Articles on current Israel-Palestine situation - CLIL

1. 100 ex-generals to Bibi: Reach a Palestinian, regional accord now

Security makes a comeback in peace. If the generals avoid mistakes of the past and put action behind words, they could have an impact.

Over 100 retired and reserve generals, brigadier-generals and senior police officials, including a former head of the Mossad, have signed and published a plea to Prime Minister Netanyahu to reach a reach a regional-based two-state diplomatic resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In impassioned language, they state their credentials as fighters in Israel’s wars who “fought powerfully on behalf of the state,” and were “impressed by your [Netanyahu’s - ds] wise leadership during Protective Edge.”

They then state their fear that the operation over the summer,

could turn out to have been in vain if we don’t learn that we must take action to prevent the next war. The government of Israel and its citizens do not have the privilege of sitting around with arms folded. The time has come to take responsibility for our future and take up the historic opportunity that has been presented to us following the operation.

Retired IDF Gen. Nati Sharoni, one of the signatories, told +972 Magazine that the historic opportunity relates to the fact that Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and various Gulf states are prepared to revive the Arab Peace Initiative following Protective Edge. The letter was published in Yedioth Ahronoth, one of the top-circulating Hebrew daily papers, along with a double-spread article interviewing some of the signatories.

The authors called upon the still-painful memory of the surprise 1973 Yom Kippur War, “a war whose source was diplomatic blindness of the leaders of Israel,” they write. “We are terrified that the same blindness will undermine the opportunity before us.”

The generals make two interesting points. First, they emphasize the regional approach, which seems to be gaining traction in Israeli discourse lately. And tucked into the letter is the assertion that the West Bank and Gaza must be dealt with simultaneously and together – in contrast to the government’s de facto policy of separation.

We therefore call on you to adopt the regional-diplomacy approach and open negotiations with moderate Arab states and with the Palestinians (in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as one), by leveraging the Arab-Saudi initiative and conducting negotiations over its items…

It is not the first time I have heard senior security figures insist that Gaza and the West Bank must be resolved in an integral way for a diplomatic resolution to advance security. (Gen. Sharoni, like many others, avoids the term “peace,” because he doesn’t believe that idealized peace with Arab states will be achieved any time soon.)

But the overriding theme is that a two-state diplomatic resolution is the real means to security in the region. “The wisdom of leadership is to realize the limits of force. You need to know that there are limits to force,” said Gen. Sharoni.

The writers also push the bar by repeatedly referring to “moderate Arab states,” practically an oxymoron in the mainstream Israeli narrative. While many Israelis still view the Middle East as a single blob of fanatical Islamic terror states poised to devour tiny Israel, they make pragmatic distinctions between regional actors.

You know that the moderate Arab states wish to advance a diplomatic agreement with us that will allow us to cope together with our common enemy[sic]…You know that this is the real answer to the Iranian threat and the threat of terror from ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. And you know that only the regional-diplomatic approach and agreements with the moderate Arab states have a chance of bringing an arrangement with the Palestinians, stability, security and economic success.

They conclude: “We know what is needed to achieve security for Israel, and we know that regional cooperation will contribute to it…Lead – and we will stand behind you!”

The pessimistic reading of this initiative is that during the Oslo years, the Left over-promised when it linked the peace process with security, failing to anticipate or cope with the violence of spoilers. It will be hard to get people to believe again that peace equals security – especially if standards are set too high.  Remarkably, day after day, I still hear Israelis believe that the occupation maintains security. Declarations have been made before, the “Gatekeepers” have stated their criticism, the Council on Peace and Security (retired high-level IDF officers for a two-state peace, several of whom signed the letter) has existed for years – and yet nothing changes.

Still, 100 of the highest-ranking figures from deep inside the military establishment are more meaningful to mainstream Israel than a handful of young people who breach social norms by refusing combat or intelligence reserve duty.

But if the generals wish to move from calling for change to helping make it, they should consider further steps: first, they should maintain ongoing public pressure rather than a single shot, and recruit more people and join those people outside the security establishment who are committed to the cause. Asked if follow-ups are planned, Sharoni responded that he would continue to warn publicly against the dangers of the emerging one-state reality and the need for a change of policy. “Do we have a choice?”

Next, the generals should sharpen the point not clearly stated in the letter: the last five years and three wars have proven, hopefully, that status quo of Palestinian statelessness and Israeli military rule is a security liability for Israel. Suicide bombs have been replaced with rockets, but the occupation remains the primary source of Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians, and certainly of Israeli violence against Palestinians. The idea that occupation defends Israel is bankrupt.

Third, the generals should get to work: join track-two initiatives, generate proposals for post-occupation security arrangements, do what generals do best — get the plans in place. The letter pleads to stop making excuses; the tough guys should help see that there are none.

Published November 3, 2014, www.Published November 3, 2014 972mag.com

1. Why are the US and Israel so friendly?

That's a hugely controversial question. Though American support for Israel really is massive, including billions of dollars in aid and reliable diplomatic backing, experts disagree sharply on why. Some possibilities include deep support for Israel among the American public, the influence of the pro-Israel lobby, and American ideological affinity with the Middle East's most stable democracy.

The countries were not nearly so close in Israel's first decades. President Eisenhower was particularly hostile to Israel during the 1956 Suez War, which Israel, the U.K. and France fought against Egypt.

As the Cold War dragged on, the US came to view Israel as a key buffer against Soviet influence in the Middle East and supported it accordingly. The American-Israeli alliance didn't really cement until around 1973, when American aid helped save Israel from a surprise Arab invasion.

Since the Cold War, the foundation of the still-strong (and arguably stronger) relationship between the countries has obviously shifted. Some suggest that a common interest in fighting jihadism ties America to Israel, while others point to American leaders' ideological attachment to an embattled democracy. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the American public has, for a long time, sympathized far more with Israel than Palestine:

One very controversial theory, advanced by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, credits the relationship to the power of the pro-Israel lobby, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Critics of this theory argue that AIPAC isn't as strong as Walt and Mearsheimer think. AIPAC's early 2014 failure to secure one its longstanding top priorities, new sanctions on Iran, underscored the critics' point.

Regardless of the reasons for the "special relationship," American support for Israel really is quite extensive. The U.S. has given Israel $118 billion in aid over the years (about $3 billion per year nowadays). Half of all American UN Security Council vetoes ended resolutions critical of Israel.

(http://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine/united-states)

1. A problem in American foreign policy: Palestine

Having just celebrated my 80th birthday, I feel the need to commit to paper my outlook on the role of an American diplomat. I should add that when I took the U.S. Foreign Service examination more than 50 years ago, there were few naturalized citizens in the Service. I still believe today that an American diplomat’s first obligation is to look after U.S. long-term national interests and not to have dual allegiance due to family ties with another country or religious affiliations. As I repeated on several occasions before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee when seeking confirmation for an ambassadorial assignment, I always believed and was told that I represented a secular state and that tolerance, respect for the law, justice, fairness and perhaps compassion were qualities which Americans like to be known for around the world. In my many years of public services I tried to live up to these standards. I also always believed that speaking up for the truth was essential.

Having fled my native land because of Nazi persecution, I became progressively appalled by the Israeli policy and actions in Palestine and against the Palestinian people. But even more alarming was the consistent American policy to support unequivalently Israeli actions and policy on Palestine. I believed while was a U.S. Foreign Service Officer, and today as a retired person, that I cannot have dual values. As U.S. ambassador to Lebanon I fiercely criticized Israeli policy in Lebanon which resulted in my family and myself nearly being killed with American weapons shipped to Israel. I spoke up 26 years ago on Israeli policy in the Near East and I still speak up today about current U.S. policy toward the area which I believe is not in the long-term interest of the United States (nor in that of Israel).

It is for that reason, as a patriotic American, who served in two wars and held senior positions in U.S. Embassies located in countries racked by civil strife, that I have put a few ideas on paper. I am sending these thoughts to you in the attachment in the hope that our leaders today will take note of them so that our descendants will continue to be proud to say “I am an American” and foreigners will continue to look at America as a beacon of hope for humanity.

Respectfully,

John Gunther Dean
Former Deputy for CORDS in military Region 1 Vietnam
Chargé D’affaires - LAOS
Ambassador to Cambodia
Ambassador to Denmark
Ambassador to Lebanon
Ambassador to Thailand
Ambassador to India

(http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/problem.html)

In many ways, the Palestine problem is the most pervasive, complex and dangerous problem in American foreign policy. It is also the most difficult to address because it is so deeply embedded in guilt, emotion and fear as to be almost beyond rational thought. Americans, both government officials and private citizens, feel far freer to criticize America, Britain or France without being thought to dislike or oppose the peoples of those countries, but most non-Jews are afraid of being charged with anti-Semitism even if they are only critical of the hard-line policies of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. This American attitude is not only demeaning to us Americans but is not helping Israel or Jews elsewhere. Israel is no longer, if it ever was, an international charity. It is a relatively powerful, rich nation-state. It should be analyzed, as its own citizens analyse its actions, in respectful terms.

(http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/problem.html)

2. Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism

May 13, 2011 by occupiedpalestine 0 Comments

As an idea, a Jewish homeland was always controversial. As a reality, Israel still is – and it is not anti-Jewish to say so

Brian Klug | The Guardian, Wednesday 3 December 2003 02.18 GMT

From the beginning, political Zionism was a controversial movement even among Jews. So strong was the opposition of German orthodox and reform rabbis to the Zionist idea in the name of Judaism that Theodor Herzl changed the venue of the First Zionist Congress in 1897 from Munich to Basle in Switzerland.Twenty years later, when the British foreign secretary, Arthur Balfour (sponsor of the 1905 Aliens Act to restrict Jewish immigration to the UK), wanted the government to commit itself to a Jewish homeland in Palestine, his declaration was delayed – not by anti-semites but by leading figures in the British Jewish community. They included a Jewish member of the cabinet who called Balfour’s pro-Zionism “anti-semitic in result”.

The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 has not put an end to the debate, though the issue has changed. Today, the question is about Israel’s future. Should it become a “post-Zionist” state, one that defines itself in terms of the sum of its citizens, rather than seeing itself as belonging to the entire Jewish people? This is a perfectly legitimate question and not anti-semitic in the least. When people suggest otherwise – as Emanuele Ottolenghi did on these pages last Saturday – they simply add to the growing confusion.

Ottolenghi contends that “Zionism comprises a belief that Jews are a nation, and as such are entitled to self-determination as all other nations are”. This is doubly confused. First, the ideology of Jewish nationalism was irrelevant to many of the Jews, as well as non-Jewish sympathisers, who were drawn to the Zionist goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine. They saw Israel in purely humanitarian or practical terms: as a safe haven where Jews could live as Jews after centuries of being marginalised and persecuted.

This motive was strengthened by the Nazi murder of one-third of the world’s Jewish population, the wholesale destruction of Jewish communities in Europe, and the plight of masses of Jewish refugees with nowhere to go.

Second, you do not have to be an anti-semite to reject the belief that Jews constitute a separate nation in the modern sense of the word or that Israel is the Jewish nation state. There is an irony here: it is a staple of anti-semitic discourse that Jews are a people apart, who form “a state within a state”. Partly for this reason, some European anti-semites thought that the solution to “the Jewish question” might be for Jews to have a state of their own. Herzl certainly thought he could count on the support of anti-semites.

What is anti-semitism? Although the word only goes back to the 1870s, anti-semitism is an old European fantasy about Jews. The composer Richard Wagner exemplified it when he said: “I hold the Jewish race to be the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble in it.” An anti-semite sees Jews this way: they are an alien presence, a parasite that preys on humanity and seeks to dominate the world. Across the globe, their hidden hand controls the banks, the markets and the media. Even governments are under their sway. And when revolutions occur or nations go to war, it is the Jews – clever, ruthless and cohesive – who invariably pull the strings and reap the rewards.

When this fantasy is projected on to Israel because it is a Jewish state, then anti-Zionism is anti-semitic. And when zealous critics of Israel, without themselves being anti-semitic, carelessly use language, such as “Jewish influence”, that conjures up this fantasy, they are fuelling an anti-semitic current in the wider culture.

But Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is no fantasy. Nor is the spread of Jewish settlements in these territories. Nor the unequal treatment of Jewish colonisers and Palestinian inhabitants. Nor the institutionalised discrimination against Israeli Arab citizens in various spheres of life. These are realities. It is one thing to oppose Israel or Zionism on the basis of an anti-semitic fantasy; quite another to do so on the basis of reality. The latter is not anti-semitism.

But isn’t excessive criticism of Israel or Zionism evidence of an anti-semitic bias? In his book, The Case for Israel, Alan Dershowitz argues that when criticism of Israel “crosses the line from fair to foul” it goes “from acceptable to anti-semitic”.

People who take this view say the line is crossed when critics single Israel out unfairly; when they apply a double standard and judge Israel by harsher criteria than they use for other states; when they misrepresent the facts so as to put Israel in a bad light; when they vilify the Jewish state; and so on. All of which undoubtedly is foul. But is it necessarily anti-semitic?

No, it is not. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a bitter political struggle. The issues are complex, passions are inflamed, and the suffering is great. In such circumstances, people on both sides are liable to be partisan and to “cross the line from fair to foul”. When people who side with Israel cross that line, they are not necessarily anti-Muslim. And when others cross the line on behalf of the Palestinian cause, this does not make them anti-Jewish. It cuts both ways.

There is something else that cuts both ways: racism. Both anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim feeling appear to be growing. Each has its own peculiarities, but both are exacerbated by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the invasion of Iraq, the “war against terror”, and other conflicts.

We should unite in rejecting racism in all its forms: the Islamophobia that demonises Muslims, as well as the anti-semitic discourse that can infect anti-Zionism and poison the political debate. However, people of goodwill can disagree politically – even to the extent of arguing over Israel’s future as a Jewish state. Equating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism can also, in its own way, poison the political debate.

· Brian Klug is senior research fellow in philosophy at St Benet’s Hall, Oxford, and a founder member of the Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights

comment@guardian.co.uk

3. What now, Bibi? — Early election takeaways (lessons)

Netanyahu picked a fight with a sitting U.S. president and declared there will never be a Palestinian State. It might have helped him squeeze out another election victory, but where is Israel heading?

The Likud and Labor (The Zionist Camp) are tied with 27 seats, but Benjamin Netanyahu has way more paths to bring together the 61 seats necessary for forming a government, and another term for himself. That’s the bottom line of the exit polls published by the Israeli TV channels as the polling stations closed on Tuesday night. Netanyahu and his party members are celebrating, and Bibi is already testing the waters with potential coalition partners.

Netanyahu was able to surge in the last few days, following a desperate – and at times, racist –campaign that warned right-wing voters of a “left-wing government backed by the Arabs.” On election day, he published a Facebook status declaring that “Arabs are heading to the polls in masses” and called for his supporters to rush and save the Right from losing power. This was a prime minister warning that his own citizens are voting. But in Netanyahu’s rhetoric, Palestinians were never really citizens anyway, even those who have Israeli identity cards; he sees himself as the leader of the Jewish people, not of Israelis.

The warnings worked. Other right-wing parties hemorrhage support – Bennett and the settlers dropped to eight seats in the exit polls (they had 12 until now), Liberman dropped five, and the far-right Yahad party probably didn’t even make it in. But Likud rose from 20-21 seats to 27-28, and the Right, along with the ultra-Orthodox parties and Moshe Kahlon’s centrist party has about 64 seats. Despite all the recent drama, there wasn’t much movement between the political blocs, compared to 2013 (61:59) or 2009 (65:55).

Sixty-four seats doesn’t constitute a huge majority, but it’s enough for a stable government – as long as Kahlon doesn’t pull any surprises and refuse Bibi’s offer (it’s highly unlikely). Netanyahu will probably try to have a larger majority by inviting Labor or Yair Lapid to join, but whether they do or not, they won’t be able to deny him the victory. Assuming there are no major changes when the final results are in, Bibi will probably remain Israel’s prime minister – for the third consecutive time, and the fourth altogether.

The big question is – to what end? Netanyahu may have won a major victory – he destroyed the opposition on the right and he will once again lead a big party – but he ran a nasty campaign that alienated major parts of the public. He put himself in a diplomatic corner on Iran and committed to never permit the creation of a Palestinian state. What now, Bibi?

In the final days of the campaign, Netanyahu said twice that there will be no Palestinian state – not on his watch. But what alternative Bibi is offering? In two years, Israel will mark 50 years of military control over the lives of millions of Palestinians. The international community is more vocal in its demands for change, and the Palestinian Authority is more desperate than ever. Netanyahu won’t be able to blame the PA for the failure of the ever-lasting peace process when he himself declares that no matter what the Palestinians do, they will never gain their independence, nor will they become full citizens of Israel.

There is symbolic significance to the fact that Netanyahu openly campaigned on his opposition to Palestinian statehood. It means that he is backed by a majority of Israeli voters, and an absolute majority of the Jewish vote. There needs to be, and I think there will be, a debate on the implications of this decision by the Jewish public. For years we have been hearing that Israel will either end the occupation or cease to be a democracy. Could it be that the Jewish public has made its choice?

There is also the problem of picking a fight with an American president on his signature foreign policy issue. Netanyahu pretty much made it clear in Washington that he has no alternatives to offer on the deal with Iran, but that he will still do everything in his power to prevent it. Not only is the conflict with the White House is far from over, Bibi will need to decide what to do if and when a deal does go through. Tonight I really don’t know where Bibi is heading, and for that matter — Israel.

Notes:

The Joint List. The combined list of Palestinian parties known as the Joint List is now the third-largest party in the Knesset. If Labor enters the government, the Joint List could even assume the formal role of the leader of the opposition. The Palestinian parties were hoping to gain more from this situation – they would have been in a better bargaining position had Herzog ended up with a clear path to a majority – but this is still a significant development.

Will the unified list survive? There are major challenges ahead, for example, over whether to support Herzog’s bid for the premiership in consultations with the president next week. This is part of the larger dilemma the list faces surrounding any possible cooperation with other (lefty, but Zionist) parties. There are two distinct approaches on this question that split the four factions that make up the Joint List. In fact, it won’t be that surprising if the list breaks up over this very question, which touches on the deepest conflicts in the political identity of Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Meretz. The small liberal party seemed to have survived this campaign, which almost saw it eliminated as lefty voters turned to Herzog in order to increase the chances of toppling Netanyahu. The exit polls give Meretz five seats, as oppose to the six they have now. But the campaign revealed deeper problems with Meretz, which can’t seem to break out of its small circle of core supporters, most of them centered in and around Tel Aviv. Squeezed between “The Zionist Camp” and the Palestinian list, Meretz’s fate is but another symbol for the grim state of affair in the Jewish left.

www.972mag.com, 4/10715

1. The Invisible Arab Citizens of the State of Israel

by Rabbi John Rosove

March 16, 2014 | 1:57 pm

The vote last week in the Knesset to raise the electoral threshold from 2% to 3.25% has been interpreted by some as an effort to exclude small Arab and Jewish left-wing parties in which 12 Arabs currently sit as MKs. Whether this is true or not, the bill raises the issue, once again, about the status of Israeli Arab citizens in the state of Israel.

MK Esawi Frij, the only Arab member of the left-of-center Meretz party, told me when my synagogue group met with him in the Knesset last October that he believes that Arab Israeli citizens (now 20% of the Israeli population) are loyal tax paying members of Israeli society and are not treated equally. I asked him if he would ever want to serve as a soldier in the IDF – “Sure” he said, “but only after there are borders between Israel and Palestine.” He added, “Israel is my country. I am an Israeli!”

Surveys indicate that when a state of Palestine is created most Israeli Arabs would prefer to stay in the state of Israel and be Israeli citizens.

Many articles in the Israeli press report and opine, as Mr. Frij told us, about the unequal allocations of Israeli state money to Israeli Arab communities in education, social services, business, and industrial investment. These reports leave this pro-Israel American Zionist to conclude that a genuine civil covenant that gives Israeli Arabs their full rights in the state of Israel has not been fulfilled.

It is not enough to say, as many Israel apologists reflexively proclaim, that Israeli Arab citizens have it better and are safer than they would be anywhere else in the Arab and/or Muslim world. In the context of Israeli democracy, whether such statements are true or not, they are irrelevant. If Israel is to live up to its own civil covenant with its citizens, then corrective action must be taken to move Israeli Arabs from second-class to first-class citizenship.

Fifty percent of all Arab families and two-thirds of Arab children live under the poverty line, and many Arab students drop out of school for economic reasons. Yarden Kof of Haaretz reports that the Arab Israeli school system is inferior to the secular Jewish school system, and that Arabs have less access to pre-academic preparatory programs than Jews. She describes 14 specific barriers that Israeli Arabs face in obtaining a college education, ranging from financial challenges to inadequate public transportation. Because the Israeli Arab community does not serve in the IDF they are automatically excluded from consideration in other programs as well.  (www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.530660)

According to another Haaretz writer, Meirav Arlosoroff, one quarter of all Israeli school children are Arab, and in five years the Arab population

“is expected to grow at a relatively fast rate of 3%, much lower than the 4.3% figure for the Haredi population, but much faster than the 0% increase of non-religious Israeli Jews. That means that both the Haredi population and Arab population represent increasingly large numbers of the Israeli overall population – and no one has been dealing with the Arab children.”  (www.haaretz.com/business/.premium-1.578944)

Israel essentially has within it two separate states, one Arab and one Jewish, and there is a huge gap between these two populations in their standard of living, income, quality of education, and employment rate. On the one hand the Jewish state of Israel is a developed Western nation, and on the other the Arab state of Israel is a Third World Country.

Professor Eran Yashiv, head of Tel Aviv University’s Department of Public Policy, and Dr. Nitza Kasir of the Bank of Israel’s Research Department, conducted a survey and concluded that it would be good business for Israel to close that gap. They say that the

“huge price the State of Israel pays for being two countries within one state… loses [Israel] tens of billions of shekels because of the employment and educational backwardness of Israeli Arabs. …if Israel would succeed in closing the gap from which the Arabs suffer, the state would benefit form an additional NIS 40 billion through 2030 and some NIS 120 billion by 2050..[It is estimated] that some NIS 8 billion would be necessary to invest in the next five years in the Arab Israeli community and that the annual return on that investment would be 7.3%.” (www.haaretz.com/business/.premium-1.529415)

From the perspective of advancing Israel’s democracy, her commitment to equality of opportunity for all her citizens, and towards the development of her economy, Israel would be well-served to focus more of its efforts on raising the standard of living of its Arab citizens.

(www.jewishjournal.com)

Why Israeli Propaganda Endangers Jews across the Globe

Feb. 25, 2015

Across the globe, the media is reporting an alarming increase in anti-Semitism. Governments and individuals are researching and strategizing over these reports.

What is the truth? What are the causes of modern-day anti-Semitism - whether in the Holy Land, in European countries, or elsewhere? Unquestionably, the actions and policies of Zionist leaders are endangering all Jews across the globe.

The world at large does not easily distinguish between Jews and Zionism. Rather, as a result of Israeli propaganda, most people associate all Jews with Zionism. Therefore, recent radical pro-Zionist trends in Israel are jeopardizing all Jews, no matter where they live, no matter that they are not affiliated with Israel or Zionism.

For centuries, Jews have lived peacefully in Palestine alongside their neighbors. Rabbi Dov Cohen, who studied in the Hebron Yeshiva in the 1920s, writes in his memoirs:

“A strong friendship existed among all residents of the city… We used to attend Arab weddings... We were welcome guests at all their happy events… The Arabs, and even their sheikhs, used to attend Jewish weddings as a sign of friendship… The Yeshiva students, used to go down sometimes to the village to buy products, sometimes even after midnight. In those days we walked around freely, without security patrol and without any weapons in all the Arab villages. No one had any fear…

Every month on Erev Rosh Chodesh, the yeshiva would go pray at the Cave of Machpelah. We were welcomed there… It was well-known that when the yeshiva considered moving to a different location, the local Arab leaders stood up to prevent it.”

Tragically, Zionism in general and radical militant actions in particular, have transformed the peaceful atmosphere in the land to one of tension and instability.

Israeli government approval for new construction in the settlements

Israeli settlements, by their very existence, have caused – and continue to bring about – untold pain and suffering to the Jewish People.

Many of the settlers in these controversial developments are newly observant Jews who had been searching for meaning in their lives. Unfortunately, Zionist outreach activists take advantage of these Jews, who don't know what real Judaism is about. They convince them that extremist settlement activity is the path of the Torah, when – in truth – it is the diametric opposite. Then, the Zionist government simply uses the settlers as cannon-fodder to expand the State.

One of our organization's goals is to reach out to the settler community, educate them and help them back onto the Torah's path.

Encouragement of emigration from other countries

Israeli conflicts result in real anti-Semitism, which is then exploited by the Israeli government to encourage Aliyah.

These tactics have systemically cleansed the entire Middle Eastern and North African region of its ancient, culturally-rich Jewish communities.

Even right now, as our hearts ache from the pain of the brutal attacks in France, Netanyahu is practically dancing on Jewish blood by audaciously calling upon Jews in France and the rest of Europe to emigrate to the State of Israel. Netanyahu’s words are timed to embarrass France, a country that has been kind and hospitable to Jews for decades.

In Haaretz it was reported that French President Francois Hollande had asked Netanyahu not to attend the Paris memorial march, in order to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict out of the European show of unity. But Netanyahu came running to Sunday’s march anyway and made a high-profile visit to a synagogue, knowing full well that this would draw a public connection between French Jews and his provocative activities – further endangering French Jews.

When a Jewish guard was killed outside a synagogue in Denmark, Netanyahu made sure to announce again to European Jews that "Israel is your home." But Danish Jews did not appreciate this capitalizing on their tragedy, and Rabbi Jair Melchior, chief rabbi of Denmark, said, "Terror is not a reason to move to Israel. We will not let the terrorists force us to change our everyday lives, to live in fear and flee to other places."

Israel's ambassador to Berlin, Yakov Hadas-Handelsman, echoed Netanyahu when he told the German newspaper Tagesspiegel am Sonntag, "I don't envy the Jews who live in Europe today. Whoever feels threatened now has the opportunity to come to us at any time."

But the President of the Jewish Council of Germany, Josef Schuster, pointed out that Israel cannot promise absolute safety from terror attacks. "The threat to Jewish safety and well-being is a worldwide phenomenon," Schuster said.

Terrorists, by targeting Jews, are playing directly into the hands of Zionism. They are in effect encouraging Jews to go to the State of Israel, where they are often placed in militant settlements. In fact, just last week Israeli Construction Minister Uri Ariel announced a plan to encourage new French immigrants to settle in the West Bank.

Using these three tactics, the Zionists strive to execute their master plan of Jewish union under the Israeli flag. Their goal: to have all Jewish eggs in one basket, a basket full of holes, a basket that was established against the command of G-d.

The European Forum on anti-Semitism recently defined the following views as anti-Semitic:

1. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to alleged universal Jewish interests, than to their own countries

2. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel

We encourage the United Nations and other world leaders to adopt the same standards, for the safety of their Jewish constituents.

Our message is clear:

The Torah is the foundation of the Jewish religion. With complete disregard of the Torah, Zionism and the State of Israel have simply “hijacked” the Jewish religion. Zionist leaders are self-appointed lawyers who were never hired to represent the Jews nation. Therefore, Jews and Judaism should be clearly distinguished from the Israeli government and Zionism.

Truetorahjews.org

4. Judaism And Zionism Are Not The Same Thing

We would like to take a few minutes of your time to prevent you from making a terrible mistake that may have disastrous results for many.

You have always without a doubt heard and read much about the political crises in the Middle East in which the State of Israel plays a central role. This is, in fact, an ongoing series of crises with potential to bring the greatest misfortune on the entire world. Tragically many believe that Zionism and Judaism are identical. Thus they conclude that the entire Jewish people is responsible for the actions of the Zionist government and the world crises which emanates from it. This is a Grave Error!

The truth is that the Jewish faith and Zionism are two very different philosophies. They are as opposite as day and night. The Jewish people have existed for thousands of years. In their two thousand years of Divinely decreed exile no Jew ever sought to end this exile and establish independent political sovereignty anywhere. The people's sole purpose was the study and fulfillment of the Divine commandments of the Torah.

The Zionist movement created the Israeli state. The latter is a persuasion less than one hundred years old. Its essential goal was and is to change the nature of the Jewish people from that of a religious entity to a political movement. From Zionism's inception the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people stood in staunch opposition to it.

To this day Torah Jewry remains forever loyal to its faith. Zionists want the world to believe that they are the representatives of the entire Jewish people. This is false! The Jewish people never chose them as their leaders.

The Zionists have deceived many well meaning Jewish people via terror, trickery and false propaganda. They have at their disposal the use of a nearly universally subservient media. Whoever attempts to criticize them puts his livelihood and, at times, his very life in danger.

However, despite the media blackout and easy resort to terror the simple truth remains unrefuted and irrefutable: ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH FAITH AND TORAH LAW THE JEWISH PEOPLE ARE FORBIDDEN TO HAVE THEIR OWN STATE WHILE AWAITING THE MESSIANIC ERA!

The Creator gave us the Holy Land thousands of years ago. Yet, when we sinned, He took it away and sent us into exile. Since that time our task is to wait for Him to send the Messiah. At that time, the Creator alone, without any human being lifting a hand or saying a word, will bring us together and take us out of exile. He will likewise establish universal peace among all mankind and all will serve Him in good will.

Some religious Jews, confused by Zionist propaganda quote Biblical verses that state that G-d gave the children of Israel the Holy Land. They overlook, unfortunately, those verses which say that He took it away due to our sins. They further ignore those prophecies which explicitly describe the last exile's conclusion as a Divine, not a human process.

The Creator has commanded every Jew to follow the ways of peace and to be loyal to the country where he lives.

Torah true Jewry waits patiently for the Messianic redemption. They have nothing to do with any kind of pseudo "Jewish State" and its aggressions against other peoples. They have a deep sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians who have suffered the most from Zionism's false teachings and barbaric actions. The Zionist state is not a Jewish state. The Zionists alone are the only ones responsible for their actions. Authentic Jewry has and will continue to oppose the very existence of this blasphemous state.

May all mankind witness the true redemption.

(www.nkusa.org)

5. Jews March in New York Rally Against Israel War in Gaza

   1. 'We Won't Stand Idly By' as Palestinians Die

Holding signs emblazoned with slogans like “Boycott Israeli Apartheid” and “New York Jews Say: Not in Our Name,” hundreds of protesters marched through lower Manhattan on Thursday demanding an end to American support for Israel’s operation in Gaza.

The event was one of many held in the U.S. and around the world as part of a “national day of action” against Israel’s Gaza campaign. Two Jewish groups, Jewish Voices for Peace and Jews Say No!, were among the march’s organizers, and numerous Jews came to protest Israel’s military campaign.

“I’m here because of the massacre that has recently happened, but also because of the ongoing occupation,” said Anna Jacobs, who was pushing her toddler in a stroller.

Standing nearby, Jews Say No! activist Dorothy Zellner lamented that outsiders assume the Jewish community uniformly supports Israel. “This is heartbreaking. Everyone thinks Israel represents us and speaks for us,” she said.

“I think there’s a myth that the Jewish community supports the Israeli attack on Gaza,” she added, and asserted that there are “hundreds of thousands” of Jews in the U.S. that oppose the Israeli occupation.

Most of the Jewish protesters interviewed opposed Israeli policies long before the current campaign. But they view the current hostilities as deplorable, or even criminal.

“It’s with our weapons, and our funding, and we’re complicit in war crimes,” said Jenny Heinz, a Jewish senior citizen wearing a keffiyah. “My parents escaped from [Nazi] Germany. ‘Never again’ was always understood by me to mean never again for anyone.”

Zellner, who said she organized for civil rights in the 1960s, feels compelled to by Jewish values to protest the Gaza operation.

“Speaking as a Jew, this is a shonde. We’re driven by our tradition that says, ‘you shall not stand idly by,’ and we won’t stand idly by,” she said. “I was shot at and arrested for principles of equal rights. I want a state where Israelis and Palestinians are safe [with] equal rights for all.”

Israel says the Gaza operation is necessary to address dangerous rocket fire from Gaza militants, which threatens the lives of innocent Israeli civilians. But protesters asked about this justification brushed it aside. “We don’t buy it,” Zellner said. “This is blaming the victim to the extreme.”

Protest organizers specifically called for an end to U.S. support for Israel’s military operation and its occupation more generally.

“It’s a shame that our Congress, our media, and — as a Jew — our U.S. Jewish institutions are largely silent, if not supportive [of the operation],” said Brandon Davis, a 23-year-old volunteer with Jewish Voices for Peace. “We’re hoping to change the political discourse that is shamefully and uniformly pro-Israel.”

While being interviewed, a pro-Israel passerby began arguing with Davis and called him “a self-hating Jew.” Only a handful of Israel supporters showed up to counter-protest, however.

Misha Shulman, a 37-year-old Israeli immigrant, had an unplanned protest of his own. The former IDF soldier strongly opposes Israel’s Gaza operation and joined the march against it. He said he is “pretty horrified” by the war and the number of Palestinian civilians being killed.

But after a few minutes of marching, he no longer felt comfortable. “They’re calling [the operation] a genocide,” he said, and noted that the marchers also shouted slogans in favor of boycotting Israel. “It’s essentially an anti-Israel protest, and I’m not anti-Israel in general, I just oppose most of the government’s policies.”

After glimpsing a sign that read “Israel=KKK,” Shulman had had enough; he departed the line of marchers and sat down on a park bench.

“At Israeli protests, we chant “Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies,” he said. “I hoped that I would find my part of the demonstration [where] that’s the general sentiment.”

www.forward.com

6. Netanyahu deserves the Israeli people, and they deserve him

   1. If after everything, the Israeli phoenix succeeded in rising from the ashes and getting reelected, something is truly broken, possibly beyond repair.

The first conclusion that arose just minutes after the announcement of the exit polls was particularly discouraging: The nation must be replaced. Not another election for the country's leadership, but general elections to choose a new Israeli people – immediately. The country urgently needs that. It won’t be able to stand another term for Benjamin Netanyahu, who emerged last night as the man who will form the next government.

If after six years of nothing, if after six years of sowing fear and anxiety, hatred and despair, this is the nation's choice, then it is very ill indeed. If after everything that has been revealed in recent months, if after everything that has been written and said, if after all this, the Israeli phoenix succeeded in rising from the ashes and getting reelected, if after all this the Israeli people chose him to lead for another four years, something is truly broken, possibly beyond repair.

Netanyahu deserves the Israeli people and they deserve him. The results are indicative of the direction the country is headed: A significant proportion of Israelis has finally grown detached from reality. This is the result of years' worth of brainwashing and incitement. These Israelis voted for the man who will lead the United States to adopt harsh measures against Israel, for the man whom the world long ago grew sick of. They voted for the man who admitted to having duped half the world during his Bar-Ilan speech; now he has torn off his mask and disavowed those words once and for all. Israel said "yes" to the man who said "no" to a Palestinian state. Dear Likud voters, what the hell do you say "yes" to? Another 50 years of occupation and ostracism? Do you really believe in that?

On Tuesday the foundations were laid for the apartheid state that is to come. If Netanyahu succeeds in forming the next government in his spirit and image, then the two-state solution will finally be buried and the struggle over the character of a binational state will begin. If Netanyahu is the next prime minister, then Israel has not only divorced the peace process, but also the world. Piss off, dear world, we're on our own. Please don't interfere, we're asleep, the people are with Netanyahu. The Palestinians can warm the benches at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, the Israel boycotters can swing into high gear and Gaza can wait for the next cruel attack by the Israeli army.

The battle for all these has yet to be officially decided. The next prime minister will be crowned by Moshe Kahlon and the heads of other small parties. At the time of this writing, Kahlon has yet to declare his intention. The ball is in these parties' court; they will decide if Netanyahu continues. Most of them despise him, but it's doubtful whether they will have the courage to turn their backs on the public. That will be their test. That will be the test of their courage and integrity. Moshe Kahlon and Aryeh Dery, do you truly believe Netanyahu is better than Isaac Herzog for the society and social welfare you purport to care for? Does the country's decent and courageous president, Reuven Rivlin, believe Netanyahu will be a better prime minister than Herzog? There is a lot resting on his shoulders now – but the fact that a figure like Netanyahu and a party like Likud succeeded in maintaining power as the country's leading faction already says a great deal.

Netanyahu is threatening to surpass David Ben-Gurion as Israel's longest running leader. He is already in second place, and yet it's hard to think of one significant achievement on his part. The list of damage he has done is long. But he is the nation's, or much of the nation's, chosen one. That choice must be respected, even if it makes it difficult to hope for a good outcome. The only consolation is that another Netanyahu term will prompt the world to act. That possibility is our only refuge.

Gideon Levy, Haaretz 18,3,15

7. The lie Israel sold the world — settlement 'outposts'

The Israeli government’s policy proves that the outposts are effectively settlements – only you’ll never hear them being called that. 

Israel has not  officially created new settlements since 1996. This is an international guarantee made by the government. Effectively, however, there are about 100 unofficial settlements in the West Bank. Officially, they are illegal. Officially, there are demolition orders against all the structures within these unofficial settlements. Practically, they get unceasing support from the government, without which they could not exist.

These settlements are euphemistically (and innocently) given the title of “outposts.” Their history begins two years after that government decision, when former Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon called upon the settlers to storm the hills and take them over. What you seize, we’ll keep, he told them. And thus the outpost movement was born.

In 2005, the Sasson Report on outposts was presented to the government; in its honor, Yesh Din (Volunteers fror Human Rights) recently published a new position paper titled, “Under the Radar.” Sasson had already identified the new settlement method at the time: the entire Israeli establishment more or less aids and abets the creation of outposts. After the land grab by Israeli civilians, the IDF promptly provides them with protection. Then, other authorities make sure water and electricity are provided. A short while after that, we have “facts on the ground,” which require legal procedures to change (procedures that can take years in the court system).

Even when it is clear that construction there is illegal, no one is put on trial – there is no single Israeli unit in charge of enforcing construction regulations in the West Bank. Recently, the High Court of Justice accepted the position of the State’s Attorney, according to which those in charge of the illegal construction of Ulpana Hill in Beit El should not be tried. The government used the stunning excuse: since it never indicted anyone for this offense, it may be that the suspects will attempt to claim “abuse of process.” If we take this logic further – and not much further – there will simply never be any point in attempting to indict someone for illegally taking over land in the West Bank. He or she will always be able to claim abuse of process.

Following the State’s behavior, we see the following deplorable pattern: historically, the government of Israel decided to mislead both the world and its own court system. The government created some 100 new settlements contrary to international law and its own obligations; it provides these settlements with every sort of aid, beginning with military protection and ending with legal cover. These days, it is trying to legalize about a quarter of the outposts – some are declared settlements, some are called “neighborhoods” inside already existing settlements.

www. 972.com, april 3, 2015

8. Israeli soldiers arrest feminist Palestinian lawmaker

Six months after she was ordered to move from her home near Ramallah to Jericho, the army arrests Palestinian parliamentarian Khalida Jarrar. She will join 16 other Palestinian lawmakers currently serving time in Israeli prisons.

Israeli soldiers arrested Khalida Jarrar, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, in her home in Al-Bireh (near Ramallah) during the early hours of Thursday morning. Jarrar, a feminist activist who is also active on issues regarding human rights of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, is a member of the PLC (the Palestinian parliament) on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). She was arrested just two days after the 20th Knesset was sworn in.

The IDF Spokesperson has yet to respond to +972′s request for comment regarding the cause of Jarrar’s arrest or regarding the authority of the Israeli army to operate in areas under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority (which contravenes the Oslo Accords). The Israeli news site Walla! reported that Jarrar was arrested on “suspicion of terrorist activity.”

In August, soldiers arrived at Jarrar’s home to present her with an internal expulsion order demanding she move to Jericho within 24 hours for a period of a 1.5 years. Jarrar refused and remained in her home. Now, half-a-year later, she was arrested for unspecified reasons. Jarrar is known for her harsh criticism of the Palestinian Authority, and specifically its security coordination with Israel.

According to the Alternative Information Center, Jarrar is joining 16 other members of the PLC who are currently serving time in Israeli prisons, which means that more than 10 percent of Palestinian lawmakers are currently in Israeli prisons. Nine of those members — including Hamas member Aziz Dweik — are in administrative detention, and have not stood trial nor been sentenced. The PLC is comprised of 132 members who were elected in the last democratic elections held in the PA in 2006.

www.972mag april 2, 2015

9. Israel puts feminist Palestinian MP in admin detention

Less than a week after she was arrested by Israeli soldiers, PLC member Khalida Jarrar was placed under administrative detention for six months.

Khalida Jarrar, a Palestinian feminist activist and a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), will be placed under six months of administrative detention. The order, which was approved by a military court on Sunday, comes less than a week after Jarrar was arrested by Israeli soldiers in her home outside Ramallah.

Administrative detention is detention without charge or trial that is authorized by administrative order rather than by judicial decree.

After six months, the military will be able to extend her detention as many times as it deems fit. Under administrative detention, Jarrar is neither indicted nor sentenced by a court. In effect, she is being indefinitely detained without the ability to defend herself against non-existent charges.

The IDF Spokesperson told Ma’an News Agency that Jarrar, who is a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), is involved in terror activity, and that her arrest is also connected to her refusal to comply with an internal expulsion order that forced her to move to Jericho in August.

According to Addameer, a Palestinian NGO that works to support Palestinian political prisoners held in Israeli and Palestinian prisons, Khalida’s attorney, Mahmoud Hassan, visited her in Hasharon Prison. Hassan reported that she is in good health and is taking her medicine regularly.

According to the Alternative Information Center, Jarrar is joining 16 other members of the PLC who are currently serving time in Israeli prisons, which means that more than 10 percent of Palestinian lawmakers are currently in Israeli prisons. Nine of those members — including Hamas member Aziz Dweik — are in administrative detention, and have not stood trial nor been sentenced. The PLC is comprised of 132 members who were elected in the last democratic elections held in the PA in 2006.

www.972mag april, 5, 2015

10. Israeli society is polarizing over unholy war

NEW YORK ― As the bombardment of Gaza continues, and the civilian death toll rises above 1,200 ― with children comprising one-quarter of the victims ― the world has become polarized. Supporters of Israel’s actions invoke its right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks. Opponents argue that nothing justifies the mass killing of civilians and the destruction of essential infrastructure.

Unsurprisingly, Israeli society is polarizing as well. Even as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government has fully mobilized hasbara (“public diplomacy” or “spin,” depending on your point of view) and hardens its position, peace activists are taking to Israel’s streets. Israelis from all walks of life, and increasing numbers of Diaspora Jews, are speaking out, rejecting what they call Israel’s frequent violation of international law and the injustice of what they describe as a two-tier system of citizenship and law.

In fact, once-unthinkable positions are emerging. Recently, for example, more than 50 Israeli reservists signed a petition declaring their refusal to serve, citing many forms of oppression but naming specifically the dual legal system that discriminates against Palestinians, and the “brutal” nature of the military occupation. They join a growing number of other former Israeli soldiers who have described in detail the daily injustice and humiliation to which Palestinians are subjected.

In another arena, a conference to be held in November at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, called “Challenging the Boundaries: A Single State in Israel/Palestine,” will advance the idea of a secular, democratic, diverse society along the lines of post-apartheid South Africa. This is a vision that younger progressive Israelis, Diaspora Jews, and Palestinians have taken up with increasing interest and hope. If it is not yet a solution, at least it is a new conversation ― one that poses a direct challenge to the right-wing Israeli establishment and its supporters abroad.

It is a challenge that the Israeli establishment would prefer to ignore. Following one of the most lethal nights of Israel’s “Operation Protective Edge” in Gaza ― and what many human-rights defenders have called a massacre ― police, citing “security concerns,” sought to prevent an estimated 10,000 people from gathering in the streets of Tel Aviv to oppose what organizers described as an illegal occupation and military campaign against the Palestinians. The protest went ahead, without violence.

Palestinians demonstrating at the same time in the West Bank were not so fortunate. Protesters there reported that Israeli police and soldiers confronted rallies with live bullets; by the end of the day’s demonstrations, five Palestinian protesters were dead.

Despite the obstacles that Israeli peace activists face ― including intimidation and violence by right-wing nationalists ― their movement has persevered. Nonetheless, it is often easier for people trained to hate one another to connect in cyberspace rather than to come together in real-life settings. On Facebook, the page IsraelLovesPalestine, which has nearly 26,000 “likes,” documents rallies, meetings, and other actions in support of Palestinians and in opposition to perceived Israeli injustices. The page PalestineLovesIsrael ― with banner headlines reading “ENOUGH! STOP THE WAR” ― has almost the same number of “likes.”

But an active peace movement, in which Israelis and Palestinians recognize common interests and forge new discussions aimed at ending the decades-long conflict, may not be enough to stem growing extremism, particularly on the Israeli side. According to an opinion poll carried out in July by the Israel Democracy Institute and Tel Aviv University, more than 95 percent of Jewish Israelis believe that Operation Protective Edge is warranted, while less than 4 percent believe that Israel has used excessive force. Indeed, nearly 50 percent of respondents said that they thought that insufficient force had been used.

Here, it is crucial to note the disturbing turn in the rhetoric used by some Israelis and Diaspora Jews to justify the military offensive in Gaza, examples of which are legion. A right-wing member of Israel’s Knesset asserted that civilians in Gaza should be “erased,” on the grounds that no one there was innocent. The American comedienne Joan Rivers defended in crude terms the bombing of Gazan civilians. Tomer Siyonov, a friend of a dead Israeli soldier, recently told the Guardian that everyone in Gaza must be killed.

Just how dangerous is such talk? According to the Israeli historian Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States, “In classic dehumanization scenarios, whether in Nazi Germany or in Rwanda before the genocide, you refer to the enemy as rats and cockroaches, and that enables you to kill them on a large scale.” Oren then adds, “We’re not calling Palestinians cockroaches.”

But it is not the choice of epithets that can lead people to endorse the mass killing of civilians. What matters is whether the rhetoric used by political leaders and major media outlets is framed in the context of a narrative that portrays the “other” as posing an existential threat. Hutus slaughtered close to a million Tutsis in 1994 not because they thought of Tutsis as “cockroaches,” but because they were led to believe that the Tutsis would kill them first.

Such turning points in language both reflect and facilitate acceptance of the wholesale bombing of neighborhoods, hospitals, and schools. Someday, the details of Operation Protective Edge will be investigated and history will be written. But, before that happens, Israel has two moral paths open before it. One path, to be taken with all those committed to a just peace, leads to a higher form of community; the other leads to a very dark place. The soul of a nation is in the balance.

By Naomi Wolf, 8/4/2014

11. Nabi Saleh: A tiny village's struggle against the occupation

In just over one year of unarmed demonstrations in Nabi Saleh, a small Palestinian community in the West Bank, 155 of the village’s 500 residents  were wounded (about 60 of them children); 35 homes were damaged and dozens of the village’s people were detained. Yet even after the protest’s leader was put behind bars by the army, the struggle for the Nabi Saleh’s land continues

The confrontations in Nabi Saleh over the past year are considered the most violent in the West Bank. In spite of the fact that the Palestinian side is adhering to the nonviolent popular protest, with women and children participating, Israel’s army has broken several records in brutality at Nabi Saleh.

In March 2010, a 14-year-old youth, Ihab Barghoutti, was shot with a rubber pellet in the course of a demonstration. The pellet hit his head and he went into a coma. Of the 500 residents of the village, 155 were wounded since the beginning of the demonstrations; that’s about 30% of the population. About 60 of the people wounded are children. 35 homes were damaged by the shooting of demonstration-dispersing weapons. Fires broke out in seven of these. Based on testimonies from demonstrators, the Israeli army uses live firepower against them, too, in violation of the law.

Just to be clear: throwing stones at an occupying army which prevents you from demonstrating on your own land does not constitute “violent protest.” It is the expected response to someone who not only steals your land but also denies you the basic right to protest this. If the army stops acting against the residents of Nabi Saleh and just gets the hell off their lands, no one will throw stones at it.

The residents of Nabi Saleh are not trying to go to the nearby settlement of Halamish and they are not endangering the settlers. They insist – every Friday – to demonstrate by a spring that was appropriated from them.

The army does not even wait for the demonstrators to get out of the village. The Israeli army simply goes into the village and starts shooting at anything that moves – rubber-coated metal pellets, gas canisters, and other things. Sometimes it sprays entire streets with putrid skunk water: the houses, the windows, the potable water stored on the roofs. Not only is this collective punishment, this policy exposes the true provocateur: Village residents, who demonstrate without threatening any Israeli? Or the army, which invades their streets? (A quote from the testimony of Hedva Isscar: “The first gas canister was shot at us before we had time to get out of the village.”)

Like in Bil’in and Silwan, the Israeli army is trying to chop off the head of the popular protest by making arrests (did it help in Bil’in and Silwan? It did not. Does the Israeli army learn anything from this? It did not, either.) Protest leader Bassam Tamimi was arrested a month ago (in the 90’s Tamimi was tortured by the Internal Security Service [Shabak], after which he was paralyzed for a month). Like Abdallah Abu Rahme from Bil’in, Tamimi is 10 levels of morality above the army that arrested him. Here is what he says:

“We want to offer our people an example and pattern of popular struggle. Since the beginning of the revolution (the establishment of the PLO) and the armed struggle we have made cumulative mistakes which the Israelis used against us, although these were merely responses to the Israeli oppression. We do not have a military answer to Israel. History teaches us that if ever we had even partial success, it was in popular uprisings: in 1936 and in 1987. It is in the popular struggle that we can prove our moral superiority to all and sundry.”

People with that kind of dangerous idea must be put behind lock and key.

The wave of arrests at Nabi Saleh is characterized by the eradication of the difference between adults and minors. Since the protests began, more than a year ago, more than 60 residents of the village have been arrested and imprisoned (that’s approximately 13%). 29 of those imprisoned are minors. In an apparent effort to spare themselves the physical effort of running after demonstrators, Israel’s army has developed an original, new method: Army forces invade village homes at night, wakes up boys from their sleep, and photographs them. This is how they build up a database that will serve for future arrests – and to hell with civil rights and the presumption of innocence. Later, testimonies collected from minors, in violation of the law, without the presence of parents or attorneys and while denying them sleep, are used to incriminated village activists.

Imagine a 14-year-old Israeli youth taken from his home, without parents in attendance, and interrogated for a seven-hour stretch about rock-throwing. Imagine him being put in detention for two and half months. Imagine having one law for you – and another for him.

Settlers have been coverting the ancient springs in the West Bank for many years. Most of these springs are not natural, it should be noted. They were dug as part of a system of irrigation, pools, and ditches that serve the Palestinian populations. Settlers have already taken over approximately 25 such springs, with the Civil Administration ignoring their actions (This Hebrew piece explains how the system works).

In 2008 the Halamish settlers went down to the Ein Al-Kous spring, placed tabernacles and benches there, marked it up with blue stars of David, and “converted” it to Judaism: now they would call it Ma’ayan Meir, for Meir Segal, one of the founders of Neve Tzoof, which was the former name of Halamish (it is always a good idea to make an outpost or spring into a commemorative site; this way it’s that much harder, politically, to return them). The Civil Administration was recruited to reinforce Jewish control by placing a sign prohibiting entry to an “Antiquities Site”. It later was discovered that the sign had been placed unlawfully, without the spot having been officially declared as an archeological site, and without any findings whatsoever found there. In other words, it was a trick to prohibit entry to Arabs. And indeed, a settler-hand soon interpreted the original text and added the following words to the sign: “No entry to Arabs.”

Ein Al-Kous has always-and-forever been part of the heritage of the residents of Nabi Saleh and the nearby Deir Nazzam, and served for watering herds. In January 2010 the residents presented ownership documentation to the Civil Administration and since then – the C.A. is in no hurry – the documents have been under “judicial examination.” Meanwhile, for more than a year, the settlers and the army have been acting as though the issue of ownership has already been decided in their favor. They are right, of course. The legalistic contortions are meant for foreign eyes, not for practical purposes. The Palestinians are again, as ever, “infiltrators” to their own land. And even if we were to assume that the land was “not legally disposed”, how has the spring become prohibited to Palestinians but permitted to Jews?

Now is the time to make the ever-necessary note that is always absent from reports of the “riots” in the Occupied Territories: Halamish itself is a marvel of unlawfulness. First, it was established on occupied territory, in contravention of international law. Second, it was established by force of a military appropriation order and was deceitfully converted into a civilian settlement. Third, large parts of it were constructed without plans or permits, knowing that they would be retroactively authorized by legal channels. In the confrontation between the residents of Halamish and the residents of Nabi Saleh, Israel’s army defends the law-breakers.

Israel’s governments, one after another, have specialized in blatant lies to the public. A particularly effective method was the concealment of the merely-colonial expansionist greed behind military excuses. Thus, for example, the government decision dated 2 October 1977 establishing Neve Tzoof/Halamish was phrased: “the government records the decision of the Ministers’ Committee For Settlement dated 17 Tishrei 5738 (29 September 1977). The settlers will populate Army camps in Samaraia [sic] and be employed in accordance with army requirements as workers in service of the army. The government authorizes the deployment of the first nucleus to settlement in the Samaria Camp, today.”

“Workers in service of the army.” What has changed today? That the army works in their service. What’s the difference? There is no difference.

Here, too, is the reason for the especially tough measures taken by the military against the demonstrators at Nabi Saleh, in contrast with other places in the West Bank. The Nabi Saleh demonstrations threaten not the separation wall but a territory the settlers have occupied for themselves. The army operates as a militia for retention of the lands by Jews; it perceives the protest as being addressed directly to it, as there is no true difference between the interests of the settler and the interests of the soldiers guarding him. There is no doubt that this is aided by the presence of a senior office in the Halamish settlement -  Lieutenant Colonel (Res.) Itzik Shadmi, Chair of the Binyamin Settler Committee, a man whose opinions nestle comfortably between ultra-rightwing Rabbi Dov Wolfa and Kahane man Baruch Marzel.

The Israeli army will lose. The settlers will lose. Israel will lose. On the road to that loss they will wound and displace countless Palestinians, but at the end they will lose. And they will lose because they do not understand what they are contending with, despite the fact that it is in plain view, before their very eyes (as you can see in the astonishing movie, below). Sometimes you need a tremendous, superhuman effort to see that there is a human being before you. And then you need another effort, no smaller than the first, to see that what you ask him to relinquish – in contrast to what you must relinquish – is the recognition of his own value as a human being.

And that, he will not relinquish.

(972mag.com, 19/4/2011)

12. Film on Nabi Saleh's kids competes for int'l awards

A new film ventures to allow Palestinian children to ‘describe a world full of violence and politics, of death and prisons, of conflicts and pain, a world created for them by the grownups. To let them explain this world to us, to describe it to us simply, with the clarity and naïveté that they still retain, despite everything.’

“Sometimes I’m Scared. Sometimes I Hit” looks directly into the eyes of Nabi Saleh’s children. Political activist and theater student Yuval Auron created the film within the framework of the “Beyond the Walls” video documentary workshop run by ActiveVision. Auron decided to talk to children in the village he has been visiting every Friday for the past three years and to express their narrative in film, including conversations with seven children, the youngest six years old and the oldest, 16.

Nabi Saleh, a village of roughly 500, lies a mere 35 minutes from Tel Aviv. The children of Nabi Saleh were born into life under the occupation of a foreign army and for more than four years, a popular unarmed struggle against it. The children are very much a part of this; a significant part. They demonstrate, struggle, are arrested and soldiers invade their homes in the middle of the night. They visit their parents in prisons, are shot at, and attend the funerals of victims in the struggle.

Auron, for whom this is a maiden venture into filmmaking, explains his process in making the film: ”I came to make this film in an attempt to understand just a small part of these children’s world,” he says, “to talk to them and to hear how they see things. To hear them describe a world full of violence and politics, of death and prisons, of conflicts and pain, a world created for them by the grownups. To let them explain this world to us, to describe it to us simply, with the clarity and naïveté that they still retain, despite everything.”

“Maybe these children are for me, those who have yet to hurt anyone in this sad story, those who really don’t deserve this,” Auron continues. “You can argue about everything, except about their words. The absolute justness of their experience. Maybe it is clearest when they say it. Maybe if all we have left is a white wall and a chair and a child we will be able to listen. To look for a few minutes, through different eyes, at all that we have created here.”

This month, the film will participate in two European film festivals. One is an online competition put on by “Human Rights Nights,” a non-profit organization committed to promoting human rights through the advancement of social projects. The film that gets the most “likes” will be screened at the organization’s festival in Bologna, Italy between the 9th and the 18th of May. In the second competition, MADE in MED, the film compete for the audience favorite award, along with other short films created by directors from Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria and Tunisia.

ActiveVision is an NGO established in 2006 by a group of artists and activists in the field of visual arts, myself among them. The group’s activities focus on running workshops in the field of photography and video in different communities, out of a desire to encourage those communities to develop direct and independent channels of visual media as a tool in their social and political struggles. It aspires to challenge the traditional relationship between the documented and the documenter. In the “Beyond the Walls” project, which was carried out in cooperation with popular committees in the occupied territories and with Italian organization SCI, which is supported by the European Union, ActiveVision ran a course in documentary video for local political activists. The nine films that were created by the participants will be screened on the May 29 in Café Yafa in Jaffa, and on June 20 at the Tel Aviv Cinemateque.

(972mag.com, 9/5/2014)