Criticizing Israel - Questioning One’s Loyalty

We have a real problem in this country when it comes to commenting negatively about Israel. Recently, Representative Ilhan Omar has come under intense criticism for her statements.

Her main target and the statement that got the most criticism dealt with the power of AIPAC.  While the way she phrased her comment, talking about promoting allegiance to a foreign country, was not accurate and unfortunate, her basic point about AIPAC and its power is well-taken.  

There is a difference between being anti-semitic and being against a particular government of Israel.  The latter has nothing inherently anti-Jewish about it. 

I say this as a Jew who while very supportive of the existence of Israel has been very critical of Israeli governments and policies regarding Palestinians for decades.  The current Israeli government has at times even called American Jews like myself anti-semitic because it’s an easy way to counter criticism.

It is unfortunate that some American supporters of Israel also invoke the anti-semitism label whenever someone criticizes the Israeli government, especially if someone is a Muslim.  Would they call someone anti-American if they criticize the policies of President Trump?

That said, once Rep. Omar was called on the fact that support, even strong support, for Israel by an American does not mean allegiance to Israel, she has refused to back down from her characterization of such support.  That is a mistake and shows a lack of maturity, not anti-semitism.

She may feel that such support is not in the best interests of the United States, and I would agree.  But reasonable people can disagree on what is in the best interests of our country.  I have no question that those who support Israel feel that is in the best interests of our country.  And that is the proper question.  The issue of allegiance is a red herring.  

Likewise, Republicans calling her anti-American because of her lack of support for Israel is nonsense.  Actually both her accusing supporters of Israel as having allegiance to Israel, and Republicans calling her anti-American because of her lack of support smacks of McCarthyism.  Questioning people’s loyalty to country is going down a very dark road.

Representative Omar may well be an anti-semite.  But that cannot be gleaned from the statements she has made.

Friedman Is Trump’s Most Dangerous Pick Yet!

Trump’s selection of David Friedman as U.S. Ambassador to Israel is his most dangerous to America’s national security interests to date.

His other appointees may be against the very agencies they have been selected to head or cozy with the Russians, but the damage they can cause is of a limited nature and can mostly be undone by the next administration.  They are in many ways similar to the anti-agency people Reagan appointed to head agencies.  For example, James Watt was a disaster at Interior, but the damage was not irreparable.

One could make the argument that retired Lt. General Flynn is equally dangerous given the sensitive post he will have.  I assume there will be a lot of saber rattling, that’s Trump’s style, but with the intent of intimidating, not going to war.  But there is always the danger of miscalculation and the U.S. getting pulled into a war it did not want.  That is certainly a risk if the other party does not back off of war.  And that is where the safety trigger lies; many countries like to bully, but most don’t want war.  Only rebels want war.  And so although Flynn is perhaps scarier, I don’t think he is more dangerous to our national security interests.

David Friedman, on the other hand, will in all likelihood wreak a more devastating havoc on the United States as well as Israel.  His support of the Israeli far-right will smash any possibility of peace between Israel and the Arabs, could well lead to all-out war in the area, and will be a clarion call for increased jihadist terrorist activity against the U.S. both at home and abroad.

His appointment must not be approved by the Senate.

Reflections on Yom Kippur and Mideast Peace

As Jews around the world observed Yom Kippur, at levels of ritual observance ranging from the Haridim at the Wailing Wall to a reform temple in the U.S. Midwest to those who do not go to synagogue but in some way observe the Day of Atonement, it is important for each individual, for Israel, and for the world that the observance go deeper than even the most fervent practice of ritual and belief.  

For Yom Kippur to have its intended impact. each person must understand and experience the spiritual lessons and meaning of Yom Kippur.  What are those lessons?

First it is necessary that we are aware of all the ways in which we have sinned, which is to say the ways in which we have harmed others and ourselves.  On Yom Kippur, we stand and go through a seemingly never-ending list of our sins, of the ways in which we have failed, and we beat our hearts in a mea culpa.

But if this confessional practice is a non-reflective exercise, a recitation by rote, then there is no awareness and Yom Kippur can have no spiritual meaning for the individual.  It is not then a day of Teshuva, of returning to our original self nature which is goodness, a day of transformation through freedom from our ego-controlled actions.

So the first essential for a true observance of Yom Kippur is a reflection on all the ways in which one has, whether as an individual or as part of a larger group, harmed others or harmed oneself; the ways in which one has strayed from essential goodness.  If Israel looked at itself in this way, if West Bank settlers looked at themselves in this way, by going inside oneself deeply, they would discover many ways in which they have harmed Palestinians individually and as a group, as well as harmed the prospects for peace and thus ultimately harmed Israel and themselves.  

It is not a defense in this exercise of awareness and atonement to say, “But my actions were justified.”  In the spiritual world of Yom Kippur, there is no justification for harming another except immediate self-defense … that is to say that right then, at that moment, you or your loved ones were threatened with imminent physical harm.  So with regard to the bulk of actions taken by Israel and settlers against Palestinians there is no spiritual justification.

Second, Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement.  Atonement means to make reparation for a wrong or injury.  How do we each atone for the wrongs that we have committed against ourselves and others?

The breast-beating, “forgive me for I have sinned,” mea culpa of the Yom Kippur service is a good start, so long as it is truly heart-felt.  But making reparation or amends requires more than asking for forgiveness.  

At a minimum it requires a commitment not to engage in the same type of action in the future.  Teshuva is not like Catholic confession where you ask to be forgiven and are absolved of your sins regardless how often the same scenario is presented.  Teshuva means committing to return to your God-given essence of goodness.

Atonement also requires making an effort to right the wrong that one has committed.  And again, it is not a defense that one was wronged.  This is not a pissing match as to who wronged whom first or more often.  As the saying goes, “Two wrongs do not make a right.”  How does Israel right the wrongs committed against the Palestinians?  That is for them to reflect on.

And I must hasten to note that this spiritual obligation of Jews, as part of the Yom Kippur observance, is not limited to them.  Palestinians, and Arabs in general, have a similar spiritual obligation according to the Koran of repenting  and making amends.  And not committing similar wrongdoings in the future.

Why is it that human beings, regardless of their race or religion or nationality, habitually act in ways that are contrary to the precepts of their religions.  Why is the Golden Rule … do unto others as you would have them do unto you … which is at the core of every major religion so rarely put into practice?  Even those who profess orthodoxy are often more in touch with ritual observance than spiritual.  

The reason is that man’s ego-mind, obsessed with his inner feelings of inferiority and threat, does not accept the spiritual teaching common to most religions that one should become free of the conceit, “I am,” and instead have as his purpose feeling compassion and loving-kindness towards others, returning to his original goodness.  For the ego-mind, the protection of oneself against the harmful actions of others is what’s primal.  It’s all about us v them.  In Hebrew, the ego is called “Yetzer Hara” (destructive force) … how appropriate.

This is why the world  … individuals, families, societies, nations … now, and for most of history, have been in a state of conflict rather than harmony.  This is why understanding and observing the spiritual basis of one’s religion is so important for one’s own peace and for that of the world.  Yom Kippur provides Jews with the opportunity for such transformation. 

The Middle East Conundrum - A Suggested Way Forward

The history of conflict between the Jewish people and the majority cultures in the Middle East is an old one going back to biblical times and reemerging with a vehemence in the 20th century.  To find a way out of the Middle East conundrum, one must first understand that history.  Please bear with me; it’s a bit complicated.

The Jewish people have perennially been looking for a place to call home, spiritually and physically.  For more than 1000 years, from biblical times through the early period of Roman rule, they found that home in what is present day Israel and the West Bank (Judea, Samaria, and Galilee).  They prospered but were not safe even there as they were conquered several times during that period, persecuted by the victors, and ultimately dispersed to all corners of Europe.  

During the long period of diaspora that followed, Jews remembered the days when they were a people in their own land and not subject to persecution.  The phrase, “Next year in Jerusalem,” was invoked not just as nostalgia but as a fervent hope that Judaism would once again have a spiritual center and physical home.

Fast forward to modern times.  Jews and Arabs have been in a constant struggle since the early 1900s over the establishment of a Jewish state in the historic Holy Land.  It’s important to note that this has not been a conflict of religion but a conflict over land.  

Prior to WWI, the Zionist movement within Judaism sought to make the dream of next year in Jerusalem a reality and encouraged Jews to immigrate to the area.  During WWI and after the fall of the Ottoman empire, both Arabs and Jews sought promises from the British, who came to have the mandate over the area, designated Palestine, to establish an independent state.  

Many Jews denigrated the Palestinian claim for a state in Palestine because they had never governed the area nor had they ever been a distinct people.  But remember that this was a time when a people’s right to self-determination, however vaguely defined, came into vogue as a basis for nation building.  Even though the Arabs living in what became known as Palestine had never before that creation identified themselves as Palestinians, or some other name distinct from their fellow Arabs, this was the land where they had lived for hundreds of years and they felt they should have the right of self-determination.

The Arabs and Palestinians, on the other hand, felt that the Jews were interlopers.  Regardless the situation in biblical times, they had not been present to any but a marginal extent for almost 2000 years.  Even at the end of WWI, after a period of immigration, there were only 60,000 Jews in Palestine or 8% of the population.  By the end of the mandate, though, further Jewish immigration had swelled that number to 570,000 or 32% of the population.

In 1947 the U.N. General Assembly voted to support partition of the Palestine Mandate into separate Jewish and Arab states, with the two in an economic union.  Israel was subsequently declared a state at the end of the British Mandate.  The Arab countries, who had not cooperated with the U.N. Commission that drew up the partition plan, chose not to accept the partition and instead invaded to try to gain all the territory for an Arab state.  Not only did they lose the 1948 war, but the Palestinians were left with much less land than they would have had under the U.N. partition plan.  After the war, the Palestinians again chose not to declare a state in the area under their control.  

The Palestinian leadership for decades were pawns in the hands of the powerful Arab countries of the area who had no desire for peace.  They wanted Israel wiped off the map.  Period.  The Palestinian leadership adopted the same attitude.  Whether or not they still do is a confusing puzzle.  In 1988, Yasser Arafat stated that the PLO accepted the existence of Israel; later moderate leaders have said the same.  But despite claiming that the Palestinian Charter had been amended to remove the clauses calling for the destruction of Israel, it has never been actually amended; they decided to amend it but never followed through.  So their position is at best murky.  Hamas, of course, still calls for the destruction of Israel.

For Israel’s part, it has always and understandably thought of itself as in a defensive position with enemies on all sides.  As a result, although Israel is a democracy with protected rights of religion, etc., and the Palestinians who chose to remain in Israel and become citizens have on the one hand full legal rights of citizenship, including voting for the Parliament, they have been treated as second-class citizens in many ways.  For example, there is widespread employment and other forms of official and unofficial discrimination, and a large disparity exists in state funding for Palestinian schools and towns compared to Jewish ones as well as other Jewish v Arab needs.  Israel thinks of itself as a Jewish state, not just a Jewish-majority state, and that not surprisingly creates problems. 

The wars, occupation, and intifadas that have followed were an almost inevitable outgrowth of this historically combative and distrustful relationship.

There has always been a peace movement in Israel, but most governments have acted more to strengthen Israel’s presence in the West Bank and thus make a Palestinian state on the ground impossible.  Even the much ballyhooed  peace plan presented by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak during President Clinton’s Camp David peace initiative in 2000 was not a plan, objective observers felt, for a viable Palestinian state.  Nevertheless, it’s rejection by Arafat was the final straw for most Israelis and many Americans in the debate over whether the Palestinians really want peace.

On the other side, the almost 50-year occupation of the West Bank has with each passing decade deepened the hatred of Israel, especially since 2000 when West Bank Palestinians ceased being able to work in Israel as a result of the Second Intifada.  Thus you now have a whole generation of young men who have never interacted with Israelis other than the occupying military and Jewish settlers.  The problem is now not so much the enmity of the large Arab states, as it is the hatred of Israel by many Palestinian.  This shift can be seen in Hamas’ winning the ill-conceived election of 2006.

In the Bible, it speaks of Pharaoh’s heart having been hardened towards the Jewish people.  God sought to show his power and break Pharaoh’s will by sending the plagues.  And while that worked, Pharaoh quickly regained his senses and chased after the departing Jews only to be drowned in the Red Sea.

This story, regardless of the lack of historical or archeological documentation, has direct relevance to the current situation in the mideast.  Violence and fear do not soften hearts.  The hearts on both sides, which tended to distrust the other from the very start, have only been hardened over time as a result of the violence meant to break the other.  

In my opinion, if the peace process is to be truly revived and bear lasting fruit, a way must be found to soften the hearts of both sides.  Because of the history, this must be something much deeper than the “confidence building measures” that have been suggested in past negotiations.  As the saying goes, half measures will avail us nothing.

Because I feel it is impossible to imagine that an Israeli government, not just the current Netanyahu-led government but any future government, or the Palestinian leadership will have the mental and political flexibility and openness necessary for this process to move forward, I suggest that a working group be formed of citizen-representatives from both sides to work out a plan that would then be presented to the people as well as the then-existing governments.

“Who the hell do you think you are?” I can see readers thinking.  “This problem has been intractable even when very experienced and determined heads have put their minds to this.”  Ah, but the minds have almost always been government-connected political minds.  I honestly think that a major problem has been that people unconnected with government haven’t been asked to take the lead.  They are the ones who truly want peace.

It would be presumptuous for me to express my thoughts on what the major points of a peace plan might be, and so I will not, with one exception (see below).  However, because this problem has been so intractable and all efforts to date have failed, I am going to suggest something about the process, beyond the point I’ve already made, to help soften hearts.

1. Each side must acknowledge the role they’ve played in creating distrust over the years.  This must be more than a mouthing of words.  It must be a heartfelt mea culpa of the various ways in which each side contributed to the current state of affairs.  
2. A massive information and people-to-people campaign needs to be undertaken to reintroduce Palestinians and Israelis to each other as human beings after years of conflict. 

Finally, the one point I feel needs to be addressed here regarding a peace plan, because I have never heard it discussed when previous plans or outlines were presented, concerns the status of Palestinian-Israelis.   I have noted earlier in this piece that they are second-class citizens, suffering from widespread official and unofficial discrimination.  That must end.  They must be treated equally in all areas of public policy, including budgetary matters.  All official examples of discrimination against them must be removed.  And the government must undertake a major campaign to stamp out employment and other private discrimination against them.

That said, it takes two to tango.  If Palestinian-Israelis wish to remain in Israel and be citizens of that nation, then they need to pledge allegiance to the flag/state in exchange for finally being treated as full and equal citizens of Israel.

There is no question that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians/Arabs will be exceedingly difficult to bring to a peaceful conclusion.  It will require the suspension of decades of distrust.  It will require the ability to not let the violent actions by those who would seek to destroy the peace process … and almost certainly there will be such actions by groups on both sides … to succeed.  It will require giving your former enemy the benefit of the doubt over and over again.

Most important of all perhaps, it will require reeducating both populations that Israelis and Palestinians are all human beings with basically the same desires and that all deserve freedom, respect, and equality.

Understanding the Israel - Palestine Conundrum

Recently I viewed a DVD about the struggles of West Bank Palestinian villagers against the encroachment on their land and olive groves by both the nearby Israeli settlement ... a city, really ... as well as the “wall.”  It's a depressing reminder of what Israel has become mired in as a result of its decades-long occupation of the West Bank.  The Israel Defense Forces came off, not surprisingly, as cold and heartless, and the Palestinian villagers as only wanting peace and their land.

I should say at the start of this post that I have always been of a different mind about Israel than my family and most Jews that I know.  While I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel and its right to exist, I have always been critical of actions taken by the Israeli government almost from the beginning that made and continue to make 2nd class citizens of Israeli Arabs (those Arabs who chose to stay in Israel at the time of independence were granted citizenship but lived under martial law until 1966 and continue to be discriminated against in areas such as village infrastructure, education, and social funding).  By its own actions, the State of Israel is not an example of how these two people can live in peace and harmony to their mutual benefit.

But things here are never so black and white.  The Palestinians are not the equivalent of the American Indians or blacks during Apartheid nor are the Israelis the land-grabbing fascists that many have come to believe they are in more recent decades.  There is ample blame to be placed on both sides for the ongoing conflict.  To understand the dynamics and make any effort at being a helpful broker one must understand the history of the conflict.

Prior to WWI, the land that is now Israel and the West Bank, as well as most of the modern states in the Mideast, were part of the Caliphate of Turkey.  There was no Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or Palestine.  These countries were created by the Allied powers after winning WWI (Turkey was allied with Germany and so was on the losing side).  They basically drew lines on a map and created these countries and then proceeded to install monarchies in most.

This was not the case with Palestine, however.  Here a British Mandate was created, meaning that the British were responsible for governing this territory.  It was not a colony in the normal sense of the word, but in effect it was.

Around this same time a movement was growing among European Jews called Zionism.  It’s aim was to create a Jewish homeland in what had been biblical Israel and was now part of the Palestine mandate.  If one asks why Jews wanted this, one only has to look at the centuries of persecution that Jews have suffered in almost every country they lived in at the hand of the Christian, and especially the Catholic, rulers and people of those countries.  And I’m not talking about mere discrimination.  There are ample examples, from the Spanish Inquisition to the progroms of Czarist Russia, where the persecution took on a very violent, bloody, government-instigated form as well as the normal day to day beatings that Jews were often subjected to at the hands of Christian thugs.

During the interwar period, Zionists began immigrating to the Palestine mandate and buying land.  As their numbers increased, periodic violence erupted between the Jews and the Palestinians, the longest such incident lasting from 1936-1939. 

Then of course came WWII and the Holocaust.  And the dynamics of the Zionist’s search changed.  In November 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations recommended the partition of the Palestine mandate into two separate states ... one for the Jews and one for the Arabs.  The Zionists accepted the proposed partition but all the surrounding Arab states rejected the partition plan, as did the Palestinians.  Note: the Palestinians could have had their own state right then, but because their Arab sponsors would not agree to a Jewish state and the Palestinians rejected partition for a variety of reasons but basically an inability to compromise, they lost it.

When Zionist leaders proclaimed the independent state of Israel in 1948, all the surrounding Arab countries attacked the new state of Israel, a war which they quickly lost.  At the same time, some 700,000 Palestinians left, fled or were driven from their homes and took refuge in surrounding Arab countries where they remain today, still refugees, not citizens of the host country.  Jordan took control over the West Bank, Egypt over Gaza.  Control of Jerusalem was split between Israel and Jordan. The Palestinians were a people left with nothing. 

Later that year, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution stating that those Palestinians who wished to return to their homes should be permitted to do so and those who do not should be compensated by Israel.  That resolution has never been implemented.

The Palestinians became an official entity in 1964 for the first time when leaders gathered with the support of the Arab League and created the Palestine Liberation Organization.  It’s charter clearly states that the creation of the State of Israel is null and void.  

In 1967, aware that the Arab countries were again preparing to attack it, Israel conducted a pre-emptive war against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.  At the end Israel gained control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, as well as the Golan Heights from Syria, and the entire Sinai Peninsula and Gaza from Egypt.  That was the beginning of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.,

In response to the war, the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied conquered lands and the acknowledgment of the sovereignty of all states in the region and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized borders.  This resolution, with its land for peace strategy, would form the basis for all future negotiations.

In 1973, Egypt and Syria mounted a surprise attack against Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.  After 3 weeks, Israel had rebuffed those forces and regained control of the Sinai and the Golan Heights.

The first major movement towards peace in the area came with the Camp David accords between Israel’s Menachem Begin and Eqypt’s Anwar Sadat.   Israel agreed to hand back the Sinai to Egypt in return for peace and normalization.  As a result of making peace, Egypt was expelled from the Arab League and Sadat was assassinated.  

At the same time, Begin began a policy of greatly expanding the number and size of Israeli “settlements” on the West Bank in order to frustrate any future attempts to hand the West Bank back to the Palestinians.  Note:  No country other than Israel considers the settlements legal, since they are built on occupied territory and violate the Fourth Geneva Convention.

In 1993, the PLO and Israel signed the Oslo agreements in which Israel recognized the PLO and gave them limited autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for peace.  The PLO in turn gave up its claim to the territory of Israel as defined by its borders before the 1967 war and agreed to end the Intifada.  Both sides agreed that they would make gradual steps towards a final settlement and that they would do nothing to change the status of West Bank and Gaza pending the outcome of negotiations.  

Note that while the PLO (as its leader Yasser Arafat had previously done) tacitly recognized Israel’s right to exist, it did not and has not changed the language in its charter calling the State of Israel “null and void.”  A public vote was finally taken in 1998 which supposedly nullified the pertinent clauses, but a new amended charter has never been produced, raising the inevitable questions.

Fast forward to July 2000.  At Camp David, President Clinton shuttled back and forth between Ehud Barak of Israel and Yasser Arafat.  Barak agreed to most of what the Palestinians had wanted.  The major holdback was the right of return. The other problem was that because of the number of Jewish “settlements”  on the West Bank that Israel wanted to keep control of for a variety of reasons, the proposed Palestinian state would have been divided into disconnected regions and the Israel army would have been in their face constantly.  The talked ended without agreement.

In the Israeli election that followed, the right wing of Israeli politics took the helm once again.  In the intervening years, the parties have never come as close to peace again.  The peace process is moribund.  Israel has drifted into an increasingly insular and right wing perspective, continuing the process of building new and expanding old “settlements” and erecting the “wall” separating Palestinian towns from the Jewish settlements and Israel proper.  Hamas, the more militant Palestinian group in control of Gaza, has been resurgent.  The PLO has been weakened.

At this point, it is hard even for the most positive and peace-seeking individuals to imagine what the shape of a two-state solution would look like on the ground or how the two sides with a history of decades of hate and distrust could find the trust necessary to make compromises and feel secure in peace.  The goal of Menachem Begin of increasing and expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank in order to make it impossible for a future Israeli government to arrive at a viable peace agreement with the Palestinians succeeded.  

There are no winners here, only losers.  There is no real security for Israel without peace, but peace in and of itself does not bring about security for Israel.  And so long as the Palestinians do not view Israel as a legitimate state, they will never reach their dream of having their own country at last. 

So you see why I say that neither party, Israel nor the Palestinians, come to this matter with “clean hands.”  Both parties, as well as the larger Arab community, have their share of blame.  Pointing one's finger at one or the other party thus is not realistic nor does it move the matter forward.  Peace, and a two-state solution, will only come to be when both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership really want peace and are willing to make the hard compromises that will be necessary and sell them to their people.