This piece was submitted by Jamie Levin, a former executive director of Ameinu and currently a PhD student at the University of Toronto.
It is often said that Israelis share the unfortunate national characteristic of being rude. Another view conflates Israelis with the sabra, the fruit of a cactus common to the region. In this view, Israelis are direct, even prickly on the outside, but sweet on the inside, at least once you get to know them. Hence native-born Israelis are called sabras.
Though Bibi Netanhayu is the first prime minister born in the State of Israel, I’m afraid he is no sabra by the definition offered above. Fluent in both Hebrew and English, he appears smug in both. Probably for the better, Netanyahu appointed a foreign minister who speaks little English. For when Avigdor Lieberman is understood he often offends; his views border on racist and his policies on the absurd.
More recently, Netanhayu’s deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, caused a row with Turkey by deliberately humiliating their ambassador on Israeli television. Turkey, a close ally, has criticized Israel over its actions in Gaza. Israel’s response? Seat the ambassador on an absurdly low chair and invite the press into the room while Ayalon lectures the ‘naughty child’. If there was any doubt about the intended effect, Israeli television broadcast the whole bit, including Ayalon’s instructions to the television crew to get the camera angle right in order to fully convey the humiliation. Not surprising, Israeli-Turkish relations have suffered as a result.
And then there are the actions undertaken by Netanyahu's interior minister, Eli Yishai, during American Vice President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Israel. In preparation for peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Yishai announced the construction of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem despite the fact that the Obama administration has pleaded with Israel to halt settlement construction (and honour past commitments to stop building in the West Bank). The timing of this move could only be read as a deliberate attempt to undermine peace talks with the Palestinians and as a direct insult to America, Israel’s closest ally and friend.
In the face a looming Iranian nuclear threat, continued bellicosity from Syria and Hezbollah, and intermittent rocket attacks from Hamas controlled Gaza, it is perhaps no wonder that Israel feels insecure and isolated.
Israel’s recent actions may be the response of an exasperated country in the face of these perceived threats. Ironically, such actions only reinforce Israel’s isolation. And rightly so.
To be sure, one may argue about the finer points of policy but diplomacy requires a soft touch, particularly with one’s friends. It is, therefore, hard to see how these actions fall under the subtle category of diplomacy. These and others are profoundly impolitic acts of an increasingly rude state.
Netanyahu needs to learn some manners.
Jamie Levin is a PhD student at the University of Toronto.
VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT partners4israel.org .
The Partners for Progressive Israel Blog (formerly Meretz USA Blog) is a platform for open discussion of issues related to Israel and the American Jewish community. The views expressed in its posts, and the comments on them, do not necessarily reflect the organization's official position.
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Friday, March 26, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Some reflections on 'Israel Symposium'
I'm still traveling in Israel, basically among relatives, but I wish to reflect briefly upon a couple of memories that perhaps together crystalize the difficulty in arriving at peace, which we explored last week on the Meretz USA Israel Symposium. One involved our visit to Ramallah (the West Bank Palestinian capital) which included an amiable chat with the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad. It was not Dr. Fayyad who was in any way problematic. Indeed, he was gracious and upbeat about his work to build Palestinian institutions in anticipation of being ready to forge a two-state solution by the end of 2011.
When meeting earlier that day with the Haaretz reporter in the West Bank, Amira Haas, I asked her whether she could discuss ways in which the Palestinian Authority had made mistakes, such as the recent dedication of a square in the memory of a slain terrorist who had led the attack on the coastal road in 1978, in which 38 Israeli civilians were murdered---including 13 children and the American photographer, Gail Rubin. Ms. Haas spoke with insight, but I'm honoring her request for an off-the-record conversation.
Waiting in the wings was our next speaker, Dr. Samih al-Abed, a leading figure in the Palestinian Peace Coalition, the Palestinian partner organization that promotes the Geneva Peace Initiative. Designated to introduce him, I found that his resume--as an engineer, planner, academic and official--is quite impressive. But Dr. Abed began with an emotional rebuke aimed at me for having brought up this matter of the square. As if by way of excuse, he mentioned the shrine at Baruch Goldstein's grave in Hebron, the Israeli who slaughtered 29 Palestinians at prayer, early in 1994, one of the critical turning points against the Oslo Peace Process.
Later, I tried to clarify that I was in no way defending the Goldstein memorial. I had also wanted to mention that--unlike the square in Ramallah--it was not an official government monument; but I had no sooner begun than I was emotionally interrupted by Dr. Abed who simply would not entertain any questioning of the recent Ramallah event. The session proceeded to a polite conclusion, but such a defensive reaction from this Palestinian, who has in fact dedicated himself to forging a peace agreement with Israel, was disturbing.
My other disturbing memory, a very complex one, was at the great Holocaust memorial museum in Jerusalem, Yad Vashem. Both our very earnest guide and the museum official who addressed our group later, made references that progressives like ourselves had to find uncomfortable. The deputy director in particular, referred to the severe wounding and recovery of her son, a soldier injured during the Lebanon war of 2006. The tone, subtext and text (in some instances) of the remarks we heard connected the tribulations of the Jewish people during the Holocaust to more recent situations that challenge Israel today, with something of a right-wing nuance.
Our guide referred contemptuously to Iran's president Ahmadinejad (although she would not mention his name). It occurred to me that rather than simply being contemptuous of this Holocaust denier, the State of Israel, or some intermediary, should invite him to visit Yad Vashem. Who knows? The man might actually learn something and even be moved.
Someone else in our group reacted to my idea by saying that he'd just repeat what he's already said, that regardless of the Holocaust, why should the Palestinians pay the cost? A good question, but one that requires a thoughtful response: No, the Palestinians were not responsible for the Holocaust, but this doesn't mean that they had no responsibility when it came to trying to shut off Palestine as a haven for Jewish refugees and survivors.
When meeting earlier that day with the Haaretz reporter in the West Bank, Amira Haas, I asked her whether she could discuss ways in which the Palestinian Authority had made mistakes, such as the recent dedication of a square in the memory of a slain terrorist who had led the attack on the coastal road in 1978, in which 38 Israeli civilians were murdered---including 13 children and the American photographer, Gail Rubin. Ms. Haas spoke with insight, but I'm honoring her request for an off-the-record conversation.
Waiting in the wings was our next speaker, Dr. Samih al-Abed, a leading figure in the Palestinian Peace Coalition, the Palestinian partner organization that promotes the Geneva Peace Initiative. Designated to introduce him, I found that his resume--as an engineer, planner, academic and official--is quite impressive. But Dr. Abed began with an emotional rebuke aimed at me for having brought up this matter of the square. As if by way of excuse, he mentioned the shrine at Baruch Goldstein's grave in Hebron, the Israeli who slaughtered 29 Palestinians at prayer, early in 1994, one of the critical turning points against the Oslo Peace Process.
Later, I tried to clarify that I was in no way defending the Goldstein memorial. I had also wanted to mention that--unlike the square in Ramallah--it was not an official government monument; but I had no sooner begun than I was emotionally interrupted by Dr. Abed who simply would not entertain any questioning of the recent Ramallah event. The session proceeded to a polite conclusion, but such a defensive reaction from this Palestinian, who has in fact dedicated himself to forging a peace agreement with Israel, was disturbing.
My other disturbing memory, a very complex one, was at the great Holocaust memorial museum in Jerusalem, Yad Vashem. Both our very earnest guide and the museum official who addressed our group later, made references that progressives like ourselves had to find uncomfortable. The deputy director in particular, referred to the severe wounding and recovery of her son, a soldier injured during the Lebanon war of 2006. The tone, subtext and text (in some instances) of the remarks we heard connected the tribulations of the Jewish people during the Holocaust to more recent situations that challenge Israel today, with something of a right-wing nuance.
Our guide referred contemptuously to Iran's president Ahmadinejad (although she would not mention his name). It occurred to me that rather than simply being contemptuous of this Holocaust denier, the State of Israel, or some intermediary, should invite him to visit Yad Vashem. Who knows? The man might actually learn something and even be moved.
Someone else in our group reacted to my idea by saying that he'd just repeat what he's already said, that regardless of the Holocaust, why should the Palestinians pay the cost? A good question, but one that requires a thoughtful response: No, the Palestinians were not responsible for the Holocaust, but this doesn't mean that they had no responsibility when it came to trying to shut off Palestine as a haven for Jewish refugees and survivors.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Israel Symposium, entry II: Wild Days
It has been an intense few days. A meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon that started out polite and soon became a "spirited exchange". We talked settlements and J Street and the meaning of pro-Israel. To be honest, there wasn't much of a meeting of the minds.
We also held several tough sessions with leading Palestinian citizens of Israel - MK Haneen Zuabi of the Balad party, Mohammed Darawshe of the Abraham Fund, Hassan Jabareen of Adallah. We discussed the demands for equality of Israel's Arab citizens - not only on the individual and municipal level, but as a national minority as well. We found some common ground and some reasons to believe that solutions can be found, but we also learned that the path won't be easy. Lots of dialogue will be needed.
We spent a day in Ramallah, the central element of which was a 45-minute meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad. Fayyad's talk was uplifting - he advanced a vision of a Palestinian people ready to take on the responsibilities of statehood and of good neighborliness. For peace to happen, he said, the Palestinian people must be neither submissive nor belligerent - but empowered.
A half-day on the Golan included a meeting with Dr. Yigal Kipnis. Dr. Kipnis is a resident of the Golan who advocates a peace treaty with Syria in exchange for a full withdrawal from the Heights - a withdrawal that would also oblige him to leave his home of 30 years. But Dr. Kipnis stressed that Israel's welfare, its future, outweighs the needs of individual settlers.
We also got up at 5am to be observers on the Palestinian side of the Kalandia checkpoint, between Jerusalem and Ramallah, together with Hanna Barag of Machsom Watch. It's hard to describe in words what we saw there, so I won't try. But it was an important experience for anyone who wishes to understand the human dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy.
And we had dinner with the leading members of the Israeli human rights community - from B'Tselem and ACRI, Gisha and Physicians for Human Rights. They told a tale of concern about where Israel is heading and the threats to the human rights organizations, but they also displayed a courage to continue their work despite the harassment from the government and the hostility of the majority of Israel's citizens. They are Israeli patriots who refuse to give up. Israel and its citizens deserve a better future, they insisted.
We also held several tough sessions with leading Palestinian citizens of Israel - MK Haneen Zuabi of the Balad party, Mohammed Darawshe of the Abraham Fund, Hassan Jabareen of Adallah. We discussed the demands for equality of Israel's Arab citizens - not only on the individual and municipal level, but as a national minority as well. We found some common ground and some reasons to believe that solutions can be found, but we also learned that the path won't be easy. Lots of dialogue will be needed.
We spent a day in Ramallah, the central element of which was a 45-minute meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad. Fayyad's talk was uplifting - he advanced a vision of a Palestinian people ready to take on the responsibilities of statehood and of good neighborliness. For peace to happen, he said, the Palestinian people must be neither submissive nor belligerent - but empowered.
A half-day on the Golan included a meeting with Dr. Yigal Kipnis. Dr. Kipnis is a resident of the Golan who advocates a peace treaty with Syria in exchange for a full withdrawal from the Heights - a withdrawal that would also oblige him to leave his home of 30 years. But Dr. Kipnis stressed that Israel's welfare, its future, outweighs the needs of individual settlers.
We also got up at 5am to be observers on the Palestinian side of the Kalandia checkpoint, between Jerusalem and Ramallah, together with Hanna Barag of Machsom Watch. It's hard to describe in words what we saw there, so I won't try. But it was an important experience for anyone who wishes to understand the human dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy.
And we had dinner with the leading members of the Israeli human rights community - from B'Tselem and ACRI, Gisha and Physicians for Human Rights. They told a tale of concern about where Israel is heading and the threats to the human rights organizations, but they also displayed a courage to continue their work despite the harassment from the government and the hostility of the majority of Israel's citizens. They are Israeli patriots who refuse to give up. Israel and its citizens deserve a better future, they insisted.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Israel Symposium, entry I: gloom and hope
Sunday night, Israel time, 24 hours into the Israel Symposium. How to summarize this intense first day?
We kicked off the seminar last night with Prof. Naomi Chazan, who touched on issues as seemingly diverse as war and peace, Zionism, gender-segregated bus lines, and the feminist revolution among Bedouin women. But with intelligence and finesse, Naomi tied these all together and sketched out the immense internal dangers facing Israel, especially the dangers to Israeli democracy.
But Naomi offered rays of hope, which were seconded by other speakers we had today: Look at the growth of civil society in Israel over the last decade, she said. And look at the new generation of activists demonstrating week in and week out at Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem against the expulsion of Palestinian families. Others referred to the spontaneous growth of the urban kibbutz movement in Israel as a sign of continued or renewed idealism.
We heard a lot about Prime Minister Netanyahu: The main message we heard - from journalist Akiva Eldar, from Gadi Baltiansky of the Geneva Initiative, from Haim Oron of Meretz - is that Netanyahu has to decide which direction he intends to take. If he's on the side of the anti-Zionist, messianic settlers, he should stop talking about two states and continue building beyond the Green Line. But if he's really for two states, he should suspend all construction over the Green Line, reorganize his coalition by bringing Kadima in and showing the extremist right-wing parties the door. And then he needs to pick up negotiations where Israel and the Palestinians left them when Olmert was Prime Minister or at least when President Clinton laid out his parameters for a peace deal.
Another repeating message: There's absolutely no time to waste. Although no one would set an exact expiry date for the two-state solution, everyone seemed to agree that we are getting frighteningly close to the point in which the two-state solution will no longer be feasible. True Zionists, we were reminded, need to push hard for two states, as a one-state situation will be disastrous, under any of the scenarios in which it plays out (Apartheid or the end of a Jewish-majority nation.)
We also heard alternative visions - from those who feel we should be looking past the two-state solution. Journalist Daniel Gavron sought to sketch out a vision of a post-Zionist reality in which a single state of Israel/Palestine would include autonomous structures for Jews, Arabs, etc. And Avraham Burg insisted that while Israel would continue to be the national home for the Jewish people, it could no longer be an ethnocracy - a state that gives extra rights to one group, the Jews, over another group. Israel, he said, needs to be a democracy - full stop. Both Gavron and Burg suggested that the Israeli left - Meretz and Hadash - need to collaborate to help bring Israel to a better place.
We also heard from former Foreign Minister and today head of the Opposition, Tzipi Livni. Unfortunately, her remarks were made off the record and cannot be reported upon here. All I can say is that although I came away impressed by Ms. Livni's realism, I was less impressed by her sense of the dual narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Many of our speakers tried to explain how an extremist minority in Israel - the settlers - had managed to 'abduct' (as Avraham Burg termed it) an Israeli society in which 65%-70% still believe in a two-state solution (even if the same percentage doesn't believe it'll be achieved in their lifetime). Naomi Chazan explained with understanding that Israelis had to deal with years of fear, disappointment, and uncertainty, which had made them vulnerable to populist, super-nationalist slogans. Many referred to the fact that much of Israel's center-left has, out of despair, escaped into escapism, now choosing to watch "Big Brother" instead of the once top-rated evening news programs. Oron and others noted that things in Israel seem normal on the surface - the economy is doing well, and terror in 2009 was at its lowest in 10 years. The downside is that this is lulling Israelis into a sense that this can continue, that the Occupation can coexist over time with security and international legitimacy. Israelis, these speakers feared, will come to their senses only after disaster strikes. Hopefully, the situation will still be reparable when it does.
Many are looking for the international community, including American Jewry, to step up before it's too late. They're not pinning their hopes on Obama alone, but do believe that, to a degree, Israel needs help from the outside so that its leaders don't lead the country down a path that's headed for disaster.
It was an intense first day - full of frightening scenarios, but also with a series of speakers who aren't throwing in the towel, and who will continue to fight for a peaceful, egalitarian Israel.
Almost midnight. More tomorrow.
We kicked off the seminar last night with Prof. Naomi Chazan, who touched on issues as seemingly diverse as war and peace, Zionism, gender-segregated bus lines, and the feminist revolution among Bedouin women. But with intelligence and finesse, Naomi tied these all together and sketched out the immense internal dangers facing Israel, especially the dangers to Israeli democracy.
But Naomi offered rays of hope, which were seconded by other speakers we had today: Look at the growth of civil society in Israel over the last decade, she said. And look at the new generation of activists demonstrating week in and week out at Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem against the expulsion of Palestinian families. Others referred to the spontaneous growth of the urban kibbutz movement in Israel as a sign of continued or renewed idealism.
We heard a lot about Prime Minister Netanyahu: The main message we heard - from journalist Akiva Eldar, from Gadi Baltiansky of the Geneva Initiative, from Haim Oron of Meretz - is that Netanyahu has to decide which direction he intends to take. If he's on the side of the anti-Zionist, messianic settlers, he should stop talking about two states and continue building beyond the Green Line. But if he's really for two states, he should suspend all construction over the Green Line, reorganize his coalition by bringing Kadima in and showing the extremist right-wing parties the door. And then he needs to pick up negotiations where Israel and the Palestinians left them when Olmert was Prime Minister or at least when President Clinton laid out his parameters for a peace deal.
Another repeating message: There's absolutely no time to waste. Although no one would set an exact expiry date for the two-state solution, everyone seemed to agree that we are getting frighteningly close to the point in which the two-state solution will no longer be feasible. True Zionists, we were reminded, need to push hard for two states, as a one-state situation will be disastrous, under any of the scenarios in which it plays out (Apartheid or the end of a Jewish-majority nation.)
We also heard alternative visions - from those who feel we should be looking past the two-state solution. Journalist Daniel Gavron sought to sketch out a vision of a post-Zionist reality in which a single state of Israel/Palestine would include autonomous structures for Jews, Arabs, etc. And Avraham Burg insisted that while Israel would continue to be the national home for the Jewish people, it could no longer be an ethnocracy - a state that gives extra rights to one group, the Jews, over another group. Israel, he said, needs to be a democracy - full stop. Both Gavron and Burg suggested that the Israeli left - Meretz and Hadash - need to collaborate to help bring Israel to a better place.
We also heard from former Foreign Minister and today head of the Opposition, Tzipi Livni. Unfortunately, her remarks were made off the record and cannot be reported upon here. All I can say is that although I came away impressed by Ms. Livni's realism, I was less impressed by her sense of the dual narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Many of our speakers tried to explain how an extremist minority in Israel - the settlers - had managed to 'abduct' (as Avraham Burg termed it) an Israeli society in which 65%-70% still believe in a two-state solution (even if the same percentage doesn't believe it'll be achieved in their lifetime). Naomi Chazan explained with understanding that Israelis had to deal with years of fear, disappointment, and uncertainty, which had made them vulnerable to populist, super-nationalist slogans. Many referred to the fact that much of Israel's center-left has, out of despair, escaped into escapism, now choosing to watch "Big Brother" instead of the once top-rated evening news programs. Oron and others noted that things in Israel seem normal on the surface - the economy is doing well, and terror in 2009 was at its lowest in 10 years. The downside is that this is lulling Israelis into a sense that this can continue, that the Occupation can coexist over time with security and international legitimacy. Israelis, these speakers feared, will come to their senses only after disaster strikes. Hopefully, the situation will still be reparable when it does.
Many are looking for the international community, including American Jewry, to step up before it's too late. They're not pinning their hopes on Obama alone, but do believe that, to a degree, Israel needs help from the outside so that its leaders don't lead the country down a path that's headed for disaster.
It was an intense first day - full of frightening scenarios, but also with a series of speakers who aren't throwing in the towel, and who will continue to fight for a peaceful, egalitarian Israel.
Almost midnight. More tomorrow.
Friday, March 12, 2010
The Green Line between optimism and pessimism
My last day in the office, before coming to Israel, was Tuesday. I remember, because when I emailed this year's 22 Israel Symposium participants, I noted my optimism (albeit a cautious one) ahead of this year's trip, with Israel and the Palestinians about to restart diplomatic talks - even if only indirectly.
By the time I was at JFK airport on Wednesday, though, things had changed: Israel had announced new construction in East Jerusalem, and the visiting Vice President Biden, along with the rest of the world, was sharply condemning the move.
By the time I reached Israel yesterday (Thursday), the Palestinians were making the new construction a diplomatic casus belli - threatening not to renew the talks next week if the decision to add homes to Ramat Shlomo, in East Jerusalem, was not suspended.
Today, Friday, I read that Israel will offer "no new concessions" (as if building beyond the Green Line was in Israel's interests in the first place) and that it expects the Palestinians to back down.
Hopefully there'll be reasons for renewed optimism as the Symposium moves along.
Meanwhile, I think Interior Minister Eli Yishai explained it most accurately when he said (to paraphrase) that, 'hey, when we promised a settlement moratorium, no one in the Israeli government ever promised we'd stop building in East Jerusalem'. Yishai's right: We can blame Netanyahu for a lot of things, but in this case, at least he was honest. The responsibility rests with those who thought that Netanyahu was just 'talking tough' for his domestic audience.
Ron
By the time I was at JFK airport on Wednesday, though, things had changed: Israel had announced new construction in East Jerusalem, and the visiting Vice President Biden, along with the rest of the world, was sharply condemning the move.
By the time I reached Israel yesterday (Thursday), the Palestinians were making the new construction a diplomatic casus belli - threatening not to renew the talks next week if the decision to add homes to Ramat Shlomo, in East Jerusalem, was not suspended.
Today, Friday, I read that Israel will offer "no new concessions" (as if building beyond the Green Line was in Israel's interests in the first place) and that it expects the Palestinians to back down.
Hopefully there'll be reasons for renewed optimism as the Symposium moves along.
Meanwhile, I think Interior Minister Eli Yishai explained it most accurately when he said (to paraphrase) that, 'hey, when we promised a settlement moratorium, no one in the Israeli government ever promised we'd stop building in East Jerusalem'. Yishai's right: We can blame Netanyahu for a lot of things, but in this case, at least he was honest. The responsibility rests with those who thought that Netanyahu was just 'talking tough' for his domestic audience.
Ron
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Does Nazi antisemitism still impact Mideast?
The short answer is yes, but hopefully not as much as some people think.
At YIVO in New York, on March 4, I attended a lecture by Prof. Jeffrey Herf, a historian at the University of Maryland, on his new book, Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World (Yale University Press). It shows how Nazi Germany planted its own brand of antisemitism in the Muslim Middle East. First of all, Nazi officials went to great lengths to explain to the Arab world that its antisemitism was not against all "Semites," that it only targeted Jews.
A US diplomat, Alexander Kirk, documented how consistently and cleverly the Nazis propagandized in the Arab world to create a "meeting of minds" and a "cultural fusion." This involved an identification with Arab anti-Zionism and the notion that Islam and Nazism held common values: i.e., that both Nazism and Islam were in opposition to liberal individualism, prizing unity and family instead. Prof. Herf noted that the notoriously antisemitic charter of Hamas incongruously mentions the French Revolution, which it blames on the Jews--and not by accident, according to Herf. He indicates that the Nazis also blamed the French Revolution on the Jews, and were dedicated to its reversal, because Nazism associated the ills of modernity with the ideals of liberty, equality and human rights that were born with the French Revolution. Hamas would not have any such conception without having inherited it from Nazi Germany.
I am reminded of a forum I attended a few months ago at Columbia University. On that occasion, I asked the prominent historian and Palestinian-American activist, Prof. Rashid Khalidi, about the role of the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini; he downplayed his importance---opposite to Herf's view and I think somewhat contrary to the truth. Herf indicated that the Mufti had escaped Allied imprisonment in France to influence Palestinian politics (from Cairo) by heading the Higher Arab Committee in 1946-'48. Herf feels it's a pity that Husseini and others were not prosecuted for war crimes---specifically for incitement to genocide in broadcasting from Nazi Germany in July 1942 that the Egyptian public take up arms and murder the Jews in their midst.
I take Herf at his word that he's an honest scholar, not trying to score ideological points. But Herf's notion (voiced briefly by him) that if the conflict between Israel and the Arabs were only about land, it would have been settled already, seems rife for exploitation by voices on the right who will discount all efforts at peacemaking. Unfortunately, the writing of history remains, all too often, a weapon of political conflict.
At YIVO in New York, on March 4, I attended a lecture by Prof. Jeffrey Herf, a historian at the University of Maryland, on his new book, Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World (Yale University Press). It shows how Nazi Germany planted its own brand of antisemitism in the Muslim Middle East. First of all, Nazi officials went to great lengths to explain to the Arab world that its antisemitism was not against all "Semites," that it only targeted Jews.
A US diplomat, Alexander Kirk, documented how consistently and cleverly the Nazis propagandized in the Arab world to create a "meeting of minds" and a "cultural fusion." This involved an identification with Arab anti-Zionism and the notion that Islam and Nazism held common values: i.e., that both Nazism and Islam were in opposition to liberal individualism, prizing unity and family instead. Prof. Herf noted that the notoriously antisemitic charter of Hamas incongruously mentions the French Revolution, which it blames on the Jews--and not by accident, according to Herf. He indicates that the Nazis also blamed the French Revolution on the Jews, and were dedicated to its reversal, because Nazism associated the ills of modernity with the ideals of liberty, equality and human rights that were born with the French Revolution. Hamas would not have any such conception without having inherited it from Nazi Germany.
I am reminded of a forum I attended a few months ago at Columbia University. On that occasion, I asked the prominent historian and Palestinian-American activist, Prof. Rashid Khalidi, about the role of the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini; he downplayed his importance---opposite to Herf's view and I think somewhat contrary to the truth. Herf indicated that the Mufti had escaped Allied imprisonment in France to influence Palestinian politics (from Cairo) by heading the Higher Arab Committee in 1946-'48. Herf feels it's a pity that Husseini and others were not prosecuted for war crimes---specifically for incitement to genocide in broadcasting from Nazi Germany in July 1942 that the Egyptian public take up arms and murder the Jews in their midst.
I take Herf at his word that he's an honest scholar, not trying to score ideological points. But Herf's notion (voiced briefly by him) that if the conflict between Israel and the Arabs were only about land, it would have been settled already, seems rife for exploitation by voices on the right who will discount all efforts at peacemaking. Unfortunately, the writing of history remains, all too often, a weapon of political conflict.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
To the Israeli Government: Thanks a Million
Dearest and Most Esteemed Government of Israel:
I just wanted to write and let you know that I think you guys are doing a great job. No, really, I think that the decisions you’ve made lately have been fantastic. Starting with that Hamas leader’s assassination in Dubai- like, cool! Totally James Bond! Who cares if the assassination violated international law in approximately 79 different ways, and exacerbated tensions with the virtually all of the rest of the Middle East? And don’t worry about those middling countries like Great Britain and Australia, who for some reason seem not to be thrilled by the fact that the assassins used forged passports from their countries to carry out the hit. Weird, huh?
Anyway, shake it off, guys, who needs ‘em? After all, Israel’s all set in the Middle East, thanks to its close alliance with Turkey. Yes, there have been some tensions with Turkey lately, but Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon dealt with that issue quite nicely in his meeting with Turkey’s Ambassador Oguz Celikkol, aimed at addressing those tensions. “Note how there is an Israeli flag on the table and not a Turkish flag,” Ayalon told reporters, also drawing their attention to the fact that he had deliberately seated the Turkish dignitary in a lower seat. Ha! Wowee! Dan, man, that is what I call clever diplomacy. Tell ‘em who is boss! That’s just the way to mend a fraying friendship. I do have a suggestion, though: next time you meet with Celikkol- or any foreign dignitary, for that matter- maybe ask him to shine your shoes? Or, no, no, wait! How about this: Have him wear a clown hat. Although maybe you’ve already humiliated this Celikkol fellow enough that he won’t even want to meet again. Whatever. Muslims Shmuslims, right?
So, maybe things are strained with Turkey, and England and a few Arabs here and there, but no big deal: Israel’s all set in the world, thanks to its close alliance with the United States! I mean, Vice President Joe Biden just came for a visit to declare America’s unending support for Israel, right? Although, I thought I remembered his visit have some other purpose, also… Oh yeah, right, to promote the new round of US-backed peace negotiations with the, um, what are they called again? Palistilians? Paleontilians? Whatever. You know who I’m talking about: those guys whose land Israel has been, like, “occupying” for the last 43 years. Negotiations, shmegotiations, though, right? You guys did a fantastic job of signaling to the Vice President that you weren’t so interested in hearing what he had to say about Pallistoneans or “peace processes” by announcing the construction of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem- which the Palestinians seem to think needs to be the capital of their future “state”- the day after Mr. Biden arrived! Brilliant strategy, guys, I mean, bravo. I don’t know that I would have thought of doing it myself, but I must say, good move! Why stop at humiliating Dubai and Turkey and Great Britain and the Palestanicons? Hey, Joe, here’s a clown hat for you too! Allies Shmallies!
Wow oh wow. I could go on for ages about all the things you guys are doing well. I mean, allowing Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman--truly a personal hero of mine: so smooth, and dignified, and tolerant--to make incendiary remarks to Syria? Great move. Bring it on, Bashar. And Bibi, declaring Hebron to be a national Jewish heritage site? What timing! What finesse!
Riots in Jerusalem are not enough to bring about a third intifada? Let’s see what other avenues Israel can explore to expedite the process! And the list goes on, but I’ll try to save some glowing praise for my next letter. Mostly, I just wanted to express how grateful I am that Israel has such prudent, pragmatic, peace-pursuing politicians at its helm. It really helps me sleep easy at night knowing that you guys are busy doing all that you can to ensure that the place I was born is becoming increasingly isolated from the world, and that my dream for peace is becoming ever more dream-like.
So, thanks, really.
Ever So Sincerely,
Moriel Rothman
I just wanted to write and let you know that I think you guys are doing a great job. No, really, I think that the decisions you’ve made lately have been fantastic. Starting with that Hamas leader’s assassination in Dubai- like, cool! Totally James Bond! Who cares if the assassination violated international law in approximately 79 different ways, and exacerbated tensions with the virtually all of the rest of the Middle East? And don’t worry about those middling countries like Great Britain and Australia, who for some reason seem not to be thrilled by the fact that the assassins used forged passports from their countries to carry out the hit. Weird, huh?
Anyway, shake it off, guys, who needs ‘em? After all, Israel’s all set in the Middle East, thanks to its close alliance with Turkey. Yes, there have been some tensions with Turkey lately, but Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon dealt with that issue quite nicely in his meeting with Turkey’s Ambassador Oguz Celikkol, aimed at addressing those tensions. “Note how there is an Israeli flag on the table and not a Turkish flag,” Ayalon told reporters, also drawing their attention to the fact that he had deliberately seated the Turkish dignitary in a lower seat. Ha! Wowee! Dan, man, that is what I call clever diplomacy. Tell ‘em who is boss! That’s just the way to mend a fraying friendship. I do have a suggestion, though: next time you meet with Celikkol- or any foreign dignitary, for that matter- maybe ask him to shine your shoes? Or, no, no, wait! How about this: Have him wear a clown hat. Although maybe you’ve already humiliated this Celikkol fellow enough that he won’t even want to meet again. Whatever. Muslims Shmuslims, right?
So, maybe things are strained with Turkey, and England and a few Arabs here and there, but no big deal: Israel’s all set in the world, thanks to its close alliance with the United States! I mean, Vice President Joe Biden just came for a visit to declare America’s unending support for Israel, right? Although, I thought I remembered his visit have some other purpose, also… Oh yeah, right, to promote the new round of US-backed peace negotiations with the, um, what are they called again? Palistilians? Paleontilians? Whatever. You know who I’m talking about: those guys whose land Israel has been, like, “occupying” for the last 43 years. Negotiations, shmegotiations, though, right? You guys did a fantastic job of signaling to the Vice President that you weren’t so interested in hearing what he had to say about Pallistoneans or “peace processes” by announcing the construction of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem- which the Palestinians seem to think needs to be the capital of their future “state”- the day after Mr. Biden arrived! Brilliant strategy, guys, I mean, bravo. I don’t know that I would have thought of doing it myself, but I must say, good move! Why stop at humiliating Dubai and Turkey and Great Britain and the Palestanicons? Hey, Joe, here’s a clown hat for you too! Allies Shmallies!
Wow oh wow. I could go on for ages about all the things you guys are doing well. I mean, allowing Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman--truly a personal hero of mine: so smooth, and dignified, and tolerant--to make incendiary remarks to Syria? Great move. Bring it on, Bashar. And Bibi, declaring Hebron to be a national Jewish heritage site? What timing! What finesse!
Riots in Jerusalem are not enough to bring about a third intifada? Let’s see what other avenues Israel can explore to expedite the process! And the list goes on, but I’ll try to save some glowing praise for my next letter. Mostly, I just wanted to express how grateful I am that Israel has such prudent, pragmatic, peace-pursuing politicians at its helm. It really helps me sleep easy at night knowing that you guys are busy doing all that you can to ensure that the place I was born is becoming increasingly isolated from the world, and that my dream for peace is becoming ever more dream-like.
So, thanks, really.
Ever So Sincerely,
Moriel Rothman
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Alienation of Israel's Arab citizens
Today's Haaretz features an interview with a prominent 34 year-old Israeli Arab, Abir Kopty, who applauds and echoes co-director Scandar Copti of the Oscar nominated film "Ajami," for his statement that he doesn't "represent Israel." While it is distressful to learn of this ongoing sense of alienation by Israeli Arabs, this is mostly out of a reasonable sense of grievance rather than hatred. In particular, note the following passages:
Question: "Where does [the State of Israel] not represent you?"
Kopti: "In the occupation policy, in the settlement policy, in the policy of racism and discrimination. Eighty-percent unemployment among women; the many employers who do not hire Arabs. The development budget - hardly 4 percent of it reaches the Arab local authorities. Upper Nazareth is almost swallowing up Nazareth because it is expanding so much, and Nazareth has no lands to expand onto. Nazareth does not have an industrial zone. Education - I don't study my past, my identity - I study the history of the Jewish people. I also see the teachers' fear of teaching our history, the fear that the Education Ministry will dismiss them. ..."
Question: "Can you understand the Jews who feel so threatened?"
Kopti: "Yes, I can understand the feeling of a minority amid an Arab Middle East, I can understand that the Iranian president's statements are frightening, I can understand the trauma of the Holocaust that people still experience to this day. I can understand these things, certainly.
"My problem is not with the sense of fear and being threatened; my problem is with how the political system uses these feelings and manipulates them to shut the eyes of the people and block their ears - to silence all opposition to policy. Because the Jewish people are not the only people who have suffered, there are many other nations that are suffering, and you have to see this. My problem is that specifically a nation that suffered so much cannot see beyond itself and its own home."
Question: "Where does [the State of Israel] not represent you?"
Kopti: "In the occupation policy, in the settlement policy, in the policy of racism and discrimination. Eighty-percent unemployment among women; the many employers who do not hire Arabs. The development budget - hardly 4 percent of it reaches the Arab local authorities. Upper Nazareth is almost swallowing up Nazareth because it is expanding so much, and Nazareth has no lands to expand onto. Nazareth does not have an industrial zone. Education - I don't study my past, my identity - I study the history of the Jewish people. I also see the teachers' fear of teaching our history, the fear that the Education Ministry will dismiss them. ..."
Question: "Can you understand the Jews who feel so threatened?"
Kopti: "Yes, I can understand the feeling of a minority amid an Arab Middle East, I can understand that the Iranian president's statements are frightening, I can understand the trauma of the Holocaust that people still experience to this day. I can understand these things, certainly.
"My problem is not with the sense of fear and being threatened; my problem is with how the political system uses these feelings and manipulates them to shut the eyes of the people and block their ears - to silence all opposition to policy. Because the Jewish people are not the only people who have suffered, there are many other nations that are suffering, and you have to see this. My problem is that specifically a nation that suffered so much cannot see beyond itself and its own home."
Sunday, March 07, 2010
To Move Forward, We Must Recognize Our Past
We are all shaped--our ideas, our opinions, our beliefs--by who we are. There is a power in acknowledging our identities, and a danger in being trapped by them.
Si nescis unde venias, nescis quo adeas: If you don’t know where you come from, you don’t know where you are going.
I was born in Jerusalem, a city that is the heart of my people; the very sound of Hebrew gives me a sense of connectedness, of home. I was raised a connected Jew, and I see the world through the lens of a proud member of the Jewish people. On the other hand, if you know only where you come from, you cannot truly know the world.
I was born in Jerusalem, a city that is the heart of two peoples; I have studied Arabic for three years now, and although the language still rings foreign in my ears, I have experienced through the language moments of genuine understanding. I was raised a connected Jew, and therefore I am compelled to strive to understand what the world looks like through the lens of a proud member of the Palestinian people.
I am not objective, I am not unbiased, I am not neutral. I am pro-Israel because if I am not for myself, indeed who will be for me? However, I do not believe that my side is more right, per se, but rather I acknowledge that I am more on my side. This acknowledgment--that I am not more justified, but simply more me--allows me no choice but to be pro-peace.
For to deny the legitimacy of the Palestinian people, to refuse to recognize the familiarity of the Palestinians’ desire for an independent homeland, to assert that we are good and thus they are wicked is to choose blindness, to lie, to allow ourselves to be conquered by and made subservient to the very particularism that binds us.
I have found in J Street a way--not the way, but a way--to be true to who I am, and to simultaneously challenge defensive paradigms and remain open to the necessary struggle of understanding the side that is not mine.
Two months ago, a friend and I, in an effort to create a voice on campus that reflected the nuanced synthesis of self-acknowledgment and introspection that we found in J Street, began the process of creating J Street U Middlebury; last week, we held our first major event on campus. In a striking display of engagement and interest, more than 250 people (1/10 of the number of students at Middlebury) attended a campus-wide speech by American-Israeli historian, journalist and peace activist Gershom Gorenberg.
In his talk, Gorenberg proved to be an eloquent model of someone who sharply criticizes Israel without demonizing her, and who advocates for peace without simplifying or glossing over. He spoke on his recent book, “The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements: 1967-1977,” which contradicts the commonly held conception that the Israeli left, which ruled until 1977, was essentially bullied into the settlement enterprise by the radical religious right of Gush Emunim. While the Gush Emunim movement indeed spearheaded the campaign to settle the territories conquered in 1967, Gorenberg contended that the ruling left, by choosing a policy of not choosing a distinct settlement policy, thus allowed the inertia of expansionism to prevail unabated, and were perhaps equally responsible for the settlement dilemma. 43 years later, this settlement dilemma stands today as one of the major obstacles to peace and human rights, and is arguably the largest threat to Israeli democracy and to the Jewish state.
There are two important conclusions, inter alia, that I feel should be drawn from Gorenberg’s findings. First, that the penchant for implicating our “fanatics,” the religious radicals, as bearing the sole responsibility for the state of affairs today is simply inaccurate. Clearly their ideology is immensely problematic, but there is more blame to go around Israeli society than we on the Zionist left are generally comfortable admitting. The next conclusion is connected to the first, and is difficult for me to grapple with even as I recognize its importance: in short, it is a reminder of the danger of simplification. It is tempting to view settlement in the Occupied Territories after 1967 as a monolithic sort of “badness.” In 1948, one could assert, the Jews were fighting to secure their borders, whereas in 1967 they moved beyond the defensive.
But it is not that simple. In 1967, like in 1948, the Israeli Jews were attacked from all sides by Arab armies who truly would have liked to wipe the Zionist entity off of the geopolitical map. In both cases the Jews were victorious, and then some, expanding borders beyond what they were prior to hostilities. In both cases, there was what Gorenberg called a settlers’ “ethic of breaking the rules” and settling the land in defiance of restrictive authority. What then is the major difference between 1948 and 1967? Simply this: In 1967, the majority of the Arabs stayed put.
Such a conclusion necessarily does one of two things: either it humanizes the settlers of 1967, casting them in the 1948-light of largely defensive patriots (albeit severely lacking in terms of empathy for the Palestinians) or it muddies the concept of 1948’s purity, affirming that had the majority of Arabs not left during that war, the currently existent tension between the desire for a Jewish state, a democracy, and control of the entire land would have arose as soon as the Jewish State was born.
Either way, it is a bitter pill to swallow for any pro-Israel/anti-Occupationist. That said, it is one that we must swallow, for we cannot move into the future without a true reckoning with the past. We who seek peace must allow ourselves to hear voices such as Gorenberg’s and we must be open to self-criticism, no matter how painful such a process often is.
Si nescis unde venias, nescis quo adeas: If you don’t know where you come from, you don’t know where you are going.
I was born in Jerusalem, a city that is the heart of my people; the very sound of Hebrew gives me a sense of connectedness, of home. I was raised a connected Jew, and I see the world through the lens of a proud member of the Jewish people. On the other hand, if you know only where you come from, you cannot truly know the world.
I was born in Jerusalem, a city that is the heart of two peoples; I have studied Arabic for three years now, and although the language still rings foreign in my ears, I have experienced through the language moments of genuine understanding. I was raised a connected Jew, and therefore I am compelled to strive to understand what the world looks like through the lens of a proud member of the Palestinian people.
I am not objective, I am not unbiased, I am not neutral. I am pro-Israel because if I am not for myself, indeed who will be for me? However, I do not believe that my side is more right, per se, but rather I acknowledge that I am more on my side. This acknowledgment--that I am not more justified, but simply more me--allows me no choice but to be pro-peace.
For to deny the legitimacy of the Palestinian people, to refuse to recognize the familiarity of the Palestinians’ desire for an independent homeland, to assert that we are good and thus they are wicked is to choose blindness, to lie, to allow ourselves to be conquered by and made subservient to the very particularism that binds us.
I have found in J Street a way--not the way, but a way--to be true to who I am, and to simultaneously challenge defensive paradigms and remain open to the necessary struggle of understanding the side that is not mine.
Two months ago, a friend and I, in an effort to create a voice on campus that reflected the nuanced synthesis of self-acknowledgment and introspection that we found in J Street, began the process of creating J Street U Middlebury; last week, we held our first major event on campus. In a striking display of engagement and interest, more than 250 people (1/10 of the number of students at Middlebury) attended a campus-wide speech by American-Israeli historian, journalist and peace activist Gershom Gorenberg.
In his talk, Gorenberg proved to be an eloquent model of someone who sharply criticizes Israel without demonizing her, and who advocates for peace without simplifying or glossing over. He spoke on his recent book, “The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements: 1967-1977,” which contradicts the commonly held conception that the Israeli left, which ruled until 1977, was essentially bullied into the settlement enterprise by the radical religious right of Gush Emunim. While the Gush Emunim movement indeed spearheaded the campaign to settle the territories conquered in 1967, Gorenberg contended that the ruling left, by choosing a policy of not choosing a distinct settlement policy, thus allowed the inertia of expansionism to prevail unabated, and were perhaps equally responsible for the settlement dilemma. 43 years later, this settlement dilemma stands today as one of the major obstacles to peace and human rights, and is arguably the largest threat to Israeli democracy and to the Jewish state.
There are two important conclusions, inter alia, that I feel should be drawn from Gorenberg’s findings. First, that the penchant for implicating our “fanatics,” the religious radicals, as bearing the sole responsibility for the state of affairs today is simply inaccurate. Clearly their ideology is immensely problematic, but there is more blame to go around Israeli society than we on the Zionist left are generally comfortable admitting. The next conclusion is connected to the first, and is difficult for me to grapple with even as I recognize its importance: in short, it is a reminder of the danger of simplification. It is tempting to view settlement in the Occupied Territories after 1967 as a monolithic sort of “badness.” In 1948, one could assert, the Jews were fighting to secure their borders, whereas in 1967 they moved beyond the defensive.
But it is not that simple. In 1967, like in 1948, the Israeli Jews were attacked from all sides by Arab armies who truly would have liked to wipe the Zionist entity off of the geopolitical map. In both cases the Jews were victorious, and then some, expanding borders beyond what they were prior to hostilities. In both cases, there was what Gorenberg called a settlers’ “ethic of breaking the rules” and settling the land in defiance of restrictive authority. What then is the major difference between 1948 and 1967? Simply this: In 1967, the majority of the Arabs stayed put.
Such a conclusion necessarily does one of two things: either it humanizes the settlers of 1967, casting them in the 1948-light of largely defensive patriots (albeit severely lacking in terms of empathy for the Palestinians) or it muddies the concept of 1948’s purity, affirming that had the majority of Arabs not left during that war, the currently existent tension between the desire for a Jewish state, a democracy, and control of the entire land would have arose as soon as the Jewish State was born.
Either way, it is a bitter pill to swallow for any pro-Israel/anti-Occupationist. That said, it is one that we must swallow, for we cannot move into the future without a true reckoning with the past. We who seek peace must allow ourselves to hear voices such as Gorenberg’s and we must be open to self-criticism, no matter how painful such a process often is.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Film on friendship of Tunisian Jews & Arabs
My review of the recent memorable French film, “The Wedding Song,” is now in print in the March/April issue of Tikkun magazine. This film beautifully depicts the friendship of two 16 year old Tunisian girls, one Jewish and one Muslim-Arab, and how the often intimate relations among Jews and Arabs were strained by the Nazi occupation in 1942-43. Of special anthropological interest are the living conditions recreated and the wedding customs practiced and celebrated in common. The following partially quotes from my review:
“The Wedding Song” begins with a young girl sweetly singing an Arabic wedding ditty. This is followed abruptly by a photo tableaux of the infamous Grand Mufti of Jerusalem meeting with Hitler and his SS henchman, Himmler, and reviewing Nazi troops. The Mufti--through his Arabic radio broadcasts from Berlin, his recruitment of Balkan Muslims to the SS and his work against the British in Iraq--spearheaded Nazi Germany’s outreach efforts to Arabs and Muslims. ...
The story begins in November 1942 and is set entirely in Tunisia. ... [Following] the British victory at El Alamein and the landing of US and British forces in Algeria and Morocco, ... Erwin Rommel successfully withdrew his Afrika Korps to Tunisia, where the Germans landed heavy reinforcements. Bloody fighting sea-sawed for another half year in Tunisia until the Germans and Italians surrendered there in May 1943.
The Nazi overseer of anti-Jewish measures in Tunisia, SS Colonel Walter Rauff (mentioned in the film), received this assignment as a consolation prize for his previously intended mission as commander of “Einsatzgruppe Egypt,” created to murder the Jews of Palestine after the anticipated British defeat there.
.... Only the accident of geography saved [Tunisian Jews] from being transported en masse to the death camps. The blessedly short duration of the Nazi occupation prevented the death toll from malnutrition, disease and sheer brutality from climbing into the tens of thousands.
[French director/writer Karin] Albou embarked on a personal quest in making this film, delving into her North African-Jewish roots (Algerian, in her case). Her work parallels that of Robert Satloff, whose AMONG THE RIGHTEOUS: Lost Stories from the Holocaust’s Long Reach into Arab Lands (published by Public Affairs in 2006) recounts the little-known story of 500,000 North African Jews living under Axis occupation--variously German, Vichy-French and Italian-- and how a number of Arabs heroically sheltered or otherwise aided Jews being persecuted. He did so not simply as a historian, but also with the explicit purpose of reaching out to the Arab world to find common purpose in the interest of peace.
Ms. Albou seems similarly motivated with a conciliatory spirit. ...
Sadly, there are few Jews left today in North Africa. Only Morocco has a community that still numbers a few thousand from the 300,000 who lived there until the 1950s. Tunisia now has an even smaller community, which briefly made the headlines in 2002 when an al-Qaeda suicide bomber killed 19 people (mostly tourists) visiting a synagogue on the island of Djerba.
Like Ms. Albou’s father, most Tunisian and Algerian Jews emigrated to France. Most Moroccan Jews settled in Israel.
“The Wedding Song” begins with a young girl sweetly singing an Arabic wedding ditty. This is followed abruptly by a photo tableaux of the infamous Grand Mufti of Jerusalem meeting with Hitler and his SS henchman, Himmler, and reviewing Nazi troops. The Mufti--through his Arabic radio broadcasts from Berlin, his recruitment of Balkan Muslims to the SS and his work against the British in Iraq--spearheaded Nazi Germany’s outreach efforts to Arabs and Muslims. ...
The story begins in November 1942 and is set entirely in Tunisia. ... [Following] the British victory at El Alamein and the landing of US and British forces in Algeria and Morocco, ... Erwin Rommel successfully withdrew his Afrika Korps to Tunisia, where the Germans landed heavy reinforcements. Bloody fighting sea-sawed for another half year in Tunisia until the Germans and Italians surrendered there in May 1943.
The Nazi overseer of anti-Jewish measures in Tunisia, SS Colonel Walter Rauff (mentioned in the film), received this assignment as a consolation prize for his previously intended mission as commander of “Einsatzgruppe Egypt,” created to murder the Jews of Palestine after the anticipated British defeat there.
.... Only the accident of geography saved [Tunisian Jews] from being transported en masse to the death camps. The blessedly short duration of the Nazi occupation prevented the death toll from malnutrition, disease and sheer brutality from climbing into the tens of thousands.
[French director/writer Karin] Albou embarked on a personal quest in making this film, delving into her North African-Jewish roots (Algerian, in her case). Her work parallels that of Robert Satloff, whose AMONG THE RIGHTEOUS: Lost Stories from the Holocaust’s Long Reach into Arab Lands (published by Public Affairs in 2006) recounts the little-known story of 500,000 North African Jews living under Axis occupation--variously German, Vichy-French and Italian-- and how a number of Arabs heroically sheltered or otherwise aided Jews being persecuted. He did so not simply as a historian, but also with the explicit purpose of reaching out to the Arab world to find common purpose in the interest of peace.
Ms. Albou seems similarly motivated with a conciliatory spirit. ...
Sadly, there are few Jews left today in North Africa. Only Morocco has a community that still numbers a few thousand from the 300,000 who lived there until the 1950s. Tunisia now has an even smaller community, which briefly made the headlines in 2002 when an al-Qaeda suicide bomber killed 19 people (mostly tourists) visiting a synagogue on the island of Djerba.
Like Ms. Albou’s father, most Tunisian and Algerian Jews emigrated to France. Most Moroccan Jews settled in Israel.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Amazon, 'Transfer Agreement' & antisemitism
About a month ago, Amazon.com shocked me by sending an email recommending a book engaged in Holocaust denial (in the guise of "debating" the facts): "Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides" By Thomas Dalton, Ph.D. The Amazon site promoting this book includes a review that breathlessly proclaims in large print: "THE CONTROVERSY THAT WON'T GO AWAY. NOW, THE TRUTH BEHIND THE HOLOCAUST DENIAL DEBATE."
And it goes on: "There was no budget. There was no plan. There was no extermination order from Hitler. ..." Almost all the reviews and comments I found there were truly sickening.
I must have gotten flagged by Amazon's online algorithm because I bought the 25th anniversary paperback edition of Edwin Black's "The Transfer Agreement," a problematic subject matter but not written with any kind of anti-Jewish or even anti-Israel agenda. Edwin Black was televised on the C-Span 2 "Book TV" channel, back in January, discussing this book.
Early in the days of the Nazi regime, the Zionist movement negotiated with the Nazis to ransom tens of thousands of German Jews. They broke a widespread boycott of Nazi Germany at the time with an agreement (the Transfer Agreement) to buy German goods to go with the 60,000 or more German Jews who found refuge in Palestine in the 1930s. Anti-Zionists argue that this episode proves that the Zionists were in league with the Nazis, but this is a very tendentious and extreme interpretation.
What comes across is that Black's clearly a Zionist, and apparently of a centrist or mainstream variety---rather than a left-Zionist like myself. He was troubled by what he unearthed but reconciled to the belief that it was for the best. (It's not by accident that a mainstream Zionist, the ADL's Abe Foxman--who sometimes sounds like a right-winger--wrote an afterword to this anniversary edition of Black's book.)
Black states that the deal was meant to save lives, to rescue Jews, as it did. His bottom line is that he doesn't believe that the anti-Nazi boycott would have caused the regime to fall, but commends it for having made the Transfer Agreement possible. In the end, he salutes both those who carried out the agreement and those who conducted the boycott; he sees the Jews as having been trapped and Palestine as virtually their only hope.
Amazon would likely have also flagged me if I had ordered Shlomo Sand's "The Invention of the Jewish People" or perhaps even Mearsheimer & Walt's "Israel Lobby" book (noxious and flawed works but not antisemitic in intent); Sand's book is listed next to "Debating the Holocaust" in the "Frequently Bought Together" category. Authors who are stridently anti-Israel or anti-Zionist, but not Jew haters, might consider why their books are so popular with actual haters.
In the US (unlike in Europe and Canada), Holocaust Revisionists/Deniers have a legal right to free speech. Maybe the best response is to point out that since these works are available in the public marketplace, this undermines the argument that Jews are so damned powerful.
And it goes on: "There was no budget. There was no plan. There was no extermination order from Hitler. ..." Almost all the reviews and comments I found there were truly sickening.
I must have gotten flagged by Amazon's online algorithm because I bought the 25th anniversary paperback edition of Edwin Black's "The Transfer Agreement," a problematic subject matter but not written with any kind of anti-Jewish or even anti-Israel agenda. Edwin Black was televised on the C-Span 2 "Book TV" channel, back in January, discussing this book.
Early in the days of the Nazi regime, the Zionist movement negotiated with the Nazis to ransom tens of thousands of German Jews. They broke a widespread boycott of Nazi Germany at the time with an agreement (the Transfer Agreement) to buy German goods to go with the 60,000 or more German Jews who found refuge in Palestine in the 1930s. Anti-Zionists argue that this episode proves that the Zionists were in league with the Nazis, but this is a very tendentious and extreme interpretation.
What comes across is that Black's clearly a Zionist, and apparently of a centrist or mainstream variety---rather than a left-Zionist like myself. He was troubled by what he unearthed but reconciled to the belief that it was for the best. (It's not by accident that a mainstream Zionist, the ADL's Abe Foxman--who sometimes sounds like a right-winger--wrote an afterword to this anniversary edition of Black's book.)
Black states that the deal was meant to save lives, to rescue Jews, as it did. His bottom line is that he doesn't believe that the anti-Nazi boycott would have caused the regime to fall, but commends it for having made the Transfer Agreement possible. In the end, he salutes both those who carried out the agreement and those who conducted the boycott; he sees the Jews as having been trapped and Palestine as virtually their only hope.
Amazon would likely have also flagged me if I had ordered Shlomo Sand's "The Invention of the Jewish People" or perhaps even Mearsheimer & Walt's "Israel Lobby" book (noxious and flawed works but not antisemitic in intent); Sand's book is listed next to "Debating the Holocaust" in the "Frequently Bought Together" category. Authors who are stridently anti-Israel or anti-Zionist, but not Jew haters, might consider why their books are so popular with actual haters.
In the US (unlike in Europe and Canada), Holocaust Revisionists/Deniers have a legal right to free speech. Maybe the best response is to point out that since these works are available in the public marketplace, this undermines the argument that Jews are so damned powerful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)