tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81754688522850517062024-03-14T00:22:58.764-07:00jerusalem-blogA place to exchange views and information<br>
in support of moderate and reasonable solutions <br>
to the problems of the Holy City.Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.comBlogger124125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-14987804411672116972023-12-10T04:27:00.000-08:002024-03-06T08:11:58.068-08:00 Kriegsziel: Frieden<p><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px;">Das Ziel des Krieges ist Frieden, so meinte Aristoteles. Vielleicht ist das zu einfach. Nicht jeder Krieg ist wie der andere. Es gibt Angriffs- und Verteidigungskriege, Präventivkriege und Vernichtungskriege. Krieg scheint oft eine Fortsetzung der Diplomatie mit anderen Mitteln. Dies setzt voraus, dass sich die Kriegsgegner auf Augenhöhe begegnen. Die internationale Regelung erlaubter und unerlaubter Kriegshandlungen zeigt hingegen, dass Kriege die im Frieden enden der Vergangenheit angehören.</span><span class="Apple-converted-space" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Es gibt internationale Abkommen, die zwar nicht den Krieg als solchen verdammen, aber den Angriff auf zivile Einrichtungen wie Krankenhäuser, Schulen und Gebetshäuser als Kriegsverbrechen bezeichnen. Außerdem wird der Einsatz von besonders hämischen Massenvernichtungswaffen, wie Giftgas, Phosphorbomben und andere Kampfstoffe international verurteilt. Jene Abkommen hinken den Tatsachen hinterher und haben wenig Einfluss auf die tatsächliche Kriegsführung im Zeitalter der Massenvernichtungswaffen. Es kommt immer wieder zum Einsatz solcher Kampfstoffe, oftmals sogar gegen die eigene Bevölkerung, und auch Krankenhäuser, Schulen und Gebetshäuser werden immer wieder angegriffen. Es scheint, als sei zwischen legitimer Kriegsführung und Terror nicht mehr zu unterscheiden. Überall zahlt die zivile Bevölkerung den Preis für politische Instabilität. Auf Krieg folgt hier oft kein Friede, sondern die Flucht ziviler Massen und die nachhaltige Destabilisierung ganzer Regionen.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Friede, wie etwa der Westfälische Frieden, mit dem der Dreißigjährige Krieg beendet wurde, war nicht das Ende des Krieges in Europa. Aber er führte mit der berühmten Formel, <i>cuius regio, eius religio, </i>zum Ende der von der Reformation des 16ten Jahrhunderts ausgelösten Religionskriege und zur gegenseitigen Anerkennung der Souveränität und Autonomie zwischen protestantischen und katholischen Staaten und Fürstentümern des 17ten Jahrhunderts. Das Good Friday Agreement führte zur Beendung des Zwistes zwischen Protestanten und Katholiken in Nordirland, und die NATO Intervention im ethnischen Konflikt zwischen Serben und Kroaten im Balkan führte immerhin zu einer mittelfristigen Beruhigung der Zustände im ehemaligen Jugoslawien. Wie auch immer gespannt die Lage dort sein mag, die „ethnischen Säuberungen“ und Massaker der frühen 90er Jahre sind heute eine Sache der Vergangenheit.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Was sind die Kriegsziele, die Israel im Gazastreifen verfolgt, und mit welchen Mitteln wird dieser Krieg verfolgt? Der akute Kampf in und um Gaza wurde durch die Ereignisse vom 7. Oktober ausgelöst. Von Anfang an befürchteten viele Israelis, dass sich die Konfrontation zu einem Mehrfrontenkrieg entwickeln könnte. In der Westbank schwelten bereits seit Monaten die Unruhen, die von Siedlerübergriffen noch weiter geschürt werden. Geschosse fliegen an der Nordgrenze mit Syrien and dem Libanon und neuerdings mischen sich die von Iran gestützten Houthis vom Yemen aus im Süden Israels ein. Dennoch konzentriert sich die Aufmerksamkeit des israelischen Militärs auf den Gazastreifen, der somit auch den größten Anteil der Medienaufmerksamkeit für sich beansprucht. Nach einer kurzen humanitären Feuerpause, die von den Krieg führenden Parteien zum Zweck des Austausches einer Anzahl der von der Hamas und dem islamischen Dschihad am 7. Oktober entführten Menschen gegen die Freilassung palästinensischer Gefangener vereinbart worden war, ist der Krieg wieder in vollem Schwange.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Das Kriegsziel? Es geht Israel, wie es scheint, nicht nur darum, den Hamas militärisch zu besiegen, zu entwaffnen und deren militärische Kapazität zu schwächen, sondern Israels erklärtes Ziel ist es, den Hamas als solchen zu beseitigen und als Faktor von jeder zukünftigen Regelung der Verhältnisse in Gaza auszuschalten. Die Rechtfertigung hierfür, im Gegensatz zu den kriegerischen Handlungen der Vergangenheit, als Israel sich damit zufrieden gab, der Bedrohung durch den Hamas die Spitze abzubrechen („den Rasen zu mähen“, wie man dazu in Israel sagte), ansonsten aber die Machtverhältnisse im Gazastreifen so beließ, wie sie sich seit dem Rückzug Israels aus dem Gazastreifen im Jahr 2005 entwickelt hatten, beruht auf der Tatsache, dass Hamas mittlerweile militärisch zu stark geworden ist, um weiterhin die Rolle zu spielen, die das Regime Netanyahu ihm zugedacht hatte. Statt wie bisher nur als Beweis zu dienen, dass die Palästinenser sich nicht als Friedenspartner eigneten, entwickelte sich der Hamas als ernst zu nehmender militärischer Gegner. Sehr zur allgemeinen Überraschung, so scheint es zumindest, und trotz aller Warnungen seitens der militärischen Überwachungseinheiten Vorort, die von den oberen Rängen des Militärs sowie von der zivilen Regierung ignoriert worden waren, gelang es dem Hamas, mit einer großen Anzahl von trainierten Kämpfern die viel gerühmte elektronisch überwachte Grenze zu Israel zu überrennen und mehr als tausend Israelis, darunter auch Gastarbeiter, Touristen und arabische Beduinen, zu massakrieren, die friedlich<i> </i>und nichts ahnend in den Kibbutzim an der Grenze lebten oder sich aus ganz Israel zu einem Musikfestival im Freien versammelt hatten. Ungefähr 200 Menschen, Alte wie Junge, Kranke und Gesunde, Männer, Frauen und Kinder, wurden als Geiseln in den Gazastreifen verschleppt und sind zum Teil bis heute dort, ohne dass man über ihren Zustand irgendetwas wüsste. Israels viel gerühmtes Militär und der weithin gefürchtete und geachtete militärische Geheimdienst hatten völlig versagt, genauso wie im Oktober 1973, als Israel am Großen Versöhnungstag an mehreren Fronten von den vereinten Kräften Ägyptens und Syriens überfallen wurde.</span><span class="s2" style="color: #0000e9; font-kerning: none; text-decoration-line: underline;"><sup>[1]</sup></span><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Die Bilder des 7. Oktober haben in der israelischen Bevölkerung traumatisch gewirkt. Es war, als habe der Staat Israel die Menschen im Stich gelassen, der Staat, der den Zweck haben sollte, eine Wiederholung der Pogrome Osteuropas und der Shoah ein für alle Mal zu verhindern. Aus israelischer Sicht haben der Hamas und der Islamische Dschihad am 7. Oktober ihr wahres Gesicht gezeigt, nämlich das Gesicht von islamisch-faschistischen Nihilisten, die sich durch ihre Handlungen selbst aus der menschlichen Gemeinschaft ausgeschlossen haben. Die einzig sachgemäße Antwort hierauf schien der totale Krieg, mit dem Ziel den Hamas zu vernichten. Nur dann werde in Gaza der Friede wieder einkehren, wenn Hamas und Islamischer Dschihad beseitigt sind. So jedenfalls die israelische Rechtfertigung für den Krieg in Gaza. An die Befreiung der Geiseln wurde seitens der Regierung Netanyahu zunächst kein Gedanke verschwendet, und auch jetzt ist dieses Ziel, trotz aller Proteste, wieder in den Hintergrund getreten.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Die Kosten an Menschenleben und die Schäden an der zivilen Infrastruktur in Gaza sind überwältigend. Man wird sehen, ob es Israel gelingen wird, den gewünschten militärischen Sieg über Hamas zu erzielen und diese Gruppe als Bedrohung ein für alle Mal auszuschalten. Das Vorbild zu diesem Kampf bildet sicher die Kampagne der Vereinigten Staaten und ihrer Verbündeten gegen den Islamischen Staat in Syrien und Mesopotamien, oder andere von großer moralischer Klarheit gestützte Kriege, wie etwa der Krieg der Alliierten gegen Nazideutschland. Auch dort konnte, zumindest offiziell, nicht davon die Rede sein, die Nazis nach Beendigung des Krieges am Wiederaufbau Deutschlands zu beteiligen.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Viele Menschen sehen den Konflikt in und um Gaza jedoch völlig anders. Überall auf der Welt gingen Menschen fast sofort nach Beginn der kriegerischen Handlungen in Gaza auf die Straße, um gegen Israels Versuch zu protestieren, den Konflikt mit militärischen Mitteln zu lösen. Man stellt die Kriegsziele Israels schon deshalb in Frage, weil nicht der Hamas, dafür aber die palästinensische Zivilbevölkerung den Preis zahlt. Hunderttausende von Menschen waren dazu verdammt, sich innerhalb des Gazastreifens in Sicherheit zu bringen. Die Grenze zu Ägypten wie zu Israel ist ihnen weitgehend versperrt. Alle Versuche Israels, ernst gemeint oder nicht, den Konflikt auf militärische Ziele einzuschränken, scheitern an der Tatsache, dass sich Waffenlager und Kommandozentren des Hamas hinter und unter zivilen Einrichtungen verbergen. So sieht der Kampf Israels mit und gegen den Hamas auf einmal aus wie ein Völkermord an den Palästinensern und die klägliche Abwehr dagegen wie jener Aufstand der Juden im Warschauer Ghetto, kurz vor dessen Liquidierung. So jedenfalls scheint es, wenn man die Bilder und Filme sieht, die auf den sozialen Medien weltweit verbreitet werden. Die Bevölkerung im Gazastreifen ist außergewöhnlich jung, und so sind zahllose Kinder unter den Toten und Verletzten. Wer gegen diesen Krieg protestiert, tut dies zumeist in der Überzeugung, dass hier Kriegsverbrechen begangen werden und dass der Hamas und wofür dieser steht durch militärische Gewalt nicht zur Strecke gebracht werden können.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Aber wofür steht der Hamas? Was war deren Kriegsziel, als sie die zivilen Siedlungen auf der israelischen Seite der Grenze überfielen und unschuldige Männer, Frauen und Kinder massakrierten? Um was für eine Organisation handelt es sich hier? War der von langer Hand geplante Überfall eine spontane Initiative der militärischen Organisation oder war es die im Exil lebende zivile Führung, die diese Attacke anordnete? Erschien der Angriff deshalb opportun, weil man beobachtete, wie sehr die israelische Gesellschaft von der anhaltenden inneren politischen Krise abgelenkt und demoralisiert war und weil das israelische Militär mit den Unruhen in der Westbank zu tun hatte? War der Hamas überrascht vom Erfolg ihres präzedenzlosen Blitzkrieges? Rechneten sie damit, wie brutal das israelische Militär zurückschlagen würde, ohne Rücksicht auf Krankenhäuser, Schulen, Moscheen oder Einrichtungen der Vereinten Nationen? Oder war dieser Gegenschlag vielleicht genau, was sie erwartet hatten? Ein unvermeidliches Blutbad unter der Zivilbevölkerung, sodass es zu einer Sympathie für die Opfer des 7. Oktober erst gar nicht kommen konnte und die Weltöffentlichkeit sich sofort auf die Seite der Palästinenser schlug und den Hamas nicht mehr als Terrororganisation sah, sondern als Freiheitskämpfer bejubelte? War das die Absicht? Dann hat der Hamas gesiegt und wird auch nach Beendigung der Kampfhandlungen als Sieger aus einem Krieg hervorgehen, dem kein Friede folgen wird.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Menschen, die bedingungslos für einen Waffenstillstand im Nahen Osten eintreten, die dazu aufrufen, an den Verhandlungstisch zurückzukehren, um endlich eine nachhaltige politische Regelung des Nahost Konflikts zu erzielen, setzen voraus, dass dieser Krieg für den Hamas und die Regierung Israels eine Fortsetzung der Diplomatie mit anderen Mitteln ist. Dass nur Diplomatie und nicht Krieg zur Beilegung des israelisch-palästinensischen Konflikts führen kann. Nur so könne es zu einem gerechten und dauernden Frieden zwischen den beiden Völkern kommen, die seit dem UN Teilungsbeschluss vom 29. November 1947 miteinander um dasselbe Land streiten. Das ist grundsätzlich wahr. Nur eine politische Lösung, mit der Israelis und Palästinenser leben können, nämlich zusammen leben können, kann diesen Konflikt beenden. Denn es handelt sich um einen Konflikt zwischen zwei Völkern, die die Herrschaft über ein und dasselbe Land für sich beanspruchen.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Zur Zeit häufen sich jedoch täglich die Hindernisse auf dem Weg zu einer friedlichen und gerechten Lösung des Konflikts. Der Friede wird mit jedem potentiellen Friedensstifter erneut begraben, der unter dem Schutt erstickt, den das israelische Militär Tag um Tag und Stunde um Stunde vermehrt. Allerdings finde ich es erstaunlich, dass sich die Friedensappelle hauptsächlich, oder sogar ausschließlich, an die israelische Seite richten. Als hätten Hamas und Islamischer Dschihad nichts damit zu tun. Als ob sie es nicht waren, die diese besonders heftige Runde der Kampfhandlungen auslösten. Als ob sie nicht immer noch willkürlich Raketen auf die israelische Zivilbevölkerung abfeuerten. Als ob sie nicht an der Verbreitung von Bildern and Parolen beteiligt wären, die überall auf der Welt nicht nur Hass auf Israels Regierung lenken, was noch verständlich wäre, sondern Menschen dazu bringt, die Vernichtung des Staates Israel als eine gerechte und plausible Lösung des Konflikts zu propagieren. Als ob sie keine Geiseln gefangen hielten. Als ob sie für das Massaker vom 7. Oktober keine Rechenschaft abzulegen hätten. Als ob sie die legitimen Vertreter des palästinensischen Volkes wären und die Waffen im Namen der Beendigung der israelischen Besatzung der Westbank aufgenommen hätten. (Gaza ist seit dem <i>unilateral disengagement </i>Israels im Jahr 2005 nicht mehr besetztes Gebiet.) Wenn man in gut gemeinten Aufrufen zum Waffenstillstand stillschweigend über den Hamas und seine Geschwistergruppierungen hinweggeht, indem man verschweigt, wer diesen Krieg ausgelöst hat und von wem eine Bedrohung des Friedens zwischen Juden und Arabern in Israel und Palästina ausgeht, dann legitimiert und feiert man am Ende die Taten der Hamas oder man entschuldigt diese als Befreiungskampf gegen den bösen und allmächtigen Feind aller Menschen schwarzer und brauner Hautfarbe.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Dies ist der Grund weshalb ich nicht in den Ruf nach Waffenstillstand einstimmen kann. Hier wird zu schnell und ohne nachzudenken das Humanitäre mit dem Ideologischen vermischt. Handlungsfreiheit und Zurechnungsfähigkeit werden hier nur auf einer Seite gesehen. So macht man sich an den Taten dieser üblen Bande mit schuldig, einer Bande, die nichts baut, aber alles zerstört. Die niemanden befreit, sondern sogar die eigenen Leute mit Gewalt kontrolliert. Wenn der Hamas die Zukunft des palästinensischen Volkes darstellt, dann hat dieses Volk keine Zukunft. Das haben die Palästinenser nicht verdient.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Damit soll nicht gesagt sein, dass Israel in Gaza einen Krieg zur Befreiung der Palästinenser führt. Selbst die Auffassung, dass Israel nach der etwaigen Beseitigung des Hamas für die Regelung der Verhältnisse in Gaza verantwortlich sei, halte ich für problematisch. Israel kann die Zukunft des palästinensischen Volkes nicht bestimmen. Das müssen die Palästinenser selbst tun. Israel kann sich auch nicht aussuchen, wer die Palästinenser repräsentiert.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Für die Israelis kam dieser Krieg zu einem äußerst ungünstigen Augenblick. Die von Benjamin Netanyahu geführte Regierungskoalition ist im Auge weiter Teile der israelischen Öffentlichkeit in Misskredit geraten. Netanyahu selbst hat immer noch ein Korruptionsverfahren am Hals. Das Militär sieht sich in der misslichen Lage, die von Mitgliedern der Regierungskoalition geförderten radikalen Siedler in der Westbank zu schützen, obwohl diese mit fast täglichen Provokationen der arabischen Bevölkerung das Leben zur Hölle machen. Und das Vertrauen der Mehrheit in die Regierung litt nachhaltigen Schaden durch die monatelange Auseinandersetzung um die Reform des israelischen Rechtssytems. Netanyahu vertritt eine gesellschaftspolitisch relevante Minderheit, die keine Chance sieht für einen jüdischen und demokratischen Staat, in dem Araber und andere Nichtjuden die gleichen Recht und Pflichten genießen wie jüdische Bürger. Die aus religiösen und nicht-religiösen Parteien zusammengeschmiedete Koalition verfolgt die Annektion der Westbank und die permanente Entrechtung der Araber, wenn nicht sogar deren „Transfer“ über die Grenze nach Jordanien. Die aggressive Siedlungspolitik, der Ausbau der bestehenden Siedlungen und die nachträgliche Legalisierung der illegalen „hill top settlements“, die diskriminierende Infrastruktur mit Straßen ohne militärische Kontrolle, auf der man sich nur mit einem israelischen Kennzeichen bewegen darf, bei gleichzeitig recht engmaschiger Kontrolle jeder Bewegung der palästinensischen Bevölkerung, all das trägt dazu bei, dass von einem politischen Friedensprozess auch auf israelischer Seite nicht die Rede sein kann. Am Zusammenbruch des Oslo-Prozesses sind die radikalen Kräfte auf beiden Seiten schuldig. So muss man sich nicht wundern, wenn sogar die ältesten Freunde Israels, Juden wie Nichtjuden an der Politik Israels verzweifeln. Es gibt auch ermutigende Zeichen. Viele Israelis, Juden wie Araber und andere, haben sich von Anfang für die Rückkehr der Entführten eingesetzt, oft gegen die Kriegsziele der eigenen Regierung. Viele Menschen hat man zum Schweigen gebracht, indem man ihnen vorwarf, die Sache des Feindes zu betreiben. Aber es waren die zahllosen Initiativen der zivilen Gesellschaft, nicht die Politiker und nicht das Militär, die sich um die Überlebenden kümmerten, Menschen abholten und sie in Sicherheit brachten, die für Nahrung und ärztliche Versorgung sorgten und anderes mehr. Es sind dieselben Menschen, die sich von ihrer Regierung nicht einschüchtern lassen, die sich um einen dauerhaften Frieden zwischen Israelis und Palästinenser:Innen bemühen und sich täglich im Süden Hebrons zwischen die arabischen Hirten und die radikalen jüdischen Siedler stellen. Es gibt diese Menschen auch in Gaza.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Der Schaden, den das Massaker vom 7. Oktober in Israel verursacht hat, und der Schaden, den das israelische Militär im Gazastreifen anrichtet, sind ungeheuerlich. Als bloße Zuschauer sind wir dazu verurteilt, untätig und mit offenem Munde starrend dem zuzusehen, was sich dort mit erbarmungsloser Notwendigkeit abspielt. Man will protestieren und nach einem Ende der militärischen Übermacht rufen, die unter der palästinensischen Bevölkerung Tod und maßloses Leiden herstellt. Der Wille zum Protest erstickt jedoch angesichts der Welle der anti-jüdischen Propaganda, der man sich kaum entziehen kann und die von Leuten ahnungslos weiter verbreitet wird, die bis vor kurzem vielleicht noch nicht wussten, wo Palästina auf der Landkarte zu finden war. Es ist auch irgendwie verdächtig, weshalb ausgerechnet dieser Krieg solche Schlagzeilen macht, wodurch andere Krisen und Konflikte in Vergessenheit geraten. Wer profitiert eigentlich gerade davon?</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Und doch lässt sich ein Ende denken, mit dem man leben könnte. Die weltweiten Proteste könnten die internationale Gemeinschaft dazu bewegen, auf die Kriegsparteien Druck auszuüben, der zu einem dauerhaften Waffenstillstand führt. Die israelische Regierungskoalition wird zusammenbrechen, weil das Kriegsziel, den Hamas auszuschalten, nicht erreicht wurde. Bei Neuwahlen kommt eine Mitte-links Koalition, geführt von Benny Gantz, an die Regierung, und zwar mit dem Mandat, sofortige und konkrete Verhandlungen über eine langfristige, gerechte und friedliche Lösung des Konflikts einzugehen. (Die Rechtsreform kommt vom Tisch. Neue Gesetze zur Sicherung der Demokratie und der Gleichheit vor dem Gesetz werden verabschiedet.) Anfangs führt auf der palästinensischen Seite die alte Garde der PLO die Verhandlungen und widmet sich dem Wiederaufbau Gazas. Dann kommt es zu Wahlen, bei denen Leute wie Hanan Ashrawi und der bis dahin aus israelischer Haft entlassene Marwan Barghouti die Führung erringen, da sie für die Einheit der palästinensischen Bevölkerung eintreten und kompromisslos für die Anerkennung ihrer politischen Rechte kämpfen. Sowohl Hamas als auch die PLO verzichten auf ihren Führungsanspruch.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Jenen, die meinen, dieser Krieg sei der Anfang vom Ende des zionistischen Siedlerregimes, möchte ich sagen: auf keinen Fall, und dennoch vielleicht. Israel wird bleiben. Die Juden sind Teil des Nahen Ostens, wie sie es schon immer waren. Sie werden nirgendwo anders hingehen. In dieser Hinsicht also: auf keinen Fall. Aber vielleicht lassen sich der maximalistische Neuzionismus der israelischen Rechten und der messianisch religiös-nationale Chauvinismus der radikalen Siedler irgendwie doch noch einholen, einschränken oder einlenken, sodass vielleicht auch hier ein produktiver, respektvoller und auf Gegenseitigkeit bedachter Stil in der israelischen Politik noch einmal eine Chance hat. Die Zukunft Israels, Palästinas und, so muss man hinzufügen, Jordaniens, hängt davon ab, ob sie auf einer Grundlage von gleichen Rechten und freier Wahl des Wohnsitzes für alle aufbaut, wie auch immer sich die politische Form unter den Bedingungen von kultureller Autonomie und wirtschaftlicher Produktionsgemeinschaft dieser nur als Föderation denkbaren Völker- und Staatengemeinschaft auf dem Gebiet des ehemaligen britischen Mandatsgebiets organisieren lässt. Europa bastelt ja auch noch an so etwas herum, aber hat doch schon Einiges zustande gebracht. Weshalb nicht der Nahe Osten?</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> </span></p><p class="p2" style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></p><p class="p3" style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; min-height: 14px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></p><p class="p4" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13.3px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s2" style="color: #0000e9; font-kerning: none; text-decoration-line: underline;"><sup>[1]</sup></span><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"> Ob der Angriff vom Oktober 2023 zu denselben oder vergleichbaren Folgen fü wie der Yom Kippur Krieg von 1973 bleibt abzuwarten. Zu hoffen wäre es! Denn der Krieg von 1973, verlustreich wie er auf israelischer Seite war, führte zur Wiederherstellung der Ehre Ägyptens nach der Schlappe von 1967, was wiederum dazu führte, dass sich Israel und Ägypten auf Augenhöhe begegnen konnten. So kam es 1979 zum berühmten Friedensschluss zwischen Israel und Ägypten, der in Camp David durch den damaligen US Präsidenten Jimmy Carter vermittelt worden war. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><p></p>Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-34710180721041027342023-12-08T01:15:00.000-08:002023-12-09T01:55:05.592-08:00The Goal of War is Peace<div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">The goal of war – according to Aristotle – is peace. Perhaps this is too simple. One war is not like the other, and given the technology of modern warfare, there may be other goals. Peace, such as the peace of Westphalia that created a kind of mutual recognition of sovereignty and autonomy between Protestant and Catholic states and principalities in seventeenth-century Europe, was not the end of warfare, but it put an end to the wars of religion triggered by the Protestant Reformation of the 16<sup>th</sup> century. The Good Friday Agreement, much called into question by the impact of Brexit on the status of Northern Ireland, also put an end to sectarian warfare, as did the NATO intervention in the Balkans in the 1990s. Where states emerged from the partition of territory along sectarian or ethnic lines, as in Ireland, India, and Palestine, important questions were left unanswered and a certain instability was left behind by the British Empire precisely because of what may have seemed, at the time, a fair and peaceable solution. Instead, partition was followed by bloodshed, i.e., decades of warfare and, with the possible exception of Ireland, no real peace in sight.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> <br /></span></span></p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">What is the goal of the war Israel is waging in and on Gaza? One goal must have been to keep this conflict limited to Gaza, but that does not seem to have succeeded. The war is flaring up, though still in a more limited scope, across the West Bank, and military action has been occurring on the border with Lebanon and Syria. Iranian missiles and drones are being fired from Yemen. While those other, so far more low-grade, conflicts are being managed by mostly defensive and some preventive action, the war on and in Gaza is full on. Ostensibly it is a war to not just defeat, disarm, and degrade the military capacity of Hamas but to destroy the very organization and with it of the possibility of it playing any future role in the affairs of Gaza. </span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">The justification for pursuing this goal of a “pacification” of Gaza now, rather than, as in the past, just taking the edge of Hamas, but keeping the organization intact and in place, is that it has become too strong to be tolerated. Much to everyone’s surprise, or so it seems, and despite all advance warnings, which were dismissed by the upper echelon of Israel’s military and by the political establishment, Hamas and its sister organizations who have been holding sway in Gaza since the elections of 2006 and the subsequent defenestration of the PLO, which amounted to a coup against the Palestinian National Authority, mustered a large number of fighters, overran the much taunted digital border, and wantonly massacred over a thousand Israelis living in kibbutzim along the border, as well as at an open air music festival, raping, pillaging, murdering, mutilating, and parading their over two-hundred captives, many of whom, weeks after October 7, are still held in Gaza. Israel’s vaunted military and secret service had failed, just as they had failed in October of 1973, when Israel was jointly attacked by Egypt and Syria on a religious holiday. The images from the massacre of October 7 are now seared into the Israeli psyche. Memories of the Holocaust were invoked. Hamas and Islamic Jihad had, in the Israeli perception, shown themselves for who they truly were: Islamo-fascist nihilists who placed themselves outside the human family. The only reasonable and proper response was a full on war with the goal of eliminating Hamas altogether. Only with Hamas and Islamic Jihad gone from Gaza can there be peace. This, at least, is the Israeli rationale for the war in Gaza. The costs in human lives and in damage to the civilian infrastructure of Gaza are staggering. Whether or not Israel can achieve military victory over Hamas and essentially destroy the group as a military organization, as the combined forces of the US and various allies did to the Islamic State in Mesopotamia and Syria remains to be seen. Many people around the world feel that this war is waged at the expense of the civilian population of Gaza, a predominantly young and therefore vulnerable population, and that military action will not defeat Hamas, or the ideas it stands for.</span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">But what does Hamas stand for? What was it they had in mind when they attacked the border communities and massacred civilians? What kind of a group are we dealing with? Was the action ordered and condoned by the civilian leadership, most of which lives in exile, or was the military wing acting by itself, seizing the opportunity of Israeli society being distracted by the inner turmoil of the mass protests against the legal reforms pushed through by the government, inattentive because of the high holiday, and otherwise engaged because of the deteriorating security situation across the West Bank? Was their attack a ploy, a baiting of the Israelis, provoking the very military reaction that took place? What did they expect to happen? What were they thinking? Did they expect that parts of Gaza would be flattened by Israeli counterattacks, that not even hospitals, schools, and mosques would be safe from Israeli shells? Were they surprised by how Israel reacted?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">People who are calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Middle East, the return to the negotiating table, and a stable political settlement believe, perhaps, that for Hamas as for the government of Israel, this war is the continuation of diplomacy by different means. That diplomacy, not war should end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that a just and lasting peace can and must be achieved between the two parties to a conflict caused by the partition of Palestine, based on the UNGA resolution of November 29, 1947. The obstacles to such a peaceful and equitable settlement are mounting with every day. Peace is buried with every potential peacemaker buried under the heaps of rubble into which Israeli military is turning section after section of the strip. What I find astounding is that appeals for a ceasefire are mostly if not exclusively directed at the Israelis. As if Hamas and Islamic Jihad had nothing to do with it. As if their actions had not provoked this war. As if they were not still firing random missiles at Israeli civilian settlements. As if they were not waging a clever war of disinformation and delegitimization against Israel. As if they did not still hold hostages. As if they needn’t give an account for the massacre of October 7. As if they were the legitimate representatives of the fight against Israeli occupation. By being eclipsed as agents in this war, by being obscured as the cause of this war and as a threat to peace and coexistence between Jews and Arabs, they are being legitimized and their actions celebrated as yet another war of liberation against the almighty evil oppressor of all black and brown people.</span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">This is the reason why so many calls for a ceasefire are unhelpful. They mix the humanitarian with the ideological. They assign blame only to one side and thereby implicitly take the side of an evil cult that aims not to build but to destroy. If Hamas represents the future of the Palestinian people, their future is bleak. The Palestinian people clearly deserve better. This is not to say that Israel is waging this war to liberate the Palestinians from Hamas. The Israelis would be mistaken if they thought they are in a position to determine the political future of the Palestinian people. They cannot pick and choose who represents the Palestinians.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">The war came at the worst moment possible for the Israelis. The current government coalition led by Benjamin Netanyahu has been discredited in multiple ways, involving personal misconduct, which is being litigated in Israeli courts, involving a weakening of the defense infrastructure by pushing the interests of radical settlers who are part of the government itself, and by eroding the trust of the majority of the Israeli people who have been out on the streets demonstrating against the pending legal reforms for months. Worst of all, Netanyahu and his ilk see no future for a Jewish and democratic state of Israel other than one that permanently condemns the Arab and other non-Jewish citizens of Israel to second class citizenship. Their vision of a Greater Israel is not just incrementally realized by means of settlements and infrastructure projects across the West Bank but also pushed by constant harassment and provocation of the Arab population by the radical settlers, often with the tacit support of the military. It is therefore not surprising that even long-standing friends of Israel, Jews and non-Jews alike, are becoming frustrated with the policies of the State of Israel. As friends of Israel, others and I are heartened by the tremendous engagement of Israelis, Jewish, Arab, and other, for the return of the abducted and care for the survivors of the massacre, even when it goes against the war aims of their government; by people who speak truth to power even when their dissent is being stifled; by the many groups who foster coexistence; by Jews who draw attention to settler abuse, standing between their fellow Jews and the Arab shepherds and farmers of the South Hebron Hills.</span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">The damage caused by the massacre in Israel and by the Israeli government in Gaza is mind-numbing. As mere spectators we seem condemned to watch, open-mouthed, what unfolds with grim necessity. Our readiness to protest and call for a halt to the military overreach and the death and depravation it causes to Palestinian lives is canceled out by the wave of anti-Israel propaganda spilling all over social media and parroted by people who until recently had barely an idea where Palestine was. One marvels at the fact that this crisis is spinning out of control while so many other conflicts are being forgotten or ignored. Who benefits from this disaster?</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Here is a possible outcome that one could live with. The combined pressure of protests across the globe will move governments, however reluctantly, to put pressure on the warring parties (and not just on Israel), to enter into a long-term truce. Because Israel will have failed to remove Hamas, the government of Israel will fall and there will be new elections in which someone like Gantz will emerge with a mandate to move the needle of Israeli politics toward Israeli-Palestinian rapprochement. Initially, the old guard of the PLO will take the lead on the Palestinian side, but they will soon be eclipsed by people like Hanan Ashrawi and Marwan Barghouti who will insist on political rights, not just the faux authority and moneyed impotence that has haunted the PNA from the day it was established. It was the flawed rule and corruption of Arafat and his circle that gave rise to the protest vote that brought Hamas to power in the Gaza strip. A repeat of this debacle cannot be the solution to the leadership vacuum among the Palestinians that Hamas stepped in to fill.</span></div><div style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">To those who believe that this war is the beginning of the end of the “Zionist colonialist settler regime,” I would say: no and perhaps. Israel will persist. The Jews are part of the Middle East, as they have always been. They will not go away. In that sense, no. But perhaps the neo-Zionism of the Israeli right and the religious-national chauvinism of the radical settlers can be reined in and be replaced with something more productive, something based on mutual respect and equality. The future of Israel, Palestine, and one may add the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, if there is to be one, must be based on equal rights of movement and citizens’ rights for all in whatever political and economic federation will emerge from this highly problematic and unstable political morass. Europe did it after many centuries of warfare. Why shouldn’t the Middle East?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-37443024833188754432023-11-26T21:53:00.000-08:002024-03-06T08:16:29.507-08:00Must We Take Sides? <p><br /></p><p class="p2" style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In times of war, someone said, people tend to take sides. In this war, perhaps more so than in others, it feels difficult to take sides. Or rather, it comes too easily. Taking sides takes no imagination at all. Big words are at hand, accusatory ones, that cast the enemy as the enemy not only of a people but of the entire human race. Accusations of crimes of war were flying almost before the first rockets landed on either side. The prize in this war is not victory but victimhood. Who has the greater claim to it? Whose cause is just? This, at least, is not a new question.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p2" style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">As always, the price of war is paid by ordinary people. War never distinguishes between good and bad people; like an ancient god, it kills the good along with the bad. Our cry for an end to this war should ring out loudly and it should ring out on behalf of all those many men and women, old and young that have no part in it. Why should the innocent suffer with the guilty? Why should the innocent suffer, while the wicked masters of this war prosper in safety and abundance? The wicked are casting this as a war between nations, a war of national self-defense against a nation and a movement that guns for the erasure of the other. Who, in such a war, is innocent if it is a matter of them or us? In such a war, they say, there is no innocent civilian protected by the laws of war. The entire nation is guilty and responsible, by their very existence, for one's own suffering. What does it mean to defend oneself against a mortal threat that emanates from another people, not just from their army or their leadership, where such even exists? It means total war. This, too, is not a novel idea in the history of war mongering. Where this narrative prevails, taking sides inevitably means to own the rhetoric of annihilation as well. Taking sides means to tar an entire people with one brush.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p2" style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Taking sides without aiding and abetting the rhetoric of annihilation and total war requires surgical precision in one's perception and in one's words. Such precision comes dearly in the heat of passion. But surgical precision is for analysts. What matters more than context and the long view, more than sociological or political perspectives, more than any intellectual answer at all, is our very human ability to relate to one another as human beings. Our resistance to demonization. Our ability to defy the pressure to identify with only one side; to defy the pressure to take sides.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This is not an argument for neutrality. It is not an argument at all. It is more of a reminder of the many times before when people of good will on both sides of a conflict were silenced by the drums of war. Where individuality was erased, and groupthink took over. Where personality was suffocated by slogans. I understand the urgency. I just don't feel that taking sides is what we should be doing right now. We don't need more realism. What we need is a kind of miracle. An uprising with one another, not against one another. A cross-border revolution, not a cross-border incursion, violent rectification, or revenge. A removal of the cancerous forces that poison the minds on both sides. In other words: imagination and resistance to being cast as actors in an interminable conflict. Where there are no sides to take, there will be no more war. </span></p>Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-18623904430576263122023-10-28T02:35:00.010-07:002023-11-08T05:03:43.465-08:00Hamas Already Won<p>The massacre of October 7 left over 1400 Israelis brutally murdered. More than 200 people have been kidnapped, including women, children, infants, elderly and infirm. These are facts, though I have seen media reports, including interviews with representatives of Hamas, the organization responsible for the massacre, that refuse to confirm these facts and call them Israeli propaganda. The Israeli military response was belated. As of this writing, it has extracted a heavy price in human lives on the Palestinian side. The numbers have been climbing every day. As of yesterday, October 27, according to Al Jazeera relying on figures provided by the Palestinian Health Ministry, 7326 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military operations, more than 18,000 have been wounded, and over a million Palestinian residents of Gaza have lost their homes and have become refugees in the sealed-off territory. Some international aid has reached the Gaza Strip, but water, fuel, and electricity are running out, including in the hospitals that care for the wounded. </p><p>If one starts counting from 1948, when Israel declared independence as a Jewish state in Palestine, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now in its 75th year. From the beginning, this conflict was never just local and territorial, but regional, even global, and symbolic. At the same time, the price for this conflict has always been paid by human beings, that is, by fathers, mothers, and children who are Jewish, Muslim, and Christian, Arab, Druze, Bedouin, and many who identify in multiple or neither of these ways. Some communities are highly traditional in their way of life, like the Jewish Haredim, or they have lived their multi-generational lives in rural areas harassed by the needs of a military administration, like the Bedouin of the Southern Hebron Hills in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank, or they have been limited in movement and mobility, such as the Palestinians living in UNRWA-supported refugee camps, including in parts of Gaza. Meanwhile, generations of Jews from around the globe saw Israel as a haven and supported the state and its aspirations economically and spiritually, celebrating its astounding achievements while often turning a blind eye to the human cost of the ever-expanding footprint of the Jewish state in Palestine, paid by a population seen as hostile, unreasonable and ever acting against their own best interests, as conceived from afar. </p><p>When violence erupts, early on in form of the armed struggle of the fedayeen, in the airplane abductions and terror attacks of the 1970s, in the series of wars between Israel and its neighboring states, in the first and second Intifada and, since then, in rocket attacks from Gaza or more recently in the new militarization of Palestinian youths in Jenin, world attention returns to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With the massacre of October 7, the unresolved political conflict--one that Israelis have been saying can only be managed, not resolved--has returned to the front burner. </p><p>Many declared their solidarity with Israel. "We stand with Israel" was projected onto the Brandenburg Gate. But before the utter devastation wreaked by the Hamas brigades and others, including the Islamic Jihad, could fully sink in, world opinion turned. Almost instantaneously the brief moment of the world's sympathy with the Jewish victims was overshadowed by the Israeli military response, which highlighted the power inequilibrium between Israel and the Palestinians. Israeli attacks on Gaza, which many governments around the world have condoned as a legitimate response to the horrendous massacre, not only produced thousands of Palestinian dead and wounded, but it erased all sympathy for and interest in Israeli suffering. The seemingly effortless incursion of Hamas and its allies into Israeli territory and their ability to escape virtually unhindered, except for cases of heroic local resistance, has already shattered the myth of Israel's military prowess, the ability of the Israeli state to protect its citizens from harm, of Israel representing an island of tranquility in a sea of hostile populations. Now, with hundreds of thousands of Palestinians again on the move, desperately seeking safety from an overpowering, relentless, and unceasing attack, with houses upon houses and neighborhoods upon neighborhoods in rubble, with people taking what they could, carrying their children, elderly and infirm on their backs and trying to save their lives--all taking place in front of a global audience and broadcast live on our social media--it is 1948 all over again. </p><p>Israel has pledged to destroy Hamas, a reasonable pledge given the threat to Israeli security that has emanated from the Islamist group not just now but repeatedly. "Mowing the lawn" -- as some have called the previous military actions in Gaza -- no longer suffices. But by attempting to destroy Hamas by overwhelming military force unloaded on the Palestinian people in Gaza, Israel has fallen into a trap, one that Hamas had set for it. A ground war on the soil of Gaza would be fought at a huge human cost on both sides, and whether Israel can achieve victory is unclear, among other reasons because there's no clear scenario as to what victory would look like. There are indications that Israel is preparing for war on multiple fronts. Iran is threatening to mobilize its regional allies. US warships have moved in place. All around, this is not a comforting scenario.</p><p>But Hamas already won. They won when they breached the border with thousands of militants and returned largely unscathed. And they won again, when Israel acted with overwhelming force, ignoring the fate of the kidnapped, and effectively collapsing the difference between Hamas and the Palestinians. Israel has conferred a legitimacy on Hamas that it never enjoyed before. This is evident from the -- admittedly simplistic -- campaigns of solidarity with the Palestinians all around the globe. There is no longer a clear difference between a legitimate target of Israeli military operations and the Palestinian people. People therefore choose sides, and they are increasingly choosing the side of the Palestinian people victimized by Israel. Hamas won this one, too. The over 1400 dead and however many wounded and kidnapped Israeli men, women, and children are forgotten. The kidnapped are even forgotten by the Israeli government, which refuses to enter into a humanitarian ceasefire for the sake of hostage negotiations, while Hamas earns points by releasing a few captives. </p><p>The emotions of various publics are triggered and stirred in various directions. There is the righteous anger: at one's own government that's on the wrong side of history; at those who just don't understand; at the eternal enemy. There is utter confusion: what sources of information can be trusted? Who is right? There is despair and frustration: why can't we/they just get along? There are the protests and the counter-protests: spontaneous, manufactured, for or against, repressed and disrupted. Mostly, the public watches helplessly, speechlessly, overwhelmed by the many things that seem to be going wrong at the same time. People feel (and are in fact) canceled and placed on the defensive for speaking their truth; we can barely listen to one another without the sense that the abyss of violent conflict will also destroy our friendships and personal relationships. Campuses are erupting. Categories are slipping and differences are obscured. The first victim in a war, someone said, is the truth. Another one seems to be nuance, the ability to distinguish and to differentiate, to hold more than one truth in one's head at the same time.</p><p>As to the regional context playing out, one usually forgotten when one thinks of the Israel-Palestine conflict as a match between two (equal or unequal) sides, the ongoing warming of relations between Israel and its Sunni-Arab neighbors, an uneasy alliance, but one that seems to hold for now, has those neighbors watch and see how Israel responds. The governments of Egypt, the Emirates, and Saudi Arabia--governed by repressive regimes, to put it mildly--while always claiming to speak on behalf of the Palestinians, are really interested--self-interested--in how Israel responds; after all the Sunni-Arab/Israeli détente is really about Iran and its allies: can Israel continue to serve as a buffer and a military counterweight to Iran or will it cave? It is this silent government to government language of regional diplomacy, aimed at maintaining a mutual deterrence that will keep the current regimes relevant and in place, that -- aside from other reasons -- the Israeli government's military response to the Hamas massacre is speaking to. The international community's demand--as expressed by the recent non-binding UN General Assembly call for a humanitarian ceasefire--will fall on deaf ears as long as the regional powers are expecting a strong military action, or as long as the newly formed emergency cabinet believes that that is what is expected of it.</p><p>Analysis such as offered here is cold comfort to people who just want the violence to stop. It is cold comfort to me. I want the violence to stop. I want the kidnapped to be returned. I want the Palestinian and Israeli communities to recover from this terrible moment and return to the negotiating table with the utmost seriousness and urgency. I want there to be a lasting peace and cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians, whatever the political form of such a collaboration. I know that it can be done, if only there is the political will to do it. Right now, the war mongers have the upper hand. Once again, the forces of evil have prevailed over the forces of good. The Israeli civil society that has been on the streets to prevent Israel from turning into just another authoritarian regime has been stabbed in the back by an alliance of the worst on both sides. Settler rampaging continues in the West Bank. Palestinian lives and livelihoods are being suffocated, starved, dishonored, insulted and destroyed on a daily basis. This must stop, and it could stop immediately. And yet, perhaps we must also remember, at the same time, that Israel, though militarily the stronger party, is not the only party. We must not allow Hamas to win the war of public opinion either. Netanyahu and his government do not represent Israel or the Jewish people. Neither does Hamas represent the Palestinian people, though right now it seems--for better or worse--that they do. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-44157153626631253542023-07-26T12:51:00.011-07:002023-07-26T17:32:06.078-07:00Tisha b'Av 5783<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The Ninth of Av is a solemn date on the Hebrew calendar. It marks the date when the first and second Jewish temple in Jerusalem were destroyed, events that took place more than half a millennium apart, the last one almost 2000 years ago. That the two events are commemorated on the same date is based on the tradition that they were destroyed on the same day, suggesting that it was not simply an act of the empires–first the Chaldean, then the Roman–that caused the destruction, but that those empires merely acted at the behest of the God of Israel, Ha-kadosh Baruch Hu.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The first temple, as the prophets attest, was destroyed either because Israel rejected the prophets and their dire warnings, or because of the sins of King Manasseh (who, at least in the Greek version of Scripture, gets to repent), or because "the fathers had eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth were set on edge." In any case, it was impossible to account for the destruction without blaming the people or the kings of Judah for the stiff-necked disobedience ("since I brought you out of the Land of Egypt, the house of slaves"), their refusal to worship YHWH alone, their worship of other gods, or other transgressions. Whatever the blame, responsibility for the destruction lay with God alone who merely made good on the threat he had issued long before, that the land was to "vomit them out," just as it had vomitted out the Amorites and the other Canaanite people, once the measure of their sins was full.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Eventually (as prophecied by Jeremiah), Jews returned from Babylon and, under Persian tutelage, restored the temple, though not the kingship of David. Henceforth, it was the temple and its priesthood that anchored Jewish existence and provided the ritual condition for Jewish communal life and collective thriving, at home and abroad. The shift in institutions from kingship to priesthood is reflected in the rewritten version of Chronicles, which eliminates the history of the northern kingdom, expurgates the story of David, retroactively establishes the Levites at the heart of the sacred ritual life, and elevates the deity venerated in Jerusalem to the status of God Almighty. This new reading of the ancient legacy of Judahites and Israelites (now contested between Jews and Samaritans), shaped – as it may have been – by the Jews of Babylonia under Persian rule, was firmly in place when Greek traveling ethnographers – before and in the wake of Alexander – extolled the Jews as the "Brahmins of Syria" and a "race of philosophers."</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">After the second temple was destroyed (in "AD 70"), the rabbis in charge of reorganizing Jewish life under direct Roman rule needed to answer the question, why. They also needed to answer the question of how long, a favorite question of apocalyptists who believed that the history of the holy people unfolded with the predictability of astronomic events. The rabbis of the Mishnah, the so-called Tannaim of the second and early third century responsible for aggregating the Oral Torah in encyclopedic and accessible terms, were no friends of apocalyptic fervor, even though some of the most venerated teachers of the previous generation had supported the abortive Bar Kochba Revolt of 132-135 CE and paid with their lives for their anti-Roman zeal. Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, the prince in charge of the Jews of the Land of Israel (then: Syria-Palaestina) knew better. The Mishnah projects a deeply apolitical, non-nationalistic, irenic way of life for the "People of Israel." (I am sure not even then everyone was pleased.) </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This does not mean that the Tannaitic rabbis accepted the destruction of the temple as a <i>fait accompli. </i>One retained the memory of temple-related practices, one diligently preserved and studied the commandments pertaining to the temple services and priesthood, one compensated for the absence of sacrifices through prayer and other <i>mitzvot, </i>one prayed for the restoration of the temple, the ingathering of the exiles and the return of King David to be accomplished "speedily in our days," and hence one made every conceivable preparation for the sacrifices to be resumed the moment the opportunity was to arise and a return to Jerusalem and a rebuilding of the temple seemed possible. Meanwhile, the rabbis also taught, if you are in the middle of planting an apple tree and someone says, Messiah is at the gate, finish planting your apple tree and then go and greet Messiah.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">When asked, why the temple was destroyed the second time around, their answer was equally sanguine and pragmatic. It was, they said, because of civil war, because disunity among the Jews. Today we might say, because of polarization.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">As this year's Ninth of Av approaches –– where I am writing, the sun has yet to set –– civil-war-like confrontations are playing out in the Land of Israel. The Jews, so some say, have returned to the Land of Israel, and there are those among them whose messianic expectations are nourished by their interpretation of the historic events of our times. They hope and expect that the rebuilding of the Temple is imminent. They want to enshrine a love for the Third Temple in the hearts of all school-aged Jewish children. They believe that the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was a divine miracle, a sign of divine providence acting on behalf of the Jews. That the conquest of the Temple Mount in June 1967, along with that of the ancient regions of Judea and Samaria, was "the beginning of the sprouting of our redemption." That settling the complete Land of Israel is a divine commandment and that negotiating away an inch of holy land conquered by the <i>T'svah Haganah Le-yisrael, </i>the IDF, in her wars with an implacable enemy out to destroy us, is a grievous sin that endangers the path toward redemption. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Many left wing and liberal Jews in Israel and elsewhere once dismissed as marginal the Jewish Underground that planned to blow up the Dome of the Rock to hasten redemption, the Jewish Defense League that inspired the 1994 massacre at the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, and the young hooligans of <i>La Familia </i>and their ilk who have routinized attacks on Arab property and people and rendered anti-Arab hate-speech endemic. They thought all this was an exception, a passing phenomenon, a temporary aberration in the history of the Jewish people rendered harmless by the "most ethical army in the world" and neutralized by the "only democracy in the Middle East." </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This is now a matter of the past. People have woken up to the fact that the erstwhile underground is now in the government, that what could once be dismissed as a "cancer on Israeli society" – dangerous but operable – has metastasized and threatens to be lethal to Israeli democracy itself. As hundreds of thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets for more than six months, while the governing coalition is plowing ahead with legal reforms that, whatever one's political opinion, are rending asunder the social contract among the citizens of Israel, a Ninth of Av is upon us unlike any one we have seen in our lifetime.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In Israel, for those who fast on the Ninth of Av and for those who don't, the choice seems to be this: can we hold more than one truth in our heads and hearts at the same time? Can we pray for forgiveness and lament the destruction of the ancient Jewish temples, while also remembering Isaiah's prediction that Jerusalem was to become a house of prayer for all nations? Can we fervently hope for the coming of Messiah and believe, at the same time, that no real Messiah–or at least not one we should welcome at the gate–will want the Jews to rule at the cost and at the expense of Arab lives? Can we celebrate the ingathering of the exiles as the unprecedented miracle and sign of divine favor that it has been, without giving up the hope that swords will be beat into plough shares?</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">A man-made, man-willed <i>beyt ha-miqdash</i> can only lead to another <i>hurban. </i>We need Messiah, but we don't need the kind of messianism that led to the destruction of the holy temple in the first place. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">We pray for our friends in Israel who have been on the streets week after week, holding vigil out of hope and faith in a Jewish and democratic state of Israel. It may be time to think new, larger, more capacious thoughts; to repent and start from scratch. Not to fear those who use force! They are losing power even as they believe to have gained the upper hand. Believe in the prophets! לא בחייל ולא בכוח כי עם ברוחי אמר ה׳! The future is now! Revolutions happen. May the People of Israel seize the moment! May the citizens of Israel – all of them, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation – take back their country! May the Israeli experiment be renewed in the spirit of the Hebrew prophets! May democracy prevail!</span></div> <p></p>Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-13959561363860762242018-05-15T05:04:00.003-07:002018-05-15T20:58:10.943-07:00US Embassy: The Right Move at the Wrong Time<span style="font-family: "cambria";">On May 14, 2018, seventy years after Israel became an independent state, the United States of America moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The excitement over this move, and the dismay over the deathly clashes that took place along the Gaza Strip on the same day, should not obscure that it was for good reasons that the United States took its time (seventy years) to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
Jerusalem has been Israel’s capital for three thousand years, since the days when King David moved the seat of his realm to the mountain fortress of the Jebusites, as narrated in the Second Book of Samuel, chapter 5. Since then, the Judahites or Jews, as they came to be known, have had no other capital. Jerusalem boasted a royal temple that was the symbol of national unity, a sacred center devoted to a national deity that Jews, Christian, and Islamic traditions proclaim as God Almighty. It is this rise of a national deity to God Almighty that transformed Jerusalem from a remote mountain fortress into the holy city it is today: a center of worship for the three great Abrahamic traditions. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
These facts are well known. Religious communities have coexisted in Jerusalem for millennia. Under generations of Muslim caliphs and sultans, Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived and worshiped cheek to jowl. Agreeing to disagree on the right path to eternal redemption, they both rebuked and acknowledged one another as “people of the book,” readers of revealed holy scriptures that taught them that the real Jerusalem was “above” rather than below. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
Until May 14, 2018, when the United States government (though not congress, which had long demanded that the US embassy be moved to Jerusalem) caved to the pressure of a certain kind of strong reading of the Holy Scriptures and imposed an apocalyptic, end-time thinking on US foreign policy. With the move of the embassy to Jerusalem, American Evangelicals, allying themselves with the national-religious coalition in Israeli politics, have taken over US foreign policy. Until now, religion and state had been separate in the United States. Foreign policy was governed by collective self-interest and statecraft. In their place, we now see grand gestures abroad that appeal to a narrow base at home. All because of a foolish campaign promise that should not have been made, and that should have been broken, unless it was accompanied by a comprehensive plan for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Instead, Palestinian moderates are ignored and discouraged, while the radicals are empowered.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
“The end” should always come only at the end, after all preliminary matters have been settled. Moreover, it should be God’s prerogative to bring about “the end” envisaged by the biblical apocalyptists. Moving the embassy did not hasten redemption. It will not bring about Middle East peace. The move ignores the human side of redemption. It is a careless, heartless, self-congratulatory act that trivializes Palestinian suffering and ignores the values of justice and peace. It does not even serve American interests abroad. It is a poke in the eye of those who seek peace, reconciliation, and co-existence. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
No, I don’t believe that God Almighty was happy when he saw what happened yesterday, even though the national god of the Jews might have rejoiced. For Jews, this is a time to choose: between the god of Jewish nationalism and the god of the biblical prophets. <o:p></o:p></div>
Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-82874289081300939802017-12-17T06:41:00.002-08:002017-12-17T06:41:34.725-08:00The Jerusalem Declaration: Why I signed itDear Ilya-<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
I don’t know you, so it is hard for me to say where your question comes from. </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
But I can tell you that I am concerned with the peace and the prosperity of Jerusalem and all of its inhabitants. Like many others I assumed that the United States held a key role as an honest broker in the Middle East. I am afraid that the President’s declaration signals the administration’s abdication of that role. </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
We already know and agree that, for us as Jews, Jerusalem is Israel’s eternal capital. It will be and remain so whether or not anyone else recognizes this fact. The Jewish State can continue to exist without claiming exclusive ownership of Jerusalem. The Jewish state existed and thrived for two decades before 1967. It was founded on the hard labor of generations of pioneers and the devotion to the Land of Israel of pious Jews inside and outside the holy land. Our devotion to the Holy Land and to the Holy City should not blind us to the rights and needs of others who are no less devoted to the city of Jerusalem and its holy places. </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
Jerusalem’s status should not be reduced to a pawn in nationalist and exceptionalist rhetoric that appeals to the apocalyptic longings of Evangelical Christians or messianic Jews. Jews owe gratitude to the Muslim community for readmitting the Jews after centuries of banishment upheld under Roman Christian rule. We should be wary of the embrace of Israel by so-called Christian Zionists who ultimately hope for the conversion of the Jews to Christ and who want to precipitate the end of history, which as they envision it, entails the great war between Gog and Magog that is to be fought in the Land of Israel. As Jews our interests do not align with that scenario and those are not our friends who promote it in their incessant propaganda.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
I don’t wish to be part of this new alliance between Jewish nationalism/messsianism and Christian Evangelical millenarian dispensationalism that thrives on Islamophobic rhetoric, is nourished by the delusion of having special access to God, and despises the wisdom of critical thinking and the prudence of diplomacy.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
I will have no part in this. These are the reasons why I signed <a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfrK3Lt_vdHSCPCxUZYpOm5QHNWmKG7aW8lYHt8sfhdzilWVA/viewform" target="_blank">the declaration in question</a>.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
With best wishes-</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
Michael Zank</div>
Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-56619725414616310912017-10-09T13:37:00.001-07:002017-10-09T13:37:53.550-07:00Jerusalem Covenant<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3xaAeM2ki7X_xvqO2h_lbUcUUabfLY4qWk6c9ZkDpxb6IB21zXKnMAov8BIaOEfdYTnPfDBbGHpz5G0pDr_ZIiiLC31RkQG34lsW_mmW__kETUwxesyQq9xxaOUqtahMGWwTuEBtmNuSK/s1600/Screenshot+2017-10-09+16.28.05.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1014" data-original-width="1512" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3xaAeM2ki7X_xvqO2h_lbUcUUabfLY4qWk6c9ZkDpxb6IB21zXKnMAov8BIaOEfdYTnPfDBbGHpz5G0pDr_ZIiiLC31RkQG34lsW_mmW__kETUwxesyQq9xxaOUqtahMGWwTuEBtmNuSK/s320/Screenshot+2017-10-09+16.28.05.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Today a message arrived in my inbox, prompting me to sign the "Jerusalem Covenant," a document first published in 1992 and newly distributed by an outfit called Israel365, which describes itself as "promot(ing) the beauty and religious significance of Israel." Except, as in similarly oriented depictions of Jerusalem, the most obviously beautiful and doubtlessly religiously significant Dome of the Rock is obscured (edited out). Accident? Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-55074141720648223292017-10-01T09:35:00.001-07:002017-10-01T09:35:24.768-07:00De mortuis nihil nisi bene? Some thoughts apropos Shimon PeresWhen it comes to setting the record straight on Shimon Peres, <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/the-shimon-peres-palestinians-cant-forget/">Yousef Munayeer</a> is surely not objective. But I can understand that the panegyric praise heaped on the ninth president of Israel does not sit well with him. Critical Israeli voices have similarly emphasized more problematic aspects of his long and sometimes awkward career.<br />
<br />
Peres not only lost important elections but played a role in shaping Israel's defense industry and nuclear program, and he presided over the establishment of the first settlements that ironically became part of his political undoing. Mr. Munayeer is exasperated at the whitewashing of Peres' record. But there is also something else to be considered. Take Israel's ties with Apartheid South Africa for example. Though this doesn't look good now, nor looked good then, the arms trade was an important economic factor for Israel at the time when a pervasive Arab boycott isolated Israel economically. Those weren't good days with few good options. When it comes to Peres and the settlement of Ofra, the early Gush Emunim were then not such an obvious obstacle to peace but they were becoming an important factor in public relations and the electoral landscape. Many of the founders of the early settlements don't see the current generation of extremists and price-taggers as upholding the values that had inspired them back then. Many of the more traditional settlers are eager to establish good and mutually respectful relationships with their Palestinian neighbors, believe it or not. It is easy to politicize everything, easy to obscure complexity. Of course, Peres made poor choices and sometimes even horrible ones. But he also may have made some good ones. None of this, by the way, deserves the vile demonization one can find in comment threads right here on FB, which is of course completely different and much much worse than Munayeer's measured prose.<br />
<br />
I am not sure where I am going with this. A statesman dies and we all try in one way or another to sum up his life, his actions, his character. At moments like this we turn into "personalists," setting aside the impersonal forces we might otherwise see at work, or we subsume the individual under larger narratives where even statesmen, people presumed to have the power to act rather than merely react, are reduced to represent larger phenomena deemed good or evil. When Peres is praised as the peacemaker he ostensibly became and as who he is honored even by President Mahmud Abbas (a choice and act of courage in light of Palestinian contempt for Peres) then this, too, is a political act, one meant to shame Benjamin Netanyahu by contrast. Peres the peacemaker is a figure in an Oslo Accord narrative that is, for the left, a usable past. Munayeer wants to remind the readers of <i>The Nation</i> of the real Peres, not the one mythologized by the doves. It is also an attempt to separate fact from fiction, but it falls short by inadvertently feeding a counter-narrative.<br />
<br />
[This post was originally posted on Facebook. President Peres passed away on September 28, 2016.] Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-44449519199184812522016-10-28T04:41:00.000-07:002016-10-28T04:41:01.624-07:00Should the US President Get Re-engaged in Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations? Duh. Should President Obama encourage Israeli-Palestinian
peacemaking? Of course he should, as indeed he did when he authorized Secretary of State John
Kerry to make a major push to persuade the parties to resume direct
negotiations. Why were they not persuaded? Why has the peace-process stalled
that started in the early 1990’s and went on until 2008, when then Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert affirmed the parameters of a bilateral final status
agreement made by his predecessor Ehud Barak at Camp David in 2000 and
confirmed by President Clinton and subsequent administrations? Alan Dershowitz
(“Obama, slow your roll on Mideast peace process,” in the Boston Globe of
October 26, 2016) is right when he suggests that once again, a lame-duck
president may be expected to give it a last push to help birth a peace
agreement. At a recent Harvard Program on Negotiations panel on what the US can
do to help revive the two-state-solution, Israeli negotiator Gilead Sher and
Palestinian survey researcher Khalil Shikaki agreed that this is exactly what
President Obama should do. Professor Dershowitz agrees that PM Netanyahu and
President Abbas should sit down and engage in direct talks. But he wants the US
president to refrain from making a statement that might boost UN involvement in
the negotiations. Dershowitz fails to say what, short of international
diplomatic pressure, might induce the two parties to resume negotiations.
Gilead Sher and Khalil Shikaki agreed that the current lack of political will
is eroding hope and mutual trust among the Israelis and the Palestinians. Sher
was specifically worried that inaction has placed Israel on a slippery slope to
a binational Apartheid state. According to Shikaki, a “no-partner-syndrome” is
prevailing that is eroding Palestinian trust in its own secular nationalists.
If the two parties in this interminable conflict cannot get to the table,
someone else will need to step in. If Dershowitz doesn’t want it to be the
American president, French and Russian presidents are waiting in the wings.
<p>
As a footnote: In a paragraph on the “multitude of complex
and contentious issues (…) that must be thoroughly addressed in order to
achieve a lasting peace,” Alan Dershowitz reflexively refers to the “so-called
Palestinian refugees.” It may not be that important how Professor Dershowitz
feels about the Palestinian refugees but that he felt the need to question the
genuineness of their refugee status in a paragraph on issues to be resolved
draws attention to where he stands and what he cares about the most. Like
Bernard Avishai in a presentation at Boston University in 2011 (see <a href="http://dailyfreepress.com/2011/09/19/learning-history-necessary-to-resolve-israeli-palestinian-conflict-speaker-says/">http://dailyfreepress.com/2011/09/19/learning-history-necessary-to-resolve-israeli-palestinian-conflict-speaker-says/</a>),
Alan Dershowitz seems to worry most about the refugee issue. To delegitimize
Palestinian refugees may be in the long-term strategic interest of Israel as a
Jewish state, but it needlessly muddies the waters if it is flagged as the
single-most intractable issue among the “multitude of complex and contentious
issues.” It is also a tactically problematic, needlessly partisan move. To
dissuade the American president from taking a stand and encourage the parties
to get back to the negotiating table, Dershowitz needs to provide Mr. Obama with
arguments. Instead he suggests a policy position: a return of
hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to what is
now Israel is - in Dershowitz's view - non-negotiable. Fine. He has a right to his opinion. But he expresses it in a way that is
insulting to the very Palestinians he hopes will be persuaded to return to
direct negotiations, even though he doesn’t want the US or the UN do the
persuading. In other words, Dershowitz strengthens the hands of those who want
the decisions over the future of one of the parties to be made by the other
party, while that other party is not supposed to put any preconditions on the table. This is precisely the reason why
these negotiations have long since stalled. One must conclude that Alan
Dershowitz is not sincere in his wish for direct negotiations, not unless the
table is stacked against the Palestinians from the very start.
<br />
<br />
A shorter version of this blog entry appeared as
<a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2016/10/27/how-get-netanyahu-abbas-table-that-question/GtRXjYLoXIe7rO8shET9SN/story.html#comments" target="_blank">Letter to the Editor, <i>Boston Globe</i> of October 28, 2016 (print edition p. A15)</a>Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-14709106244055725552016-10-27T05:44:00.001-07:002016-10-27T06:05:02.887-07:00"Rabin in His Own Words"Yesterday, the Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies at Boston University held its fourth annual Yitzhak Rabin memorial event by screening Erez Laufer's bio-pic "Rabin in His Own Words," followed by a talk-back with the director. In conversation afterwards Laufer explained that the film had been timed to be released on the twentieth anniversary of the assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister and long-time military and public figure and broadcast on a minor Israeli docu-channel. Laufer worked on the film for about fifteen months, pretty much around the clock, using extensive archival recordings publicly available at the Rabin Center, among other sources. Among his notable revelations were the extraordinary statements Rabin made on the settlements as a "cancer" on Israeli society and the premonition of an Israeli Apartheid state if they were allowed to grow. Laufer told us that Rabin had included some of these statements in the draft of his autobiography but they were expunged by the political censor. While he had to leave them out of the Hebrew version of his book he went on and leaked them to the New York Times so they became public knowledge after all.<br />
<br />
The film is moving. It provides a history of the modern state of Israel from the British Mandate period where Rabin came of age as the son of Russian immigrants and a young Palmachnik charged with helping immigrant survivors of the Shoah to enter Palestine illegally, acts for which he was detained by the British along with his father, who had nothing to do with it and did everything to help his son not to feel guilty about it. The narrative moves through the great moments of Israel's history: the run-up to the war of independence in '48, when Rabin was a commander in Jerusalem who helped a Haganah convoy to break the blockade of the city but helplessly witnessed the demise of a group of 14 to 16 year-old recruits and the evacuation of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City; the re-capture of the Old City in 1967 that was both filmed and simulcast on Israeli radio; the horrors of the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the subsequent demise of the labor party elite and the ugly power struggle between himself and Shimon Peres; his first stint as Prime Minister that ended in scandal and the elections of Menachem Begin as Prime Minister; his stint as Secretary of Defense in a national unity government in the late eighties that saw the rise of Palestinian violence in the occupied territories; his pivot toward the PLO ("<i>Ashaf</i>") in the nineties; his vilification by the opposition; and his final moments.<br />
<br />
In between, Laufer mounts scenes Rabin took with his small old-fashioned film camera, home movies that allow you to see the world through Rabin's eyes in addition to hearing his spoken and written voice. These scenes, mostly of his wife and children, his father and sister, at home, in Washington D.C. during his stint as ambassador, and on vacation, are sweet and gentle, contrasting with the seriousness of the sepia-toned documentary moments of struggle, and stark television footage of terrorist violence, political demonstrations, and prime-ministerial statements.<br />
<br />
What emerges is a consistent character. Without the aid of voice-over and with minimal explanatory panels that reference dates, places, and events - presupposing viewer familiarity with the general story - we get acquainted with a very curious, very Israeli, very shy leader, who loves his stern mother, his caring father, his sister, and his children, serves his country in several distinguised positions of leadership, weathers threats and crises, and in a certain way never changes. He is always the same loving, terse, shy person who does what he believes is right and good for his people and his country. No wonder, Bill Clinton is proud to have called him <i>haver</i>, friend. One gets the sense one meets an antique hero, a simple man who rose through the ranks of service and took on the leadership of his country in times of need. An old-fashioned patriot who doesn't excel through rhetoric, who is not a politician but a leader, a reflective do-er.<br />
<br />
Arabs make scant appearances in this documentary, as if they played a marginal role in Rabin's life. With the exception of a few leaders such as Egypt's president Anwar al-Sadat, King Hussein of Jordan, and Yasser Araft, they only appear as collectives, in contexts of war, expulsion, and in visual cues such as areal shots of villages and landscapes. We hear only a few Arab voices and they only speak Hebrew or English: a student from Nazareth who asks why Israel is not negotiating with the PLO (this was before the 90's); construction workers demanding living wages but also respond to the star-power of the moment of interaction with the Prime Minister; King Hussein in 1994, on a diplomatic occasion. The film shows the document in which Rabin - at then-PM Ben Gurion's command - orders the evacuation of the Arabs of Lod, leading to acts of violence that persuade the Arabs of neighboring Ramle, which is next on the list, to leave voluntarily. He then orders his men to clean up the mess before an imminent Red Cross inspection. In a pivotal statement about Gush Emunim and the settlements, he berates them for having turned something that should be a matter of government or politics (<i>mediniyut</i>) into a matter of value (<i>inyan erki).</i> He is incensed. The opposition runs deep. He has the first settlements cleared, but then he loses power and is sidelined, while Begin reaps the benefits of Rabin's policies of reconciliation with Egypt and makes the settlements a matter of policy. Rabin pays the ultimate price for applying his belief in legitimate coexistence between Israel and its Arab neighbors to the Palestinians. But it is not clear what he was thinking or who he was talking to. He merely appears dogged in his pursuit of the peace process (<i>tahalikh ha-shalom</i>) in the face of terror. Who were the Arabs that gave him the confidence that such a historic reconciliation was possible? Who did he listen to? Who gave him advice? What did he really think? Or was he as abstract in his thinking as he comes across toward the end, when his statements become even more terse, when he is booed and vilified by the opposition and can show his face in public only under security protection. We don't hear. The last word, btw, is not the assassination. Rabin has nothing to say about it, so it would be dramatically inappropriate. It is not the speech he gave in Tel Aviv in 1995 but Rabin's boyish smile and a gentle interaction with a teen he passes, who does not want to look at him nor get out of his way, with whom Rabin interacts gently.<br />
<br />
By using Rabin's voice and because Rabin was not much of a talker, the film gives only a few hints to the most painful moments in Rabin's life: the loss of his mother; the guilt about his father's internment and failing to make it back from D.C. before he died; his collapse in the run-up to the June '67 war that made him wonder why he didn't have what it took, as chief of staff, to stop a war he thought could be avoided; his beloved wife's public disgrace because of a harmless financial oversight; seeing his society destroyed by the perils of peace and security that emanated from fanatics exploited by opposition politicians. One would have wished this timely film a stronger response in Israel, but perhaps it is still not the moment for soul-searching. The cancer is still growing. The fever may need to run its course. I would not be surprised if this film will be rediscovered before long and exert the effect of its quiet, complicated, morally ambivalent message and allow for Rabin to reemerge, as he did so many times during his lifetime, as a posthumous icon of what is right, even though it is not always good.Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-13763322828608743622016-10-26T09:16:00.003-07:002016-10-26T09:26:23.090-07:00Rare papyrus from the 7th century mentions JerusalemA link forwarded by my former student Danielle Liberman reports on the finding of a rare 7th century papyrus fragment that refers to
a wine consignment for a person of high station in Jerusalem. Ancient
Hebrew manuscripts are very rare. What excites the reporter is that it
mentions Jerusalem (in the common biblical and more ancient spelling of
the name "yerushalem," not the later popular "yerushalayim"). What
excites me is that the servant of the king sending the wine is a woman,
herself clearly an important person.<br />
See the article<a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/oldest-hebrew-mention-of-jerusalem-found-on-rare-papyrus-from-7th-century-bce/#.WBC-2C3ElrI.email" target="_blank"> HERE.</a><br />
The significance of the difference in the spelling of the name is that it attests to the antiquity of the way in which it is spelled in most biblical references to the city by that name. The later and now common pronunciation (<i>Yerushalayim</i>) is a grammatical dual and indicates the mythological notion (found among others in St. Paul's letters and in rabbinic literature) that Jerusalem exists twice, namely, above and below. As the rabbis put it: <i>yerushalayim shel mata </i>and <i>yerushalayim shel ma'la.</i><br />
<i>"Yerushalem" </i>- the city's biblical name, now further attested in the newly identified papyrus - indicates that the biblical Judahites did not rename the city when they occupied it and made it the seat of their kingdom but simply continued calling it by its ancient Amorite/Hittite/Canaanite name, an homage to the "evening star"<i>shalem</i> (twin-brother of the "morning star").<br />
BTW, the article also reports that the papyrus was discovered during a sting operation that busted a ring of "looters" who were offering archaeological artifacts on the vast black market that exists for such items. The fourteen "looters" were apparently condemned to 18 years in prison, which sounds harsh to me. As long as they don't destroy the artifacts, perhaps they should be enlisted rather than punished. Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-85139028617238967062016-10-24T19:55:00.001-07:002016-10-24T20:06:54.962-07:00What is worse: no hope or no trust?This was one of the audience questions at tonight's Harvard Law School's Program on Negotiation event with a proposal statement by Gilead Sher and a commentary by Khalil Shikaki, followed by discussion moderated by the event's host and program director, Robert Mnookin. (See <a href="http://www.pon.harvard.edu/events/securing-a-two-state-solution-to-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/" target="_blank">HERE</a>.)<br />
Sher and Shikaki disagreed in their answer, as they did on much - though not everything - else. For Shikaki, a prominent survey researcher and regular Brandeis University Crown Center for Middle East Studies lecturer from Ramallah, it is the prevailing distrust among Palestinian and Israeli majorities that sustains a "no-partner-syndrome," which is the main reason why final status negotiations have stalled. For Sher, a prominent Tel Aviv lawyer and formerly chief negotiator on Jerusalem under Ehud Barak at Camp David, worse than distrust is hopelessness. The difference between these views speaks volumes. It illuminates the policy disagreement between Sher and Shikaki. Both are troubled by the stalled negotiations. For Sher, who emphasized his Zionist credentials as someone who believes in Israel as the nation state of the Jews and as a liberal democracy, the threat emanating from the lack of leadership is the slippery slope toward a one-state solution that threatens both, Israel's demographic Jewishness and its democratic constitution. In the absence of negotiations and to avoid for things getting only more complex and intractable, suggests Sher, Israel needs to prepare for the only plausible solution, the two state solution, by taking wise, practical policy steps that help to prepare the ground for two states, if need be unilaterally, with interim agreements and as much cooperation with the Palestinians and the international community as possible. Such concrete steps would presuppose the Clinton parameters of December 2000, which include the assumption that Israel would annex the major settlement blocs, compensate the Palestinians through land-swaps, and retain security positions along the perimeter of the West Bank and in strategic locations. It also includes reaching out to settlers living outside the major settlement blocs to persuade them, through positive and negative incentives, to resettle in the Negev, the Galilee or elsewhere in Israel. Instead of removing them by force, as was done during the unilateral disengagement from Gaza, they should be commended for having achieved what they set out to do, but then "to come home." In other words, Sher is interested in building consensus with rather than against the settler-community, as such a consensus within the complex Israeli society is the precondition for any peaceful resolution that achieves the desired result: the preservation of the Zionist vision - as Sher understands it - of Israel as a democratic nation state of the Jews. Without such policies and the will to implement them, Sher implied, there is no hope for Zionism. The bi-national Apartheit state that is the inevitable consequence of the ever more openly advocated annexation of the West Bank would be the end of Zionism.<br />
<br />
Khalil Shikaki disagreed. The unilateralism suggested by Sher would play into the hands of the religious extremists among the Palestinians. Unilateralism assumes, there is no partner, and thus while perhaps conducive to achieving the Zionist vision of a Jewish democratic nation state in the long run, it would undermine the partner there is, namely secular Palestinian nationalists, rewarding those who believe that Israelis only understand the language of force and hence result in more violence, at least in the short term.<br />
<br />
For a secular Palestinian nationalist like Shikaki, Sher's solution spells a further erosion of his own place within Palestinian society. It dismisses moderate Palestinians while holding on to the idea that moderate and liberal Israelis can somehow regain momentum within their own society, not for the sake of the Palestinians but for their own sake. Audience questions sounded a skeptical note. Some called for more practical suggestions and better strategies in place of rehashing the history of failed negotiations that took up much of Sher's time. Others challenged Sher to explain how he imagined the Knesset to be composed in order to approve the very reasonable measures he suggested.<br />
<br />
When challenged to suggest something more concrete Sher pointed to the work he initiated together with Admiral Amichai Ayalon, the former head of Shin Bet, an initiative they call<a href="http://bluewhitefuture.org/" target="_blank"> "Blue-White Future"</a>, which brings together different stake-holders, including radical settlers and their rabbis, to work on building consensus for the kind of policy initiatives that Sher knows will require broad support across all factions of Israeli society.<br />
<br />
The speakers and the audience agreed that a strong policy statement by the US president would be useful and help guide Israeli and Palestinian societies in their internal dialogues, as well as provide hope and strengthen trust, but they also agreed that it was unlikely such a statement was forthcoming before the elections.Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-80891896969303326332016-10-14T06:04:00.001-07:002016-10-14T06:05:25.672-07:00On the UNESCO Executive Board declaration on the "status quo" at the Noble Sanctuary (Haram al-Sharif) As reported by <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/unesco-temple-mount-al-aqsa-israel-palestinian-1.3803729" target="_blank">Reuters</a>, the UNESCO Executive Board recently put out a statement that repeats verbatim what that same board has been saying for years. The declaration is published under the heading "Occupied Palestine" and deals - among other subjects - with the <i>status quo </i>at the most important Muslim site in Jerusalem, the Noble Sanctuary or <i>Haram al-Sharif. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
The story caught my attention. I went to the UNESCO website – which seems super-busy and is not easy to find one’s way around on – to find the actual text of the declaration. (It is <a href="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002462/246215e.pdf" target="_blank">HERE</a>).
The document does not deny Jewish history and its connections to the Haram al-Sharif. It simply does not mention Jewish history or Jewish sentiments. It speaks about the historical status quo, meaning the guardianship and practices associated with the place as it was before 1967, and takes exception at Israel’s interference with that status. By failing to mention Jewish attachment to the site, UNESCO's Executive Board is widely criticized (including by the director-general of UNESCO, Irina Bokova) for failing to maintain its humanitarian mission and making itself a political proxy for the Palestinian National Authority, which uses its membership status in UNESCO to draw public attention to the ongoing “occupation” of East Jerusalem, putting diplomatic pressure on the Israelis.<br />
<br />
The short-term Israeli concern is that talk of Israel’s “change in the status quo” at a Muslim holy place is not just false but stokes Muslim fears internationally and increases the ongoing sporadic violence locally. The long-term Israeli concern is that the language used in the declaration undermines the long-standing Jewish attachment to the place, an attachment that Israel has been using to justify its desire to hold on to Jerusalem as the "eternally undivided capital" of Israel (Basic Law Jerusalem 1980).<br />
<br />
In the past, Israel justified its claim to remain in charge of the holy places in the name of better guardianship (a kind of <i>mission civilatrice</i>, or “Orientalist” argument), in the name of freedom of religion, etc. Since the late nineties and early oughts, the rhetoric has become more “Jewish,” appealing to the national religious base of the governing coalition’s electorate and supporters abroad.
<br />
<br />
The rhetoric of outrage against the UNESCO declaration that’s been making the rounds in the English-language Jewish and Israeli print and social media seems aimed at closing the ranks between diaspora and Israel, where Dov Waxman (“Trouble in the Tribe”) and others like Peter Beinart have been showing an increasing rift between the Israeli national-religious right and the younger generation of diaspora Jews, especially in the US. The Temple Mount/Western Wall issue is very potent, as it is perhaps one of the few things on which Jews can viscerally agree.<br />
<br />
You should go some time and see for yourself both the extraordinary devotion of the ultraorthodox but also the the grotesque sentimental hysteria of Birthright groups manipulated into religious experiences at the Western Wall.
Conversely, you should also visit the Haram al-Sharif on days when ordinary Muslim Jerusalemites outnumber western tourists or when the place is closed to tourists, and experience the serenity and relaxation, especially of women and children, in a space that is – to a significant extent – devoid of the trappings of Israeli occupation. The Haram is, most of the time, a safe space and a retreat.Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-80590737814423768672016-10-04T08:30:00.000-07:002016-10-04T08:30:00.105-07:00Scholarship and punditry
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ever since the publication of Edward Said’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Orientalism </i>in 1978 a crisis of
conscience has haunted the western students of eastern affairs, especially of
Arabic or Middle Eastern/North African affairs. This crisis of conscience calls
into question the validity of the efforts, spearheaded by many individual
scholars and schools of thought that flourished in many countries and languages
over the last five hundred years and produced the questions and approaches,
linguistic and methodological tools, editions, translations, and studies on
which “we” depend in our feeble attempts to study, understand, and appreciate
eastern civilizations and see them for what they “are.” Said’s critique of the
field focuses on western (particularly French and British) approaches to the
study of the Middle East, Arabic language and literature, and Islam, and
insinuates that western academics and the products of their scholarship are not
just inherently biased (they study another culture from an “etic” or outside
point of view) but implicated in the modern imperialist project of domination,
which uses intimate knowledge of a civilization as a means of its control. In
this reading, scholarly objectivity turns into a kind of pathology and the work
of the most well-meaning and empathetic scholars of Islam and Arab civilization
is inevitably politicized in one direction or another. Western scholarship of
Middle Eastern and Muslim civilizations veers either toward polemics or toward
apologetics; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">tertium non datur. </i>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">For Lust of Knowing </i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(2006)</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">,
</i>a spirited defense of the disparaged discipline and the men and more
recently also the women who pursued it, the novellist and Bernard-Lewis-student
Robert Irwin attacks Said on scholarly and ideological grounds. Irwin points to
Said’s narrow definition of the field in question, i.e., his focus on Arabists
and scholars of Islam, but admits that this definition suits his own purpose
well, which is to retell the same story from a less polemical point of view and
in more comprehensive a scope. Irwin argues that Said’s purview is too limited
even when one allows for the narrowing of the field to the antecedents of
modern Middle Eastern studies. According to Irwin, Said egregiously ignores
entire centuries of antecedent work and many individuals and schools of thought
(especially from the rich German philolological tradition) that contributed to
the study of “oriental” civilizations. In Irwin’s view, the field began to
develop in the age of European Humanism and was pursued by a range of specialists,
amateurs, memoirists, and polemicists who produced the lexicons of the Arabic
language, editions and translations of texts, travelogs, and studies on which
rests every serious attempt to “understand” the array of Arabic, Persian, Turkish,
and other “oriental” civilizations, and especially on which every serious
attempt of non-Muslims and Muslims alike depends a more than superficial
appreciation of these civilizations in their linguistic and cultural
particularity. Irwin revels in scurrilous details and cherishes the idiosyncrasies
of the personages that produced mountains of acribic research and he does not hide
ideological bias or polemic agendas that attached to the work of some of the most
accomplished scholars and their schools. Yet he argues that Said’s attack on
this entire tradition of work for its implicit or explicit biases has
significantly damaged the field and contributed to its demise by “discrediting
and demoralizing an entire tradition of scholarship.” (p. 276) Of course, it
was not Said alone who single-handedly accomplished this. Some of it is
credited to the general decline of funding for the study of languages, the
displacement of acdaemic specializations by interdisciplinary “area studies,”
and the odious “publish-or-perish” that makes it virtually impossible for
scholars to produce the kinds of learned tomes on which our fields used to be based.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One must wonder how a single individual or a single and in
many ways deficient book can have such a thoroughgoing effect on a field now
ploughed by thousands of graduate students and established scholars across the
globe. Said’s book was certainly a harbinger of modern anthropological studies
of academics as members of tribes. Academic scholarship does not occur in a
vacuum. Individuals choose their careers on the basis of their personal
commitments and predelections that sustain them in the long and arduous path of
scholarship. Individuals, schools, programs, journals, and scholarly
associations all have their cultural contexts that can be described and that
most scholars are in fact acutely aware of, as they need to situate themselves
successfully in these contexts in order to have a career. Irwin acknowledges
that progress in the western study of Middle Eastern languages and
civilizations was not just hard-one but usually accomplished by stark scholarly
polemic, mutual recrimination, and expressions of contempt against which pales
Said’s elegant prose. What has changed is that, after Said and the
postmodernist turn to social theory, the inevitable personal bias has been
politicized. It is now an object of study in its own right, and it raises
doubts about what remains of the claim to the production of knowledge in the
humanities.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All of this gives me pause as I am engaged in an oriental
study of my own, namely, the writing of a brief history of Jerusalem. No one
can be a specialist on such a general topic. What, then, are my options? How do
I avoid the most egregious errors of fact or dangerously reductive
interpretations? I can do so, or at least try, only by relying on the best
available scholarship on many relevant and specialized subjects, including the
recent scholarly discoveries and debates in each of these many fields. In light
of Said I must realize that not just I but the sources on which I rely are
inherently biased, that the traditions of scholarship and the many scholars
that have produced it and continue to produce, are inherently biased and fail
to deliver the goods. Humanistic scholarship as such – not only in this
particular area – seems to constitute more of a kind of soliloquy than a
dialogue between subjects and objects, mind and matter, observer and observed,
and the like. This is the “demoralizing” effect of Said’s broadside, as
observed by Irwin. The self-knowledge it triggered seems futile, unproductive,
dispiriting. What do we do if we are not anthropologists who thrive on the
possibilities released by turning scholarly clans into objects of investigation
and description, or sociologists interested in academic communities and their interactions
with political and economic elites? Where do we turn if we remain interested in
a particular phenomenon in human affairs? We turn to description of what we see
(through whatever lens), admitting that we make no claim on what these
phenomena “are” unto themselves. We share with others what we see as eloquently
as we can, trying to persuade them of our viewpoint and knowing full well that
the best result we can hope for is a thoughtful response that attests that our
observations made someone else think harder or see better, which in turn makes
us question our own observations, and so on. While this may not seem like much,
especially when measured by the concreteness of progress in science and
technoloy, we must break a lance for our way of producing knowledge or else we
must perish. Who will fund the future dialogues of scholarship devoted to
nuance and articulation? More acutely, can western Oriental studies thrive when
western commitments and obligations implied in the unravelling of the very
order imposed by western “orientalist” imperial forces vitiate against all
pretenses of scholarly objectivity? To name an example that is relevant for me
as someone writing about Jerusalem, as a German- and American-educated scholar
invested in the future of Jewish life on this earth, how objective can I be in
handling questions of Palestinian history and Muslim attachment to Jerusalem?
If I foreground this history and its implications for Palestinian and Muslim
rights to Jerusalem and its holy places, will I not automatically lose the
trust of Jewish and Christian readers?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Will I fall under Irwin’s verdict on John Esposito whose work on Islam
he calls “pollyannish?” If I show Jewish commitments to Jerusalem long before
the rise of modern Zionism and describe the latter as anything other than an
imperialist colonial settler movement, will I not be branded as a pro-Israel
propagandist? On the other hand, if I show that extremist Jewish attachments to
Jerusalem’s Muslim holy places has been a pawn in the hand of right-wing
national religious parties and are cynically exploited by the current
government to stir unrest, shame the Palestinians, distract from the ongoing
settlement activities, and curry favor with an increasingly divided electorate,
will I not be called a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nestbeschmutzer</i>,
a disloyal self-hating Jew? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Said teaches me that scholarly objectivity is not possible,
but that does not mean fairness isn’t. No one in the west will doubt that the
study of the languages, literatures, and histories of the people of the Middle
East and North Africa, including Israel and the Jews, is useful and even
urgently necessary in an age that continues to depend on fossil fuel and that
confronts the unravelling of the political order established in the wake of
Christian imperialist deconstruction of the Ottoman Empire. Scholarly
objectivity may not be possible but it remains a cherished ideal. It is true:
as a scholar of religion I cannot be neutral when I see people exploit every
opportunity to gain an advantage on their competitors and where I see religion
implicated in such struggles. While I cannot be neutral I can try to be fair
and describe what I see as accurately as I can, without needless polemics, and
remaining open to being corrected where I am wrong. I don’t need to adjudicate
what is not my own struggle. I am sympathetic toward those on either side who
are trying to find a peaceful, just, speedy, and lasting resolution to the
conflict. Much of what goes on in the Middle East plays out not just locally
but globally, through mass media of information and persuasion. Scholars have
an important role to play here. Our responsibility is not to fuel the conflict
but help those on the inside and on the outside imagine how it could be
resolved. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In this sense I accept the charge that scholarship on
contemporary issues and even on cultural history in general inevitably veers
toward persuasive speech. This is particularly obvious when we try to
articulate an insight into the causes of a modern conflict. The line between contemporary
history and political punditry is very thin, but there is still a line. The
historian answers first and foremost to his own conscience: the primary question
is whether what you say is true. Where truth eludes you, at least you are
aiming for accuracy. For the pundit, the pressure is to have something to say
that sounds like an explanation. You need to sound competent and persuasive,
and you need to make an argument and stick to your guns. The historian tries to
get it right and hopes to be proved wrong. </div>
Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-61586226728924672862016-09-30T07:25:00.000-07:002016-10-03T07:51:08.306-07:00Some thoughts on a painting by Jan ProvostIn his chatty propography of the Orientalists (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">For Lust of Knowing</i>), Robert Irwin
remarks on the nineteenth-century Prussian scholar of the Qur’an and Arabic
literature Theodor Noeldeke, who harbored contempt for Islam as he did for all
religions, that “in at least one respect (…) he belonged to” a “grand tradition
(…): he had never been to the Middle East and he could not actually speak
Arabic.” This reminded me of the fact that most of the Old Testament scholars I
studied with in Germany didn’t speak Hebrew. That did not necessarily make them
bad scholars but it colored their scholarship. My teacher Rolf Rendtorff was
exceptional in that he really appreciated his Israeli colleagues and brought
some of them, including the Qumran scholar Shemaryahu Talmon, to Heidelberg and
he encouraged his students to study in Israel and to learn modern and rabbinic
Hebrew. Others were afraid that students might get the wrong idea and cited the
case of Georg Fohrer who had converted to orthodox Judaism and moved to the
Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. Others dismissed the relevance of
Israeli scholarship, spoken Hebrew, or even rabbinic exegesis because they
thought it irrelevant to an understanding of the Bible. Far more important to
them were Ugaritic, Akkadian, and even Egyptian hieroglyphic, languages
that– since the nineteenth century – were used to interpret biblical
literature “backwards,” i.e., to make educated guesses about what went into
making these texts, rather than “forwards,” i.e., to study what the readers of
the texts made of them. Most of my German teachers read the texts as hints to
what was before and behind them. Teasing out the cultural assumptions, putative
oral traditions, and historical circumstances that the texts presupposed
allowed these scholars to reconstruct a history of Israel and its religious
practices that the texts obscured because those who produced or edited and
canonized those texts were ideologically committed to a monolatric framework for
their society and condemned all prior official and popular cultic practices as
idolatrous. In this reading there is no real difference between Israelite and
Jewish religion and the superstitions that preceded it, and the only progress
in religion that really mattered was introduced by Jesus of Nazareth.<br />
<br />
Many
leading mid-twentieth-century Israeli biblical scholars followed instead the
lead of Yehezkel Kaufmann who surmised that the veneration of a single deity
was as ancient as the biblical patriarchs, just as described in the Book of
Genesis, and that the religion of Israel was therefore indeed a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sui generis </i>phenomenon in the history of
the Ancient Near East. While this reading of the biblical tradition appealed to
conservative Jewish and Christian exegetes, it was not taken very seriously by
my German teachers who thought it lacked the historical critical rigor of their
own training and inclination. The commitment to Judaism as a great tradition
and the assumption of a continuity between biblical Israel and modern Judaism implied
by Kaufmann were also hardly to their liking. Clearly, Noeldeke harbored a
similar Germanic antipathy toward the subject of his Arabic studies and even
concluded that the effort entailed in reconstructing the exact meaning of Arabic
poetry was not really worth it. This strikes me as an extreme case of the
alienation of a philologist from the humanity behind the text, a humanism that
has completed and exhausted itself in approach and method, a humanism that
takes the notion of “scholarly disinterest” to its extreme.<br />
<br />
Irwin’s remark about Noeldeke also reminded me of something
else. I had recently seen the reproduction of a painting attributed to the “Flemish
primitive” artist Jan Provost, a Crucifixion that had long languished unrecognized
but now hangs in the Groenige Museum in Bruge, where a Boston University
doctoral student and Humanities Fellow saw it who brought it to my attention.
(Thanks, <a href="http://www.bu.edu/gdrs/people/current-student-bios/eva-pascal/" target="_blank">Eva Pascal</a>!)
The reason she liked it was that artist had painted the Roman soldiers in
charge of the crufixion as “Muslims.” The painting was made around 1505, and
crusading was never far from the European Christians’ mind, so that seemed to
make some sense. When I looked at the painting I noticed something else. The
urban landscape of Jerusalem in the background of the scene looked realistic to
me. I noticed the tomb of the virgin just behind the Dome of the rock, and the
overall placement of buildings and natural features made sense. Provost had
depicted the very “village with monumental buildings” that Dominican friar
Felix Fabri had seen and described just a short while before the painting was
made. I wondered whether artist had seen the city with his own eyes or painted
from another realistic depiction. A little bit of research revealed that Provost
had made the pilgrimage himself and joined a brotherhood of such pilgrims. He
had painted the city from autopsy. The Roman soldiers of his Crucifixion were
indeed Mamluks, proud horsemen, exactly as he had seen them in Jerusalem, or
Caesarea, or somewhere else on the way. (See <a href="http://vlaamseprimitieven.vlaamsekunstcollectie.be/en/biographies/jan-provoost." target="_blank">HERE</a>.
The pilgrimage took place around 1500, in any case before the Ottoman conquest.
Provost’s Jerusalem is therefore without walls, as it was at the time.)<br />
<br />
Provost was one of the first to give us an accurate picture
of the actual Jerusalem as it existed at his time. This does not deprive his
depiction of the biblical scene of theological content. The fact that Jesus is
crucified by Mamluks fits in with the crusading spirit and with the artistic
tradition of identifying the Muslim rulers of the holy land as enemies of
Christ. A fourteenth-century illuminated manuscript of William of Tyre’s
account of the fall of Jerusalem currently on display at the <a href="http://unholycity.blogspot.com/2016/09/jerusalem-multi-ethnic-multi-cultural.html" target="_blank">MET Museum’s Jerusalem exhibition </a>places the crucifixion on the inside of Jerusalem at the
moment of the conquest of 1099. Here the crusaders literally take the holy city
at the moment when Christ (and the Christians) are being tortured and killed.<br />
<br />
There are striking differences between the manuscript illumination and
Provost’s image. The Jerusalem of the manuscript looks like a Gothic cathedral
(as Barbara Drake Boehm, chief medieval curator of the MET Museum, pointed out
in a recent conversation). It invites the reader to see Jerusalem as if it were
in France. It is not an alien place but right here. In contrast, Provost
depicts Jerusalem as it really is. To him it is no longer an alien and he wants
the viewer to get acquainted with Jerualem as it really is is even though the
suffering Christ is still at the center of the scene. Yet the Mamluks are not
depicted as evil. They are realistic, individualized, and impressive. They are
also everywhere, and there are many horses, and the horsemen don’t all wear
turbans. It is a lively scene, and the hanging itself is noted only by those
immediately in its vicinity. It is ignored by the procession that leaves
Golgotha (here placed in the vicinity where General Gordon was to find it, in
the northern outskirts of the city). Hence while the symbolic juxtaposition of
Saracen and suffering Christ nods to the crusading tradition, the realism of
the depiction takes the image to a place beyond the preaching of a new crusade.
It does not merely instruct, it also informs and hence opens up the possibility
of encounter. In fact, the crucifixion recedes into the background once one
focuses on the horsemen. Provost seems to attest to the fact that the pilgrim
who sought to encounter the place of the death and resurrection of Christ found
something else, too, something no less real or fascinating, and so would you if
you went there. It is a painting that heralds a new attitude toward the east,
one of curiosity rather than contempt. The MET Museum’s exhibition implies that
this attitude itself may not have been entirely new in the early 16<sup>th</sup>
century but it may have been novel to make it so evident in so visible a place
as a religious painting.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
[To view an image of Provost’s 1505 Crucifixion online, go
to <a href="http://www.wga.hu/html_m/p/provost/crucifi1.html">http://www.wga.hu/html_m/p/provost/crucifi1.html</a>
and click on the image to launch the image viewer.]</div>
Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-33693809524458714472016-09-29T16:42:00.002-07:002016-09-29T16:42:31.342-07:00Jerusalem, a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural metropolis, c. 1300I just spent a lovely day at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York where I saw not just one but two exhibits related to the Holy City. Before you even reach the really amazing "<a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2016/jerusalem" target="_blank">Jerusalem 1000-1400: Every People Under Heaven</a>" and its dazzling display of artifacts that attest to the vibrant exchange of wares and ideas that made 11th to 15th century Jerusalem a caleidoscope of medieval civiliations from Paris to Gujarat and beyond, you can step into a small and serenely monochromatic exhibit of photographs that <a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2016/faith-and-photography" target="_blank">Auguste Salzmann</a> took of Jerusalem in 1854.<br />
<br />
The contrast between these two Jerusalems could not be starker. Where curators <a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/events/programs/met-speaks/ticketed-talks/tedxmet/participants/2013/melanie-holcomb" target="_blank">Melanie Holcomb</a> and <a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/press/news/2015/boehm-appointment" target="_blank">Barbara Drake Boehm</a> show a living city (then and now), Salzmann meticulously recorded walls, gates, sites, and places, with no human being or trace of human activity in sight, excepting the archaeological remains of bygone eras. Salzmann's images document an important moment in the life of the city, just before the end of the Crimean War, after which Jerusalem began to grow and develop at a pace not seen, well, since the Mamluk times documented in "Every People Under Heaven." Only after 1856 did Jerusalem become, once again, the vibrant multi-national and multi-cultural metropolis it once was.<br />
<br />
"Every People Under Heaven" is compelling for many reasons. The curators are to be commended for avoiding the two most obvious and at the same time most misleading ways of presenting the medieval city, namely, chronology and religion. By grouping their material by themes such as trade, patronage, drumbeat of war, etc. instead, they are able to show shared values, exchange of goods and ideas, and common concerns of the various people of that age, including Armenians, Georgians, Samaritans, Karaites, Rabbanites, Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopian Christians, Frankish knights and emperors, Ayyubid and Mamluk sultans, and the many scribes and savants who left behind pilgrimage accounts, letters, prayerbooks, hymnals, travelogs, treatises, holy texts, and more in many languages and scripts and the artists who illuminated them; not to forget the artisans and craftsmen who produced the beautiful glass and earthenware, brass and precious metal and other material objects, assembled in this stupendous and yet lucidly annotated and accessible exhibition. The show juxtaposes the historical material with a few well-chosen brief video interviews that shed light on the organizing themes, as well as images of the Old City today, indicating continuity between the past and the present. A beautifully produced catalogue documents this extraordinary effort to do justice to such a complex cultural phenomenon. <br />
<br />
The exhibition has been reviewed in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/arts/design/jerusalem-as-a-place-of-desire-and-death-at-the-metropolitan-museum.html?_r=0" target="_blank">New York Times</a> and in the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/03/the-passions-of-medieval-jerusalem" target="_blank">New Yorker</a>. But you should go and see for yourself.Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-36183235749551300402016-09-26T09:33:00.001-07:002016-09-26T09:33:45.914-07:00Jerusalem and TrumpOn September 25, the Associated Press reported that
Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu. At that meeting, according to this report, as seen in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/09/25/us/politics/ap-us-campaign-2016-israel.html?_r=0">New
York Times online edition of September 25, 2016</a>, Mr. Trump ”<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">repeated
his pledge to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv if he's elected
to the White House.” </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Of all the things Mr. Trump could have
talked about with the Prime Minister, why did he raise the US embassy issue?
Mr. Trump obviously meant to curry favor with Jewish voters ahead of the
upcoming presidential elections. Advised by his son-in-law <a href="http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/207559/jared-kushner-shanda">Jared
Kushner</a>, the owner and publisher of the conservative <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New York Observer</i>, Mr. Trump chose to lend his support to an issue
that may appear largely symbolic. What does it matter whether the US embassy is
in Tel Aviv or in Jerusalem? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">It
would not be the apocalypse, but it would spell the end of an era in US
politics in the Middle East. It would mean that the US, under a Trump
administration, would give up its role as an honest broker and take a
position that would effectively and officially end US support of the
Oslo Process. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In the <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/israelstudies.21.3.02" target="_blank">Jerusalem Embassy Act</a>
(1995), Congress mandated the State Department to move the US embassy
from its current location in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Every US president
has since declined to follow suit. Instead, every six months, the
president signed a statement reaffirming that the US will not preempt
the diplomatic settlement of the Jerusalem question but leaves it to
final status negotiations between the two major parties, the State of
Israel and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) who are signatories
of the Oslo Accords of 1993. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">While
perhaps merely pandering to Jewish voters, if Trump is elected and if,
as president, he implemented the Jerusalem Embassy Act, as promised to
PM Netanyahu, this would herald a major change in US policy. </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">It would mean the end of US support for the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. </span><br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">If
we care about Jerusalem, which is as much a Muslim and a Christian city
as it is a Jewish one, and if we care about a peaceful and equitable
resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we must not be swayed by
one-sided, short-sighted declarations on the city's future. </span></div>
Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-61386397908902715692016-09-20T07:52:00.003-07:002016-09-20T09:03:49.014-07:00Bye, bye, RockefellerHuman rights organization "<a href="http://alt-arch.org/en/" target="_blank">Emek Shaveh. Archaeology in the Shadow of the Conflict</a>" failed to prevail at the Israeli Supreme Court which sided instead with the view of the <a href="http://www.antiquities.org.il/default_en.aspx" target="_blank">Israeli Antiquities Authority</a>, that it had the right to remove the library and archaeological artifacts from the Rockefeller Museum. At issue in this case is the question whether the Israeli authority has the right to cultural assets housed in an East Jerusalem institution. Emek Shaveh had argued that the highly prized books and manuscripts housed at the Rockefeller Museum since its founding in 1936 under the British Mandate and in its location just outside the Old City walls, as well as archaeological finds from across the West Bank (esp. from Sebaste, the old Israelite capital Samaria), are cultural assets of an occupied territory (East Jerusalem was captured by Israel in 1967) and hence forbidden from being transferred by international law. The Israeli Supreme Court, in its decision 3556/16 of July 19, 2016, rejected that view and asserted that international law does not apply in this case, which falls instead under the general ordinance for the Israeli Antiquities Authority, whose mandate it is "to manage and hold a scientific library for the archaeology and history of the land of Israel and its neighborhoods." Supreme Court Justice <a href="http://elyon1.court.gov.il/eng/judges/doc/CvHayut.pdf" target="_blank">Esther Hayut</a> pointed out that artifacts had been removed on prior occasions and that therefore any kind of "freeze" in the handling of East Jerusalem archaeological assets was unrealistic. Finally, the justice invoked Israeli law, including the "<a href="http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic10_eng.htm" target="_blank">Jerusalem Basic Law</a>," to assert that Israeli law applies to East Jerusalem and international law has no standing when it comes to the inner affairs of the country.<br />
<br />
For Emek Shaveh's petition not to transfer the Rockefeller Museum library and assets to West Jerusalem see <a href="http://alt-arch.org/en/press-release-rockefeller-museum-petition-july-2016/" target="_blank">http://alt-arch.org/en/press-release-rockefeller-museum-petition-july-2016/</a>.<br />
<br />
For the Supreme Court decision (in Hebrew) see <a href="http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files/16/560/035/v03/16035560.v03.htm">http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files/16/560/035/v03/16035560.v03.htm.</a><br />
<br />
For a background article on "nationalization and cultural avoidance" (in Hebrew) see <a href="https://www.colman.ac.il/node/6497">https://www.colman.ac.il/node/6497</a>, posted by Professor Orna Ben-Naftali, The Emile Zola Chair for Human Rights at the Striks School of Law at the
College of Management – Academic Studies (COMAS) and its former Dean.<br />
<br />
(Thanks to Prof. Pnina Lahav, BU-LAW, for drawing my attention to this case.)Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-46850979012821921052016-04-01T06:34:00.002-07:002016-04-01T06:34:25.461-07:00The State of Israel needs to declare the end of ZionismMany people think that until the advent of Zionism, sometime in the nineteenth century, Jews saw themselves in an exile ordained by God, an exile that only God could bring to an end, and the only way of moving God to bring about the end was a pious life of <i>mitzvot</i> and devotion. It is true that this opinion existed. It was to some extent an inevitable religious "party-line" of those who wanted to turn the negative experience of Jewish powerlessness into a motivation for religious cohesion and greater observance. Personal piety and communal conformity were important values, and if the exile could be enlisted to strengthen individual and collective resolve to maintain personal piety and communal conformity, so much the better. And of course, there was a lot of truth in this perspective. In the end, it is really only God who can bring the exile to an end. The question was, however, whether he intended to use human means to do so. Rav Amram Blau's Neturei Karta, for example, are of the opinion that only God can end the exile, and they regard the Zionist regime as blasphemous. <br />
<br />
But it may be more accurate to say that Zionism, the political movement to establish a modern Jewish commonwealth in Palestine, is merely the most recent iteration of another time-honored Jewish position that believes that exile is not a metaphor for spiritual distance from God but literally a state of political powerlessness and distance from the Land of Israel. When the powers that be prevented Jews from living in their land, the Jews made accommodations and waited, but when the powers that be permitted or even encouraged and promoted Jewish presence in their land, there was no reason other than indolence to not pick up and move and even seek to reestablish a Jewish commonwealth. Spinoza knew this very well. He wrote of it in his Theological Political Treatise, and he did not think it extraordinary. The early nineteenth-century European parliamentarians who argued against Jewish emancipation considered it self-evident that the Jews, at the first opportunity, would seek to return to their ancient homeland and reestablish themselves as a nation. They were right.<br />
<br />
Throughout the last two-thousand years, whenever Jews perceived that the end of the exile was near, as they periodically did, they were not too shy to act on the expectation of an imminent reversal of their collective fortune. This was as true in the days of Bar Kokhba as it was in the days of Shabtai Tzvi. Exile was not just a mystical state of affairs but a very real condition that permeated every-day Jewish life; not just because it was mentioned in every-day prayers but because Jewish every-day life was a series of indignities caused by statelessness, foreignness, and the vulnerability of a national-religious minority marked by the majority as rightly deprived of their erstwhile fortunes because of their disbelief or stubbornness. If the Jews could for a moment forget that they were in exile, their hosts would remind them in no uncertain terms. <br />
<br />
The question is now, when is enough enough. When will the first successful Zionist movement, i.e. the present one, say <i>dayyenu</i>? Is it enough to have accomplished the Jewish return to the ancient homeland? Is it enough to have established a Jewish state? Is it enough for that state to be militarily and economically not just viable but of admirable prowess? Is it enough to have made the desert bloom and to have drained the swamps? Is it enough to have revived the Hebrew language as a modern idiom? Is it enough to have established cutting edge research institutions and a high-tech industry on par with the best? Is it enough to have made peace with Egypt and Jordan? Is it enough to have established a society that, despite all flaws, is based on the rule of law, where non-Jewish minorities enjoy the rights of citizens? What else does this movement need to fulfill itself? What is the endgame?<br />
<br />
There are people who believe that "secular Zionism" (as if Z. was ever completely secular) was merely the human instrument to hasten divine redemption. Divine redemption is incomplete. In order for divine redemption to be complete, some people think that the Temple needs to be rebuilt (speedily, in our days). This will either be accomplished by the Messiah or it will need to be done by the Jews themselves so as to hasten the coming of King Messiah who will then abolish the secular Jewish state and rule forever.<br />
<br />
This may sound absurd and "fringe-y." But it is not absurd to those who believe it. For those who believe that the State of Israel is merely an unwitting instrument of divine redemption, Zionism's mission is incomplete. It is not enough to have a sovereign Jewish state. It is not enough for Jews to live in an internationally recognized commonwealth of their own. It is not enough to have conquered Judea and Samaria and to have held on to united Jerusalem for nearly half a century. After forty years of settling Judea and Samaria, the goal is to hold on to Judea and Samaria and not to let it slip away. And after attaining <i>de facto</i> sovereignty over Jerusalem (something not officially recognized by the international community), the goal of this post-Zionist Zionism or romantic neo-Zionism or religious Zionism is to hold on to Jerusalem, including the Old City, including the Temple Mount, forever. This much is actually a broad consensus for many, not just on the right but at the center of Israeli society and certainly many Jews abroad.<br />
<br />
But the pressure for complete redemption is building for a further status-quo-rectification: either to allow Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount (i.e., the holy mosque of <i>Al-Aqsa</i>) in the name of democratic values and the freedom of religion, or in form of a final messianic push to build the Third Temple. What presently stands in the way of the completion of this messianic project is not the Muslim buildings or world opinion, but the State of Israel and its interest in self-preservation. The state is obliged to resist Jewish pressures to hasten the end. This turns the state into the enemy of a potent messianic movement. Right now it looks as if the state is strong enough to resist these pressures and to prevent them from acting on their beliefs. But support is building for the idea of allowing Jewish prayer on the Haram al-Sharif or Noble Sanctuary. Right wing politicians willing to support this, in the name of the freedom of religion or in whatever other name, are playing with fire. Israel owes it to its citizens, to its neighbors, and to the world to declare its intentions. Israel needs to declare the end of Zionism: mission accomplished. No more forced demographic corrections; no more territorial expansion; no status quo rectification on the Temple Mount. Take the Temple Mount out of the political discourse. Leave the Temple to the Messiah, and end all support to people who undermine the <i>status quo</i>. Jews may pray for the rebuilding of the temple, but they may not act on it. Not until Messiah comes. Not as long as the State of Israel exists.Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-296776993738713032016-03-10T17:28:00.002-08:002016-03-10T17:28:21.686-08:00Jerusalem holy places: a final status issue that should not be postponed
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1799377824;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-348863746 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
<br />
At our meeting in London of March 9, 2016, one of the topics
discussed in small groups was religion. How does religion fit into the Two States One Homeland (TSOH)
scheme? How and at what stage should it be brought into the discussion? How can
the status quo of the holy places be addressed without causing anxiety? Is
there something TSOH can say or project about the religious aspects of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is novel and can lead beyond the current
impass, which-as was repeatedly stated at the meeting-is driven, in part, by
fear: fear of hidden intentions of the other party, a source of insurmountable distrust.
The crucial question is therefore how to build trust in regard to the issue of
the holy places. The answer is that TSOH needs to have a clear statement on
intentions regarding holy places. How will Israelis and Palestinians handle
mutually exclusive claims to sacred space and holy places?
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
TSOH’s statement on Jerusalem currently eludes this issue by
invoking the possibility of an international regime for the holy places. Any future
regime, including one involving members of the international community,
requires mutually recognized principles on holy places between the principal members
of the envisaged confederation as a basis for mediation of any and all
differences and a mitigation of any conflict between the parties. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Jerusalem is the crucial issue when it comes to religion and
the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It would be insufficient for TSOH to deal
with questions of sovereignty, territorial redivision, policing, or the status
of Jerusalem as a dual capital and a joint municipality without also addressing
the holy places. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As the TSOH initiative does with regard to the Land of
Israel/Palestine as a whole, TSOH also has the potential to move the parties
beyond the current impass with regard to the holy places by being honest about
long-term intentions and mindful of the facts on the ground. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The current impasse with regard to the holy places consists
in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inability </i>(not just
unwillingness) of each side to recognize the legitimate attachment of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">other </i>party to holy places they claim as
their own by divine right or obligation. In contrast to the land as a whole
(whose boundaries are only vaguely defined in Jewish and Muslim tradition) the
status of Jerusalem is unquestionably one of extraordinary holiness to both
Jews and Muslims. Attachment to the holy places should not be argued from
history alone but must be considered as founded on religious beliefs about the
status of Jews and Muslims within their respective narratives of sacred
history. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
TSOH is based on a mutual recognition of Jewish and Arab
claims to historic rights of presence and legitimate claims to “ownership” of
the Land of Israel/Palestine as a whole. There should be a similar mutual
recognition that Jews and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Muslims</i>
have not just historic rights, but identity-forming religious memories, aspirations,
and obligations with regard to Jerusalem as a sacred space and to some of the
very same holy places within it, most notably to the Temple Mount/Haram
ash-Sharif of Jerusalem. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some peace proposals (including the Geneva Accords) include
suggestions with regard to sovereignty and control over the Temple Mt/Haram complex.
These schemes are based on the current <i>status quo,</i> established by Israeli
governments since June 1967, a <i>status quo</i> that has not been accepted as
legitimate by Palestinians or Muslims. The current status quo includes <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Waqf </i>control of the surface area and
Israeli control of the Western Wall plaza. Geneva Accords etc suggest that in a
final status regulation, Israel would exert control over the airspace above the
plaza as well as retain oversight over any subterranean building or
archaeological activity in the area, while the state of Palestine would wield
sovereignty over the surface area and buildings on the Haram ash-Sharif. What
these political schemes fail to address are the mutually exclusive religious
sentiments, hopes, aspirations, and obligations with regard to guardianship,
management, and presence on the Temple Mount/Haram ash-Sharif, an area
currently under the control of the Waqf but that Jews hope will once again be
the place of the Holy Temple (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">beyt
ha-miqdash/bays al-maqdis)</i>. For Muslims the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">status quo </i>(Waqf control) is final and perennial, for Jews the
current <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">status quo </i>is temporary. This
deep difference with regard to the Temple Mount/Haram ash-Sharif is a source of
mutual distrust and a flashpoint of violence that plays into the respective
apocalyptic imaginary of Jews, Muslims, and Christians around the world.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Recent years have seen a mainstreaming of Jewish political,
educational, propagandistic, and grass-roots activism aimed at changing the
status quo on the Temple Mt/Haram area, conducted under the guise of
traditional piety. Instrumentalization of Jewish sentiments <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">vis-à-vis </i>the Third Temple is a
dangerous gamble. TSOH has an opportunity to speak to an issue that reaches
deeply into the self-understanding of Israel as a Jewish state in contemporary
Palestine, where Jews are not alone, and where the Jewishness of the state
remains open to democratic collective determination. It is clear that the TSOH
initiative will force the determination of hitherto avoided constitutional
issues not just in regard to Jewish Arab coexistence but also in regard to
religion and state in general, and the status of traditional Jewish beliefs and
obligations in the Jewish state in particular. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This issue cannot and must not be avoided. The recent push of
ever-more mainstreamed Jewish pressure groups to promote private or public
Jewish prayer on the Haram plaza has given rise to a growing fear among Muslims
in Palestine and around the world that Israel aims to change the status quo at
this most sensitive of holy places in Jerusalem. Rumors as to such intentions
triggered the ongoing “knife” intifada that broke out around the fall 2015
Jewish high holidays. It is in Israel’s best self-interest to address this
matter openly and decisively.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A joint declaration and hence clarification of Jewish and
Muslim intentions with regard to the holy places would go a long way toward
building confidence, especially by making each side’s “endgame” with regard to
the holy places explicit. Such a declaration might be difficult to attain, as
TSOH is largely driven by secular interests. It will require Jewish and Muslim
experts to weigh in on questions of law and belief. But TSOH has already
developed a new language to address the sticky issue of the conurrent attachment
of Israelis and Palestinians to the entire One Homeland, and is making
suggestions on other final status issues, such as Palestinian refugees and the
fate of the settlements. The Holy Places should not be excluded from
consideration. Rather, TSOH may find a way of moving Israelis and Palestinians beyond
the obstacle of religion to a place where mutual trust can be cultivated on
final intentions with regard to the holy places. TSOH currently envisages the
city as open (without walls), bi-national (two capitals in one city), and
jointly administered on the municipal level, but it does not yet address the
holy places. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
TSOH needs to proceed from the realization that in the eyes
of Muslims, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">status quo </i>at the
holy places was already violated when, in 1967, Israel razed the Mughrabi
quarter and established an orthodox open-air synagogue along the exposed
section of the Western Wall. No doubt, a final settlement will require for
Muslims to accept this new <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">status quo </i>as
legitimate. But this is not sufficient. While the Wall is of sentimental value
for historical reasons, it is of no ultimate religious significance in Jewish
tradition. The place of ultimate significance is the Temple Mount itself, as
the place of the past and future temple Jews have prayed for every day for two
thousand years that it be rebuilt “speedily in our days.” Denials of the prior
existence of Jewish temples on the Herodian platform, as expressed in various
Muslim sources and Palestinian statements remain unaccceptable and are not
conducive to building Jewish confidence in Palestinian good will. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Zionism, in its religious roots, is an activist movement
aiming to rectify the status quo of Jewish exile symbolized in the absence of
the Temple. In this sense, Zionism is incomplete and unfulfilled as long as the
Temple is not rebuilt. Any political settlement of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">status quo</i> of Jerusalem and its holy places will need to articulate
openly the intention of the Jewish state with regard to the
two-thousand-year-old hopes of the Jews to end the exile, return the Jews to
their land, and rebuild the temple, as the sign of divine blessing and
presence. The reason why this needs to be addressed is that the State of
Israel, in order to achieve a stable relationship between Jews and Muslims in
Israel/Palestine needs to declare its intentions and its end-goals with regard
to the religious hopes and aspirations of the Jews. Without doing so, the state
will not achieve the trust of its Muslim Palestinian partners. This is as much
about religion and state relations within the Jewish state itself as it is
about building confidence and stable arrangements between Israel and Palestine.
A clear and binding declaration is needed to avoid any further abuse of
religion as a wedge issue. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
TSOH should articulate a mechanism by which Jewish messianic
claims and aspirations for the rebuilding of the Third Temple can be recognized
by both Jews and Muslims as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">religiously </i>valid
while also spelling out the commitment of both <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">states </i>to maintaining the status quo, notwithstanding all religious
hopes and aspirations. TSOH will need to articulate why the State of Israel
will remain committed to resisting to its own interpretation as the “Beginning
of Redemption.” In other words, TSOH will need to deal with the character of
Israel as a Jewish nation state and its place within the larger age-old Jewish
imagination regarding exile and return. One could argue-as various rabbis have
argued with respect to settlements in Judea and Samaria-that it is for the sake
of peace (a halakhic principle) that the Jewish state needs to respect the need
of Muslim Palestinians to be free of fear of any practical Jewish attempts (aside
from prayer) to change the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">status quo </i>at
the holy places. Any change of the status quo at the holy places must be
mutually agreed. In this way, both states declare that the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">status quo </i>may be changed in the future (for example, at the advent
of the messiah) while excluding any unilateral action. Such a messianic proviso
could be written into the constitution of the Israeli-Palestinian
confederation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">A few more notes on
Haram v. Temple Mount</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When it comes to outreach and communication, there are a few
standard objections that invariably come up when one speaks with Jewish opponents of
compromise on the status of the holy places. Here are a few thoughts on these
objections and how to meet them.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Jews have a longer, deeper, more existential
attachment to Jerusalem than Muslims. </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">a.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></b>It is crucial for Muslims to recognize Jewish
attachment to Jerusalem as genuine and based on history as well as on religion.
Denying the facts is obscurantist and seems needlessly defensive.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">b.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></b>Israel needs to restore full scientific
integrity to the practice of archaeological excavation and display of Jerusalem
history. Archaeology should not be a tool of propaganda and brainwashing. </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">c.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></b>Jews also need to be better educated on the
status of the two sanctuaries (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">el
harameyn</i>) of Jerusalem and Hebron in Palestinian history and folklore.
(Lit:<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span>Gerber, H., <i>Remembering and Imagining Palestine:
Identity and Nationalism from the Crusades to the Present </i>(Palgrave 2008).</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></b>Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the
Qur’an, but it is mentioned hundreds of times in the Bible. </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">a.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></b>This is true, but it is also not mentioned
in the Torah.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">b.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></b>The status of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">bayt al-maqdis </i>is firmly established in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sira </i>of the Prophet Muhammad where the Night Journey and Ascent
narratives are of central importance in establishing Muhammad’s place in the
lineage of prophets and apostles (messengers). </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">c.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></b>Jerusalem is therefore not marginal but
central to Islam’s self-understanding as the renewal of the true religion of
Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></b>Jerusalem is the most holy city to Jews, but
only the third-most holy city in Islam.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">a.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></b>This is based on a Muslim tradition that
says, you should only set out to three places: Mecca, Medinah, and Jerusalem.
This in turn is a tradition that means to contravene the proliferation of holy
places, a phenomenon that has its parallels in Judaism and Christianity, where
the tombs of saints became pilgrimage sites for popular religion. </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">b.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></b>Judaism likewise recognizes other sacred
places, including Hebron and Safed, and pilgrimage to the tombs of saints are
common.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">c.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></b>Inter-communal polemic should not have a
place in modern society.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-35076821831731303232016-03-09T07:07:00.000-08:002016-03-11T08:39:36.771-08:00Two States, One Homeland, and what's new about this"You need to address the barking dogs in your cellar," as neuroscientist and public psychologist Hamira Riaz put it today at a session on the 2 states 1 homeland initiative at Millbank House in Westminster, catty-corner from the House of Lords, convened by Andrew Lord Stone of Blackheath. What Dr. Riaz meant was that you need to be able to explain, clearly and succinctly, to those not already persuaded what is different about this initiative, and why it can work. Clearly, not everyone who came to hear what initiators Meron Rappoport and Awni al-Mashni (who joined via Skype) had to say left persuaded. To some, their presentation sounded like the same old same old: too much like the long since discarded binational state idea, and frankly too late to sway the majority of Israelis who are either too confident in their ability to manage the conflict or too fearful of the Palestinian "giants" in the land. The analogy with the biblical spy story and their fear of the inhabitants of the land they were about to dispossess evoked an amused and at the same time exasperated response from the only other Palestinian present at the gathering whose name I failed to catch. The only thing that's giant about him, he said was that he was overweight. Palestinians are no real threat to Israeli security. Exasperated, because as the ones occupied it sounds absurd to them to hear about the fears and apprehensions of the occupiers. Others were skeptical because the idea of a return and resettlement or compensation of six million Palestinian refugees and the freedom of movement of Palestinians will be unacceptable to those who believe that Israel must retain not just a relative but an absolute Jewish majority, or else lose its character as a Jewish state. For Mehri Niknam, executive director of the Joseph Interfaith Foundation, this was the salient point. No Jew will voluntarily relinquish the notion of the Jewishness of Israel in demographic terms. It simply won't fly.<br />
<br />
But it is exactly with regard to the most intractable questions that the 2 states 1 homeland initiative is making a difference. Instead of leaving the most difficult problems for last, instead of ignoring them, this grassroots movement puts them on the table. Because if you do otherwise, if you ignore the most difficult issues or leave them for later you fail to do the most important thing. You fail to say what you really want, what you really need, and what you really think, and hence you fail to build mutual trust. Trust requires honesty. If Israelis and Palestinians could be honest about the end game of their political dreams, they could start to hammer out a compromise that might actual work. Neither side will have everything, but both may gain something they don't have now, most importantly a perspective and hope for a future beyond war, population control, occupation, human rights violation, and fear.<br />
<br />
Andrew Stone left the meeting with a mandate for the participants to work out proposals for the most pressing issues the initiative will need to address in order to gain traction and support. Some participants pledged to work on a constitutional draft, some on media and communication, some on religion, among other subjects. My contribution to the conversation was to suggest to put the most unpleasant subject on the table right away and not to leave Jerusalem for last. Meron Rappoport thought that Jerusalem may actually provide a showcase on how to solve the larger issues of territory, sovereignty, policing, freedom of movement etc. I suggested that this will require addressing the most thorny issue right away, which is spelling out Jewish and Muslim views and expectations regarding the status quo at the holy places, most notably the Temple Mount/Haram al-sharif. I suggested adding a messianic clause to any agreement. Just as the Jewish elders appointed Simon Maccabee as prince and king in all but name until such time as a prophetic might arise to sort out such questions, so Israel and Palestine could come to a status quo agreement on prayer at the most holy places without preempting the divine prerogative. Muslims and Jews all over the world will need to be part of this conversation. There is no reason why this cannot be done. Now we only need to show how it can be done.<br />
<br />
Stay tuned.Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-87614413331878010472016-01-08T20:11:00.004-08:002016-01-08T20:11:50.545-08:00Two States, One HomelandWhile in Jerusalem this blustery January I sat down with Israeli journalist <a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/users/meron-rapoport" target="_blank">Meron Rapoport</a>, Fatah political council member <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh1GVC_eoZg" target="_blank">Awni al-Mashni</a>, British businessman and member of the House of Lords <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-stone-of-blackheath/2222" target="_blank">Andrew Stone</a>, and social entrepreneur <a href="http://jicc.org.il/jicc-board/" target="_blank">Avner Haramati</a> who had brought us together. In this gathering I learned about a new grass-roots initiative called "Two States, One Homeland."<br />
<br />
This initiative has been around for about a year and it has as yet to find the open support of any of the political parties on both the Israeli and the Palestinian side. In fact, at this stage, the program is attacked from all sides, which means it does not fit comfortably in any of the usual categories of Left and Right, secular and religious, settlers and peaceniks. Since it does not advocate for a removal of the settlements it seems to Palestinians and BDS activists to promote normalization and acquiescence in the occupation. At the same time, it would require of the settlers to give up their privileged position in the framework of a confederation that confers the same freedom of movement and settlement anywhere in Israel-Palestine to the Palestinians, including those currently residing outside the country. Just as Jews from all over the world enjoy the right of return and are encouraged to claim Israel as their patrimony, Palestinians from all over the world would enjoy the right of return and should feel welcome to make their home in Israel-Palestine. Israel would remain a Jewish state in its historic homeland that comprises the entire Land of Israel, just as Palestine would comprise the entire territory now depicted on every Palestinian map. In other words: two states, one homeland.<br />
<br />
The plan recognizes that the attachment of the Jews to their land is not a right-wing issue but an issue of Jewish religious and historical sentiment. The initiative requires for Israelis to accept that Palestinians as well claim all of historic Palestine as rightfully theirs. In place of a physical or geographic division of the land, which would be a loss to both sides, the plan thinks of the division in the legal terms of citizenship and institutions, not place of residence. <br />
<br />
The initiative takes into account some of the big obstacles that have hitherto stood in the way of any peaceful resolution of the conflict, most notably the Israeli settlements and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees. Right now, most Palestinians object to accepting any Jewish settlements beyond the Green Line as legitimate. As Awni al-Mashni points out, however, it is unrealistic for the Palestinians to think that 350,000 settlers would ever be evacuated under any peace agreement. He also believes that Israelis will need to come to terms with the fact that the Palestinians will not go away. The urgency of this initiative arises for him from the fact that Palestinians tend to think that Israel is a temporary entity, that it will eventually collapse or be defeated and that the Palestinians can simply wait until that happens. For al-Mashni, this is a self-defeating, fatalistic, and troubling attitude that will result in many more years of needless Palestinian suffering. Palestinians, he says, will have to accept that the settlers won't go away and that Israel won't go away. Palestinians will have to learn that Jews have as much right to access and residence near the Tombs of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Hebron as they do. By the same token Israelis will need to recognize that Palestinians have every right to seek residency in Jaffa, the "pearl of Palestine," without therefore needing to claim citizenship in Israel.<br />
<br />
As a matter of policy, Two States/One Homeland decided not to accept foreign funding. They made this decision even before the recent push in the Knesset to Israeli human rights groups that receive financial support from foreign governments. They are nevertheless interested in raising international awareness for their initiative. Andrew Stone is planning a working session of the group at the House of Lords in March and the initiators are also planning to visit the US and speak to interested parties in New York, Boston and D.C. According to Lord Stone, the most important piece that is missing is a draft constitution that can help skeptics envisage how such a confederacy might be enacted. His own advocacy for a political solution takes into account that economic opportunity and aid alone will not be sufficient to build up Palestinian society. In his view, in order to become persuasive, the idea of a confederation of Israel and Palestine will require a workable legal framework, something he wants to encourage some of his colleagues in the British parliament to get in involved in producing.<br />
<br />
A cursory search for this initiative on Google yielded <a href="http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/74829-150614-dear-oleh-to-israel-how-about-a-house-in-ramallah" target="_blank">this article</a> by Lily Galili, as well as a video documenting the founding conference (see <a href="https://youtu.be/TejmONWRCuw" target="_blank">HERE).</a> The group is also on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/2states1homeland" target="_blank">Facebook.</a><br />
<br />
Walking away from this meeting this blustering January in Jerusalem, I was uncertain what to make of the things I had just heard but I had no time to think about it. Instead I hurried to catch up with a group of students that was waiting for me to visit the Haram ash-Sharif. Waiting in line, I saw that the old rabbinic injunction is still posted that prohibits Jews from entering this hallowed ground for fear of desecration. The Old City was pretty empty, but the Haram was bustling with local Muslim families who were taking time out to relax with their small children in a safe place, without harassment. Jerusalem's Arabs are under siege. They are slowly encroached upon from every direction by infrastructure and neighborhood developments that they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as solely aimed at asserting Jewish presence at the expense of the Palestinians. Systemic impersonal repression along with the ever more frequent eruption of anti-Arab violence call forth the foolish acts of youthful daring that we have seen in recent months. In turn, these feed into Jewish fear of Palestinian terror. At this point, both sides are in despair. How can this cycle be broken?<br />
<br />
I was impressed by the mutual respect that prevails between the members of this group. Awni al-Mashni spent twelve years of his life in Israeli jails. And yet, he has become an advocate for peace. As one of the participants in the 2015 founding conference, Dr. Merav Alush Levron (cited in the posted video) put it, the initiative is a matter of "morality" and "mutual recognition." What this fledgling initiative provides at this stage is a way of speaking about a shared future in a homeland that both nations care about. Recognizing that both care about the same homeland is an auspicious starting point not just for those who must find a way of coexistence but for us on the outside who tend to take sides in a conflict that cannot be resolved if either side loses. There has got to be a way for both to win, for both to feel that the presence of the other is a plus, not a loss.Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-71616815315936539622015-12-03T07:09:00.002-08:002015-12-03T07:12:23.846-08:00Ban the bullies<span data-offset-key="dqjn4-0-0"><span data-text="true">Blanket academic boycotts of Israeli institutions are becoming very fashionable now. Fashionable means they are "no brainers." Are these colleagues really voting their conscience or do they vote yea because opposing the current fad of anti-Israelism would require for them to take an unpopular stand and make an argument, i.e., they'd need to use their brains and stand up to the new collective self-righteousness and moral purism of the Left. Sad, really. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="dqjn4-0-0"><span data-text="true">These political resolutions politicize entire academic disciplines, they penalize dissent, they shut down debate. They fan the flames of conflict and carry the conflict into our classrooms. </span></span><span data-offset-key="dqjn4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="dqjn4-0-0"><span data-text="true">They are a form of intimidation.</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="dqjn4-0-0"><span data-text="true">We should ban academic associations from campus that try to politicize scholarship and academic inquiry. Let's withhold our membership dues to organizations that violate the spirit of academic inquiry. </span></span>Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8175468852285051706.post-32489788501663712782015-07-31T05:31:00.002-07:002015-07-31T05:32:27.116-07:00The Knifemen are BackAn ultra-orthodox man attacked revelers in yesterday's Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem. The man had done so before. Several people got injured, two seriously, when he stabbed them in the back. -- Secretive knifemen who stab people in the back because of what they represent are not a new phenomenon in the history of Jerusalem. In Roman times, they were called <i>sikarii, </i>and Jesus of Nazareth had one of them among his twelve disciples: Judas Iscariotes or Judah the Knifeman. Modern-day ultra-orthodox anti-gay zealotry, as noble as it may be in the eyes of the zealots, indicates the deep divide in values that separates us from one another. By us, I mean those committed to tolerance of difference and those opposed to deviation from a norm they suppose to be divinely revealed. When we (Jews, Christians, Muslims, whatever) take it upon ourselves to look at others through the eyes of God or an absolute standard, then we may feel justified to take up arms and hurt or kill the supposed deviants. The individual who commits such acts should be isolated and given a chance to reconsider and repent. That's what jails are for. The culture that gives rise to self-righteousness should be changed. That's what education is for. But the society that tolerates the knifeman and offers him a second chance to stab is in trouble.Michael Zankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06682065646444618117noreply@blogger.com0