Sunday, October 14, 2012

Between Two Worlds


Last week I went to see a screening of the movie Between Two Worlds at UC Berkeley.  I had missed the film when it was shown at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival last year, and I was curious to see it (after all, not only was I briefly in the film, I had played a role in the event that the filmmakers, Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman,  acknowledge as the motivation ). 

I was also curious as to what the tenor of the discussion would be afterwards, given that another key event in the film was the rancorous debate before the Cal Student Senate over the divestment bill several years ago. 
The movie itself starts with the controversy that arose at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival in 2009, and immediately portrays the situation inaccurately. The cause of the widespread community furor was not simply the choice of the film “Rachel”, a film about the death of Rachel Corrie, the idealistic young woman recruited by the International Solidarity Movement to go to Gaza and serve as human shields for weapons smuggling.  It was the additional invitation to Rachel’s mother Cindy to speak at the showing, and the choice by the SFJFF to partner with two organizations (Jewish Voice for Peace and American Friends Service Committee) that support the BDS movement.    The SFJFF has a history of showing films that portray Israel negatively; none had created the reaction that this program engendered.  Claiming that the outcry was simply on the basis of the film allowed Peter Stein, then the executive director of the SFJFF, to proclaim his surprise at the reaction—when in fact it was immediately obvious on publication of the SFJFF program that this was a very unusual event.

The portion of the film that dealt with the San Francisco Jewish Community Federation funding guidelines, which the filmmakers themselves outspokenly oppose, was far from even handed.  While interviewing Peter Stein, Jewish Voice for Peace spokesperson Cecilie Surasky, and others opposed to the guidelines, there was no interview of JCRC Executive Director Doug Kahn or JCF CEO Jennifer Gorovitz.   John Rothmann, formerly of KGO Radio and a prominent local author, speaker and activist, was interviewed but only one sentence of his was included in that segment.  The fact that even this film did not generate a lot of controversy when shown at the SFJFF is proof that the guidelines are NOT precluding discussion; they just provide that the Federation isn’t going to use its funds to provide legitimacy for anti-Israel groups.
  
The film then meandered through the Berkeley divestment debate, the filmmakers’ own family histories and made its way to Jerusalem and the controversy over the proposed Museum of Tolerance to be built over the site of an abandoned Muslim cemetery.  While Rabbi Hier from the SWC was at least given an opportunity to state his case, the film failed to include a key point that Rabbi Hier could not have failed to mention:  that in 1945 the Supreme Muslim Council in Jerusalem had planned a six story building on the site to house, among other offices, their own! The museum itself was to be built on the site of a municipal parking lot that had existed there for decades without any complaints from the religious authorities, and which prior to that had been the site of a hotel proposed by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Though I had not seen the film prior to that night, none of this was really surprising.  Alan Snitow had defended the SFJFF and claimed that I provoked the audience’s response to the film that day at the Castro Theater;  you can view my speech yourself and judge whether an audience at a Jewish Film Festival should have been provoked by my words. (At least in the discussion section afterwards, Snitow did allow me to point out a few of the flaws I noted in the film—and nobody jeered. )

After the film, I approached one of the other members of the audience, Tom Pessah, a perpetual UC Berkeley student who is one of the leaders of Students for Justice in Palestine and a proponent of the so-called "one state solution" that would turn Israel into the 24th Arab nation.  (Not only would this turn the Jews into a minority in an area noteworthy for its treatment of those who are different , it would-- if recent trends are any indication-- lead to Islamist rule extended from Gaza to the entire land of Israel).   I wanted to ask Pessah why he wrote an article in 972 Magazine appropriately condemning the anti-Semitism displayed by Greta Berlin, leader of the Free Gaza Movement, but tolerated the same Holocaust revisionism, blood libels and other anti-Semitic ideology from Hamas and the PA—backed with missiles in the case of Hamas.  His answer—that he wasn’t responsible for Hamas, but only for his own “civil society movement”—doesn’t really wash given that he supports the flotillas which provide PR benefits to Hamas and which Hamas is involved in organizing.   And given that his own group, SJP, still adheres to the “Zionism is racism” libel that even the UN abandoned years ago.  He even had the temerity to later post this on an anti-Israel listserve:   “Stand With Us guy comes up to me in an event this week to tell me my article against antisemitism was a "good start". A bit patronizing, but I'm glad he and his kind read it - especially the parts aligning this anti-racism to the support of BDS and the Right of Return”.

News flash, Tom.  The fact that you can at least recognize Nazi-level Jew hatred when it slaps you in the face doesn’t make you the arbiter of “anti-racism”.  BDS is racist at its core:  it  has at its core the anti-Semitic concept that among all the nations, ONLY THE JEWS do not have the right to national self-determination.  That of all nations, ONLY ISRAEL does not have the right to define who can enter its country and become a citizen.  And that anti-Israel activists can create their own “international law” – the fictional “right of return”--that applies only to Palestinians.    And if you think that Greta Berlin was an exception and that the anti-Israel movement isn’t rife with anti-Semitism, we’ve already seen plenty of evidence that she’s just the tip of the iceberg.  I think the next few months will show how the Israel-hating Jews will find themselves caught between a Jewish community that rejects them politically and their fellow Israel haters who use anti-Zionism as a front for anti-Semitism—essentially, between two worlds.


21 comments:

  1. Just wanted to say I'm glad that this blog has started running again. Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I always find it amusing when Zionists argue that the fictional right of return applies only to Palestinians. We actually have this obscure law in Israel called the Law of Return which has regulated Jewish immigration to the country for the last sixty years.

    And fyi, the Bund was a national jewish group for Jewish self-determination. Zionism isn't called "Jewishism", it's called after a place, Zion, which had a majority non-Jewish population before Zionist immigration began, and then privileged these immigrants over most of the original population. That goes way beyond self-determination. Self-determination can be expressed through equal rights, without discrimination.
    The post in 972 mentioned that people in Gaza still lack access to clean drinking water as a result of the siege http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/2012-06/exposed-gazas-deadly-drinking-water If your only reaction to hearing that Palestinian children are dying of diseases is to worry about the Hamas PR, then no, you are in no position to lecture others about racism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. dear Dr. Harris - I don't know why you didn't want to post my comment, but I'd be happy to correspond with you privately if you prefer. The tone of your post was less hateful than what we've experienced in the past, and the term "perpetual student" may have some truth in it,unfortunately

    ReplyDelete
  4. Incidentally, Israel has offered Gaza assistance to alleviate its water woes:

    "Israel said Tuesday it backed Palestinian plans to build a desalination plant in the Gaza Strip and was willing if requested to provide its skills for the project.

    Asked by AFP on the sidelines of the World Water Forum if Israel supported the scheme, Energy and Water Minister Uzi Landau said, "By all means."

    "We have been waiting for such projects for many, many years. It is high time, almost 20 years after (the) Oslo (Accords on Palestinian autonomy), that they will start working and take responsibility for handling their own things," he said.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, it looks like I can assume two things here:
    1. SJP members are reading my post and 2. At least one of them is willing to engage in dialogue.

    So let's discuss your objections to what I wrote:

    I am quite familiar indeed with the Law of Return. The major difference between that and the fictional "right" of return demanded for Palestinians is that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right to determine who may immigrate and become a citizen. The Palestinians are demanding that their so-called "right" be inflicted upon Israel against its will (by force if necessary?)-if it's a "right" under international law, it's not dependent on Israel's willingness to recognize it. The actual comparison to the Law of Return would be a Palestinian Law of Return, established by a future State of Palestine, that would grant the right for all descendants of Palestinian refugees to immigrate to Palestine (if not already there) and become citizens. (except for the fact that the Palestinian Authority already stated that even those in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza would not be given Palestinian citizenship).

    Now as far as the situation in Gaza, there is of course a border with Egypt. Israel doesn't control that border. So Gaza could import the necessary items by that route. (though I bet that the 5 star al-Mashtal hotel in Gaza gets clean water-- perhaps because its owners line the pockets of Hamas leaders?). Of course, there's even a better way that Hamas could solve that problem: stop firing rockets against Israel, stop calling for jihad, stop promoting the same vile anti-Semitic propaganda that you rightfully denounce when Greta Berlin and Gilad Atzmon disseminate it. Hamas has declared itself to be at war with Israel, which means that Israel has the right not only to defend its citizens but also to control Gaza's air and sea borders--even the UN recognizes that.

    If you've thought my tone hateful in the past (and please feel free to cite anything specific), imagine how it feels to see the vicious little checkpoint plays that SJP conducts on campus(in violation of numerous University regulations) during an event that charges Israel with apartheid when you absolutely know this charge to be a lie. Imagine how it feels to be called a "Nazi" for making a pro-Israel statement to the student government. Imagine how it feels to have SJP denounce anti-Semitism and then practice it by lumping "Zionism" with racism, an absurdity that even the UN abandoned 20 years ago. (No, I'm not using the UN as a neutral arbiter; it's irrevocably and fatally biased. So when the UN takes any action that is NOT anti-Israel, that's an indication of how weak the anti-Israel case is.) I would propose that nothing I have written comes anywhere close to the hate embodied in "Zionism is racism."

    You can feel free to respond, and I'll publish it unless it's got overt hate speech in it. But as you can see if you read the outstanding DivestThis! blog, it's hard to keep Anons straight if there's more than one person commenting anonymously. So feel free to make up any random name, if you're concerned about your friends in SJP engaging in dialogue with "StandWithUs guy", as Tom Pessah refers to me (no Tom, I don't read your FB page-- that's how I didn't even know where you post things. But the Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy does keep tabs on you......).

    ReplyDelete
  6. (Anon=Tom) we have no problem dialoguing in private with anyone.

    "The Palestinians are demanding that their so-called "right" be inflicted upon Israel against its will (by force if necessary?)-if it's a "right" under international law, it's not dependent on Israel's willingness to recognize it.
    the right exists but its implementation depends on a change of policy. I could make some kind of international law argument but more fundamentally, this is the equivalent of people who make arguments about why Israelis should go "back" to wherever their grandparents came from. It's a non-starter. Palestinians are stuck with Israelis who will continue living in Israel and Israelis are stuck with Palestinians who feel as stong a connection to their homeland after 60 years as Jews claim to have with Eretz Yisrael after 2000 year. It's just a given fact about the conflict that needs to be accepted. People are from places, those places are central to their identity, and they're not going anywhere.

    I don't remember your tome specifically being hateful but I remember a post on this blog not just comparing us to Nazis in a general way, but going point by point to develop that comparison, absolutely relishing in it. The idea that comparing Jews to Nazis is antisemitic never seems to apply to Jews with the wrong politics.

    "I would propose that nothing I have written comes anywhere close to the hate embodied in "Zionism is racism.""
    Zionism is a movement for self-determination which has systematically privileged the rights of Jews over muslims and christians in Palestine, for example the JNF took and takes land from Palestinians and replaces them with Jews. If this reminds people of expulsions during Apartheid http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/2012108871435279.html there may be a reason for that

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Of course, there's even a better way that Hamas could solve that problem: stop firing rockets against Israel, stop calling for jihad,"

    but we're talking about the supply of water for children. Children who aren't shooting rockets. I gave you the link to the Save the Children report about the spread of diseases. That has to be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Palestinians get more aid per capita than any other people in the world. If their "democratically elected" government choses to spend this money on rockets to terrorize Israeli civilians, rather than on infrastructure, then
    1. Its not Israel's fault
    2. Its time for a regime change

    ReplyDelete
  9. anon - Tom

    take the Balfour declaration: His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

    they are referring to what was 90% of the population simply as "non-Jewish communities" (they have no characteristics of their own, other than not being Jewish), and they have different set of rights than the Jews. How is that not racist?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Look at the words of Israel's declaration of Independence

    " it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. "

    Compare and contrast with, oh, lets say the Hamas charter

    "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

    "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

    "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

    Where would you rather live?
    Israel's not perfect- its a flawed nation state like all nation states. But its a helluva lot better than any of its neighbors.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Last night at a public hearing in Berkeley, Greta Berlin, Alison Weir, and Jeffrey Blankfort proudly proclaimed their right to hate Jews. It was a beautiful moment. They gave up all pretense to hating Zionists but loving Jews. They talked for almost two hours regarding the evil Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  12. (Anon- Tom)

    >>Look at the words of Israel's declaration of Independence" it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex... Where would you rather live?"

    so, have you ever asked that question to the roughly 750 thousand Palestinians who were expelled from their homeland in 1948? how about the residents of al-Qubab, expelled on May 15th 1948, the day when this Declaration was approved? http://www.palestineremembered.com/al-Ramla/al-Qubab/index.html

    where do you think the refugees would rather live?

    ReplyDelete
  13. anon- Tom

    small correction - the State of Israel was declared on the evening before May 15th, not on the day itself, as I previously wrote.

    Also, if Stand With Us wanted to turn this into a real-life debate, as opposed to a virtual one, we'd be very happy to attend (somewhere in the Bay Area).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tom:

    to address your points in the order in which you posted them:

    1. you're missing something on the "right of return". It's not a "right" under international law. It's a fiction. It's a DEMAND of the Palestinian leadership, but there's no such RIGHT. Please, make "some kind of international law argument" to back up the statement that it's a RIGHT. You can't, because it simply isn't.

    2. The JNF didn't TAKE land during the Ottoman and British years, it purchased it. And let's just be clear, are you standing by the statement that "Zionism is racism"? The same one that EVEN the UN realized was so far over the line that it couldn't even pretend it was true anymore? Simple "yes" or "no" please--do you consider Zionism to be racism?

    3. please find a post in which I was "not just comparing us to Nazis in a general way, but going point by point to develop that comparison, absolutely relishing in it." You obviously believe I did that, so please cite it.

    4. the Balfour Declaration was not international law either-- it expressed the policy of the British government at the time. Was it discriminatory? Sure-- along with many of the policies of European countries at that time. Yet in the 3 decades following that, most of the Middle East was decolonialized. And a multiplicity of Arab nations were created that hadn't existed at the time the Balfour Declaration was issued.

    5. As is well documented by Benny Morris and others, 750,000 Palestinians were not expelled. A much smaller number, mostly around Lod and Ramle, were. All of which was a consequence of the war launched by the Palestinian leadership, supported in the villages throughout the area, against the Jews of the Yishuv. No war, no refugees. Why is it that the residents of Abu Ghosh remained yet the residents of neighboring towns did not? Because Abu Ghosh did not go to war against the Jews.

    it's interesting that you and SJP continue to support the one state non-solution, which is opposed by a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians. How "democratic" is that? Is Lebanon the future you want for Israelis and Palestinians?

    and finally, I think giving you a platform here is probably the most appropriate way to dialogue; it avoids two problems 1) the audience itself (I do have experience with audiences trying to prevent me from speaking, after all) and 2) this format allows both of our words to stand on their own, unedited (and no, I did NOT edit this blogpost in any way, so you can remove that claim from your own FB page or wherever else you claimed that I altered the wording).

    ReplyDelete
  15. About those "refugees"

    Here's some common palestinian surnames

    Al Massri = it means the Egyptian,
    Al Urduni = the Jordanian,
    El Iraqi = the Iraqi
    Al Lubnani = the Lebanese.

    Many of the Palestinians are just Arabs who immigrated to pre-state Israel, trying to take advantage of the prosperity developed by the Jews.

    Robert F. Kennedy confirms this:

    http://robertkennedyandisrael.blogspot.com/


    "The Jews point with pride to the fact that over 500,000 Arabs in the 12 years between 1932 and 1944, came into Palestine to take advantage of living conditions existing in no other Arab state. This is the only country in the Near and Middle East where an Arab middle class is in existence. "

    ReplyDelete
  16. (Anon - Tom) I wrote "I remember a post on this blog not just comparing us to Nazis in a general way, but going point by point to develop that comparison

    and I meant this post - "the rhetorical tactics being used by the anti-Israel speakers at the various divestment bill Senate meetings were strikingly reminiscent of those used by Hitler: wearing a ‘uniform’ (aforementioned green ‘I support divestment’ shirt, keffiyeh) and starting off speaking slowly and calmly..."

    http://www.bluetruth.net/2010/09/bds-movement-at-uc-berkeley-how-it.html


    ReplyDelete
  17. "it's interesting that you and SJP continue to support the one state non-solution, which is opposed by a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians. How "democratic" is that? Is Lebanon the future you want for Israelis and Palestinians?"

    SJP supports three issues of equal rights- ending the colonization of the occupied territories, equal rights for palestinian citizens of Israel and the right of return for refugees to live alongside Israelis. These are basic human rights that need to be respected. You can't argue away human rights by saying a majority or a minority oppose them. Universal respect for human rights is the basis for everything. Israel already has a substantial Palestinian population, there is no solution that doesn't include them living together with Israeli Jews. And that has to be in full equality before the law.

    "Why is it that the residents of Abu Ghosh remained yet the residents of neighboring towns did not? Because Abu Ghosh did not go to war against the Jews."
    This is pretty simple: Yigal Alon and other generals gave orders to clear out entire areas of Arabs. There are quotations in Benny Morris 2004 (e.g. Rabin - “the inhabitants of Lydda must be expelled quickly” - Morris 2004:429; Avidan – to expediate “the liquidation of Arab villages inside this [Lower Coastal Plane] area” – Morris, 2004:436; Carmel - “the inhabitants of the areas conquered [in the Galilee] should be assisted to leave” – Morris 2004:464), testimonies, people I've interviewed who heard him say so etc. There are some who managed to survive the expulsions, but you have no basis whatsoever to say each village and town was a military threat. Check out this testimony http://zochrot.org/en/video/testimony-amnon-neumann-palmach-soldier

    "the Balfour Declaration was not international law either-- it expressed the policy of the British government at the time. Was it discriminatory? Sure-- along with many of the policies of European countries at that time."

    so ok, the Balfour declaration is an example of systematically granting privileges to Jews over muslims and christians in Palestine. It certainly wasn't the only case of discrimination in human history, but it is an example. This is what people mean when they say "zionism is racism" - not the abstract idea of jewish self determination, but the concrete structures which did and do treat jews in Palestine better than muslims and christians in 1,001 ways. So simple yes, I do consider Zionism to be racism.

    The JNF didn't TAKE land during the Ottoman and British years, it purchased it

    yes, but they purchased it within the context of a military occupation that most of the local population opposed, which was then used to evict any non-Jews from the areas purchased. Had the laws been made by the majority of the population in a democratic way there would have been no such option.

    " He even had the temerity to later post this on an anti-Israel listserve:"
    so could you remind me the name of this anti-Israel listserve? I only remember posting on my personal FB page.

    International law: Article 11 of UN resolution 194 reads:

    Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible

    Article 13(2) of the UN universal declaration of human rights reads
    Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

    but in any case, you didn't explain how any Zionist can defend the right of Jews to "return" to their homeland after 2000 years and deny that right to others after 60 years.

    ReplyDelete

  18. Article 13(2) of the UN universal declaration of human rights reads
    Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

    Right, So if you are born in Lebanon or in Jordan or in Egypt, thats your country. This isn't inherited- it doesnt extend to your grandparents or great grandparents country. Thats why the Palestinians born in Lebanon or in Jordan or in Egypt should be citizens thereof.

    Refugee status should not be inheritable.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Tom, something tells me that your field of academic study isn't international law. Let's start with basics:

    1. The UN GA resolutions are not binding on anyone. They are merely advisory. UN GA resolutions do NOT make international law. So you can stop with Resolution 194 right there.
    2. UN Security Council resolutions are binding upon members, but they also don't reach the status of "law". The UN can choose to enforce Security Council resolutions by economic force (sanctions) or even military force (as was done in Korea). But it doesn't always do so--it doesn't send in troops every time it calls for a cease-fire in a conflict.

    International law is made by treaty to which states voluntarily assent. You might wish to familiarize yourself with actual refugee law as summarized in this document: http://www.unhcr.org/3d4aba564.html.

    Zionism asserted a moral, not a legal, right for the Jewish people to return to their homeland. They could only exercise that moral right by sufferance first of the Ottomans and then of the British. Under the system of the time, those were the legal sovereigns. If you feel that the clock should be wound back in all of these situations, why are you attending school and living on land that was stolen from the Miwok and Ohlone tribes?

    The only LEGAL right for Jews to immigrate is granted by the State of Israel.

    But at least we now have clarity: "So simple yes, I do consider Zionism to be racism."
    When you are promoting an ideology so discredited then EVEN THE UN had to backtrack on it, then you aren't that far away from the hatred of Greta Berlin that you claim to reject. And should you fall victim to a Hamas jihadi(which I hope does not happen to anyone, regardless of their politics) Ali Abunimah isn't going to shed any more tears for you than he did for the Fogel family. Thanks for the conversation, you've been given the chance to make your points, but as long as you will subscribe to "Zionism is racism", there really isn't anything more to discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  20. >>And should you fall victim to a Hamas jihadi(which I hope does not happen to anyone, regardless of their politics) Ali Abunimah isn't going to shed any more tears for you than he did for the Fogel family.

    if you incite like that there certainly isn't anything to discuss. That's hardcore incitement, what you just wrote, just like blood libels. Ew.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The anti-Israel folks always seem to have a juvenile need for the last word. No, anonymouse, thats not "incitement" by any stretch of the imagination- and as hard as you try to play victim, you fail here.

    ReplyDelete