Bassem Tamimi - ML King would understand

Thanks to Israeli activist Jonathan Pollard from whom I received the news that Bassem Tamimi (shown), the leader of non-violent protests in the West Bank town of Nabi Saleh has had his detention extended. He was arrested, held for seven days and now it will be for eleven more.

This by order of an Israeli military judge.

Here are the charges against him

• incitement
• organizing marches without a permit
• solicitation to throw stones
• disobeying the duty to report to questioning
• giving youth advice on how to respond to interrogation if they are arrested

This goes right back to the bad old days of civil rights protests in the United States where black protesters were arrested, charged with absurd "crimes", put before a white judge and convicted. Martin Luther King, Jr. would immediately recognize Tamimi's predicament.

This is what we Americans are making possible with our support of Israel and we should be ashamed our ourselves for doing so, particularly in light of our own national history. Even in the worst days of segregation in America, there was at least the pretense that blacks were under the civil laws of the land. With Israel, all Palestinians in the occupied territories are under Israeli military law - the laws of the occupying army. Some justice.

UPDATE: Having been held in prison awaiting trial (Palestinians don't have any right to bail under Israeli military law), Tamimi's trial is to begin on June 4, 2011. You should read this account of Tamimi's history - he has lived his entire life under Israeli occupation and has spent 3 years in Israeli prisons though he has never been convicted of anything.

UPDATE (December 2011): The Foreign Minister of France weighs in on the side of Tamimi, still undergoing the purposefully lengthy procedure of a "trial" under Israeli military law.

A Chief Rabbinate? It's un-American

Of the many things that differ between Israel and the United States, none is more glaring than the maintenance of a state supported religious hierarchy, the Chief Rabbinate.

Can you imagine a debate in Congress over who can be called a Christian, a Jew or Muslim? Can you imagine anyone having to be declared a legitimate member of a religious group before being allowed to become a U.S. citizen?

The founding fathers made sure that would never happen. Thank goodness. But "the only democracy in the Middle East" engages in such nonsense.

To let you read how far this goes, I'll excerpt from an article that appeared in the Jerusalem Post, What are We Celebrating? a critique of the Chief Rabbinate. If you feel you are reading a description of something that has no place in government, I understand the feeling! But this is the country that has "no daylight" between it and the U.S. according to our vice-president Joe Biden.

Last Tuesday, the Knesset celebrated the 90th anniversary of the Chief
Rabbinate, as if the institution was a positive factor in Israeli life...

Confronted with the urgent problem of the massive non-Jewish immigration
from the former Soviet Union, in which over 300,000 non-Jews became
Israeli citizens, the Rabbinate did nothing to encourage conversion or
even to make it a viable option.

When presented with a possible solution suggested by the Neeman
Commission involving the creation of a joint institute for the study of
Judaism which would lead to conversion under the Chief Rabbinate’s
auspices, the Chief Rabbinate responded with a vicious attack on the
Conservative and Reform movements – which bordered on the libelous – and
refused to cooperate with it...

...
Rivlin dismissed the possibility of replacing the Chief Rabbinate with
“another one, Reform or Conservative – a move that could compromise the
unity of the Jewish people” and praised halacha [Jewish law] which, he
opined, “we must safeguard.”

It appears that Rivlin continues the tradition of those secular leaders
of Israel who do not go to a synagogue, but want the synagogue they do
not attend to be Orthodox.

RIVLIN ALSO warned against what he called the “privatization of
conversion.” What exactly is the Knesset speaker talking about? Does he
not know that, currently, there are conversions in Israel and throughout
the world conducted by Conservative and Reform rabbis that are
recognized by the State of Israel? Does he not know that even if Israel
were not to recognize them, they would continue to be performed? Is he
totally unaware that, like it or not, the Jewish world is pluralistic?
Does he not know that there are large sections of the Jewish world – the
ultra-Orthodox (haredim) for example – who do not even accept the
conversions of the Chief Rabbinate?

...Even the Orthodox in America are appalled by the efforts of the
Rabbinate to attain total hegemony over conversion throughout the world
and to be the sole authority deciding which American rabbis can convert
and which cannot.

...The celebration of the Chief Rabbinate is a celebration of a backward
march, one in which Israel becomes more like a religious autocracy than
a modern, democratic state. It is a march into darkness which leads not
to Jewish unity but to a situation in which Israel finds itself on one
side and the rest of the Jewish world on the other; in which any support
of Israel by American Jewry would not be because of Israel’s attitude
toward religion, but in spite of it.

It sounds like something from extremist Islam, or Christian fundamentalism at it's worst - the religious dictating to the rest of society. Sad to say, the religious in Israel have been on the ascendant for some time and make up a good portion of the settlers, living on land that God has given them.

What does the United States have in common with this? Nothing, no more than it shares the ideas of religion in government of Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Most outrageous of all, this Chief Rabbinate is the organization that determines who is a Jew and, as such, who is entitled to take away the land of the Palestinians! Do you begin to understand the view the Palestinians would have as they see their homes demolished and their fields bulldozed for settlement expansion? Wouldn't you be upset?

how Associated Press works (for Israel)

Here's a very interesting bit of information I've received from the Council for the National Interest about venerable AP.

How AP works

Since most newspapers don't have their own reporters in Israel or the Palestinian Territories, they obtain their news on this region from wire services. AP is usually the only global wire service taken by U.S. newspapers.

Although AP is a cooperative, which means that it is "owned" by all the news organizations that use its news, in reality there is almost no oversight of its work. Editors around the country simply accept its reporting at face value.

The trouble is, however, that its reporting is consistently Israeli-centric.

The "control bureau" for the region, through which all news reports are funneled, is located in Israel. Its editors are living in Israel, their families are frequently Israeli, and quite often they themselves are Israeli citizens.

Even when an AP report carries a Palestinian dateline and even a Palestinian byline, in the large majority of cases the article was actually written in Israel, frequently by an Israeli editor.

A study of AP's reporting found that it had reported on Israeli children's deaths at a rate seven times greater than they reported on Palestinian children's deaths – even though Palestinian children were killed first and in far greater numbers.

Because of this bias, CNI is starting a blog that will be deconstructing AP reports from Israel and the occupied territories. A great idea, I'm subscribing.

constructing the prototypical terrorist

To look at the actions of Congress, one could be forgiven for thinking Israel is the 51st state.

Noura Erekat is a Palestinian human rights attorney and activist who is an adjunct professor of international human rights law in the Middle East at Georgetown University, among other things.

She has written an outstanding article titled "Constructing the Prototypical Terrorist in America: Arab, Muslim and Palestinian" that I highly recommend. You may find her use of the word "other" as a verb unusual. By that she means the making into "the other", or outsider, of certain groups of people.

To whet your appetite, here is an excerpt...(boldface mine)

Congress’s response to the settlement row in Spring 2010 exemplifies Israel’s status as “insider,” as opposed to political ally. In the aftermath of Vice President Biden’s embarrassing visit to the Middle East where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rebuffed the US’s calls to halt settlement expansion scores of Congressional members from both sides of the aisle lined up to chastise the Obama Administration for its public handling of the affair. Despite being the source of US foreign policy, no less than twenty-three members expressed terse disapproval either in press statements or from the House floor. Several dozen other members sent four open letters to the Obama Administration as well. Significantly, the lawmakers’ choice of language mirrors an AIPAC press release dated March 14, 2010 and therefore nearly every member echoed the sentiment that Israel should not be treated like any other country but rather with heightened sensitivity and special treatment. Representative Todd Tiahart described President Obama’s public position as “disrespectful,” and characterized Secretary Clinton’s decision to “openly question” Israeli policies as “inappropriate” as the US has a “moral and strategic obligation to support this beacon of democracy in the Middle East.” (March 13, 2010) No other member better captured the centrality of Israel within the US national identity as did Representive Mike Pence who explained that “[t]he American people consider Israel our most cherished ally and we her closest friend and guardian…[a]s I just told the Prime Minister, I never thought I'd live to see the day that an American administration would denounce the State of Israel for rebuilding Jerusalem…[t]he American people and the American Congress in both parties support the State of Israel.” (March 23, 2010)

The lawmakers’ choice of language and tone both reflects Israel’s insider status and works to construct its critics as threats to US national security. While the description of Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East, works to distinguish Israel from its authoritarian counterparts, it also acts as a marker that others Israel’s Arab and Muslim neighbors. Their written and oral statements condemn the US President in defense of a foreign state; describe their relationship to Israel as moral; describe the US as Israel’s guardian; and affirm the immutability of the US’s relationship to Israel irrespective of circumstances. This behavior is more reflective of a family dispute than a diplomatic affair and works to reify the boundaries circumscribing American national identity wherein Israel enjoys the privileges of inclusion.

read the whole article. Erekat makes the case that Congress has created a legal situation where entire groups of people that Israel has determined are not to its liking are easily attacked and convicted in the United States by prejudicial laws the pre-dispose judges/juries to convict simply for defendants being members of one of the groups.

Is your state holding Israel bonds?

There is a very interesting article in the current issue of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (April) on the effort of a group of Minnesotans to have their state divest itself of the Israel bonds that it holds (you need to be a subscriber to read the current issue).

As with so much regarding Israel - this bond purchasing by Minnesota is exceptional. It's exceptional because Minnesota law forbids investments with foreign governments. Though an exception is specified for Canada, Israel is not mentioned.

The United States supports international law. Israel violates international law in the occupied territories. The United States opposes Israeli settlement. Israel uses government funding for settlement and Israel bonds are a source of government funds.

So Minnesota is funding Israeli settlement activity but passing it under the radar of state law. In that state, there are four people who make decisions on bond purchases in their capacity as the State Board of Investment (SBI), they are the governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state and the state auditor.

The group attempting to hold Minnesota responsible for what it does is the Minnesota Break the Bonds Campaign.

I checked and found that Illinois is a purchaser of Israel bonds as well. I don't know Illinois state law on investments in foreign governments, but I intend to find out.

Finding out may be a challenge. My state representative is a big supporter of Israel so I doubt that the information will be getting to me soon if at all through her, but this is a perfect example of how benefits to Israel are woven into the woodwork in the United States.

Oh, did I mention my state senator is a big supporter of Israel? Did I mention my Congresswoman is too? Surely I've mentioned that one of my senators, Mark Kirk, is AIPAC's poster boy? Did I mention that my other senator, Dick Durban, entered Congress years ago with the help of AIPAC?

Wherever you live in the United States, make it a point to find out how your own politicians stand on Israel. Even if they have no particular view on that foreign country, you can bet that the Israel lobby has a tally on how they vote. There is no lobby in opposition to AIPAC, so you may find that regardless of your own view, your political representatives are cheerfully voting the Israel line. It's a bad habit of U.S. national politicians (and it appears state pols too) that the American electorate needs to break.

America pulled it off, Israel can't

I'm constantly reminded of the parallel between the ethnic cleansing of North America by those of European descent and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by, again, those of European descent.

HAMAS is the counterpart of the bands of Native-Americans (I'll call them Indians for brevity) who refused to submit and chose to fight. The unguided missiles that HAMAS fires off are the equivalent of the burning arrows that Native-Americans would use to set settler homes alight...with the difference that the rockets have little to no effect while the arrows were quite effective.

Likewise, the pin-prick attacks of HAMAS and of the Indian bands were met with great violence and killing all out of proportion to the violence received. The Sand Creek Massacre and Operation Cast Lead being good examples.

For Israel to say it has the "right to defend itself" against attacks by Palestinians is the equivalent of American settlers saying they had the right to defend themselves against the Indians. In both cases land was taken from the natives by the new-comers, new-comers who were eager to turn the title of terrorist on the defenders of the land.

"The Peace Process" was used in the Old West just as it is used by Israel to keep the natives occupied while their lands are taken. The United States held all the cards in 1850, just as Israel holds them today (with a big exception I will get to below)

American settlers, with the unlimited power of the U.S. military behind them, claimed they were innocent victims just as do Israelis today.

Whereas the United States worked hand-in-glove with the railroads and land developers to take land that was not theirs to give - in particular for the government to deed lands it unilaterally declared its own without the consent of the Indians, so also does Israel have the Jewish National Fund that works closely with the government to erase all evidence of Arab towns with tree plantings.

The 19th century United States worked tirelessly in finding individual Indians who had no authority to sign away land, having them sign documents transferring it anyway for promises of money or favors. Today, Israel has the Palestinian Authority that will, for money and position, give away Palestinian rights and lands as required by Israel (revealed by the Wikileaks "Palestinian Papers"

Just as the United States saw itself as a superior civilization taking "unused land" for noble purposes (economic development), so also does Israel see itself as morally and racially superior to the Arab Palestinians. This parallel is particularly interesting because neither the Americans of 1850 or the Jews of Israel today are of a race.

But there are significant differences between the American land theft and the Israeli land theft.

> the American west of the 1800's could not have been more isolated and out of the spotlight. Anything could be done with nobody the wiser for months, if ever. Now we have instant video and news 24 hours a day.

> the Indians were small in number compared to the mass of white people in the east and were relatively isolated from each other. By the use of inter-tribal hatreds, the U.S. was able to turn the Indians against each other very effectively. Though the Palestinians are not of one mind, they are not so divided

> the Indians as a large group stood alone with no allies. They were unable to duplicate the temporary alliance with the French against the British that allowed them to hold off the frontier for a time. The French, once defeated by the British left the Indians to fend for themselves.

> 19th century America was a booming, expanding nation looking to a west that was, by comparison, empty. Palestine contains more Palestinians than Israelis and this difference is increasing. Israel is a sore thumb forcibly grafted on to a large body of Arab people.

> 19th century America was self-sufficient, able to produce more than everything that it needed without financial help. Israel is completely dependent on the United States for weaponry and funding. Settlements would stop immediately if U.S. support were withdrawn.

> 19th century America was a wonder of the world and a source of excitement for people around the world, many of whom determined to move there and become citizens. Israel is a pariah and has lost the friends it once had with the sole exception of the United States.

> 19th century America, hypocritical though it was, did put forth the claim of liberty and justice for all and made some effort to apply its laws to all of its citizens (African-Americans notably excepted). Israel does not present itself as anything but a state for Jews. No others need apply.

> 19th century America moved, at a glacier's pace, toward liberalism and the expansion of rights for all. Israel has moved away from liberalism and toward extremist, militarist, orthodox-religious intolerance that is counter to the general move away from such a political view worldwide.

To sum up. I don't think Israel has a future as a Jewish state. It has willfully destroyed any chance for a Palestinian state, an object it has never wanted to see come into being. It maintains itself only as a fortress of belligerence resting on a mythology, that goes out of its way to lecture its neighbors on what they are allowed to do and doesn't hesitate to lash out at will under the full protection of the United States to date. It is the perfect example of irresponsible power, a bully that is allowed whatever it wants by a superpower standing in the background. Israel is by nature self-isolating and with the direction it is going, making itself repulsive to the worldwide Jewry for which it claims to be a shining beacon.

Unlike the United States that finished it's period of ethnic cleansing with a triumphant victory over a people that it either destroyed, penned up, or silenced, Israel has no chance of the same.

At some point Israel will become a bi-national state, but there is every reason to believe that many bad events will occur before this happens as fanaticism is not easily defused. Like South Africa, another country that couldn't continue to exist as a sore thumb - in that case, a white thumb on a black body, Israel has no future as it is. The only question is how much more suffering will it force on others before the project can no longer be carried on? It all depends on the persistence of U.S. support.

Israel is the political equivalent of that high-school science class example of instability - a cone standing on its tip. It does so because of scaffolding labeled "made in USA"

State Dept acting for Israel

Omar Barghouti is a Palestinian who has written a book, Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions
that is, as you might expect, not one that Israel would like to see a best seller.

To promote the book, Barghouti planned a tour of the United States - to New York City, Harvard, Yale, Brown, Brandeis University, Washington DC, and Philadelphia, but the plans stalled when the U.S. State Department balked at giving him a visa.

This is a perfect example of Zionism at work in America. It's no exaggeration to say that Zionists are everywhere in this country in positions of power, wealth and influence, be they Christian or Jewish. The recent bowing of Obama to their will was shown by the US veto in the UN of a resolution calling for the Israeli settlements to be withdrawn from the occupied territories. Obama was silent about this contradiction of stated U.S. foreign policy of long standing. Instead, his UN representative, Susan Rice, spouted nonsense about the need to go through the peace process - which is now universally seen as the cover it has always been for the Israeli land grab. It's now clear to everyone that Israel has a veto in the UN Security Council though it is not a member of it and this strength is so powerful it can force the US to place Israel above American interests.

My recent post with Jeff Blankfort's interview is further evidence of Americans supporting Israel making the decisions large and small that keep their fellow citizens under a covert censorship that is both broad and deep.

The Barghouti book tour visa issue was so blatant it became a project for Jewish Voice for Peace. JVP called for people to sign a petition to the State Department objecting to the denial of a visa. The result was a rare victory over the Israel lobby (don't click the "read more" link on the victory page because it goes to the wrong page).

Things happen when people get motivated to make them happen. Kudos to JVP for working for justice and open debate. The group is instrumental in opposing the Israel lobby because it is proof against the absurd charge that to oppose Israeli policy is to be anti-Semitic.