The talk went ahead in a church for an audience of Jews who have increasingly been prepared to break their silence on the destructive policies and practices that Israel is carrying out on an imprisoned population of almost 4 million Palestinians in their own land. More than that though, the debate continued with articles, editorial and letters in Sydney’s mainstream newspaper and on the blog of well–known journalist and
writer Antony Loewenstein who has done sterling job of calling out the editor of the AJN, Robert Magid who said that he did not run the ad because he didn’t like the promoters of Halper’s tour. Another disingenuous letter from Magid followed and a week later, Bren Carlill – an apologist for Israel – claimed in an article on the ABC’s “Unleashed” that Halper had been disseminating “falsehoods” that had gone from “ridiculous to outrageous”.
Although well and truly away from Australia’s shores, Jeff Halper has responded to his critics. One article was refused by the AJN but was published on Antony Loewenstein’s blog. It is a challenge to Australia’s Jewish
community that for too long has lived in a bubble where Israel can do no wrong. Coming from an Israeli, Halper’s words should alert Jews here that discourse is alive and well amongst Israelis in the very state to which they give blind subservience from afar.
In a second article, Jeff Halper is given space on the ABC’s ”Unleashed” program to make his case entitled “On the road to apartheid”. Let us hope that the next time Jeff Halper comes to Australia, the wider organised Jewish community will give him the courtesy of an audience and a healthy debate.
We have also included in this newsletter a link to an excellent video on The Israel Lobby in the US. It is well worth watching as it looks at the influence that the pro-Israel lobby wields in the the decision-making
structure and process of the US administration. (See below.)
- SK
An unhelpful discourse on Israel
Antony Loewenstein blog
<http://antonyloewenstein.com/
The following article is written by Israeli/American peace activist Jeff Halper for the Australian Jewish News, but the paper refuses to run the piece, despite spending weeks attacking Halper and his supporters in its
pages:
The uproar in the organized Jewish community over the prospect of my speaking in Australia is truly startling to an Israeli like me. Granted, I am very critical of Israel’s policies of Occupation and doubt whether a
two-state solution is still possible given the extent of Israel’s settlements, but this hardly warrants the kind of demonization I received in the pages of The AJN. Opinions similar to mine are readily available in
the mainstream Israeli media. Indeed, I myself write frequently for the Israeli press and appear regularly on Israeli TV and radio.
Why, then, the hysteria? Why was I banned from Temple Emmanuel in Sydney, a self-proclaimed progressive synagogue? Why did I, an Israeli, have to address the Jewish community from a church? Why was I invited to speak in every university in eastern Australia yet, at Monash University, I was forced to hold a secret meeting with Jewish faculty in a darkened room far from the halls of intellectual discourse? Why, when the “leaders” of the Jewish community were excoriating me and my positions, did the Israelis who attended my talks express such appreciation that “real” Israeli views were finally getting aired in Australia, even if they did not all agree with me?
Given the support my right to speak evidenced by most of the letters published in The AJN, this all raises disturbing questions over the right of Australian Jews to hear divergent views on Israel’s conflict with the
Palestinians held by Israelis themselves.
It raises an even deeper issue, however. What should be the relationship of Diaspora Jewry to Israel? Whatever threat I represented to the organized Jewish community of Australia had less to do with Israel, I suspect, than with some damage I might to do to the idealized “Leon Uris” image of Israel
which you hold onto so dearly. This might seem like a strange thing to say, but I do not believe that you in the Diaspora have internalized the fact that Israel is a foreign country as far from your idealized version as
Australia is far from its image as kangaroo-land. Countries change, they evolve. What would Australia’s European founders think – even those who until very recently pursued a “White Australia” policy – if they were to see the multi-cultural country you have become? Well, almost 30% of Israeli citizens are not Jews, we may very well have permanently incorporated another four million Palestinians – the residents of the Occupied Territories – into our country and, to top it off, it’s clear by now that the vast majority of the world’s Jews are not going to emigrate to Israel.
Those facts, plus the urgent need of Israel to make peace with its neighbors, mean something. They mean that Israel must change in ways Ben Gurion, Leon Uris and Mark Leibler never envisioned, even if that’s hard
for you to accept.
Yet I see this as a positive thing, a sign of a healthy country coming to grips with reality, some of it of its own creation, even if it means that Israel will evolve from a Jewish state into a state of all its citizens – a
bi-national or democratic state. Rather than “eliminating” Israel, this challenge is in fact a natural and probably inevitable development. It will not be easy, but if you can become multi-cultural, so can we.
But that’s our problem as Israelis. What’s your problem? Why should discussing such important issues for Israel be the cause of such distress for you? Because, I venture to say, you have a stake in preserving Israel’s
idealized image that trumps dealing with the real country. In my view, Israel is being used as the lynchpin of your ethnic identity in Australia; mobilizing around a beleaguered Israel is essential for keeping your kids
Jewish. I would go so far as to accuse you of needing an Israel in conflict, which is why you seem so threatened by an Israel at peace, why you deny that peace is even possible, why a peaceful Israel that is neither
threatened nor “Jewish” cannot fulfill the role you have cast for it, and thus why you characterize my message as “vile lies.”
This, to be honest, is the threat I represent. Only this can explain why rabbis, community “leaders” and Jewish professors choose to meet me secretly rather than have me, a critical Israel, in their synagogues or
classrooms. This is all understandable. You do need a lynchpin if you are to preserve your identity as a prosperous community in a tolerant multi-cultural society. I would just question whether the real country of
Israel can fulfill that role, or even if it’s fair to Israel to expect it to.
We are different peoples. Israel can no more define Diaspora Jewish life than you can define Israel. Rather than knee-jerk defense of an imaginary place, you need to develop a respect for Israel and Israeli voices, a
respect that will come only when you start regarding Israel as a real country. And you have to get a life of your own. You have to develop alternative Diaspora Jewish cultures and identities. Ironically, after all
I have said, the Israeli government will resist that, for it uses you as agents to support its policies, often extreme right-wing and militaristic policies that contradict your very values of cultural pluralism and human
rights. Remember: Israel does what it does in your name. Unless you take an independent position, you are complicit.
What befell me in Australia is just a tiny piece of a sad story of mutual exploitation: you using Israel to keep your community together, Israel using you to defend its indefensible policies. Perhaps something good can
emerge from all this: robust discussion on the nature of Israeli-Diaspora relations. I’m going home to Jerusalem. You have to let Israel go and get a [Jewish] life.
Jeff Halper is the Director of the Israeli Committee Against House
Demolitions http://www.icahd.org/eng/ , a peace and human rights organization dedicated to achieving a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians. He can be reached at jeff@icahd.org
On the road to apartheid
by Jeff Halper
ABC “Unleashed” program
It was appropriate that April 1 marked the first day of the new
Netanyahu-Lieberman-Barak government. For the notion that Israel acts
against the Palestinians out of concern for its security, that it maintains
its Occupation of 42 years for defensive reasons, that it really attacked
Gaza in such a vicious and disproportional way because of an actual security
threat or that it genuinely wants peace is increasingly seen by thinking
people as an April Fool's joke.
In fact, Israel - since the Occupation began in 1967, if not before - has
always striven for control of the entire country "from the [Jordan] river to
the [Mediterranean] sea," as we refer to it in Israel. This is the Land of
Israel, and in Zionist ideology, which drives all Israeli governments
including the present "unity" one, it belongs exclusively to us, the Jews.
We deny the very existence of a Palestinian people, certainly its claims
over "our" country.
In fact, we Israelis do not see ourselves in a "conflict," since a conflict
needs two sides and we deny that the Arabs (as we call the Palestinians)
constitute a "side." Instead, we are in a process of "redeeming" our ancient
homeland, to use the Biblical phrase. Arabs may stay, of course, if they
give up any national claims to what they call "Palestine" and acknowledge
that the entire Land of Israel is Jewish, but if not, they will be expelled
- or worse, as the attack on Gaza demonstrated. This is "The Message" Israel
tries constantly to communicate to the Arabs through its military actions.
And since they do not get The Message - or at least have not yet submitted -
we are justified in expelling them from our country. We began the process in
1947/48, when more than 700,000 Palestinians were driven from what became
Israel (some 70 per cent of the Palestinian population) and their homes
systematically demolished, and more than 60 years later that campaign of
ethnic cleansing continues. It is evidenced nowhere more graphically than in
Israel's policy of home demolitions.
One can only describe Israel's obsession with demolishing Palestinian homes
in light of the exclusive Jewish claim to the entire Land of Israel harking
back a century or more. It is not a policy specific to any particular time
or place, nor is it confined to the Occupied Territories. In 1948 and for
years after, Israeli governments systematically demolished more than 500
entire villages, towns, urban centres and neighbourhoods, both to prevent
the return of the Palestinian refugees and to take their lands and
properties.
Since the Occupation began in 1967, another 24,000 Palestinian homes have
been demolished, including 4,000 in the latest attack on Gaza. And in 2004,
the Israeli government announced the establishment of a Demolition
Administration within the Ministry of Interior; targeted for destruction are
20-40,000 homes of Israeli (Arab) citizens classified as "unrecognised
villages." (One Bedouin village in the Negev, al Twazil, has been demolished
18 times.)
It must be stressed that Israel has never explained or justified its
long-standing practice of demolishing Palestinian homes by security. For the
most part it has offered no explanations at all, treating the phenomenon as
a purely internal matter. Occasionally it justifies the wholesale
destruction of homes in military operations as "collateral damage."
According to Ha'aretz, "Israel Defense Forces investigations into last
month's offensive in the Gaza Strip indicate the army could face significant
difficulties justifying the scale of destruction of civilian homes during
the fighting. A military source involved in the investigation told Haaretz,
'It's clear to us that in a small portion of the combat sectors immeasurable
damage was caused, and that is very difficult to justify from a legal
perspective, particularly if such justifications are called for in legal
proceedings with international organi[s]ations.'"
As for the thousands of homes demolished due to a lack of building permits,
which Israel justifies on a legal basis, it neglects to say that its
explicit policy since 1967 has been to deny permits to Palestinians, or to
restrict them severely.
When one surveys the consequences of Israel's house demolition policy from
1948 until the present, the conclusion is inescapable: a systematic and
ongoing campaign is being waged to either rid the country of its Palestinian
population or, failing that, to confine the remaining Palestinians to tiny,
delimited, disconnected and impoverished enclaves, in Israel as well as in
the Occupied Territories.
House demolitions are illegal under international law, serve no obvious
purpose, have severe humanitarian effects and fuel bitterness and extremism.
Israel constantly complains about its security, but what of the security of
the Palestinians living under its control these past 42 years?
Until Israel stops such inhumane practices, until it recognises the
existence and rights of the Palestinian people and find a way to share their
common country, until it is held accountable for its actions by the
international community, there will be no peace in the Holy Land. And that,
given the instability and extremism the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
generates throughout the Muslim world, cannot be good news for Australians.
By all accounts the new Israeli government, while making the required nod
toward peace with the Palestinians so important to the American, European
and other world governments, Australia near the top, will continue the
policy of ethnic cleansing or, if expelling almost four million residents of
the Occupied Territories proves impossible, of locking them into small
enclaves, creating a Bantustan a la apartheid South Africa and calling it a
"Palestinian state."
Peace will come to Israel and Palestine when the Occupation truly ends and
Palestinians gain their fundamental human rights, collectively in a state of
their own as well as individually. Failing that, we must be prepared to
support the establishment of a single state of all the inhabitants of
Israel/Palestine. Ethnic cleansing, apartheid and occupation cannot be
allowed to prevail.
Web link
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2533161.htlm
VIDEO LINK
The Israel Lobby
(Marije Merrman, VPRO Backlight 2007)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N294FMDok98&feature=related
For many years now the American foreign policy has been characterized by the strong tie between the United States and Israel. Does the United States in fact keep Israel on its feet? And how long will it continue to do so? In March 2006 the American political scientists John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Steve Walt (Harvard) published the controversial article 'The Israel Lobby and US foreign policy'. In it they state that it is not, or no longer, expedient for the US to support and protect present-day Israel. The documentary sheds light on both parties involved in the discussion: those who wish to maintain the strong tie between the US and Israel, and those who were critical of it and not infrequently became 'victims' of the lobby. The question arises to what extend the pro-Israel lobby ultimately determines the military and political importance of Israel itself. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell's former chief-of-staff) explains how the lobby's influence affects the decision-making structure in the White House.
With political scientist John Mearsheimer, neocon Richard Perle, lobby organization AIPAC, televangelist John Hagee, historian Tony Judt, Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Democrat Earl Hilliard, Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy and investigative journalist Michael Massing.
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment