott - Kramer went even further by comparing BDS to the deplorable actions of the Nazis. On Maryland's House floor, he stated, "the Nazi party came into power in Germany and they promptly began to isolate Jewish academics, leading to prohibitions against Jews serving as professors," later adding, "Having taken a page from the history books, Israel's enemies are once again starting with the academics and professors, the targets of their boycott."(2) During both legislative sessions and in the media, he also frequently made analogies between the ASA and the Ku Klux Klan, and between academic conferences and cross burnings.
The Maryland bill died in committee, but Kramer was able to get some watered down language condemning BDS and the ASA placed in the Maryland budget. The New York bill is stalled for the moment, but could come back before the session is over.
These actions are directly reminiscent of the blacklists and subversive organization lists of the McCarthyist era. The blacklist did not just ban certain political parties or ideologies; it also prohibited individuals associated with prohibited political causes from maintaining any kind of professional or public life. Members of groups deemed to be "subversive" by the attorney general were denied subsidized public housing, benefits under the GI Bill, and passports. Private hotels even used the list to bar organizations from renting rooms.
The point of such moves in both the McCarthyist era and now is not just to stop individuals from talking about communism or BDS, but also to stop individuals from talking about Kafka if they've already transgressed the norms of politically accepted dialogue. It is not just to stop state funds from "directly or indirectly" supporting BDS, but also to make sure that no professor of any political persuasion can speak about any topic at a meeting of a professional association that has taken the incorrect political position.
Much of the repression of the McCarthyist era stemmed not just from the persecution of some by the state or their blacklisting by private industry, but by the chilling effect those actions placed on the general discourse in the United States. Today's repression will have a similar affect. Many churches, school governments and other civil society groups have debated and even passed BDS resolutions. It is impossible to believe that the possibility of state action, like that witnessed in the anti-ASA bills, will not cast a shadow over future debates. Artists and other individuals who know that public support for BDS means their plays will not be shown at certain theaters, their band will not be allowed to perform at certain venues or they will not be allowed to speak on issues not pertaining to BDS will think twice before taking such stances.
It is important to recognize the latest move by opponents of Palestinian human rights as what it is, a torn out page from the old playbook of the McCarthyist era meant to silence, destroy and intimidate political opponents.
1. The term McCarthyism is today used to refer to the general set of repressive practices during the Second Red Scare, which both began before Senator Joseph McCarthy's arrival on the anti-communist scene and continued after his political star had dimmed significantly. Much of the activity commonly thought of as "McCarthyist" in the popular imagination, such as the Hollywood blacklist or the House Un-American Activities Committee, did not actually involve the Wisconsin senator. Thanks to his bombastic antics, he has the great honor of having the era's general gamut of politically repressive practices named after him.
2. Delegate Benjamin Kramer's full remarks to the Maryland House of Delegates can be heard at the 27:40 mark at http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmAu ... 2014_1.mp4

[seemslikeadream]

US Presbyterian Church to Divest from Israeli-Linked Investments

Mike Eckel
June 21, 2014 11:05 AM

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Presbyterian Church has voted to divest its financial holdings from three American companies doing business in parts of Israel considered by Palestinians to be occupied territory.

The governing General Assembly voted Friday 310-303 to remove holdings in Caterpillar Inc., Hewlett-Packard and Motorola from the church’s portfolio of investments, according to a statement posted on its Web site.

Though largely symbolic, the decision comes amid building pressure on other churches, companies, organizations, universities and others by the “Boycott, Divest and Sanctions” movement, known as BDS.

The statement said the Assembly members included a preface to its resolution saying the church was committed “to peace in Israel and Palestine."

“We recognize the complexity of the issues, the decades-long struggle, the pain suffered and inflicted by policies and practices of both the Israeli government and Palestinian entities. We further acknowledge and confess our own complicity in both the historic and current suffering of Israeli and Palestinian yearning for justice and reconciliation,” the resolution stated.

The resolution explicitly noted that the vote “does not mean an alignment with the overall strategy of the global BDS movement.”

That movement, started by Palestinian groups almost a decade ago, seeks to put financial pressure on Israel to reach accommodation with Palestinians on the status of refugees, territories in the West Bank and a comprehensive peace deal.

The church, which reportedly holds about $21 million in investments in the three companies, held a similar vote two years ago that failed. In addition to supporters of the divestment, this year’s vote had attracted intense lobbying from Jewish groups.

Israel's reaction

In a statement posted Friday night on its Facebook page, the Israeli Embassy in Washington called the resolution "shameful."

"Voting for symbolic measures marginalizes and removes its ability to be a constructive partner to promote peace in the Middle East," the statement said. “We would have hoped that (the Presbyterian church) would have joined us in promoting peace and denouncing terrorism."

The companies targeted have contracts to sell earth-moving equipment, surveillance technology and other goods that activists say are used by Israel to build settlements and violate rights of Palestinians.

The Presbyterians, which have around 1.8 million members in the United States, are not the first American church to have divested from investments connected to Israel. But it is the most prominent U.S. religious group to endorse divestment as a protest against Israeli policies toward Palestinians.

The Mennonite church and the Quakers had taken similar steps in recent years, according to The Associated Press, and last week a panel of the United Methodist Church said it had sold holdings in a company that has contracts with Israel’s prison system.

[seemslikeadream]

UK’s biggest trade union supports Israel's boycott

Ironically Unite pledged to back Jewish labor party's leader Ed Miliband, who opposes the BDS campaign, for PM

Britain’s biggest trade union, Unite, joined last week the international campaign for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel.

At their annual conference in Brighton the organization said Israel is “guilty of the crime of apartheid."

By adopting two anti-Israel resolutions, the union, which announced it will financially back labor party's leader Ed Miliband in his bid for the premiership next May, blatantly defied the Jewish politician's recent call not to support the campaign.

The first motion, adopted by Unite, condemned Israeli "violations of international law" such as settlement construction, “crimes of persecution against the Palestinian people”, as well as the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The motion also commits Unite to taking “bolder steps like those that were taken against the South African apartheid regime” and to work with others to develop a “campaigning and leverage strategy around BDS within the next 12 months”, notably “against complicit companies involved in the occupation, the apartheid wall and the illegal settlements."

A pro-Israeli motion titled “Israeli-Palestinian Cooperation” which "expressed support for the stricken US-led peace talks and encouraged engagement with both Israeli and Palestinian trade unions,” was turned down

At the Labor Friends of Israel annual lunch last month Miliband said that, if elected Prime Minister next year, he would enter Downing Street proud to be a "friend of Israel" and "a Jew," adding, "We will resolutely oppose the isolation of Israel…We are clear that the threat of boycotts of Israel is the wrong response."

[seemslikeadream]

Who Decides for the Palestinians?
by Kim Petersen / July 5th, 2014

In a recent article, “On Israel-Palestine and BDS,” renowned anarchist professor Noam Chomsky describes the misery caused by Israel’s actions in the Occupied Territories. He says “the United States should also be condemned and punished for providing the decisive military, economic, diplomatic and even ideological support for these crimes. So long as it continues to do so, there is little reason to expect Israel to relent in its brutal policies.”

Yes, the US is the preponderant enabler of Zionist slow-motion genocide, oppression, and dispossession. However, the US is not to be condemned alone for supporting Israel. Canada, among other Zionist-supporting nations, should also be condemned and punished for providing military, economic, diplomatic, and ideological support for these crimes.

Chomsky notes the warning of Israeli scholar Zeev Sternhell: “The road to South Africa has been paved and will not be blocked until the Western world presents Israel with an unequivocal choice: Stop the annexation and dismantle most of the colonies and the settler state, or be an outcast.”

I submit Sternhell did not go far enough. He should have written dismantle all the colonies. Acceding — even partially — to facts-created-on-the-ground is acquiescing to the perpetration of war crimes. What kind of message does this send in today’s world?

Writes Chomsky, “One crucial question is whether the United States will stop undermining the international consensus, which favors a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized border (the Green Line established in the 1949 ceasefire agreements)…”

At the outset, I must establish that any demands, strategy, and tactics pursued are the right of the oppressed people, the Palestinians, to decide upon. It is not for outsiders, especially those who might have vested interests in the outcome, to decide for the Palestinians. The solution identified by Chomsky rewards the seizure of territory through violence. And his justification: “the international consensus, which favors a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized border.” The borders of the 1947 Partition Plan were also created by an international consensus (if one can seriously refer to unethical western arm twisting to reach an outcome in the UN as a “consensus”1; why does Chomsky tout the 1949 “international consensus” over the 1947 consensus? What does elementary morality posit here? Bear in mind that the nation state of Israel was appropriated by European Jews from the indigenous Palestinians through “international consensus” (i.e., great power not-so-diplomatic arm twisting).

The Tactics of Resistance

The professor discusses the BDS movement and its prospects for furthering the Palestinian cause. He finds BD (he correctly points out that S — sanctions — are missing) has “deservedly” received “considerable attention.” “But if we’re concerned about the fate of the victims, BD and other tactics have to be carefully thought through and evaluated in terms of their likely consequences.”

Who should decide whether the BDS tactic is correct? The victims or Chomsky? Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but does not elementary morality state that victims should decide upon the proper tactics and what level of suffering they are willing to endure to attain some form of justice?

Chomsky says aiming to end the occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall “makes good sense.” However, the respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194 has, according to Chomsky, “virtually no meaningful support” except within the BDS movement. Chomsky is again relying on “international consensus” and “international law.” Morality apparently plays little meaningful role, except that Chomsky decries the war crimes and claims concern for the victims. His answer to the victims is, apparently, to accept getting a rump of their original state back. Never mind the refugees and restitution.

Chomsky is also skeptical about the possibility of attaining recognition for the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality. He even warns that the Palestinian victims might wind up doubly harmed.

The professor posits, “Concern for the victims dictates that in assessing tactics, we should be scrupulous in recognizing what has succeeded or failed, and why.”

Of course we should be concerned for the victims and for their choice of best tactics, but does our concern supersede our recognition of their fundamental rights to decide for themselves?

BDS supporters should not look to South Africa as a model for success; it is an incorrect analogy says Chomsky.

While there is, finally, a growing domestic opposition in the United States to Israeli crimes, it does not remotely compare with the South African case. The necessary educational work has not been done. Spokespeople for the BDS movement may believe they have attained their “South African moment,” but that is far from accurate. And if tactics are to be effective, they must be based on a realistic assessment of actual circumstances.

Chomsky’s analysis seems sound. It will be exceedingly difficult to breach the western governmental, media, and academic wall that supports the slow-motion genocide, occupation, and oppression of Palestinians. I do not wish to impose victimhood on the Palestinians, and I do not suggest they identify themselves as victims. Nonetheless, insofar as war crimes, home demolitions, apartheid laws and practices, incarceration, collective punishment, humiliation, etc constitute victimization, then, I submit, Palestinians are victims of Zionist Jews. However, do the Palestinians not have the right to decide what is “a realistic assessment of actual circumstances” and what tactics will be effective? Why should Palestinians submit to an airy-fairy “international consensus” or “international law” that is more-than-likely unjust? Do they not have the right to decide what constitutes justice for themselves and what further oppression they are willing to endure to obtain justice?

Chomsky holds no illusions. He points out that Zionist Jews will pursue racist, expansionist plans. The US will probably continue to support Israel despite its lawlessness. He sees no savior on the horizon for Palestinians.

Thus the professor finds, “This is all the more reason why those who are sincerely dedicated to the Palestinian cause should avoid illusion and myth, and think carefully about the tactics they choose and the course they follow.” I am in solidarity with the professor on his opposition to the oppression and racism by Zionists. I am in solidarity with his concern for the consequences of tactics of resistance.

Outside advice for Palestinians may be beneficial, and Palestinians would be wise to consider all tactics. But Chomsky’s article raises another concern; it is a concern that outsiders might try to impose their own vision of what is a just solution for the Palestinians; it is a concern that the Palestinians be empowered to promote their vision. Nowhere is it made clear in Chomsky’s article that Palestinians have the dominant say in what fate they choose. Is not the “Palestinian cause” first and foremost the cause of the Palestinian people?

I iterate that the tactics and course of resistance are for Palestinians to decide upon. The supporters of the “Palestinian cause” can make their concerns known, but in the end, it is up to the Palestinians to decide what constitutes a settlement they can accept. It is up to Palestinians to decide what they will endure and for how long to obtain maximal justice.

[KUAN]

Heartwarming and depressing I hope it goes viral
Thanks seemslikeadream