The Realities of West Bank Settlements

As part of my quest to try to explain the complicated situation of Jewish Israelis who settle in the West Bank, I urge you to read Seth Freedman's article about Bayit Echad in the Guardian. He touches on a very important aspect of the settler experience and reminds us that there are very real and human reasons that they continue to live there. We cannot ask anyone to change without first addressing their concerns.

"If we don't make peace, the Middle East will explode", he warns. "We can't live by the sword forever; if we don't deal with the Palestinians [over a negotiating table], they'll return to terror, and no army can beat terror; only diplomacy can." Raz is, by definition, a settler – albeit an incredibly reluctant one. He is desperate to relocate his family west of the Green Line, but economic conditions make such a move financially unviable, and he wants the government to enact legislation to help him.

Read the rest here.

Lieberman Makes Me Sad

Prime Minister Netanyahu, who began his official premiership today, appointed Avigdor Lieberman, of the Yisrael Beitanu party as foreign minister.

Can we just take a minute to examine what this means?

Lieberman is the very same politician who advocates forced expulsions of Israel's Arabs and who, at the very least, has been pushing for this population to face a tough choice: swear their loyalty to the Zionist state or have their citizenship revoked. To the outsider, this may seem natural. After all, why should defectors get to live in a state they oppose? However, it is possible to oppose Zionism and still support Israel.

Have we not many American citizens who love this country but oppose capitalism? Wanting to change some aspects of your government is not the same thing as wishing the whole state to disappear.

But Lieberman and his cronies, thinking as they do, are motivated by fear. And in a world where everyone is out to get you, you have to do whatever you can to stay on top. In Lieberman's view, the only way to be safe is to be the most powerful, or alternately, for everyone around you to be just like you.

Despite Netanyahu's mumblings about peace, his government is likely to take a hard line approach to peace efforts. Which basically means he will try to bully the Palestinians into submission. Like Operation Cast Lead, Bibi will apply pressure in all the most sensitive places so that giving Israel whatever it wants seems like the only option.

There is virtually no way peace will be made between Israel and Palestine without dismantlement of the settlements, and peace talks cannot even be taken seriously until Israel stops expanding existing settlements.

But this won't happen with Lieberman as foreign minister. He rabidly supports the settlement of the West Bank by Jewish Israelis.

It seems like what I wrote back in August is coming to fruition. Palestinian Authority officials said peace talks with anyone but Tzipi Livni would fail.

This Week's Dose of Moral Turpitude

I have been ignoring this story since it started circulating around the blogosphere, and then onto local news sites, and then political commentators who are in the know. Now that it has finally reached the AP, I feel I would be remiss in my duty to you if I did not take note of it.

The long and short of it is that Israeli soldiers have been printing tshirts with slogans like "1 shot, 2 kills" paired with the image of a pregnant Muslim woman. An army spokesperson says the soldiers involved in printing the shirts and handing them out to graduates of basic training have been penalized.

The shirts "are not in accordance with IDF values and are simply tasteless," the military said in a statement. "This type of humor is unbecoming and should be condemned." The army said it would not tolerate such behavior and would take disciplinary action against the soldiers involved.

A small number of the shirts (probably several dozen) were printed for specific army training units.

Another story making the same laps is the one about misconduct during Operation Cast Lead. Ha'aretz has printed several stories about IDF soldiers saying they were ordered to shoot unarmed women and children, and that they followed those orders. Some within the blogosphere have called into question the validity of such statements, saying that the stories are only heresay and that even if they are true, each case resulted in tragedy because of Palestinian error, not Israeli malice.

Relevant to both stories, the AP has the following to say:

On Monday, the military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, defended his troops.

"I tell you that this is a moral and ideological army. I have no doubt that exceptional events will be dealt with," Ashkenazi told new recruits. Gaza "is a complex atmosphere that includes civilians, and we took every measure possible to reduce harm to the innocent."

Palestinians too have glorified attacks on Israelis in the past. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas-controlled media consistently send messages that Jews cannot be trusted and that Israel is a bloodthirsty, militaristic state eager to seize Palestinian land and slaughter Palestinian children.

Pro-Israel Counter Protesters Speak Up

Here is my latest video for San Francisco IAM. The recent protests against the Israeli invasion of Gaza, among other things, have been met with a small but determined force of pro-Israel counter protesters, who have an entirely different story to tell. Listen to their story here.

In a Break From Your Regularly Scheduled Program

Why I love San Francisco:





I found these miniature items attached to the building across the street from my house. My 10 pound poodle gives you the scale.

Bulldozer Dude's Family Soon to be Homeless

In July of last year, Palestinian construction worker Hussam Duwiyat took the bulldozer from the construction site where he was working and took it on a rampage through Jerusalem streets, in what would be the first incident of its kind, to be followed by several other copycat construction workers. Duwiyat killed three people and indured dozens before he was shot and killed by an off-duty soldier, on camera.

[Link to my post about it.]

At the time, there was talk about demolishing his parent's home, as a method of collective punishment that had been discontinued but then reinstated several months previously. At various times, the Israeli government has decided that home demolition is not an effective deterrent for would-be terrorist and, alternately, that it should be done anyway. It seems they are out of ideas.

The debate about whether the Duwiyat home should be demolished was based on his family's argument that, firstly, he was not a terrorist, but rather, simply a disturbed individual and secondly, that he did not have rights to his parents' home anyway.

High Court Justice Edmond Levy ruled today that there were no grounds to reverse the decision made by defense officials to raze the family home, which is a multi-story dwelling housing Duwiyat's entire extended family.

Motivational Speech from America to Iraq

This thing kind of speaks for itself, but I have to say a few things. Firstly, I never had a drill sargeant talk that nice to me when I was in the army. Drill sargeants are generally meaner than snakes and they have a captive audience. Secondly, the Arabic translator is sugar-coating everything the guy is saying. For example, when the American soldier called the Iraqi soldiers pussies, the translator instead said, "You didn't do it."

4:00:

American: Any questions?

Iraqi soldier: When we heard something is happening in the factory, we went there and the Americans said 'you're crazy and you're in the militia and you're Iranis.' And everybody got killed in the factory and we went there to check it out. And when we tried to intervene, Americans came and said we were terrorists and took our IDs. And they said it's not your duty to intervene. The Americans even arrested our sargeant. And then everybody called us Iranis and terrorists.

American: You want to erase that image...you want to fix your image? Fuck your stupid checkpoints, they're worthless. Get together, get all your weapons and start marching South, towards the river. I guaruntee you'll get in a gun fight and I guaruntee you'll fuck some people up. Get down there and kick some ass.

Iraqi soldier: Ok, so give us some trucks to go.

American: Fuck, you don't need trucks. Take some water, take some food, and walk.

Iraqi: How can we go there when the airplanes are on top of us? And they call us terrorists and Iranis? The last time it happened, the airplanes and hummers surrounded us and arrested us.

American: Hey, quit making excuses...until you man up, shut the fuck up.

Iraqi: We cannot do anything because American snipers are everywhere.

I'm Just Saying...

An AP article today mentions the resignation of Salam Fayyad, Prime Minister in the West Bank, which is really not the most interesting thing about the article. Waaaaay down at the bottom, it says:

In other developments, an internal report by European Union diplomats said Israel is undermining prospects for establishing a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem because Israel keeps building homes for Jews there and demolishes Palestinian-owned homes.

"Long-standing Israeli plans for Jerusalem, now being implemented at an accelerated rate, are undermining prospects for a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and a sustainable two- state solution," said the 20-page report, made available to journalists by the Israel Committee Against House Demolitions. An EU diplomat verified its authenticity.

And I was reminded of a question I have asked myself many times. Maybe one of my readers can take a stab at answering. These right wingers who continue to demolish Palestinian homes, build settlements, and otherwise make a two-state solution improbable, what do they expect to gain from it? If they don't want to give Palestinians their own state, the only other result will be one state, with Jews as the minority. This has always seemed to me a less strategic outcome for the Jewish citizens of Israel.

Are they just being shortsighted? Is there something I'm missing?

Ayn Rand Institute Champions Israel

I went to the Objectivist Club of Berkeley on Tuesday to a lecture called, "What is America's stake in the Arab-Israeli conflict?" The lecture was given by Elan Journo, a writer at the Ayn Rand Institute. As a preface to Journo's lecture, I must first explain Objectivism, Rand's philosophy. The main premise is that human beings are without instincts to serve our self-interests, therefore we must be guided by a set of moral principles. Journo's argument, constructed using Rand's philosophy, is a moral one. In fact, the subtitle of the event was, "a talk on the moral defense of Israel."

Personally, I think moral arguments are weak. But I also think nobody is objective, so maybe Journo's argument was weaker than a logical one, but also more honest.

The first thing I noticed coming into the room was that there were campus police officers present. I don't know if this is standard practice for lectures at Berkeley, or if the officers were present because this pro-Israel lecture occurred smack in the middle of Israeli Apartheid Week on campus (during which protesters urged passerby to take BDS actions against Israel).

Journo's lecture opened with a description of the high hopes held by all after Rabin, Clinton, and Arafat finished the Oslo Accords, which established the Palestinian Authority, in 1993 (Rabin and Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize for these actions). This portion of the lecture was brought to a close with a sad story about an Israeli boy who was emotionally traumatized when a qassam rocket landed near his house. Then he said pointedly, "A lot of people have died." I wondered why he didn't mention how many Palestinians have died in the conflict (four times as many as Israelis). I began to suspect that he would not bring up any counter arguments, and that he could not answer them if he did.

Next, he discussed Hamas coming to power in 2006, and launching war against Israel, together with Hezbollah. He painted Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, and virtually all Arab leaders with the same brush, describing these leaders as corrupt, dangerous, violent, and against freedom. In fact, he even referred to the UN as "a corrupt organization." He especially emphasized these groups' violence toward their own citizens and said that there is no civil control, "with people killing each other in the streets."

I wondered if he had ever been to any of these places and thought to myself that this seemed antithetical to everything I know about Arab culture.

Then he painted a very different picture of life for Israelis. He characterized Israel as a land of freedom, democracy, choice, and equality. He emphasized the freedom of press and speech that Israelis enjoy, while the residents of the West Bank and Gaza do not enjoy any such freedom. His argument was that Israel has the moral high ground, and therefore should be the victor in this conflict. But again, he left counter arguments completely off the table, which left gaping holes in his argument.

Of Israelis' freedom of speech, he said, "They don't have to fear the knock at the door at midnight." Because he was not taking questions, I was not able to raise my hand and ask, "What about the Palestinians? Should they fear the knock at the door?" The question would have been rhetorical anyway because I know that Palestinians often do find Israeli soldiers knocking on their door in the middle of the night. Sometimes the aim is simply to discombobulate the resident, sometimes they come to arrest someone. In fact, from what I know, arrests are rarely made during the day, unless they are made during a protest.

He then cited the court decisions regarding the separation wall as proof that Israel's judicial system is morally sound, uncorrupted.

Residents of the West Bank have been complaining for years that the wall separates them from their own lands, families, and workplaces, and have been trying to get the route of the wall moved to accommodate these realities. Journo was right when he said the Israeli high court ordered the wall moved. But he did not mention that this decision has still not been implemented and that other measures designed to reappropriate Palestinian land are still under way in full force (settlement expansion, home demolition, crop burning).

He mentioned the financial success of Israel's start-up companies as proof that the Israeli government helps its citizens, that the free market is thriving, and that Israelis are more motivated to succeed. He did not mention that companies in the Palestinian territories are not allowed this opportunity- by Israel. The territories' borders are controlled by Israel and exports to other countries are severely limited. The free market is not alive and well in Palestine, but that is certainly not a result of laziness.

Journo ended his litany of Israel's moral superiority with the story of The Disengagement. In 2005, Israel evacuated all its settlements in Gaza and relocated those citizens. Because there were no longer any Israeli civilians in Gaza, the world believed Israel had truly left Gaza to its own devices- to succeed or fail on its own merits. Journo argued that because the disengagement only led to the firing of more and more qassams, that pulling out had, in and of itself, only encouraged Hamas to be more violent.

I hear this argument against "land for peace" often- the disengagement didn't bring peace so giving up West Bank settlements won't do any good either. This faulty logic ignores two factors:

1. Gaza was basically made into a bantustan with no autonomy or access to the outside world. Israel controls who gets in and out, and which supplies are allowed in. Gaza is a welfare state.
   
2. Gaza and the West Bank are one country, even though they are not contiguous. They are the same people. As long as one is occupied, some people in the other will be militant.
   

Of the basic moral difference between Israel and Palestine, Journo said, "One side seeks war and destruction and tyranny and one side does not." His argument is that the state with the moral high ground should have power. He cites Israel's free speech and democracy as that high ground, but ignores the double standard- equal rights are not afforded to Israel's Arabs.

As the lecture ended and the Q&A period began, I thought I might amuse myself by asking why he chose to make a moral argument- since these are the hardest to settle. I didn't stay to ask, though. The first question was from an earnest boy in the second row who asked how Israel could have the moral high ground when so many people believe it was established by taking away the homes of the Palestinian residents. Journo responded by assuring the boy that no Palestinians were forced to leave at all. Rabble went up in the back of the room by the keffiyeh crowd and someone yelled, "Never happened!"

Even though I know that there are people who don't believe in the expulsions- nakba deniers who are characters in my eyes on par with holocaust deniers- I am still surprised to hear their fervent denials each time. When the world has instant access to the exact words of the Israeli leaders who ordered these expulsions, how can they continue to deny? At 1:30pm on July 12, 1948, Rabin himself (then a lieutenant colonel) gave the following order, "The inhabitants of Lydda (now a city in Israel called Lod) must be expelled quickly without attention to age." The residents of this city and nearby al-Ramla were forced to walk to Ramallah with nothing but what they could carry.

I didn't stay to hear any more.

Iran is Blatant

Back in July of last year, Israel released a handful of prisoners to Hezbollah in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers. The most prominent of the live prisoners Hezbollah received in the deal was Samir Kuntar, who was convicted in 1979 of murder after a cross border Hezbollah operation killed four Israelis.

The American intelligentsia has known suspected for some time that Iran has been supplying militant group Hezbollah with weapons, funding and soldiers, possibly in an effort to expand its base of support should things come to blows over their nuclear program (source).

That is relevant today because Samir Kuntar got married. (Check out the lucky lady here.) Among the attendees at the wedding were "a delegation appointed by His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah" (the head of Hezbollah) and Iranian Ambassador Mohammad Reza Shibani. Oh, and a bunch of media.

As the Kabober's say, "And of course it's not a true Hezbollah function until the Iranian Ambassador shows up."

Oh, and P.S., in the Arabic news report of the wedding, Kuntar is referred to as, "former Dean of the Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails." No mention of the crime. This is not at all surprising to me because prison time has become a rite of passage for the citizens of Israel's enemy countries. Because of Israel's judicial policies, there is now hardly any distinction between criminals like Kuntar and a 17-year-old boy who is jailed for throwing stones.

Let Mama Kiss It Make It Better

Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, hosted a conference this week where various world dignitaries patted themselves on the back for their generosity. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the rebuilding of Gaza (Israel's Operation Cast Lead caused about $5 billion of damage) and to decide who would be paying for what. While the U.S., France, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Japan were among those present, Hamas was not. Hamas, the democratically elected government of Gaza, was not invited.

But no matter. I'm sure the reconstruction of Gaza will be successful without the cooperation of the quasi-state's government.

The pledges are in, and the most noticeable results are as follows:

• Saudi Arabia: $1 billion
  
• The U.S.: $900 million
  
• Lebanon: $1 million (a token gesture of solidarity)
  

The caveat is that the majority of the donations will go to the PA, an administrative body that has almost no power in Gaza. Some countries have opted to oversee their own pet reconstruction projects in Gaza, thereby circumventing Hamas' infrastructure alltogether. As usual with the region, their world seems bent on ignoring the facts on the ground.

Let's assume that the reconstruction of Gaza can actually be completed without Hamas' coordination- what then? Israel's attack, which caused all the damage, was in response to the continuous barrage of rocket fire from Gaza. These rockets are still flying, almost every day. Almost like the operation never happened. Almost like Hamas was not deterred at all. In fact, Ha'aretz reports that Gaza militants have fired 110 rockets at Israel since the ceasefire began on January 18th.

Israel bides its time. After one rocket hit the semi-large city of Ashquelon, Israel filed a complaint with the UN. After seven qassam rockets hit Southern Israel in one day, Olmert made vague threats. How long can this go on?

Making no judgments about the moral rightness or wrongness of firing the rockets or of Israel's response to it, the facts on the ground are that Israel will not continue to accept this kind of life for its citizens. They will strike again. And again. Until the rockets stop and/or Hamas has been eradicated and replaced with Fatah loyalists. Why bother rebuilding Gaza without first securing a just and lasting peace for both sides?

The reconstruction is irrelevant and unrealistic. Like putting a band-aid on a broken leg. It makes us all feel like we're doing something, though. And when dealing with two groups as hard-headed as Israelis and Palestinians, sometimes a band-aid is a necessary symbol.