Jewish American Heritage Month

Posted By admin on April 8, 2020

(JTA) The family of a Brooklyn grandfather performed funeral rites for the wrong body due to a mix-up but their upset turned to satisfaction for helping out a stranger with no one to grieve his loss.

Moshe Grunwald, a Holocaust survivor who was the nephew of the Alter Tzelemer rebbe, the head of a Hungarian Hasidic dynasty, died last week. The family was told it could only have a short funeral with just a minyan because of restrictions due to the coronavirus.

The mourners began reading psalms and the El Mole Rachamim prayer when a funeral aide came to tell them they had conducted the funeral over the wrong body, Grunwalds granddaughter Chaya Maimon wrote in a post on Facebook.

They then held a funeral with her grandfathers body present.

I have to admit I was so upset that this had happened to my Zaidy, Maimon wrote in the post. The man who was loved by all. Who deserved so much kavod (honor), who had to die alone due to a pandemic, who had to have this embarrassment of a funeral, who couldnt have a befitting burial, or shiva. This was the final insult. I was so upset, I started to laugh and cry simultaneously. I couldnt believe I was living in a time where there are so many bodies, that they mixed them up.

But Maimon and the family soon learned that the stranger was a meit mitzvah one with no family to bury him. In fact, he had been dead alone in his apartment for four days before his body was discovered.

Through a weird twist of fate, he ended up with a beautiful funeral, a minyan, something under normal circumstances he would not have had, Maimon wrote.

She said her grandfather was a modest man who avoided recognition.

Even in death he gave his kavod [honor] for someone else, Maimon wrote. This is the most Zaidy like thing to ever happen.

Maimon later added new details to the post: All the older members of the community who typically performed the ritual cleansing of the body were out sick, replaced by young men mostly unfamiliar with members of the community like Grunwald, leading to the mix-up.

It is our families belief that this meit mitzvah was a special person, clearly deserving of this special honor,she wrote. We would like to know more about him and are actively seeking information.

Follow this link:

Family of Holocaust survivor mourns over the wrong body - JTA News

Category: Hasidic | Comments Off on Family of Holocaust survivor mourns over the wrong body – JTA News
Tags:

Posted By admin on April 8, 2020

Wednesday night, Jews will experience Coronasederettes perhaps the smallest Seders of our lifetimes. We can make them not just bseder okay but souped-up super-Seders, brimming with meaning, even if lacking guests.One path to great meaning is by welcoming some Zionist thinkers or at least some of their best texts.Zionists are ideal virtual Seder guests. Beyond being the ultimate peoplehood people and freedom fighters, Zionists deftly transform traumas into opportunities. Israels fourth prime minister, Golda Meir, insisted that Zionism and pessimism are not compatible, while teaching how to balance sacrifices today with faith in tomorrow, because to be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you dont be.For anyone exasperated by the Haggadahs OCD specificity, Meirs colleague and Israels founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, had the perfect response.In 1954, when US president Dwight Eisenhowers secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, sneered Who do you and your state represent? Does it represent the Jews of Poland, perhaps Yemen, Romania, Morocco, Iraq, Russia or perhaps Brazil? After 2,000 years of exile, can you honestly speak about a single nation, a single culture?Ben-Gurion retorted that 300 years ago, the Mayflower set sail from England, yet most Americans couldnt tell you the name of the ships captain, how long the voyage took, or what the people ate on board. Yet more than 3,000 years ago the Jews left the land of Egypt and most Jews today could tell you that Moses led them, they wandered 40 years in the desert, eating matzah when they left and manna as they roamed.Ben-Gurions speech to Mapais central committee on January 16, 1948, shows how he set priorities during an existential crisis.With Arab attacks on Jews worsening, he argued: There is now nothing more important than war needs, and nothing equal to war needs. And just as I dont understand the language of state right now, I dont understand the language of immigration or settlement or culture. There is only one criterion: are these initiatives needed for the war effort or not?This necessary focus, he explained, comes precisely because for us war is not a goal in itself we see war as a terrible accursed misfortune, and resort to war only from lack of choice.Once we survived, he assured, we could develop a vision of life, a vision of national rebirth, of independence, equality and peace for the Jewish nation and for all peoples of the world.Read that speech after sanctifying the wine which recalls the worlds creation and the Exodus. Consider other epic events we have experienced in our lifetimes and Jews confronted over millennia assessing how we had to prioritize then, and how that perspective might help us now. And start brainstorming a postcrisis agenda, individually and communally.During the first round of handwashing a ritual taking on added significance this year (and probably requiring hand cream, too) go personal, learning from Ben-Gurions rival, Zeev Jabotinsky.In The Fundamentals of the Betarian World Outlook (1934), this poet, playwright, and philosopher articulated his vision of Hadar, essentially, the glory and dignity you bear when you understand Judaisms depth and breadth.Hadar consists of a thousand trifles which collectively form everyday life, Jabotinsky explained. For example, moral Hadar teaches: You must be generous, if no question of principle is involved. Do not bargain about trivialities. You, rather, should give something instead of exacting it from somebody else. Every word of yours must be a word of honor, and the latter is mightier than steel.There are so many other moments to link the Passover seder with Zionist thought and our current dilemmas coronavirus-related or not. Hillel Halkins celebration of this grand adventure called Israel is a perfect Dayenu text. The philosopher Moses Hesss anguished rejection of assimilation in the 1860s, and the feminist novelist Anne Roiphes reflection 120 years later on the thinness of the eclectic, universalistic upbringing she gave her children, transcend this years dilemmas, as do the teachings of Isaiah Berlin, Yuli Tamir, Ruth Gavison and so many others about the value of constructive Jewish nationalism, i.e., Zionism.All these texts are on the Haggadah Supplement on my website http://www.giltroy.com and in my book The Zionist Ideas.PERHAPS THE most-compelling Zionist bridge to this years Coronasederette can be built via a pithy line by the playwright David Mamet and a longer explanation by the Israeli historian Anita Shapira.Mamet says, bluntly, poetically, real life consists in belonging. Shapira explains that Zionism has always focused on the collective, its assumption being that national redemption would also promote personal redemption. It is high time that we recapture the sense of togetherness weve lost, the togetherness that was the cohesive power and gift of Zionism.Our mass experience of enforced isolation, these improvised rules about social distancing, could have spun us further and further away from one another, burrowing ever deeper into our hi-tech age of hyper-individuation. Instead, this social deprivation has increased our collective craving for collectives.This Passover, even around thinned-out Seder tables, lets contemplate how much richer our lives are by a thick web of associations, commitments, references, rituals. And how much more meaningful life is when played out in plural than alone. Those insights might help us follow these emergency rules more thoroughly to choose life and more thoroughly appreciate the communities we eventually rejoin, to cherish life, too.The writer is the author of The Zionist Ideas, an update and expansion of Arthur Hertzbergs classic anthology, The Zionist Idea. A distinguished scholar of North American history at McGill University, he is the author of 10 books on American history, including The Age of Clinton: America in the 1990s.

See original here:
This Passover, pack your Coronasederette with Zionist thinkers opinion - The Jerusalem Post

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on This Passover, pack your Coronasederette with Zionist thinkers opinion – The Jerusalem Post
Tags:

Posted By admin on April 8, 2020

It appears that Benny Gantz is going to fold right in with Benjamin Netanyahu to undertake annexation of the West Bank, or large portions thereof.

This is a huge blow to liberal Zionists who counted on Gantz as head of a centrist anti-Netanyahu party to move Israel away from the settlement project. Now hes doing the opposite. The insult was redoubled when Amir Peretz, the leader of the Labor Party, with all of three members of parliament, announced that he was joining forces with Gantz.

Bottom line, there is no political force in Israeli Jewish politics for ending the occupation. The only force inside Israel against occupation is the Joint List of Palestinian legislators; and theyre not allowed anywhere near government.

Yesterday on a J Street Zoom conference, two alarmed Israelis were imploring Democratic politicians to warn Israel that if it continues on this course, it will alienate the Democratic Party and undermine bipartisan consensus for Israel. In other words, Democrats should be threatening Israel with actual reductions of aid if Israel continues on this course.

But liberal Zionists never endorsed such threats over 25 years of Israeli expansion and feckless peace processing.

The obvious question about this liberal political disaster is: How did the liberal Zionists get it so wrong? These people hate the occupation, as a threat to the two-state solution. They have documented the abuses of occupation for 20 years. Yet why did everything they did to stop the occupation fail?

The answer is that liberal Zionists mistrusted the left more than they did the Zionist right. They were happy to argue the question with the Zionist right, in a spirit of Jewish solidarity (and lose again and again).

They didnt even allow the left in the room. Because much of the left is anti-Zionist. And in the end, liberal Zionists really believe in the need for a Jewish state more than an end to the occupation.

So the only tool that could have stopped Israel economic/symbolic global pressure through the nonviolent Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement the liberal Zionists wanted nothing to do with. They ran numerous campaigns denouncing BDS. They supported legislation that says BDS is antisemitic.

The rightwing Israeli government is terrified of BDS. Benjamin Netanyahu rails against it as an existential threat, as undermining Israels reputation. Israel spends millions to combat it and rightwing Israel lobby groups spend millions here to fight it and try to make BDS illegal. Liberal Zionists largely joined the fight of its rightwing friends. Because many BDSers are against a Jewish state, and that was the number one priority for liberal Zionists. Liberal Zionists said the BDS campaign was against the self-determination of the Jewish people.

So even though liberal Zionists hated the occupation they became patsies for the occupation. Here are some of their tactical collapses:

They said that Israel responded to love not pressure, look at Bill Clinton and Camp David, so we shouldnt pressure Israel and make her feel insecure.

They said that it was ok to talk about possibly conditioning aid to Israel that paid for the demolition of Palestinian villages, as Jeremy Ben-Ami said last October. But that $4 billion in aid must never be reduced. J Street doesnt think there is a reason for to reduce the level of the aid.

They said that political support for Israel must remain bipartisan. They did not want the aid politicized.

They said that they would rather have the company of rightwing Zionists than anti-Zionists. Americans for Peace Now is on the board of AIPAC. J Street invites a lot of conservative American Zionists to speak, but never an anti-Zionist Jew (though some young ones slip through the cracks).

The liberal Zionists tried to redline anti-Zionism because they were concerned that anti-Zionist pressure would empower Palestinians who dont believe in a Jewish state, and the result would be a one-state nightmare, bloody rollercoaster, as someone once put it, and possibly some implementation of the right of return under which Palestinian refugees or their descendants would get back homes and property stolen from them during the Nakba. Liberal Zionists were terrified of the right of return, which is a pillar of the BDS campaign, because it threatens the Jewish majority in Israel, and was thought to destabilize Israel. Though as even Leanne Gale pointed out in a rare anti-Zionist dissent at a J Street conference, the two-state solution called for addressing the right of return, and the real fear was BDSs call for equality of Palestinian citizens of Israel.

And I actually think thatthatmay be the most threatening plank of the BDS movement to many of us in the American Jewish community. Because it really gets to the heart of Zionism itself. It really gets to the heart of, Do we believe deep down, that there can be a Jewish and democratic state?

The liberal Zionists are Jewish organizations, and in the end they respected conservative codes of Jewish solidarity: Jewish collective support for the Jewish state, because 95 percent of American Jews are for Israel. Jews must speak in one voice in Washington, because our support is existential, we hold the breathing tube for Israel in the courts of the superpower.

And so the one tool that Israel fears, international pressure, the liberal Zionists refused to support. And look what they got, one apartheid state.That Israel no longer has a political constituency for a genuine 2 state solution or ending Israeli occupation is the most under-reported and under-analyzed realities in all Middle East policy analyses, writes Khaled Elgindy of Brookings.

The calls to punish Israel now for the colonization of the West Bank are too little too late. Theres one sovereign in Israel and Palestine, Israeli leaders are all for the occupation, and they all take American support for granted. As well they should. The liberal Zionists were all talk and no action.

Visit link:
Liberal Zionists couldnt end the occupation because they feared equality more than Israeli right - Mondoweiss

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Liberal Zionists couldnt end the occupation because they feared equality more than Israeli right – Mondoweiss
Tags:

Posted By admin on April 8, 2020

Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first president baptized in office. Shortly after his inauguration, Edward L. R. Elson of the National Presbyterian Church in Washington baptized the president in a private ceremony.

For several reasons, Elson was an interesting figure during Americas civil-religious awakening of the 1950s. First, he was the presidents pastor. Second, he was a pretty effusive flatterer of leaders in high office. He peppered Secretary of State John Foster Dulles with invitations to attend numerous church events, laying it on thick with encomia like Let me tell you how superlatively I believe you are handling your high office. Third, he frequently took the liberty of giving Dulles advice on how to handle affairs of state. And fourth, he was a committed anti-Zionist. Beginning in 1954, Elson was a board member of the American Friends of the Middle East, an anti-Zionist front group sponsored by the CIA. He was determined to get Dulles to assist him in advancing the AFMEs mission.

Elson could be startlingly forward with the secretary of state. In 1955, Elson wrote to Dulles, asking how the AFME might be of increased usefulness at this trying time of American relations in this area. In 1957, he invited Dulles to a dinner with Cornelius Engert, one of the AFMEs founders, to discuss Middle East strategy. (Dulless staff, noting that the AFME was a partisan Arab group, declined the invitation on his behalf.) And in 1958, Elson had the audacity to insist that Dulles make a special stop in Egypt on the way to a Baghdad Pact meeting in Ankara because some of our real and trusted friends would be greatly encouraged by your personal appearance in Cairo.

With a few exceptions, such as when Elson asked Dulles for a framed and autographed photograph to hang on the wall of his study next to his likeness of Eisenhower, Dulles consistently gave Elson the cold shoulder. Elson believed that support for Israel was antithetical to American interests in the Middle East. He was not interested in any concrete efforts toward reconciliation between Jews and Christians that went beyond prayer, which he described as the best way of reconciliation and tool for peace.

In stark contrast to mainline Protestants like Elson, evangelicals such as Billy Graham were deeply interested in pursuing reconciliation between Jews and Christians. In Covenant Brothers, an excellent new study of the relationship between evangelicals and Israel since 1948, historian Daniel Hummel argues that evangelicals broadly and consistently sought reconciliation with the Jewish people through support of the newly established nation of Israel. In fact, postwar evangelicalism fostered a political and social program crafted to bring American Jews, the Israeli state, and evangelicals into what Hummel calls a covenantal partnership.

Over time, this program became known as Christian Zionism. A variety of leading figures helped give it shape, especially after the Six-Day War of 1967. Among them were Graham, archaeologist William Foxwell Albright, scholar Uriel Tal, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, National Association of Evangelicals president Arnold Olson, Southern Baptist preacher W. A. Criswell, Americans for a Safe Israel founder Herbert Zweibon, and International Christian Embassy Jerusalem head Jan Willem van der Hoeven.

Hummels central argument is that Christian Zionism is not the caricature of popular imagination, which treats evangelical fondness for Israel as a product of end-times fascination and American imperial ambition in the Middle East. Rather, evangelical political support evolved from the founding of modern Israel in 1948 and deepened in complexity after 1967. Theology played a role, but so did history, political philosophy, Cold War diplomacy, pragmatic considerations, and even tourism. The one unifying theme that bound American Jews, evangelicals, and Israelis together was the notion of covenant built on a foundation of reconciliation between Jews and Christians. The creation of the state of Israel, and the defense of its existence after 1967, demonstrated to evangelicals that Jewish and Christian identity were bound inextricably through shared sacred texts, theology, tradition, and common experience. Throughout the book, Hummel explores the benefits of this partnership and the avenues of reconciliation it openedwhile also taking seriously its limits and failures.

Hummel walks readers through the development of Christian Zionism from 1948 to 2018. Using the metaphor of a tree, he skillfully tells the story of how the movement grew into its present forms. His chapters are divided into three parts, categorized as Roots, Shoots, and Branches, but reconciliation is the abiding theme throughout the narrative. Reconciliation, he writes, has underwritten the movements coherence and continuing public success.

One of the most interesting chapters in the book is the chapter on tourism, which carries the pithy and descriptive title Sightseeing Is Believing. In it, Hummel shows how Israelis, Jews, and American evangelicals discovered the enormous economic and political potential that lay in the prospect of tourism, especially between 1967 and 1971. The invitation to walk where Jesus walked became central to the appeal of Holy Land tours. As Hummel observes, [Tourisms] fusion of emotional, religious, and political themes expanded Christian Zionisms appeal, providing for a popular movement of evangelical Christians to share in a common experience. By the 21st century, the Israeli tourism industry became inseparable from American diplomacy, with conservative political celebrities like Mike Huckabee leading evangelical tours. On the other hand, evangelicals inability to find consensus on the theological meaning of the modern state of Israel placed limits on the usefulness of tourism as a diplomatic vehicle.

Hummels chapter on reconciliation is also fascinating. The Six-Day War provided an impetus for cooperation between evangelicals and Jews, but the 1973 Yom Kippur War fueled new initiatives to that end. The first Jewish-evangelical conference dedicated to reconciliation, held in 1975, represented a turning point in American-Israeli relations. American evangelical influence in Israel reached its peak in the years immediately following the Yom Kippur War. Christian Zionism became a national movement in the United States during this period, when, according to Hummel, it emerged as a key part of American evangelical identity.

Another strength of the book is the emphasis Hummel places on the relationship between Pentecostal evangelicals and Israeland on global Christian Zionism more broadly. Just as the Zionism of the Christian Right was focused on reconciliation, so were the Spirit-centered and global Christian forms of Zionism. As Hummel observes, The new movements of reconciliation, visible both in their diversity and in still-deeper community, point to a dynamic future for the movement. Nevertheless, Hummel is careful to stress the deleterious effects of reconciliation efforts that marginalized voices critical of Israeli state interests, to say nothing of Palestinian Christians and Muslims, non-Orthodox Jews, and even non-dispensational Christians.

Speaking of theology, Hummel has a keen eye for understanding the contours of classical dispensationalism, and how influential that construct was in the creation and sustenance of Christian Zionism. Still, Hummel misses some of the nuances of dispensationalism as it has evolved over time.

For example, late in the book, Hummel recognizes recent efforts by scholars such as Gerald McDermott to reject dispensationalism while holding to pro-Israel tendencies. But he does not mention the growth of progressive dispensationalism over the past three decades as represented in the work of theologians Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock. This new movement thoroughly rejects the replacement theology that sees the church supplanting the Jewish people as the object of Gods redemptive worka key belief embraced by classical dispensationalists from the late-19th century through the middle of the 20th century.

McDermotts edited essay collection, The New Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Israel and the Land, is a valuable contribution, alongside Hummels work, that shows much of the complexity of Christian Zionism. Hummels work also pairs nicely alongside Samuel Goldmans Gods Country: Christian Zionism in America, which considers the course of Christian Zionist thought and attitudes since the colonial period.

Hummels work goes far in correcting simplistic narratives and misunderstandings about the religious history of American-Israeli relations. Deeply researched, coherently structured, historically focused, and pleasing to read, Covenant Brothers makes a lasting contribution to postwar American religious history as it relates to Israel, the Middle East, and the world.

John D. Wilsey is associate professor of church history at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the author of American Exceptionalism and Civil Religion: Reassessing the History of an Idea (IVP Academic), and he is at work on a religious biography of John Foster Dulles.

Read the original here:
Christian Zionism Isn't the Caricature of Popular Imagination - ChristianityToday.com

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Christian Zionism Isn’t the Caricature of Popular Imagination – ChristianityToday.com
Tags:

Posted By admin on April 8, 2020

Ten days ago the big news from Israel was that Benny Gantz was abandoning his opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu amid the coronavirus emergency and they were moving to form a unity government of former rivals, with a strong and all-Jewish majority: Netanyahus rightwing bloc of 58 seats + 15 or so of Gantzs shattered centrist Blue White party.

Now the days pass and no Israeli government! Why not? The news from Israel is that Netanyahu is negotiating under a lot of pressure from his right wing to use the Trump window, which may be closing soon, to annex the West Bank; and Gantz has folded. The main stumbling block to a new government are judiciary issues touching on Netanyahus indictment.

It seems sadly we are inching closer an closer to a reality we have worked hard to prevent, Adina Vogel-Ayalon of J Street said today: what liberal Zionists call annexation, but the right calls sovereignty (and the left calls the one-state reality).

Nancy Pelosi needs to act now and call Benny Gantz to head off the possibility, Tal Shalev of Walla News told a J Street webinar.

Shalev that Netanyahu has had a brilliant month politically and Gantz has folded again and again on negotiations over annexation, so that today it seems his Blue-White partner Gabi Ashkenazi is the only real block to annexation. Shalev said the agreement-in-progress between Gantz and Netanyahu for a new governing coalition gives Netanyahu authority and power to move ahead with annexation whenever he wants while consulting with Gantz and consulting with the international community. Consultation means nothing, Shalev said. Gantz will say that there are some limitations, but it seems like thats more of a mask, and it seems that Gantz acceded to all Netanyahus demands on annexation.

Gantz tried to block annexation but failed repeatedly as Netanyahu said forget about it, Shalev said.

Gantzs political difficulty is that there is a solid (all-Jewish) majority in the Knesset for annexation, and Trump is for anything Israel wants to do, so the moment is now. Netanyahu has a strong hand because Gantz already gave up his political capital; coronavirus has made Netanyahu a popular emergency leader and; Netanyahu can always hold out for a fourth election in which his chances are even better, given the breakup of Gantzs Blue White party.

Nimrod Novik, a foreign policy veteran, told J Street that negotiations are changing by the minute, but the latest terms are for a three-month freeze till July 10, on annexation.

On top of that, Netanyahu got good news today when Amir Peretz of Labor, who commands three seats, said he will join the Netanyahu bloc for annexation. So Gantz has lost political capital on the supposed liberal-Zionist side to stop Netanyahu.

Labor is officially a dead party. Amir Peretz merged his three seats into Gantzs Blue-White party, reports Lahav Harkov.

Novik lamented that annexation has gone from the whims of a messianic minority a few years ago to being all but Israeli policy. Its unbelievable. And even limited annexation will end almost inevitably with us controlling the entire territory and the 2.6 million Palestinians.

Though Netanyahu hasnt annexed any territory in ten years, the pro-annexation forces are inside his Likud party, not just on the far right.

Trump-joy contributes to the moment, because Israelis have gotten the feeling that they are invincible and can do anything they want and there are no consequences, Shalev says. Benny Gantz was so afraid of this feeling that he never came out against annexation in the recent campaign, met with Trump on friendly terms, and never presented a strong alternative to annexation.

Liberal Zionists regard annexation as a disaster because it would officially end the two-state solution in the eyes of the world. Besides presenting Israel with a whole set of security challenges related to the loss of a puppet authority, the Palestinian Authority, in the West Bank, and the potential loss of Jordanian cooperation with Israel on Palestines eastern border and on the Haram-al-Sharif too, or Temple Mount in occupied Jerusalem.

Novik called on Democrats in the United States to act: Youd better act to deter this. Threaten Israel with the end of bipartisan support for Israel among Democrats and Republicans, by doing things we wont be able to accept, and maybe politicians will wake up.

Why doesnt Nancy Pelosi pick up the phone, call Benny Gantz? Shalev said, and tell him, This could be very, very dangerous. That would be more substantial pressure, with all my due respect to the liberal Zionists who are threatening Israel with consequences. Start communicating with Gantz as a real player.

While Novik said that thecost of annexation would be 52 billion shekels a year to Israel, or about $12 billion, four times the American security assistance. Let that sink in, Novik says.

Liberal Zionists are treating this as an emergency. The Israel Policy Forum board of directors implored Gabi Ashkenazi and Benny Gantz not to join a government that will annex territory in the West Bank. IPF writes as proud Zionists who have devoted our lives to supporting Israel.

We write to you as American Jewish communal leaders who are proudly Zionist, unquestionably pro-Israel, and who have devoted our lives to supporting the State of Israel and ensuring an ironclad relationship between Israel and Diaspora Jewry.

In the midst of this unprecedented health and financial crisis for Israel, we respectfully urge you not to use the need for unity in the face of emergency to create a different crisis for Israel by moving forward on unilateral annexation.

The IPF says that annexation would really wreck the relationship with American Jews (who have become more and more distant from the Jewish state):

Should annexation be advanced, the majority of American Jews who oppose such a policy will feel more alienated from Israel as a result. Just as we expect that our own government focus on the crisis at hand without using the fear and uncertainty felt by Americans to push through harmful and unrelated policies, we ask that the leaders of the Jewish state to which we are all so committed do the same.

The foreign policy establishment in the U.S. is also responding. Colin Kahl formerly of the Obama administration:

Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, theres growing concern that the right wing in Israel will push for annexation, perceiving a shrinking window to do so. Doing so would be profoundly unjust, costly, & dangerous. It would also jeopardize bipartisan US support for Israel.

View original post here:
Gantz and Netanyahu reportedly agree on annexing West Bank and liberal Zionists appeal to Pelosi - Mondoweiss

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Gantz and Netanyahu reportedly agree on annexing West Bank and liberal Zionists appeal to Pelosi – Mondoweiss
Tags:

Posted By admin on April 8, 2020

Jews around the world worked hard to influence allied forces to bomb gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Labor Zionists were among the leading forces in that campaign. Tragically, they did not prevail

By Dr. Rafael Medoff

Labor Zionist leaders in Palestine, Europe, and the United States repeatedly urged the Roosevelt administration and its allies to bomb the railway tracks and bridges leading to Auschwitz or the gas chambers and crematoria in the camp itself. Labor Zionist representatives were not the only Jewish officials to press for bombing; but they were among the earliest and most active of the bombing advocates. Sadly, the bombing never happened.

A Polish soldier crosses the railroad tracks at Auschwitz (photo: AP Photo/Alik Keplicz, FILE)

One of the first Jewish officials known to have lobbied for bombing was Yitzhak Gruenbaum, chairman of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency (and a future Minister of the Interior in Israel). He raised the issue in a telegram to the U.S. governments War Refugee Board on June 2, 1944.

There has been a definite German decision to proceed as rapidly as possible with systematic deportation of Hungarian Jews to [death camps in] Poland, Gruenbaum wrote. Every day a transport is to be sent and 8,000 from Carpatho Russia have already been taken. Suggest deportation would be much impeded if railways between Budapest and Poland could be bombed.

The deportations of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz had begun two weeks earlier, on May 15. They continued through July 9. Some 440,000 Jews were transported in cattle cars over those rail lines to their doom. By that time, the Allies controlled the skies of Europe. They frequently bombed railways and bridges, because the Germans used them to transport troops and military supplies. Railway tracks sometimes could be repaired relatively quickly; bridges, however, took much longer to fix.

Confusion at the Jewish Agency

One of the first Jewish officials known to have lobbied for bombing was Yitzhak Gruenbaum, chairman of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency (and a future Minister of the Interior in Israel). He raised the issue in a telegram to the U.S. governments War Refugee Board on June 2, 1944.

On June 11, Gruenbaum reported on his efforts at a Jewish Agency Executive meeting, in Jerusalem. JAE chairman and future prime minister David Ben-Gurion presided over the meeting.

It is obvious from the transcript that the members of the Executive did not yet understand that Auschwitz was a death camp. Although some internal Jewish Agency documents prior to June 1944 had mentioned mass murder in Auschwitz, the information was not fully understood or absorbed by all the members of the executive. Thus Ben-Gurion remarked at the meeting that he opposed asking the Allies to bomb Auschwitz because we do not know what the actual situation is in Poland.

Another member of the executive, Emil Schmorak, agreed, saying they should not request bombing because It is said that in Oswiecim [the Polish name for Auschwitz] there is a large labor camp. We cannot take on the responsibility for a bombing that could cause the death of even one Jew.

No vote was taken, but Ben-Gurion concluded the discussion by summarizing what he said was the consensus of the participants: It is the position of the Executive not to propose to the Allies the bombing of places where Jews are located.

The majority of Hungarys Jewish population was murdered in Auschwitz between May and July 1944

Two weeks later, however, Ben-Gurion and his colleagues learned the truth about Auschwitz.

During the last week of June 1944, they received a letter from the head of the Jewish Agencys office in Geneva, Richard Lichtheim, summarizing detailed information about Auschwitz that had been provided by two recent escapees from the camp, Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler.

Lichtheim explained that the information revealed that the Agencys previous belief about Auschwitz being a labor camp was wrong:

We now know exactly what has happened and where it has happened. There IS [emphasis in original] a labor camp in [the] Birkenau [section of Auschwitz] just as in many other places of Upper Silesia, and there ARE [emphasis in original] still many thousands of Jews working there and in the neighboring places (Jawischowitz etc). But apart from the labor-camps proper [there are] specially constructed buildings with gas-chambers and crematoriums.The total number of Jews killed in or near Birkenau is estimated at over one and a half million.12,000 Jews are now deported from Hungary every day. They are also sent to Birkenau. It is estimated that of a total of one million 800,000 Jews or more so far sent to Upper-Silesia 90% of the men and 95% of the women have been killed immediately

Prime Minister David Ben Gurion meets Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt in his home in Tel Aviv

During the weeks following receipt of the report, Jewish Agency officials in Europe, the Middle East, and the United States actively promoted the bombing proposal. The president of the Jewish Agency and World Zionist Organization, Chaim Weizmann, together with the head of the Agencys Political Department (and future Israeli prime minster) Moshe Shertok, met with British Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs George Hall on June 30 and urged that the death camps should be bombed.

On July 6 1944, Weizmann and Shertok met with British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden, and urged the bombing of both the death-camps at Birkenau and other places and the railway lines leading to Birkenau. Shertok later sent Ben-Gurion a telegram reporting on the meeting.

(: Alexander Voronzow and others in his group, ordered by Mikhael Oschurkow, head of the photography unit/ wikimedia).

Concurrently with Shertok and Weizmanns meeting with Eden,, other Jewish Agency representatives met with American, British, and Soviet officials to make the case for Allied air strikes on Auschwitz or the rail lines leading to the camp. Advocates of the strikes included Nahum Goldmann (cochairman of the World Jewish Congress) in Washington; Joseph Linton (later an Israeli ambassador, under several Labor governments) and Berl Locker (a longtime Poale Zion leader) in London; Richard Lichtheim and Chaim Pozner (former head of the Labor Zionists in Danzig) in Geneva; Eliahu Epstein (later Elath, Ben-Gurions first ambassador to the United States) in Cairo; Moshe Krausz in Budapest; and Chaim Barlas in Istanbul.

Goldas position

While the Jewish Agency pursued advocacy for the bombing, the Histadrut labor movement also acted to advance the cause, Many reports about the ongoing massacres in Europe were sent to Histadrut headquarters in Tel Aviv. The information was often handled by Golda Meir (then known as Goldie Myerson), chair of the Histadruts political department. She had become a member of the Histadruts executive board in 1934 and was also responsible for the Histadruts ties to the United States, including contacts with its American representative, Israel Mereminski.

Golda frequently sent the information she received about Auschwitz to Mereminski, in New York, who in turn provided it to leaders of the War Refugee Board. The board was a small government agency that had been established by President Roosevelt in early 1944, under strong pressure from members of Congress, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr., and Jewish activists.

Golda Meir visiting a transit camp, 1950

On July 29, 1944, Golda and another Histadrut executive committee member, Heschel Frumkin, cabled Mereminski that they had received horrible details concerning Hungarian Jews deported to Poland, which they said were provided to them in a letter from Lvov [Poland] underground. They reported that four trains arrive at Oswienzim daily, consisting of forty-five coaches each containing twelve thousand people to be exterminated. The message asked that the Allies be urged to undertake the bombing of Oswienzim and railway transporting Jews to the death camp.

The War Refugee Board undertook rescue activities in Europe that involved financial transactions or delicate negotiations, such as bribing Nazi officials, paying underground groups to shelter Jews, and financing the work of Raoul Wallenberg in Nazi-occupied Budapest. The board did not have the authority to utilize military resources; so when it received requests to bomb Auschwitz, it forwarded them to the War Department (today known as the Defense Department).

Mereminski replied to Golda that he had contacted the War Refugee Board concerning her request for destruction of gas chambers, crematories, and so forth, and the board in turn had submitted the proposal to competent authorities.

Almost simultaneously,Jewish Frontier, the monthly magazine of the U.S. Labor Zionist movement, published an unsigned editorial calling for Allied bombings of the death camps and the roads leading to them

This editorial, which appeared in the magazines August 1944 edition, is the only known instance of an official organ of an American Jewish organization publicly calling for bombing of the camps; other Jewish groups confined their appeals to private channels. It seems likely that the editorial grew out of discussions among Mereminski and his colleagues regarding Goldas telegram.

The diversion lie

The Labor Zionists requests, like the other Jewish pleas for bombing Auschwitz or the railways, were rejected by the Roosevelt administration.

Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy was assigned to write the rejection letters. He informed the Jewish groups that the War Department had undertaken a study which concluded that any such bombings were impracticable because they would require the diversion of considerable air support essential to the success of our forces now engaged in decisive operations elsewhere in Europe.

McCloys explanation was false. No such study was ever conducted. No diversion of airplanes would have been necessary because U.S. bombers were already striking German oil factories in the Auschwitz industrial zone, just a few miles from the gas chambers.

The real reason for the rejections was the Roosevelt administrations policy of refraining from using even the most minimal resources for humanitarian objectives, such as interrupting genocide.

President Roosevelts public persona is anchored in his image as a liberal humanitarian, someone who cared about the downtrodden and the mistreated. In his first presidential campaign, he presented himself as the champion of the forgotten man. But when it came to the plight of Europes Jews during the Holocaust, it was Roosevelt who did the forgetting.

Dr. Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, in Washington, DC, and author of more than 20 books about the Holocaust and Jewish history.

View post:
The Labor Zionist Movement and the Bombing of Auschwitz - The Jewish Voice

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on The Labor Zionist Movement and the Bombing of Auschwitz – The Jewish Voice
Tags:

Posted By admin on April 8, 2020

By Lawrence DavidsonBackground: Weaponising anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism has been weaponised. That is, the Zionists, within and without Israel, are using the charge of anti-Semitism as a weapon to silence those who are critical of the Israeli state. In wielding this weapon, Zionist organisations and the media outlets they control or influence have released a flood of slander and libel. The charge of anti-Semitism is levelled at anyone who opposes Israels inherently racist policies and is supportive of Palestinian human rights. And, where the Zionists have sufficient political influence, as is the case in so much of the United States, they are making every effort to encourage laws that make criticism of Israel illegal because, they claim, it is ipso facto anti-Semitic. In this way, the weaponisation of anti-Semitism maliciously defames individuals, corrupts legal systems and also threatens any reasonable notion of free speech.

In cases where individuals and organisations are labelled anti-Semitic as part of a concerted campaign of defamation, one would hope that the libel laws would offer some protection and / or relief. And, as we will see, in some cases such as the United Kingdom and Australia, this has proven possible. However, in the United States this has not happened. To understand why requires a short history lesson on the evolution of free speech, as against the need to protect individuals, particularly public persons such as those running for office, from defamation.

American attitudes towards free speech, which form the foundation for much of the countrys legal thinking when it comes to libel, slander and defamation, can be traced back to the writing of John Stuart Mill (1806-73). Mill was an influential English utilitarian philosopher and liberal thinker who supported the growth of democracy in the 19th century. He also considered what aspects of democracy would need the strongest defence. For instance, he supported a very broad interpretation of freedom of expression. He laid out his position in an 1859 book entitled On Liberty. Here he argued that allowing a broad interpretation of free speech was the best way of establishing what is true and what is not. Even if an opinion is false, the truth can be better understood by [publicly] refuting the error. Mill had faith in the citizenry (or at least the educated middle class of his day) to recognise, through the process of debate, what is true when it came to public pronouncements. If any argument is really wrong or harmful, the public will judge it as wrong or harmful. Thus, for Mill the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, [in this case by suppressing his or her public speech] is to prevent harm to others. However, considering that defamation was subject to rebuttal, the citizenry would ultimately reject such falsehoods without state intervention.

Even though Mills faith in an educated publics ability to know truth from falsehood has proven, at least as far as this author is concerned, quite naive, Mills notion of erring on the side of government inaction when it comes to slanderous or libelous speech has had much influence in the United States.

In 1919, sitting as an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a series of decisions that laid out the future standard for judging prosecutable speech: The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. The example Holmes used for such an extreme case was that ones First Amendment right to free speech would not permit someone yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The libel laws in the US have followed this same path towards setting a high bar for any demonstration that free speech has been abused. Thus, in terms of defamation one now has to prove that the presentation in question is meant to defame (and is not just an opinion) and is put forth with actual malice [New York Times v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964)]. This is particularly the case for public figures bringing suit for defamation. Public figures in the United States seem to be in a special category of people who are expected to attract a certain amount of, apparently legally acceptable, slanderous and libellous abuse.

The fact is that, in the US, libel is so difficult to demonstrate in both federal and most state courts that such suits are only rarely attempted. It is clear that in this case protecting an idealised principle of free speech has taken precedent over protecting the reputations and public standing of individuals.

As it has turned out, this situation has given American Zionists a wide field to use the weaponised charge of anti-Semitism with near impunity. A good example of this has been the smear campaign waged against the Democratic Partys presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, who is himself Jewish. Called an anti-Semite over and again, Sanders has relied on the American progressive community to defend him. There is no indication that either Sanders or his legal advisors have considered suing his defamers for libel.

The misbalance between freedom of speech on the one hand and recourse to legal protection against slander and libel on the other is greatest in the United States, and in this case, public figures appear most at risk. In England and some of the Commonwealth countries such as Australia, a somewhat greater balance exists, opening up the possibility of legally defending oneself against defamation.

Anecdotally, a key historical root in the evolution of this more balanced standard for Britains defamation law is the 17th century decision to outlaw duelling transforming an often deadly engagement into a supervised courtroom debate. As of today, English law allows actions for libel for any published [untrue] statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual(s) [including businesses] in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. There are exceptions to and defences against this standard, but it certainly opens up a more reasonable opportunity for defending oneself against defamation than exists in the United States.

The same can be said for a Commonwealth country such as Australia. Here, the primary purpose of the law against defamation is to protect citizens from false statements about them that may cause harm to their personal or professional reputation.

Lets take a look at a few recent examples of successful challenges to libellous defamation issuing from Zionist sources.

Members of the United Kingdoms Parliament and those running for Parliament who are critical of Israel or otherwise supportive of Palestinian rights have suffered repeated exaggerated and fabricated allegations of anti-Semitism. Finally, in 2019, one such victim, Mrs Audrey White, former Member of Parliament (MP) for Liverpool Riverside, decided to sue the British paper the Jewish Chronicle for libel. She was able to prove that this Zionist paper had, over a series of four articles, published fake allegations that she was an anti-Semite. These pieces turned out to be part of a campaign of false charges waged against many left wing politicians. Ultimately, in early 2020, the paper was forced to admit, in print, that it had lied about Mrs White, and pay damages and court costs. It was also demonstrated that the paper had engaged in unacceptable obstruction of the investigation that led to the libel ruling.

This is not the first time the Jewish Chronicle has been sued for defamation. In August 2019 the paper was forced to pay a cash settlement to InterPal, a British charity providing aid for Palestinians. The Jewish Chronicle had implied that interPal was a terrorist organisation. The paper now faces a financial crisis and is reportedly operating with a $2 million deficit. It is staying afloat due to financial contributions from community-minded individuals. [Editors note: on 8 April 2020 the Jewish Chronicle announced that it has gone bankrupt and will cease publication.]

A similar series of events have taken place in Australia. Again, political figures are targets if they are critical of Israel or otherwise supportive of Palestinian rights. Take the case of former Labour Party MP Melissa Parke, who had the courage to assert that, To say that Israel has become an apartheid state is not anti-Semitic; it is a simple statement of fact and international law. She went on to suggest that Palestinian resistance, including retaliatory missile launches from Gaza, were a consequence of decades of brutal occupation. Finally, she drew attention to, and criticised, Zionist influence on Australian politics. For this she was described as an anti-Semite in a front-page story in the tabloid Herald Sun and similar piece in the paper West Australian. She was also slandered by Colin Rubenstein, executive director of the Australia / Israel and Jewish Affairs Council. He publicly described Parke as a fanatic and someone trafficking in conspiracy theories. She sued them all for defamation. To date both the Herald Sun and the West Australian have been forced to published retractions and offer apologies.

The weaponisation of anti-Semitism by the State of Israel and its Zionist allies worldwide should serve as a clear warning to American legislatures and courts that it would be both fair and wise to bring the countrys libel laws into closer conformity with those of the UK and Australia. Indeed, it can be argued that to simply ignore the defamation that is now being rolled out by the Zionists actually puts free speech in danger. Here is how this is happening.

The profuse and persistent use of slander and libel is an attempt at censorship. If you will, it is an attempt to silence a certain category of speech under the cover of free speech. The United States has a worse-case scenario of this fraudulent approach because American Zionists seek to use slander and defamation as a basis for novel speech-restricting law. Here they weave a particularly tangled web declaring that it should be illegal to stand in opposition of one form of racism (Israels racist policies towards the Palestinians) because to do so supposedly reflects another form of racism (they can assert this only by equating opposition to Israeli policies with anti-Semitism). It is enough to make your head spin!

John Stuart Mills 19th century assertion that If any argument is really wrong or harmful, the public will judge it as wrong or harmful has proved unreliable. Most people are buried in their local affairs and, in the present case, have no objective information or experience to judge the behaviour of a foreign country in this case, Israel. All they can go on is media and government messages which, in the US, are influenced by pro-Israel lobbies. This means that, with the possible exception of college campuses, there is no public debate as Mill would understand it. So, how is the average member of the public to judge Zionist slander and libel to be wrong and harmful?

The situation really demands legal recourse to seek retraction and compensation for purposeful falsehoods, not only for the sake of peoples reputations and public standing, but also for the sake of maintaining a reasonable doctrine of free speech. Weaponised words and concepts are, most of the time, synonymous with falsehood and propaganda. In that environment, free speech is diminished and corrupted.

Excerpt from:
A Zionist attack on free speech - Redress Information & Analysis

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on A Zionist attack on free speech – Redress Information & Analysis
Tags:

Posted By admin on April 8, 2020

Abdullah Bozkurt, a commentator on Turkish television said that Jews, Zionists had engineered the coronavirus as a biological weapon just like bird flu in order to design the world, seize countries and neuter the worlds population.[i] An Iranian academic charged that Zionist elements had developed (a) deadlier strain of coronavirus against Iran.

Others have alleged a sinister plot co-ordinated between these malicious Jews and their allies, especially in Washington. A Saudi writer called Saud Al-Shehry claimed that the coronavirus was a plot hatched by American and Israeli drug companies aimed at increasing their profits. He wrote: A wonder virus was discovered yesterday in China; tomorrow it will be discovered in Egypt, but it will not be discovered either today, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow in the U.S. or Israel.[ii]

It is not just Islamists who have shared such repugnant views.Philip Giraldi, Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, said that it was possible that the US had a hand in creating the coronavirus at a research centre and it was very likely that Israel was a partner. The US/Israeli intent was to engineer a biological weapon that would damage their enemies (China and Iran).[iii]

Alain Mondino, a far right local election candidate in France, posted a video on social mediawhich was titled Corona virus for goywhich claimed that the virus had been put in place by Jews so that they could assert their supremacy.[iv]An article on an extremist Spanish website claimed on March 14th that Coronavirus was an instrument of the Third World War that has unleashed Yankee Zionist imperialism.[v]

Florida pastor Rick Wiles, a man who claimed that the synagogue of Satan was pushing the US to fight wars on its behalf, said that God was spreading Coronavirus in synagogues because Jews opposed Jesus. He added: Repent and believe in the name of Jesus Christ, and the plague will stop.[vi]

None of this is a surprise to those who have studied the worlds oldest hatred. One of the most persistent tropes in the history of antisemitism is that of the poisoner Jew who hatches despicable plots to harm and destroy his Gentile neighbours. Thus during the Black Death, Jews were charged with poisoning wells and spreading the Plague, leading to vicious attacks that wiped out hundreds of Jewish communities.

Well poisoning itself built upon centuries of demonisation within Christian Europe, especially the blood libel, the sinister charge that Jews murdered Christian children so they could use their blood for ritual purposes.

Conspiracy theories invoking Jewish/Israeli/Zionist poisoning have fed the imaginations of audiences across the Middle East. In 1997 the PLOs representative to the UN in Geneva accused Israel of injecting 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus during the intifada. Others have accused the Israeli authorities of spreading mad cow disease through chocolate and sending HIV carrying prostitutes to contaminate Palestinians in the West Bank.

In 2016, Mahmoud Abbas, in a speech to the European Parliament, declared that a rabbi had ordered Palestinian wells to be poisoned, even though the rabbi he mentioned (and the Council he said the rabbi belonged to) did not actually exist. He later retracted his claim.[vii]

Todays noxious conspiracy theories build upon existing strains of antisemitic prejudice as much as on the modern penchant for conspiracy theories. As much as we fiercely resist the terrible Coronavirus, we must also resist all those who spread such theories, whether about Jews or anyone else.

See the article here:
HAVARDIWe must always fight against the virus of hatred - The Times of Israel

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on HAVARDIWe must always fight against the virus of hatred – The Times of Israel
Tags:

Posted By admin on April 8, 2020

Many people throughout the world are presumably catching up on their reading during this time of social distancing and self-isolation. Last week The Guardian reported that online sales at United Kingdom book chain Waterstones have risen by 400% since it closed the doors of its physical stores. Below is a list of books Israel/Palestine that we recommend. In no way is this meant to be a comprehensive reading list on the topic, but we hope it might help if youre looking for what to tackle next. If possible, we encourage you to purchase books directly from the publisher, or from the website of your local independent bookstore if theyre still open. Feel free to post your own recommendations in the comment.

The Hundred Years War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 19172017 by Rashid Khalidi (Metropolitan Books, 2020)

Khalidis new book is comprehensive and unique. The Columbia professor tracks a century of Palestines history through the story of his own family. You can read an excerpt of the book at The Intercept.

Palestinians: The Invisible Victims by James J Zogby (Mondoweiss & AAI, 2018)

Mondoweiss and Arab American Institute republished Zogbys 1981 examination of political Zionism two years ago, on the 70th anniversary of the Nakba. The new version features an updated preface by Jim Zogby and a forward from Mondoweiss founder Phil Weiss. Reviewing the book in 2018, Mitchell Plitnick wrote, It is a short book and makes no pretense to an exhaustive history or a complete review of then-contemporary conditions. It offers one idea, that the exclusivist vision of Political Zionism is incompatible with a lasting peace.

The Battle for Justice in Palestine byAli Abunimah (Haymarket, 2014)

This book does a fantastic job assessing the crisis, but goes so far beyond that. It does a masterful job of highlighting the growing resistance and provides the reader with a solid does of hope.

Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine by Noura Erakat (Stanford University Press, 2019)

The Palestinian struggle is often framed in the context of international law, but those rules have historically done very little to bring the region relief. In this brilliant book, human rights attorney Noura Erakat offers a compelling legal history and shows how the law can work for and against Palestine.

The Question of Palestine by Edward Said (Vintage, 1992)

If youre using your social distancing time to catch up on classics you never got around to, this book by the late, great Edward Said is a good place to start. The Question of Palestineis nearly 30 years old now, but its as relevant as ever before.

Reading Maimonides In Gaza by Marilyn Garson (Mondoweiss, 2018)

Garson worked for Mercy Corps and The United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza for four years and wrote a short, powerful memoir about her experience.

Shattered Hopes: Obamas Failure to Broker Israeli-Palestinian Peace byJosh Ruebner (Verso, 2013)

Its easy to forget that many people had high expectations regarding Obama and Palestine when he became President. Ruebner provides a frustrating (but necessary) postmortem examination of the era. Centrists paved the way for the horrors Trump in so many ways and Palestine is no different.

Uncivil Rites: Palestine and the Limits of Academic Freedom by Steven Salaita (Haymarket, 2015)

Theres a lot of talk about academic freedom and campus free speech these days, but these discussions very rarely touch on the subject of Palestine. You probably know Salaitas story: he was a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and his tenure was revoked by its board of trustees after he criticized Israel on Twitter. This book is so much more than just a retelling of that story. Salaita situates his saga in the context of deeper struggles and provides valuable commentary on the current state of higher education.

Israel-Palestine on Record How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East byRichard FalkandHoward Friel(Verso, 2007)

Theres a lot of great books about how the media distorts the reality of the situation in Palestine, but Id stick this one near the top of any list. Falk and Friel analyze how the New York Times covered the conflict from 2000 to 2006. Their blistering indictment shows how The Paper of Record consistently carries water for The Occupation.

Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights byOmar Barghouti(Haymarket, 2011)

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement made national headlines last year after two U.S. congresswomen were barred from entering the country and an anti-BDS resolution passed in the House. This is BDS co-founder Omar Barghoutis renewed call to action over the issue. No one has done more to build the intellectual, legal and moral case for BDS than Omar Barghouti, wrote Naomi Klein at the time, The global Palestinian solidarity movement has been transformed and is on the cusp of major new breakthroughs.

Originally posted here:
Heres 10 books on Palestine to read while social distancing - Mondoweiss

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Heres 10 books on Palestine to read while social distancing – Mondoweiss
Tags:

Posted By admin on April 8, 2020

Apr 11th 2020

IN SADR CITY, the vast shantytown east of Baghdad, cars still pack the roads, pilgrims still pray at shrines and people still gather in shops. Many see covid-19 as either a Zionist hoax or a fast track to paradise, so they feel no obligation to comply with the governments order to stay inside. The government itself seems unprepared. Iraq claims to have just 1,122 cases of the virus, but it is accused of minimising the number. Its public hospitals are not equipped to handle a big outbreak.

If the virus were Iraqs only problem, that would be enough. Alas, the country is nearly bankruptthe result of a precipitous decline in the price of oil, which supplies more than 90% of government revenue. Its politics are also a mess, with parties unable to agree on a new prime minister. Iraqs militias are running amok, while the jihadists of Islamic State (IS) regroup. America and Iran, which helped Iraq muddle through past crises, are focused on fighting each other. Fears are growing that the state will collapse, says an Iraqi official.

Saudi Arabia and Russia are in talks over oil-production cuts, which would provide some relief to Iraq by raising prices. But even if the price of oil jumps by half, Iraq would still be looking at a sizeable budget deficit. As it is, the government cannot afford to pay salaries in the ever-expanding public sector (see chart). It has around $60bn in cash reserves, but that could run out by the end of the year, leaving it dependent on a loan from the IMF, which may not be forthcoming. The states 7m employees and pensioners are worried. Without salaries, thats the end of Iraq, says Mowaffak al-Rubaie, a former national-security chief.

That may sound alarmist, but Iraq does not have much of a private sector to fall back on. Many firms rely on government contracts. Much of the sector is informal. With a curfew in place, travel restricted and the borders closed, commerce has slowed considerably. Even before the virus, many Iraqis struggled to get by. Such hardship, along with blatant corruption, sparked big protests, beginning last year.

Those have largely subsided as people keep their distance from each other. But Iraqs politicians are not taking advantage of the calm. Since the prime minister, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, resigned in November, two men have been put forward to take his place. The first, Muhammad Allawi, failed to gain the backing of important Shia parties and their associated militias. The second, Adnan Zurfi, is trying to win over parliament, but he is opposed by Iran and is also unpopular with Shia politicians, who cannot agree on a successor. Many are happy to leave the pliable Mr Abdul-Mahdi in office as a caretaker.

Meanwhile, the militias that once fought against IS as part of the Hashd al-Shaabi, or popular mobilisation forces (PMF), are fragmenting. Two men who held them togetherAbu Mahdi al-Mohandis, the PMFs commander, and Qassem Suleimani, the head of Irans Quds Force, its foreign legionwere killed by America in January. Now some militias want to integrate with the army. More militant ones are going their own way. There are also signs of trouble within the militias, with splinter groups acting like criminal gangs.

Iran continues to use militias to wield influence in Iraq and try to push out America. A rocket attack by militia forces on March 11th killed two American soldiers and a British medic at an Iraqi military base. America responded with strikes on an Iranian-backed militia, Kataib Hizbullah. On March 16th militia forces attacked another Iraqi base used by American soldiers (causing no casualties). An unknown group called Usbat al-Thayireen claimed both attacks and issued threats against America, suggesting that the [Quds Force] had assembled its proxy militias into a new coalition, says the Soufan Centre, a New York-based research body.

President Donald Trump says Iran will pay a very heavy price if its proxies keep up their attacks. He has been consolidating Americas position in Iraq. Of the 5,200 American soldiers who were in the country at the start of the year, most have been gathered into a few large bases, mainly in Kurdish and Sunni areas. Some have been withdrawn. European and Canadian soldiers, part of the anti-IS coalition, have left, citing the outbreak of covid-19. IS, meanwhile, is active again. It has a bit of a free pass right now, says Michael Knights of the Washington Institute, a think-tank. Theyre better prepared for the virus than any fighting force. Theyre doomsday preppers.

With no leader and outside powers preoccupied with their own interests, it is not clear who will hold Iraq together. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraqs spiritual arbiter, has receded from politics. The Kurds, who have sought independence before, may do so again if the central government cannot produce the cash promised to their region. Sunni leaders are discussing carving out their own state, too. And the protests are likely to resume once the outbreak subsides. Politicians and analysts differ over how Iraq might collapse, but many think it is only a matter of time.

This article appeared in the Middle East and Africa section of the print edition under the headline "Dark times ahead"

Read more:
The risk that Iraq might fall apart - The Economist

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on The risk that Iraq might fall apart – The Economist
Tags: